oralloy
 
  -4  
Reply Fri 23 Aug, 2019 07:24 pm
@edgarblythe,
edgarblythe wrote:
Venezuela and Cuba can't be used as examples of systemic failure, because both are systematically sabotaged by our government.

The left always blames everyone but themselves when they run their polity into the ground.

But the only people to blame are the leftists who ran their polity into the ground.
0 Replies
 
hightor
 
  5  
Reply Fri 23 Aug, 2019 07:35 pm
@Baldimo,
Quote:
You are selling the same pile of **** with different names. It doesn't matter what you call it, it isn't compatible with the US Constitution.

The Constitution only means what five members of the Supreme Court says it means at one particular time. I don't know how future courts will rule and neither do you. There's nothing sacrosanct about your particular interpretation of the Constitution. You don't determine what is and what is not compatible with the document.
oralloy
 
  -4  
Reply Fri 23 Aug, 2019 07:57 pm
@hightor,
Nonsense. There is some room for interpretation, but the meaning of the Constitution is pretty clear, and he has every right to present an argument that something violates the Constitution.

If you can present a case that he is mistaken about what the Constitution says, present your case.
0 Replies
 
Olivier5
 
  7  
Reply Sat 24 Aug, 2019 12:09 am
Unfettered capitalism is destroying the planet we live on, and communism too. High time to try and think outside the confines of 19th century politics. Marx is dead and so is Lenin. The challenge today is to revitalize social democracy and reduce our ecological footprint. It's a new problem, and old thinking won't help.
Lash
 
  0  
Reply Sat 24 Aug, 2019 04:27 am
I believe the planet is in crisis, we’ve floundered decades catering to industries when we knew this time was coming—and this time has arrived. It’s now time for the ambulance.
————————————
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.theverge.com/platform/amp/2019/8/22/20828794/bernie-sanders-green-new-deal-2020-elections-climate-change

Bernie Sanders’ Green New Deal is the most progressive in the race
Sanders’ proposal is controversial even among environmentalists
By Justine Calma on August 22, 2019 5:39 pm

Bernie Sanders just dropped his version of what a Green New Deal would look like if he becomes president — and it looks incredibly ambitious. The proposed set of federal policies aims to simultaneously avert a climate crisis while building up a green economy that protects workers and vulnerable communities.

At $16.3 trillion spent over 15 years, Sanders’ climate deal is by far the priciest of all the Democratic candidates left in the primary race. It’s also arguably the most progressive — pushing for the US to have a carbon-free economy by 2050. The senator from Vermont also set a 2030 benchmark goal of reaching 100 percent renewable energy in the country’s two most carbon-intensive industries, transportation and the power sector, by investing in solar, wind, and geothermal power. Sanders’ plan would also declare climate change a national emergency, bring the US back on board with the Paris climate agreement, and commit $200 billion in funding to help developing nations cut their emissions and adapt to the effects of climate change.

SANDERS’ CLIMATE DEAL IS BY FAR THE PRICIEST OF ALL THE DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATES
According to the United Nations’ international panel of scientists, in order to prevent the worst effects of climate change, the world needs to become carbon neutral by midcentury. That goal allows countries to continue emitting planet-warming gases, as long as they’re removing the same amount from the atmosphere. It’s considered a more realistic approach to keeping the planet from warming beyond the crucial tipping point identified by United Nations scientists, especially since we’re not on track to meet goals set in the Paris climate agreement as it is. Sanders’ aims are more ambitious, because unlike the United Nations and other presidential hopefuls, he’s looking to fully stop burning fossil fuels, and isn’t relying on commonly discussed alternatives to reach his objective.

“To get to our goal of 100 percent sustainable energy, we will not rely on any false solutions like nuclear, geoengineering, carbon capture and sequestration, or trash incinerators,” Sanders writes in the almost 14,000-word manifesto.

“WE WILL NOT RELY ON ANY FALSE SOLUTIONS LIKE NUCLEAR, GEOENGINEERING, CARBON CAPTURE AND SEQUESTRATION”
Sanders is the first candidate to explicitly lay out those measures in his plan for a Green New Deal. When Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) and Senator Ed Markey (D-MA) introduced a resolution for a Green New Deal in February this year, both lawmakers skirted the issue — leaving nuclear energy and carbon capture on the table.

