Campaign funding struggles for AOC..

[hollodero]

(08-20-2019, 01:51 PM)Aquapod770 Wrote: The media plays a huge role.

I do not doubt that.

(08-20-2019, 01:51 PM)Aquapod770 Wrote: Go out and talk to your neighbor. It's amazing what a little respect and human decency will do in a political discussion.

That's something I doubt.
I am usually decent to pretty much everyone. But seldomly have I come across humans that say "Hmm, you make a good point, I might reconsider my stance". That dies out with increasing age. And to be honest, I feel Americans are particular resilient to that.

(08-20-2019, 01:51 PM)Aquapod770 Wrote: Like I said, talking to people face to face is the way to go. I think reason is a lot more popular than you realize. What has worked for me is focusing on the benefits of renewable energy. There are multiple reasons that renewable energy is good besides climate change.

Well, it is. I feel that point wouldn't fly at a Trump rally though. Outside of Trump rallies, you would need to persuade people to vote accordingly. As of now, I did not come across a conservative that would consider voting liberal on grounds of climate change.
I do not intent to make everything about party or voting for a party, but in this case it's pretty much about party and voting for a party.

(08-20-2019, 01:51 PM)Aquapod770 Wrote: According to a gallup poll. 60% of Americans support reducing fossil fuel consumption with only 17% "strongly opposed".

Well, and around 90% support background checks for gun purchases. That doesn't mean there's common political ground to be found. As evidenced.
I do agree that making a vulnerable proposal is probably not the best way to go, but I am afraid just talking to folks will only get you so far either.

[Dill]

(08-20-2019, 03:29 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: That wouldn't matter if people weren't so easily duped by commercials and op-eds.  

People are influenced by quite a bit more than that.

In 2010 the Tea party didn't fuel the largest midterm swing since the Depression because of commercials and op eds.

[Dill]

(08-20-2019, 01:51 PM)Aquapod770 Wrote: Like I said, talking to people face to face is the way to go. I think reason is a lot more popular than you realize. What has worked for me is focusing on the benefits of renewable energy. There are multiple reasons that renewable energy is good besides climate change. 


To each their own, but I definitely would call an economy wrecking proposal "equally crazy". Now it is just a non-binding resolution, so arguing costs isn't super realistic, but then it begs the question...why even propose it? Like I've said there are other ways to start a discussion on climate change. The GND is meant to further the divide. Not bring people to common ground. 

According to a gallup poll. 60% of Americans support reducing fossil fuel consumption with only 17% "strongly opposed". There is common ground to be found. It's there. Insane over-the-top proposals aren't the way to reach it. 
https://news.gallup.com/poll/248006/americans-support-reducing-fossil-fuel.aspx

How do people who don't already agree with you respond when, face to face, you would disuade them from "stupid" and "really crazy" ideas?

Also, regarding this: "Why not propose legislation to increase renewable R&D funding while cutting fossil fuel subsidies?"

If this has not already been done, why not do you suppose? If it has, what happened? Was there a "common ground" problem?

[Aquapod770]

(08-21-2019, 02:04 AM)Dill Wrote: How do people who don't already agree with you respond when, face to face, you would dissuade them from "stupid" and "really crazy" ideas?

Also, regarding this: "Why not propose legislation to increase renewable R&D funding while cutting fossil fuel subsidies?"

If this has not already been done, why not do you suppose? If it has, what happened? Was there a "common ground" problem?

1. You don't call their ideas stupid and really crazy. It's incredible, I know. Life changing. Most of the time you won't be able to change someones mind, but if you can get someone to at least see your side of the argument that's progress. 

2. Who knows? The last time there was any significant increase in R&D funding it was attached to the stimulus bill in 09 (a one year increase of $13 billion). I have not seen, or heard of, any other specific bills just targeting renewable energy research. If there are any they're probably attached to other bills. Which happens a lot more than you'd think it does. Why is the only solution supporting something as bad as the GND? 

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RS22858.pdf

[GMDino]

(08-21-2019, 09:25 AM)Aquapod770 Wrote: 1. You don't call their ideas stupid and really crazy. It's incredible, I know. Life changing. Most of the time you won't be able to change someones mind, but if you can get someone to at least see your side of the argument that's progress. 

2. Who knows? The last time there was any significant increase in R&D funding it was attached to the stimulus bill in 09 (a one year increase of $13 billion). I have not seen, or heard of, any other specific bills just targeting renewable energy research. If there are any they're probably attached to other bills. Which happens a lot more than you'd think it does. Why is the only solution supporting something as bad as the GND? 

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RS22858.pdf

Trump said the American people must be willing to accept financial hardships to win the trade war with China so that "we" can have better deals.

But we can't accept financial hardships to protect our water and air (those darn regulations) or any New Green Deal because that would cost money.  Or a national health care system.

It's a weird dichotomy.  It's okay for citizens to suffer so businesses can make more money but it's not okay for businesses to suffer so everyone can live healthfully.  

[Aquapod770]

(08-21-2019, 02:25 PM)GMDino Wrote: Trump said the American people must be willing to accept financial hardships to win the trade war with China so that "we" can have better deals.

But we can't accept financial hardships to protect our water and air (those darn regulations) or any New Green Deal because that would cost money.  Or a national health care system.

It's a weird dichotomy.  It's okay for citizens to suffer so businesses can make more money but it's not okay for businesses to suffer so everyone can live healthfully.  

(between 51 and 93 trillion dollars)


I've posted numerous times on here that Trumps tariffs are dumb. Nice try. Still waiting for you to admit the GND is dumb. 

BTW if the climate really is (and should be) the focus, why is only 20% of the cost associated with reducing our carbon footprint? 80% of the cost is for social programs, not clean energy. If AOC had proposed the aggressive climate policies of the GND by themselves without the extra fluff thrown in the costs would be between 10.2-18.6 trillion over a decade. That's a lot easier of a pill to swallow than 51-93 trillion. Right? Wouldn't that get a dialog going too? 

Tell me why the GND is a good idea without bringing up Trump. AOC is just the lefts version of Trump. All fluff and no substance. 

[GMDino]

(08-21-2019, 03:56 PM)Aquapod770 Wrote: (between 51 and 93 trillion dollars)


I've posted numerous times on here that Trumps tariffs are dumb. Nice try. Still waiting for you to admit the GND is dumb. 

BTW if the climate really is (and should be) the focus, why is only 20% of the cost associated with reducing our carbon footprint? 80% of the cost is for social programs, not clean energy. If AOC had proposed the aggressive climate policies of the GND by themselves without the extra fluff thrown in the costs would be between 10.2-18.6 trillion over a decade. That's a lot easier of a pill to swallow than 51-93 trillion. Right? Wouldn't that get a dialog going too? 

Tell me why the GND is a good idea without bringing up Trump. AOC is just the lefts version of Trump. All fluff and no substance. 

I'm not talking specifically about the GND...I'm talking about how one side focuses on the cost of any program when it comes to the environment.

[hollodero]

(08-21-2019, 03:56 PM)Aquapod770 Wrote: AOC is just the lefts version of Trump. All fluff and no substance. 

As soon as she starts calling herself a very stable genius - and claims that nobody knows more about technology (or trade, court, the visa system, campaign finances, taxes, renewable energy, drones, ISIS...) than her - or how US intelligence needs to be schooled by her - that the media that disagrees with her is corrupt and the enemy of the people - that her losing an election would be definite proof of voter fraud - that she knows the best words - as soon as she's doing all that while insulting her enemies and spreading fake left extremists' videos - and recruits her advisors from Huffington and demands loyalty of them - or says she knows the best people and then calls them dumb as a rock or dogs or things like that after firing them - when she does all that while rambling incoherently, making absurd stuff up on the fly, running her business on the side, putting her family members or doctors that praise her genes in high positions, insults people on twitter, lusts for the husbands of other leaders, talks shit to boyscouts, implies people not applauding her or even investigating her might be traitors, calls some MS-13 members "fine people" and invites foreign powers to give her dirt on her opponents, I might be inclined to start thinking of her as some kind of "the left's version of Trump".

As long as she does none of these things though, I will strongly reject that sentiment. She's an idealistic, overwhelmed young congresswoman. But not a version of Trump.

But yeah, the GND could have been proposed way better and that has nothing to do with Trump. I agree that far.

[JustWinBaby]

(08-21-2019, 01:54 AM)Dill Wrote: People are influenced by quite a bit more than that.

In 2010 the Tea party didn't fuel the largest midterm swing since the Depression because of commercials and op eds.

You're absolutely correct.  Some people actually vote in reaction to policy failures. Not many, but it happens.

[Aquapod770]

(08-21-2019, 04:34 PM)hollodero Wrote: As soon as she starts calling herself a very stable genius - and claims that nobody knows more about technology (or trade, court, the visa system, campaign finances, taxes, renewable energy, drones, ISIS...) than her - or how US intelligence needs to be schooled by her - that the media that disagrees with her is corrupt and the enemy of the people - (1) that her losing an election would be definite proof of voter fraud - that she knows the best words - as soon as she's doing all that (2) while insulting her enemies and spreading fake left extremists' videos - and recruits her advisors from Huffington and demands loyalty of them - or says she knows the best people and then calls them dumb as a rock or dogs or things like that after firing them - (3a) when she does all that while rambling incoherently,  (3b) making absurd stuff up on the fly, running her business on the side, putting her family members or doctors that praise her genes in high positions, (4) insults people on twitter, lusts for the husbands of other leaders, talks shit to boyscouts, implies people not applauding her or even investigating her might be traitors, calls some MS-13 members "fine people" and invites foreign powers to give her dirt on her opponents, I might be inclined to start thinking of her as some kind of "the left's version of Trump".

As long as she does none of these things though, I will strongly reject that sentiment. She's an idealistic, overwhelmed young congresswoman. But not a version of Trump.

But yeah, the GND could have been proposed way better and that has nothing to do with Trump. I agree that far.

1) Does calling the electoral college a scam and disservice to the constitution because your side lost count? She would kind of have a point about it hurting minorities if she brought up gerrymandering, but that's not what she focused on. 

2) Does threatening someone with your "subpoena power" count? She certainly spreads false information, but hey, we should be more concerned about being morally right? 

3) Done and done. 

4) Spend a few minutes on the subreddit r/Murderedbywords...most of it is cringey twitter "clapbacks" from her. 

She's certainly got a ways to go to catch up to ol' Drumpf, but she's doing a great job so far 

[GMDino]

Watching the back and forth between Aqua and Dill bring to mind a worry I have had recently:

Trump has lowered the bar so far that the right will accept people who behave like him in the future and attack everyone who does anything even remotely similar ("clapback" lol) as being "just like Trump".

There is one Trump (hopefully) and no one reaches his level of pettiness and childishness.

Any comparison to AOC or any other politician in the US is really a stretch at this point.  But I fear it is something the GOP will use.  Like attacking Omar for questioning Jewish loyalty and remaining utterly silent when DJT does the same thing.

[Forever Spinning Vinyl]

I worry that someone like Stephen Miller rises up after this and takes his place. He's far more dangerous. At least Drumpf tweets every thought so you kind of have an idea of what's going on. With Miller, you'll find out his awful deeds way down the road.

[Aquapod770]

(08-22-2019, 09:32 AM)GMDino Wrote: Watching the back and forth between Aqua and Dill bring to mind a worry I have had recently:

Trump has lowered the bar so far that the right will accept people who behave like him in the future and attack everyone who does anything even remotely similar ("clapback" lol) as being "just like Trump".

There is one Trump (hopefully) and no one reaches his level of pettiness and childishness.

Any comparison to AOC or any other politician in the US is really a stretch at this point.  But I fear it is something the GOP will use.  Like attacking Omar for questioning Jewish loyalty and remaining utterly silent when DJT does the same thing.

Hmmm. That's interesting. What if he has lowered the bar so far that the left will accept anything as long as it's not as bad as what Trump does? But I digress...this conversation isn't, and shouldn't be, about Trump.

You and Hollodero were the ones who brought Trump into the conversation. Not me. Nice try though   

I was perfectly happy debating the merits of the GND by itself, but as with everything in 2019, Trump gets brought up. I responded to bringing Trump into the conversation. At least Hollodero has kinda admitted the GND isn't great. Which is pretty much how this whole conversation got started. I claimed she has had a lot of bad ideas, to which JJ screamed "fake news". I pointed out I read both versions of the GND and it really was terrible as just one example of her legitimately bad ideas, and some how (it's a great mystery I know) everyone who has replied to me wants to bring Trump into the conversation. 

[Forever Spinning Vinyl]

Probably because without the rise of Trump, there would be no AOC. Without Obama, there would be no Tea Party.

[SunsetBengal]

(08-22-2019, 10:17 AM)Forever Spinning Vinyl Wrote: Probably because without the rise of Trump, there would be no AOC. Without Obama, there would be no Tea Party.

I'm not so sure I agree with that statement.  Bernie Sanders has been around (politically) much longer than Trump, and AOC just seems to be piggy backing and expanding upon his Socialist ideals.

[GMDino]

(08-22-2019, 09:53 AM)Aquapod770 Wrote: Hmmm. That's interesting. What if he has lowered the bar so far that the left will accept anything as long as it's not as bad as what Trump does? But I digress...this conversation isn't, and shouldn't be, about Trump.

That's always a possibility. But since it hasn't happened yet it can be put on the back burner for what is already happening with the GOP.

(08-22-2019, 09:53 AM)Aquapod770 Wrote: You and Hollodero were the ones who brought Trump into the conversation. Not me. Nice try though   

I wasn't blaming you for mentioning Trump. I was using you saying AOC is the same as Trump as the jumping point for another thought.

(08-22-2019, 09:53 AM)Aquapod770 Wrote: I was perfectly happy debating the merits of the GND by itself, but as with everything in 2019, Trump gets brought up. I responded to bringing Trump into the conversation. At least Hollodero has kinda admitted the GND isn't great. Which is pretty much how this whole conversation got started. I claimed she has had a lot of bad ideas, to which JJ screamed "fake news". I pointed out I read both versions of the GND and it really was terrible as just one example of her legitimately bad ideas, and some how (it's a great mystery I know) everyone who has replied to me wants to bring Trump into the conversation. 

The merits of the GND aside her "bad idea" is about improving the country and the world at its base. Which is why comparisons to Trump's "ideas" are legitimate as his seem to be based on...? Especially if the right has not stood up to Trump's "ideas" at all.

[Arturo Bandini]

(08-22-2019, 10:50 AM)SunsetBengal Wrote: I'm not so sure I agree with that statement.  Bernie Sanders has been around (politically) much longer than Trump, and AOC just seems to be piggy backing and expanding upon his Socialist ideals.

What do you call socialism exactly ?

[*michaelsean*]

(08-22-2019, 11:05 AM)Arturo Bandini Wrote: What do you call socialism exactly ?

France.  

[*michaelsean*]

I believe in climate change, I just don't know if it's a bad thing. It appears a bad thing based on how we have arranged ourselves on the globe, but what is the decider in what the ideal climate in the world is? We just happen to live in the most ideal climate? Now reducing air pollution is always a good thing, so nothing wrong with reducing fossil fuels. Maybe it's just ignorance (bliss?) on my part, but I just have a hard time thinking the world is headed for disaster.

[GMDino]

(08-22-2019, 11:18 AM)michaelsean Wrote: I believe in climate change, I just don't know if it's a bad thing.  It appears a bad thing based on how we have arranged ourselves on the globe, but what is the decider in what the ideal climate in the world is? We just happen to live in the most ideal climate? Now reducing air pollution is always a good thing, so nothing wrong with reducing fossil fuels.  Maybe it's just ignorance (bliss?) on my part, but I just have a hard time thinking the world is headed for disaster.

To me it comes down to if we can agree on reducing pollution and the use of fossil fuels then we can agree that doing things to benefit the environment is good.  So it is not that far of a leap to agreeing that climate change is worth working on.

I *do* see the Earth headed toward disaster.  Rising sea levels and higher temps are just the most obvious examples.  Humans have an amazing ability to adapt to our environments and then to alter them to our will.  But we are still just animals and can only survive if we have air and water and food and shelter.  Climate change will challenge and change a lot of that.

We are seeing the shifting weather patterns already.  The question is if we can slow it, stop it or reverse it.  Or if it is too late.

Now, with all that said, a natural disaster could radically alter our planet and make all of this moot.  Gigantic volcanic eruption that cools the earth for example.  But we should be working (together) toward answers anyway.  IMHO.