I don't get Democrats. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez presented legislation to be considered by the US Senate. It was called the Green New Deal. Many Democrats came out in support of this legislation in the press. The leader of the Senate put it up for a vote. Democrats are upset about it. Why would you propose legislation and not want it put up for a vote? Nobody voted for it. No Democrat wanted to go on public record as supporting the Green New Deal. Democrat Senators who supported it in the press refused to vote for it. This is hypocrisy. Democrats need to grow up and realize proposing legislation is not a game. It is serious business. They need to grow up and learn to take their jobs seriously. No politician should propose legislation simply for attention from the press.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congre … am-n987506
"Because I encouraged them to vote present, along w/ others.
McConnell tried to rush the #GreenNewDeal straight to the floor without a hearing.
The real question we should be asking: Why does the Senate GOP refuse to hold any major hearings on climate change?"
“They are calling a vote without hearings, without expert testimony, without any true discussion of the costs of climate inaction and the massive potential for clean energy job creation in our country. And that is because Sen. McConnell wants to sabotage the call for climate action.”
Progressive groups signaled ahead of the vote that they were giving senators a pass on the Green New Deal vote and were supportive of senators who planned to vote present.
Well climate change is a hoax, just like the Russian collusion thing, so the senate shouldn't waste precious time on such nonsense. Do you like paying people to do nothing of value? I don't.
Wesman watch this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ZO9M1_CJD0 If you still don't understand the basic working principle of the atmosphere after that, continue believing that it's a hoax, or better still Chinese propoganda. It's just 14 minutes and no facts and global warming is not talked about directly, it's not the focus of the video.
Unsure why anyone would think 'climate change' a Chinese hoax. China emits more carbon than most. It sure wouldn't be in the interest of the Chinese to perpetuate a carbon emissions based climate change hoax.
I see it as much more of a western nations hoax. A power grab. The climate always changes, and the percentage of carbon dioxide emitted by human activity is very tiny when the composite of atmospheric air is analyzed.
Typically the opposite of what leftist ideologies claim as truth, is the actual truth. None of the predictions ever come close to being true. The climate priests are as accurate with their doomsday scenarios as the weirdo preachers who think the world is going to end on X day..
I can't imagine having so little to worry about that i'd worry about the climate, but there are millions of persons in the western world, and elsewhere, who are doing so well they seem to need some sort of 'devil' to focus on. I suppose a carbon devil works well enough for them.
Well, there is enough proof that shows the amount of carbon dioxide has increased. Even without proof it is only obvious that the amount unearthed from out of the short term cycle through fossil fuels is not a tiny percentage.
Also, I'm not surprised that you've got most of your info from politicians if end day scenarios are something you associate with climate change. The world will not end, it's been through worse, but humans have not.
I bet all of these things would have happened if even a few Democrat Senators voted for it. Why did NO Democrat Senators vote for it?
(They already answered why and you just replied to that.) But they didn't have to, according to Mitch.
McConnell also told reporters Tuesday that "a vote present today is a vote in favor of the Green New Deal."
The reason McConnell brought it up for a vote is all political. Now there is an official record of who supports it. This is a powerful tool that can be used against many democrats who have elections in the next cycle. Voting present is hardly as strong of a statement of support as voting for it.
I think the Republican push for this vote was a political sham, but it is one the Democrats brought on themselves by proposing the resolution.
I also don't accept the "no hearings, no discussion" rationale for the "present" vote. If you support the resolution, why would you need hearings? Wouldn't those be for trying to sway the opponents of the resolution?
I think it is one of those "... reap what you sow..." instances.
Now they can attack Republicans for being against it?
Ocasio-Cortez and her colleagues don't have all the answers on mitigating climate change, but they are leading the discussion.
Please point me to an alternative resolution, either in the House or the Senate, that discusses mitigating the catastrophic impact we know anthropogenic global warming is going to have.
LOL. Insisting there is a boogeyman to be addressed when there is no proof of a boogeyman. What a wonderful way to think!
Yes, and the earth is flat, cigarettes don't cause cancer, and evolution isn't real. In fact science itself is a left wing conspiracy designed to annoy real Americans (people who play guitars and wear cowboy hats) with it's crazy theories like gravity. What a joke! We know people stick to the earth because of the invisible velcro on the ground. As for the theory of electromagnetism, don't get me started . . .
Thinking isn't your specialty. I already knew this. It's why I mostly ignore you.
Now don't get your tail up. I'm on your side!
We can't let suspect organizations like the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine tell us about science. Their "scientists" are amateurs, and crooked as a dog’s hind leg.
Now, oil and gas companies, they're the professionals! No slack in their rope. If the fuel they rely on to make a profit was helping cause catastrophic climate change, well duh, they'd tell us! So I'm with you on this! When it comes to science we know who to trust. If ExxonMobil says there's no such thing as climate change, then there's no such thing as climate change!
If you didn't see this, you absolutely HAVE TO watch this.
OMG. I've never seen anything made fun of as much as that green new stupidity is made fun of in congress here.
For the rest of the nation's history, possibly for the rest of human history, this will be on the congressional record.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sK27NZo … xWIMpwW3vg
Which part do you think will be the most embarrassing Wesman; the idiocy of the presentation or that of the presenter?
I felt the presentation was the perfect response for a woman who wants to end air travel, and airplanes in general, and also the entire beef industry.
What kind of loony could literally think the world's most powerful nation would get rid of airplanes, or dump the production of a product desired all across the world, such as beef?
Just a dingbat democrat. Making fun of such persons is, in my opinion, the right thing to do. Pretending such persons and their ideas are serious is just contributing to their mental illness.
That "eliminate airplanes" claim has been shown to be as accurate as the "death panels" claim of the past. It is an untrue exaggeration.
At least the Green New Deal statements were honest, (even if they are unrealistic).
I don't think showing that one can be as silly as the other is a smart direction to take. Think how history will view that presentation and presenter when the exaggerations and untruths are exposed.
Don't misunderstand my responses, I am not a GND or AOC supporter. But BS is BS regardless of who's BS it is.
Even though I support action against climate change, I see that GND as a laughing matter, but the guy in the video whoever he was (From Utah I hear) is a bigger dumbo than AOC.
Other than his whole presentation style, he proposed more kids so that more brains get to work on fixing climate change. When there are brains that have many realistic and economically viable and in fact, economically beneficial ideas today, why wait for the next generation?
I think he is smart in waiting for the next generation because he knows that the current young generation will support the progress of future generations but the present political scenario will not. If he literally thinks that more brains would help and we have no solutions now, then that's just showing how dumb he is. Being selfish solves nothing, thinking of your family alone and nothing else solves nothing.
AOC is far smarter than that guy, but I am only judging from her talks about the GND and his talks about the GND. Fair enough I suppose.
I am impressed you believe I should take your word over that of Senator Mike Lee. Hey, I also thumb my nose at authority, and often. Thing is, I'm going with Lee on this one.
Begs to question the many other things you believe and deny, just like some people in false Gods. When all the information is out in the open you should learn to judge stuff yourself or trust experts on a topic. Not someone put into office who is not an expert on this topic.
If you are lazy there are people who do the fact checking for you, and if still in denial you could go ahead and fact check yourself. https://www.politifact.com/florida/stat … lorida-se/
Why not bet on yourself instead of taking anyone's word for it?
Here is the text of H. Res.109, (the Green New Deal).
Note that each of the 100% declarations are qualified by "...as much as technologically feasible."
Thanks for sharing that, I'll have to take a look just to see what all the hype is about.
As a side note, based on point 3A of the list above, watch this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GwxOxQ1AOEg it shows how reports from the Himalayan region commonly referred to as the third pole because of the amount of glacier ice it has, were influenced to say that the ice sheet was increasing when it was decreasing. Now the real reports are out and what I realized from the report is that half the worlds population is going to be affected just by this massive melt. It does not have to disappear completely to be an issue.
Is that the "Green New Deal" in it's entirety or is there something missing? If it is what's all the hype about?
Is it this: ensuring a commercial environment where every businessperson is free from unfair competition and domination by domestic or international monopolies
If yes, I can see why, because big shots buy the ad space and convince people about their agendas. Agenda is a word people throw around a lot lately, I may see where it comes from. From another agenda?
