|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Feb 10, 2019 19:50:23 GMT
Kyle Griffin.. ”The Trump admin has placed an ex-Koch Industries official in charge of research that'll shape how the government regulates toxic chemicals contaminating Americans' drinking water — an issue that could have major financial repercussions for Koch Industries.” Hopefully he left on less than good terms and will do his job well!!
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Mar 29, 2024 5:56:48 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 10, 2019 20:22:04 GMT
Now this is pretty funny coming from trump...
”The media was able to get my work schedule, something very easy to do, but it should have been reported as a positive, not negative. When the term Executive Time is used, I am generally working, not relaxing. In fact, I probably work more hours than almost any past President.....”
“....The fact is, when I took over as President, our Country was a mess. Depleted Military, Endless Wars, a potential War with North Korea, V.A., High Taxes & too many Regulations, Border, Immigration & HealthCare problems, & much more. I had no choice but to work very long hours!”
He is right about high taxes, that he created I guess. And he did cause a lot of health care problems. And he did create a humanitarian crisis at the Southern Border. There was never a “potential “ war with North Korea.
So if that is what happens when he had “no choice but to work very long hours”, then maybe he should work even less then he is now.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Mar 29, 2024 5:56:48 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 10, 2019 22:12:01 GMT
Kyle Griffin...
”Less than 24 hours after Trump vowed to end HIV transmission in the U.S., DOJ announced a lawsuit to halt the creation of supervised injection sites, which exist to prevent opioid overdoses and the sharing of contaminated needles by intravenous drug users.”
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Feb 11, 2019 0:07:03 GMT
Did I miss this posted here?? (Feb 6, 19)
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Feb 11, 2019 0:48:21 GMT
Trump is a germaphobe! Wonder how many times he has shaken this Fox friend's hand?!?!?!?!
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Feb 11, 2019 1:10:34 GMT
Trump is a germaphobe! Wonder how many times he has shaken this Fox friend's hand?!?!?!?! That cannot be real. Surely he's joking.
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Feb 11, 2019 1:14:37 GMT
Did I miss this posted here?? (Feb 6, 19) That's exactly the campaign they intend to run. They make everyone who isn't them out to be monsters - poor immigrants and refugees, LGBT, minorities ... and now they're ramping up the "liberals are baby-killing ghouls" rhetoric again to make sure their base won't consider voting for anyone who runs against Trump, no matter how terrible he is, and no matter how centrist they are.
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Feb 11, 2019 2:05:04 GMT
That's exactly the campaign they intend to run. They make everyone who isn't them out to be monsters - poor immigrants and refugees, LGBT, minorities ... and now they're ramping up the "liberals are baby-killing ghouls" rhetoric again to make sure their base won't consider voting for anyone who runs against Trump, no matter how terrible he is, and no matter how centrist they are. Maybe we should talk about all the GOP in BLUE suits...............
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Mar 29, 2024 5:56:48 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 11, 2019 2:29:43 GMT
Elena Schneider...
”KLOBUCHAR to WISCONSIN and IOWA next weekend.
“We’re starting in Wisconsin because, as you remember, there wasn’t a lot of campaigning in Wisconsin in 2016. With me, that changes.”
Really? Petty. Whatever happened in 2016 should stay in 2016. I swear, the minute they decide to run they go stupid.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Mar 29, 2024 5:56:48 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 11, 2019 3:14:49 GMT
Chelsea James...
”Klobuchar on stories describing an abusive office environment: "Yes, I can be tough. And yes, I can push people. I know that...I have, I’d say, high expectations for myself. I have high expectations for the people who work for me. And I have high expectations for this country."
There is pushing people and then there is pushing people. If people who work for her thinks it’s an abusive office environment you are not going to get your best out of them and a heavy turnover is not very productive either.
|
|
|
Post by pierkiss on Feb 11, 2019 12:05:20 GMT
Trump is a germaphobe! Wonder how many times he has shaken this Fox friend's hand?!?!?!?! Holy shut. That is mind blowing. How the people in this country reject such basic things about science is beyond me. I seriously do not get it. Has he never heard of a microscope?
