ADVERTISEMENT

Zero Democrats vote for Green New Deal

UCFKnight85

GOL's Inner Circle
Gold Member
May 6, 2003
99,362
104,456
113
it failed 0-57 with all Republicans as a no, a few brave Democrats who still value capitalism as a no, and the rest are pathetic cowards who voted “present” despite the fact many of them being presidential nominees who already voiced support for it

Hmmmm wonder why a D wouldn’t want a “yes” for this socialist joke legislation on their record?

Looks like they’re running from the nut socialist queen from the Bronx

 
I forgot that we already had a good laugh at this piece of idiocy and the idiots that created it.

Poor AOC. Couldn't get one single D in the Senate to go on record to vote yes for her heap of trash.
consider posting the update in there, and deleting this thread. then itll be easy to quote the crazies
 
why are the shook twins ignoring this vote? i was told everyone was on board with the green new deal...
 
why are the shook twins ignoring this vote? i was told everyone was on board with the green new deal...

They know that like Medicare for All, this is just a big, stupid lie and talking point that Shook liberals throw around but that it's totally unfeasible and shouldn't have ever been raised in the first place.
 


Combining the other thread of this gem

AOC responds: “But like, hey, you racist Republicans just don’t get it! I’m totally radical and totally young. We just understand these policies better then you guys do- like, totally! Unemployment is low since people are working two jobs and, like, our world is going to end in 12 years and stuff!”
 
Not a supporter of the green new deal and generally skeptical of fear-mongering around climate change.

That said, would a top-down effort for alternative energy development be a bad thing? Energy costs are absolutely CRITICAL to economic growth. Would moon-shot like federal funding be a good investment?

I'm concerned that China is going to kick our ass here. They're developing and gobbling up patents like crazy. So while we're sitting on our ass arguing about climate change, China is polluting like crazy while also becoming the world leader in renewable energy.
 
Not a supporter of the green new deal and generally skeptical of fear-mongering around climate change.

That said, would a top-down effort for alternative energy development be a bad thing? Energy costs are absolutely CRITICAL to economic growth. Would moon-shot like federal funding be a good investment?

I'm concerned that China is going to kick our ass here. They're developing and gobbling up patents like crazy. So while we're sitting on our ass arguing about climate change, China is polluting like crazy while also becoming the world leader in renewable energy.
You get a lot of support on the right if it was presented as a reasoned strategy to build up alternate energy capabilities alongside our current energy systems so that we’re ready if and when fossil fuels dry up. There isn’t any need for the fear mongering approach right now and it is actually counterproductive.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UCFWayne
You get a lot of support on the right if it was presented as a reasoned strategy to build up alternate energy capabilities alongside our current energy systems so that we’re ready if and when fossil fuels dry up. There isn’t any need for the fear mongering approach right now and it is actually counterproductive.

What would be your description of a reasoned strategy? There have been numerous different strategies and ideas over the years, and almost all of them end up losing out to the fossil fuels industry. Even Trump right now has rolled back emissions standards on cars for absolutely no reason what so ever. Do you consider something like, better emissions standards, as not reasonable?
 
What would be your description of a reasoned strategy? There have been numerous different strategies and ideas over the years, and almost all of them end up losing out to the fossil fuels industry. Even Trump right now has rolled back emissions standards on cars for absolutely no reason what so ever. Do you consider something like, better emissions standards, as not reasonable?
I'll answer this:

The profit motivation itself is reason enough to drive alternative energy research without the federal govt subsidizing it. The sun and wind are a free source of energy. Why on earth wouldn't an energy producer that makes money on selling it have enough motivation? We've seen a huge shift from coal to NG already because it's a cheaper option for providing a saleable product. Give it time and solar will take over the market naturally.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UCFWayne
I'll answer this:

The profit motivation itself is reason enough to drive alternative energy research without the federal govt subsidizing it. The sun and wind are a free source of energy. Why on earth wouldn't an energy producer that makes money on selling it have enough motivation? We've seen a huge shift from coal to NG already because it's a cheaper option for providing a saleable product. Give it time and solar will take over the market naturally.

Natural gas also had subsidies along the way.

How much time are we supposed to give it? 10 years? 20? 50? If you don't believe in climate change it doesn't matter I guess, but if you do then "give it time" isn't a time frame for a solution.
 
