US Politics: A Farewell to Arms

[Lollygag]

18 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

Who cares about the example you quoted?  Why does it matter if she calls the post and corrects them (which they likely would not print?) Or addresses this on Twitter? 

Bring me something that she's doing that is hurting progressive causes.  You're either a nefarious bridge dwelling malfeasor, or you've fallen right into the right's trap.  Or maybe you're just a non-progressive moderate who doesn't actually support anything she does anyway, which brings us back to option #1.

I don't like name-calling (didn't AOC just call that out?) but this is pretty impressive! Like it. I recommend googling Shakespeare's insults. 

"Who cares about the example you quoted?" If you want to take just her word over all of the other reports, the other members of her own party in Congress, her own actions, whatnot, your call. And she backtracks a lot (already cited). No collusion. Fake news, right? 

She's hurting progressive causes by targeting moderate Dems in swing districts which will effectively give the House and Senate back to Trump. Grade school math. And her conduct is giving R's bullets on a silver platter that they don't need to have. She's turning herself into the Kardashian of politicians. 

A number of people want to see the i's dotted, t's crossed, and they want the numbers to add up. When you see stats that show a huge swath of the country of believes in (insert progressive issue here) yet they refuse to vote that way, it's because there's not enough confidence in the competence to execute that policy or they don't trust how that goal will be achieved. And when people (rightly) ask for the details, and the response is a non-response, it reduces confidence even more. Emotions aren't enough for some. 

 

[OldGimletEye]

1 hour ago, Lollygag said:

Ernest Moniz who was Obama's energy secretary and a nuclear physicist says her suggestions aren't possible but people like him are the best sources (expert in his field and also familiar with government) for what may be possible.

Here is an article by Moniz
I'll note a few points here:
1. Moniz says we need to do something about climate change. It's serious.
2. He seems to believe that government will have to be involved in some significant way. And while he doesn't directly say it, he seems to believe that something more than a carbon tax will be needed, which is the usually the preferred option of those on the center right that take the issue seriously.
3. His main point of contention with AOC seems to be whether we can reduce carbon emissions sufficiently in 10 years. He doesn't think so. He seems to indicate that 20 would be more realistic.
4. Whether we're talking about 10 or 20 years, really we don't have a lot time.

So after reading this is AOC really being crazy? No not really. I think we all know who are being utter nutters here.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/03/11/what-america-needs-is-a-green-real-deal-top-energy-experts-say.html

Quote

The Green New Deal has sparked a timely impassioned national conversation on the imperative of addressing climate-change risks to our economy, environment and security and the associated needs of disadvantaged communities.

Of course Moniz probably would have never written this piece if AOC hadn't started the conversation in the first place.

I think it's hilariously funny that a 29 year old catches so much hell for bringing up this very serious issue, when people twice her age should have been going to bat for this.

And let's all remember how people gushed all over Paul "Number's Guy" Ryan for years as being "serious", who got away for years with writing  proposals with the qualification of "to be determined", and yet just love to point out the alleged unseriousness of AOC.

Maybe AOC should just dub herself "Numbers Gal" or whip a few power point slides to be taken seriously. Worked for Ryan.

[Lollygag]

41 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

To your blood in the water to sharks point: Republicans will trash women of color any chance they get no matter how perfect and flawless her performance.  You're playing into their hands by expecting her to be a level of pure innocence and competence we don't hold others to.

I do think they target women more, but this all really started with Bill Clinton. When Bill left, the bulk of it went to Hillary. When it was looking like she wasn't running they tried out new foils. They ran 2018 on Pelosi, but she didn't really stick. Then they tried Obama but Rs have never really been roid rage-y over Obama like they were over Bill and Hillary. AOC finally stuck somewhat. And she gives them tons to work with. 

I'm just not overlooking her problems. I'm sick of it from the Trump types, and damned if I want it from the left, too. A lot of Dems won on the higher ground message. I don't think changing the message to pick-your-poison/hypocrisy is the way to go. 

[ThinkerX]

I have been noticing a bit of a disconnect with conservative posters on climate change lately.

They loudly denounce the Green New Deal as wildly unrealistic (half a point, given the social/economic turmoil implementing the GND will be), vehemently support Trump's pro-fossil fuel agenda, yet at the same time deny this agenda involves massive, destructive pollution - while also insisting they have nothing against energy efficiency.  

 

[ThinkerX]

just took a Microsoft News Poll on closing the border.  842 responses.  (seems low to me).  44% for a full closure; 44% for no closure, 10% for a partial closure.  xenophobia rules.

