Deleted
Posts: 0
Mar 28, 2024 17:32:42 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 17, 2019 3:24:20 GMT
Climate Change
Paul Waldman..
”The single clearest choice voters will face in 2020:”
Paul Waldman The Washington Post...
”The single clearest choice voters will face in 2020”
“The federal government has now confirmed what you probably already felt:
July was the hottest month measured on Earth since records began in 1880, the latest in a long line of peaks that scientists say backs up predictions for man-made climate change.
The U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said Thursday that July was 0.95 degrees Celsius (1.71 degrees Fahrenheit) warmer than the 20th century average of 15.8 C (60.4 F) for the month.
Because July is generally the warmest month on the calendar, meteorologists say this means it also set a new all-time monthly record for the past 140 years.
On the bright side, if President Trump buys Greenland, he’ll be able to put a bunch of golf courses and beachside resorts there.
If only this were really a joking matter. Unfortunately, amidst the daily flood of horrors emanating from the Trump administration, most people are probably unaware that Trump has done more to set back efforts to fight climate change than any president before him.
Here’s just some of what Trump has done: He pulled out of the Paris climate accord. He appointed a coal lobbyist to lead the Environmental Protection Agency. He created a panel, headed by a notorious climate-change denier, to discredit the climate judgments of federal agencies. He populated his administration with other climate-change deniers. He attempted to undermine the government’s own National Climate Assessment. He dramatically scaled back enforcement of pollution laws. He made it easier for energy companies to pour methane into the air. He moved to roll back regulations on emissions from coal-fired power plants. He tried to persuade automakers to produce less fuel-efficient cars. He even scrubbed references to climate change from government websites.
Of course, when I use the word “he,” I actually mean Trump’s administration, ostensibly acting on his behalf and in accord with his wishes. The truth, however, is a little more complicated. Trump himself is certainly inclined toward climate-change denial (he has called it a hoax created by the Chinese), probably because of some combination of resentment toward scientists, conspiratorial thinking and sheer stupidity. On the other hand, there’s no reason to think it’s something he particularly cares about; the only policy issues he seems to have genuine opinions on are trade and immigration.
But the people he has appointed most certainly do have opinions. And their opinion is that protecting the environment is bad, and we should do everything in our power to increase carbon emissions and accelerate climate change.
That might sound like a caricature of their beliefs, but what other conclusion are we to draw when looking at their works?
As has happened in so many areas, on climate Trump has turned out to be an even more conservative president than anyone, Democrat or Republican, predicted. The reason, as I have argued before, is that his indifference to policy, his relentless focus on pleasing his base, and the fact that he is such a corrupt and morally repellent figure create a deadly combination. Because reputable Republicans won’t work for him, his administration is staffed by grifters and ideological extremists; members of the latter group understand that as long as they don’t draw too much media attention to themselves, he’ll let them do pretty much whatever they want. He doesn’t care about the practical consequences of their decisions, and he isn’t worried about alienating the majority of the country that would find those decisions appalling.
Amongst Washington’s savvy reporters, it’s generally believed that climate change isn’t an important electoral issue, unlike the economy or health care or whatever culture-war flash point Republicans have chosen to ignite. But while that might have been true at one time, it isn’t anymore.
Recent polls have shown climate change to be among the most important issues to Democratic voters in particular, while ideas such as investments in green energy get wide support even among independents and Republicans. Which is one reason that most of the Democratic presidential candidates have released plans for action on climate (I summarized them here). They also seem to sincerely believe that this is an emergency.
While some of those plans are more comprehensive than others and there are differences between them, there may be no issue on which voters will face a clearer choice next November. Whoever the Democratic nominee is, that person will propose rejoining the rest of the world in seeking to limit emissions, promoting cleaner sources of energy, investing in a wide variety of green projects, and more generally making climate change a priority for the next four years.
Trump, on the other hand, will propose making climate change worse, even as natural disasters multiply and the world gets warmer and warmer. The voters will have to decide which of those paths they want to take.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Mar 28, 2024 17:32:42 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 17, 2019 3:33:43 GMT
Paul Waldman..
