Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 61 to 69 of 69

Thread: Democrat 2020

  1. #61
    Apr 04-Nov 11 Senior Member Strike For The South's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Between Louis' sheets
    Posts
    10,289

    Default Re: Democrat 2020

    Quote Originally Posted by Montmorency View Post
    In other news, this Buzzfeed poll has half of Democrats self-labelling as "socialist" or "democratic socialist". It also finds a quarter of Republicans self-labelling so.

    Important caveat: all those polled were Millennials.

    If these results are reproducible, it could be good or bad for us.

    Positive: The possibility to weaken the Republican base with fiscal liberalism vs. social conservatism.
    Negative: Social conservatism wins out and the GOP becomes genuinely representative of its constituency, adopting a Strasserite plank (or worse).

    Regardless, very interesting that a quarter of Republican-sorted millennials would count themselves as socialists.
    That poll is wild man.
    “I was not designed to be forced. I will breathe after my own fashion. Let us see who is the strongest.” -Thoreau

    My aim, then, was to whip the rebels, to humble their pride, to follow them to their inmost recesses, and make them fear and dread us. Fear is the beginning of wisdom.

    I am tired and sick of war. Its glory is all moonshine. It is only those who have neither fired a shot nor heard the shrieks and groans of the wounded who cry aloud for blood, for vengeance, for desolation.

  2. #62

    Default Re: Democrat 2020

    Quote Originally Posted by Don Corleone View Post
    The first candidate that puts forward a position statement on a reasonable, executable action plan for retarding the increase in global temperatures will have my vote. When your house is on fire, you can cut the grass later.
    What do you think of the Green New Deal as a rhetorical concept?


    Quote Originally Posted by The Hill
    Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) on Thursday introduced a new climate change resolution with aims to bring the progressive Green New Deal to life legislatively and push the U.S. to take a lead role in reducing carbon emissions through the economy. The proposal, titled “Recognizing the duty of the Federal Government to create a Green New Deal,” has a goal of creating millions of “good, high-wage jobs” by striving for net-zero greenhouse gas emissions. Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) is introducing a companion proposal in the upper chamber.

    [...]

    “Whereas, because the United States has historically been responsible for a disproportionate amount of greenhouse gas emissions, having emitted 20 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions through 2014, and has a high technological capacity, the United States must take a leading role in reducing emissions through economic transformation,” the resolution reads. The proposal says that accomplishing the plan would take a 10 year “national mobilization” and would include resilience building, a 100 percent renewable-energy driven power grid, updating “smart” power grids and increasing building energy efficiency. Buried in the resolution is also a commitment that all future infrastructure bills would specifically address climate change. The text also calls for a long wish list for Ocasio-Cortez, including seeking environmental changes not directly related to climate change such as supporting family farming, guaranteeing universal access to clean drinking water and investments in high-speed railroads.

    “Even the solutions that we have considered big and bold are nowhere near the scale of the actual problem that climate change presents to us, to our country, to the world,” Ocasio-Cortez said in an interview on NPR on Thursday. This is really about providing justice for communities and just transitions for communities. So, really the heart of the Green New Deal is about social justice.”
    Quote Originally Posted by Resolution
    Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Representatives that—
    (1) it is the duty of the Federal Government to
    create a Green New Deal
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

    (A) to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas
    emissions through a fair and just transition for all communities and workers;
    (B) to create millions of good, high-wage jobs and ensure prosperity and economic security for all people of the United States;
    (C) to invest in the infrastructure and industry of the United States to sustainably meet the challenges of the 21st century;
    (D) to secure for all people of the United States for generations to come—
    (i) clean air and water;
    (ii) climate and community resiliency;
    (iii) healthy food;
    (iv) access to nature; and
    (v) a sustainable environment; and
    (E) to promote justice and equity by stopping current, preventing future, and repairing historic oppression of indigenous peoples, communities of color, migrant communities, deindustrialized communities, depopulated rural communities, the poor, low-income workers, women, the elderly, the unhoused, people with disabilities, and youth (referred to in this resolution as ‘‘frontline and vulnerable communities’’);


    (2) the goals described in subparagraphs (A) through (E) of paragraph (1) (referred to in this resolution as the ‘‘Green New Deal goals’’) should be accomplished through a 10-year national mobilization (referred to in this resolution as the ‘‘Green New Deal mobilization’’) that will require the following goals and projects—
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

    (A) building resiliency against climate change-related disasters, such as extreme weather, including by leveraging funding and providing investments for community-defined projects and strategies;
    (B) repairing and upgrading the infrastructure in the United States, including—
    (i) by eliminating pollution and greenhouse gas emissions as much as technologically feasible;
    (ii) by guaranteeing universal access to clean water;
    (iii) by reducing the risks posed by climate impacts; and
    (iv) by ensuring that any infrastructure bill considered by Congress addresses climate change;
    (C) meeting 100 percent of the power demand in the United States through clean, renewable, and zero-emission energy sources, including—
    (i) by dramatically expanding and upgrading renewable power sources; and
    (ii) by deploying new capacity;
    (D) building or upgrading to energy-efficient, distributed, and ‘‘smart’’ power grids, and ensuring affordable access to electricity;
    (E) upgrading all existing buildings in the United States and building new buildings to achieve maximum energy efficiency, water efficiency, safety, affordability, comfort, and durability, including through electrification;
    (F) spurring massive growth in clean manufacturing in the United States and removing pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from manufacturing and industry as much as is technologically feasible, including by expanding renewable energy manufacturing and investing in existing manufacturing and industry;
    (G) working collaboratively with farmers and ranchers in the United States to remove pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from the agricultural sector as much as is technologically feasible, including—
    (i) by supporting family farming;
    (ii) by investing in sustainable farming and land use practices that increase soil health; and
    (iii) by building a more sustainable food system that ensures universal access to healthy food;
    (H) overhauling transportation systems in the United States to remove pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector as much as is technologically feasible, including through investment in—
    (i) zero-emission vehicle infrastructure and manufacturing;
    (ii) clean, affordable, and accessible public transit; and
    (iii) high-speed rail;
    (I) mitigating and managing the long-term adverse health, economic, and other effects of pollution and climate change, including by providing funding for community-defined projects and strategies;
    (J) removing greenhouse gases from the atmosphere and reducing pollution by restoring natural ecosystems through proven low-tech solutions that increase soil carbon storage, such as land preservation and afforestation;
    (K) restoring and protecting threatened, endangered, and fragile ecosystems through locally appropriate and science-based projects that enhance biodiversity and support climate resiliency;
    (L) cleaning up existing hazardous waste and abandoned sites, ensuring economic development and sustainability on those sites;
    (M) identifying other emission and pollution sources and creating solutions to remove them; and
    (N) promoting the international exchange of technology, expertise, products, funding, and services, with the aim of making the United States the international leader on climate action, and to help other countries achieve a Green New Deal;
    Did someone say "national mobilization"?!


    Quote Originally Posted by Strike For The South View Post
    That poll is wild man.
    In a good or bad way?
    Vitiate Man.

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

    Member thankful for this post:



  3. #63
    Apr 04-Nov 11 Senior Member Strike For The South's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Between Louis' sheets
    Posts
    10,289

    Default Re: Democrat 2020

    Quote Originally Posted by Montmorency View Post
    In a good or bad way?
    I am kind of shocked how many people thought being white and male mattered when "it doesn't matter" is an option. Also men seem to be more tribal generally while women seem more focused on the end goal. Really outside of the socialism/social democrat moniker, the poll skewed kind of conservative.
    “I was not designed to be forced. I will breathe after my own fashion. Let us see who is the strongest.” -Thoreau

    My aim, then, was to whip the rebels, to humble their pride, to follow them to their inmost recesses, and make them fear and dread us. Fear is the beginning of wisdom.

    I am tired and sick of war. Its glory is all moonshine. It is only those who have neither fired a shot nor heard the shrieks and groans of the wounded who cry aloud for blood, for vengeance, for desolation.

  4. #64

    Default Re: Democrat 2020

    Quote Originally Posted by Strike For The South View Post
    I am kind of shocked how many people thought being white and male mattered when "it doesn't matter" is an option. Also men seem to be more tribal generally while women seem more focused on the end goal. Really outside of the socialism/social democrat moniker, the poll skewed kind of conservative.
    I would say, on some questions the breakdowns are more in line with generic polling, in others they're not. For example, on the question(s) you're referring to more Independents than Democrats said "It doesn't matter" and on Q4 cross-party voting was elevated for both Republicans and Democrats, but on Q8-9 most people have positive/improved views of Obama (Republicans split), and on Q24 80% of Dems and 32% of Republicans support impeaching Trump, which is way higher than any similar polls on that question I've seen so far.

    Like I said, you need to reproduce, especially when targeting specific age groups (here Millennials).
    Vitiate Man.

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

  5. #65
    Jillian & Allison's Daddy Senior Member Don Corleone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Athens, GA
    Posts
    7,561

    Default Re: Democrat 2020

    What do you think of the Green New Deal as a rhetorical concept?
    To be honest, with my travel to China this past week, I haven't had as much time to go through it as I would have liked. From what I have read and heard, the Green New Deal sounds like a good starting point, but insufficient in and of itself.

    I'm going to wind up sounding like a shill for Forbes, but to me, any plan to reduce CO2 emissions and other airborne pollutants that relies exclusively on renewables, and ignores nuclear, is more of a marketing pitch for renewables than it is an environmental policy. Yes, we should absolutely show strong preference towards renewables (which do not come at zero environmental cost either).

    But I don't think you can meet 21st century earth's power needs on renenwables alone. Haven't done the order of magnitude calculations on latest efficiencies in wind turbine and solar cell technologies though.
    "A man who doesn't spend time with his family can never be a real man."
    Don Vito Corleone: The Godfather, Part 1.

    "Then wait for them and swear to God in heaven that if they spew that bull to you or your family again you will cave there heads in with a sledgehammer"
    Strike for the South

  6. #66
    Backordered Member CrossLOPER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Brass heart.
    Posts
    2,256

    Default Re: Democrat 2020

    Quote Originally Posted by Don Corleone View Post
    Forbes...nuclear
    The guy who shills nuclear on forbes is a dude who got bullied by other environmentalists because he wants a "pro-business infinite growth" approach to environmentalism, which is impossible. He wants nuclear because it provides "cheap, clean" energy, sort of like clean coal. One of his reasons for speaking against wind-power was because it kills birds. This is true, but it is hilarious because

    a. The amount of birds killed by turbines is difficult to calculate, but is generally considered minimal compared to something like HAVING WINDOWS.

    b. Wind power kills about half as many birds as.... nuclear power.

    He is basically classified among the same groups like Spencer's alt-right, who have gloriously ingenious yet simple solutions to complex problems that only they are willing to talk about because the leftist media won't.

    Do not be deceived. Read his books. The sources he cites are at about the level of credibility of climate4u.org.
    Requesting suggestions for new sig.

    -><- GOGOGO GOGOGO WINLAND WINLAND ALL HAIL TECHNOVIKING!SCHUMACHER!
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    WHY AM I NOT BEING PAID FOR THIS???

  7. #67
    Praefectus Fabrum Senior Member Anime BlackJack Champion, Flash Poker Champion, Word Up Champion, Shape Game Champion, Snake Shooter Champion, Fishwater Challenge Champion, Rocket Racer MX Champion, Jukebox Hero Champion, Cub Shoot 2 Champion, My House Is Bigger Than Your House Champion, Funky Pong Champion, Cutie Quake Champion, Fling The Cow Champion, Treasure Diver Champion, Tiger Punch Champion, Virus Champion, Solitaire Champion, Worm Race Champion, Slack Man Champion, Japanese Baseball Champion, Rope Walker Champion, Penguin Pass Champion, Skate Park Champion, Super Mario Mushroom Champion, Watch Out Champion, Lawn Pac Champion, Weapons Of Mass Destruction Champion, Skate Boarder Champion, Fish Kill Champion, Lane Bowling Champion, Bugz Champion, Makai Grand Prix 2 Champion, KF 9000 Champion, White Van Man Champion, Parachute Panic Champion, BlackJack Champion, Stans Ski Jumping Champion, Smaugs Treasure Champion, Sofa Longjump Champion Seamus Fermanagh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Latibulm mali regis in muris.
    Posts
    10,772

    Default Re: Democrat 2020

    Quote Originally Posted by CrossLOPER View Post
    The guy who shills nuclear on forbes is a dude who got bullied by other environmentalists because he wants a "pro-business infinite growth" approach to environmentalism, which is impossible. He wants nuclear because it provides "cheap, clean" energy, sort of like clean coal. One of his reasons for speaking against wind-power was because it kills birds. This is true, but it is hilarious because

    a. The amount of birds killed by turbines is difficult to calculate, but is generally considered minimal compared to something like HAVING WINDOWS.

    b. Wind power kills about half as many birds as.... nuclear power.

