Symone Sanders says climate debate would be "dangerous territory"

[melman]

Symone Sanders, a senior adviser of presidential candidate Joe Biden, was among those who urged the DNC on Thursday to vote down a climate debate, saying it would be “dangerous territory in the middle of a Democratic primary process.”

That contrasts with what Biden had earlier said during a campaign stop in Iowa this summer. The former vice president had endorsed having a climate debate, telling Greenpeace, “I’m all in.”

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/dnc-rejects-climate-debate_n_5d5cb8f0e4b05f62fbd7067d

Link to tweet

[mopinko]

1. ffs.

i cant even.

[TexasTowelie]

2. .

[melman]

4. Interesting reaction

Beto O'Rourke seems to take this issue rather seriously.

Link to tweet

But I guess if it makes you sleepy it makes you sleepy..

[Mike 03]

3. What's really dangerous is pretending like global warming isn't happening.

We can't put this discussion off much longer.

She's on Twitter. I let her know what I think about her climate avoidance strategy.

[backtoblue]

11. + 1

...and a planet

[Auggie]

21. I agree with you, but consider the millions of misinformed more concerned about jobs

Use job growth to win the primary and the White House. Then focus on climate.

[DemocracyMouse]

48. Link job growth with jobs! Oh, yeah, that's the Green New Deal

Glad the GND is back un play!

Right? Right?



Or are we back in the whimpy zone where Dems don't tell it like it is, but cater to pollsters?

[DemocracyMouse]

50. But, actually, pollsters tell us US Citizens ARE concerned about BOTH jobs and planetary death

(Especially when the polling itself is honest and direct, just as the DNC would be if it wasn't clogged with 80s consciousness)

[lapucelle]

44. What's dangerous as well is trusting sources like the HuffPo writers

who tell readers that a scheduled DNC RBC committee meeting was a “panel”, implies that Symone Sanders was there in her capacity as Biden’s campaign manager or his representative (she was there as a committee member), and neglects to mention that the business of the meeting was a discussion and vote on a proposal to have a scheduled debate devoted to the single topic or to keep the televised candidate forums that were already planned and incorporated into the schedule.

Symone argued and voted to keep the forums. That measure won 17-3.

Those are the facts. You will not find them in the HuffPo link.

[BeyondGeography]

5. Yeah, I'm all in man!

[Mike 03]

6. Maybe it's just a bad day, but...

You know, the Amazon rainforests are in flames, the Arctic and Greenland are hemorrhaging water... I don't want to hear Joe Biden say he's afraid to talk about Climate Change. I'm scared to death about this issue. I hope we don't end up with a nominee who is going to do the "bare minimum" on climate. That's all.

[Celerity]

8. dangerous territory is ignoring this incoming global nightmare

Was really happy when Biden said he was all in. Looks like short-sighted, ill-informed risk aversion by the DNC and Joe's advisors has won again.

Disappointed to say the least. The DNC and Symone Sanders' framing of this issue is so damaging, as it gives the denialists another arrow for their quiver of wilful ignorance.

My age cohort (I am 23, on the Millennial/Gen Z borderline) and younger (in reality all age groups who live long enough will feel the sting to some degree and are already) are the ones who are really going to be hurt the most by global climate change, and this just seems like a older generational blow off TBH.

[ancianita]

15. +1000

[Demsrule86]

26. What framing? From what I can tell they don't want single issue debates...which is not a good idea.

In any case, do you think it would help if we lose the election over an issue we can do nothing about unless we win?

[Celerity]

53. a climate change debate is hardly going to 'lose us the election'

If the mere subject is so bloody poisonous to the elections, why do all the candidates even put out plans. Biden trumpeted his far and wide, but now the foot-draggers at the DNC and fear-mongering Biden staffers (Dangerous Territory Symone) have scuppered Joe's previously stated great 'I'm all in!'

It IS shit framing to call even discussing it in a debate forum 'dangerous territory'. Leave it to an ex-Bernie sidekick to come up with that bollocks. SMDH



Finally, on a totally different note (and if you simply did not want to answer this from yesterday, that is all good)

You never responded to my Biden potential VP answer to you (on the 'maybe not a female VP' thing, due to sexism and misogynists)

I was mostly agreeing with you and made a log list of possibles

here

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1287248154#post28

respond if you want, as I value your opinion

cheers

[Demsrule86]

59. I can think of dozens of ways climate change could be used to drive Democratic voters away. Update.

I missed the VP post...will look for it. I don't see the post you refer to could you send me a link when you get chance? I would like to read it ...thanks in advance.