You get a lot of support on the right if it was presented as a reasoned strategy to build up alternate energy capabilities alongside our current energy systems so that we’re ready if and when fossil fuels dry up. There isn’t any need for the fear mongering approach right now and it is actually counterproductive.

I agree that Democrats are terrible at messaging these things in a way to reach reasonable moderates and conservatives and I dislike the feat mongering. But I also think those same conservatives fail to discover those benefits on their own while the party apparatus is beholden to financial interests that don't want those benefits marketed.
 
Natural gas also had subsidies along the way.

How much time are we supposed to give it? 10 years? 20? 50? If you don't believe in climate change it doesn't matter I guess, but if you do then "give it time" isn't a time frame for a solution.

Solar technology is advancing so quickly that 10 years is a long-term estimate. Nothing is going to happen to the climate in 10 years that will matter, and even AOC admitted that.
 
Solar technology is advancing so quickly that 10 years is a long-term estimate. Nothing is going to happen to the climate in 10 years that will matter, and even AOC admitted that.

So you think within 10 years our countries primary source of energy will be solar? I hope you are right, but I also don't see our entire energy infrastructure changing that quickly, especially on its own.
 
I agree that Democrats are terrible at messaging these things in a way to reach reasonable moderates and conservatives and I dislike the feat mongering. But I also think those same conservatives fail to discover those benefits on their own while the party apparatus is beholden to financial interests that don't want those benefits marketed.

A lot of the fear mongering comes from people completely ignoring it though. It is a two way street. I think you can make the argument some Dems fear monger too much, but I think I can equally make the argument that even more republicans don't pay nearly enough attention to it.
 
1998 Kyoto Climate Accord vote in the Senate ...
0-98-2​

Not even a single Democrat voted for it. That's why Obama didn't even send Paris to Congress.

In our history books, we are taught we didn't join the League of Nations, because the US Congress didn't ratify it. We don't teach our kids that Wilson signed it and that Harding campaigned against it -- let alone we don't say Harding 'unilaterally withdrew.'

But apparently that's the BS the US Media now pushes with regards to Clinton-Kyoto-W. and Obama-Paris-Trump.

Just like we never use the phrase, 'Libyan Refugees.'
 
A lot of the fear mongering comes from people completely ignoring it though. It is a two way street. I think you can make the argument some Dems fear monger too much, but I think I can equally make the argument that even more republicans don't pay nearly enough attention to it.
When East Anglia got caught tinkering with their algorithms so that it looks worse in order to drive desired political goals, that turned a huge number of people off. When Al Gore and AOC and so many other politicians and experts come out with wild predictions that fail to come true when their doomsday comes (we'll see about AOC's), then people are going to start ignoring the people crying wolf. It's only natural. Especially when reports come out that the community is stifling and blackballing anyone that dares challenge the consensus. It's more than just a messaging problem, it's that the entire field has an odor of corruption running through it that many cannot ignore.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, it's not about people doubting that humans have an effect on the planet's environment and climate. It's about people not wanting to be blindly herded into investing massive amounts of public money and taking potentially huge hits in jobs, quality of life, and security while other countries that are not friendly to us are not doing the same things and will have a much greater effect than us. In addition to this, because of the politicization of the science, people who would be on the fence are having a very hard time believing the science and trusting in studies that don't have a history of accurately capturing human effect on climate versus the bigger drivers.

So come out with reasonable plans that aren't radical wholesale shifts in the entire economy and don't include policies that hand over a great deal of liberty to the US federal government and people who are skeptical will listen. Make it sound pragmatic, or better beneficial on it's own without the doomsday threats, and people will give it a fair chance.

What do I mean by that? Rather than shutting down coal virtually overnight, have a plan for people that rely on coal that seamlessly replaces it when it rolls in and also provides options for people that are dependent upon the coal industry to diversify. Something better than #learntocode.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UCFWayne and UCFBS
@sk8knight has the Liberal and Libertarian viewpoint ...

A lot on the new age Progressive left are arguing all sorts of things that now 'require' authoritative planning and outlawing of freedom.

I'm still scared by how many in the US Media don't see it, especially when the left undermines the 1st Amendment.
 
