You seem to think only in extremes. Who said more trump please. Nobody here. So why would you try to make that accusation? Also why do you need to call people idiots etc?
I don’t know what to tell you but you’re wrong. Go look at some Ipsos Reuter’s polls on some progressive issues. A majority of Americans and even 46% of republicans support free Medicare for all. That’s a progressive policy. A majority of Americans and a majority of Republicans support making universities and trade schools free and canceling all student debt. That’s a progressive policy. A majority of Americans, including a majority of Republicans, want to limit big money spending on political campaigns. Only the progressive candidates run their campaigns without big donors. A majority of Americans including republicans favor a wealth tax. That’s a progressive position. So why are they considered extreme or even progressive policies if a majority of Americans support them?
When mrs ged said she didn't know what NBC was thinking, I replied "They think politics is a horse race, the results don't matter, and "Dems in Disarray" always sells." Though I can't really claim that observation required a great mind.
Whining. So nice to see how much respect you have for people on the same side as you. I don’t see anyone complaining about that. I see people wondering why she got 60 seconds when a pro life dirtbag like Kasich got more time than all of the more progressive Dems. Are you pro life?
Have you not paid attention? The one group I possibly have even more contempt for than the Bros is the fucking whining third party voters. I can't have a serious discussion with delusional people.
As long as people have a right to vote for whoever they want to you have no right to refer to them en masse as whiny.. Yeah trump is the main issue right now. But every election it’s the same story where anyone who doesn’t vote democrat gets piled on for daring to vote their conscience. American politics is fucked in part because it’s a two party system.
Since you know it's a two party system, how does your conscience feel when you know voting third party would help put the worst president in history back in office ? Trump is literally killing people. Anyone who enables him to continue deserves getting piled on.
" a lot of what she wants (Green New Deal, Wage justice for all..)"
Here's the thing about that: anyone can claim to be in favor of good things. Indeed, most demagogues make a point of promising the moon, and that includes the demagogues who turn into murderous tyrants later.
I am not accusing AOC of being a bloodthirsty tyrant; I don't even necessarily think she's a demagogue (the jury's out on that). I'm just pointing out how easy it is for public figures to make all the pleasing noises that win them public acclaim, and why that counts for nothing in my eyes.
Myself, I put much more stock in those politicians who do the hard work, and are honest with the people, and don't claim there will be easy solutions when there are none to be had. That's where the Hillary Clintons and the Barney Franks and the Barack Obamas and the Joe Bidens and the Kamala Harrises are. They've done the hard work. They know how difficult change is. They're still in the fight. If anyone can get it done, it will be them.
You mentioned the Green New Deal, and here's the thing: climate change may be the most serious threat that faces us, and yet the GND is the most UN-serious document anyone ever put forward. It's not anything close to a plan, it's not even an "aspirational document", it's a wish list that is best preceded by "if I had a genie who wasn't into twisting my words, here are the things I'd do". Most of the concepts are good, but there is no eye towards implementation, and that makes it useless. WORSE than useless, in fact, since it builds up people's expectations and they will inevitably be disappointed.
For example, consider what I deem the most howlingly unrealistic part of the GND: "upgrading all existing buildings in the United States and building new buildings to achieve maximum energy efficiency, water efficiency, safety, affordability, comfort, and durability, including through electrification". Just a few things wrong with this:
- So these new and upgraded buildings built to the latest most advanced specs are also supposed to be affordable? In what universe does that happen? Better almost always costs more, not less.
- ALL existing buildings? What sort of time frame are we talking about here? Just consider your neighborhood, and the level of effort required to upgrade all the homes and businesses there. Now multiply that by however many millions of neighborhoods there are in the US. How many decades will this take (is it best measured in centuries)? How many decades do we have to stop global warming before it's too late?
- So even assuming you could line up the manpower and the funding (this massive army of construction workers DO have to be paid, right?), consider the incredible levels of ecological devastation the project would cause. Just think of all the mining required, all the factories belching out smoke to produce the steel and other materials for the construction, all the diesel fumes from all the construction vehicles, all the debris and waste that accompanies construction projects ... even trying to implement this part of the GND would just hasten climate change.
Note that the problem here isn't that I am reading too much into the GND. The problem is that its authors didn't think about this at an adult level. When I was ten, my plan to stop pollution was "they just need to figure out how to make better lasers so they can disintegrate all the trash", but at least I had the excuse of being ten years old. The GND authors -- and it's plural, it was reviewed by many sets of eyes -- have no such excuse.
This is not to say that the idea of upgrading buildings is a bad one, but it really needs to be targeted, and that means we need to choose a goal. If our goal is to fight climate change, then our emphasis needs to be on those facilities most responsible for greenhouse gases, and that would mean (quick trip to Google) focusing on the energy sector. If our goal is to improve people's homes and deal with actual climate change a few decades from now, let's go upgrade Ol' Widder Henderson's place and make sure she's got insulation and a new energy-efficient water heater.
But there are important choices to be made here, and based on our priorities, we need to target our efforts where they can do the most good. The GND shows no awareness of this fundamental principle. I can't take it seriously. And its authors don't take climate change seriously either, otherwise they'd be appalled to produce such a slipshod document.
Wait till they see their friends and neighbors being hauled away. I can't wait to hear the comparisons to Biden then...
You seem to think only in extremes. Who said more trump please. Nobody here. So why would you try to make that accusation? Also why do you need to call people idiots etc?
I don’t know what to tell you but you’re wrong. Go look at some Ipsos Reuter’s polls on some progressive issues. A majority of Americans and even 46% of republicans support free Medicare for all. That’s a progressive policy. A majority of Americans and a majority of Republicans support making universities and trade schools free and canceling all student debt. That’s a progressive policy. A majority of Americans, including a majority of Republicans, want to limit big money spending on political campaigns. Only the progressive candidates run their campaigns without big donors. A majority of Americans including republicans favor a wealth tax. That’s a progressive position. So why are they considered extreme or even progressive policies if a majority of Americans support them?
When mrs ged said she didn't know what NBC was thinking, I replied "They think politics is a horse race, the results don't matter, and "Dems in Disarray" always sells." Though I can't really claim that observation required a great mind.
Whining. So nice to see how much respect you have for people on the same side as you. I don’t see anyone complaining about that. I see people wondering why she got 60 seconds when a pro life dirtbag like Kasich got more time than all of the more progressive Dems. Are you pro life?
Lol. There goes the veneer of you trying to pretend you are interested in any kind of serious discussion.
Have you not paid attention? The one group I possibly have even more contempt for than the Bros is the fucking whining third party voters. I can't have a serious discussion with delusional people.
Trump or Biden
Figure it out.
NBC gave us t-rump in the first place didn't they? (I don't watch tv so please correct me if I'm wrong).
Abso-fucking-lutely!
No, you are not, those terms always are a tell.
Who never gets any credit for it.
The Kochs poisoned that well a while back.
As long as people have a right to vote for whoever they want to you have no right to refer to them en masse as whiny.. Yeah trump is the main issue right now. But every election it’s the same story where anyone who doesn’t vote democrat gets piled on for daring to vote their conscience. American politics is fucked in part because it’s a two party system.
They all did, by given him 90% of the air time, and by never asking hard questions, or pointing out when he was telling obvious lies.
Since you know it's a two party system, how does your conscience feel when you know voting third party would help put the worst president in history back in office ? Trump is literally killing people. Anyone who enables him to continue deserves getting piled on.
" a lot of what she wants (Green New Deal, Wage justice for all..)"
Here's the thing about that: anyone can claim to be in favor of good things. Indeed, most demagogues make a point of promising the moon, and that includes the demagogues who turn into murderous tyrants later.
I am not accusing AOC of being a bloodthirsty tyrant; I don't even necessarily think she's a demagogue (the jury's out on that). I'm just pointing out how easy it is for public figures to make all the pleasing noises that win them public acclaim, and why that counts for nothing in my eyes.
Myself, I put much more stock in those politicians who do the hard work, and are honest with the people, and don't claim there will be easy solutions when there are none to be had. That's where the Hillary Clintons and the Barney Franks and the Barack Obamas and the Joe Bidens and the Kamala Harrises are. They've done the hard work. They know how difficult change is. They're still in the fight. If anyone can get it done, it will be them.
You mentioned the Green New Deal, and here's the thing: climate change may be the most serious threat that faces us, and yet the GND is the most UN-serious document anyone ever put forward. It's not anything close to a plan, it's not even an "aspirational document", it's a wish list that is best preceded by "if I had a genie who wasn't into twisting my words, here are the things I'd do". Most of the concepts are good, but there is no eye towards implementation, and that makes it useless. WORSE than useless, in fact, since it builds up people's expectations and they will inevitably be disappointed.
For example, consider what I deem the most howlingly unrealistic part of the GND: "upgrading all existing buildings in the United States and building new buildings to achieve maximum energy efficiency, water efficiency, safety, affordability, comfort, and durability, including through electrification". Just a few things wrong with this:
- So these new and upgraded buildings built to the latest most advanced specs are also supposed to be affordable? In what universe does that happen? Better almost always costs more, not less.
- ALL existing buildings? What sort of time frame are we talking about here? Just consider your neighborhood, and the level of effort required to upgrade all the homes and businesses there. Now multiply that by however many millions of neighborhoods there are in the US. How many decades will this take (is it best measured in centuries)? How many decades do we have to stop global warming before it's too late?
- So even assuming you could line up the manpower and the funding (this massive army of construction workers DO have to be paid, right?), consider the incredible levels of ecological devastation the project would cause. Just think of all the mining required, all the factories belching out smoke to produce the steel and other materials for the construction, all the diesel fumes from all the construction vehicles, all the debris and waste that accompanies construction projects ... even trying to implement this part of the GND would just hasten climate change.
Note that the problem here isn't that I am reading too much into the GND. The problem is that its authors didn't think about this at an adult level. When I was ten, my plan to stop pollution was "they just need to figure out how to make better lasers so they can disintegrate all the trash", but at least I had the excuse of being ten years old. The GND authors -- and it's plural, it was reviewed by many sets of eyes -- have no such excuse.
This is not to say that the idea of upgrading buildings is a bad one, but it really needs to be targeted, and that means we need to choose a goal. If our goal is to fight climate change, then our emphasis needs to be on those facilities most responsible for greenhouse gases, and that would mean (quick trip to Google) focusing on the energy sector. If our goal is to improve people's homes and deal with actual climate change a few decades from now, let's go upgrade Ol' Widder Henderson's place and make sure she's got insulation and a new energy-efficient water heater.
But there are important choices to be made here, and based on our priorities, we need to target our efforts where they can do the most good. The GND shows no awareness of this fundamental principle. I can't take it seriously. And its authors don't take climate change seriously either, otherwise they'd be appalled to produce such a slipshod document.