Deleted
Posts: 0
Nov 23, 2024 9:01:03 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 29, 2019 17:30:55 GMT
They had a chance to show their support and they instead "refused to take sides", that includes the side of the New Green Deal.
D) to secure for all people of the United States for generations to come— (i) clean air and water; (ii) climate and community resiliency; (iii) healthy food; (iv) access to nature; and (v) a sustainable environment; and And voted against this..
”1) it is the duty of the Federal Government to create a Green New Deal— (A) to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions through a fair and just transition for all communities and workers; (B) to create millions of good, high-wage jobs and ensure prosperity and economic secu- rity for all people of the United States; (C) to invest in the infrastructure and in- dustry of the United States to sustainably meet the challenges of the 21st century;” And voted against this..”(L) cleaning up existing hazardous waste and abandoned sites, ensuring economic devel- opment and sustainability on those sites; (M) identifying other emission and pollu- tion sources and creating solutions to remove them; and And voted against this...“D) making public investments in the re- search and development of new clean and re- newable energy technologies and industries; (E) directing investments to spur economic development, deepen and diversify industry and business in local and regional economies, and build wealth and community ownership, while prioritizing high-quality job creation and eco- nomic, social, and environmental benefits in frontline and vulnerable communities, and deindustrialized communities, that may other- wise struggle with the transition away from greenhouse gas intensive industries;” And voted against this..”O) providing all people of the United States with— (i) high-quality health care; (ii) affordable, safe, and adequate housing; (iii) economic security; and (iv) clean water, clean air, healthy and affordable food, and access to nature.” I’m not a fan of the GND, only because there are few details about how it will work. McConnell pulled a political stunt that could very well backfire in his little 🐢 face. Each item listed above affects every American in this country and for the constituents of the Senators who voted no on the goals outlined in the GND, they have to be wondering, with help from the Democrats in those states, if their senator really has their best interests at heart and maybe it’s time to look to someone who will. They did not vote against those things, they voted against the way to accomplish those things. They voted against a plan that doesn't really say how it can actually be accomplished. |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Nov 23, 2024 9:01:03 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 29, 2019 17:54:45 GMT
Green New DealOr you can look at it this way. The Republicans in the Senate voted against this..
D) to secure for all people of the United States for generations to come— (i) clean air and water; (ii) climate and community resiliency; (iii) healthy food; (iv) access to nature; and (v) a sustainable environment; and And voted against this..
”1) it is the duty of the Federal Government to create a Green New Deal— (A) to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions through a fair and just transition for all communities and workers; (B) to create millions of good, high-wage jobs and ensure prosperity and economic secu- rity for all people of the United States; (C) to invest in the infrastructure and in- dustry of the United States to sustainably meet the challenges of the 21st century;” And voted against this..”(L) cleaning up existing hazardous waste and abandoned sites, ensuring economic devel- opment and sustainability on those sites; (M) identifying other emission and pollu- tion sources and creating solutions to remove them; and And voted against this...“D) making public investments in the re- search and development of new clean and re- newable energy technologies and industries; (E) directing investments to spur economic development, deepen and diversify industry and business in local and regional economies, and build wealth and community ownership, while prioritizing high-quality job creation and eco- nomic, social, and environmental benefits in frontline and vulnerable communities, and deindustrialized communities, that may other- wise struggle with the transition away from greenhouse gas intensive industries;” And voted against this..”O) providing all people of the United States with— (i) high-quality health care; (ii) affordable, safe, and adequate housing; (iii) economic security; and (iv) clean water, clean air, healthy and affordable food, and access to nature.” I’m not a fan of the GND, only because there are few details about how it will work. McConnell pulled a political stunt that could very well backfire in his little 🐢 face. Each item listed above affects every American in this country and for the constituents of the Senators who voted no on the goals outlined in the GND, they have to be wondering, with help from the Democrats in those states, if their senator really has their best interests at heart and maybe it’s time to look to someone who will. They did not vote against those things, they voted against the way to accomplish those things. They voted against a plan that doesn't really say how it can actually be accomplished. Nice try at a deflection. The GND was submitted in the House as this: “RESOLUTION Recognizing the duty of the Federal Government to create a Green New Deal.” Therefore it was a resolution that stipulated certain issues that needed to be addressed by the Federal Government , as outlined above, and the Republican Senators voted no in addressing the issues. It really didn’t matter if it was called the Green New Deal or not, what mattered were the issues the resolution said should be addressed by the Federal Government and the Republicans voting no. It was dumb that AOC just but out a list of goals as a resolution without any details. But it was even dumber for McConnell to bring this resolution of goals up for a vote and Republican Senators voting no. However they intended it, it comes off as they are against the goals outlined in the GND. To be clearer, the Republican Senators voted against the belief the Federal Government should address the issues outlined in the GND. |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Nov 23, 2024 9:01:03 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 29, 2019 19:14:49 GMT
They did not vote against those things, they voted against the way to accomplish those things. They voted against a plan that doesn't really say how it can actually be accomplished. Nice try at a deflection. The GND was submitted in the House as this: “RESOLUTION Recognizing the duty of the Federal Government to create a Green New Deal.” Therefore it was a resolution that stipulated certain issues that needed to be addressed by the Federal Government , as outlined above, and the Republican Senators voted no in addressing the issues. It really didn’t matter if it was called the Green New Deal or not, what mattered were the issues the resolution said should be addressed by the Federal Government and the Republicans voting no. It was dumb that AOC just but out a list of goals as a resolution without any details. But it was even dumber for McConnell to bring this resolution of goals up for a vote and Republican Senators voting no. However they intended it, it comes off as they are against the goals outlined in the GND. To be clearer, the Republican Senators voted against the belief the Federal Government should address the issues outlined in the GND. It wasn't a deflection... are you even capable of a conversation without inserting a dig to someone who says something you might disagree on? For fuck sake we even both agree about the GND is lacking detail on the hows. They did not vote against those things, they voted against the way to accomplish those things. They voted against a plan that doesn't really say how it can actually be accomplished. |
|
|
|
Post by artgirl1 on Mar 29, 2019 19:25:38 GMT
had to resort to "tactics" It was McConnell and the Republicans who were resorting to tactics |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Nov 23, 2024 9:01:03 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 29, 2019 19:35:02 GMT
had to resort to "tactics" It was McConnell and the Republicans who were resorting to tactics Try and follow. Mitch wanted to get a message across: The Dems are fractured when it comes to the NGD. Therefore, he would force a vote on a resolution (NOT a bill, just a resolution) to get the Dem Ayes and Nays on record and force the party to splinter on this issue. Dems said: Ain’t happening, Mitch. Voting “present” en masse is a legislative tactic to shut something down and force the opposing party to either abandon a plan or work harder. There are many of them – November Amendments, King and Queen of the Hill, Show Votes, Dirty Pool, etc. Whether we like it or not that’s ‘how sausage is made’ in Congress. One party messes with the other party’s plans through Aye, Nay, or Present. |
|
lizacreates
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,862 
|
Post by lizacreates on Mar 29, 2019 19:52:48 GMT
It was McConnell and the Republicans who were resorting to tactics Try and follow. Mitch wanted to get a message across: The Dems are fractured when it comes to the NGD. Therefore, he would force a vote on a resolution (NOT a bill, just a resolution) to get the Dem Ayes and Nays on record and force the party to splinter on this issue. Dems said: Ain’t happening, Mitch. Voting “present” en masse is a legislative tactic to shut something down and force the opposing party to either abandon a plan or work harder. There are many of them – November Amendments, King and Queen of the Hill, Show Votes, Dirty Pool, etc. Whether we like it or not that’s ‘how sausage is made’ in Congress. One party messes with the other party’s plans through Aye, Nay, or Present. as artgirl1 and I have already painstakingly explained upthread to you and another poster. If Mitch had not tried to pull this stunt, the Dems would not have needed to fight back. Believe what you want to believe as you are free to do so, but do not take my words and use them to serve your purpose without fully understanding what really happened. This is my last reply to you because it’s a pointless exercise. Keep on and enjoy yourself. |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Nov 23, 2024 9:01:03 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 29, 2019 20:04:15 GMT
In response to Mitch’s OWN legislative tactic of attempting to paint the Dems into a corner as artgirl1 and I have already painstakingly explained upthread to you and another poster. If Mitch had not tried to pull this stunt, the Dems would not have needed to fight back. Believe what you want to believe as you are free to do so, but do not take my words and use them to serve your purpose without fully understanding what really happened. This is my last reply to you because it’s a pointless exercise. Keep on and enjoy yourself. Don't discount your own words in order to defend someone who was trying to correct ME about YOUR words.This whole sidebar she's gone on is asinine and textbook deflection. |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Nov 23, 2024 9:01:03 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 29, 2019 20:54:58 GMT
Nice try at a deflection. The GND was submitted in the House as this: “RESOLUTION Recognizing the duty of the Federal Government to create a Green New Deal.” Therefore it was a resolution that stipulated certain issues that needed to be addressed by the Federal Government , as outlined above, and the Republican Senators voted no in addressing the issues. It really didn’t matter if it was called the Green New Deal or not, what mattered were the issues the resolution said should be addressed by the Federal Government and the Republicans voting no. It was dumb that AOC just but out a list of goals as a resolution without any details. But it was even dumber for McConnell to bring this resolution of goals up for a vote and Republican Senators voting no. However they intended it, it comes off as they are against the goals outlined in the GND. To be clearer, the Republican Senators voted against the belief the Federal Government should address the issues outlined in the GND. It wasn't a deflection... are you even capable of a conversation without inserting a dig to someone who says something you might disagree on? For fuck sake we even both agree about the GND is lacking detail on the hows. They did not vote against those things, they voted against the way to accomplish those things. They voted against a plan that doesn't really say how it can actually be accomplished. H Res 109 - Recognizing the Duties of the Federal Government to create the Green New Deal. H Res 109 that AOC submitted in the House is a “simple resolution” that expresses the opinion on “ public policy issues” and the roll of the Federal Government. Regardless of what McConnell intended with his vote, he now has a vote on record that has all Republican Senators, 2 Democratic Senators, and one Independent Senator voting “no” against the belief the Federal Government should tackle the “public policy issues” outlined in the Green New Deal. H Res 109 is the only formal document that has been submitted, in either, House, about the Green New Deal which makes it the basis of that vote. You are correct in that there are no details in the GND. None at all. So there was no “way to accomplish it” to vote for or against. It was simply a list of issues AOC felt the Federal Government should addressed. That’s all it was and the Senators voted against that resolution. Which basically means they feel the Federal Government shouldn’t play a roll in addressing the issues outlines in GND. They didn’t even wait for the details or cost before making that determination. And that is exactly the tact the Democrats should take, especially in the red states where some of these “no” Senators live. |
|
|
|
Post by sunshine on Mar 29, 2019 21:13:53 GMT
The never ending left wing propaganda spread here on a daily basis is something to see.
|
|
|
|
Post by sasha on Mar 29, 2019 22:35:34 GMT
Not misleading. NONE of them voted for it. Her own party isn't supporting the New Green Deal as is. If they did support it, they would've voted in favor or it whether the vote was forced or not instead of voting "present." BTW, I'm all for a sound green policy. AOC's isn't as currently drafted. Oh, for heaven’s sake. It was a stunt. By Mitch. That’s why Dems voted “present.” To shut it down. Not because they don’t support it. “Present” just means refusing to take sides and merely stating the member’s presence for a quorum. Lots to argue about the New Green Deal, but this isn’t one of them. Oy. Oh, for heaven's sake, if it was great AS WRITTEN they all wouldn't have pulled a stunt themselves. It's not a great plan, the Dems know it. But they don't want to embarrass their star. So they voted "present." |
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Mar 29, 2019 23:42:11 GMT
A British lawmaker says that the Green New Deal advocated by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) and other progressives has given “hope and energy” to a similar movement in the United Kingdom. Earlier this week, British lawmakers introduced their own “Green New Deal” in Parliament, the same week that the U.S. Senate blocked the Green New Deal in a 57-0 vote.Green Party politician Caroline Lucas told CBS News that though their movement has been years in the making, the publicity around the Green New Deal in the U.S. has helped fuel excitement across the pond. “I'd really love to underline just how much hope and energy and inspiration what's happened in the U.S. has given our movement here,” Lucas said. "It has really, I think, excited people to see a banner under which they can bring together so many of their concerns." Lucas was a founding member of the U.K.’s Green New Deal Group more than a decade ago, a movement dedicated to pushing for “a massive investment in green infrastructure” in response to the global economic crisis, according to CBS News. ** The legislation introduced in the U.K. is a so-called private member’s bill, a measure that rarely becomes law but can help bring attention to causes and influence other legislation.In the U.S., Democrats are moving on from the Green New Deal, though they will continue to work toward legislation addressing climate change.** thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/436528-british-lawmaker-says-ocasio-cortezs-green-new-deal-has-given-hopeA Proposal to discuss climate change and how to make changes toward better solutions........... See others like to talk about it too! |
|
|
|
Post by gardengoddess on Mar 29, 2019 23:52:52 GMT
There isn't a single thing a conservative could say to me about AOC (see, I don't mind the initials) that doesn't make THEM look like a hypocritical asshole.
|
|
pyccku
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 2,817
|
Post by pyccku on Mar 30, 2019 0:37:37 GMT
If you're not watching right now, she's doing a town hall on MSNBC.
|
|
|
|
Post by gardengoddess on Mar 30, 2019 14:32:28 GMT
If you're not watching right now, she's doing a town hall on MSNBC. Watching her in that format makes it clear to me why the GOP is obsessed with her. She's smart, educated, well spoken with the life experiences of someone who isn't in the 1%. |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Nov 23, 2024 9:01:03 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 30, 2019 15:07:03 GMT
If you're not watching right now, she's doing a town hall on MSNBC. Watching her in that format makes it clear to me why the GOP is obsessed with her. She's smart, educated, well spoken with the life experiences of someone who isn't in the 1%. A lot of the so called "obsession with her" is manufactured by her and doesn't actually exist. She takes one person's comment and attributes it to an entire group. She starts shitstorms on Twitter by pulling provably false accusations against people out of her ass and idiotic morons take it all as fact and run with it. Including so called journalists who forgot how to be journalists and investigate before they report on something. Anything else that you need to describe as "obsessed with her" is based on comments where she shows her ignorance in the most basic of things she's supposedly so well educated on. It's not just the GOP, even her own party is having trouble with some of the bizarre and ignorant things she says and does. |
|
|
|
Post by gardengoddess on Mar 30, 2019 15:44:04 GMT
Watching her in that format makes it clear to me why the GOP is obsessed with her. She's smart, educated, well spoken with the life experiences of someone who isn't in the 1%. A lot of the so called "obsession with her" is manufactured by her and doesn't actually exist. She takes one person's comment and attributes it to an entire group. She starts shitstorms on Twitter by pulling provably false accusations against people out of her ass and idiotic morons take it all as fact and run with it. Including so called journalists who forgot how to be journalists and investigate before they report on something. Anything else that you need to describe as "obsessed with her" is based on comments where she shows her ignorance in the most basic of things she's supposedly so well educated on. It's not just the GOP, even her own party is having trouble with some of the bizarre and ignorant things she says and does. Thank you for proving my point. You seem a little unhinged in regards to this women, using words like "shitstorm", "pulling provably false accusations against people out of her ass" and "idiotic morons". Can you link some examples of your rant about AOC? |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Nov 23, 2024 9:01:04 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 30, 2019 18:19:47 GMT
I LOVE that AOC scares the ever loving shit out of Republicans. That's all. Same here!! I tuned in last night to see her MSNBC special with Chris Hayes and was amazed by her intelligence and her wonderful ideas for making our Country safer and healthier. She is so well spoken that I'm proud of her for only being 29 years old and new to politics. (Remember everyone giving Trump a break during his first year in office, "because he's just a businessman & not a politician"  Well, AOC speaks like a seasoned politician with experience!) She's got my respect! |
|
|
|
Post by artgirl1 on Mar 30, 2019 21:15:03 GMT
A lot of the so called "obsession with her" is manufactured by her and doesn't actually exist. She takes one person's comment and attributes it to an entire group. She starts shitstorms on Twitter by pulling provably false accusations against people out of her ass and idiotic morons take it all as fact and run with it. Including so called journalists who forgot how to be journalists and investigate before they report on something. Anything else that you need to describe as "obsessed with her" is based on comments where she shows her ignorance in the most basic of things she's supposedly so well educated on. It's not just the GOP, even her own party is having trouble with some of the bizarre and ignorant things she says and does. Change the pronouns and reverse Gop/ own party, and you could be referring to trump. |
|
|
|
Post by lucyg on Mar 30, 2019 22:10:12 GMT
What do we really know about AOC? ... Now she's done it again. She's complaining about Fox News hosts shortening her name to Cortez. Media Resaerch Center did the research on her complaints and it turns out it never once happened. You cannot seriously be using the Media Research Center as a factual reference on any topic, can you?  It isn’t any sort of serious, neutral research entity ... it’s just Brent Bozell’s preferred method of partisan hackery. The fact that MRC said it means about as much as if Trump himself had said it. Which means, plucked out of thin air for the most part. |
|
|
|
Post by gardengoddess on Mar 30, 2019 22:11:23 GMT
Why does my email message I received say shhfzas quoted me, but when I follow it here, it's someone called eighteen24?
|
|
|
|
Post by gar on Mar 30, 2019 22:14:49 GMT
Why does my email message I received say shhfzas quoted me, but when I follow it here, it's someone called eighteen24? Old name/new name. |
|
|
|
Post by lucyg on Mar 30, 2019 22:15:14 GMT
Why does my email message I received say shhfzas quoted me, but when I follow it here, it's someone called eighteen24? shhfzas is her member ID and the name she used to use here. Then she changed her display name to eighteen24, but when you get a notification, it still says the original name. And if you want to tag her, you’ll need to use the shhfzas name with the @ in front of it, and then it will show up on the board as eighteen24. Not a big deal, lots of people have changed their names here. You just need to be aware of how the system works. You can see anyone’s real user ID by clicking on their display name on the board. |
|
|
|
Post by AussieMeg on Mar 30, 2019 22:16:18 GMT
Why does my email message I received say shhfzas quoted me, but when I follow it here, it's someone called eighteen24? Same shit different day name |
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Mar 30, 2019 22:18:07 GMT
Why does my email message I received say shhfzas quoted me, but when I follow it here, it's someone called eighteen24? one and the same............ |
|
|
|
Post by gardengoddess on Mar 30, 2019 22:28:31 GMT
Thank you, I've not run into that before.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Nov 23, 2024 9:01:03 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 30, 2019 22:49:13 GMT
What do we really know about AOC? ... Now she's done it again. She's complaining about Fox News hosts shortening her name to Cortez. Media Resaerch Center did the research on her complaints and it turns out it never once happened. You cannot seriously be using the Media Research Center as a factual reference on any topic, can you? It isn’t any sort of serious, neutral research entity ... it’s just Brent Bozell’s preferred method of partisan hackery. The fact that MRC said it means about as much as if Trump himself had said it. Which means, plucked out of thin air for the most part. Then show the video of hannity or ingraham calling her simply Cortez. |
|
|
|
Post by lucyg on Mar 30, 2019 22:51:24 GMT
You cannot seriously be using the Media Research Center as a factual reference on any topic, can you? It isn’t any sort of serious, neutral research entity ... it’s just Brent Bozell’s preferred method of partisan hackery. The fact that MRC said it means about as much as if Trump himself had said it. Which means, plucked out of thin air for the most part. Then show the video of hannity or ingraham calling her simply Cortez. I’m not arguing that point and know nothing about it. I’m just saying, you can’t take Brent Bozell’s word for it. |
|
|
|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on Mar 30, 2019 22:54:47 GMT
Why does my email message I received say shhfzas quoted me, but when I follow it here, it's someone called eighteen24? Same shit different day name Yep. And same results each time. Circular, deflecting and gaslighting. |
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Mar 30, 2019 22:57:34 GMT
Then show the video of hannity or ingraham calling her simply Cortez. She apparently has no problem using AOC. To use Cortez, which in not her name is wrong! Many names today are hyphenated, so that is the way they should be used. It is a matter of respect! |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Nov 23, 2024 9:01:04 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 31, 2019 4:48:30 GMT
|
|
Well, AOC speaks like a seasoned politician with experience!) She's got my respect!
It isn’t any sort of serious, neutral research entity ... it’s just Brent Bozell’s preferred method of partisan hackery.
