Democratic Primaries
Related: About this forumBERNIE SANDERS'S CLIMATE PLAN IS MORE RADICAL THAN HIS OPPONENTS' -- AND MORE LIKELY TO SUCCEED
IF YOU TRIED to design a program with the aim of offending the top brass of the worlds most powerful corporations and the politicians whose careers they bankroll, youd get something like what Bernie Sanders unveiled today in his $16.3 trillion Green New Deal platform. Thats part of the point. We need a president who has the courage, the vision, and the record to face down the greed of fossil fuel executives and the billionaire class who stand in the way of climate action, the plans opening salvo states, going on to echo a famous line from Franklin Delano Roosevelt. We need a president who welcomes their hatred.
Sanders outlines an expansive system, building on the resolution introduced by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Sen. Ed Markey in April, that would generate publicly owned clean energy and 20 million new jobs, end fossil fuels imports and exports, revivify the social safety net, redress historical injustices like environmental racism, and make prolific investments toward decarbonization at home and abroad among many, many other things. It would not only transition American society away from fossil fuels but renegotiate decades-old nostrums, championed by the right, about the respective roles of the government and the economy.
(snip)
Running through the plan is a different and more explicit theory of change than the lofty platforms other candidates have laid out; its built on organizing and naming enemies. Sanders promises to take on the fossil fuel billionaires whose greed lies at the very heart of the climate crisis, who, he argues, have spent hundreds of millions of dollars protecting their profits at the expense of our future and will do whatever it takes to squeeze every last penny out of the Earth. Outlining how the plan will be financed, it notes that he will get $3.085 trillion by making the fossil fuel industry pay for their pollution, through litigation, fees, and taxes, and eliminating federal fossil fuel subsidies.
(snip)
For a climate fight thats historically been shy about naming enemies and so often cast as a collective action problem the Green New Deal framework encourages an us versus them strategy not unlike that of its namesake. I think people generally feel really terrified about the climate crisis. But weve also been told a lie, in part, by the fossil fuel industry that its all of our fault, Weber says. But thats obviously not the real story. The real story is that a handful of billionaires and their lobbyists and politicians are the reason were in this mess. If were going to make real progress on the crisis, I think people need to be told that truth, and need to get angry about it and know that if we get these folks out of the way, we can have a better world for everyone.
https://theintercept.com/2019/08/22/bernie-sanders-climate-policy/
One of those articles when I regret being able to post only four paragraphs.
P.S. I copy and paste the title as written.
primary today, I would vote for: Undecided
stonecutter357
(12,682 posts)primary today, I would vote for: Joe Biden
Vegas Roller
(704 posts)primary today, I would vote for: Joe Biden
Magoo48
(4,659 posts)Without a radical plan for the Climate Catastrophe, none of that worthless cash that isnt real anyway, that will never be paid back anyway, that there is no possible way of paying back, ever, will be less worthless than it is now.
Perhaps, Bernie, recognizes the real possibility of alienating millions of young voters without a radical approach. The Climate Crisis is being virtually ignored by the DNC now. Dont you think that will discourage next generation voters facing a more and more likely dystopian world in their futures?
primary today, I would vote for: Undecided
Uncle Joe
(58,112 posts)(snip)
The big picture: All of that wealth comes, ultimately, from the planet, and the climate. Specifically, it has come from a stable climate. William Nordhaus points out in his 2013 book "The Climate Casino" that the last 7,000 years have been the most stable climatic period in more than 100,000 years. The last 7,000 years have also seen the rise of civilization and the creation of that $500 trillion in wealth. This is not a coincidence.
Nordhaus won the Nobel Prize this week, in an announcement that coincided with the release of a hugely important UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report on what will happen to the world when it gets 1.5°C, or 2.7°F, warmer than preindustrial levels.
(snip)
You think $54 trillion is a lot? That number comes from research that also says that a 2.0°C increase will cause $69 trillion of damage, and a 3.7°C increase will cause a stunning $551 trillion in damage.
$551 trillion is more than all the wealth currently existing in the world, which gives an indication of just how much richer humanity could become if we don't first destroy our planet.
(snip)
https://www.axios.com/climate-change-costs-wealth-carbon-tax-303d7cff-3085-49d9-accb-ec77689b9911.html
primary today, I would vote for: Undecided
Climate change is not like a light switch that is suddenly going to go from 0 to 100 in a nanosecond.
Using it as boogeyman to make BS look like a visionary is flawed.
