2020 US Election (Part One)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Obama 2.0? :lol: I remember a Republican friend of mine fuming "Hope & change! Why can't Obama be specific on anything?" So I brought him a 52-page print out from Obam's website on his proposals. "Well, well, well, I can't read all that!" :rolleyes:

To now say, e.g. that Beto is dodgy is to admit that the speaker is ignore of Beto's positions. Here, for example is Beto's 4-part plan to fight climate change:

Spoiler Climate Change [from Beto's website] :

Part 1
Start Cutting Pollution on Day One and Taking Executive Actions to Lead on Climate

Beto’s four-part framework starts with a forceful day-one agenda because he knows that delay is tantamount to denial — to misunderstanding the severity and scale of this growing crisis. We will cut pollution on day one, improving the quality of our air, our water, and our public health right away. At the same time, we will create jobs, support communities, and strengthen our economy — not just to compete, but to lead the world in addressing this crisis.

As President, Beto will use his executive authority not only to reverse the problematic decisions made by the current administration, but also to go beyond the climate actions under previous presidents:

  • Re-enter the Paris Agreement and lead the negotiations for an even more ambitious global plan for 2030 and beyond;
  • Reduce methane leakage from existing sources in the oil and natural gas industry for the first time and rapidly phase-out hydrofluorocarbons, the super-polluting greenhouse gas that is up to 9,000 times worse for climate change than carbon dioxide;
  • Strengthen the clean air and hazardous waste limits for power plants and fuel economy standards that save consumers money and improve public health, while setting a trajectory to rapidly accelerate the adoption of zero-emission vehicles;
  • Increase consumer savings through new, modernized, and ambitious appliance- and building-efficiency standards;
  • Create unprecedented access to the technologies and markets that allow farmers and ranchers to profit from the reductions in greenhouse gas emissions they secure;
  • Leverage $500 billion in annual government procurement to decarbonize across all sectors for the first time, including a new “buy clean” program for steel, glass, and cement;
  • Require any federal permitting decision to fully account for climate costs and community impacts;
  • Set a first-ever, net-zero emissions by 2030 carbon budget for federal lands, stopping new fossil fuel leases, changing royalties to reflect climate costs, and accelerating renewables development and forestation; and
  • Protect our most wild, beautiful, and biodiverse places for generations to come — including more of the Arctic and of our sensitive landscapes and seascapes than ever before — and establish National Parks and Monuments that more fully tell our American story.
Part 2
Mobilize $5 Trillion for Climate Change with Investment in Infrastructure, Innovation, and Our People and Communities
Given the gravity of the work that lies ahead, this fight will require much more than a president signing executive orders. We will need a full mobilization of our democracy and economy. That is why, in the very first bill he sends to Congress, Beto will launch a 10-year mobilization of $5 trillion directly leveraged by a fully paid-for $1.5 trillion investment — the world’s largest-ever climate change investment in infrastructure, innovation, and in our people and communities. The bill will be funded with the revenues generated by structural changes to the tax code that ensure corporations and the wealthiest among us pay their fair share and that we finally end the tens of billions of dollars of tax breaks currently given to fossil fuel companies. This investment will drive economic growth and shared prosperity — spurring job creation and adding to our GDP, reducing energy costs, improving public health, and boosting our overall economic, energy, and climate security.

Together, we will invest in the communities that so often bear the brunt — both those on the front-lines of a changing climate and those disrupted by the forces of an economy in transition. Not only will those communities be the focus of our investment, they will also be the source of our inspiration and leadership. After all, we cannot, and will not be able to address this challenge without organized labor, including those already dealing with changes to their industry; farmers and ranchers; communities of color; businesses; or the young people who have the most to lose and the most to contribute.

As President, Beto will spur investment in:

  • Infrastructure necessary to cut pollution across all sectors, meet his net-zero ambition without delay, and boost economic opportunity and growth with $300 billion in direct resources through tax credits and another $300 billion in direct resources through additional investments that will, together, mobilize at least $4 trillion in capital:
    • More than $1 trillion through limited-duration, performance-focused climate change tax incentives that accelerate the scale up of nascent technologies enabling reductions in greenhouse gas emissions across all sectors, through efficiency and alternatives; and
    • More than $3 trillion through proven existing financing institutions, like the Rural Utility Service, and a new dedicated finance authority, which will have on its board not only the brightest minds in finance but also members of the unions that would help build this infrastructure.
  • Innovation that will lead to pioneering solutions in energy, water, agriculture, industry, and mobility and to scientific discovery that makes us more safe and secure. $250 billion in direct resources that will catalyze follow-on private investment, creation of new businesses, and discovery of new science:
    • More than $250 billion through research and development across disciplines and domains including national labs, public, private, and land-grant colleges and universities, incubators and accelerators — all supporting regional hubs of expertise, spurring economic growth, and unlocking technological breakthroughs;
      • 80 percent of this total investment — an amount equal to what we invested in our nation’s journey to the Moon — will go to research with the most promise to dramatically and rapidly achieve net-zero emissions while growing our economy. This will include funding for a new constellation of DARPA-style efforts into agriculture, industry, mobility, and water; catalyzing partnerships with private and philanthropic capital; and seeding a new, diverse generation of STEM leaders;
      • 20 percent of the total investment will go to the climate science needed to understand the changes to our oceans and our atmosphere; avoid preventable losses and catastrophic outcomes; and protect public safety and national security.
  • Our People and Communities, especially those on the front-lines of a changing climate and those disrupted by the forces of an economy in transition, to whom we look for our inspiration and leadership. $650 billion in direct resources that will mobilize at least $1.2 trillion in capital:
    • More than $1.2 trillion through grants and other similar investments in our people and communities, including:
      • Housing grants that help close the gap of affordable housing in America in a way that promotes improvements in both sustainability and quality of life;
      • Transportation grants that cut commutes, crashes, and carbon pollution — all while reducing the costs paid by people and communities and boosting access to public transit;
      • Public health grants that both address the immediate crises of communities facing unacceptably poor air or water quality and the long-term crisis of climate change;
      • Small business and start-up grants that boost the diversity of the leaders whose businesses form the supply chain for climate change solutions;
      • National service grants to mobilize a new AmeriCorps generation to deploy clean energy, plant trees on marginal lands, and build more resilience to fires, floods, droughts, and hurricanes;
      • Paid-training grants through partnership with unions, community colleges, and employers that deliver the skills to earn a job in this growing economy;
      • Farming and ranching grants to create a new revenue stream for the climate benefits secured through practices like better soil management and deployment of digesters; and
      • Economic diversification and development grants for communities that have been and are being impacted by changes in energy and the economy.
This investment will support the pensions and health care benefits that are owed to the workers, including those in the coal industry, who have built our economy over the last century by risking their lives and investing their labor. At the same time, it will also invest in the workers who will build our economy over the next century to support an America with cleaner air, cleaner water, and a more resilient and fair economy that can compete and lead around the world.

The actions we’re announcing today will help us get there — by wasting no time cutting pollution, making historic investments in infrastructure, innovation, and in our communities, setting bold emissions targets, and defending those most at risk from the dangers and destruction of climate change.

Beto O’Rourke
April 29, 2019
Part 3
Guarantee our Net-Zero Emissions Ambition by 2050
To have any chance at limiting global temperature rise to 1.5 °C and preventing the worst effects of climate change, the latest science demands net-zero emissions by 2050. By investing in infrastructure, innovation, and in our people and communities, we can achieve this ambition, which is in line with the 2050 emissions goal of the Green New Deal, in a way that grows our economy and shrinks our inequality.

We cannot afford to delay any longer. That is why our ambition must be backed up by a legally enforceable standard that holds us accountable to future generations. We need a guarantee that we will, in fact, achieve net zero emissions by 2050 and get halfway there by 2030. For this reason, Beto will work with Congress to enact a legally enforceable standard — within his first 100 days. This standard will send a clear price signal to the market to change the incentives for how we produce, consume, and invest in energy, while putting in place a mechanism that will ensure the environmental and socio-economic integrity of this endeavor — providing us with the confidence that we are moving at least as quickly as we need in order to meet a 2050 deadline.

Such a strong, legally enforceable standard harnesses the innovative potential of the private sector and power of market forces while recognizing that the market needs rules in order to function equitably and efficiently — not just incentives, but accountability too. Market forces alone do not reduce social harms like pollution or achieve our shared societal goals without government policy to point them in that direction. That is why Beto’s net-zero guarantee is such a critical component of his — and any — credible framework to fight climate change. Having set that legally enforceable standard, Beto will be relentless about doing more and going faster each remaining day he is in office — including accelerating action by:

  • Partnering with any city or county, state or tribal nation, business or NGO, any individual pursuing greater ambition;
  • Rigorously measuring our progress, scaling what works and scrapping what does not;
  • Enforcing our laws to hold polluters accountable, including for their historical actions or crimes;
  • Advancing consumer choice and market competition in electricity and transportation;
  • Leveraging natural climate solutions and supporting ecosystems and biodiversity conservation; and
  • Requiring public companies to measure and disclose climate risks and the greenhouse gas emissions in their operations and supply chains.
Part 4
Defend our Communities That Are Preparing for and Fighting Against Extreme Weather
As President, Beto will never shrink from defending our communities — across states, territories, and tribal nations — that are preparing for and fighting against fires, floods, droughts, and hurricanes. And as Commander in Chief, he will support our military in adapting to the risks posed by climate change to our bases and missions. This includes:

  • Increasing by ten-fold the spending on pre-disaster mitigation grants that save $6 for every $1 invested;
  • Changing the law to make sure that we build back stronger after every disaster, rather than spend recovery dollars in ways that leave communities vulnerable to the next fire, flood, drought or hurricane;
  • Supporting efforts to incentivize private-sector investment in evidence-based, risk reduction measures;
  • Recognizing the value of well-managed ecosystems to reduce and defend against climate-related risks;
  • Expanding our federal crop insurance program to cover additional risks and offer more comprehensive solutions to support farmers and ranchers;
  • Investing in the climate readiness and resilience of our first responders; and
  • Bolstering the security of our military bases, both at home and around the world, and supporting our soldiers with technologies that reduce the need to rely
Pretty good, when did that come out? May? His timeline is off though.
From an article in the Hill a quote from the Sunrise Movement:
“We’re glad to see Beto release a climate plan as his first policy and commit to making it a day one priority for his administration. He gets a lot right in this plan,” Varshini Prakash, executive director of the group, said in a statement. “Unfortunately, Beto gets the science wrong and walks back his commitments from earlier this month in Iowa to move to net-zero emissions by 2030. Beto claims to support the Green New Deal, but his plan is out of line with the timeline it lays out and the scale of action that scientists say is necessary to take here in the United States to give our generation a livable future.”

So apparently this policy from his website is different from what he said shortly before it was released. It took him a couple weeks to deviate from a prior commitment. It also took him until May to put anything concrete out. Maybe we wait and see what changes he makes to it in another month? The guy's got a pretty shoddy record on climate issues, not trustworthy. I liked him when his opponent was Ted Cruz, anybody's better than Cruz, but there are much better choices out there.
 
Many people were disappointed about Obama.

Was that because he genuinely failed to deliver enough of his promises ?
or because he failed to deliver enough of the expectations he unintentionally raised in his voter base ?
or did the GOP newsmedia do an effective job in reshaping the expectations on Obama ?
or something else ?
 
Many people were disappointed about Obama.

Was that because he genuinely failed to deliver enough of his promises ?
or because he failed to deliver enough of the expectations he unintentionally raised in his voter base ?
or did the GOP newsmedia do an effective job in reshaping the expectations on Obama ?
or something else ?
My disappointment mainly stems from his absolute failure to work with Congress. I blame a lot of it on Republican intransigence - I mean GOP leadership really did get together on inauguration day to plan how they would stop him from doing anything - but I feel like he did not do a good job of selling his agenda after Obamacare or forcing Republicans to bargain.
 
Not 100% true but true enough. It's a vicious cycle: Democrats let Republicans pass legislation that undermines unions, then they lose a state like Michigan in a crucial Presidential election and throw up their hands and wonder WTH happened. Well, what happened is that you stood by and allowed (and sometimes connived with - I don't want to leave that out) the enemy and allowed them to all but destroy the mass organizations that got your voters to the polls reliably.

I work in the labor movement (building trades union) and we're obsessed with centrism, most of the important people in our union are ideologically centrist and proud of it, and we sometimes support Republican candidates when they offer things for us (fortunately I've never had to be involved in any of those campaigns, which are relatively rare as you might expect - plus most Republicans who support our union are running for state, county, or municipal office rather than Congress or a gubernatorial seat).
Speaking as a longtime Union Steward, that isn't it. Union workers are traditional family people. The Democrats turned their back on traditional families and their values. Hillary called them deplorables, which is the whole two generation problem boiled down to one word.
 
The Democrats turned their back on traditional families and their values.
Before we can go any farther, what is a 'traditional family'?
Are you referring to the Normal Rockwell 'mom, dad, 2.5 kids' family or (as I suspect) 'traditional families' for you is code for 'I don't like the queers and poofs running around'.
Hillary called them deplorables, which is the whole two generation problem boiled down to one word.
How about you read the full quote?
Time said:
“You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right?” Clinton said. “The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic—you name it. And unfortunately there are people like that. And he has lifted them up.”

She said the other half of Trump’s supporters “feel that the government has let them down” and are “desperate for change.”

“Those are people we have to understand and empathize with as well,” she said.
https://time.com/4486502/hillary-clinton-basket-of-deplorables-transcript/
It is pretty clear that by 'basket of deplorables' Clinton was referring to the sort of Trump supporters who go to the polling place wearing shirts that say "Rope. Tree. Journalist. Some Assembly Required." or have deeply bigoted views. Unless you have a 1 to 1 link in your mind between 'traditional families' and 'basket of deplorables', they are most certainly not the same.
 
There is, then, some chance, however small, of having influence in the event of a Biden win. There is absolutely no possibility to have any influence at all in an America with eight years of Trump and an almost purely far-right judiciary and SCOTUS. It's difficult to overstate the sheer damage this would deal, especially since these nominees are handpicked for relative youth and are lifelong appointees.

Biden would likely nominate judges who are center-right. Trump is looking only for judges who are right or far-right and in favor of interpretations giving unlimited powers and legal immunity to the Republican Party. It's clear Trump is worse.
Obviously I agree. Biden is absolutely the preferable choice to Trump. But that doesn't mean he's a good choice. Breaking one leg is better than breaking two, but those are both bad outcomes, and should be regarded as such. A Biden presidency is better for Americans and the world than a Trump presidency, but it is still a bad thing for Americans and the world, and should be contested as such.

Remember that my initial point was not to disagree that Biden is the lesser of two evils, but to distinguish between lesser evil and lesser good. Some candidates are preferable even though they will do less good than you hope; some are preferable only because they will do less evil. To elect Biden would ultimately be a defeat for the left; that we might find ourselves hoping for that defeat is a symptom of the hopeless wasteland that is electoral politics, not a vindication of Biden, or any Biden-like figure.
 
Obviously I agree. Biden is absolutely the preferable choice to Trump. But that doesn't mean he's a good choice. Breaking one leg is better than breaking two, but those are both bad outcomes, and should be regarded as such. A Biden presidency is better for Americans and the world than a Trump presidency, but it is still a bad thing for Americans and the world, and should be contested as such.

Remember that my initial point was not to disagree that Biden is the lesser of two evils, but to distinguish between lesser evil and lesser good. Some candidates are preferable even though they will do less good than you hope; some are preferable only because they will do less evil. To elect Biden would ultimately be a defeat for the left; that we might find ourselves hoping for that defeat is a symptom of the hopeless wasteland that is electoral politics, not a vindication of Biden, or any Biden-like figure.
I am, of course, very much for more left-leaning candidates like Sanders and Warren, not Biden. All I'm saying is that, should an election come down to a choice between Biden and Trump, the American left should vote Biden to minimize the damage. Yes, he's a lesser evil rather than a greater good - but if the election does come down to that choice, the time to vote for a left-leaning candidate would have passed, at least for that cycle, and it is always preferable to minimize damage rather than stay home and deliberately allow the greater evil to win out of some misguided hope that this would teach the DNC a lesson and make eight years or more of institutionalized right-wing extremism somehow all worth it.
 
I am, of course, very much for more left-leaning candidates like Sanders and Warren, not Biden. All I'm saying is that, should an election come down to a choice between Biden and Trump, the American left should vote Biden to minimize the damage. Yes, he's a lesser evil rather than a greater good - but if the election does come down to that choice, the time to vote for a left-leaning candidate would have passed, at least for that cycle, and it is always preferable to minimize damage rather than stay home and deliberately allow the greater evil to win out of some misguided hope that this would teach the DNC a lesson and make eight years or more of institutionalized right-wing extremism somehow all worth it.

1) why 8 years? Trump can only run for a second term.
2) In the hypothetical that Biden somehow wins (I doubt he would) then you cannot have a left candidate in 2024 either.
3) That the DNC didn't learn its lesson isn't a reason to give in to the DNC, surely.
 
How many drug users need rehab to begin with?
 
The difference between Oprah and Trump is she actually built her empire

I think he's right, but I dont think she has the stomach for the game of thrones

Id love to see her get Trump in a debate
 
The difference between Oprah and Trump is she actually built her empire

I think he's right, but I dont think she has the stomach for the game of thrones

Id love to see her get Trump in a debate
I'm trying to imagine what he'd hammer her with. Would she be a free pony socialist because she gave stuff away at her shows?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom