Jump to content
~*Please Support the GoFundMe Campaign for HardAct*~ Read more... ×
SaysWho?

~*Official Nancy, AOC, and Friends Thread*~

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, mclumber1 said:

Carbon dividend or go home!

 

A carbon tax and rebate are conservative ideas (that use the free market to drive down usage of carbon), so you'd think that everyone would be on-board with the idea. However, like most other issues, conservatives never really liked the idea, they just proposed it as a counter to actual regulations on emissions. So now when liberal parties say they want a carbon tax/rebate, conservative parties say "no way, that's bad!" In truth, they don't want any regulation at all. It doesn't even matter if they believe in climate change, as they only really care about short-term profits. That's the ultimate truth. The Earth will warm and hundreds of millions will die because companies need a few good quarters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, RedSoxFan9 said:

 

No subpoena power

Why is that needed for something like the GND?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

Why is that needed for something like the GND?

Or for a climate change special committee? We know climate change is a problem, we just need to look for ways to fix it.

 

If oil execs don't want to show and testify, then so be it, it's not like their industry is on the line or anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So AOC is very good at framing issues in ways that are easy to understand. Watch these three clips:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

Why is that needed for something like the GND?

 

For starters, they could look into this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, RedSoxFan9 said:

 

For starters, they could look into this

Ok, so what purpose does looking into that have to do with crafting legislation like the GND?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, RedSoxFan9 said:

 

For starters, they could look into this

Who gives a shit? Move forward.

 

We know FF companies are garbage, we know they fund disinformation, we know climate change is a huge problem, find solutions that Democrats (plus, like 1-2 Florida or California Republicans I guess)can pass when we have a democratic president/Senate. Them lying to stockholders sounds like financial services committee work. Oh, look who is on that committee...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, RedSoxFan9 said:

I’m sure fossil fuel companies will just give up the fight as we move forward

So what does dragging them in front of this particular committee accomplish? I edited last post to add: Them lying to stockholders sounds like financial services committee work. Oh, look who is on that committee...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Brow beating empty chairs with the names of FF CEOs is just as effective, and will accomplish the same thing.

 

I'd rather hear from scientists from agriculture, ocean science, biologists, wildfire experts, etc. Put them up there and explain why if we make no action what the consequences could be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

RSF laughs at any Democratic candidate that lacks a coherent and detailed policy position, but AOC puts out an empty non-binding resolution and it's OK because she needs subpoena power because reasons. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

Who gives a shit? Move forward.

 

 

This is the perfect liberal mindset.  

 

I’m looking forward to the same people who engineered the 2008 crash causing the next financial disaster.  If we play our cards right, maybe the Iraq war architects will start a war in Venezuela or Iran.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

Ok, so what purpose does looking into that have to do with crafting legislation like the GND?

 

It’s hard to say what would turn up but I imagine congress learn something from the companies’ research (and how they’ll likely fight against climate regulation). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, RedSoxFan9 said:

 

This is the perfect liberal mindset.  

 

I’m looking forward to the same people who engineered the 2008 crash causing the next financial disaster.  If we play our cards right, maybe the Iraq war architects will start a war in Venezuela or Iran.

Christ you're insufferable.

 

Not giving this particular committee subpoena power is exactly the same as putting bankers in charge of financial regulators, or literally putting John Bolton back in a national security role in government.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the next Republican president will appoint an oil company ceo to lead the EPA and Democrats will just throw their hands up in the air

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, RedSoxFan9 said:

the next Republican president will appoint an oil company ceo to lead the EPA and Democrats will just throw their hands up in the air

Literally right now https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_R._Wheeler

 

Not an oil exec, but a coal lobbyist. And can be subpoenaed by other committees, like natural resources oversight and investigations subcommittee, or natural resource water power and oceans subcommittee. Or the energy and commerce environment and climate change subcommittee, or the energy and commerce oversight and investigations subcommittee.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I’m not seeing why a committee for the purpose of creating green legislation needs subpoena power when permanent committees that cover these industries already have them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah there’s no reason to give subpoena power to the committee that is supposed to be tackling the most issue facing the world

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, RedSoxFan9 said:

Yeah there’s no reason to give subpoena power to the committee that is supposed to be tackling the most issue facing the world

You have yet to explain what subpoena power has to do with creating the legislation beyond your gut instinct. You think it is important but can’t articulate why. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Access to more information will help congress members write better legislation.  It can also be used as a weapon against the enemies of the green new deal. 

 

Here’s an example from last time.

 

Quote

Under the previous incarnation of the select committee, the subpoena power was used at least once in 2008 to force the Environmental Protection Agency under former President George W. Bush to disclose its progress in crafting climate change rules for automobiles.

 

Without subpoena power, the panel will have trouble developing the most robust legislation or recommendations to fight climate change, according to supporters of the Green New Deal.

 

Subpoena powers would allow committee members to force government agency heads to testify on economic and environmental issues, thereby providing information that would aide them in crafting comprehensive legislation to fight climate change. Committee members also could use subpoena powers to force fossil fuel industry officials to provide documents or testify in hearings.

 

https://thinkprogress.org/new-house-climate-committee-resembles-2007-panel-despite-12-years-worth-of-new-climate-science-fefbc29628ff/

 

I guess this time Democrats trust Trump’s EPA so they don’t need to subpoena anyone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We are on the brink of the Democrat party regretting decisions they have made in the last few years when it comes to candidates. The old white people in power are not liking all this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, RedSoxFan9 said:

Access to more information will help congress members write better legislation.  It can also be used as a weapon against the enemies of the green new deal. 

 

Here’s an example from last time.

 

 

https://thinkprogress.org/new-house-climate-committee-resembles-2007-panel-despite-12-years-worth-of-new-climate-science-fefbc29628ff/

 

I guess this time Democrats trust Trump’s EPA so they don’t need to subpoena anyone

 

I appreciate you taking time to explain your position. Thank you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The blanket rejection of nuclear energy -- which represents a NECESSARY transitory phase from fossil fuels to large-scale renewable resources -- is a clear example of "the perfect being the enemy of the good".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, CitizenVectron said:

 

A carbon tax and rebate are conservative ideas (that use the free market to drive down usage of carbon), so you'd think that everyone would be on-board with the idea. However, like most other issues, conservatives never really liked the idea, they just proposed it as a counter to actual regulations on emissions. So now when liberal parties say they want a carbon tax/rebate, conservative parties say "no way, that's bad!" In truth, they don't want any regulation at all. It doesn't even matter if they believe in climate change, as they only really care about short-term profits. That's the ultimate truth. The Earth will warm and hundreds of millions will die because companies need a few good quarters.

 

Where have I seen this tactic from them before  :hmm:

 

Aha! The individual mandate!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, SFLUFAN said:

The blanket rejection of nuclear energy -- which represents a NECESSARY transitory phase from fossil fuels to large-scale renewable resources -- is a clear example of "the perfect being the enemy of the good".

 

Good isn’t good enough for leftists

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, CitizenVectron said:

So AOC is very good at framing issues in ways that are easy to understand. Watch these three clips:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I don't agree with all her positions but god damn she's an effective communicator.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Chris- said:

 

Good isn’t good enough for leftists

Ironically, most on The Left think being "right" is more important than being effective. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, skillzdadirecta said:

Ironically, most on The Left think being "right" is more important than being effective. 

And it's not like you stop at being good or effective. You keep pushing. Just like with health Care. The ACA didn't end that policy debate as an example

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, skillzdadirecta said:

 

I don't agree with all her positions but god damn she's an effective communicator.

 

 

 

I think a huge part of it is that Millennials (and younger) view authenticity as one of the most important factors when rating someone trustworthiness. So we are more likely to look at her and go "yeah, she's a normal person talking to us (and others) like a normal person would, so I understand her." This is compared to Clinton saying "Pokemon Go to the polls!" and us cringing. The delivery of the message is now (and has been for a while) just as important (or more) as the content. I mean, if you boil it down this is like George W. vs Gore - the "have a beer with me" effect, only amplified.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, SFLUFAN said:

The blanket rejection of nuclear energy -- which represents a NECESSARY transitory phase from fossil fuels to large-scale renewable resources -- is a clear example of "the perfect being the enemy of the good".

 

Fukushima killed nuclear energy 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, CitizenVectron said:

 

I think a huge part of it is that Millennials (and younger) view authenticity as one of the most important factors when rating someone trustworthiness. So we are more likely to look at her and go "yeah, she's a normal person talking to us (and others) like a normal person would, so I understand her." This is compared to Clinton saying "Pokemon Go to the polls!" and us cringing. The delivery of the message is now (and has been for a while) just as important (or more) as the content. I mean, if you boil it down this is like George W. vs Gore - the "have a beer with me" effect, only amplified.

 

Yeah this whole point of view is something I can't relate to or really understand. I'm not a millennial so that may be part of it but Americans from all generations place too much importance on personality and other things that while important, shouldn't be THE deciding factors for governance. Competency and a grasp and expertise of the issues should be far more important than whether or not I could have a fucking beer with them. I don't need to have a beer with my elected leaders.

 

AOC though seems to have that "IT" factor AND to be pretty sharp. Whatever she doesn't know she's willing to learn and she is strong in her convictions. I hope she can keep it together because I see a lot of potential in her.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, RedSoxFan9 said:

 

Fukushima killed nuclear energy 

No one remembers it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×