User Banned (1 Day): Antagonizing other members, generalizations, previous infractions
BootlickERA is on fire this time
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Senator Dianne Feinstein is taped being snide to children asking about the Green New Deal
- Thread starter Deleted member 43084
- Start date
I just really don't think impossible goals inside of a bill that you know won't be passed has much resemblance at all to a solution.
(quote is from this article https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...b28131b326b39290547cc/?utm_term=.82ac40403b41 about the pelosi sit-in a few months back. figured it was relevant since it's the same group)
But it is likely to come to a vote because McConnel WANTS it to come to a vote.
It's so, so cringey watching people just be literally spoonfed hit jobs.
I think Feinstein should be out of the senate but for real, folks are acting like low information maga types with the way they're uncritically taking this in.
I think Feinstein should be out of the senate but for real, folks are acting like low information maga types with the way they're uncritically taking this in.
ok? even if she didnt want it to pass, she and literally every democrat can vote yes to save face and it still wont pass cause they don't have the votes.
People who are ignoring this (even some of the people in the video) aren't interested in honest framing or discussion.
"Vote for Green New Deal!"
"I believe in Climate change, but I think I have a better idea that has a chance of being signed as legislation."
"Vote for Green New Deal!"
"Here's an itemized copy for you and all of your friends to read and compare yourselves."
"Vote for Green New Deal!"
"What are you even doing here?"
This isn't journalism or an attempt at a dialogue.
that is a pretty horrible piece? it only focuses on the goal of 100% renewables by 2030, concludes that this goal is impossible and dismisses the entire bill because of that. it doesn't go into details about why any of the specific policies proposed in the bill are bad. my takeaway after reading this piece is that the writer would have been fine with the bill if they erased a sentence about the goal being 100% renewables in 2030, because the writer sure doesn't raise any objections beyond that. this piece is just condescending pandering
and?
this is politics 101. have them vote against it then run against them on the fact that they stopped this bill
Cringey?
It's fucking more than that. People are are literally admitting in this thread that they know the video is practically project veritas but that they don't fucking care.
People just want to see what ever shit supports their world view. Anyone who thinks liberals or left wing people are immune to this should see ERA OT and read these threads, it's fucking embarrassing the complete willful lack of critical thinking and internal audits of biases.
The fact this has been allowed to fester for so long with no moderation to try and fix the bullshit political OT's have become is equally as damning.
Actually, clearly what I need to do to prove I'm right is to post some random dipshits twitter account that shows my point of view is correct because someone else feels the way I do
Not on camera and today that is all that seems to matter. Should have had her staff film the entire interaction since it was obvious she was being filmed. Now the right are using her as a prop.
OK, let's just unpack that comparison. Not as an attack on your underlying point but as the reason that underlying point is almost inevitably q bad comparison.
Because an (R) would literally be telling them no, because he planned to sell the environment to the Koch Brothers and watch the world burn and gin up a war against Iran. And because he was monolithically supporting a criminal he knew to be selling American power to Vladimir Putin, a Saudi murderer and anyone who could transactionally and financially benefit him. Including North Korea.
Feinstein is telling them correctly and inelegantly that this vote is unworkable and literally tries to explain why it's complicated and hands them a policy and planning roadmap for doing the opposite. She's dismissive and rude and shows bad political instincts and low empathy - but her message remains true: we're trying to fix it but this bill is not viable in its present form.
But If an elderly republican was trying to tell them something mildly moral and was exasperated but calm, it would only be newsworthy because a republican was actually trying to get genuinely good for climate change effort into policy. That's how far apart those teams are. Literally good vs evil. It sounds absurd and reductive - but pick ANY policy - climate change, voting rights, Healthcare, war, truth, economics, any major policy position. It's not nuance about interest rates or geopolitical complexity. It's pretty binary stuff.
Look at how the "teams" deal with this stuff too. Some Dems - even a few real ones - are calling for the ouster of one of their most powerful leaders, because she's mean sounding or glib and doesn't want to simplify an issue. The other team keeps pederasts, racists and monsters safe and secure. We demand resignations and immolate our own team because we aren't monolithic and because we do actually hold our own accountable. Relatively speaking it's a night and day difference. And to a fault sometimes. Perfect as the enemy of good.
It's only "my side" because of policy and competence/numbers. I think that literally 90% of the politicians I vote for are ego driven power hungry grafters or at least became that after some idealism - and that they are at least mostly aligned with my fact and morality based approach to governance. I don't have a single "hero" outside of maybe Ocasia Cortez as a naive but talented communicator - a kind of powerful tool who's built up enough credibility to at least fend off the millions of dollars and tweets pointed at her because she's a threat. I think she's young and inexperienced and her value is a combination of party evolution and calibration to the left. I don't think she's going to be Obama any time soon but we need her to grow and get seasoned without being cynicized by the system - and to bring more young people to the party and the ballot.
The last American politician I admired without holding my nose was Barney Frank. Not on any specific angle but as a package of effort and policy and mostly honesty. I felt a very similar admiration for Bernie initially and ironically Bernie's negatives for me were a direct result of his campaign rather than his career. If he can address those I can get behind him again.
But the "my side" comparison only works if they're both playing the same sport and that's simply not true. Perhaps especially on this issue.
If we ever attack climate change as a moonshot - it needs to be just that - a muscular Patriotic rah rah New Deal that kills two birds with one stone. Building and mandating solar and renewable energy sources but attacking smart infrastructure and funding research into materials, storage, distribution and efficiency at a ferocious target based pace - and a pace that propels American economic and leadership growth.
"We will create a recyclable energy storage and distribution technology that is a sustainable net environmental good. We will eliminate all XXX power by X date" and so on.
But to get to that Kennedy moon speech we need more control of a rational and good government - and the "cold war enemy" needs to be climate change itself. Pessimistically I believe that the only thing that will change the American system and consciousness will probably be a catastrophic and indisputably climate related natural disaster - a drowned city on American soil. We have enough evidence to identify the most feasible candidates. Maybe it will be a giant and sudden permafrost or methane event - or an exponential melting event. But we only react to crisis - and crisis also paralyzes us. And we need another Kennedy - an inspirational figure who can cut through team loyalty directly to the issue itself.
I think people are still infuriatingly oblivious to how compromised and weak our system is. It's cheaper to bribe an American politician than a Russian oligarch. Mere thousands of dollars can get you access to politicians but also the American public. You can warp the systems quite economically. Results from those investments can be immediate and obvious. Coal and energy barons are able to directly buy tax dollars for pennies. With guaranteed returns. Foreign nations are paying cash for the ability to wreak havoc on the world stage and undermine our democracy and civil discourse. For piffling amounts. Russia literally can't afford to repair its naval fleet, but for the cost of a couple of skyscrapers it can rock the foundations of NATO and help itself to a country or two.
Saudi Arabia for the cost of a few condos and mansions can access American nuclear technology and create an obscenely dangerous situation in the middle east - and its princes continue to flagrantly fund ISIS and Al Qaeda and the destruction of America and Israel - and we symbolically moved our embassy to Jerusalem as a deliberate affront to the entire middle east - for cash and a direct favor to a racist coalition and probably money from Israel and American citizens like Adelson. Knowing that it would further worsen the global stage and benefit no one. And we don't make a squeak when settlers are deliberately deployed to anger not just Palestinians, but the Muslim world.
But the teams comparison doesn't withstand scrutiny because of the nature of the teams and the import of what their rules create.
One of the teams is - to put it mildly - imperfect. But the other team is literally evil.
You're right, it's horrifying and endemic to OT politics threads and needs to be addressed asap.
Why isn't the whole video up on her social media sites? Yet the other one is in every outlet known to man.
Cause that's what happens when you're first out of the gate and control the media narrative with your bullshit video
the full video doesn't really change anything. it only really includes 3 things that are not in the shorter version, none of which really makes her look better
1. she says there's no way to pay for the bill. fucking what? raise taxes. it's not hard. apparently having low taxes is more important to her than fighting climate change
2. she is asked to give an elevator pitch explaining how her resolution differs from the GND and why it'd be better. she doesn't, but instead prefers to hand out a prop
3. someone gets an internship
1. she says there's no way to pay for the bill. fucking what? raise taxes. it's not hard. apparently having low taxes is more important to her than fighting climate change
2. she is asked to give an elevator pitch explaining how her resolution differs from the GND and why it'd be better. she doesn't, but instead prefers to hand out a prop
3. someone gets an internship
Message the OP and have him update it with a link to the material provided by Feinstein. Or link it yourself. At this point you're contributing literally zero to anything with your posts in this thread. Maybe I missed it.
https://www.feinstein.senate.gov/pu...0E73.2019.02.22-climate-change-resolution.pdf
Seems she is being very poorly served by her staff. Not much to refute if you can put two videos up side by side.Cause that's what happens when you're first out of the gate and control the media narrative with your bullshit video
But I do agree with this sentiment most times -- almost all of the time actually.
1) There isn't a way to pay for the bill because using 2030 as a target for restructuring the entire energy grid, energy production and magically increasing the doubling rate of energy storage is literally not possible. I know everyone is clawing to that 2030 study like the moment we breach it the world just blows up, but the reality is 2050 was always going to be the actual realistic target for overturning our energy production to primarily non-carbon based.
2) A prop as in the framework of what she is working on? If those kids can argue about the Green New Deal then I would hope they can read a framework of a different deal and be able to use some of that good ol' fashion tenth grade critical thinking to compare the two.
Now if the GND wanted to, say, have US energy usage be 50% renewable by 2030? Then I would be on board because that's well within the realm of possibility without touching the restrictions of storage costs in that time frame as well as not needing to do much to our energy grid. We could feasibly get 50% renewable production in 12 to 15 years.
Last edited:
even if you can't get all the way there, the bill includes a number of specific policies that CAN be paid for and that could get us a decent chunk of the way there. would you support the bill if it contained exactly the same proposals but they erased the one sentence about 100% renewable before 2030 that you deem unrealistic?
it's clearly a way to get them out of her face
one would expect someone who's been in the senate for 25 years to be able to explain their policy preferences in their own words rather than just hand out a piece of paper
Then have a bill that's actually realistic in it's goals instead of some bullshit target that can never be hit unless alien's come down and give us the secret sauce to our energy needs.
Ummm, yea?
Do you really think anyone wants a group of high schoolers in their office/around them for more than 10 minutes?
the bill contains a target and a list of specific policy proposals meant to reach that target
so the only thing you need to be able to support the bill is that they erase or change the target? you are ok with all the specific policy proposals? this should be solved in a matter of minutes then
Yes yes the evil leftists are the real bad guys and morons for being mean to the 85 year old who won't be alive when we all cook to death because of climate change, because she just wants to usher out these kids asking her about voting on a deal. Clearly exactly like the GOP.
If the target is not feasible then the policy proposals to reach the unreachable target clearly aren't going to be based in reality.
The GND calls for the complete decarbonization of the US economy, we're not just talking about the energy sector. That means, cars, construction, transportation, heavy industry...
Was gonna say this too lol
Not doing a good job if it took you that long and we are still nowhere near a resolution
People who are pissed she handed the kids a paper with the outlines of her plan to get them to go away are the same people who get mad when a date uses the emergency phone call to politely cut the date off in a non-confrontational way while making it clear that this shit is over.
Why shouldn't that be a target? "realistic climate change proposals" haven't worked, they've done nothing. If it takes a radical shift in the paradigm to do so then why not shoot for it? Why is that a bad thing?
M4A doesn't work if you don't literally shut down the entire private insurance industry, not integrate them, not make them providers under cost, shut them all down. Should we not do that because it's "not based in reality"?
Reality is that we're going to be fucking dead from this and the time to be doing these things is not incrementalism, incrementalism isn't going to do jack shit but make a bunch of people feel better about themselves as we still cook to death.
The time for blase fixes and "oh we can just kick it down the road" is long past, we're finding that studies done even just 10 years ago vastly underestimated the impact and damage we were doing, the time tables continue to radically move up every year as we continue to output more and more carbon.
She's a representative politician, not some random woman off the street. If she can't be assed to give these kids anything more than a meaningless memo and some platitudes then maybe she's in the wrong line of business.
there is a value in setting unattainable targets as policy goals. you may not reach all the way there, but you may get almost all the way there and the specific policies implemented as a result of your targets may leave you in a much better place than if you didn't have a target in the first place
for example, sweden has had for a long time a zero vision for deaths in traffic as official policy. we'll never reach it, but it has still served us incredibly well, because the specific policies implemented as a consequence of this vision has us at one of the lowest death rates from traffic
for example, sweden has had for a long time a zero vision for deaths in traffic as official policy. we'll never reach it, but it has still served us incredibly well, because the specific policies implemented as a consequence of this vision has us at one of the lowest death rates from traffic
S ISSUE. I get that it's something to
I mean where's the lie??
I mean where's the lie??
Those drumming for Feinstein's pragmatism - reading this draft - hand on heart - you think these measures will put us anywhere near zero emissions by 2050? https://www.feinstein.senate.gov/pu...0E73.2019.02.22-climate-change-resolution.pdf
so you think one should expect as much from someone you're meeting for the first time on a date as one should from elected representatives?
yikes that is some rape culture shit
Feinstein sucks.
Conservative right wing bullshit tactics also suck.
Both things can be simultaneously true.
Our world is going to require a bold response to mitigate the permanent damage. Anything less is NOT GOOD ENOUGH. That is the only thing that should be taken from this incident. Feinstein and people with similar incrementalist politics are in the way.
Realistic climate proposals haven't worked because we actually have never tried to implement them on a scale that lasts more than four years before the GOP rips the rug from under our feet.
Writing and signing a policy that we know is based in a reality that is not our own is not a way to actually deal with the reality we have right now. Having a policy that we know will not work to reach the targets we know means we are not being honest with ourselves for the future issues we will face and the actual policy that needs to be written.
She gave them, what, 15 to 20 minutes of her time?
Near zero emissions != carbon neutral
And no, most climate proposals won't get us to carbon neutral by 2050.
That's why the Paris Framework was designed to have an increasing ramp up of emissions reductions as time goes on.
You think you're being cute by trying to bring in "rape culture" into a tongue and cheek metaphor?
Buzz off
All the smug arrogant people stuck in their ivory tower of corrupted power, talking down to people legitimately concerned about the future THEY will have to endure while breaking their oil and gas donation pledges. Its very sickening to have anyone on the side of defense. This is a problem. And the fact that the far right has latched onto Dianne feinsten for legitimacy is a problem as well.
Shills will agree when their bread is buttered the same way, through lobbying of powerful interests against the people.
Shills will agree when their bread is buttered the same way, through lobbying of powerful interests against the people.
We can sit around bemoaning right wing dishonest and aggressive tactics to hold our politicians to the fire they created but I think we're missing the point. These tactics ultimately don't work, they don't help you mobilize popular support and people who use them don't just gain more and more power.
oh wait oops
oh wait oops
The preamble to the draft of GND actually states that even with the messures proposed it will most likely take longer but it also states, leaning on research that if you put policy targets with longer time horizon and less ambitious targets then truly transformative action is perpetually postponed. I thinkbthere is pretty strong scientific evidence for this. It also states that by most science-based accounts
a change by 2050(+20) will be too late.
You literally did this yourself and it's disgusting.
The real risks of women in every day life are not a prop for you to use in your forum posts.
Is this really an ends justify the means with regard to spreading disinformation post?
Yea I think I'll pass on talking to people who hide their account history
Click on my post number, they aren't hidden. Nice deflect there though, you still did a disgusting thing.
Out of line? No. But that isn't the way I would go about trying to encourage the youth to be active members in democracy.