[Celerity]

64. here is the link again

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1287248154#post28

It is post 28

in this OP

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1287248154

[theaocp]

9. ROTFLMAO

Pathetic. There is no Planet B, people.

[Andy823]

10. Dangerous for who?

I would think NOT hearing from all of our candidates on this issue would be DANGEROUS. Is she afraid that Joe can't handle this issue?

[Demsrule86]

29. The OP is misleading. This was about single issue debates...why don't you read about it here.

"A singular climate debate only serves its purpose if every faction within the Democratic Party agrees that climate change uniquely merits a dedicated debate. But progressive activists are unlikely to accept this. The nature of the party is that it is divided into activist nodes organized around singular issues or groups. What happens when activists request a debate on racism? Inequality? Health care? Gun violence? Voting rights? Abortion rights? Immigration?

Once Democrats have broken the seal, the pressure to expand the number of single-issue debates would be intense and continuous. Saying no to any particular cause after having already agreed to elevating another cause would be untenable. Can you really imagine the party standing behind the position that racism is not important enough to merit its own debate, but climate change is? I cannot. The endpoint would be a proliferation of single-issue debates that negates the entire point of elevating climate change to begin with."

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/07/climate-debate-democrats-2020-terrible-idea.html

[Andy823]

55. Sorry, but

Since I, and millions of others, believe climate change is serious, and I agreed with Governor Inslee on his stand for having the debates, I think that the majority of candidates would have been fine with having one, as most of them said earlier about such a debate, and I really doubt it would have been "dangerous", except to those who may not have wanted to discuss the issue for whatever reason they may have had.

Climate change will destroy the world if we don't do something about it. Yes there are other issues, but if without fixing the problem with climate change, nothing else is going to matter much. You can have your own opinion, but this is mine.

[Demsrule86]

58. Losing this election will destroy the world...and nothing can be done on climate change

at this moment. Every single activist group will demand their debate and who can say no to those worthy causes? It would create havoc and hard feelings. It is a feel good issue but way to complicated to put in a debate where candidates will face gotcha questions.

[Andy823]

63. If a candidate can not

discuss the issues they should not be running. If Democrats get behind the nominee, we won't lose. We have some great candidates that can win, not just one, and I want to know ahead of time that they can take on trump before I vote for them. I think that the women running are doing a great job, better than the men actually.

[demmiblue]

12. ...

[Demsrule86]

30. You might find this interesting...this is why many don't want single issue debates including

Climate Change...

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/07/climate-debate-democrats-2020-terrible-idea.html

[peggysue2]

13. If I've heard this properly, Symone Sanders is arguing that a real Climate Change discussion . . .

would be better framed in a town hall format where candidates could drill down on the specifics, approaches, perspectives, rather than argue or 'debate' different aspects of individual candidates' climate change programs. Despite the GOP's willful blindness, there's no debate that climate change exists and will have long-lasting, devastating effects. But beyond scientific literature and nonfiction books, we haven't had a national public forum on the subject since Al Gore's push--where we are now, how bad it will become, the things we can do to mitigate the damage and social upheaval that's coming and how to fund the massive changes required to survive the coming decades. Our water and food supplies will be badly compromised. Immigration will become a fact of life as people flee drought, famine and storm-ravaged areas/countries. Wars over resources are likely to break out. The predictions are grim.

If I understood Sanders correctly, this isn't a subject to turn into a network-driven gladiatorial contest: who said the right thing vs who didn't; who had the best argument and/or rebuttal, etc., etc., etc. The subject is too damn important to turn it into a political sporting event, later scored by talking heads and pundits. Who won, who lost?

Donald Trump is an existential threat to the United States. But Climate Change? We're talking an existential threat to the entire world. I think the discussion deserves, even demands the best format, a well-thought out, serious presentation by people from a lot of disciplines and perspectives. Might not be the 'Good TV' the networks so love. But then if we don't get a handle on this issue, the networks will become extinct. Along with the rest of us.

[floppyboo]

14. gotta disagree

you wrote: this isn't a subject to turn into a network-driven gladiatorial contest: who said the right thing vs who didn't; who had the best argument and/or rebuttal, etc., etc., etc. The subject is too damn important to turn it into a political sporting event, later scored by talking heads and pundits. Who won, who lost?

It is too damn important, and it has received almost zero coverage - never mind if its a primary or not. And never mind that even the weather reports, let alone the news, don't carry it.

This needs to be HUGE with no skirting around and constant and unrelenting.

The circus has begun, and its on fire as a spectacle. Time to talk about the real fires.