    He is basically classified among the same groups like Spencer's alt-right, who have gloriously ingenious yet simple solutions to complex problems that only they are willing to talk about because the leftist media won't.

    Do not be deceived. Read his books. The sources he cites are at about the level of credibility of climate4u.org.
    Fission power is not a panacea. While its environmental impact is less than coal or oil based electricity generation, it is not a zero by any means. But I think Don C has a valid point. Renewables are simply NOT at the levels of efficiency needed for a world that is using more and more electricity by the day. Without judicious use of fission power -- at least until renewables can increase efficiency enough and/or we can get fusion power to reach practical use levels -- it is hard to see us setting aside enough of the fossil fuels used for electricity to engender the emission reduction sought by climate change specialists.

    And any solution which says 'just use less power' is (despite the good intentions) a non-starter.
    "The only way that has ever been discovered to have a lot of people cooperate together voluntarily is through the free market. And that's why it's so essential to preserving individual freedom.” -- Milton Friedman

    "The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule." -- H. L. Mencken

  8. #68
    Member Member Tuuvi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    The wild west
    Posts
    1,369

    Default Re: Democrat 2020

    Quote Originally Posted by Don Corleone View Post
    To be honest, with my travel to China this past week, I haven't had as much time to go through it as I would have liked. From what I have read and heard, the Green New Deal sounds like a good starting point, but insufficient in and of itself.

    I'm going to wind up sounding like a shill for Forbes, but to me, any plan to reduce CO2 emissions and other airborne pollutants that relies exclusively on renewables, and ignores nuclear, is more of a marketing pitch for renewables than it is an environmental policy. Yes, we should absolutely show strong preference towards renewables (which do not come at zero environmental cost either).

    But I don't think you can meet 21st century earth's power needs on renenwables alone. Haven't done the order of magnitude calculations on latest efficiencies in wind turbine and solar cell technologies though.
    After what happened at Fukushima and Chernobyl I'm extremely skeptical of nuclear power. It may be safe 99% of the time but when something goes wrong the effects are too catastrophic for nuclear power to be worth the risk, in my opinion.

    If renewables aren't capable of meeting our current energy needs than I think that means we will have to cut back on consumption which will require a drastic reconfiguration of our economic system. I'm partial to the eco-socialist view that Capitalism is extremely wasteful and it's demand for never-ending economic growth isn't compatible with sound environmental practice.
    Last edited by Tuuvi; Yesterday at 19:54.

  9. #69
    Iron Fist Senior Member Husar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    15,484

    Default Re: Democrat 2020

    Quote Originally Posted by Don Corleone View Post
    But I don't think you can meet 21st century earth's power needs on renenwables alone. Haven't done the order of magnitude calculations on latest efficiencies in wind turbine and solar cell technologies though.
    I'f I remember correctly, you could power the entire US with solar plants in a fraction of the Nevada desert and Europe from the Sahara desert.

    https://www.inverse.com/article/3423...-power-the-usa

    Solar panels in the sense of ones that produce energy directly, aren't even the best method. If you just use mirrors to heat oil in pipes and then use that heat to generate energy, you can also store some of the heat in sand tanks for use at night, without requiring lots of batteries.
    For europe, there was/is the idea of Desertec https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desertec, this also includes a map for how much space you need to supply the world, Europe, etc (in 2005, but there is plenty of space for growth). The biggest issue appears to be finance because capitalists probably don't expect too many returns from energy that is basically available for free in the long term or just shy away from the huge investment in the beginning if they already have plenty of profitable power plants...

    The idea to power Europe from the Sahara desert already existed before WW1, but was shafted during the war, when oil became the fuel of choice due to convenience in wartime...

    The only thing stopping us in the end is the will to actually do it.
    Last edited by Husar; Today at 00:27.


    "Topic is tired and needs a nap." - Tosa Inu

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO