On Tuesday, the Warren campaign released its most comprehensive climate plan yet, a $2 trillion package that commits the federal government to spend $150 billion a year over the next decade on low-carbon technology, increases energy research funding tenfold and funds a $100 billion Green Marshall Plan to aid the poorer countries projected to suffer the worst as global temperatures rise. — The Huffington Post
In specifically identifying a post-World War II-style Marshall Plan-like aid package aimed at assisting international countries lower their carbon emissions, Warren's plan seeks to go further than the other Green New Deal-style visions put forward by competing presidential candidates.
In a Medium post announcing the plan, Warren writes: “The climate crisis demands immediate and bold action. Like we have before, we should bank on American ingenuity and American workers to lead the global effort to face down this threat — and create more than a million good jobs here at home.”
Warren's plan includes the creation of a new "federal office dedicated to selling American-made clean, renewable, and emission-free energy technology abroad and a $100 billion commitment to assisting countries to purchase and deploy this technology." The effort, according to the Massachusetts senator, would help to address global carbon emissions that will need to be eliminated after the US reaches net-zero carbon so the international community can stay on track with the Paris Agreement climate accord benchmarks.
136 Comments
Unless you create a system of accountability, there is going to be a lot of grift associated here. That's why designers should be involved--but I'm guessing whatever green new deal happens or doesn't happen, it will just be a lot of bureaucrats throwing money at their friends from up high.
Accountability? Hahahahahahaha
Sanders is staking out the high road: #nomiddleground.
these people only care about one thing, power. They will capitalize on any issue to grab power. Anyone who believes these politicians is DUMB
i understand that you're not a fan of warren, and that's fair. critical skepticism towards politicians, of any party, is healthy up to a certain point. but beyond that, does the presidential candidate of your choice have a climate change action plan?
Not that I think would work. I think it’s obviously a very important issue, but all of these big government proposals are bandaid solutions that will likely disrupt the economy and have little effect on overall climate change. I would be in favor of a more limited govt option that would effectively stop propping up the cheap oil economy (which was the root of the problem to begin with) 1. stop subsidizing oil companies 2. Stop using military to protect cheap oil. 3. Stop subsidizing big agriculture. This would effectively allow oil to reach its true cost, and compel companies to search for alternative energies. People always cite capitalism as the problem, but in reality big government with big military has created an oil centric economy that has propelled capitalism to grow faster than it should have and in a direction that it shouldn’t have. This is heavily manipulated capitalism propped up by our military and big government/corporate partnerships (that should never exist)
Essentially, shrink the govt. govt is the problem. Let oil prices skyrocket, let companies innovate to survive, let the market painfully correct itself.
Eliminate stupid border laws...let people move freely...let nations dissolve away...let innovative people innovate globally....and at a pace consistent with the true costs and availability of earths resources...
I agree with some of this.
Let me clarify the nations disolving away part...why can’t countries be more like states where we can move freely, trade freely, work freely, while also having to abide by the laws of that specific state? For instance, I don’t need permission from govt to relocate to Idaho. I can move freely across all 50 states. With the exception of ridiculous occupational licensing laws, I can work in different states. If I travel to NV though, I follow the laws of NV. That’s how the entire planet should be. Let nations be at the mercy of free market forces allowing desirable places the thrive and less desirable ones to fail. War would end. Dictatorships would end. Tyrannical laws would end. Nations would simply become providers
of infrastructure.
Hell yea!
Local communism, regional democracy, global neoliberalism.
shut up already, man
Sorry this thread is now about idealized systems of power and not a current presidential candidate who I'm totally going to vote for.
No Political History Context 2020
I don’t think anyone truly believes unhinged, free-for-all capitalism is the actual solution to this, especially not imperialism dressed up as green help. Yes subsidized oil conglomerates are a problem, and side effects of our massively oversized military has always been a such an embarrassment for any American who believes in the autonomy of foreign communities. But to say that the market will insert facts and logic is a big ask. That is how capitalism works. There are no rational actors. Ideology seems through everything.
Warrens proposal, in all her exciting ability to push out interesting policy, is eerily reminiscent of the anticommunist policies of its namesake. Just kind of weird that the starvation /war-of-attrition created by the Marshall plan is being nostalgia’d by a “progressive.” It’s a cool idea, but how can we imagine a US with the same military, same history of massive power abuse and imperialist devastation, will simply promote green tech, no strings attached? it’ll be like any free-ware. Full of trackers and trojans.
The Marshall Plan created 'starvation'?
I’m mostly thinking about the long term effects of alienating the Soviet bloc. Just as any blockade removes trade connections, because the Marshall Plan implicitly stated its goal was stopping the spread of communism, it only further restricted a possible prosperity of those nations and therefore worked in the manner of war of attrition. After all socialism in one country
can’t work.
Like in Norway, Sweden, Iceland, Finland, Denmark, Canada ...
All those countries are free market economies.
Warren can propose all she wants, Trump is sailing smoothly towards reelection.
Democratic Party platform:
Health care? No
End wars? No
Infrastructure? No
Income inequality? No
Reduce military spending? No
Elimiate corporate money in campaigns? No
Attack Trump? Yes
^ What?
Hillary: "single payer will never happen".
Pelosi: "Medicare-for-all costs too much."
68% of House Dems and 85% of Senate Dems voted for Trump's $716b military budget.
Front-runner Biden (according to corporate media) isn't taking special interest money (but his PAC is).
Pelosi: "Dems would start with campaign finance reform if they take House" - well they did, and they didn't.
They did though. Literally HR #1 https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/1
Doesn't even begin to address unlimited corporate spending, PACs, SuperPACs, black money, etc.
Warren is going to give $100,000,000,000 away to small countries so they can fight 'climate change' (no corruption there) while kids in LA and other major US cities live in tents on the street in squalor with their parents. $100 billion would build about one million modest houses at about $100,000 each.
That’s the problem with socialism...it needs honest caring leaders to work, but only dishonest people tend to rise up through the political gauntlet, because generally dishonest and greedy people crave positions of power. It’s the ultimate catch 22.
I find the whole concept of "It's bad to spend money on this thing we desperately need because we also don't spend money on some other thing we desperately need" to be a really obnoxious argument. Maybe pay for both? We've got many hundreds of billions in the DOD that they probably don't need.
Giving away taxpayer dollars to "poor" countries in Latin America and Africa that have many more resources per capita than we do but are held back by thoroughly corrupt governments is obnoxious and insane. Might as well transfer the money directly to the government official's bank accounts in Switzerland.
Don’t worry Volunteer, it’s not like she’ll ever become president.
The operative word in this sentence is "she"
Ugh tduds I just let out a sob at my desk. Goddammit.
Yes, every time a lousy female candidate like lying warren, or corrupt Hillary lose its because of sexist men? Nothing to do with the fact that no one believes or trusts them because they
have history of lying to get ahead.
https://www.mcsweeneys.net/articles/i-dont-hate-women-candidates-i-just-hated-hillary-and-coincidentally-im-starting-to-hate-elizabeth-warren
You want to know why trump is going to win by a landslide? Because most people would rather vote for the bad guy who doesn’t pretend to be a good guy, than the bad guy that pretends to be a good guy. It’s very simple. We Americans view all politicians as bad, self interested, career focused, wannabe authoritarians. When one pretends to be moral and “good” it makes people sick. War, erosion of civil liberties, economic turmoil...a lot is at stake and people don’t like uncertainty. Trump is an authentic asshole, and people believe he will do what he says. You get what you see. May be counter intuitive, but that’s what I hear from everyday people. Despite who’s worse or better, that’s how most people think. Unless the Dems run an equivalent, or a person with such charisma and reputation that the good guy narrative is believed, Trump will win by a huge margin imo.
Has nothing to do with gender or race. Obama’s fault imo. He was as nice and clean on the surface as you could be...we got drones, regime change, nsa, etc...people are more skeptical of the “good guy” thing post Obama.
Your prediction belies the fact that he did not win by a "landslide" in 2016. In fact he lost the popular vote by a pretty substantial margin and only won the electoral college (by a historically below average margin) because of some lucky demographic breaks.
Nevermind the fact that his approval rating has been consistently underwater since day 1.
Trump's campaign - even if he hadn't won - revealed an ugly underbelly of American culture. And his presidency so far has revealed an uglier truth about the cult of power in our nation. I believe his victory was a fluke that's unlikely to be repeated, but I think his defeat won't be the thing that turns the direction of our government around (Much like Obama's victory didn't)
This is very different. Good economy, second term, uncertainty gone, and most of all, as I predicted 2 years ago, the Dems moved farther left into wacky territory that most people ain’t with. He obviously trolled them into it, and the dummies took the bait.
And the “ugly underbelly” is mostly bs. Yes some people voted because they are anti-immigrant racists, but many just wanted to throw a wrench into a system that they felt has failed them. Now that the wrench / act of mischief is connotated to a good economy, in reality or perception, the next vote will be one to maintain that momentum. It will be more about stability than mischief. He will keep most who voted for him in 2016, and gain the ones turned off by the far-left moves of the Dems, and those who don’t want to rock the economy.
Poll data disagrees with you. I'll dig some up later. Job time!
If the "far left"-ward move of Democratic candidates put them out of touch with American voters, why did they win historic margins in 2018, despite a system of districts heavily gerrymandered against them?
jla-x Warren isn't a lousy candidate in ANY WAY except your own small mind but thank you for making that shitty comment because now I'm going back to ignoring you so don't bother responding.
Lying about her race to get ahead, demonizing opponents, promising to trample civil liberties (not the ones you care about so that’s ok) taking far left positions on issues despite the FACT that many of her promises are impossible to fulfill...aka snake oil salesmen...she’s not as bad as Hillary or Sanders, but not a good candidate.
Overall low polling which proves she has little chance winning... so yeah terrible candidate.
Really blows my mind how easily Republican / Fox News talking points worm their way into non-Republican "intellectual" criticisms of Democratic candidates.
Fox News is no more/less bs than cnn or other msm outlets. Lately, cnn and msnbc are the worst, and their ratings are suffering for it. Which brings up another point, the media ruined any chance the Dems had of winning. Tthe public has completely lost trust in them, and many people see the msm and the dem party as one in the same...
The critiques of her may be Fox talking points, doesn’t mean they aren’t true...The Native American thing is a big deal imo...it shows that she is concerned about presenting a certain narrative, and that she is willing to lie and fraud to get ahead.
tduds, Donna
I didn’t say Warren wouldn’t become president because she’s a woman, but because she isn’t Donald Trump.
Hillary Clinton has already smashed the 'glass ceiling' for women. She fell through it.
And proved that women are equally as corrupt as men.
"I didn’t say Warren wouldn’t become president because she’s a woman"
I know. I did.
Trumps not going to win. Fool me once.
Wanna bet? I don’t like trump as much as anyone on here, but it’s clear that he is going to win by a landslide unless the economy tanks...which I’m sure some “caring” democratics are hoping for.
If you think his con hasn’t played out then maybe, but everyone knows he’s a criminal.
He hasn’t been proven to commit any crime. We know he’s a crook, not a criminal
A criminal who hasn't been convicted is still a criminal. You don't need a bureaucracy to tell you what you already know. But whether he evades prosecution or not, republicans need to be thinking about the future cause he's done.
Not in the US...we still have a presumption of innocence...
https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/08/politics/trump-2020-reelection-against-joe-biden-analysis/index.html
I am honestly surprised at how so many people think the solution to Trump is to increase his power.
How do you mean?
What makes Trump so dangerous and damaging is his ability to make unilateral decisions, often seemingly on a whim. There is anger at a lot of these decisions but also a lot of shock that he can so easily act unilaterally. People are asking if it’s right for him to make these decisions but very few are asking if he, as president, should have been able to make them in the first place. Proposals like this one are giving more power to the president to act unilaterally. Warren wants hundreds of millions of dollars for her to disperse as she alone sees fit. And while she may be a wise and prudent fiduciary of these funds, that says nothing of the next president who will also be able to use or abuse these funds. All of these big grand deals and plans being proposed by presidential hopefuls and new Congressional progressives are about giving the president vast amounts of power and control, but nobody is asking “What if we had done this six years ago?”
I agree.
It could not be clearer that Sanders is the best option.
Hahahaha.
Bernie
would put this country into the shitter.
davvid I respect your opinion so honestly how exactly is Bernie substantially better than Warren?
On the dem side Tulsi Gabbard is by far the best candidate.
Warren was a republican, now she's a democrat. Bernie has been an independent his entire career. He only runs as a democrat because the two party system freezes out third parties. Warren voted for massive military budget increases and utterly fails to address ongoing wars and the use of the US military. Her "green empire" (an energy efficient military!) is just pandering and would be funny if it wasn't so pathetic.
"Warren was a republican, now she's a democrat" Reading about her transformation was actually one of the things that won me over. She adjusts her conclusions based on her changing understanding of the reality around her, not the other way around.
Political flavor of the month.
Clearly you haven't read beyond the headlines on this one, Miles.
I ignore corporate media.
I'm sure your definition of "corporate media" is in no way based on which sources give you information you want to agree with.
Running out of arguments? This one is not bringing out the best in you. Disappointing really, especially after the way you've taken on some other issues in this forum. Beware of your cognitive bias.
Miles, you seem to be projecting.
Yeah... responding to "You should read beyond the headlines" with "I ignore corporate media" assumes (incorrectly) that the headlines I'm referring to are from a source you've defined as "corporate." It's a dismissive retort that saves you the effort of doing some homework while maintaining a sense of knowledged superiority. Which is, frankly, bullshit.
Independent media article on Warren. Source has been banned by corporate internet including Google and Twitter.
Elizabeth Warren espouses economic nationalist policies aligned with Donald Trump
Hey Donna! I’m not anti-Warren, and if there is any other major candidate who I could cast my vote for, it is her. But I see Sanders as an extremely rare opportunity to fundamentally change the system in favor of workers, in favor of the poor, in favor of the environment, and in favor democratic participation. I think that he correctly recognizes that if we can pull millions of new voters into the system who were formerly disillusioned or apathetic, or in the case of felons in some states prevented by law to vote, that the center of power will shift dramatically in favor of the working class, because they dramatically outnumber the very wealthy. If we can take the influence of Super PACs, wealthy donors, and corporate funded think tanks out of the process, we can reorient the system to focus on the needs and demands of average people. If we can introduce universal policies that will grow to become as popular and indispensable as Social Security, we can start to really change the political inclinations of people across the country for generations. I think that Sanders is an organizer, and he surrounds himself with organizers who know that there are millions of apathetic people on the sidelines, and all serious observers agree that those disengaged non/infrequent-voters tend to be working class and tend to be further left on economic issues than the Democratic Party. We see that group come out to vote when there are referendums on the ballot to increase minimum wage. In 2018, we saw a bunch of progressive referendums pass in red states. We saw Florida pass a referendum to re-enfranchise voting rights to 1.4 million people with felony records.
When I see Sanders aligning himself with Amazon workers, striking electricians, McDonald’s workers, and Walmart workers, it’s just another reminder of where his focus is. He is standing with people who are rarely invited to appear on national news programs, and who Ivy league-educated Washington Post or NYTimes journalists have little familiarity with.
Another thought that architects might relate to… One of the things I really admire about Sanders is his ability to be projective, in the sense that he can present an inspiring alternative vision (that dull centrist wonks quickly ridicule as impractical) in the tradition of the great utopian reform-minded modernists. But at the same time, while being somewhat utopian or projective, he is also able to be very aware of specific, super-technical, hum-drum but very consequential things that need to be fixed. For example, the caps on credit card interest, or passing a "right to repair” because farmers can’t fix their own tractors because John Deere restricts it, or restrictions from cable companies that keep a customer from purchasing a less expensive cable box from another company. Warren is also very good at the nitty gritty of policy changes, but I think she lacks the "projective vision" part.
I think Sanders really could be another FDR. For me, when I consider everything together, Sanders comes out way ahead.
Only positive thing that would come out of that is that people would learn that socialism sucks
FDR died at 63. Sanders is 77. If he was going to be the next FDR, he'd already have done it.
My main beef against Sanders is that he's old as fuck and he should have had the sense to groom an ideological successor instead of launching bid after quixotic bid for a nomination he's extremely unlikely to win.
If he somehow gets the Democratic nomination, I'll happily vote for him. But my primary ballot is going elsewhere.
Which is what primaries are for. And why they are often closed in so many ways - to protect the entrenched system. Example: independents can't vote in party primaries. Voters by party affiliation: REP 23% DEM 32% IND 39%.
Warren is 69. anyway, since when did age become a negative. Age=experience. I think sanders and warren are both as sharp as any younger candidate...Biden...not so much.
Uhh, Tduds... Sanders also doesn't have polio. He also has a different name. Did you think that I meant that Sanders would be another FDR in *ALL* of the ways? Yes, he is older. But why should that matter? I really find the ageism baffling, and I can't help but assume that it's being used as a red herring. Biden is one year younger, and we almost never hear him being defined by his age in the mainstream media. Pelosi is two years older than Sanders, but I doubt most people know that.