[peggysue2]

17. We'll have to agree to disagree

I don't see a 3-5 minute ping-pong debate commentary per candidate accomplishing anything close to a real discussion, let alone lending the gravity that the subject deserves. This shouldn't be a 'gotcha' politics moment; it's simply too important.

I expect each and every candidate to speak to the issue through their speeches, rallies, ads in order to generate the energy and resources and commitment that will be necessary to begin to tackle the crisis. Personally, I thought Governor Inslee had the best grasp of what we're facing, in addition to programs & policy to mitigate the severe consequences we face from doing close to squat across the planet. I genuinely hope that whoever gets the nomination will tap the man as a serious resource. Because the United States should be leading on this, twisting arms where need be to get everyone on board. Instead, we're wasting precious time with the maniac squatting in the WH and the GOP playing dumb and dumber.

But turning this issue into a horserace subject? No thank you.

[brush]

18. A townhall would be best. In the TV debates we need to go after trump not argue...

with each other and try to get in the best sound bite. 30 seconds for each candidate is ridiculous for such a serious subject.

[lapucelle]

56. Televised candidate forums on this topic are scheduled.

Yesterday’s DNC RBC committee meeting was a discussion on whether to scrap the forums and have a single debate or to keep the forums. There was also a vote on the measure.

Symone Sanders was at the meeting because she is a committee member. She argued and voted for keeping the forums.

The committee voted to keep the forums 17-3..

[brush]

60. That's different from the TV debates though, right?

[lapucelle]

65. The format is different. N/T

[emmaverybo]

16. Right. Pop quiz approach with post-performance media analysis is just bad. Climate change AND

foreign policy ( a first nuclear conflict anywhere on the earth will cause climate catastrophe) need to be discussed, not competed over in the usual horse race.

[still_one]

54. That is why the DNC overwhelmingly voted against a single issue debate because it doesn't address

the subject adequately

https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_5d5cb8f0e4b05f62fbd7067d

[BeckyDem]

19. Wrong response.

[jalan48]

20. I have a feeling the fossil fuel industry would rather not have the debate.

[PDittie]

22. Just boggles the mind

to read complaints about Nina Turner when this is the advice coming from Biden's senior adviser.

[Demsrule86]

25. Turner is a damned traitor to the party...not even a Democrat anymore...she supported Stein and can

fuck off...I think Biden's adviser would be correct anyway, but apparently she is concerned about single issue debates...imagine if we had one on boarder control...or reparations. This could cause incalculable damage for the nominee in a general...all about winning. A primary is not the time or place for grand ideas...that happens if you win by a large majority. A primary is merely a means to get the best candidate for the general...one who can win and hopefully can help with down ballot races. The idea that the primary is a be all end all will cause losses for our party.

[highplainsdem]

23. Wrong. She and others at that meeting were talking about the likely demands for lots

more single issue debates, if the DNC agreed to one.

Here's my thread about this, which shows the context:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1287250472

Your OP was wrong. She was not talking about the climate debate per se.

Too many news stories are also getting this wrong, leaving out the context.

Which is why it's useful to look for more info, to get the context, if you want the truth.

But it's tempting for people who want to attack Biden to take her remarks out of context.

[melman]

28. How absolutely preposterous

The point is she was arguing against having the climate debate.

[highplainsdem]

35. Read the Mercury article. She was arguing against the rules change and demands for lots of single

issue debates, and that was the reason others were also opposed to making this exception.

[melman]

36. I don't need to read it

There's video of her comments. She was making an argument against the climate debate. That is the point.

[highplainsdem]

37. Sigh. Keep enjoying your misunderstanding of what happened.

And keep trying to pretend that the majority there didn't agree with her about it being dangerous to change the rules on this when there would inevitably be demands for lots of other single-issue debates.

[melman]

38. No misunderstanding

The argument was deployed in order to squash the climate debate. That is the point. No amount of parsing can change that.

[Demsrule86]

41. The argument was first made in July and has merit...you going to tell important constituencies

in the Democratic Party that their issue is less important? And what does a climate debate accomplish other than to give the GOP new talking points?

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/07/climate-debate-democrats-2020-terrible-idea.html

[melman]

49. Any particular reason we should give a shit what Jonathan Chait says?

I notice you've posted that article several times now so I thought I'd ask.


btw, if you take a look you'll see he got absolutely roasted in the comments there. And with good reason.

[highplainsdem]

42. You're the one who's parsing it. Read the article I posted in my thread, and get some facts.

Tom Perez and the majority of DNC leadership have been opposed to the climate debate all along, because of what a rules change would lead to.