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Mar 29, 2024 5:56:48 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 11, 2019 13:52:50 GMT
Horrible ideologies help decent people to do horrible things
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Mar 29, 2024 5:56:48 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 11, 2019 14:09:39 GMT
linkA good question. From Cook Political Report. “How Left Will Democrats Go in 2020?”“There are fewer and fewer things that Democrats and Republicans can agree upon these days. Increasingly, however, both are coming to the conclusion that Democrats are going to nominate the most left-leaning, liberal candidate for president, giving Trump his best (maybe only) opportunity to win in 2020. It’s easy to see why this theory has become conventional wisdom. No one raises money online (or get Instagram followers), better than liberal icons like Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC). Democratic presidential hopefuls are embracing Medicare for all proposals that, not even a few years ago, would have been considered political suicide by most in the party. Recent polling has shown a decided shift to the left over the last few years by Democratic voters. A Gallup poll out last month found that for the first time, 50 percent of Democrats defined themselves as liberal — a 20 point jump since 2001. On issues like race, economic inequality and immigration, Pew Research has tracked a decided leftward lurch by Democrats over the last ten years. But, there’s plenty of evidence that this view of the 2020 Democratic nomination is too simplistic. There are plenty of cross-currents that run through the Democratic primary electorate. Who best navigates those choppy waters is the one who wins the nomination. First, let’s look at health care. The conventional wisdom today is that "Medicare for all" has become a litmus test issue for the Democrats in the way that "repeal and replace Obamacare" was/is for the GOP. The latest CNN poll finds that 87 percent of Democrats approve of the idea of a national health plan even if it requires higher taxes. But, the Kaiser Family Foundation (which, quite frankly is the best in class for health care polling), found a more complicated narrative. While large majorities of Democrats favor a Medicare for all program, they don’t think it should be THE top priority for Congress. “When Democrats were asked whether their party’s new House majority should focus on improving and protecting the ACA or passing a Medicare for all plan," write the KFF poll authors, "half (51%) say the ACA and nearly four in 10 (38%) choose Medicare-for-all.” Furthermore, when asked if they thought that House Democrats "owe it to their voters" to push a national health care plan or instead focus on bipartisan legislation that could get passed in Congress, Democrats were evenly divided 49 percent national health care plan to 44 percent bi-partisan legislation. Among Democratic-leaning independents, a majority, 53 percent, picked bipartisan legislation while just 39 percent picked national health care. In other words, even Democratic voters don’t think that pushing for a new, national health plan is as important as fixing the one we’ve already got. That was also the lesson that Democrats should have taken from the 2018 election. While many Democrats included support of "Medicare for all" in their ads, the election wasn’t a referendum on national health care. It was a referendum on Republican efforts to repeal Obamacare — specifically, it’s most popular provision — guaranteed coverage for pre-existing conditions. As such, it’s understandable that a whole lot of voters, including those who identify as Democrats, would like to see Democrats follow through on that priority before they try to pass an entirely new program. On taxes, Republicans have eagerly portrayed proposals by Elizabeth Warren and AOC to tax wealthy individuals as proof of Democrats’ slide to socialism. A CNN poll found that just 41 percent approved of AOC’s proposal for a 70 percent tax rate on income over $10 million. The Warren plan — a tax on net worth over $50 million — got 54 percent support. (The names of Warren and AOC were not included in the questions asked by CNN pollsters). Among Democrats, however, the AOC plan is not universally popular. Just 62 percent of Democrats and 61 percent of Trump disapprovers like the idea of the tax hike. More important, white college-educated voters — an important segment of the Democratic coalition — disapprove of this plan by 14 points (40 to 54 percent). There’s also conflicting evidence about the political ideology and priorities of Democratic-identified Americans. A 2017 Pew Survey found more Democratic voters identify as liberal (48%) than as moderate (36%) or conservative (15%). While a recent ABC/Washington Post poll, highlighted by CNN’s Harry Enten, showed Democrats evenly divided between moderate (39 percent) and liberal (38 percent). Another 17 percent called themselves conservative. And, while 50 percent of Democrats identify themselves as liberal in a recent Gallup poll, another Gallup survey found that a majority of Democrats (54 percent) want to see the party become more moderate, while just 41 percent prefer the party becomes more liberal. Meanwhile, a solid majority of Republicans (57 percent) want to see the GOP to be more conservative, while just 37 percent want the party to moderate. Understanding this contrast in priorities - Democrats want their party to tack more to the center while Republicans want to see their party become more conservative - is critical in understanding why Republicans are convinced that the Democratic party will ultimately nominate a very liberal candidate in 2020. Republicans have felt the rightward pull of their base and assume that Democrats will succumb to similar forces in their own party. This tension between identifying as liberal and prioritizing moderation, however, is not as odd as it would seem on its face. In fact, it suggests something that we’ve been seeing for a while now: the emphasis Democrats are putting on finding the most electable, rather than the most ideologically pure, 2020 nominee. Nancy Pelosi’s "Just Win, Baby" mantra (otherwise known as "I don’t care what Democratic candidates have to say about me to win, let’s worry about that when we are in the majority"), continues into 2019. At this point, at least, Democratic voters are more concerned with winning than they are holding their eventual nominee to certain ideological standards or litmus tests. A Monmouth poll found that "56 percent of potential Democratic voters nationally said they preferred someone who would be a stronger candidate against Trump, even if they don't agree with that candidate on all issues. Meanwhile, 33 percent said they would prefer someone who aligns better with their beliefs, but who might have a harder time beating Trump." In a December poll of likely Iowa caucus-goers by the Des Moines Register, 54 percent said that "they care more about nominating a candidate with a strong chance of defeating Donald Trump than about picking the candidate who best aligns with their political views." I also think that the candidate Democrats determine is the "most electable," may or may not be the most moderate candidate. Instead, the Democratic candidate with the fewest number of obvious political flaws and liabilities for Trump to exploit will have the advantage in capturing the nomination. For example, Biden has a 'moderate' pedigree, but he also has a history of verbal flubs, gaffes and poor political judgment. In an opinion piece last fall in "The Week," correspondent Damon Linker argued against a Biden candidacy, saying Biden "would become a one-man gaffe machine that the Trump campaign would delight in exploiting." Elizabeth Warren’s biggest liability today isn’t that she’d lose to Trump because she’s too liberal. Instead, her continuing struggles and fumbles over her claims of Native American ancestry may be the red flag that ultimately disqualifies her in the minds of primary voters. If you look vulnerable to a Trump attack (and she’s already been one of his favorite targets), your stock in the primary will go down. A number of other Democratic strategists I’ve spoken with also downplayed the influence of ideology in determining the ultimate nominee. "Everybody tends to think the fault line is ideological," one wrote in an email. "But historically, the big divide has between establishment versus anti-establishment (Clinton vs Sanders, Clinton vs. Obama, Gore vs. Bradley, Clinton vs. Jerry Brown, Mondale vs Hart). [Side note: I’d add Kerry vs. Dean in 2004]. Maybe the field winnows down along these fault lines. In the past, with the exception of 2008, the establishment candidate always wins." This year, however, there is no obvious 'establishment' candidate. Biden comes closest, but you can also argue that anyone over the age of 65, anyone who has spent the bulk of their political career in Washington, anyone who currently takes (or has ever taken) corporate/special interest money, can be labeled with the dreaded "E" word. The president’s State of the Union address was less a blueprint for the year ahead in congressional-executive relations than it was a roadmap for 2020. The message: I am all that is standing between a strong, capitalist economy and Democratic attempts to turn the U.S.A. into another Venezuela. Privately, lots of Democratic insiders also fear that the only thing standing between Democratic victory in 2020 and another Trump term is a nominee who scratches the itch of the liberal base but can’t appeal to the moderate middle. Thus far, however, the evidence and data suggest that the most ideologically left candidate may not be the most likely nominee.”
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Mar 29, 2024 5:56:48 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 11, 2019 14:14:32 GMT
linkFrom the Kaiser Foundation Poll linked in the article above.. “Public Opinion on Single-Payer, National Health Plans, and Expanding Access to Medicare Coverage”“For many years, Kaiser Family Foundation has been tracking public opinion on the idea of a national health plan. Our polls have shown a modest increase in support for the idea of a national health plan (Figure 1) but relatively stable support for the federal government doing more to help provide health insurance for more Americans since before the passing of the 2010 Affordable Care (Figure 2). Recently, we have found broad support for proposals that expand the role of public programs like Medicare and Medicaid (Figure 3). Overall, about six in ten adults favor a national health plan or Medicare-for-all plan (Figure 4). Yet, how politicians discuss these different proposals does affect public support (Figure 5 and Figure 6). There is robust support among Democrats, and even support among Republicans, for an expansion of the Medicare program through a Medicare buy-in or a Medicaid buy-in proposal (Figure 7). In addition, nearly half of Republicans and majorities of independents and Democrats favor an optional Medicare-for-all plan (Figure 8). Yet, it is unclear how much staying power this support has once people become aware of the details of any plan or hear arguments on either side. Public support for Medicare-for-all shifts significantly when people hear arguments about potential tax increases or delays in medical tests and treatment (Figure 9) and recent polling also shows many people falsely assume they would be able to keep their current health insurance under a single-payer plan (Figure 10), suggesting another potential area for decreased support. During the 2018 midterm elections, few voters said a candidate’s position on a national health plan was an important factor in their vote (Figure 11) and a larger share of Democrats now say they want House Democrats to focus on improving and protecting the ACA rather than passing a national Medicare-for-all plan (Figure 12). So while the general idea of a national health plan (whether accomplished through an expansion of Medicare or some other way) may enjoy fairly broad support in the abstract, it remains unclear how the future of this issue – which really gained traction during the 2016 presidential primary and Bernie Sanders’ rallying cry for “Medicare-for-all” – will play out.”
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Mar 29, 2024 5:56:48 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 11, 2019 14:36:03 GMT
linkNBC News.. “Search party: Moderate Dems seek one of their own to win 2020 primary, topple Trump”“Biden, Klobuchar, Brown, O'Rourke, Bloomberg, someone else? Who can own the middle as other candidates tack hard to the left. WASHINGTON — The 2020 Democratic presidential primary hung a left turn out of the gate, leaving the middle of the field wide open for ... someone. But who? We really, really don't know yet," said Matt Bennett, a vice president of the centrist Democratic think tank Third Way. He's not panicking this early in the election cycle. "This year will be about playing to the activists on Twitter and online donor universe. Next year will be about winning votes, and those are very different universes," Bennett said. In 2016, it was progressives who were left waiting, begging even, for a champion to enter the ring against the front-runner, Hillary Clinton. First, they tried to draft Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, then they rallied around Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont as the non-Clinton alternative. This year, though, progressives have an embarrassment of riches, with Warren and perhaps Sanders back to set the pace and fresher faces like Sen. Kamala Harris of California, among others, embracing single-payer health care and other left causes with a convert's zeal. Now it's moderate Democrats who are left waiting and worrying about finding a nominee who they think can beat President Donald Trump. One potential contender for those unsatisfied with their current options is Sen. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, who announced her candidacy on Sunday. Michael Bloomberg, the billionaire former mayor of New York, has slammed the liberal candidates' soak-the-rich tax plans as he weighs a bid. And ex-Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe, who knocked the "dishonest populism" of the left in a recent op-ed, may enter the contest in March. But everyone is living the shadow of former Vice President Joe Biden, who comfortably leads polls of the nascent Democratic field. "That (moderate) lane would be secured if the vice president makes the decision to get in," said Harold Schaitberger, the longtime president of the International Association of Fire Fighters and vice president of the AFL-CIO. Members of the firefighters' union voted narrowly for Barack Obama in 2008 and 2012, but broke heavily for Trump in 2016, according to an internal poll conducted by the union and shared with NBC News. If Biden doesn't run, the 316,000-strong union will look for someone who can appeal to "pragmatic" and "middle of the road" voters, many of whom had once been reliable supporters of Democrats, Schaitberger said. "I believe that for the Democratic nominee to win, it's going to take a nominee that can actually reach the electorate in between the two coasts," Schaitberger said in an interview. "We would have great difficulty considering or embracing a candidate from that far left, liberal side of the spectrum." That's a sentiment shared by many of the party's donors and other gatekeepers, who will look for someone to fill the void left by Biden if he passes on running again, as he did in 2016. "Others are waiting to see what Biden does. He's polling so strongly that they think if he is in, they can't get far," said David Brock, who runs a network of Democrat-aligned groups and just returned from a donor conference he hosted in Palm Beach, Florida. "There is definitely a space for a candidate who is solidly progressive, but more toward the center." Their numbers are waning, but about 35 percent of Democrats still call themselves moderates while another 13 percent identify as conservative, according to a recent Gallup survey. At the moment, however, seven of the eight major declared candidates support Medicare for All, which has prompted some uncomfortable questions on whether they are really prepared to eliminate all private health insurance. The pileup on the left led Trump to raise the specter of socialism in his State of the Union Address last week and make comparisons to Venezuela, while ex-Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz says there is no longer room for him in his former party, leading him to consider an independent presidential run. When Pew asked Democratic-leaning voters last month which direction they'd like to see their party move, 54 percent said "more moderate" compared to 40 percent who said "more liberal."
"Are any 2020 Presidential candidates paying attention to this?" asked former Sen. Claire McCaskill, a Democrat who lost re-election in Missouri last year, on Twitter.
But many mainstream Democrats think Schultz' claim that the left has taken over the party is ludicrous. They point out that in the midterm elections in November, progressive insurgents fared poorly in swing districts in both primaries and the general election. The most important issue on the mind of most Democrats right now, according to polls, is "electability." "We're going to look for that candidate that we think can best beat Trump — period," said Robert Wolf, the former chairman of UBS and a major Democratic donor who served as an economic adviser to President Barack Obama. "For me, it's going to take someone who supports progressive issues like gun reform and climate change, but must be a pro-growth Democrat to win on the economy," Wolf added. Of course, electability is a fuzzy concept after the surprise result of the 2016 election, and progressives and people of color have been challenging the conventional wisdom that appealing to the center is party's best strategy. It's also unclear if moderate Democrats could coalesce around one candidate in the primary since they include a wide range of groups with cross-cutting values: religious African-Americans and Latinos with more conservative views on abortion; cosmopolitan professionals who want to fight climate change and the gun lobby but keep taxes low; and noncollege educated whites who might be OK with guns rights and soaking the rich. So some candidates will likely be able to appeal to moderates for personal or demographic reasons, even while running on a progressive platform. For instance, one name being floated by centrist Democrats is Sen. Sherrod Brown of Ohio, one of the Senate's most liberal members who nonetheless consistently wins re-election in an increasingly red state, which also happens to be a key presidential battleground. Brown, who is currently testing the waters by touring early primary and caucus states, has made a point of refusing to join the bandwagon in support of Medicare for All and the Green New Deal, the environmental plan popularized by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y. His policies come from what effect it will have on a worker," said Nan Whaley, the mayor of Dayton, Ohio, who is trying to draft Brown into the 2020 contest. "And that is very different from everybody else, where the example is some Scandinavian country. That does not relate to a nurse working over in Miami Valley Hospital in Dayton, Ohio — what do they care about a Scandinavian policy?” Ultimately, though, the party's nominee will likely have to transcend labels. That's led some moderates to express interest in a candidate like Beto O'Rourke, the former congressman who defies simple ideological categorization and ran a Senate race in Texas last year on a hopeful message that allowed people to project their own values onto him. "We don't need a clear winner on where we are on the ideological spectrum," said Iowa state Sen. Jeff Danielson of his state’s first-in-the-nation caucuses, now a year away. "What we need is a clear winner on the message we'll deliver to the American people of where we go together."
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Mar 29, 2024 5:56:48 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 11, 2019 15:08:29 GMT
Working hard during his “executive time”
“Fact checkers have become Fake News.” @jessebwatters So True!”
”No president ever worked harder than me (cleaning up the mess I inherited)!”
“The Democrats do not want us to detain, or send back, criminal aliens! This is a brand new demand. Crazy!”
“The Democrats are so self righteous and ANGRY! Loosen up and have some fun. The Country is doing well!”
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Mar 29, 2024 5:56:48 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 11, 2019 15:12:09 GMT
Julia Davis..
”#Russia's state TV proudly quotes senior Kremlin aide Vladislav Surkov, who writes that "Putin’s big political machine is only gaining momentum" and essentially admits that Russia interferes not only in elections and referendums across the globe, but alters Western consciousness.”
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Mar 29, 2024 5:56:48 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 11, 2019 15:31:06 GMT
NPR...
”California Gov. Gavin Newsom is pulling National Guard troops deployed at the Mexican border to split them into three new deployments: wildfire prevention, expanding the Counterdrug Task Force and targeting drug cartels.”
Its a better use of their time then sitting around putting up barbed wire.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Mar 29, 2024 5:56:48 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 11, 2019 21:25:23 GMT
Doug Saunders...
”The many British people living in Spain who voted "leave" in the Brexit referendum because they didn't want any more immigrants from elsewhere in Europe are slowly beginning to realize that they are, in fact, immigrants from elsewhere in Europe”
Ah the devil is always in the details.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Mar 29, 2024 5:56:48 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 11, 2019 21:45:44 GMT
CSPAN...
”.@senatemajldr: "House Democrats decided to add a poison pill demand into the conversations at the 11th hour. It's a new demand. It's really extreme..."
Greg Sargent..
“Once again, a news feed injects an unadulterated lie into the political bloodstream, actively choosing to reward the liar for the original lie over informing its readers and viewers.”
The “11th hour poison pill” was submitted in writing on January 31. So either McConnell doesn’t read stuff from the other side or he lies.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Mar 29, 2024 5:56:48 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 11, 2019 21:49:37 GMT
MSNBC...
”.@maddowblog: Broken promises, failed predictions pile up for Republican tax plan.”
NBC News..
”The Republican tax plan has never been popular, but its GOP proponents adopted a philosophy similar to the one embraced by Democrats during the health care debate a decade ago: once Americans got to know the policy, they'd start to like it a whole lot more.
For Dems, those hopes proved prophetic: the Affordable Care Act now enjoys fairly broad national support. For Republicans, more than a year after their tax plan was implemented, a series of broken promises and failed predictions have made their predicament worse.”
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Feb 11, 2019 22:40:09 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Mar 29, 2024 5:56:48 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 12, 2019 0:27:27 GMT
trump...
”Coal is an important part of our electricity generation mix and @tvanews should give serious consideration to all factors before voting to close viable power plants, like Paradise #3 in Kentucky!”
And a response from one of his supporters called “CC”
”Most Americans have no clue where electricity comes from. Coal plays a vital role in generating America’s electricity. Including the liberals stupid electric cars.”
😀
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Feb 12, 2019 2:28:58 GMT
|
|
PLurker
Prolific Pea
Posts: 9,730
Location: Behind the Cheddar Curtain
Jun 28, 2014 3:48:49 GMT
|
Post by PLurker on Feb 12, 2019 3:37:15 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Mar 29, 2024 5:56:48 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 12, 2019 3:49:32 GMT
linkPhillip Rucker... ”Safe to say Green New Deal will be a staple of Trump's 2020 stump speech: “I really don’t like their policy of taking away your car, of taking away your airplane rights, of let’s hop a train to California, of you’re not allowed to own cows anymore," he said to cheers in El Paso.” “Trump description of the Green New Deal is false. No one has proposed eliminating cars or plane rights or cows. Here's a smart explainer by @rizzotk of what is -- and isn't -- in the policy” From Washington Post.. “The resolution in Congress from Ocasio-Cortez and Sen. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.) calls for a “10-year national mobilization” that would include: *Guaranteeing a job with a family-sustaining wage, adequate family and medical leave, paid vacations, and retirement security to all people of the United States.” *”Providing all people of the United States with — (i) high-quality health care; (ii) affordable, safe, and adequate housing; (iii) economic security; and (iv) access to clean water, clean air, healthy and affordable food, and nature.” *“Providing resources, training, and high-quality education, including higher education, to all people of the United States.” *“Meeting 100 percent of the power demand in the United States through clean, renewable, and zero-emission energy sources.” *“Repairing and upgrading the infrastructure in the United States, including . . . by eliminating pollution and greenhouse gas emissions as much as technologically feasible.” *“Building or upgrading to energy-efficient, distributed, and ‘smart’ power grids, and working to ensure affordable access to electricity.” *“Upgrading all existing buildings in the United States and building new buildings to achieve maximal energy efficiency, water efficiency, safety, affordability, comfort, and durability, including through electrification.” *“Overhauling transportation systems in the United States to eliminate pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector as much as is technologically feasible, including through investment in — (i) zero-emission vehicle infrastructure and manufacturing; (ii) clean, affordable, and accessible public transportation; and (iii) high-speed rail.” *“Spurring massive growth in clean manufacturing in the United States and removing pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from manufacturing and industry as much as is technologically feasible.” *“Working collaboratively with farmers and ranchers in the United States to eliminate pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from the agricultural sector as much as is technologically feasible." “There’s a real question of how much of this could be accomplished in 10 years or longer.”You can see where trump is going with The New Green Deal. But if you forget trump the question that should be asked and answered, realistically how much of this laundry list do you think can get done and within the 10 year time frame? My guess is very little of it which will lead to more disenfranchised voters who will stay home leading to more and if it’s even possible, worse presidents then trump. At some point politicians and candidates have to start being honest with the American People about what they can or cannot do. A country can’t survive if just under 50% of registered voters stay home on Election Day.
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Feb 12, 2019 3:50:09 GMT
|
|
|
Post by dewryce on Feb 12, 2019 4:37:36 GMT
again with his size matters insecurity. trump claims 30K in his 6500 capacity building and claims Beto crowd to be 200. I truly feel that anyone that believes a word that comes out of his mouth at this point, without verifying its accuracy, is either willfully ignorant or not very bright. Or perhaps they’ve been on a media blackout for the past 3 years, including social media, and have not had or listened to any political discussions.
|
|
|
Post by katlaw on Feb 12, 2019 4:54:42 GMT
I read this article today from CBC. Is Canada a dangerous bastion of socialism? And these comments from the State of the Union "Here, in the United States, we are alarmed by new calls to adopt socialism in our country," the president said. "America was founded on liberty and independence - not government coercion, domination, and control. We are born free, and we will stay free. Tonight, we renew our resolve that America will never be a socialist country," Trump declared. I am curious what Americans really think. Not what the President says. I feel like he is just using the word socialism to fear monger. To stir up his base. To make people want to avoid the "dangers" that the Democrats and their socialist agenda have in store for America. I enjoy reading the news and keeping up with world events. I always thought Americans and Canadians had a lot of the same ideals, the last few years that seems to be pulling further apart.
|
|
|
Post by iamkristinl16 on Feb 12, 2019 4:58:12 GMT
I read this article today from CBC. Is Canada a dangerous bastion of socialism? And these comments from the State of the Union "Here, in the United States, we are alarmed by new calls to adopt socialism in our country," the president said. "America was founded on liberty and independence - not government coercion, domination, and control. We are born free, and we will stay free. Tonight, we renew our resolve that America will never be a socialist country," Trump declared. I am curious what Americans really think. Not what the President says. I feel like he is just using the word socialism to fear monger. To stir up his base. To make people want to avoid the "dangers" that the Democrats and their socialist agenda have in store for America. I enjoy reading the news and keeping up with world events. I always thought Americans and Canadians had a lot of the same ideals, the last few years that seems to be pulling further apart. I see this as a tactic to stir up his base. Unfortunately, they (his diehards) will lap it up, like the do everything else he says.
|
|