• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Green New Deal co-sponsor Ed Markey is angry Senate will vote on his resolution.

MrPeanut said:
Destroy as many strawmen as you want. I can't imagine it's that satisfying.
Click to expand...

That's not a strawman. That's exactly how it was sold when it was introduced, particularly by its chief sponsor.
 
Harshaw said:
A ripe question for Gov. Gavin Newsome.
Click to expand...

Indeed, though California is hardly the model of efficiency, they should be able to find a way to do this in some cost-effective manner. While high-speed rail would never replace airplanes, I think that it could give comparable options and could be beneficial if we were to do it right. Much like the highway system we employ.
 
Ikari said:
Indeed, though California is hardly the model of efficiency, they should be able to find a way to do this in some cost-effective manner. While high-speed rail would never replace airplanes, I think that it could give comparable options and could be beneficial if we were to do it right. Much like the highway system we employ.
Click to expand...

I think you have more faith in bureaucracy than I do.
 
pilot16 said:
The problem with the "big tent idea" is just that, it becomes so large and unwielding with so many views and ideas that its hard to put down any sort of platform. The GOP (even long before Trump) has had a set form of ideas and if they change its so slow it almost waits for the next generation to do it. Democrats, by contrast, are constantly vying for the youth vote and trying to be the first to do this or that. While forgetting that the huge part of their success in the past were the blue collar union workers of the midwest and rural areas. It hurts them a lot to now try to be these world class globalists for free trade while the former base still doesnt favor trade and does like some tariffs. Democrats need to win the EC not the popular vote. They need to go back to the meat and potatoes. The coasts will always vote for them anyways. Its those elusive states that were solid democrat they need to hold and win. Assume Green deals arent too popular there.
Click to expand...

What do you think of the Progressive wing that doesn't support NAFTA or TPP and backs the GND? I have a hard time believing that the union workers who threw in for Trump did so because they really learned to love the anti union party. It seems to me like you are talking about the establishment Democrats.
 
Harshaw said:
That's not a strawman. That's exactly how it was sold when it was introduced, particularly by its chief sponsor.
Click to expand...

Of course it is. You removed the part about creating jobs because you solely want to focus on the climate aspect. Nobody made you do that.
 
Ikari said:
We have some amount of environmental law, much of which is being walked back by Trump and his Environmental Pollution Agency. There is a necessity for proper environmental oversight and regulation. Highways are government made and maintained. Airlines are "profitable" only through support of the government. So we already have government solutions, and you claim them to be "efficient". So why couldn't a high-speed rail system be efficient as well?
Click to expand...

Because airlines are not “supported by the government” a handful of routes under essential air service are but that’s a minority of passengers. Highways may be government maintained but they are flexible and can be used by all people for all uses. And because of the highways you need not any trains at all because the capital cost of a highway is already paid for and a bus can drive on it. A high speed train can only run on special high speed track which cannot be shared with freight operators. So you’re talking about spending hundreds of billions in capital costs to benefit maybe a few thousand people a day who can already get where they’re going.

Listen I understand the nostalgia, when I was a kid I wanted to be a lighthouse keeper, however that job was automated before I was born, because manned lighthouses are obsolete, I get that you yearn for the days of the 19th century when trains were the thing, but they are now obsolete and unneeded and the government doesn’t need to prop up obsolete industries


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
MrPeanut said:
Of course it is. You removed the part about creating jobs because you solely want to focus on the climate aspect. Nobody made you do that.
Click to expand...

I didn't "remove" anything. "Creating jobs" as a bonus by-product of "green energy" is an entirely different thing from the job guarantees buried into the resolution. That equivocation appears to be rather intentional.
 
Ikari said:
Indeed, though California is hardly the model of efficiency, they should be able to find a way to do this in some cost-effective manner. While high-speed rail would never replace airplanes, I think that it could give comparable options and could be beneficial if we were to do it right. Much like the highway system we employ.
Click to expand...

Respectfully, maybe California should address their homelessness problem first. That problem is spawning the spread of diseases generally associated with third world countries. Although if the place becomes uninhabitable, a high speed way out would be nice.
 
Harshaw said:
I didn't "remove" anything. "Creating jobs" as a bonus by-product of "green energy" is an entirely different thing from the job guarantees buried into the resolution. That equivocation appears to be rather intentional.
Click to expand...

So your problem is the jobs guarantee? This is the first time you've mentioned it in this conversation.
 
MrPeanut said:
So your problem is the jobs guarantee? This is the first time you've mentioned it in this conversation.
Click to expand...

Speaking of "strawmen" . . .
 
Harshaw said:
Speaking of "strawmen" . . .
Click to expand...

What do you mean? You began by claiming that the GND is solely about climate change, and have now changed your argument to include the jobs guarantee. Why are you moving around so much?
 
I'd be willing to bet McConnell will never call a vote on the Green New Deal. There are multiple Democratic Senators running for the Presidency and this would give them all a platform to make a policy argument and get free publicity. At the same time it highlights the vacuousness of Republican policy and plans for the future since Trump advocates regress rather than progress.
 
MrPeanut said:
What do you mean? You began by claiming that the GND is solely about climate change, and have now changed your argument to include the jobs guarantee. Why are you moving around so much?
Click to expand...

I'm not. You're just pretending I am.

Why is that?
 
manofknowledge said:
I'd be willing to bet McConnell will never call a vote on the Green New Deal. There are multiple Democratic Senators running for the Presidency and this would give them all a platform to make a policy argument and get free publicity. At the same time it highlights the vacuousness of Republican policy and plans for the future since Trump advocates regress rather than progress.
Click to expand...

Should he call the vote?
 
EMNofSeattle said:
Because airlines are not “supported by the government” a handful of routes under essential air service are but that’s a minority of passengers. Highways may be government maintained but they are flexible and can be used by all people for all uses. And because of the highways you need not any trains at all because the capital cost of a highway is already paid for and a bus can drive on it. A high speed train can only run on special high speed track which cannot be shared with freight operators. So you’re talking about spending hundreds of billions in capital costs to benefit maybe a few thousand people a day who can already get where they’re going.

Listen I understand the nostalgia, when I was a kid I wanted to be a lighthouse keeper, however that job was automated before I was born, because manned lighthouses are obsolete, I get that you yearn for the days of the 19th century when trains were the thing, but they are now obsolete and unneeded and the government doesn’t need to prop up obsolete industries


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Of course airlines are supported by government. All major Airports are built by municipal, state and federal government funds. Air traffic control is a federal agency, Airport security is a federal agency. Customs is a federal agency. Air safety is a federal agency.

High speed trains reduce travel times to near air travel when one includes times spent boarding and making connections, plus they are somewhat less affected by weather and can carry more people much more comfortably. The fact they don't mix freight in with passenger travel is beneficial since regular rail is one of the most efficient means of moving freight and the system already exists. Air travel is an enormous contributor to carbon emissions and there is no alternate energy source currently available other than fossil fuels. High speed trains are electric and can use multiple sources of energy to drive them.

The current highway system is enormously overburdened and rapidly deteriorating. We cannot continue to simply add lanes to existing highways and expect to carry the load safely and efficiently. They are probably the greatest contributor to carbon emissions although that can be mitigated as other technologies evolve. The worst effect of highways is they encourage urban sprawl which covers green space, removes trees and increases the traffic load. Cars require parking places so we end up trading green space for asphalt and concrete just to have a place to park. Runoff from the parking and roads pollute ground water as well as the atmospheric pollution.

We should have been weening ourselves from fossil fuels 20 years ago. It is long past the time to do it.
 
EMNofSeattle said:
Because airlines are not “supported by the government” a handful of routes under essential air service are but that’s a minority of passengers. Highways may be government maintained but they are flexible and can be used by all people for all uses. And because of the highways you need not any trains at all because the capital cost of a highway is already paid for and a bus can drive on it. A high speed train can only run on special high speed track which cannot be shared with freight operators. So you’re talking about spending hundreds of billions in capital costs to benefit maybe a few thousand people a day who can already get where they’re going.

Listen I understand the nostalgia, when I was a kid I wanted to be a lighthouse keeper, however that job was automated before I was born, because manned lighthouses are obsolete, I get that you yearn for the days of the 19th century when trains were the thing, but they are now obsolete and unneeded and the government doesn’t need to prop up obsolete industries


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Airlines are subsidized up the butt by the government. If the government weren't so heavily involved in promoting and supporting the airline industry, it wouldn't exist as it does now. You'd likely have far fewer carriers and only the wealthy could fly. So we already are supporting one system. The current ideas revolving around short length high speed rail does focus on people rather than freight, but there's nothing to say that some freight couldn't be hauled on some national high speed rail system. We already help regulate, maintain, and support a regular rail system as is.

lol

The nominal train industry is "obsolete" because it's old tech. Newer tech isn't as obsolete, it's just that we haven't implemented the infrastructure to take advantage of it. We already use government to prop up and support all sorts of business and corporation, so we can consider adding new tech and new infrastructure to improve capacity and service to The People. It's, at the very least, worth the debate.
 
Ikari said:
Airlines are subsidized up the butt by the government. If the government weren't so heavily involved in promoting and supporting the airline industry, it wouldn't exist as it does now. You'd likely have far fewer carriers and only the wealthy could fly. So we already are supporting one system. The current ideas revolving around short length high speed rail does focus on people rather than freight, but there's nothing to say that some freight couldn't be hauled on some national high speed rail system. We already help regulate, maintain, and support a regular rail system as is.

lol

The nominal train industry is "obsolete" because it's old tech. Newer tech isn't as obsolete, it's just that we haven't implemented the infrastructure to take advantage of it. We already use government to prop up and support all sorts of business and corporation, so we can consider adding new tech and new infrastructure to improve capacity and service to The People. It's, at the very least, worth the debate.
Click to expand...

No, we do not subsidize Airlines “up the butt” (see my thread about left leaning people and perversion, why use dirty metaphors?)

The government does not prop up Airlines. Some support services Airlines and air passengers pay for through taxes are supplied.

Trains all around are obsolete. In Europe trains are more expensive then air travel and most European rail operators have run freight trains off of the tracks meaning less then 10% of freight is moved efficiently by rail whereas over a third of freight in the US is on a train at some point. The reason the poor can fly is because planes are very fuel efficient and are scientifically designed for maximum passenger capacity, not because of subsidy.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
manofknowledge said:
Of course airlines are supported by government. All major Airports are built by municipal, state and federal government funds. Air traffic control is a federal agency, Airport security is a federal agency. Customs is a federal agency. Air safety is a federal agency.

High speed trains reduce travel times to near air travel when one includes times spent boarding and making connections, plus they are somewhat less affected by weather and can carry more people much more comfortably. The fact they don't mix freight in with passenger travel is beneficial since regular rail is one of the most efficient means of moving freight and the system already exists. Air travel is an enormous contributor to carbon emissions and there is no alternate energy source currently available other than fossil fuels. High speed trains are electric and can use multiple sources of energy to drive them.

The current highway system is enormously overburdened and rapidly deteriorating. We cannot continue to simply add lanes to existing highways and expect to carry the load safely and efficiently. They are probably the greatest contributor to carbon emissions although that can be mitigated as other technologies evolve. The worst effect of highways is they encourage urban sprawl which covers green space, removes trees and increases the traffic load. Cars require parking places so we end up trading green space for asphalt and concrete just to have a place to park. Runoff from the parking and roads pollute ground water as well as the atmospheric pollution.

We should have been weening ourselves from fossil fuels 20 years ago. It is long past the time to do it.
Click to expand...

I’m ok with some pollution. Pollution is the side effect of living 100 years, in prosperity, with more material wealth than humans ever had before. I like to think of pollution and changing environment as “reformation” we simply have a world adapted to educated industrial humans. The old one sucked so we made it better


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
MrPeanut said:
I think he's overreacting. Obviously this is an attempt to take momentum away from the movement, but it also forces every last Republican to admit they have no plan for the future of our country. It will cut both ways.
Click to expand...

how overreacting when we know McConnel is just a partisan hack ****? Everything he does is some low ball partisan move
 
EMNofSeattle said:
It is not popular among voters of both parties to ban air travel, ban personal automobiles, and tear down and rebuild every standing structure in the United States.

This is like your phony polls showing everyone supports “Medicare for all” then when you ask questions about the specific Medicaid’s for all bill the support shrinks to 30%

People like a good sounding title, I don’t think you’re under the delusion the Green New Deal as AOC and Markey understand it has any support at all.
Click to expand...

that's not what it says, this is the problem with right wingers, you just make **** up. You have no intelligence, no facts, no arguments, no reasoning, Nothing. So you make **** up.
 
EMNofSeattle said:
No, we do not subsidize Airlines “up the butt”
Click to expand...

Right up the butt. Airline companies sure as hell ain't building the airports, let alone staffing and flight controllers, etc. Who's paying for all that? TSA? Who's paying for all of that. Subsidies, loans, regulations, labor negotiations, protective laws, etc. We prop up the airline industry so it can exist as it does today, it's done on the back of government and taxpayer dollars. Without government involvement, no way no how would airline travel be as pervasive and "cheap".

Government is already involved, government is already got its hand in the mix. It supports and protects the airline industry. So if we're already mucking around with government sponsored travel, why can we not have some high speed rail? Can't fly a train into a building either, got some additional safety built right in, lol.
 
Associated Press Headline:

McConnell wields Green New Deal as bludgeon against Dems

It's a Democrat bill introduced by Democrats and endorsed by every declared Democrat Presidential candidate, who include four Senators, not even including Sanders, who endorsed it but has yet to declare.

Did he trick all of them into doing that?

(But as I said, the Democrats can always filibuster.)
 
Sampson Simpson said:
that's not what it says, this is the problem with right wingers, you just make **** up. You have no intelligence, no facts, no arguments, no reasoning, Nothing. So you make **** up.
Click to expand...

No, I am using the words in AOC and Markeys own resolution and inferring the logical conclusion of how to accomplish that. Every conservative slippery slope has proven true. We’re now talking super late term abortion, pick your own gender, open socialists, etc so don’t accuse me of making stuff up


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Ikari said:
There's plenty to debate. Noting the failures of our healthcare system, do we need to change directions? What would be proper control and regulation for necessary environmental protections? Should we look to invest in other transportation systems? Why are the one's we have so inefficient particularly given the complex convolution of systems such as Airline Corporation and State?
Click to expand...
Until they build hypertubes to every city air travel still remains the most effective and efficient mode of transportation more so for business people.
I travel for work. I am onsite somewhere for weeks at a time. it is long enough being on a plane for 8 hours or more sometimes compared to a train that would take days.

that doesn't count the fact that you can't build a railroad to europe or asia.
the idea that people are going to not use a plane and sit on a train for 24+ hours to make a meeting they have the next day and then be some where else the day after is a no go from the start.

There's lots to have a discussion about, a debate about. It by no means states that one must like this bill, everything in this bill, or that the bill as it exists now would be the one presented for a vote. There's lots to debate and talk about, not using sleazy political moves to prevent debate. That's just standard hyperpartisan bull**** that has pushed the system to where we are now.
Click to expand...

leave my steak and hamburgers alone.

so long and thanks for all the fish.

It's time for us to be able to actually talk about topics without resorting to the old-bag hyperpartisan tricks meant to cut off discussion and debate.
Click to expand...

yet that is exactly what this bill does.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom