Posted on Aug 1, 2019
AOC's once-radical campaign agenda now embraced by 2020 Democrats
733
17
15
5
5
0
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 4
Embrace away.
That is how you lose - letting the loons decide what right policy is.
The problem really is that nobody wants to be a grown-up and slap these entitled children back down, explaining how the real world works.
That is how you lose - letting the loons decide what right policy is.
The problem really is that nobody wants to be a grown-up and slap these entitled children back down, explaining how the real world works.
(4)
(0)
CW3 Michael Bodnar
Nobody wants to have a Constitutional discussion either - that is what's lacking from a lot of this.
(1)
(0)
The Democrats seem to think that since nothing they're proposing is going to work, why not go nuclear and re-introduce rhetoric that's already been discussed. Problem with this approach is that at some point, someone has to recognize this for what it is, Soviet Union theory and ideology.
(3)
(0)
MSG Stan Hutchison
1SG (Join to see) - So, you don't believe global climate change is real? That's fine. That's your right.
But it should also be the right of others to take actions they deem necessary.
But it should also be the right of others to take actions they deem necessary.
(0)
(0)
1SG (Join to see)
MSG Stan Hutchison - That is not what I said. What I said is that the Green New Deal is not an authentic effort to combat said climate change, and that the gutless purveyors of that garbage proposal don't even believe in it. It is just propaganda, in my opinion.
If it were a serious effort to combat climate change, it would not be spending over 80% of it's monstrously large funding on social programs that have nothing to do with the climate. And if they were truly serious about the planet ending in 12 years, they would be much more vigorous in pushing for it than mustering exactly zero votes.
Climate change may well be real, but this proposal would do squat and f***-all to affect it positively. Like most "climate" proposals I have heard, it is a wealth redistribution vehicle. Therein is the real agenda.
If it were a serious effort to combat climate change, it would not be spending over 80% of it's monstrously large funding on social programs that have nothing to do with the climate. And if they were truly serious about the planet ending in 12 years, they would be much more vigorous in pushing for it than mustering exactly zero votes.
Climate change may well be real, but this proposal would do squat and f***-all to affect it positively. Like most "climate" proposals I have heard, it is a wealth redistribution vehicle. Therein is the real agenda.
(0)
(0)
MSG Stan Hutchison
1SG (Join to see) - Job creation is absolutely necessary if we are to move from fossil fuels to renewable energy. We have to create jobs for those that would be put out of work by any energy plan. That is essential. It is necessary to develop mechanisms for promoting large-scale green business development.
So, yes we must include so-called "social programs" to accomplish the goal of combating climate change.
So, yes we must include so-called "social programs" to accomplish the goal of combating climate change.
(0)
(0)
1SG (Join to see)
MSG Stan Hutchison - Putting people on the dole is not job creation.
Allegedly, all of these "green jobs" will appear that will fill the vacuum, but no one can articulate what those are, nor how many there will be.
Politically, these policies will gut what has been the Democrat's bread and butter for decades, Union manufacturing workers. All those car makers, pipefitters, miners... good paying jobs that are disproportionately in the rust belt states the Dems must win... gone. Hillary made the obvious mistake of saying out loud that she would put a lot of coal mines out of business, and it cost her Pennsylvania for sure (WV and Ohio were probably going to go for Trump anyway. Are they really going to give up on ever winning Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania again?
Do you really think those hard-working Americans want to give up their way of life to "go learn coding"? No, they do not.
But honestly I think this is much ado about nothing; a fundraising and campaign volunteer-getting tactic that works well in places like NYC and San Francisco. Reading the GND, it was clearly an unserious proposal that attempts to harness non-existent money to fund a new Socialist utopia. Not grounded in reality in any way.
Allegedly, all of these "green jobs" will appear that will fill the vacuum, but no one can articulate what those are, nor how many there will be.
Politically, these policies will gut what has been the Democrat's bread and butter for decades, Union manufacturing workers. All those car makers, pipefitters, miners... good paying jobs that are disproportionately in the rust belt states the Dems must win... gone. Hillary made the obvious mistake of saying out loud that she would put a lot of coal mines out of business, and it cost her Pennsylvania for sure (WV and Ohio were probably going to go for Trump anyway. Are they really going to give up on ever winning Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania again?
Do you really think those hard-working Americans want to give up their way of life to "go learn coding"? No, they do not.
But honestly I think this is much ado about nothing; a fundraising and campaign volunteer-getting tactic that works well in places like NYC and San Francisco. Reading the GND, it was clearly an unserious proposal that attempts to harness non-existent money to fund a new Socialist utopia. Not grounded in reality in any way.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next