Democrats, you have one real job...and you are screwing it up

[Airyaman]

Give me some actual specifics on the GND that you find truly objectionable.
I am 100% serious, this is an honest question.

Point to one or two items that make you say "yecccch no way".

Here are at least two (so far) that catch my eye:
1) upgrade all existing buildings in the US. Who pays for that? The owners? Will there be a penalty for not doing so? Will this involve legislature, or will they offer incentives to upgrade? This seems to be an unrealistic goal written by someone who has a limited view of the realities of flyover country.
2) all of the proposed government investment in green initiatives. I understand why, but I do not agree that central government should be taking money from others to give to certain sectors of our economy. As stated elsewhere, I am a small government fiscal conservative, and this reeks of corporate welfare.

 

[Idiometer]

Its your beef not mine. At this point in the game I am paying little attention to who throws their hat in the ring. The NH primary is still a YEAR. away.

I'll pay more attention when someone I like, admire, and at least half agree with gets into it. I'm not going to research any of them until the herd gets culled a little.

 

[Phys251]

Tycoon extra and tycoon light.

When the rubber hits the road, donors get what they want from congress over what the people who voted them in want. That's what $50+ million per congressperson in "lobbying" gets you.

I generally vote democrat. Because they have a better philosophy as to the care and feeding of the livestock. They both consider us livestock.

Stopped reading right there. First of all, get it right, it's the Democratic party. Second, it is clear that you have not payed any attention to anything that has happened in the last 2.5 years. Hell, probably not in the last decade. You do not know what the Democrats are for because you do not want to know what they are for. When any Democrat to the right of AOC steps forth and talks about how they want to reduce gun violence, improve public education, shift the tax burden onto the ultrarich, etc., you choose not to listen because you do not like the answers that do not pass your purity tests. You also choose not to listen to what's actually happened at the ballot box, who actually took back the House, and just how unpopular democratic socialist tactics are in America. This is why we have a good chance of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory in November 2020.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

In my opinion, that right there eliminates two of the best chances the democratic party had in getting a win in. Kamala more so, than Booker.

Find a Democrat suitable for OBOROSEN.
Yeah...that's the ticket!!

 

[Phys251]

Here are at least two (so far) that catch my eye:
1) upgrade all existing buildings in the US. Who pays for that? The owners? Will there be a penalty for not doing so? Will this involve legislature, or will they offer incentives to upgrade? This seems to be an unrealistic goal written by someone who has a limited view of the realities of flyover country.

Well that could mean a number of things. It is my understanding that the Green New Deal is far from finalized.

But what's so wrong about, say, both requiring and incentivizing commercial and government buildings to improve insulation and reduce heat loss? Switching out single-pane windows for double-pane windows, for instance, is a change that can pay for itself in less than a decade in some climates.

2) all of the proposed government investment in green initiatives. I understand why, but I do not agree that central government should be taking money from others to give to certain sectors of our economy. As stated elsewhere, I am a small government fiscal conservative, and this reeks of corporate welfare.

But then we are forced to play a real-live game of Monopoly. What chance does someone have against hotels on Boardwalk and Park Place when the only property they own is Mediterranean Avenue?

 

[Keridan]

But are they really MODERATES?
What does that even mean these days?
If you apply that tag to somebody like Booker, what do you get?

Moderate means not idiotic enough to think that the answer to Trump's moronic choices is to swing to AOCs GND. Someone who believes there are actually reasonable actions to take. Simple enough?

 

[Idiometer]

You can still believe in climate change and also realize that the cost of converting to fully renewable in 10 years is in the trillions of dollars which is far too much given the minimal change it would make on a global scale. If we are on a 10 year plan the only realistic measure we could take that would be feasible with the current technology is nuclear, which makes you wonder if the threat of climate change is so serious why isn't there a bigger push for the cleanest and safest energy source available.

I agree that the New Green Deal's ten year plan is an unrealistic goal, but we must start somewhere, and the U.S. should be the leaders of that conversion to renewables.

However, calling it a belief does science a disservice. It's proven science, not a faith-based notion. Gravity exists whether we believe in it or not.

 

[D_NATURED]

The most important job Democrats have -- in the view of this ex-Republican -- is to offer up someone who independents and NeverTrumpers can vote for instead of Trump.

Thus far, you are ****ing this up.

Example: the latest cluster **** is the "New Green Deal". Some of the early D contenders have "signed on". Kamala. Cory.

So they are out for this NeverTrumper. Kamala took herself out for me when she said she would eliminate all private health insurance, including that provided by employers.

As much as I've hated Nancy P. in the past, she gained some respect for saying the "New Green Deal" was a "dream deal". IOW, not realistic. She is at least pragmatic.

I will never vote for Trump. I would never normally vote for a Democrat either. But I considered it it as opposition to Trump.

Be careful of letting this pendulum swing too far. You are dangerously close to snatching defeat out of the jaws of victory.

So, someone saying that health care- human life- should not be exploited by free-marketeers is a deal breaker for you? The left doesn't need your vote. You should save it for some candidate who properly straddles the line between property rights and human rights in true conservative fashion, leaving a feather's touch of one foot on the human side and most of their weight on the side of money.

Don't threaten us with withdrawing your support. There never was any.

 

[Idiometer]

Actually all anyone needs to do to beat Trump is support America and its values more than him. Democrats should ponder why they have such a void of candidates in that area but that smug nature of theirs will prevent it every time. I advise they continue with the open borders mantra right up until 2020.

I've never heard any of the current candidates call for open borders. That's right wing rhetoric. They all want border security, but the Dems want 21st century solutions, not 12th century ones.

 

[yankintx]

I am not a denier, but I also don't live in a fantasy world that the "New Green Deal" was hatched from.

I smell I DINO

Democrat In Name Only

 

[Idiometer]

I am on your topic perfectly. That's your issue. If you want to beat Trump I suggest running and finding normal candidates that reflect American values. And please spare us the dems arent for open borders crap. They are fighting for sanctuary cities on every channel.

Please list what, in your opinion, are American values. I'm guessing that your vision differs from mine.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

Here are at least two (so far) that catch my eye:
1) upgrade all existing buildings in the US. Who pays for that? The owners? Will there be a penalty for not doing so? Will this involve legislature, or will they offer incentives to upgrade? This seems to be an unrealistic goal written by someone who has a limited view of the realities of flyover country.

That's already been happening in many places for one very simple reason. The energy grid, both electric AND gas, can't keep up otherwise.
Try being realistic about this, wouldja? It's clearly going to start with mandating better standards for NEW construction, THEN LATER it will get around to existing construction and with the way politics works at local levels (this IS a LOCAL MATTER!!) much of it will be defined by incentives, as it usually is.
So, in the end, we don't really have a choice unless you enjoy brownouts, blackouts, gas shortages, heating oil shortages, spikes, etc.
And much of it happens at the state and local level. GND mechanisms will ultimately seek to make it advantageous to states to help this along.
It has never ever happened any other way.

2) all of the proposed government investment in green initiatives. I understand why, but I do not agree that central government should be taking money from others to give to certain sectors of our economy. As stated elsewhere, I am a small government fiscal conservative, and this reeks of corporate welfare.

What are you even talking about?? In the turn of the century (20th) government did exactly that for the petroleum industry.
And AGAIN, it's not like they had much of a choice in the other direction!
Kerosene was clearly superior to WHALE OIL for lighting, and we were running out of whales!
Petroleum was superior to:

Alcohol, primitive battery electric, peanut oil, etc.

Together with the free market the ultimate choice got hammered out. Do you honestly think that the government "takes money from others"?
What nonsense...the government does what it did in the 1900's, it gives a hand to fledgling alternatives that prove they have a bright future, and there are gambles to be taken. Just discovering a few oil wells in Pennsylvania wasn't a guarantee that this petroleum stuff was going to be everywhere.

We have an opportunity to become world leaders in electric cars. Hey brother, like it or not, the major manufacturers are gearing up for it right now.
It is going to happen as sure as the nose on your face....ALL OVER THE ENTIRE WORLD.

Are you saying that we alone should stand down and say "Screw what the rest of the world is doing, we're gonna stay away from that market!" ??
GOOD LUCK, go tell GM, FORD, CHRYSLER, VOLVO, AUDI, MBZ, KIA, NISSAN, TOYOTA, LANCIA, PORSCHE, PEUGEOT...I think there are more but gimme a second...
Oh wait, I don't think Mahindra plans to go electric. They make those little teensy weensy tin can cars in India, the ones powered by a 250cc moped engine.

 

[Idiometer]

The New Green Deal isn't settle or set in stone yet. You're worried about vapor.

According to what I was just reading, it's a non-binding framework being used as a vehicle to at least get some of these ideas about renewable energy sources on the congressional radar.

 

[Idiometer]

Seriously... I think Trump is a very bad President. I think he is targeted and everyone is really out to get him, but I think he gives way more ammunition with his crazy than he should. Sometimes he is doing his job, often he is just batcrap crazy.

Any person that supports the GND as presented by AOC is crazier. Like off the reservation insane. If they even try to defend the idea of it, I lose much hope for them. I read it. I'm sorry I wasted that portion of my life, but I won't get it back. It's truly stupid on a level no one elected to dog catcher should be capable of supporting, much less a congress member.

I need a real alternative or Trump has a real chancing of winning the election when all of us sane people sit out.

Who would you like to see on the Dem ticket?

 

[Idiometer]

I thought that was off topic? Sorry.