Biden himself was okay with the debate. The DNC's opposition was not about him.

Yes, a lot of people would like a climate debate.

And a lot of people would like a single-issue debate on gun control. And voting rights. And abortion rights. And healthcare. And foreign policy. Ad almost infinitum.

No one can explain how the DNC could credibly allow one single-issue debate and not okay every other single-issue debate some candidate or activist group demands.

There are a LOT of important issues to talk about, and more debates to come.

[Demsrule86]

46. Don't keep banging your head against the wall...if any other candidate's surrogate

had made this argument, they would all being in agreement right now...just another attempt to take down Biden as he is winning this primary and their chosen candidate is not. .

[Demsrule86]

43. She wasn't. But I will. It is foolish to bring it up and give the GOP ammo against us in the general

when there is nothing that can be done now or in the future unless we win the presidency and the Senate...also we must hold the house. Climate can be addressed in any debate without all the furor that would be created as activist groups demanded that their cause be elevated to a single issue debate.

[melman]

45. What "ammo" would it give the GOP?

[Demsrule86]

47. Job losses, big tax increases...carbon tax particularly...making people who don't want to conserve

conserve...oh I could think of dozens of commercials that would work for them. And there really is an issue that since we are not the biggest polluters...how would we get other countries to join us...oh lots and lots of attacks that could work...why do it now when we have no hope of getting anything through...The time for this is after we win and hopefully get the Senate (or it won't happen). we can begin and it will take baby steps and a jobs program to get folks on board...make it a new manufacturing plan...green energy...many jobs...the blue wall states would be on board. How about coal miners getting green jobs...we can make this work but not at this moment when we have no real power.

[melman]

34. Al Gore on climate debate

Link to tweet

[Eric J in MN]

73. A Joe Biden staffer told the DNC not to have a Climate Debate

...and they aren't. (Symone Sanders is the staffer)

[betsuni]

74. Link?

Why would the DNC do what one person says?

[BannonsLiver]

67. Thanks for the clarification

I’m not the least bit surprised by the disingenuous framing. True to form.

[Demsrule86]

24. She is correct...we can't risk losing this election. This is something that nothing can be done

about at the moment and if we don't win in 2020, nothing will done then...it is vital that we win. Thus no reason to bring this up at this moment...the idea that suddenly all will be on board because of a debate is politically naive.

[Eliot Rosewater]

27. But I want a pink kitchen, yes yes I know the house is on fire but I want to RESOLVE

the issue of what color we will paint the kitchen if we can rebuild and I want it resolved BEFORE we put the fire out!







Having said that, I disagree with anyone who says we cant have that discussion now and if we do it in the frame of GREEN JOBS even better.

This is a tough one, the argument could be made that this is the ONE thing more important than removing a person who will be killing us all soon or deporting us all soon.

[Demsrule86]

31. And when activist demand one on borders, abortion or police killing than what? You going to tell

them their issue is less important? One subject debates are a bad idea. Climate should be and can be addressed within the debates as it stands now along with other issues that some view as just as vital.

[Eliot Rosewater]

32. One subject? I didnt say that, if that is what is being recommended then maybe that

wont work.

HOWEVER, it might work.

Do we have a history of one subject or two subject debates?

[Demsrule86]

39. No we don't...and groups would be standing in line to get their issue on the debate floor...it would

cause a great deal of trouble and could impact the general. We can do nothing on climate change unless we get elected in 2020. Thus no point at this moment. We won the midterms on health care mostly... the ACA and also how evil Trump is...add jobs and a weakening economy...and you have your issues...along with plant closings and Trump's attacks on Unions...these are issue that will work in states that matter in the electoral college. The ACA can't get fixed unless we win the presidency and the senate so it is a big issue.

[Eliot Rosewater]

40. We dont disagree but why hasnt someone figured out how to frame it with green jobs

which would make it the MOST watched debate.

Why arent people in the green job world and environmentalists showing the politicians how to do this?

[Demsrule86]

52. The thing about debates is people get carried away and try to stand out...say things that can be

used against them later in a general. We can however, have questions during normal debates but I hope our candidates are careful...and it would be a great idea if we campaign on this issue of green jobs frame it during the campaign...create a manufacturing plan for the hard hit rust belt and coal country...these are areas where Trump lied to gain support and who now realize they were had...real opportunity to rebuild the blue wall using green energy and climate change manufacturing plans...our candidates and eventual nominees can develop workable solutions to create green jobs where they are needed...just not a really good idea in a two hour debate where there will be gotcha questions from the moderaters and a candidate could give an answer that would be used against him/her in a general.

