Donald Trump & 2016 Election

[pilferk]

It is how you move to greener tech and investing in them that is important. Of course we need to take steps for a cleaner environment and renewable energy.  But what was proposed in the Green New Deal is not practical to implement nor its price tag. 

For example?  

Hawaii made some VERY aggressive (and at the time, opponents said unrealistic) legislative "promises" about 5 years ago. The set up is VERY similar to the language in the Green New Deal bill that has been introduced.  They achieved these results, under the projected costs...because new industry (and new jobs) sprung up to support those commitments.  It meant new jobs, new tech, and innovation....something necessity often spurs on.  And while there was considerable state support and funding for those new start ups, they have recouped a LOT of that money, and project to recoup even more as they go forward. 

So the GND has some practical, historic, precedent to support it.

I'm curious which tenets of the GND, as it exists, you find to be impractical?

And any meaningful & practical steps regarding taking action on climate change needs to involve India and China.  They would need to be held to the same standard for any real results. 

So, your position is we shouldn't act to make things better UNLESS India and China agree to act, first/at the same time?

We shouldn't try to make improvements, because the solution isn't perfect without their participation?  NO solution is better?

I'm genuinely curious, here.  Typically, the US has lead by example and then "bullied" our trade and military partners to follow.  That's actually a REAGAN tenet, and has been pushed by conservatives since the 60's.  Its interesting if you're suggesting we should abandon that approach.

[jarmo]

It is how you move to greener tech and investing in them that is important. Of course we need to take steps for a cleaner environment and renewable energy.  But what was proposed in the Green New Deal is not practical to implement nor its price tag.   

Price tag?
Interesting that the price tag is such a deal breaker. I mean, look at the effects of climate change. How do you put a price on Miami, for example, being underwater?

It's been obvious for quite some time that the so called market has very little interest in moving in the right direction without some "assistance" from governments...

And any meaningful & practical steps regarding taking action on climate change needs to involve India and China.  They would need to be held to the same standard for any real results. 

I agree.

But you have to start somewhere. It's better to lead and then make sure the others follow rather than to sit and do nothing, while arguing about who should go first....




/jarmo

[Dr. Blutarsky]

It is how you move to greener tech and investing in them that is important. Of course we need to take steps for a cleaner environment and renewable energy.  But what was proposed in the Green New Deal is not practical to implement nor its price tag.   

Price tag?
Interesting that the price tag is such a deal breaker. I mean, look at the effects of climate change. How do you put a price on Miami, for example, being underwater?

It's been obvious for quite some time that the so called market has very little interest in moving in the right direction without some "assistance" from governments...

And any meaningful & practical steps regarding taking action on climate change needs to involve India and China.  They would need to be held to the same standard for any real results. 

I agree.

But you have to start somewhere. It's better to lead and then make sure the others follow rather than to sit and do nothing, while arguing about who should go first....




/jarmo

Cost of this proposal is between $51 trillion and $93 trillion over 10 years according to a former CBO director.

To put it into perspective, the total government spending for the US over the next 10 years according to CBO numbers is projected to total less than $60 trillion.

This doesn't seem very practical. 

What you run into if you took these measures unilaterally it would very much adversely affect the economy in the near term and if India and China (who have considerably higher carbon emissions than the US) get an economic advantage by not making any changes and we dont make a big dent in overall global carbon emissions.

I get we have to start somewhere but this plan isn't it.

[jarmo]

Still only talking about costs and so on. Yes, it won't be free.

Ten years? That's pretty short term...

Like I said, how much would you lose in the same time period when/if things get worse.....





/jarmo

[Dr. Blutarsky]

Again, the plan proposed isn't feasible.

And I'm not sure exactly where paying people who are unwilling to work fits in with a climate bill.

I'm not saying we should do nothing. Another plan is needed. Something that could actually be implemented and make a difference.

[jarmo]

So your biggest problem with it is the cost.




/jarmo

[allwaystired]

Again, the plan proposed isn't feasible.

And I'm not sure exactly where paying people who are unwilling to work fits in with a climate bill.

I'm not saying we should do nothing. Another plan is needed. Something that could actually be implemented and make a difference.

What would you suggest then? What could be implemented and make a difference?

[Dr. Blutarsky]

So your biggest problem with it is the cost.




/jarmo

The cost and what you'd get for it.

The only good I see with this is the discussion about Climate change it is causing. Maybe that was the intent.  

Id say 1st step would be to get China and India to the table and try to work on something that holds all to the same standard instead of doing it unilaterally

I see this as a VERY rough first draft of a plan.

[allwaystired]

So your biggest problem with it is the cost.




/jarmo

The cost and what you'd get for it.

The only good I see with this is the discussion about Climate change it is causing. Maybe that was the intent.  

Id say 1st step would be to get China and India to the table and try to work on something that holds all to the same standard instead of doing it unilaterally

I see this as a VERY rough first draft of a plan.

We can't wait for them. Surely it's vital that something happens now. The 'held to the same standard' thing is crazy. China's human rights and freedom of speech records are abysmal- that doesn't mean to say that other countries should be the same until China changes.

[jarmo]

The cost and what you'd get for it.

A better future? 




Speaking of Donald Trump.

US President Donald Trump has defended North Korean leader Kim Jong-un in the case of an American college student who died after being jailed by North Korea.

Speaking in Hanoi after his summit with Mr Kim broke down, Mr Trump said he did not believe the North Korean leader was aware of Otto Warmbier's ordeal.

Mr Trump said: "He tells me he didn't know about it, and I will take him at his word."

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-47404629


Why wouldn't you take the word of someone like that? 




/jarmo

[allwaystired]

The cost and what you'd get for it.

A better future? 




Speaking of Donald Trump.

US President Donald Trump has defended North Korean leader Kim Jong-un in the case of an American college student who died after being jailed by North Korea.

Speaking in Hanoi after his summit with Mr Kim broke down, Mr Trump said he did not believe the North Korean leader was aware of Otto Warmbier's ordeal.

Mr Trump said: "He tells me he didn't know about it, and I will take him at his word."

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-47404629


Why wouldn't you take the word of someone like that? 




/jarmo

Kim Jong-un probably flattered his ego and bought him a Big Mac. That's probably enough to get on his good side. Just don't present him with any facts, evidence or even points of view he doesn't like and you'll be fine......in fact, you can literally get away with murder!

[pilferk]

Here's the link to the actual legislation:

https://ocasio-cortez.house.gov/sites/ocasio-cortez.house.gov/files/Resolution%20on%20a%20Green%20New%20Deal.pdf

It's a nonbinding resolution that talks about very high minded goals and asking the government to provide support, mostly to private industry and community based programs, via tax breaks, incentives, and grants to achieve those goals.

How anyone could argue cost....since there's no specific actions, penalties, or directly "costable" things in there, I'm not sure.  Any cost assessment would be leap and bounds "guesswork", at best.

The "cost analysis" cited earlier in this thread is from a right wing group called the American Action Forum (yes, led by a former CBO official who is now not remotely bound by the same non-partisan principals of that office), and it hasn't released it's justifications of those amounts.  Frankly, I'm not sure where they come from.  Trying to assign costs to things that specifically say "as technology allows" and other caveats and considerations would seem to me to be VERY hard to do.

http://fortune.com/2019/02/25/the-green-new-deal-ocasio-cortez/

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-02-25/group-sees-ocasio-cortez-s-green-new-deal-costing-93-trillion

“Any so-called ‘analysis’ of the #GreenNewDeal that includes artificially inflated numbers that rely on lazy assumptions, incl. about policies that aren’t even in the resolution is bogus," Markey said on Twitter. “Putting a price on a resolution of principles, not policies, is just Big Oil misinformation.”

I'm genuinely asked a number of conservatives what their objections are to this bill...and I never get an actual answer that addresses the ACTUAL contents of the legislation.  I suspect none of them have actually read it, and instead have bought into the "no steak for you, no cars for you, no babies for you" talking point without doing their due diligence.

At this point, I'm excluding the good Senator from that perception, but.....his answers here aren't all that encouraging.

[pilferk]

What you run into if you took these measures unilaterally it would very much adversely affect the economy in the near term and if India and China (who have considerably higher carbon emissions than the US) get an economic advantage by not making any changes and we dont make a big dent in overall global carbon emissions.

I get we have to start somewhere but this plan isn't it.

If we act first, and innovate...eventually India and China will have to follow suit.  Honestly, they're moving in that direction already.

If we develop the tech...something we have proven quite adept at....eventually, they're buying that tech and expertise from us.

This is, again, the basic conservative principal....it's trickle down that actually works. You don't give companies money (which they'll just hoard)...you give them incentives to make more money and increase revenue.  And, again, there's historic precedent for this type of thing out there.  We've done it with similar issues (like engine efficiency, HVAC advances, military equipment (and not just weapons), etc) before....and the tech has made the US a ton of money.

We innovate well.  It's what we're good at.  This gives our country a chance to do that, make some green, and maybe save the planet. 

I'm, again, curious as to why that's NOT the way the conservatives are thinking now.

[pilferk]

Still only talking about costs and so on. Yes, it won't be free.

Ten years? That's pretty short term...

Like I said, how much would you lose in the same time period when/if things get worse.....





/jarmo

But remember, jarmo:

30 billion or so for a wall, that experts say will have almost zero effect on anything Trump and the Republicans keep using as talking points, is totally fine.

Again, I'm NOT directing this at the good Senator, here. 

But "cost" is one of the big things that conservative media is grousing about here.  And there is a bit of hypocrisy when they support blowing 30 billion on something that is mostly useless vs  "some number we don't know" (and lets face it...it could be  ANY number greater than 0 dollars) on trying to repair and save our planet.

It just boggles my mind.

I view expenditures to support reversing climate change just like I do expenditures for infrastructure: They are cultural investments.  And worse, the longer you put off those expenditures....the more you are going to have to invest to "fix" them.

The only thing is: With climate change, waiting 10 years or so to finally try to invest very well may mean that we CAN'T fix the problem.  Or that the costs of the damage from not fixing it sooner are so catestrophic they will essentially crush us under it's weight.

[pilferk]

So much for the great deal maker lol.

You know, in this case....I'd rather no deal than a bad deal. And, if the reports are true, the deal on the table was a BAD deal.  We lift all sanctions for the "closing" of an outdated, dilapidated, largely abandoned facility that our intelligence experts say hasn't been used because they've moved to newer, better, more modern (whatever that means in NK) facilities.   So I'm OK with no deal.

BUT, it does beg the question:  Why go over there at all?  The reason the president SHOULD be going to a summit like that is because all the leg work is done, and the visit is a general formality to the signing.  If the president didn't know what was on the table, before he landed, his administration (and he) did a shitty job at the prep work.  If NK waited for the president to land before pulling the rug out from under him....well, again, I'd say that's a shitty job by the administration and proof that NK can't be trusted (which is what opponents have been saying all along).

NK gets all the press and legitimacy of a state visit....two, actually...and hasn't given up shit, really.  They haven't tested a missile in 400+ days, but from intelligence reports, they a) don't need to and b) don't have the resources to do so because of the sanctions crippling their economy.  So.....they've "given up" something in the sense they stopped because they have no real choice.  Basically, Trump was out maneuvered.

Again, I give him credit for not making a BAD deal.  He deserves kudos for that, at least.

[AxlsMainMan]

Returning to North Korea was probably intended as nothing more than an obvious distraction from Cohen’s highly damaging testimony that our good Senator is quieter than a church mouse about.

[pilferk]

Returning to North Korea was probably intended as nothing more than an obvious distraction from Cohen’s highly damaging testimony that our good Senator is quieter than a church mouse about.

Far be it from me to defend Trump, but.....

Cohen was supposed to testify in early February.  This summit has been on the books since before that.

It's the same with the Repubs bitching about the timing, and saying it subverts the presidents standing while trying to negotiate.

Trumps threats against Cohens family (the father in law crack) pushed Cohens testimony originally by a week, while he negotiated "extra protections and considerations" (I have no idea what that means).  Then Cohen had, legit, the flu (like diagnosed by a doctor as the flu) and that pushed it back another 10 days or so.

Honestly, it's coincidence.  Congress set an "end of February" deadline in their request.  Circumstance put the two events on a collision course, not planning (by either side).

I actually thought the Cohen thing was going to push Trump to make a bad deal, just to change the news cycle into something he could TRY to spin positively. He didn't....which is good.

[Dr. Blutarsky]

Returning to North Korea was probably intended as nothing more than an obvious distraction from Cohen’s highly damaging testimony that our good Senator is quieter than a church mouse about.

I have not followed the Cohen thing real closely but a few takeaways from what Ive heard about it since you are waving the carrot....

He was an attorny that worked for Trump for 10 years. Comes across as a slimeball and of low integrity.  Took care of some of Trumps dirty work. Now he is trying to save his own ass and make money any angle he can.

Funny how a guy who got prison time for lying to congress later gets to testify in front of congress. This hearing strikes me as a pre-  impeachment proceeding to see if there something there the dems can use.

[COMAMOTIVE]

Returning to North Korea was probably intended as nothing more than an obvious distraction from Cohen’s highly damaging testimony that our good Senator is quieter than a church mouse about.

I have not followed the Cohen thing real closely but a few takeaways from what Ive heard about it since you are waving the carrot....

He was an attorny that worked for Trump for 10 years. Comes across as a slimeball and of low integrity.  Took care of some of Trumps dirty work. Now he is trying to save his own ass and make money any angle he can.

Funny how a guy who got prison time for lying to congress later gets to testify in front of congress. This hearing strikes me as a pre-  impeachment proceeding to see if there something there the dems can use.

My take is yes - all of the above - but based upon the man and character Trump has proven himself to be in public, the inside description of his words and actions from Cohen are a little hard NOT to believe.
Again - the guy is slimy as hell, but it doesn't mean he's making this crap up about Trump because Trump mocking a handi-capped person, disgracing McCain the way he did and his overall pig-headed egotism that reaks from him pretty much says it all anyway.

And I have to say - when Cohen told Jim Jordan (almost as up Trump's ass as Hannity) that he was doing exactly what Cohen himself did for the last 10 years..blindly protecting Trump.. it felt real and it felt true

Just my two cents - not looking to get into a political war here - reading some of these prior posts are interesting but also brain-draining 

[pilferk]

Returning to North Korea was probably intended as nothing more than an obvious distraction from Cohen’s highly damaging testimony that our good Senator is quieter than a church mouse about.

I have not followed the Cohen thing real closely but a few takeaways from what Ive heard about it since you are waving the carrot....

He was an attorny that worked for Trump for 10 years. Comes across as a slimeball and of low integrity.  Took care of some of Trumps dirty work. Now he is trying to save his own ass and make money any angle he can.

Funny how a guy who got prison time for lying to congress later gets to testify in front of congress. This hearing strikes me as a pre-  impeachment proceeding to see if there something there the dems can use.

My take is yes - all of the above - but based upon the man and character Trump has proven himself to be in public, the inside description of his words and actions from Cohen are a little hard NOT to believe.
Again - the guy is slimy as hell, but it doesn't mean he's making this crap up about Trump because Trump mocking a handi-capped person, disgracing McCain the way he did and his overall pig-headed egotism that reaks from him pretty much says it all anyway.

And I have to say - when Cohen told Jim Jordan (almost as up Trump's ass as Hannity) that he was doing exactly what Cohen himself did for the last 10 years..blindly protecting Trump.. it felt real and it felt true

Just my two cents - not looking to get into a political war here - reading some of these prior posts are interesting but also brain-draining 

Yes.

100% this.

I, too, find Cohen to be a slimeball.

But Trump has proven he's a slimeball, and he surrounds himself with slimeballs.  He has the worst people instincts (or the best?) I've ever seen.  Entertaining on a reality TV show...not so much as the president.

And it's why I find Cohen's testimony particularly compelling.  Just because it's also in his self interest doesn't make it untrue....