There are far better plans out there that don't cost that much. Like Joe Biden's plan which was praised by most environmentalists.
primary today, I would vote for: Joe Biden
NYMinute
(3,256 posts)primary today, I would vote for: Joe Biden
Celerity
(42,658 posts)simply because it is from them
here is the Intercept putting the smears against Biden to bed with a vengeance
Link to tweet
Alex Seitz-Wald
✔
@aseitzwald
The Intercept comes to Joe Bidens defense in laffair Rudy in Ukraine. https://theintercept.com/2019/05/10/rumors-joe-biden-scandal-ukraine-absolute-nonsense-reformer-says/
62
9:55 PM - May 11, 2019
A Republican Conspiracy Theory About a Biden-in-Ukraine Scandal Has Gone Mainstream. But It Is Not True.
https://theintercept.com/2019/05/10/rumors-joe-biden-scandal-ukraine-absolute-nonsense-reformer-says/
VIRAL RUMORS that Joe Biden abused his power as vice president to protect his sons business interests in Ukraine in 2016, which spread last week from the pro-Trump media ecosystem to The New York Times, are absolute nonsense, according to Ukraines leading anti-corruption activist. That evaluation is backed by foreign correspondents in Kiev and a former official with knowledge of Bidens outreach to Ukraine after President Viktor Yanukovych was deposed in a popular uprising in 2014.
In an interview with The Intercept, Daria Kaleniuk, an American-educated lawyer who founded Ukraines Anti-Corruption Action Center, expressed frustration that two recent front page stories in The New York Times, on how the conspiracy theory is being used to attack Biden, failed to properly debunk the false accusation. According to Kaleniuk, and a former anti-corruption prosecutor, there is simply no truth to the rumor now spreading like wildfire across the internet.
The accusation is that Biden blackmailed Ukraines new leaders into firing the countrys chief prosecutor, Viktor Shokin, to derail an investigation he was leading into a Ukrainian gas company that the vice presidents son, Hunter, was paid to advise.
The truth, Kaleniuk said, is that Shokin was forced from office at Bidens urging because he had failed to conduct thorough investigations of corruption, and had stifled efforts to investigate embezzlement and misconduct by public officials following the 2014 uprising.
Properly debunking this particular conspiracy theory is easier said than done, though, since it is set in Ukraine, a country with byzantine political intrigue at the best of times, and these are not the best of times. The rivalries between political factions in Kiev are so intense that even the countrys new anti-corruption agencies are at each others throats.
There is no question that Biden did, during a visit to Kiev in late 2015, threaten to withhold $1 billion in loan guarantees unless Shokin was dismissed. But the vice president, who was leading the Obama administrations effort to fight corruption in Ukraine, did the country a favor by hastening Shokins departure, Kaleniuk said, since he had failed to properly investigate corrupt officials.
snip
It is a super detailed, sourced, documented, in-depth, long, thorough crushing of the false rot used to smear Biden.
primary today, I would vote for: Joe Biden
comradebillyboy
(10,119 posts)I don't expect this to go anywhere at all. He's been a singularly ineffective legislator.
primary today, I would vote for: Joe Biden
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Others have accomplished much more in less time.
primary today, I would vote for: Joe Biden
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)No talk will take the place of a man who was a leader among equals at last year's U.N. Global Climate Action summit. But Gov. Inslee is and will continue to be an important voice, nationally and internationally. That he won't be talking about climate action to the American people from our next Democratic debate stage, though, is certainly to be regretted
Speaking of, Gov. Inslee's Climate Mission agenda is on line, made available to all governments and individuals. It's a blueprint for action that includes 6 parts drawing on of specific policies that have been proven to work in many communities, states and nations.
* 100% Clean Energy for America plan,
* Evergreen Economy plan,
* Global Climate Mobilization plan,
* Freedom from Fossil Fuels plan, and
* Community Climate Justice plan.
His Evergreen Economy, for instance, would be clean energy and green jobs and infrastructure. Of course each part would be developed into thousands of pages for implementation on a national scale.
I'm sorry Gov. Inslee won't be on the next debate stage, but he'll still be a proven climate leader, one among many but highly respected.
primary today, I would vote for: Joe Biden
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)of achievement would make disbelievers of all but True Believers. Looking hopefully at everything I could find of his senate career when he first ran left me instead wondering what on earth he did with a typical senator's staff of 50 to 60. He wasn't involved in most of the things senators need large staffs for, and being him, not even the chairs of the committees he was assigned to would expect him to pull his weight. Of course not them.
primary today, I would vote for: Joe Biden
wasupaloopa
(4,516 posts)Or are they anti Bernie and dont want anyone to know about?
Like everything he says he will replace billionaires with billions of our tax dollars.
And of course the billionaires will gladly give up their money.
Again everything Bernie says is fairytale.
Life is simple, kick out billionaires and let government do it. Hell I could come up with that.