[guillaumeb]

33. Why?

Should we all pretend that climate change is not happening? Will it then go away?

[quickesst]

51. looks like I've come up with....

.... The perfect response to every anti-Biden thread started so far.

. I think a lot of people who don't like Joe Biden and troll 24/7 for what I consider trivialities like this are doing it more to make themselves feel better, and to convince themselves of its importance rather than anyone else.

Thank you. I'll be here all primary.

[melman]

57. Climate change is a triviality?

[quickesst]

68. I swear on my mother's grave....

..... I had included one last short paragraph to my post, thought better of it because I like to give members of Democratic Underground the benefit of the doubt, and deleted it. Here it is word for word.

Please don't come back with something stupid like, "Climate change isn't important?"

I am literally laughing my ass off because you know, as well as I do, that the importance of climate change isn't the issue here. What's at issue here is a campaign strategy you don't like so you are trying to build another mountain out of another molehill.
..... And here is where I direct you back to my previous post, but with the above deleted paragraph now included, which pretty much proves my point.

[betsuni]

69. +1

[melman]

70. "the importance of climate change isn't the issue here"

Except it actually is the issue.

Link to tweet

As for the rest of that. Insult me all you want. call me a troll. I do not care.

[quickesst]

71. no it's not

It is a disagreement on strategy. Tell me, out of all the Democrats in Congress, out of all the Democrats in the Senate, out of all the Democrats running for president, can you name one who is not concerned about climate change? Do you believe Joe Biden is not concerned with climate change? Do you believe that climate change is not a concern for Symone Sanders? Like I said, it's about a strategy you do not agree with, and took the opportunity to try and make a mountain out of a molehill.


"As for the rest of that. Insult me all you want. call me a troll. I do not care."

Now this is making a tiny tiny Mountain out of a tiny tiny molehill. You're getting better.

[melman]

72. Did you not call me a troll?

Yes you did.

Did you not make it out like it was a really low blow just reading your post the way it was written? Yes. Yes you did.



This thread is about the climate debate. You said it was a triviality and then acted outraged when asked if you really think it's trivial. I've been around here long enough to know all the techniques. and that is a common one.


person one - says a thing


person two - do you really think.. (that thing)


person one - how dare you say I said (the thing they said)

--

and then there's this -- Another common technique.


"I think a lot of people who don't like Joe Biden and troll 24/7 for what I consider trivialities like this are doing it more to make themselves feel better, and to convince themselves of its importance rather than anyone else. "


You may think the insult is cleverly hidden but it's not. Who "trolls 24/7" but a troll? That is calling me a troll.

-

As for the rest of that straw man nonsense I am not even going to address it.

[quickesst]

75. hahaha....

No. I did not call you a troll. You placed yourself in that role by taking personal offense at a statement that was generic, and which was directed at A LOT of people who don't like Joe Biden, not ALL people who don't like Joe Biden. If you place yourself into the role of victim, it is not my responsibility to save you from yourself.

Nowhere in my post did I state that climate change was a triviality. The triviality is the way you twisted it to conform to your narrative.

The funniest thing in your post was the outrage thing you accuse me of. That got a double out of me, and I glaringly notice that you did not answer my question concerning the Democrats I mentioned and their stance as far as climate change is concerned.

One more thing. One does not need a "technique" where logic and common sense are concerned. It takes nothing more then a grasp of the English language.

[George II]

76. No you weren't called a troll. Perhaps you're angry because your request wasn't accomodated?

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1287&pid=250698

"call me a troll. I do not care."

[Eliot Rosewater]

77. Good catch...you know what I wish, i wish I could see some folks say

"vote blue no matter who"

but they wont

I guess I should stop holding my breath, they aint NEVER saying it

[melman]

79. Hey

did you see the post in your thread where someone explicitly said they would not vote for the Democratic nominee if it was someone they deem unacceptable?


Just wondering because it seems like just the kind of thing you were concerned with in the OP

Yet you did not comment on it. Seemed kind of odd.

[melman]

78. Not angry

and I made no request of any kind.

[George II]

80. Really?

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1287&pid=250698

"call me a troll. I do not care."

[melman]

81. Yes

Really.

[Vegas Roller]

61. She didn't say that

stop the nefarious spinning

[melman]

62. "nefarious spinning"

[Aaron Pereira]

66. A conversation we should have had last summer?

No, I think now is a great time to have this conversation.

[Autumn]

82. I suppose the Amazon and the Arctic both burning isn't dangerous at all.

Maybe we ought to fucking talk about it now.