New Green Deal Proposal

[*bfine32*]

(03-26-2019, 07:56 PM)hollodero Wrote: Is this something that is usually done in US lawmaking? One party taking up another party member's proposal for a vote straight up, without any committees, hearings etc. coming first?

Not sure if it's usual, but I think they recently did it on the anti-hate proposal. 

[*michaelsean*]

(03-26-2019, 07:44 PM)bfine32 Wrote: FWIW, here's the results of the vote.
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/senate-republicans-force-vote-green-193802608.html
No need to share your views just read it and understand.

All those wanna be presidents who lived this thing should have some pretty harsh words for senate dems.

[*bfine32*]

(03-26-2019, 07:59 PM)michaelsean Wrote: All those wanna be presidents who lived this thing should have some pretty harsh words for senate dems.

What are you talking about? The vast majority of the Dems had the moral courage to vote Present. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-26-2019, 07:44 PM)bfine32 Wrote: FWIW, here's the results of the vote.
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/senate-republicans-force-vote-green-193802608.html
No need to share your views just read it and understand.

McConnell is a weasly, goofy-looking dude, but he can play the political game as well as any.  Very smart move on his part.  Endless campaign adds of "Dems won't even vote yes for The Green Deal, yet they claim to care about climate change?"  He used their own proposed legislation to paint themselves into a corner.

[*bfine32*]

(03-26-2019, 08:06 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: McConnell is a weasly, goofy-looking dude, but he can play the political game as well as any.  Very smart move on his part.  Endless campaign adds of "Dems won't even vote yes for The Green Deal, yet they claim to care about climate change?"  He used their own proposed legislation to paint themselves into a corner.

That's exactly where I am on it. Dems proposed legislation, so Mitch said "let's vote on it" and for SOME REASON it made the Dems mad. As I said earlier: it's similar to what the Dems did in the House with the Anti-hate bill. But at least a few GOP had the moral courage to stand up to it. Of course they were quickly painted as racists. 

[hollodero]

(03-26-2019, 08:06 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: "Dems won't even vote yes for The Green Deal, yet they claim to care about climate change?"  

Isn't that quite a weak attack line though. Putting the obvious unfairness aside - as if CC can only be dealt with by an over the top proposal from some freshman or not be dealt with at all. Candidates can quite easily say, yeah CC demands action, but not that specific package. Would that really look unreasonable or hypocritical, and isn't that what many are already doing (or has any presidential candidate come out and said, yeah I'm for battling climate change and AOC's idea is exactly the way to go)?

I'd guess no one believing CC needs to be dealt with will vote Republican because of that proposal vote down. (Thanks to bfine and michaelsean for the explanation.) And it does look a bit unconstructive to bring it up now. If I despised political games, I'd despise that one too.

[hollodero]

(03-26-2019, 08:17 PM)bfine32 Wrote: That's exactly where I am on it. Dems proposed legislation, so Mitch said "let's vote on it" and for SOME REASON it made the Dems mad. As I said earlier: it's similar to what the Dems did in the House with the Anti-hate bill. But at least a few GOP had the moral courage to stand up to it. Of course they were quickly painted as racists. 

I don't know... being against hate of all sorts looks a bit different as being in favor of a bunch of specific very extensive measures.

Not that I want to defend the hate bill theater, it looked more awful than anything. But it rather seemed to deal with their own ranks, not so much with republicans. But maybe I got that wrong.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-26-2019, 08:22 PM)hollodero Wrote: Isn't that quite a weak attack line though. Putting the obvious unfairness aside - as if CC can only be dealt with by an over the top proposal from some freshman or not be dealt with at all. Candidates can quite easily say, yeah CC demands action, but not that specific package. Would that really look unreasonable or hypocritical, and isn't that what many are already doing (or has any presidential candidate come out and said, yeah I'm for battling climate change and AOC's idea is exactly the way to go)?

I'd guess no one believing CC needs to be dealt with will vote Republican because of that proposal vote down. (Thanks to bfine and michaelsean for the explanation.) And it does look a bit unconstructive to bring it up now. If I despised political games, I'd despise that one too.

You say this because you don't understand US politics and the ads that are the most effective.  When you can point to a sliver of truth, such as my quote, you can attach all kinds of accusations to it as Joe and Jane Doe are never going to actually research the claims being made.  Look no further than the John McCain's illegitimate black daughter ad.

[*bfine32*]

(03-26-2019, 08:25 PM)hollodero Wrote: I don't know... being against hate of all sorts looks a bit different as being in favor of a bunch of specific very extensive measures.

Not that I want to defend the hate bill theater, it looked more awful than anything. But it rather seemed to deal with their own ranks, not so much with republicans. But maybe I got that wrong.

Yeah, you got that one wrong. The anti-hate measure proposed by the house was an attempt to mitigate something one of their own did. It was akin to Trump saying "There are good people on both sides". The Dems chose to throw the baby out with the bath water. 

[hollodero]

(03-26-2019, 08:26 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You say this because you don't understand US politics and the ads that are the most effective.

Admittedly, I have trouble with that still - althoug my society isn't that mcuih better in that regard. But I feel that these lines mostly work with those that have their political mind made up anyways and merely look for talking points to throw at (in this case) libtards. I doubt though it will change people's perceptions and cause a flow from dems to reps.

As for McCains child, I have never heard of that one before. I heard a lot about Obama being an america-hating Kenyan muslim though, so I do not doubt the effectiveness of lies and gross misrepresentations. I just don't believe folks that accept CC as real and a non-hoax that needs to be dealt with are so easily persuaded by such a misrepresentation.

[hollodero]

(03-26-2019, 08:32 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Yeah, you got that one wrong. The anti-hate measure proposed by the house was an attempt to mitigate something one of their own did.

That's what I meant. Rather dealt with their own ranks.

(03-26-2019, 08:32 PM)bfine32 Wrote: It was akin to Trump saying "There are good people on both sides". The Dems chose to throw the baby out with the bath water. 

I disagree vehemently that it's akin to that. Not even just because of anti-Trump sentiments, but also because Charlottesville Nazis are not conservatives and hence it shouldn't have been about "mitigating something one of their own did". That it seemed to be about that for Trump is one of the disturbing aspects of that.
By that I'm not saying I'm perfectly fine with Omar's words or with the Dems' reaction. But these are vastly different instances.

[*bfine32*]

(03-26-2019, 08:46 PM)hollodero Wrote: That's what I meant. Rather dealt with their own ranks.



I disagree vehemently that it's akin to that. Not even just because of anti-Trump sentiments, but also because Charlottesville Nazis are not conservatives and hence it shouldn't have been about "mitigating something one of their own did". That it seemed to be about that for Trump is one of the disturbing aspects of that.
By that I'm not saying I'm perfectly fine with Omar's words or with the Dems' reaction. But these are vastly different instances.

Vehement disagreeance aside. It's really not if you believe the narrative.

Many folks think Trump uttered those words, not because he actually felt there were good people on each side, but to mitigate the actions of the "Nazis"; although there were many other organizations there.

Likewise many think the Dems said "Let's condemn all hate speech", not because they truly felt is was required, but to mitigate the hate speech spewed by one of their own. **

**Disclaimer: bfine fully recognizes that any hate spewed by Omar pales to the loss of life; he was merely pointing to the similarities in the POV

[hollodero]

(03-26-2019, 08:56 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Vehement disagreeance aside. It's really not if you believe the narrative.

Many folks think Trump uttered those words, not because he actually felt there were good people on each side, but to mitigate the actions of the "Nazis"; although there were many other organizations there.

...that had no problem marching alongside nazis and white supremacists.

(03-26-2019, 08:56 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Likewise many think the Dems said "Let's condemn all hate speech", not because they truly felt is was required, but to mitigate the hate speech spewed by one of their own. **

**Disclaimer: bfine fully recognizes that any hate spewed by Omar pales to the loss of life; he was merely pointing to the similarities in the POV

hollodero accepts the disclaimer. He also thinks that even taking the loss of life aside, Omar's words didn't reach Nazi hate speech and Charlottesville marching levels.
As for the Democrats, he finds it a bit far fetched to assume they might not really be against hate speech. This seems like the less credible narrative.

@topic hollodero also takes issue with using an important topic like CC to score cheap political points.

[*michaelsean*]

(03-26-2019, 08:22 PM)hollodero Wrote: Isn't that quite a weak attack line though. Putting the obvious unfairness aside - as if CC can only be dealt with by an over the top proposal from some freshman or not be dealt with at all. Candidates can quite easily say, yeah CC demands action, but not that specific package. Would that really look unreasonable or hypocritical, and isn't that what many are already doing (or has any presidential candidate come out and said, yeah I'm for battling climate change and AOC's idea is exactly the way to go)?

I'd guess no one believing CC needs to be dealt with will vote Republican because of that proposal vote down. (Thanks to bfine and michaelsean for the explanation.) And it does look a bit unconstructive to bring it up now. If I despised political games, I'd despise that one too.

https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/429342-what-key-2020-candidates-are-saying-about-the-green-new-deal

[hollodero]

(03-26-2019, 09:53 PM)michaelsean Wrote: https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/429342-what-key-2020-candidates-are-saying-about-the-green-new-deal

Oops.
I stand corrected. 

I thought (and for many still somewhat think) they are more along Buttigieg's lines

Quote:"Obviously, the Green New Deal, as we have seen it so far, is more of a plan than it is a fully articulated set of policies. But the idea that we need to race toward that goal and that we should do it in a way that enhances the economic justice and the level of economic opportunity in our country, I believe that's exactly the right direction to be going in."

...and (to me quite reasonable) stances like this are not fettered by a McConnell manoeuver.
Those who back "the" green new deal and not "a" green new deal unequivocally though will be forced to somewhat clarify their stance or are indeed caught in the trap. Well as I said, I stand corrected. I tend to overestimate democrats.

[*michaelsean*]

(03-26-2019, 10:04 PM)hollodero Wrote: Oops.
I stand corrected. 

I thought (and for many still somewhat think) they are more along Buttigieg's lines


...and (to me quite reasonable) stances like this are not fettered by a McConnell manoeuver.
Those who back "the" green new deal and not "a" green new deal unequivocally though will be forced to somewhat clarify their stance or are indeed caught in the trap. Well as I said, I stand corrected. I tend to overestimate democrats.

I don’t think “stand corrected”. Looked to me like you were asking a question.

[hollodero]

(03-26-2019, 10:13 PM)michaelsean Wrote: I don’t think “stand corrected”.  Looked to me like you were asking a question.

Oh yeah right, I did ask and not state, wise as I am I knew I know nothing and barely even that. I stand corrected about standing corrected!

[Nebuchadnezzar]

The Pubs are setting the Crats up for "Gottcha" moments when it comes election time and will harp on this one thing just to throw certain Crats off.

Pubs now have ammo against opponents in many different ways.

I can see the ad now. "So in so said the Green New Deal was a fantastic idea, that we need more of this type of thinking in Washington and yet so in so voted against the Green New Deal...How can you trust so in so?"

So in so will put out an ad stating, "The Green New Deal was a template, a jumping board if you will to get the conversation started...I want us to be clean."

Pub ad the next day, "so in so said that the Green New Deal was a fantastic idea, no so in so says 'no no no I never said that'...here's sound and video of so in so saying it was fantastic and that we need more of this in Washington...so which is it so in so? Do you even know what's coming to the floor? Or do you just vote for the 'D'?"

Something stupid like that.

While it won't change 99% of Crats minds, that 1% can change an election and if you get enough of those 1%'s, it can change a country...for better or worse.

[fredtoast]

(03-26-2019, 08:56 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Many folks think Trump uttered those words, not because he actually felt there were good people on each side, but to mitigate the actions of the "Nazis"; although there were many other organizations there.

What other organizations?  And if they were "good people" why were they willing to march with neo-nazis chanting "blood and soil"

(03-26-2019, 08:56 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Likewise many think the Dems said "Let's condemn all hate speech", not because they truly felt is was required, but to mitigate the hate speech spewed by one of their own. **

I don't think you understand what "mitigate" means.  How exactly does condemning hate speech make it not as bad?  Seems kind of the opposit to me.

[GMDino]

(03-26-2019, 08:56 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Vehement disagreeance aside. It's really not if you believe the narrative.

Many folks think Trump uttered those words, not because he actually felt there were good people on each side, but to mitigate the actions of the "Nazis"; although there were many other organizations there.

Likewise many think the Dems said "Let's condemn all hate speech", not because they truly felt is was required, but to mitigate the hate speech spewed by one of their own. **

**Disclaimer: bfine fully recognizes that any hate spewed by Omar pales to the loss of life; he was merely pointing to the similarities in the POV

Thee were other groups there.  They were historians who wanted the statues to stay if I remember correctly.  

I don't think that is what DJT was asked about.  He was asked to say something about the Nazi's who were marching witht he torches chanting "The Jews shall not replace us" and such. 

He said "very good people on BOTH sides".

Now, don't get me wrong, I don't truly believe that Trump even really knew what he was talking about because no one was chanting "Trump" so he probably didn't pay any attention to anything that happened that day.  He just reacted (poorly) to the question because his instinct is to not saying anything at all that makes sense.  Double talk, repeat himself, then get angry when asked to clarify.  He's done it that way for almost 40 years in the public.

That's what happens when you elect a "man" like DJT.  But the right and the Republican party are so giddy that they can tear down any protections for Americans (except a wall...lol) that they look the other way and hold their noses and in some cases DEFEND the awful things he says and does just so they can push their agenda.