Wheres the PLAN?
And you wonder why Bernie and his supporters are not liked by media and others.
primary today, I would vote for: Undecided
Uncle Joe
(58,112 posts)that enabled a murderous dictator, but to each their own.
primary today, I would vote for: Undecided
wasupaloopa
(4,516 posts)primary today, I would vote for: Undecided
Uncle Joe
(58,112 posts)primary today, I would vote for: Undecided
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Last edited Fri Aug 23, 2019, 09:11 AM - Edit history (5)
Senator Sanders, or otherwise confirm your bias.
Wherein you reject "the source:"
This way one can decry an article that one don't like because CORPORATE OWNERSHIP OF THE PUBLICATION!!!!!! but then reverse when that publication has an article that confirms one's biases with, "well some authors can write good articles despite ownership."
However, one can NEVER EVER doubt the content of a far left publication you post, because NOT CORPORATELY OWNED SO UNASSAILABLY CREDIBLE AND RIGHT AND JUST! as if such a publication could never have a bad, uninformed, completely biased, poorly researched or less than factual content. Especially if they are known for their position that the Democratic Party is "equally as corrupt as the GOP."
primary today, I would vote for: Joe Biden
Uncle Joe
(58,112 posts)if you have an actual disagreement with an article regardless of its' position on the political spectrum, then present it?
I have never stated nor implied that anyone couldn't agree or disagree with any article regardless of its' source.
I believe every American is entitled to their own opinion and their information sources.
primary today, I would vote for: Undecided
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Like you did when you posted this as a response to a Politico article that I shared?
A political opinion article on a politician from a publication with a stated political bias... you can't have effectively have a informed take on it that ignores their stated, historical political bias on the part of the editorial staff and the authors. That's what FoxNews viewers think about FoxNews. The headline alone demands that one see them as objectively able to make that pronouncement. My knowledge of them, based in objective analysis of their reporting, frees me from having to comply, like their target audience.
I didn't say you did. You have more straw men lined up to attack than anyone I've seen. Your posts speak for themselves far more eloquently than you speak about them. You simply pick various, and often contradictory arguments for or against the source - but they always defend content that confirms your bias, and condemn as 'corporate or corrupt' any article from any source that doesn't confirm your bias.
No one said that you didn't believe that. No one here said they believe otherwise. Those Straw men are taking a real beating...
primary today, I would vote for: Joe Biden
Uncle Joe
(58,112 posts)I gave you my opinion on the source and the premise, just as you have right to in regards to articles that I post.
Over the last several days I have spelled this out clearly to you.
I have also stated that many great journalists do conscientious work but corporate media conglomeration is the water they swim in.
I do believe corporate media consolidation is a threat toward democracy as they gain monopoly power and they do have major financial conflicts of interest.
You just now posted this, which is false.
This way one can decry an article that one don't like because CORPORATE OWNERSHIP OF THE PUBLICATION!!!!!! but then reverse when that publication has an article that confirms one's biases with, "well some authors can write good articles despite ownership."
However, one can NEVER EVER doubt the content of a far left publication you post, because NOT CORPORATELY OWNED SO UNASSAILABLY CREDIBLE AND RIGHT AND JUST! as if such a publication could never have a bad, uninformed, completely biased, poorly researched or less than factual content. Especially if they are known for their position that the Democratic Party is "equally as corrupt as the GOP."
primary today, I would vote for: Undecided
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Nothing to be done about that, though.
What you claim is false in my post is true, and clearly demonstrated over the last few days.
primary today, I would vote for: Joe Biden
Uncle Joe
(58,112 posts)"However, one can NEVER EVER doubt the content of a far left publication you post, because NOT CORPORATELY OWNED SO UNASSAILABLY CREDIBLE AND RIGHT AND JUST! as if such a publication could never have a bad, uninformed, completely biased, poorly researched or less than factual content. Especially if they are known for their position that the Democratic Party is "equally as corrupt as the GOP."
primary today, I would vote for: Undecided
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Much like I assume you did when you posted this as a response to someone who asked about other sources for the opinions expressed in the OP:
primary today, I would vote for: Joe Biden
Uncle Joe
(58,112 posts)I also finished it off with "to each their own."
Freedom of opinion, First Amendment and all that good stuff.
primary today, I would vote for: Undecided
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)"I'm done here. Peace to you. "
primary today, I would vote for: Joe Biden
Uncle Joe
(58,112 posts)primary today, I would vote for: Undecided
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)primary today, I would vote for: Joe Biden
Uncle Joe
(58,112 posts)Whenever your argument runs dry you turn to petty insult or slight.
I must be hitting close to home.
primary today, I would vote for: Undecided
George II
(67,782 posts)primary today, I would vote for: Joe Biden
TwilightZone
(25,342 posts)There's nothing stopping you from adjusting the case. It's common courtesy to not yell everything you post.
primary today, I would vote for: Joe Biden
sheshe2
(83,338 posts)primary today, I would vote for: Joe Biden
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)primary today, I would vote for: Joe Biden
Autumn
(44,756 posts)caps, as some often do in their headline they are not yelling at us. No one is yelling at you and you know that. No one is forcing you to click on it or read it. Anything posted in any group can be scrolled by and ignored. As for adjusting the case? There is no rule that says that has to be done. Get a rule or ignore articles posted in all caps.
primary today, I would vote for: Undecided
TwilightZone
(25,342 posts)It has nothing to do with rules. It has to do with laziness and sensationalism.
There are browser plugins that will proper case text to quickly and easily deal with the former.
The Intercept (and many other media outlets) ALL CAP EVERYTHING!!! for the latter. It makes them look like a tabloid. Which, frankly, is often not far from the truth.
primary today, I would vote for: Joe Biden
Autumn
(44,756 posts)primary today, I would vote for: Undecided
George II
(67,782 posts)primary today, I would vote for: Joe Biden
Autumn
(44,756 posts)People are still struggling to find housing from last years hurricanes in some areas. And next years storms will add to the problem.
primary today, I would vote for: Undecided
George II
(67,782 posts)Not a mention of housing for people displaced by rising seas (who are generally upper middle class or rich and not looking for "affordable" housing). But he does go on about "closing the affordable housing gap (totally unrelated to climate change) and accessible affordable housing (totally unrelated to climate change)
The fact is he's packed every one of his talking points, including those that have zero to do with climate change, into his "climate change plan", which distracts and waters down any good ideas he might have related to climate change.
primary today, I would vote for: Joe Biden
Autumn
(44,756 posts)is directly related to climate change.
primary today, I would vote for: Undecided
George II
(67,782 posts)primary today, I would vote for: Joe Biden
Autumn
(44,756 posts)primary today, I would vote for: Undecided
primary today, I would vote for: Undecided
liberal N proud
(60,302 posts)Why is something considered radical?
Usually radical things and radical people are not a good thing and usually cause more harm than good. We are living the example of radical.
I do not want radical anymore.
primary today, I would vote for: Joe Biden
Uncle Joe
(58,112 posts)feasible ever since the days of Joe McCarthy and our progressive movement has been stymied as a result.
primary today, I would vote for: Undecided
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)(I'm not going to link to a FoxNews Town Hall video - you can find it online if you want to confirm)
Martha MacCallum: You think we should eliminate nuclear power, which I know they did in Vermont.
Bernie Sanders: Sure. .
Martha MacCallum: But it ended up moving your emissions higher.
Honestly, I dont think that thats correct, said Sanders.
However, Vermonts Department of Environmental Conservation says otherwise, that the states emissions rose 16.3% between 1990 and 2015, which was twice as much as national emissions rose during the same period.
Sanders: In my city, Burlington, Vermont, the largest city in the state of Vermont, all of our energy is now renewable.
However, "renewable energy" is not synonymous with "clean energy," as far as carbon emissions go.
For electricity, Burlington burns biomass for a large portion, however biomass power plants produce one-third more carbon emissions than coal plants.
primary today, I would vote for: Joe Biden
Amimnoch
(4,558 posts)Cant even get the Green New Deal through congress as it is now, but yeah, this is going to fly.
Should BS become our nominee, and should BS win the GE.. Exactly what bills would he be willing to sign into law?
Bottom line, BS keeps making all these grand promises.. yet there isnt, in any stretch of potential outcomes for the 2020 Senate, a roll-call vote that would pass this. The Senate map alone completely puts this out of the realm of reality for 2020.
Biggest problem with Bernie.. I dont trust him one bit to pass any hard fought for Democratic Party championed legislation that does manage to get through the 117th congress. Be it climate change, equal rights, education, budget, healthcare, or any political issue legislation.
So, would he try to run dictator style like Cheetolini? Would he swallow his pride and agenda and sign less than perfect legislation that does still provide us some progress? Or would he just be the president of no?
I trust that, even if the legislation isnt perfect, the rest of our ACTUAL Democratic Party field would sign any Democratic Party championed bill that manages to pass all the hurdles of congress that moves us forward. I do not trust BS at all to sign off on legislation that would cross his desk if it fails to meet his purity tests. He really would be the do nothing at all president.
ANY Democratic Party Candidate BUT Bernie 2020!
primary today, I would vote for: Undecided
jcgoldie
(11,584 posts)primary today, I would vote for: Undecided