And, by the way, Sanders’s campaigns have “groomed” and propelled many young people into important leadership roles. AOC is probably the best example. But also Saikat Chakrabarti, who is AOC’s chief of staff, and co-founded Justice Democrats which played a major role in getting Ro Khanna, Ilhan Omar, AOC, Ayanna Pressley, Rashida Talid, (among others) elected.
Let me be clear, the American public will never ever submit to socialism. Ever. They may entertain the idea to get sjw points on social media, but once they discover the details they will not accept it. The other side who rightfully hates socialism will outright block any bill or effort to push any agenda...sanders in reality will be a watered down version of the image you’ve grown to like. Thank god for the constitution!
AOC is already losing support way faster than she gained it. She was embraced as a concept, not a reality...
What an elitist disconnected way of looking at things. The economy is good, jobless rate is low, do you think working class people have the luxury to roll the dice with that?
My experience has been that people react differently when they are discussing hypotheticals and broad labels than they do when they are discussing concrete and urgent issues that are affecting their lives or the lives of people they know. Abortion is one of these issues. I grew up in a working class Catholic family and neighborhood. It was common for people to state that they were pro-life, particularly when other people were around to hear it. But the tone would change in a one-on-one discussion, particularly when "shit gets real" and the situation affects someone close.
People can make uncharacteristically radical choices if it becomes clear that it is the right choice to make.
Regarding the economy, the official measures of the economy doesn't tell the full story. It doesn't tell the full story of cost of living, rising rent in gentrifying cities, the cost of tuition and the burden of student loan debt, the credit card debt that people take on who can't make ends meet, the lack of benefits, the geography of where jobs are being created and the associated costs of moving, the precarious nature of these jobs (uber drivers, freelance designer, temporary retail employee), of the growth of homelessness in cities, etc.
Warren and Sanders are probably the only two candidates who will be able to speak convincingly about the dark side of this "good economy", and the experience of working class people, students, and seniors.
Thanks for bringing up homelessness. The liberal run cities are collapsing under liberal leadership. People are fleeing high tax states like ny and CA. The cities are beholden to a minority of very wealthy residents that carry the tax burden. People don’t want this on a national level. Add to that, cultural issues like radica stances on abortion that are clearly wrong and only supported by like 15% of voters...a weaponized FBI, and a failed waste of time mueller investigation...that we are tired of hearing about...not a good look.
The list goes on and on and on. If the Dems simply stfu and maintained the center they could have easily won, they blew it.
I honestly don't see much difference between Sanders and Warren except that Warren actually has plans for every single thing Sanders just talks about, oh and also Warren didn't spend the second half of 2016 demonizing the Democratic nominee so she'd lose to a sociopathic clown.
I mean, I'm with tduds - if Sanders gets the nom I'll vote for him just like I did in the primary last year. But I'll be exceptionally bitter about it because I think he's an asshole who's only looking out for the little guy because it makes himself out to be a hero. The thing with Warren is: you know she actually cares about people; that's been her beat from before she was famous.
Little guys are people too ;)
"I think he's an asshole who's only looking out for the little guy because it makes himself out to be a hero."
So you think that having shitty politics is somehow more humble?
"Did you think that I meant that Sanders would be another FDR in *ALL* of the ways? Yes, he is older. But why should that matter?"
...It matters because, like I said, were he to be the next FDR, he'd have to have started a long time ago. Could he do great things? Sure. Is he going to overhaul the American system in a way that FDR barely accomplished in a 12 year administration? No - for so many reasons, not least of which is his limited remaining time on the planet.
He's the only candidate that even wants to do it. Even the grandest ambitions for the others seems to just be some modifications to the status quo.
Dude, FDR never demonized capitalism. The socialists of the time did not support fdr, because he was trying to save capitalism, not replace it. Bernie is a straight up Sovialist/ Marxist who wants to undo capitalism. His commie beliefs are only moderated by his ambitions to win.
Very big difference.
In that respect, warren is closer to fdr.
You're just making me like Sanders more.
Why?
You want to collapse the country?
lol Sovialist
I don't want the country to collapse. That's my entire point. Our current "boom and bust" system is designed to collapse. It is not sustainable, by design. And so we are trying to push reforms that will make our politicians more accountable, our workplaces more democratic, and our public better educated and cared for. You can call me a socialist and I'll take it as a compliment. I want a society that provides for society at all costs, not which yields profit for shareholders at all cost.