“The 2020 Democrats are having a real climate debate. We should take notice.”
“Catastrophic flooding is engulfing the Midwest. Catastrophic hurricanes recently hit Florida and Puerto Rico. And catastrophic fires have swept across California.
Meanwhile, the full range of the debate over climate change in one of our great parties — the Republican Party — is between those who are pushing extremely modest steps to promote “innovation” in areas such as carbon capture and battery technology, and those who bring snowballs to the floor of the Senate to illustrate that everything’s just fine.
The Democratic Party, on the other hand, has come to view climate change for what it is, an emergency that requires immediate and dramatic action. So their presidential candidates are offering up ambitious plans for what they’ll do if they reach the Oval Office.
We just got two more, from Joe Biden and Elizabeth Warren. Warren calls hers a Green Manufacturing Plan, and it focuses on investments to promote renewable energy and create jobs. Biden’s plan is more comprehensive; it also addresses regulations on emissions, transportation and things such as promoting denser housing.
They join Beto O’Rourke, who put out his plan a month ago, and Jay Inslee, who has centered his entire candidacy on the issue of climate change and whose plan is so big it’s coming out in multiple parts.
While their proposals feature some differences, a general picture is taking shape. This is a key benefit of a contested presidential primary: It forces candidates to articulate specifics, and often produces a rough consensus that will then be the basis for policy change if one becomes president. That’s what happened with health care in the 2008 primaries: The Democrats all produced similar plans, which were reflected in the Affordable Care Act passed in 2010.
The same may happen with climate, and the candidates who haven’t yet released specific plans will be feeling pressure to do so. When they do, their ideas are likely to resemble the ones that have already been released. So here are the basics of what Democrats are advocating:
Reenter the Paris climate accord. Everyone agrees that it was wrong in a hundred ways for President Trump to walk away from an agreement among nearly every country on Earth, so the United States would recommit to the goals of the accord.
Significant new government investments. All the candidates want to make a major push in clean-energy research, as well as promoting green jobs in everything from solar panel installation to home retrofitting for energy efficiency. The numbers are large: O’Rourke proposes spending $1.5 trillion over 10 years, Biden proposes $1.7 trillion, Warren proposes $2 trillion, and Inslee proposes $3 trillion. All argue that direct government spending will produce multiples in private-sector spending, as companies move to enter newly robust markets around green energy.
Pay for it by rolling back the Trump tax cuts. Since these are Democrats, they’re expected to explain how they’ll pay for every new dollar they want to spend, a responsibility that Republicans are for some reason excused from. So the candidates suggest doing it by rolling back the 2017 tax cuts and/or imposing new taxes on the wealthy and corporations. There’s also some degree to which the spending would pay for itself with new tax revenue as the programs create jobs and promote additional economic activity, though they don’t make specific claims along these lines.
Transition away from fossil fuels. This would happen on multiple fronts, including public utilities moving to renewable sources of energy and higher fuel efficiency standards that would promote more purchasing of electric cars. The candidates also suggest cutting off subsidies to the fossil fuel industry. Net-zero emissions within a few decades. The date the candidates most often mention for the United States no longer adding to the supply of carbon in the atmosphere is 2050, which is the global goal cited in the Green New Deal as well.
Environmental justice. Low-income communities and those with lots of people of color have long been literal dumping grounds for pollution; the candidates propose to specifically target them both for cleanup and to make sure they can join in the new economic opportunities created by government investment. Help communities and people affected by transition away from fossil fuels. All the candidates stress aid to places that in the past have been dependent on the fossil fuel industry, and where people are already being left behind by the move to cleaner energy.
There’s a lot more in the plans, particularly Inslee’s and Biden’s. But beyond the details, it’s important to emphasize that unlike tax cuts for the wealthy, which are always the most ambitious policy proposal Republicans make (unless there’s a war or two in the offing), the investments in these plans are of the kind that produce dividends for both society and the government.
When we give a tax cut to a rich person, it’s likely to just get tossed into their bank account and not do much for anybody. But if we take that same money and, say, create a job upgrading the energy efficiency of people’s homes, the benefits are multiplied. The person doing the job now has more money she can spend throughout her local economy. So do the people whose homes she upgraded, because their energy bills are lower. And of course, we’ve reduced our carbon emissions by using less energy.
The big picture is that Democrats all want to address climate change with an ambitious program that will put a lot of people to work. One will face off against Trump, who used to contend that climate change is a hoax but now holds that “Something’s changing, and it’ll change back again,” so the best approach is to increase carbon emissions in every way possible.
As it happens, the kinds of investments Democrats are proposing are hugely popular; to take one example, this recent poll showed 87 percent of Americans supporting investments in clean-energy research and infrastructure. Combine that with the fact that the fate of the planet is at stake, and this is something Democrats should put at the center of their campaigns next year.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Mar 28, 2024 17:32:42 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 17, 2019 3:38:05 GMT
Biden’s Plan...
”As president, Biden will lead the world to address the climate emergency and lead through the power of example, by ensuring the U.S. achieves a 100% clean energy economy and net-zero emissions no later than 2050.
The Biden Plan will:
Ensure the U.S. achieves a 100% clean energy economy and reaches net-zero emissions no later than 2050. On day one, Biden will sign a series of new executive orders with unprecedented reach that go well beyond the Obama-Biden Administration platform and put us on the right track. And, he will demand that Congress enacts legislation in the first year of his presidency that: 1) establishes an enforcement mechanism that includes milestone targets no later than the end of his first term in 2025, 2) makes a historic investment in clean energy and climate research and innovation, 3) incentivizes the rapid deployment of clean energy innovations across the economy, especially in communities most impacted by climate change.
Build a stronger, more resilient nation. On day one, Biden will make smart infrastructure investments to rebuild the nation and to ensure that our buildings, water, transportation, and energy infrastructure can withstand the impacts of climate change. Every dollar spent toward rebuilding our roads, bridges, buildings, the electric grid, and our water infrastructure will be used to prevent, reduce, and withstand a changing climate. As President, Biden will use the convening power of government to boost climate resilience efforts by developing regional climate resilience plans, in partnership with local universities and national labs, for local access to the most relevant science, data, information, tools, and training.
Rally the rest of the world to meet the threat of climate change. Climate change is a global challenge that requires decisive action from every country around the world. Joe Biden knows how to stand with America’s allies, stand up to adversaries, and level with any world leader about what must be done. He will not only recommit the United States to the Paris Agreement on climate change – he will go much further than that. He will lead an effort to get every major country to ramp up the ambition of their domestic climate targets. He will make sure those commitments are transparent and enforceable, and stop countries from cheating by using America’s economic leverage and power of example. He will fully integrate climate change into our foreign policy and national security strategies, as well as our approach to trade.
Stand up to the abuse of power by polluters who disproportionately harm communities of color and low-income communities. Vulnerable communities are disproportionately impacted by the climate emergency and pollution. The Biden Administration will take action against fossil fuel companies and other polluters who put profit over people and knowingly harm our environment and poison our communities’ air, land, and water, or conceal information regarding potential environmental and health risks. The Biden plan will ensure that communities across the country from Flint, Michigan to Harlan, Kentucky to the New Hampshire Seacoast have access to clean, safe drinking water. And he’ll make sure the development of solutions is an inclusive, community-driven process.
Fulfill our obligation to workers and communities who powered our industrial revolution and subsequent decades of economic growth. This is support they’ve earned for fueling our country’s industrial revolution and decades of economic growth. We’re not going to leave any workers or communities behind.”
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Mar 28, 2024 17:32:42 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 17, 2019 3:40:24 GMT
Elizabeth Warren’s plan..
”My plan has three elements:
Green Apollo Program — a commitment to leading the world in developing and manufacturing the revolutionary clean energy technology the world will need, like the way we invested in innovative science to win the race to the moon. That means $400 billion in funding over the next ten years for clean energy research and development — more than ten times what we invested in the last ten years. It means the creation of a National Institutes of Clean Energy. And it means provisions to ensure that taxpayers capture some of the upside of their research investments and that our research dollars result in manufacturing in the United States, not offshore.
Green Industrial Mobilization — a commitment to using the full power of the federal procurement process to spur innovation and create demand for American-made clean energy products, like how we mobilized our industrial base during World War II. That means a $1.5 trillion federal procurement commitment over the next ten years to purchase American-made clean, renewable, and emission-free energy products for federal, state, and local use, and for export. The United States is currently projected to spend roughly $1.5 trillion in the next ten years on defense procurement — a bloated number that’s far beyond what we need to keep ourselves safe. We should spend at least that much on purchasing American-made clean energy technology to address the climate crisis that threatens us all.
Green Marshall Plan — a commitment to using all the tools in our diplomatic and economic arsenal to encourage other countries to purchase and deploy American-made clean energy technology. This includes 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.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Mar 28, 2024 17:32:42 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 17, 2019 3:47:12 GMT
More of Warren’s plan
“Green Apollo Project”
America already leads the way in developing and producing certain types of clean energy, from wind to biofuel. I’ll build on that foundation with a $400 billion federal commitment over ten years to clean energy research and development — more than 10 times what we invested in clean energy R&D in the last ten years.
This funding would help create a new National Institutes of Clean Energy modeled after the National Institutes of Health. NIH has made dozens of breakthrough discoveries and provided incredible returns for the economy and for taxpayers. We should replicate that model, with dedicated institutes for clean energy research. And we should prioritize research that can be commercialized to help close the gap in hard-to-decarbonize sectors — such as aviation and shipping — and in areas otherwise underrepresented in the existing R&D portfolio, like long-duration grid storage.
This funding would also allow us to expand existing R&D programs with a strong track record of translating innovation into production, like the Energy Department’s ARPA-E program, the Manufacturing Extension Partnership, the Manufacturing USA network, the National Science Foundation Engineering Research Centers and Industry/University Cooperative Research Centers, the Agriculture Research Service and National Institute of Food and Agriculture grant program at the Department of Agriculture, and the Small Business Innovation Research and Technology Transfer programs.
Federal R&D investments boost the economy, but we can structure our future research investments so they create more American jobs and produce even better returns for taxpayers. As I’ve explained in more detail in my economic patriotism plan, all new federal R&D should require production resulting from that R&D to take place in the United States and allow taxpayers to capture some of the upside if companies hit it big on the back of taxpayer-funded R&D. And we can ensure our R&D investments spur economic development in every part of the country — not just the coasts — by sending money to consortiums of land grant universities, to targets situated in rural areas, and to areas that have seen the worst job losses in recent years.
“Green Industrial Mobilization”
Research shows that when governments decide to make big purchases in certain areas, they can help create the kind of sustained economic demand that promotes innovation and launches entire industries. The federal government’s World War II-era commitment to purchasing military items led to an enormous surge in American manufacturing capacity and set the stage for decades of sustained economic growth.
My plan makes a massive $1.5 trillion commitment to federal procurement of clean, green, American products over the next ten years. At $150 billion a year, that represents a 30% increase in total annual procurement. This will create immediate demand, spurring innovation and investment in the American clean energy sector.
The federal procurement commitment will cover a broad spectrum of products, from zero-emission vehicles to energy storage technology to heat pumps to energy efficient light bulbs. It will also include bulk purchases to provide American-made clean energy products to state and local governments at discounted rates.
We can use the power of federal procurement in other ways as well. We should require all new federal government contracts for manufactured goods to have received relevant energy-efficiency, environmental-preference, and/or safety designations. And we should require new grants issued by the Department of Transportation and other agencies for infrastructure to include sustainability requirements both for finished goods and for construction materials — similar to California’s 2017 “Buy Clean” law.
To ensure that this commitment creates good American jobs, it will require that all manufactured products are made in the United States, and that all companies that receive federal contracts, at a minimum:
*Pay all employees at least $15 per hour, subject to adjustments for inflation;
*Guarantee employees at least 12 weeks of paid family and medical leave;
* Maintain fair scheduling practices; and
*Ensure that employees may exercise collective bargaining rights, such as by posting notices of collective bargaining rights and maintaining complete neutrality with regard to union organizing.
With a commitment of this size, we must ensure that we use taxpayer dollars as efficiently as possible. That means we should follow procurement best practices: competitive selection; tight cost controls; strong whistleblower protection standards and records retention requirements; and rigorous transparency rules, including audited financial statements and a broad application of federal open records law. To enforce these measures, we will establish an oversight board with the ability to terminate contracts, issue subpoenas, and refer parties that engage in fraud to federal authorities.
This federal procurement commitment will revolutionize clean energy production in the United States, help bring down federal, state, and local government emissions, and give the federal government access to the clean energy technology it needs for the third part of my proposal: the Green Marshall Plan.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Mar 28, 2024 17:32:42 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 17, 2019 3:53:57 GMT
And even more of Warren’s plan
“Green Marshall Plan”
Under the original Marshall Plan, America helped European countries rebuild after World War II because we knew it would benefit America’s interests and provide a long-term return on our investments. We have a similar opportunity to exercise global leadership and serve our own interests today.
To meet the emissions goals in the Green New Deal and the Paris Agreement — and avoid the most devastating effects of climate change — global greenhouse gas emissions would need to reach net-zero by roughly 2050. To stay on that course, we must cut projected global emissions by more than half by 2030. Even if the United States reaches net-zero emissions by 2030, that will only cut global emissions by about 6 gigatons (Gt) — still 30 Gt short of the target. We need other countries to slash their emissions, and that means we need to supply the world with clean energy products (at low enough prices to displace dirty alternatives) to put us on the right path.
That’s why I’m proposing a new federal program — backed with $100 billion in funding — dedicated to working with foreign governments and companies so they purchase and deploy American-made clean, renewable, and emission-free energy technology.
The United States spends about $5 billion annually to subsidize arms sales abroad, making it easier for partners and allies to buy our weapons. I’ve been a loud critic of how these policies prioritize the interests of giant defense contractors, particularly in the case of weapons sales to Saudi Arabia. Surely the effort to find foreign governments to buy the American-made technology they need to combat climate change should take priority over finding foreign markets for bombs and tanks. It’s time for us to apply these tools to help address our climate crisis by accelerating foreign purchases of American-made clean energy products.
Here’s how it would work. A new federal office would work with foreign governments to arrange purchases of American-made clean, renewable, and emission-free energy products. The federal government would secure the agreements and then purchase the required technology from American manufacturers. The office would use its annual $10 billion budget to offer various financing options to foreign purchasers to encourage more purchases. And the office would offer discounts and other incentives to countries hardest hit by the climate crisis, or in exchange for countries making regulatory changes that will further reduce their greenhouse gas emissions.
As part of our commitment to addressing the climate crisis, we should end all American support for international oil and gas projects through the Export-Import Bank and the Overseas Private Investment Corporation. We should also commit to using America’s voting power in the World Bank and other global financial institutions to cut off investment in fossil fuel projects and to direct that investment into clean energy projects instead. Our efforts should be dedicated to accelerating the global transition to clean energy.
Equitable Investment
The Green New Deal commits us to a “fair and just transition for all communities and workers,” and that requires us to recognize that climate change doesn’t affect every community equally. Here at home, lower-income communities, communities of color, and Indigenous nations have often borne the brunt of climate change and other environmental harms. At the same time, communities dependent on fossil fuel extraction for economic stability worry about what transitioning to clean and renewable technology will mean for their jobs. And globally, wealthy industrialized nations have disproportionately benefited from fossil fuel use and are better equipped to weather the effects of a changing climate, while other countries disproportionately suffer the impacts.
Our response to the climate crisis must take these disparate experiences into account. That means prioritizing resources for frontline and disadvantaged communities that have been polluted and left behind by the fossil fuel economy. It means creating truly participatory and democratic processes, centered on and led by those living on the front lines of climate change, who know best what their communities need. And it means that abroad the United States must not only help countries to adapt and become more resilient to climate impacts, but must also help to reduce the structural inequalities that make them so vulnerable in the first place.
A truly just transition must also include benefits to uplift and empower workers who may be hurt by the transition to a more green economy, including those currently employed in the fossil fuel industry. That means providing them with financial security — including early retirement benefits — job training, union protections, and benefits where appropriate, and guaranteeing wage and benefit parity for affected workers.
Climate change is exacerbating inequality and injustice at home and abroad. But just, equitable and ambitious climate action, like a Green New Deal, can empower working families, impacted communities and developing nations in a more fair and sustainable economy.
If people claim we can’t afford to combat climate change, they’re wrong. According to the independent Moody’s analysis of my plan, nearly its entire cost is covered by my Real Corporate Profits Tax — a tax that ensures that the very largest and most profitable American corporations don’t pay zero corporate income tax — ending federal oil and gas subsidies, and closing corporate tax loopholes that promote moving good jobs overseas.
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.”
|
|
|
Post by dewryce on Aug 17, 2019 5:08:19 GMT
This is a lot of good information, thank you. But honestly? If his hateful, divisive rhetoric and reprehensible treatment of immigrants doesn’t sway someone to vote against him...if they don’t care enough about people to make that call then I don’t have much hope that they care enough about the environment to change their minds.
|
|
|
Post by lisae on Aug 17, 2019 11:48:45 GMT
It may be a clear choice but it is not a winning issue. People vote according to what affects them right now and in the near future.
Those who make this issue a priority are already going to vote for whomever runs against Trump. The candidates need a platform here but they don't need to spend a lot of time debating the issue amongst themselves or convincing voters they are good for the environment and Trump is bad Everyone already knows that. The key issues are economy, jobs and healthcare.
Foreign policy should matter. It always should matter since that is a big part of what a president does and something he/she impacts far more on their own than any other issue. Yet we pay little attention to candidates experience or platform on foreign policy.
|
|
|
Post by freecharlie on Aug 17, 2019 16:38:55 GMT
We need the farmers that voted for him to turn on him for screwing them with the trade wars.
Unfortunately, I don't think they will, especially if it is not a white male on the top spot of the ticket
|
|
|
Post by jeremysgirl on Aug 17, 2019 18:35:22 GMT
We need the farmers that voted for him to turn on him for screwing them with the trade wars. Unfortunately, I don't think they will, especially if it is not a white male on the top spot of the ticket This can be interpreted as truth or it could be offensive. Or I guess it could be offensive truth like deplorable. But I'm not sure I want to categorize a large group of people like farmers and chalk them up to racist women haters. I think farmers most likely vote their bottom line like business owners. And I'm not sure that color and sex comes into it but the policy being advocated. I too hope that the tariff war be is going to drive them over the line.
|
|
|
Post by freecharlie on Aug 17, 2019 20:22:15 GMT
We need the farmers that voted for him to turn on him for screwing them with the trade wars. Unfortunately, I don't think they will, especially if it is not a white male on the top spot of the ticket This can be interpreted as truth or it could be offensive. Or I guess it could be offensive truth like deplorable. But I'm not sure I want to categorize a large group of people like farmers and chalk them up to racist women haters. I think farmers most likely vote their bottom line like business owners. And I'm not sure that color and sex comes into it but the policy being advocated. I too hope that the tariff war be is going to drive them over the line. it is probably a little of both. I live in a rural area that is not full of diversity. Our diversity comes from the people who come to work in the fields or on the dairys. Many of them have never lived outside our small area and they haven't probably interacted with a wide range of people. I doubt more than 10% of them have ever interacted with a black person unless that person was employed somewhere the farmer went. They are traditionalist. The man around here runs the farm. The woman runs the house. For them, a man runs the country. For the people I know, it isn't malicious. It is what they know and how it has always been. They are comfortable with that and don't see a reason for it to change
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Mar 28, 2024 17:32:42 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 17, 2019 23:26:29 GMT
From above.. “I live in a rural area that is not full of diversity”
Way back when growing up, my little county was mostly agricultural. Dairy farms, chicken farms & apple orchards. It was an area that had very little diversity.
After a couple years of college I moved to the big city, San Francisco. A whole new world opened up in that people from all over the world lived and worked in San Francisco. That was also the beginning of the LBGTQ movement. Castro Street was just as popular as The Haight Ashbury. A lot of diversity. Diversity that spread out from SF to even my little country.
Fast forward to several years before the 2016 election. When some folks in the Mid-West said they weren’t being listened to. That some felt they were being ignored. Then there were those terrible “San Francisco Values” and the broader “Liberal coastal elitists” that some in the Mid-West viewed as the enemy. I think what surprised me was there was a group in the Mid-West who felt California’s popular vote in the 2016 election shouldn't be counted.
I, for the life of me, couldn't figure out what “San Francisco Values were and why they were so bad. I didn’t get why the need to label folks who lived on the coast as “elitist”. I mean we all want the same thing. Good jobs, good schools for our kids, so what was the problem?
I finally tracked down a couple of articles that gave me a hint. One article said the reason for the labels of “San Francisco Values” and “Liberal Coastal Elitists” was because we spent too much time with “social” issues and not listening to what some in the Mid-West had to say. And the simple fact this country is moving away from a white majority. I think it happened in CA in 2015. And some folks in this country have a real problem with that.
There are some in this country that want to go back to the way it was. Back to when there were plenty of manufacturing jobs, back to when the idea of this country losing its white majority wasn’t even considered a possibility among other things. Back to when the LGBTQ community stayed in the closet and people didn’t have to witness/hear about same sex marriages. Or about women’s right.
And it’s this belief by many is why they support trump IMO. And ignore his major character flaws. From the very beginning trump hit the buttons for these folks by attacking all Immigration saying it’s bad unless they come from Norway (white) and constantly talking about bringing back those long ago lost jobs.
The reality, and many Liberal Coastal elitists understand this, this country is evolving into a diverse country that will eventually lose its white majority, that is part of the global world and willing to face the technology challenges to American Jobs that can’t be stopped and how our actions affect the climate and what needs to be done to stop the negative affects. And it can’t be stopped. And understanding this comes from the years of being exposed to “San Francisco Values”
It’s time for these folks who are trump supporters or don’t like change to stop thinking the Liberal Coastal Elitists are the enemy, and should actually look around at what is happening and not trying to live in a world that is disappearing and will no long exist despite their best efforts. Because if they don’t this group could become the single greatest threat to the country and ultimately end the grand experiment started by the Founding Fathers.
And when it’s all is said and done, it’s the last paragraph which makes this election so important and raise the question of how to get some people to understand what is at stake. IMO.
|
|
|
Post by refugeepea on Aug 17, 2019 23:27:24 GMT
Unfortunately, I don't think they will, especially if it is not a white male on the top spot of the ticket As long as there's an R next to the name and not a D, that's who they will vote for.
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Aug 18, 2019 0:49:11 GMT
There are some in this country that want to go back to the way it was. Back to when there were plenty of manufacturing jobs, back to when the idea of this country losing its white majority wasn’t even considered a possibility among other things. Back to when the LGBTQ community stayed in the closet and people didn’t have to witness/hear about same sex marriages. Or about women’s right. And it’s this belief by many is why they support trump IMO. But dt was a 'rich' guy from NYC. Hard to get much closer to the coast! Has a gold toilet and fixtures.... Did they not see the photos of his gaudy condo in the TT? Has never lived anywhere else except on his properties all over for vacations!
|
|