The Green New Deal is out; most Orwellian Socialist garbage I have ever seen

originally posted by: Carcharadon

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: continuousThunder

You know about all the evil big corporations that are moving away from fossil fuel right?

Can't do it overnight like the utopians would like to see because "overnight" would kill 3 billion people.

Today about 8% of the U.S. electricity is solar.

MSM is reluctant to tell you however. Can't imagine why 😂

This is an important point.

I was discussing cliomate change with a friend of mine that thinks we are all dead in 100 years; claims its basically a scientific consensus (I dont agree, but fine)

I asked him what solutions he would propose. he says the nimmediate banning of fossil fuels.

I ask him if that would save us from extinction. He says its probably already too late, but there is a small chance it could stave of the extinction for a while.

I ask him if he is 100 percent certain of that extinction. He says not a 100% but almost positive.

I explain that the overnight end of fossil fuels would lead to billions of people dying horrific deaths in the near future. SStarvation, disease, exposure, bloodshed that would resukt from resource wars. And that it would be the poor that would be totally wiped out. Probably more than half the population of the world.

He says its worth the risk.

So in effect, my friend isnt 100 percent certain, but close to it the world will end, that there is pretty much nothing we can do about it, but we should enact a policy leading to the deaths of billions of predominantly poor people.

If there is even a slight chance his extremly bold prediction that we are extinct in 100 years is wrong, he has advocated for the brutal death of billions of people just so he can feel good.

And many many people feel just like him.

That is the problem.

I have friends that I disagree with politically but I can honestly say I dont have any friends like that guy.

Are you still friends with him? And if so, why? That guy is quite clearly a lunatic.

He'd make a great guard in the camps. Or as a Commissar in the Cheka.

He's basically Mao, Hitler or Stalin without the power. I'd divest myself of that guy pdq if I was you.

Hahaha

Yeah I am still friends with him.

I was involved with the far left so long in college and policy debate that I have learned to separate these sort of political beliefs from the actual person.

I am no psychologist, but I do know that guy would do anything to help me out, so I think there os some sort of dissonance going on.

Ok, wtf???

They stripped 90% of the stuff I liked from the first draft.

I still like the infrastructure fixing.

building a national, energy-efficient, “smart” grid; upgrading every residential and industrial building for state-of-the-art energy efficiency, comfort and safety; eliminating greenhouse gas emissions from the manufacturing, agricultural and other industries, including by investing in local-scale agriculture in communities across the country; eliminating greenhouse gas emissions from, repairing and improving transportation and other infrastructure, and upgrading water infrastructure to ensure universal access to clean water; funding massive investment in the drawdown of greenhouse gases; making “green” technology, industry, expertise, products and services a major export of the United States, with the aim of becoming the undisputed international leader in helping other countries transition to completely greenhouse gas neutral economies and bringing about a global Green New Deal.

But I don't like that it calls for tax money to be spent in trying to hurt the current energy providers. Better in my opinion to just slowly make the modern upgrades in our infrastructure and let the economy decide.

a reply to: Grambler

someone there watched too much s-f.

funny thing is, it's all possible, assuming two things: alien-level tech and honest intentions.

they've got the first half covered.

a reply to: Carcharadon

ha, ha, ha

no, it is not even close to communism, and nothing even close to anarchy

I don't' love anything about a "Green new deal" because it does nothing but continue to push green-capitalist measures and continue the fast-acting ecocide that is already happening

nice attempt at fear-mongering hyperbole though

originally posted by: XAnarchistX
a reply to: Carcharadon

ha, ha, ha

no, it is not even close to communism, and nothing even close to anarchy

I don't' love anything about a "Green new deal" because it does nothing but continue to push green-capitalist measures and continue the fast-acting ecocide that is already happening

nice attempt at fear-mongering hyperbole though

I didnt say it was an anarchic plan. I said that it would LEAD to anarchy.

Nice attempt at reading comprehension though.

My god

This is the biggest pile of crap i had seen yet. Ocasio Cortez shouldn't be in politics when that plan is nothing more then ridicules and impossible. All of her plans to be achieved in 10 years???!?

I really want to know whats she smoking she must be smoking something gooooood.

Ocasio Cortez has a mind of a teenager still in high school.

originally posted by: Guyfriday
I at one time thought that we won the cold war, but now I see that my grandfather was right when he said we didn't win anything.