When East Anglia got caught tinkering with their algorithms so that it looks worse in order to drive desired political goals, that turned a huge number of people off. When Al Gore and AOC and so many other politicians and experts come out with wild predictions that fail to come true when their doomsday comes (we'll see about AOC's), then people are going to start ignoring the people crying wolf. It's only natural. Especially when reports come out that the community is stifling and blackballing anyone that dares challenge the consensus. It's more than just a messaging problem, it's that the entire field has an odor of corruption running through it that many cannot ignore.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, it's not about people doubting that humans have an effect on the planet's environment and climate. It's about people not wanting to be blindly herded into investing massive amounts of public money and taking potentially huge hits in jobs, quality of life, and security while other countries that are not friendly to us are not doing the same things and will have a much greater effect than us. In addition to this, because of the politicization of the science, people who would be on the fence are having a very hard time believing the science and trusting in studies that don't have a history of accurately capturing human effect on climate versus the bigger drivers.

So come out with reasonable plans that aren't radical wholesale shifts in the entire economy and don't include policies that hand over a great deal of liberty to the US federal government and people who are skeptical will listen. Make it sound pragmatic, or better beneficial on it's own without the doomsday threats, and people will give it a fair chance.

What do I mean by that? Rather than shutting down coal virtually overnight, have a plan for people that rely on coal that seamlessly replaces it when it rolls in and also provides options for people that are dependent upon the coal industry to diversify. Something better than #learntocode.

I dont understand the jobs argument. Our economy is constantly changing, and technology is typically the thing that causes the change. Nobody cared when Netflix but movie stores out of business, but when it comes to coal and the fossil fuel industry, for some reason we have to go out of our way to protect those industries. We know we have cleaner and just as sufficient means for energy, so why can't we move in that direction?

And again, when you say come up with new plans, you have to elaborate. I gave you the example about Trump rolling back emission standards. To me, emission standards is a pretty practical thing that not only doesnt impact our lives, but actually makes it more convenient. Who wants to spend more on gas and take up more time going to the gas station? I think the answer to that is nobody, so what is the purpose of rolling back those standards, other than to benefit oil companies?

Nobody was going to roll back coal overnight. THat obviously isnt feasible or realistic. But, coal jobs are disappearing anyway due to automation, so I also dont understand why this is an industry that we must go out of our way to protect, especially when it is already a dying industry anyway, at least in regards to the rank and file coal workers. I would argue the jobs argument in many ways isnt about rank and file jobs, it is about protecting the interests of the people at the top who are typically the biggest political donors.
 
I dont understand the jobs argument. Our economy is constantly changing, and technology is typically the thing that causes the change. Nobody cared when Netflix but movie stores out of business, but when it comes to coal and the fossil fuel industry, for some reason we have to go out of our way to protect those industries. We know we have cleaner and just as sufficient means for energy, so why can't we move in that direction?

And again, when you say come up with new plans, you have to elaborate. I gave you the example about Trump rolling back emission standards. To me, emission standards is a pretty practical thing that not only doesnt impact our lives, but actually makes it more convenient. Who wants to spend more on gas and take up more time going to the gas station? I think the answer to that is nobody, so what is the purpose of rolling back those standards, other than to benefit oil companies?

Nobody was going to roll back coal overnight. THat obviously isnt feasible or realistic. But, coal jobs are disappearing anyway due to automation, so I also dont understand why this is an industry that we must go out of our way to protect, especially when it is already a dying industry anyway, at least in regards to the rank and file coal workers. I would argue the jobs argument in many ways isnt about rank and file jobs, it is about protecting the interests of the people at the top who are typically the biggest political donors.
You asked me what would get people behind green policies. I gave you the pragmatic answer. You're proposing government policy that artificially ends an industry based upon some anticipated environmental impact and not market forces so I think that government owes it to those people to be more proactive in offering solutions for those people.

Your example of Netflix is a natural market force, not a governmental policy action. If the green economy was naturally replacing coal and nuclear and oil, then your analogy would fit, but that's not what is happening. The country is moving to "cleaner" energy on it's own. If you want to hasten that, fund education and pr campaigns to encourage people to the newer technology. I'm even good with tax breaks for buying electric cars and solar panels. But not legislation and/or that shuts down coal and oil and nuclear or that makes them impossible to upgrade or maintain. That's what is being proposed and I can't get behind that type of legislation/regulation.