Nuclear energy, geoengineering, and carbon capture are all controversial. Nuclear energy opponents worry about its safety and what to do about nuclear waste. Geoengineering, or using technology to manipulate the climate, is still unproven. Carbon capture technologies, which take carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere, are really expensive and nascent, too. And critics say that reliance on these measures doesn’t address the concerns of communities living near power plants, pipelines, fossil fuel deposits, uranium mines, and toxic dumps.

The question that remains is whether Sanders could actually achieve his lofty aims. First, it comes with a mammoth $16.3 trillion price tag. Rival Joe Biden’s climate proposal is just $1.7 trillion. And even though Sanders has put his foot down on nuclear energy, carbon capture, and geoengineering, not even all environmentalists are on board.

“WE NEED TO HAVE EVERY OPTION ON THE TABLE”
“We need to have every option on the table,” Joshua Freed, vice president for clean energy at the Democratic think tank Third Way, told The New York Times. “The Sanders plan appears to be big, but it’s not serious.”

Freed’s concerns allude to larger tensions between progressives and moderates within the Democratic party, as others hope that Sanders’ moonshot will push policy toward bolder climate measures. Adrien Salazar, climate campaign strategist at progressive think tank Demos, tells The Verge. “A move to get the US fully decarbonized by 2050 shifts the narrative, that’s a new standard for what is actually bold and ambitious.”
——————————————
ThirdWay partisans can always be counting on to back anti-people, establishment-centric bs
0 Replies
 
hightor
 
  4  
Reply Sat 24 Aug, 2019 08:53 am
@georgeob1,
Quote:
The underlying point is that efforts to give the government exclusive control of the management of social and economic issues, themselves end up in changing the character of the government - and in very undesirable ways.

Except that no one is campaigning to give the government exclusive control of the management of social and economic issues.
Quote:
When government controls everything the stakes for power become very high indeed, usually resulting in authoritarian tyranny and pervasive corruption.

You mean as in the Scandinavian countries? See, it's possible to introduce "socialist" measures without the countries turning into the sorts of dictatorships you seem to fear so much.
edgarblythe
 
  2  
Reply Sat 24 Aug, 2019 09:13 am
https://www.truthdig.com/articles/lula-fingers-u-s-for-brazils-crisis-of-democracy/
For former President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, events in Brazil since the 2016 coup that deposed President Dilma Rousseff were orchestrated by the US government.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  -2  
Reply Sat 24 Aug, 2019 11:49 am
Quote:
Former president Barack Obama and his wife, Michelle, are reportedly looking at buying a $14.85 million dollar mansion on Martha’s Vineyard, Massachusetts. The estate overlooks the coastal Edgartown Great Pond. “A thin strip of beach called a ‘barrier beach’ separates the shoreline of the Pond from the Atlantic Ocean. Four times a year the narrowest portion of the barrier beach is cut open to the Atlantic Ocean.”

Former vice president Joe Biden “purchased a $2.7 million, 4,800-square-foot vacation house near the water in Rehoboth Beach, Del., to go along with his primary residence.”

John Delaney also has a waterfront home in Rohobeth Beach.

Do these seem like people concerned about rising sea levels and more intense hurricanes driven by climate change?


https://www.nationalreview.com/the-morning-jolt/david-koch-rip-libertarian-philanthropist-dead-79/?fbclid=IwAR0dQF3ISMmsTTWLuks1zQ1eUdcPAqEIFCe_5S839wx3AIFoDuNdG-F6NzM
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Aug, 2019 12:02 pm
@edgarblythe,
I'm surprised you even acknowledge that Cuba's system has failed.

I'm also surprised that Human Rights Watch has fallen for US propaganda

https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2019/country-chapters/cuba

Are you going to tell us that the Castro brothers and their apprentice Diaz-Canel are within their rights to detain and beat these journalists and opposition members because they are, in reality, CIA spies?

It's pretty hard to accept that you promote a mild form of socialism when you have consistently been an apologist for Cuba and Venezuela.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Aug, 2019 12:05 pm
Noam Chomsky: Democrats Are Failing the Test of Our Time
https://www.truthdig.com/articles/noam-chomsky-democrats-are-failing-the-test-of-our-time/
Finn dAbuzz
 
  0  
Reply Sat 24 Aug, 2019 12:07 pm
@Olivier5,
Exactly where is unfettered capitalism practiced?

The closest thing to a nation, of the modern age, allowing capitalism to operated without restraints was Hong Kong and fetters were introduced by China shortly after the UK transferred the territory to it in 1997.
0 Replies
 
hightor
 
  3  
Reply Sat 24 Aug, 2019 12:09 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
People with that kind of money aren't affected the way Bangladeshis or Marshall Islanders are. If you'd rather believe that activity in the real estate market provides more accurate information than the findings of climate scientists and geologists that's your prerogative. I don't know anything about Biden's or Delaney's waterfront houses, but if the Edgartown estate is on high ground the occasional breaching of the barrier beach isn't that much of a cause for concern. And hurricanes seldom do the amount of damage over cold New England waters than they do in the South. This story says nothing about the climate crisis, it only illustrates human fascination with the ocean. Hell, I live in a house overlooking a bay in the Gulf of Maine. I think the National Review is grasping at straws here.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  2  
Reply Sat 24 Aug, 2019 12:18 pm
Beth 🌸
@FaerieWhings
people who say 'purity test' have their standards set so low, anything better is deemed unachievable. have better standards & better things are possible.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Aug, 2019 12:31 pm
@edgarblythe,
I don’t know what we’ll do without a Noam Chomsky, boldly speaking intelligent truth. There are so few of his caliber...but here’s one.

Bernie Sanders asks the 2020 candidates to defy the DNC and have a climate debate.

————————
https://truthout.org/articles/sanders-campaign-calls-on-candidates-to-unite-against-dnc-demand-climate-debate/
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Aug, 2019 12:38 pm
@Lash,
One reason they don't want that debate is to shield Biden from having to speak.
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Aug, 2019 12:41 pm
@edgarblythe,
Yes. And nobody else can risk their oil lobby money...
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Aug, 2019 12:42 pm
@Lash,
That's the core of it.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Aug, 2019 12:51 pm
Who’s lying, and how much $$$ are they lying?

https://theintercept.com/2019/04/17/democratic-candidates-lobbyist-donations/

ALL OF THE DEMOCRATIC presidential candidates have committed to rejecting the influence of special interests. To demonstrate their resolve, several of the candidates have promised to power their White House ambitions without a single dollar of lobbyist money.

In the waves of small-dollar donations reported on Monday — the first financial disclosure reporting period of the 2020 presidential race — lobbyist money had made its way into the coffers of major candidates’ campaigns.

Beto O’Rourke is one of the candidates who had pledge to run a campaign financed only by regular people — “not PACs, not lobbyists, not corporations, and not special interests.” His latest filing, however, shows that he accepted donations from a federal utility-company lobbyist and a top Chevron lobbyist in New Mexico.

Some lobbyist cash comes from individuals who are clearly lobbyists but have chosen not to register with a federal system rife with loopholes.
Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif., has also collected donations from registered corporate lobbyists in South Carolina, New York, and California. Several technology lobbyists from San Francisco have given to her campaign. Another Harris donor, Robert Crowe, from the firm, Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, is a federal lobbyist who has worked to influence Congress on behalf of pipeline firm EQT Corporation and Alphabet, the parent company of Google.

Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J., similarly announced that he would eschew campaign donations from federal lobbyists, and his campaign appears to be making most of the caveat about “federal” lobbyists. Though he has returned donations from lobbyists registered under the federal government’s system, Booker has taken half a dozen donations from lobbyists registered under state and municipal lobbyist registration laws, but who do not appear in federal disclosures.

The pledge to reject lobbyist cash is completely voluntary and self-defined. O’Rourke has made blanket statements that he will reject all donations from lobbyists. Harris has made promises in emails to her supporters to reject all lobbyist donations and, in other emails, to only reject donations from federal lobbyists. Booker’s campaign website only specifies that he will not accept money from federal lobbyists.

The flow of lobby cash comes in many forms. Some comes from registered lobbyists, others from individuals who are clearly lobbyists but have chosen not to register with a federal system rife with loopholes.

The Lobbying Disclosure Act, which governs the criteria over federal lobbyist registration, is notoriously easy to evade and historically poorly enforced. Many professional corporate influence peddlers — well-aware of the porous definitions set out in the statute — simply choose not to register.