The devils in the details. We’ve been over this before.
I don't think we have ever encountered this kind of pressure from climate change, from wealth inequality, from gentrifying cities, from struggling family farms and post-industrial towns, from high education and healthcare costs, from automation of jobs, from mass immigration of people, etc. There are a lot of major destabilizing crises converging.
And they are all worse in liberal run states and 99% of socialist countries, including the environmental issues. These issues are only solvable by industry and technology. The government is the cause of most of these problems.
And wealth inequality is the stupidest metric. We shouldn’t care about the gap, but how people at the low end are living overall. The US is still light years better than most of the world. The poor people in this country have it hard, but are living like kings compared to the poor in many other countries. Yes, we should make things better, but not by following the lead of failed/failing states and failed ideologies.
Also, Bernie is clearly a nationalist. All socialists are nationalists. You can’t possibly have an open border nation that guarantees free xyz. It’s unsustainable for reasons a third grade math class could figure out. Are you for closed borders and curbing free trade? You cited mass immigration as a “destabilizing crisis”. Free trade and free movement are only possible with free markets. Entitlement states breed nationalism, resentment, xenophobia. This is the most obvious and primal root of tribalism- limited resource space.
Resource space that is in flux and naturally self regulates is the most powerful promoter of diversity. I call bs on any one of these people promoting mass entitlements and simultaneously open borders. It’s clearly bs meant to pander for votes.
And for proof of that look to your poster child in Northern Europe and how immigrants are being treated...and how nationalism and xenophobia are on the rise...Trump is a dick, and may inspire some random wacko, but real dangerous nationalism comes from perceived threats to resources by outsiders.
I wish Warren had run in 2016. It would have freed people from having to vote for a centrist war hawk in order to break the glass ceiling. And perhaps the media wouldn't have been able to frame ever single moment as a gender war. Sanders ran reluctantly because nobody else from the progressive wing stepped up to keep a centrist war hawk from the presidency, and I am so glad that did because it gave hope to a generation of progressives who knew how flawed and destructive Hillary's wing of the party - the "third way" centrist wing - has been. We needed desperately to break with that history. Biden is the most blatant holdover, but we can see indications of it in every major candidate (getting > 5% or so in polls) except for Sanders.
2016 was very clarifying for progressive Democrats. Even though there are still people who deny the existence or definition of the word "neoliberalism", I think a lot of people learned what neoliberalism is, and how it has permeates our economy and our politics. A lot of people learned about what Democratic Socialism is. We started to talk about what differentiates liberalism from leftism. We started to talk about workers, the working class, and unions more. We started to talk about how to make the economy more democratic, and how unions and worker-owned companies play a role in that. I think a lot of people started to think more deeply about the influence of money from wealthy donors has on the ability of politicians to fight for the needs of average people. We started to become more suspicious of the mainstream media, the corporations that they are owned by and how that influences their reporting. We started to think about FDR, the New Deal, and how far the Democratic Party has drifted from that. We thought more about Climate Change in terms of justice, and how environmental issues that connect with social justice and economic justice.
Better marketing angle than a Green New Deal. It has to include a total reorientation towards transit and a commitment to building walkable cities. But I'd stay away from labels like socialism or neoliberalism. Just do something that's smart, fair and practical or else the middle will not support it.
Better marketing? She uses a historical reference just esoteric enough to not resonate with average people. She also proposed a "Green Apollo Program". Why is she proposing so much competing terminology to the Green New Deal in the first place? Is she trying to complicate this for AOC, Ed Markey (the other Senator from MA), and the Sunrise Movement? It's not adding any clarity. The only thing that is clear is that she's trying extremely hard to market herself as the candidate who keeps announcing plans. But she's just saturating the discussion with esoteric jargon and the average person is going to tune out.
If she delivers an inferior product she won’t make it. I’m just a little skeptical of AOC though. I think she means well, but the speed and amatureness with which she rolled out the Green New Deal was disappointing. We need a carbon tax and a concerted effort to promote walkability, green energy incentives and no growth boundaries. This is too important too mess up.
You may have not have liked her roll out, but the "Green New Deal" was able to transform the discussion around the issue of climate change into a discussion about climate justice, which makes the issue more engaging for many people who perhaps have not felt included in the environmentalist movement so far.
She alienated many from the environmental movement by attaching it to a dubious and partisan proposal.
NPR's On The Media just posted its latest show, and just happens to be titled "How a Green New Deal Re-Frames the Climate". It covered exactly what we were talking about. https://www.wnycstudios.org/story/how-green-new-deal-re-frames-climate?utm_medium=social&utm_source=tw&utm_content=otm&utm_source=tw&utm_medium=spredfast&utm_content=sf98606469&utm_term=onthemedia&sf98606469=1
Correction: Turns out it's actually from February.
Read and compare Warren and Sanders statements on the issues. You can see them on their respective website. Sanders is much broader in scope and far more detailed on action required.
This election should not be about gender, race, or age: it should be about a vision that addresses the multitude of critical issues we face.
Sanders / Warren would be a great ticket. Even if they have to run as independents in the general because the Democratic party sabatoges him (again).
Scratch that. Sanders / Gabbard. Never happen unless he wins the primary, and the DNC and media aren't going to allow that. It's 2016 all over again, and apparently Sanders has avowed not to be a "spoiler" (run as IND in the general).
I really hope our next election isn't between two 70+ year olds. Boomers have had control long enough, and all they've done is further divide the nation.
The divide was caused by identity politics on one side and national/nativist politics on the other...age has nothing to do with it. Politicians with ambitions to win over ambitions to serve the people are the problem regardless of age.
This is why I really like Tulsi Gabbard as a dem candidate. I don’t agree with her on all policy, but definitely trust that her intentions are good and altruistic. Harris is imo the worst of the bunch. She is a say-anything to win success driven kinda person. Sanders is just a misguided commie wacko.
It's not about age. It's about what was done politically and economically, and urbanistically over the last 40-50 years. Meaning the marginalization of the political left, the busting of unions, and the undermining and underfunding of the public sector, perpetual war, mass surveillance, letting private real estate take over major cities and corrupt their politicians... Essentially a slide to the right in both major political parties. All boomers didn't have a role in that. Bernie Sanders certainly did not. He has been a strong critic the entire time, and history has proven him to be correct in his criticism. Lumping him with Biden or Trump just because of their age is absurd and only works to obfuscate the very real political debate.
Wow, you are whacked out on vox. All good things are left all bad things are right.? You don’t seem to understand the meaning of those terms.
Seems we slide left on many things.
ideally this primary race will be focused on the sort of policies bernie, biden, et al, would like to see advances and the party as a whole can flush out what we want the platform to be. then we can pick who the best standard bearer will be. Hopefully not a Boomer who is like as not to die in office.
Still with the age thing? Why? It is perhaps the dumbest approach to this process that I can think of.
Also, if you don't want a "baby boomer", here are your options:
Andrew Yang
Julian Castro
Cory Booker
Tulsi Gabbard
Beto O’Rourke
Kirsten Gillibrand
Wayne Messam
Tim Ryan
Eric Stalwell
Pete Buttigieg
Seth Moulton
Steve Bullock
Eric Stalwell is the worst. I’d vote for Miley Cyrus over that asshole (and she’s on my shit list for ruining Black Mirror season 5.)
@curtkram DNC and Hillary subverted the electoral process last time around to keep Bernie out. Biden is now magically the front runner despite a warehouse full of skeletons and a mouth full of two feet. It is important to understand that political parties do not represent citizens.
They really don't. I ran and was elected to the democratic committee in Brooklyn following the 2016 election, hoping to make some change from within. Hundreds of us, mostly frustrated progressives, did this. It's a huge committee. We all learned very quickly how opaque and corrupt the Brooklyn Democrats are. The party boss, Frank Seddio, controls everything because enough committee members are tools, and they hand over proxy ballots to him so that he can vote on their behalf. All he needs is are the proxies of majority of the committee and he can totally run the show. Most Democrats aren't even aware that a committee exists, let alone how corrupt it is. http://gothamist.com/2018/09/28/brooklyn_democratic_party_seddio.php
"Biden is now magically the front runner " ...I thought you ignored corporate media ;)
Until a primary election has occurred, there is no front runner.
Ignoring corporate media means not believing them. Like Biden being annoited by them as the front runner despite not having 500 superdelegates in the bank.
Maybe he does, but they're not going to announce until after the first primary. That how the DNC "fixed" the superdelegate" issue.
#thisisnotdemocracy
In the aggregate of her invigorating ability to push out interesting system, is amazingly reminiscent of the anticommunist plans of its namesake.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.