Are you saying that emission standards affect the price of gas? Or did you mean the CAFE mpg regulations? I'm sure you realize that those are more complicated than just people buying more or less gas.

Coal was a bad example but it was the quickest one I had. Coal is being replaced naturally by other energy sources, which include "renewables" but largely Natural Gas. Regardless, the point holds for the other "dirty" energy sources. I'm all for natural market forces, no so much for forced retirement. As for subsidies, we can argue those in their own right. But while so much of the economy is currently on fossil fuels, there's a case to be made to keep the fossil fuel production stable and viable for now. When that ratio changes, the case changes. It's fluid.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UCFWayne
I dont understand the jobs argument. Our economy is constantly changing, and technology is typically the thing that causes the change. Nobody cared when Netflix but movie stores out of business, but when it comes to coal and the fossil fuel industry, for some reason we have to go out of our way to protect those industries. We know we have cleaner and just as sufficient means for energy, so why can't we move in that direction?

And again, when you say come up with new plans, you have to elaborate. I gave you the example about Trump rolling back emission standards. To me, emission standards is a pretty practical thing that not only doesnt impact our lives, but actually makes it more convenient. Who wants to spend more on gas and take up more time going to the gas station? I think the answer to that is nobody, so what is the purpose of rolling back those standards, other than to benefit oil companies?

Nobody was going to roll back coal overnight. THat obviously isnt feasible or realistic. But, coal jobs are disappearing anyway due to automation, so I also dont understand why this is an industry that we must go out of our way to protect, especially when it is already a dying industry anyway, at least in regards to the rank and file coal workers. I would argue the jobs argument in many ways isnt about rank and file jobs, it is about protecting the interests of the people at the top who are typically the biggest political donors.
Replying to this differently because the "nobody is saying" is a common rhetorical device around here lately. The fact is that people absolutely think that politicians are trying to roll over the industries as immediately as possible and this is largely because of the politicians own words. Some of that feeling is warranted and some isn't. But it's something that has to be overcome if you're going to win the hearts and minds.
 
You asked me what would get people behind green policies. I gave you the pragmatic answer. You're proposing government policy that artificially ends an industry based upon some anticipated environmental impact and not market forces so I think that government owes it to those people to be more proactive in offering solutions for those people.

Your example of Netflix is a natural market force, not a governmental policy action. If the green economy was naturally replacing coal and nuclear and oil, then your analogy would fit, but that's not what is happening. The country is moving to "cleaner" energy on it's own. If you want to hasten that, fund education and pr campaigns to encourage people to the newer technology. I'm even good with tax breaks for buying electric cars and solar panels. But not legislation and/or that shuts down coal and oil and nuclear or that makes them impossible to upgrade or maintain. That's what is being proposed and I can't get behind that type of legislation/regulation.

Are you saying that emission standards affect the price of gas? Or did you mean the CAFE mpg regulations? I'm sure you realize that those are more complicated than just people buying more or less gas.

Coal was a bad example but it was the quickest one I had. Coal is being replaced naturally by other energy sources, which include "renewables" but largely Natural Gas. Regardless, the point holds for the other "dirty" energy sources. I'm all for natural market forces, no so much for forced retirement. As for subsidies, we can argue those in their own right. But while so much of the economy is currently on fossil fuels, there's a case to be made to keep the fossil fuel production stable and viable for now. When that ratio changes, the case changes. It's fluid.

Coal jobs leaving is a natural market force too so I dont understand how it can be separated from other jobs eliminated from changes in the marketplace. They are leaving due to automation. In the 1920s there were around 800,000 coal miners in this country. And keep in mind this was the 20s when the population is nowhere near what it is today. That is estimated to be the time where coal miners had its highest # of workers. Today, there are about 50,000 coal mining jobs. And that isnt due to the government, that is due to automation, which is a market force. My point really, is that I think it is misleading when politicians and lobbyists stand up for these industries in the name of jobs. It isnt about jobs, it is about protecting their donor class and they arent being honest.