You brought it up, but now you've been challenged so it's off topic?

Righties crack me up with their lame attempts at back pedaling.


:lamo

 

[rocket88]

According to what I was just reading, it's a non-binding framework being used as a vehicle to at least get some of these ideas about renewable energy sources on the congressional radar.

That's part of the beauty if the plan. Give the right something to foam at the mouth over while actual work gets done.

 

[Idiometer]

70 of the house Democrats have signed on to this GND madness. That's 25%. That alone is a good reason to never vote for a Democrat.

It's a non-binding framework. It obligates no one and nothing other than to at least get these important issues into the congressional record.

You righties are so easiliy frightened.

 

[Idiometer]

Booker is hardly a leading candidate. Time will tell which POTUS candidate the DNC picks, but I doubt that it will be Booker.

I will never cast a vote for any one named Cory or Jason.

:wink2:

 

[Idiometer]

He is worried about candidates running of a platform of vapor and I agree with him.

Never underestimate the effectbof the vape (takes a big hit off the vape).

:mrgreen:

 

[Perotista]

Keep in mind that unlike in 2016, the 2020 primary field is going to be crowded. Already we have more Democratic candidates than in all of the 2016 cycle. And we're nearly a year away from the first caucus!

So it's going to be up to the base this time. There are some critical mistakes that the base must not make if we are to have a Democratic President in 2021. So far, as I outlined in Post #52, I see little evidence that the base is avoiding those mistakes. As a result, right now I'm giving the Democrats a 1-in-3 chance of winning back the presidency in 2020. And that might be pretty generous.

We don't have the slightest idea who will win the nomination. I would say looking at independents and independents only, the way they feel about Trump today, he'd be lucky to get 40% of their vote instead of the 46% he received in 2016. But today isn't even close to election day. Also the Democratic candidate is completely unknown. Trump must win the independent vote, the Republicans are still the smaller party of the two, the smaller base. The Democratic candidate probably can afford to lose the independent vote 5 points or so and still win. Keep in mind Hillary lost the independent vote by four points and still won the popular vote by 3. Now the popular vote isn't the electoral college, so perhaps the question is, can Trump win Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan again? I'd say very doubtful on all three. If Trump takes all the states he did in 2016, he could afford to lose Wisconsin and Michigan, but not Pennsylvania. Can he hang onto Florida, North Carolina, Arizona and Georgia?

I don't know. It all depends on whom the Democrats nominate. I agree, it seems the democrats are repeating their same mistakes of 2016, repeating them early anyway. Then the question is, whom will those 12% of independents who voted against both Trump and Clinton in 2016 vote for this time around. We already know they don't like Trump. Can whomever the Democrats nominate grab some of those 12%.

there're no answers to those question at this time. Probably won't be until Feb, Mar of next year. Even so, the Democrats are starting off as big favorites, at least now. At least in the battle for the independent vote. 54% of independents voted against Trump in 2016, 42% for Hillary, 12% for third party candidates. I don't think Trump can survive that kind of vote against in 2020. But with the right, should I say wrong candidate chosen by the Democrats, that could swing independents back into Trump's corner. We just don't know.

Time will tell, but like you, I do see the Democratic base making close to the same mistakes of 2016 again.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

I agree that the New Green Deal's ten year plan is an unrealistic goal, but we must start somewhere, and the U.S. should be the leaders of that conversion to renewables.

However, calling it a belief does science a disservice. It's proven science, not a faith-based notion. Gravity exists whether we believe in it or not.

LOL good one...
Whenever I have been forced to take a client who won't pay to small claims court (thankfully not very often) I always sue for the maximum amount allowed. This accomplishes something very basic, as you might guess. It sets the BAR very high.

If I am owed $1900, I sue for five thousand. That happened. I won but the judge awarded me $2000 and in the end I managed to actually collect $1100 and the plaintiff "bankrupted out" after that first till tap by the deputies.

I found myself staring at the same place of business "under new ownership" so to speak. Where's the guy I sued? Who the Hell knows.
But I did manage to get eleven hundred bucks for my troubles, which beats a big fat zero.

The Green New Deal is more than ambitious, it is a bit unrealistic and a bit "pie in the sky" but if even 25 percent of what it seeks comes to pass, it's a win for everybody in the long run. The GND people are aiming high, perhaps so high that they might get dizzy, and that's where reality checks come into play.

They always do but in the end, SOME GOOD is likely to come of it. Just keep focused on the good stuff and the realistic goals.
NOTHING is EVER 100% pure stupidity.
I can even point to Trump ideas which at least HAVE some good in them, like getting tough with China on their intellectual property theft.
I can support Trump's views on that full throated.

Now, whether he actually follows through is another matter, but if he does, I will thank him for it, and I will even do so unashamedly right here on DP just so everyone sees "this raging Leftist" doing it.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

Moderate means not idiotic enough to think that the answer to Trump's moronic choices is to swing to AOCs GND. Someone who believes there are actually reasonable actions to take. Simple enough?

At least Airyaman pointed to two specifics which he didn't like.

And you? Did you actually read the thing because if you did, you can do the same. I honestly want to hear your objections, too.
I want to know what in this piece of fledgling legislation strikes you as so unrealistic that it doesn't have a chance in Hell of EVER working.

Be specific, use details.

 

[Idiometer]

I so totally agree with this.

I too had been a life long republican.

And yes, I finally like Pelosi too.

If the Starbucks guy had come out as a Democrat I'd be very interested. Running as an independent, I am outraged.

Schultz is just another billionaire who thinks he knows best about what we the people need. He had ONE GREAT IDEA and rightfully made a boatload of money from it, but that doesn't make him a leader.

No more amateurs, please. I want someone who knows what the job is and isn't, and is fully prepared to do the job. Wouldn't it be nice to have some slow news days?

 

[Idiometer]

Here are at least two (so far) that catch my eye:
1) upgrade all existing buildings in the US. Who pays for that? The owners? Will there be a penalty for not doing so? Will this involve legislature, or will they offer incentives to upgrade? This seems to be an unrealistic goal written by someone who has a limited view of the realities of flyover country.
2) all of the proposed government investment in green initiatives. I understand why, but I do not agree that central government should be taking money from others to give to certain sectors of our economy. As stated elsewhere, I am a small government fiscal conservative, and this reeks of corporate welfare.

Regarding your #2: we already provide corporate wellfare to the fossil fuel industry, so full of money and power and unwilling to part with a single bit of it. And virtually every article or "study" I've ever read that claims to prove that AGW is some sort of hoax, was bought and paid for with money coming from big oil or coal.

 

[Phys251]

We don't have the slightest idea who will win the nomination. I would say looking at independents and independents only, the way they feel about Trump today, he'd be lucky to get 40% of their vote instead of the 46% he received in 2016. But today isn't even close to election day. Also the Democratic candidate is completely unknown. Trump must win the independent vote, the Republicans are still the smaller party of the two, the smaller base. The Democratic candidate probably can afford to lose the independent vote 5 points or so and still win. Keep in mind Hillary lost the independent vote by four points and still won the popular vote by 3. Now the popular vote isn't the electoral college, so perhaps the question is, can Trump win Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan again? I'd say very doubtful on all three. If Trump takes all the states he did in 2016, he could afford to lose Wisconsin and Michigan, but not Pennsylvania. Can he hang onto Florida, North Carolina, Arizona and Georgia?

IMO the entire election will come down to PA, MI, WI, IA, AZ, and NE-02 and ME-02. NC, GA, and FL will all give Trump or whoever the GOP candidate is a run for the money, but I predict that they will all go red. Note that if even one of them flip, however, the Democrats have a clear track to victory. Same for the Republicans if any of the three swing states in the Upper Midwest (not including Ohio) go red.

I don't know. It all depends on whom the Democrats nominate. I agree, it seems the democrats are repeating their same mistakes of 2016, repeating them early anyway. Then the question is, whom will those 12% of independents who voted against both Trump and Clinton in 2016 vote for this time around. We already know they don't like Trump. Can whomever the Democrats nominate grab some of those 12%.

A big, big, big problem from 2016 is that the base learned so many wrong lessons. It took a sensationalist media, Russian propaganda, the electoral college, and the least supportive primary candidate since 1980 to bring Hillary down. Not saying she didn't make mistakes--she did, and contrary to popular opinion, she admitted it--but a fair analysis of her defeat requires not cherry-picking the facts.

there're no answers to those question at this time. Probably won't be until Feb, Mar of next year. Even so, the Democrats are starting off as big favorites, at least now. At least in the battle for the independent vote. 54% of independents voted against Trump in 2016, 42% for Hillary, 12% for third party candidates. I don't think Trump can survive that kind of vote against in 2020. But with the right, should I say wrong candidate chosen by the Democrats, that could swing independents back into Trump's corner. We just don't know.

Time will tell, but like you, I do see the Democratic base making close to the same mistakes of 2016 again.

This is subject to change, but right now the winning move for Democrats is a center-left woman candidate who can connect with the Upper Midwest, paired with a progressive running mate. This would do a few things: (1) Having a progressive VP candidate could be a sort of reverse Mike Pence effect, who was thrown in to appease white evangelicals (and it worked), but not that many other people chose who to vote for/against solely because of Pence; (2) A woman candidate would tap into the highly underrated force known as the woman vote that was stronger in 2018 than in 2016; (3) None of this is going to matter if the Democrats can't flip the Upper Midwest.

I have a couple names in mind but I don't want to say just yet who. Give me a few months and we'll see if they're still up to par.