I think the "hype" was started by AOC's original Green New Deal, (the Green Party's version), posting on her web site. Or it could have been her posting of the Green Party's Green New Deal FAQs - I am not sure which it was, but the Green Party's GND is much more radical, and without any qualifiers, than the GND Res.
I think that is why the criticism is primarily directed at her.
Those original postings were taken down, reposted, and taken down again, with AOC explaining that the original postings were just "drafts" that should not have been posted. I think that is more excuse than truth.
The GP's GND really does call for getting rid of airplanes that aren't fueled by renewable energy within 10 years.
The differences are obvious, as you can see: The Green Party's Green New Deal as AOC originally posted.
Oh, I see. Thanks for the link, will read it later this evening. If that's the case, it's deplorable that the congressman replied to something other than the final version, irrespective of the fact wither AOC was only excusing herself when she said they were drafts.
Why do they only support it in the press? Because those who don't think enough of politics to attempt to understand costs involved in pie in the sky schemes are easily manipulated by the media. They want the votes from those they have no intention (and rightly so) of listening to.
It reads like a college thesis that got a C-. I can picture AOC staying up really late the night before her paper was due trying to pump out a coherent thought at 1:00 AM.
And she failed at it. Well, there is always a promising return to bar-tending awaiting her. She'll be famous as a one term congressperson, the laughingstock of the USA.
Today I learned: Bartending is a derogatory profession in the USA and does not deserve respect, even though the bartender has his or her voice heard when electing a congressperson but not the other way around. Fascinating.
The bartender takes her job seriously because she is scared of being fired. Politicians don't have that inbuilt fear, I guess. This is why she seems to be the smarter of the two when she says this:
'W/ the #GreenNewDeal, legislators, experts, & advocates have spent countless hours poring over details of industrial policy+impact of global temp/sea lvl projections. That’s what you do when you take your job seriously + respect the chamber. This is what happens when you don’t.'
I still do not support the GND and it does not matter if I do or do not since I do not live there nor have voting rights, but I do see that AOC was victorious and that people are now talking about climate change in the nation that is at least 27% of the problem worldwide historically. Even Republicans who are supposed to be deniers just because of the team they are on are making policy to fight the problem. This is good news. Good job AOC, you did great.
To answer the OP, I would say they support the GND in the press because they know how fickle minded a majority of the population is. If they oppose it directly, it would be seen as them saying that climate change is not a thing. They support what it stands for, not the actual words written in there.
No there is nothing derogatory about bar-tending. But one doesn't expect a bartender to be competent at fashioning legislation, and well gosh darn, didn't she show us that's how it is.
I see. Was the Utah guy a road sweeper then?
Senator Mike Lee has a degree in law. He went to law school after finishing a 4 year degree, and he then completed law school. In other words, his education was such that he's actually qualified to legislate. In addition to this, he is intelligent enough to know sane American's aren't afraid of cow farts, and have zero plans to ditch beef.
AOC has no plans to ditch beef either. She just thinks, or pretends to think, that other people should Did you see her recent photos eating a burger in a restaurant? In the US, decent people don't tell people to do something they've no intention of doing themselves.
I'm rather poor, but I do spend money towards eating extremely well. My freezer is full of great beef, but today I'm having ground venison, which I cooked with some poblano and corn salsa, and some brown rice.
There are cows farting just a few feet behind me in the pasture. I've been surrounded by farting cows my entire life. The climate in Texas has not got either warmer or colder. I see no reason to, even were this not the case, think anyone should fear farting cows. Phobias do abound, and I've no education in discerning how or why people get such strange ones. Then again, I'm far too intelligent to believe trends in fake news network reporting should concern me personally, except for how they affect the lower persons who comprise the mob.
If he went to law school the school is going to be pissed because people are now going to say that it was a horrible school considering the fact that he got multiple facts wrong from a 3-4 page document and he had to present false facts through memes. That's now how someone who has studied law behaves.
I have seen burgers made of veg patties and I have also seen burgers made to taste like beef but actually be vegan. Maybe she ate actual beef, unless the restaurant says that you shouldn't believe pictures. You believed the GND said cows need to die and planes need to be grounded and you were wrong, so I'm not going to put much weight on this pic.
But just to be thorough I did look it up online and from what I see there is no evidence that it was in fact meat. But let's say it was. Did she go against her principles? No, because this is what she said: "shouldn't be eating a hamburger for breakfast, lunch, and dinner"... Just like people who are scared of her, you too seem to take it as a complete ban. She is not banning beef, she just said eat less of it.
Since you edited, I'm editing to add:
That is your problem, you are looking at Texas alone. The first place to look for climate change is the Himalayas, the Arctic and Mongolia, Papua New Guinea and Bangladesh, because these are places that are affected first due to their geological positioning. Texas will be one of the later places to be affected. If you live on a hill and cannot look down, you will not know when the water is rising until it arrives at your foot and you got nowhere to run (unless you can fly). So saying nothing happens in Texas is the most uneducated response to have, I'm sorry to say. Also, I want to point out you are not necessarily far too intelligent as you claim because you did not notice the false information in the Utah guys claims (that is fake news he's propagating through memes learnt through next-generation law), the claims that you accepted at face value. You can continue to think that a lack of looking into facts is intelligence, and maybe that's your definition for the word?
This in no way means you are dumb, intelligence is having an open mind and being able to see things for what they are. You definitely are close-minded. Assuming someone has no potential to be in the law process because they were a bartender further cements this statement. You don't have to go to law school to understand law. You need money to go to law school. You can study law without going to school.
Saying someone got something wrong doesn't mean much. I've no proof Mike Lee got anything wrong.
The climate always changes. I don't feel some sort of entitlement to a constant climate paradigm.
The people who believe in man made climate change tend to be the same persons who believe whatever foolishness the mass media in western nations is feeding them that particular week.
So basically, the climate change crowd is generally the same exact crowd who for the last 2 years thought there was some sort of case for Donald Trump having colluded with V. Putin to win the Presidency in the USA.
Those persons aren't smart persons. I could never respect myself if I just believed things for them being repeated ad nauseam from what has forever been a mass media machine dedicated to fraud and circuses.
You've accepted no proof you mean. GA and I both linked you out to the actual stuff.
Yes, the climate changes over millennia and not decades. But it's no surprise, many people can't think a year into the future how do you expect them to think in a time scale much longer than their lifetime.
Even the Eastern, Southern and Northern media is saying the same thing. For a second think outside your bubble please. The USA is not the world. Only US people thought about DJT and Russia what about the rest of the world that knows about climate change.
Yes, the last paragraph I agree with, that is why throw media away and look at stuff yourself from all sides of an argument without politicians or media people who know nothing about a topic other than the abstract.
After a price and job are negotiated, and a donation made into my PayPal account - reading assignments can be completed. Until such a time, I've a United States Senator, and countless other sources vs. Mr. Anderson and Brandon.
Don't get me wrong. I like Mr. Anderson and Brandon, but I'm not accepting reading assignments from either of them without pay. I have to respect myself meticulously, and my time is valuable.
Humans have been around as Homo sapien for something like 3.5 million years. The earth is something like 4.5 billion years old?
Measuring temperatures across the globe back to early last century. At this point you should already be seeing the problem. It's a problem of perspective.
Well then, believe a person who studied law to judge climate instead of Brandon who studies and is working on a Ph.D in climate science.
And if you cannot believe Mr. Anderson and Brandon that is not a problem, but you do not get to say that facts we state are wrong if you don't want to actually figure them out yourself. A congressperson is not a heavenly power, they are regular people voted into office to do a job, just like anyone else. But in this case, the interview is done by many people and not just a handful.
A congressperson is anything BUT a heavenly power, and one who behaves like a college student, with ridiculous ideas, and never an answer for how these ideas (which stand a snowball's chance in the proverbial inferno, regardless) would be paid for, is not a congressperson with ideas worthy of respect anyway.
She's a genius from the neck down, and that can't be said for everyone. Nice footwork too!
No one is asking you to respect her. I am just saying that you take the Utah guys word for stuff that he is not an expert on. If you do not have the time to do your own research on a topic, you should trust experts on a topic. A law guy knows nothing about science, not in depth at least unless they have put in the time and effort to do so. You do not need a degree to know your stuff.
The same goes for AOC, all she did is listened to the real experts on the topic and not other politicians nor the media and made what she thought a draft of a way to fix things. What her fixes are do not have any weight on what the facts are. Facts do not change how to deal with it can.
Again, you can choose to not invest your time in stuff, fair enough. But, listen to experts or don't have an opinion on the topic at all. Say I do not know and in my experience in Texas nothing has changed. Do not say it is not real because you do not know and only have a very very limited experience. You are a source of information to people too. Saying anything that you do not know for a fact makes you just like the people you do not seem to like: false media.
Ah the climate science experts. They remind me a heck of a lot of the weirdo redneck preachers in podunk, Alabama. You know the kind who don't know anything about theology, and are certain the world is going to end on such and such day?
Climatologists never get any predictions right either. So my opinion matches the facts - they never know what they're talking about. That they are never right proves that to be true.
Or do you have an example of an accurate climate prediction made?
Climate predictions are actually pretty accurate. You are listening to people such as that vice president Al Gore who is the guy who made these crazy predictions of the world ending.
Even now, the experts are only saying that we have 12 years to reduce our emissions if we want to maintain the 2.5-degree century rise in temperature. What most people are seeing it as is the end of the world. That is not what they said. The 2.5 degree is what the countries agreed on and that is the report they published.
A wrong interpretation of their predictions does not mean they are wrong. This is not some crazy, 21st Dec end of the world scenario. But increased temperatures means that there is more energy trapped in the Earths atmosphere and naturally ice is going to melt, sea levels rise, coral reefs die, cyclones/tornadoes/hurricanes will be stronger and more frequent, all of this is already happening and is not a prediction. The intensity will keep increasing.
This is why I keep saying look at the facts by the experts and not the interpretation of these facts by politicians and the media. I'm bad at names, but there is also this guy who is into space research that talks about climate and people give him a lot of importance. He is not completely wrong, but he is not an expert on the topic and he makes some crazy claims too because that is what he "believes" and not what he "knows".
No way man, she's in it for the long haul. If Pelosi can stay in office for 100 years so can this moron.
It's an awful bill and no one wants that on their name. Democrats had a chance to stand out in the crowd and vote yes but no one actually wants it. Look at a person by their actions, not by their words. I speak about it more in my article:
https://hubpages.com/politics/A-Moment- … n-New-Deal
by LongTimeMother 9 days ago
I doubt history will reflect positively on Mitch McConnell’s actions during the 2nd impeachment of Donald Trump.By voting ‘not guilty’ on the grounds the impeachment of a former President was unconstitutional, he completely disregarded the Senate’s vote that the impeachment was constitutional,...
by ga anderson 23 months ago
I have heard that there may be more than one version of the Green New Deal. Something about a version posted, (and pulled), from AOC's website, and another version that is somewhere in the legislative process. (Republicans trying to embarrass Democrats)For a common reference point, I will use the...
by Flightkeeper 9 years ago
Since they walked out, their actions should have consequences. They should amend their process so that a quorum can be formed from present legislators and let the vote go through. I'm fed up with this crap and am surprised that the Wisconsin citizens allow it. The state senators...
by Credence2 4 months ago
Here in Florida was passed a ballot initiative allowing ex felons who have served their time and were not convicted of specific crimes to be allowed to vote. The ballot measure was passed in 2016.But aware of the ever present treachery of the Republican Party, this many people now having access to...
by crankalicious 13 months ago
This question was raised in another forum.I said that I did not think a person could be a good Christian and a Trump supporter, but naturally somebody disagreed.However, I would love to learn more, so if you believe you are somebody who adheres to the Bible, the word of Jesus Christ, and is...
by Readmikenow 22 months ago
You always have to wonder how low Democrats will sink to get what they want. It's a shame.“Cosko admitted to “doxing,” the act of posting personal information about another individual online. He said the goal was to “threaten and intimidate” the senators and their families.He posted the...
Copyright © 2021 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
HubPages Inc, a part of Maven Inc.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|