I am not saying it effects the price of gas, I am saying if you have to fill up less often you will spend less on gas. When I used to have a 20 mile or so commute to work I was filling up at least once a week. Now that I live 2 or 3 miles from work I fill up about once a month. It is the same idea, if your car is more fuel efficient, you will have to fill up less, and I dont understand why people would be against that.
 
Last edited:
Replying to this differently because the "nobody is saying" is a common rhetorical device around here lately. The fact is that people absolutely think that politicians are trying to roll over the industries as immediately as possible and this is largely because of the politicians own words. Some of that feeling is warranted and some isn't. But it's something that has to be overcome if you're going to win the hearts and minds.

As immediately as possible yes, but that isnt over night. But here is the reality. If you believe climate change is real, then we should be working to correct is quickly as possible. There isnt an industry in the world worth protecting if we think that industry is causing great harm to the planet. Now if you dont believe it is real that is a different argument. But if you have cancer because you smoke too much, the answer isnt to gradually quit smoking and delay treatment, the answer is try and quit smoking immediately and start getting treatments and stopping the growth as soon as possible.

But whose hearts and minds? Let's be honest, most people, including me, arent PHD's in any sort of science field. So if it is an actual problem, why shouldnt we listen to the people who are the experts in this field? Why should we try to win over hearts and minds of people who know nothing about it? It just doesnt make sense to me.

So to bring up the medial analogy again, should a doctor try to win over the hearts and minds of a patient who has a life threatening disease? Or should the patient listen to the expert and start the treatment (and get a 2nd opinion obviously, but you get the point) This is a little different I know because it would be a personal choice, where as climate change is something that will likely impact the masses, but you get the point. Experts in certain areas shouldnt have to worry about peoples feelings who know nothing about that area. They should state their case, present their information, and the people can believe it or not, but it isnt up to a scientist to win over hearts and minds, it is up to a scientist to present the facts and relative information as to what is going on.
 
Last edited:
So you think within 10 years our countries primary source of energy will be solar? I hope you are right, but I also don't see our entire energy infrastructure changing that quickly, especially on its own.
You would be amazed at how quickly solar is becoming financially viable. It was a joke 10 years ago, today it's nearly profitable on both a small and large scale basis. We've already reached the point where the tech can't actually be manufactured fast enough to be obsolete because of the advances in collectors. The real challenge is in the battery storage but Fisker claims to have solid state battery technology that could potentially eliminate the grid for anything other than large industry. I have weekly interaction with utility companies and the engineers that I talk to are actually concerned about how they will be able to maintain their substations and lines because we're only a few years away from them losing their residential customer base due to self sustaining customers. There's a lot of talk about how they can integrate stand-alone arrays into the grid and if they will have to reimburse customers who have a net-negative usage. They don't know if large arrays and storage will be necessary because it can be reversed, where they are a broker and the former consumers will be the providers. It's pretty awesome, really.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UCFWayne
You would be amazed at how quickly solar is becoming financially viable. It was a joke 10 years ago, today it's nearly profitable on both a small and large scale basis. We've already reached the point where the tech can't actually be manufactured fast enough to be obsolete because of the advances in collectors. The real challenge is in the battery storage but Fisker claims to have solid state battery technology that could potentially eliminate the grid for anything other than large industry. I have weekly interaction with utility companies and the engineers that I talk to are actually concerned about how they will be able to maintain their substations and lines because we're only a few years away from them losing their residential customer base due to self sustaining customers. There's a lot of talk about how they can integrate stand-alone arrays into the grid and if they will have to reimburse customers who have a net-negative usage. They don't know if large arrays and storage will be necessary because it can be reversed, where they are a broker and the former consumers will be the providers. It's pretty awesome, really.

I understand it is financially viable, but there is a difference in being financially viable and municple governments overturning their electrical infrastructure to support it, which would have to be done to at least some degree. Just because it is financially viable, doesnt mean it wont cost certain industries money, and those industries have lobbyists.
 
I understand it is financially viable, but there is a difference in being financially viable and municple governments overturning their electrical infrastructure to support it, which would have to be done to at least some degree. Just because it is financially viable, doesnt mean it wont cost certain industries money, and those industries have lobbyists.

So do you think municipal governments and public utilities are more likely to suppress these tech advances than a federal government who is faced with billions of dollars worth of lobbying? The biggest corruption comes from the highest levels, so why on earth would we want to involve them any more than necessary? We already know that government doesnt like the idea of self-sustaining people because they lose their tax base. Can you imagine what it will be like if they have to figure out how to pay the people that they used to be funded by? Answer: regulation and penalties.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UCFWayne
So do you think municipal governments and public utilities are more likely to suppress these tech advances than a federal government who is faced with billions of dollars worth of lobbying? The biggest corruption comes from the highest levels, so why on earth would we want to involve them any more than necessary? We already know that government doesnt like the idea of self-sustaining people because they lose their tax base. Can you imagine what it will be like if they have to figure out how to pay the people that they used to be funded by? Answer: regulation and penalties.

There are corrupt state and local governments all over this country, always have been, always will be.
 
has solar gotten past 33% efficiency yet? i dont think they have. if they can ever figure that one out, then you will see a major shift.

i know battery tech is still pretty limited. its gotten alot better over the past 10 years but still not where it needs to be. again if there is a breakthrough, we will see a major shift.
 
There are corrupt state and local governments all over this country, always have been, always will be.
But the point is to distribute power so that (a) corruption doesn’t affect as many people and (b) there are layers of protection that can come in and root out the corruption. When the power is consolidated into the federal level, there is no higher government that can check that power.
 
has solar gotten past 33% efficiency yet? i dont think they have. if they can ever figure that one out, then you will see a major shift.

i know battery tech is still pretty limited. its gotten alot better over the past 10 years but still not where it needs to be. again if there is a breakthrough, we will see a major shift.

I'd imagine solar could be a pain and costly in central Florida. Between the pollen, hail, and the solar panels lose efficiency it probably doesn't make financial sense. I'm sure in time they will have shingles that look like a roof that will be economical in time.
 
But the point is to distribute power so that (a) corruption doesn’t affect as many people and (b) there are layers of protection that can come in and root out the corruption. When the power is consolidated into the federal level, there is no higher government that can check that power.

Nobody is arguing we should get rid of local and state governments, I was just commenting on his post that basically dismissed corruption at lower levels of government.
 
has solar gotten past 33% efficiency yet? i dont think they have. if they can ever figure that one out, then you will see a major shift.

i know battery tech is still pretty limited. its gotten alot better over the past 10 years but still not where it needs to be. again if there is a breakthrough, we will see a major shift.

The efficiency problem is in how to convert dc to ac, and unless they develop a phase converter with very little friction it won't ever be extremely efficient but the source of power is essentially free so efficiency isn't as much of a factor.

The long term goal for solar isn't to completely eliminate other forms of energy, it's to get to the point where we can start reducing the demand factor for them. That's why wind energy is a farce; its unpredictable. A utility company has to look at the highest demand on any single day in a period of 2 years and generate that level with their traditional sources every day. They don't just ramp up or choke down on an hour by hour or day by day basis. As solar becomes more predictable and there is enough storage to span hours where the collectors arent performing at their peak, the utilities will be able to take them into account and either cycle certain generators off line for periods of time or choke all of them down. The more small scale collectors we have, the more predictable it becomes. That's where the consumer may become a net producer and they'll have to figure out how they are reimbursed and who will be responsible for maintaining the infrastructure for back-feeding the grid.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UCFWayne
Nobody is arguing we should get rid of local and state governments, I was just commenting on his post that basically dismissed corruption at lower levels of government.
Corruption is at all levels of government. But local and state have far, far less power than federal.

Heck, the whole design of our layered, Democratic-Republic was to have higher levels protect us from lower levels. The higher was supposed to have less control, except when it came to protecting our civil rights. But the left is really boiling a lot of blood right now with their insistence that everyone knows better at the federal and state, and they should trump everything and take away freedoms.

I hardly make excuses for Republicans and Trump, but right now, the left is full-on 'control' of our lives. The protest in Virginia this past weekend is the proof of that ... it's multi-culture turn-out. I've never seen an entire party and the US Media so 'out-of-touch' with the everyday American, not just white Americans, every Americans.

And the 'environment' argument is becoming the left's mainstay for arguing micromanagement of everyone's life. It would be one thing if these policies were sound, but they are absolutely not. California has become a favorite target of many EEs for this very reason, even if it's a great state to be an EE in -- employment-wise.
 
ADVERTISEMENT