Take, for instance, Jay Carney, the former White House press secretary under President Barack Obama, who took a job as the vice president for worldwide corporate affairs at Amazon in 2015. Carney, the new campaign disclosures show, donated to Booker, O’Rourke, Harris, and South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg. The Carney donations, however, would not technically violate the lobbyist money ban, depending on how it is read, because he is not a registered lobbyist.

The registration distinction makes little difference in the real world of professional public affairs. Amazon’s chief lobbyist reports to Carney, and Carney has been deeply involved in many of Amazon’s most high-profile efforts to sway public officials, including the bidding war over the company’s planned “HQ2″ expansion project. He also oversees Amazon’s lobbying office in Washington, D.C., which employs some 28 in-house lobbyists working on policy issues ranging from taxes to labor to artificial intelligence.

Since Carney is not personally registered, does his donation count as lobbyist money?

THE DONATION DISCLOSURES released this week by the Federal Election Commission highlight a number of murky areas where candidates take special-interest cash despite pledges not to. John Buckley, chief executive officer of Subject Matter, a sprawling lobbying firm that represents corporate clients, such as health insurance giant UnitedHealth and oil giant BP, is an O’Rourke donor. Buckley, however, is not himself a registered lobbyist.

Some donations clearly cross the threshold. The FEC disclosures show that O’Rourke also received money from Amy Thomas, a federal lobbyist for the American Public Power Association, as well as from Patrick Killen, a registered state lobbyist for Chevron in New Mexico.

The Harris campaign received the most registered lobbyist donations of any Democratic presidential campaign that has said it would not take the cash.
Booker appears to have closely followed his no federal lobbyist rule. The campaign revealed on Monday that it had returned a $1,000 from Kristen Ludecke, a federal lobbyist for PSEG, the largest utility company in New Jersey. But the Booker campaign continues to embrace corporate lobbyists that register under state and municipal registration guidelines. His campaign received campaign funds from multiple lobbyists working at Mercury Public Affairs; Dennis Marco, a local health care and pharmaceutical lobbyist; and from Dennis Culnan, a New Jersey lobbyist closely tied to the Norcross family political machine.

The Harris campaign received the most registered lobbyist donations of any Democratic presidential campaign that has said it would not take the cash.

The long list of state- and municipal-registered lobbyists giving to the Harris campaign includes Leecia Eve, a Verizon lobbyist in New York; Alex Tourk, an Airbnb lobbyist in San Francisco; Alexander Clemons, who represents AT&T; Cliff Berg, registered to lobby on behalf of Novartis, Cemex, and Visa; Darrell Campbell, a South Carolina lobbyist for Pfizer, Juul, HCA health care and Duke Energy; Emily Giske, a former Democratic National Committee superdelegate who lobbies for Cigna, IBM, and Google; Jennifer Wada, a charter school lobbyist; and Justin Ross, a Maryland construction and real estate lobbyist.

Other lobbyists who gave to Harris fall into the gray area of unregistered influence peddlers. William Castleberry is not technically registered, but he is an influential Facebook lobbyist who oversees the Menlo Park, California, company’s expansive state-level government affairs operations; he gave $2,700 to Harris. Matthew Gerst, who gave $500, falls into similar territory: He leads the regulatory lobbying for CTIA, a trade group for wireless-telecom companies, such as Verizon and AT&T, but is not registered to lobby.

Democrats across the board have raised huge sums of grassroots money this cycle, in large part by promising that they will reject cash from Super PACs, corporate PACs, and lobbyists.

“Our campaign is not taking a dime from corporate PACs or lobbyists — and that was a very deliberate choice. Yes, it means we are leaving money on the table. But that’s ok with me,” Harris wrote in an email to supporters in February.

The Harris email made clear the purpose of the lobby donation ban: “I never want there to be any question about whether I’m listening to the people or corporate lobbyists. The answer will always be the people.”
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -4  
Reply Sat 24 Aug, 2019 03:12 pm
@Lash,
Lash wrote:
Noam Chomsky, boldly speaking intelligent truth.

Isn't he that nutcase who spouted all of those falsehoods about Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

Or am I confusing one leftist nutcase for another?
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Aug, 2019 03:35 pm
Kinkajou51, the Russian bot🇺🇸
@Kinkajou5123
·
2h
I would suggest both parties have devolved into cults.
Examples:
Reps-fawning over trump, no matter what.
Dems- Blue No Matter who.

What happened to policy, truthfulness and what's best for the country?
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.26 seconds on 11/30/2024 at 12:31:22