 

[Lollygag]

1 hour ago, larrytheimp said:

This is more of the trash I'm talking about.  Ernest Moniz can go fuck himself.  She's been in office for three months and has done more in that time to get energy reform into the public consciousness than anyone else.  The GND she put out isn't the end all be all of how we deal with the inevitability of something that's been on back burner way to long - it's a starting point, it's someone saying 'wake the fuck up to the elephant in the room'.  And without her we wouldn't even be having this discussion.  To do what you're asking requires years of time that she hasn't had.   

Why are you being so hard in her?  Might be worth some introspection.  

Bolded: Compelling argument. Totally buy it. It's shocking why some are skeptical about actually accomplishing solid policy.

Like I said, she deserves full credit for the world-wide spot light she's shining on it. But she doesn't need to be an expert to use Google and crowd source ideas and give them some spotlight, too. If she can defeat Crowley and do the other stuff she's done, she should be able to escalate to policy discussions and pull in some of the minds who can make a big difference here. What she does is get people talking.  I don't expect her to craft anything herself. But she should be using her platform to get ideas to people who have the experience and knowledge to do that. It's no more than what some on this forum are doing and what some media sources are doing. But not as effectively obvi. 

I already stated why I'm calling her out. And I'm not about the woke thing. I like actual solutions. I'm still waiting. 

Why are you being so hard easy on her?  Might be worth some introspection.  

 

[DMC]

2 hours ago, Zorral said:

Yes it is when these incumbents don't challenge or actively do anything to block the destruction and evil of the ignorants, cruels and ignobles attacking everything that makes a community worth being a part of.

What exactly is the House Democratic Caucus - generally - supposed to be doing that they're not?

2 hours ago, larrytheimp said:

I'd says so, I guess my point is that none of this stuff is politically expedient for a potential candidate.

Well no, of course not - it's never a good thing.  Just saying it's survivable if there's a politically expedient reason for the public to still keep you around/elect you/etc.

[Fragile Bird]

23 minutes ago, ThinkerX said:

just took a Microsoft News Poll on closing the border.  842 responses.  (seems low to me).  44% for a full closure; 44% for no closure, 10% for a partial closure.  xenophobia rules.

 

Oh I do hope Trump closes the border! Let’s damage tens of thousands of businesses and harm tens of thousands of Americans!

[felice]

10 minutes ago, Lollygag said:

I already stated why I'm calling her out.

You admitted you're a concern troll? When was that?

[ThinkerX]

6 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

Oh I do hope Trump closes the border! Let’s damage tens of thousands of businesses and harm tens of thousands of Americans!

standard Trump response: blame democrats

That said, I view this as a purely political stunt; mere words to keep the base to riled up to think straight

[OldGimletEye]

21 minutes ago, Lollygag said:

I like actual solutions. 

In that case, you must never vote Republican.

[Zorral]

29 minutes ago, felice said:

You admitted you're a concern troll? When was that?

Evidently the concern troll doesn't believe that holding public town halls, talking with voters, listening to them, asking questions, talking with other elected officials, listening to them, asking them questions, counts as this very junior congresswoman doing anything.  What is he doing that's is so useful and productive, or even getting people to think about these matters so vital that they literally are life or death of the planet and all of us?

[Lollygag]

1 hour ago, felice said:

You admitted you're a concern troll? When was that?

My wanting actual results on climate change besides the obvious is from a health condition which worsens upon exposure to polluted air and exposure to chemicals and during flare ups, it's a disability even when it comes to basic functioning.

 

 

From dictionary.com. (Yes, I had to look it up.) 

What does concern troll mean?

Concern trolling involves someone opposing an idea or viewpoint, yet acting like they’re an advocate for the cause. A concern troll offers undermining criticisms under the guise of concern. Their goal is to sabotage the cause being discussed, and to inspire doubt among group members. This occurs in groups rallied around a particular issue, especially in political parties, and the goal of concern trolling is to cause dissent within a community.

 

You have to separate out sabotage of the cause itself and when people are exhibiting genuine problems with the execution of that cause. Advocating moving it onto the planning/crowd-sourcing/brainstorming/solutions phase from the hype/woke phase that it seems perpetually stuck in is a weird way to undermine a cause and spread dissent. Unless there's some sort of unconsciously-formed equivalency between AOC and climate change. That would be unfortunate as she's hit a brick wall.

[felice]

35 minutes ago, Lollygag said:

Unless there's some sort of unconsciously-formed equivalency between AOC and climate change.

Funny you should mention that. Why are your alleged concerns about climate change focused on what AOC should do differently? She's just a junior congressperson with no power to actually implement any action against climate change. Wouldn't it make more sense to focus on Trump and the Democratic presidential nominee candidates who are or might soon be running the country, and call on them to commit to real action?

[Lollygag]

36 minutes ago, felice said:

Funny you should mention that. Why are your alleged concerns about climate change focused on what AOC should do differently? She's just a junior congressperson with no power to actually implement any action against climate change. Wouldn't it make more sense to focus on Trump and the Democratic presidential nominee candidates who are or might soon be running the country, and call on them to commit to real action?

I ask that you please stop pulling my words out of context. I'm aware of the tactics behind it.

I brought up AOC and climate change in relation to her not being diligent about facts and this hurting her causes. It was an example which blew up from there. I happen to agree with you on this. 

3 hours ago, Lollygag said:

Like I said, she deserves full credit for the world-wide spot light she's shining on it. But she doesn't need to be an expert to use Google and crowd source ideas and give them some spotlight, too. If she can defeat Crowley and do the other stuff she's done, she should be able to escalate to policy discussions and pull in some of the minds who can make a big difference here. What she does is get people talking.  I don't expect her to craft anything herself. But she should be using her platform to get ideas to people who have the experience and knowledge to do that. It's no more than what some on this forum are doing and what some media sources are doing. But not as effectively obvi. 

 

[Zorral]

The more is pointed out about what AOC has actually accomplished, and what she would like to implement -- particularly starting even any long term ACTION on climate catastrophe, the more  Lolly belligeRANTS about AOC.  We demand, Lolly, we demand, YOUR PLAN OF ACTION ON CLIMATE and ALL YOUR FACTS. 

Evidently Lolly really really really doesn't like AOC, any more than the rich old white Dems do or the rich old or the rich young reps of the party of denial and fakes, bigotry and violence, sexists and racists, do.

Also, you recall, she's not doing this by herself, or even saying she is.  She's part of a national young political movement.  She reaches out, they reach out.  I guess the Town Hall, with a whole group of local activists and voters, which JUST TOOK PLACE, doesn't even register as her cooperating and working with others.  Not to mention all the other stuff she does.

Lolly and those sorts are laser focused on her, in order to take her out.

[Gertrude]

5 hours ago, Zorral said:

They see her as part of something else they really hate, what they call "twitter mobbing social justice warrior identity cultural racial diversity Young and New who have destroyed everything from SFFWA (Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers Association) to local political primaries."  

I can't even read this part because I legit insert 'younger, more beautiful queen' here. 

[Centrist Simon Steele]

4 hours ago, ThinkerX said:

I have been noticing a bit of a disconnect with conservative posters on climate change lately.

They loudly denounce the Green New Deal as wildly unrealistic (half a point, given the social/economic turmoil implementing the GND will be), vehemently support Trump's pro-fossil fuel agenda, yet at the same time deny this agenda involves massive, destructive pollution - while also insisting they have nothing against energy efficiency.  

 

Just a side note. I support the GND, but I think for it to be feasible, we have to reconsider nuclear power. I think many on the left will disagree with me on this point, but I just don't see a more feasible way. I'm all in on the GND. I read the UN reports on the 12 year point of no return. I don't know that the science has caught up to solar and wind. Nuclear with a mix of solar and wind seems the way to go. It's clean, and I think engineers can design better plants faster than solar and wind can power all of our needs.

And once we commit to this, I think you start looking at carbon sequestration. I read about new breakthroughs where scientists may not only be able to pull tons of carbon from the air, but turn it back into coal. That seems scary (as in, hey! We have more coal to use now!). But I do think carbon sequestration will be what probably saves us in the short term. We'll see what they do in the next 12 years.

[DireWolfSpirit]

So I guess Sen. Booker and Rosario Dawson are a couple. Im just trying to imagine how incredibly cool Rosario Dawson would be as First Lady.

[OldGimletEye]

9 minutes ago, Simon Steele said:

Just a side note. I support the GND, but I think for it to be feasible, we have to reconsider nuclear power.

If this world were sane, I should think this is the argument the left would be having with the right. I mean about how to deal with climate change with conservatives arguing for more nuclear power and a carbon tax versus a more left approach to the problem.

But, instead, conservatives just decided to ignore the problem altogether. I guess nuclear power is a threat to the Koch Brothers' wallet or something.