OH we won but the enemy embedded itself in our Gov's of the west. McCarthy pointed it out and the liberal media torched him.

originally posted by: links234
I was going to make a long, drawn out post countering some (if not all) of your points but it's not worth the effort.

I support the plan and agree with its overall objectives.

I'll totally get behind this if you can do one thing for me. Tell me how the airplanes will power themselves. that is all.

With Democrats, all roads lead to Venezuela. Crazy Oscar Cortez is leading the charge on this 10 year plan.

Make no mistake, this is the left's final solution to the American question.

a reply to: Grambler

O.K, well, Grambler, I have followed your career with interest but I fear this OP reflects a bit of ignorance on your part.

Yea, the AOC proposal is awful and draconian in nature. Unfortunately, those who inform the elites that direct policy initiatives are already all over this, meaning.......you and your fellow residents of the US are quite likely to start seeing these proposals implemented.

What propels these initiatives is best reflected in this article:
hbr.org...

The world’s scientists sound a final alarm on climate

We have about 12 years left. That’s the clear message from a monumental study from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

It wasn’t just the IPCC that told a stark story. Thirteen U.S. government agencies issued the U.S. National Climate Assessment, which concluded that climate change could knock at least 10% off of GDP. Other studies tell us that sea level rise is going to be worse than we thought, Antarctica is melting three times faster than a decade ago, and Greenland is losing ice quickly as well. If both those ice sheets go, sea level rise could reach 200-plus feet, resulting in utter devastation, including the loss of the entire Atlantic seaboard (Boston, New York, D.C., etc.), all of Florida, London, Stockholm, Denmark, Paraguay, and land now inhabited by more than 1 billion Asians).

So.......what is the fix?

3) Electric vehicles are exploding, and it’s not just small vehicles: even container ships are going electric. UPS bought its first EV delivery vehicles at price parity to combustion engines, and China is adding nearly 10,000 electric buses to the roads — equal to the size of London’s entire bus fleet – every five weeks.

But where do these people really see as the imperative for the future?
cleantechnica.com...

The world must almost completely decarbonize in the next 30-35 years, and the vast majority of fossil fuels be left in the ground, if we are to have any hope of tackling climate change effectively, a new Climate Council report has warned.

motherboard.vice.com...

If we really want to maintain a livable climate, and prevent global temperatures from rising more than 2˚ Celsius, then no nation, anywhere, can burn any oil, gas, or coal at all after 2050, according to a striking new analysis of the latest climate science.

And as usual, California is leading the way.
energized.edison.com...

Think this is NOT being rolled out?
www.curbed.com...

350 mayors adopt Paris climate accord after U.S. pulls out (updated)

Want to stay up with what's really going on instead of fulminating to the effect this can never happen? See the Bloomber Documentary:
www.paristopittsburgh.com...

What does this film tell us about where this is going over the course of the next 20 years?
Federal gas tax raised to $1.00 a gallon
Mandated retrofit of residential solar panels, (but you will still have to pay the electric company)
No more gas powered pick up trucks. The best you will be able to do is an electric with maybe a 200 mile range that takes 24 hours to recharge.

If you dont like or cant afford $200K to upgrade your house, you will be free to move to a one bedroom apt. in a Stalinesque apartment block in the nearest Urban Pit of Dispair.

Otherwise, you will freeze to death in the dark in the winter in your country shack as electricity prces triple and propane is no longer available and wood stoves are outlawed.

Solution?
You might want to consider moving yourself and your family to Panama.

I couldn't even finish reading all of it it's so absurd. It's clear the idiots who drafted this have done approximately zero research into how any of this could be accomplished or how much it would cost.

originally posted by: face23785
I couldn't even finish reading all of it it's so absurd. It's clear the idiots who drafted this have done approximately zero research into how any of this could be accomplished or how much it would cost.

I could posit that aiming at some unreasonably/impossibly high standard/goal is a good starting place with the expectation that negotiation among legislators is likely to severely dilute all of the prerogatives.

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: face23785
I couldn't even finish reading all of it it's so absurd. It's clear the idiots who drafted this have done approximately zero research into how any of this could be accomplished or how much it would cost.

I could posit that aiming at some unreasonably/impossibly high standard/goal is a good starting place with the expectation that negotiation among legislators is likely to severely dilute all of the prerogatives.

It is not a good starting place. It is a draconian measure seeking to remake our country into a socialist paradise, by claiming unattainable utopian ideals.

Should we have children right bills next that say lets all fly cars on the power of wishes so that they can negoitiate down to a more reasonable solution?

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: face23785
I couldn't even finish reading all of it it's so absurd. It's clear the idiots who drafted this have done approximately zero research into how any of this could be accomplished or how much it would cost.

I could posit that aiming at some unreasonably/impossibly high standard/goal is a good starting place with the expectation that negotiation among legislators is likely to severely dilute all of the prerogatives.

It is not a good starting place. It is a draconian measure seeking to remake our country into a socialist paradise, by claiming unattainable utopian ideals.

Should we have children right bills next that say lets all fly cars on the power of wishes so that they can negoitiate down to a more reasonable solution?

First its your opinion that its draconian (not fact). That being said, I am in fact interested in your opinion/thoughts as to how/which parts you believe are farcical or exclusive to socialism.


I believe there is ample evidence currently in other nations that these measures are achievable in some fashion (if not in totality).


Second, you don't address the strategic value in beginning bargaining for something with the maximum divide so as to achieve a middle ground as close to one's prerogatives as possible. Do you disagree with my aforementioned statement?

a reply to: Grambler

Don't forget that according to Bernie Sanders, there will be "millions of good paying djaaaaaabs" that will pop up all over the place because of eco power. I guess the new Apple Park building needs at least some of them to clean the solar panels on the roof of their shiny white Tech Sphincter.

What Cortez imagines will take 10 years, is more like a 50-100 year thing.

Personally, I don't think we SHOULD go to 100% green energy. Electric planes?

And what about nuclear power? It's politically incorrect to the point that France seems to want to close every single one of them, and power the country by pedal power.

One way we COULD end up in an utopic society where everyone wears silver jump suits and calls each other by designation ("Greetings, worker ADF-1000-9!") would be if nuclear fusion gets off the ground. THAT is a tech that's promising. Unless it steps on the wallet of some powerful people and it too becomes politically incorrect.

originally posted by: projectvxn
Clearly written by people who don't understand the law,

Clearly written by people who don't understand 1984.

a reply to: Carcharadon

as you clearly didn't read what I said, laughable

"no, it is not even close to communism"

a reply to: Scifi2424

nice try at fear-mongering, if you really and honestly think and believe that the Democrats are any further than centrists rightists, you have no idea what you are talking about... clearly

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: face23785
I couldn't even finish reading all of it it's so absurd. It's clear the idiots who drafted this have done approximately zero research into how any of this could be accomplished or how much it would cost.

I could posit that aiming at some unreasonably/impossibly high standard/goal is a good starting place with the expectation that negotiation among legislators is likely to severely dilute all of the prerogatives.

It is not a good starting place. It is a draconian measure seeking to remake our country into a socialist paradise, by claiming unattainable utopian ideals.

Should we have children right bills next that say lets all fly cars on the power of wishes so that they can negoitiate down to a more reasonable solution?

First its your opinion that its draconian (not fact). That being said, I am in fact interested in your opinion/thoughts as to how/which parts you believe are farcical or exclusive to socialism.


I believe there is ample evidence currently in other nations that these measures are achievable in some fashion (if not in totality).


Second, you don't address the strategic value in beginning bargaining for something with the maximum divide so as to achieve a middle ground as close to one's prerogatives as possible. Do you disagree with my aforementioned statement?

First, my entire video and op outlined what parts of this I find ridiculous and dangerous, almost all of it.

Second, although there can be strategy in overshooting to bargain, shooting for such impossible, abusive polices as your starting point is absurd and counter productive, as it shows just what an authoritarian they are and how pragmatic they are.



For example, lets say I am selling a house that objectively is worth about 50 thousand dollars.

So I put it on the market for 500 billion dollars, thinking I can use that to get a middle ground.

You think that is a strategically sound approach?

originally posted by: Whodathunkdatcheese

originally posted by: projectvxn
Clearly written by people who don't understand the law,

Clearly written by people who don't understand 1984.

Or more likely people that understand it perfectly well.