Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

The Atlantic: "Democrats Really Are That Dense About Climate Change" (6/23/22 01:00 PST)


GordonGekko

Recommended Posts

 

Direct Headline: The Democrats Really Are That Dense About Climate Change

The party doesn’t even seem to realize that it’s blowing a once-in-a-decade chance to pass meaningful climate legislation....Missing was any sense that this legislation is a make-or-break moment for the broader Democratic caucus. Gone was any suggestion that if Democrats fail to pass a bill this term, then America’s climate commitment under the Paris Agreement will be out of reach, and worse heat waves, larger wildfires, and damaging famines across the country and around the world within the next decade and a half will be all but assured....

Pelosi did not seem to understand, really, why Congress needed to pass a climate law this session. (She seemed to blame the fossil-fuel industry for the current Congress’s inaction.) ... Climate action was “for the children” in the 1990s. “We’re not doing this for the children,” Kate Larsen, an energy analyst at the Rhodium Group, told me after the event. “We’re doing this for us!” Heat waves hot enough to cook human flesh are already happening this month; they will become more common over the coming decades, striking multiple times a year. Unbearable droughts, sea-level rise so high as to break levees, and unpredictable famines will characterize life. Most of the world’s coral reefs, including the Great Barrier Reef, will undergo bleaching every few years, meaning the water will be so hot that the coral will eject their symbiotic microorganisms into the water, starving themselves in the process....

The speech seemed to punctuate the collapse of climate politics over the past year. During the campaign, Biden described climate change as one of the country’s four major overlapping crises. Yet his administration seems to be sleepwalking toward inaction.... Five months ago, Senator Joe Manchin, a Democrat of West Virginia, killed Biden’s Build Back Better bill after the White House repeatedly ignored his attempts to pare it down. Since then, Democrats have been stuck in limbo, with Manchin laying out some of his terms for a replacement bill, and Democrats neglecting to put together a new bill reflecting those terms. It now seems likely that Democrats will lose control of Congress with only a bipartisan infrastructure bill to show for their trouble....

...At the same time, the Biden administration could soon lose its ability to regulate climate change at all. The Supreme Court could restrict the Environmental Protection Agency’s ability to regulate greenhouse gases this term. It could also curtail Chevron deference, a legal doctrine that gives executive agencies more freedom to operate when the underlying law is unclear. In the past, both concepts have been central to Democratic climate-rule making. Both could be gone by 2023...What all of this means is that, the next time a climate-skeptical president takes office, advocates will have fewer tools to constrain their behavior than last time. And they will have no future to point to: If Democrats couldn’t pass a climate bill in 2009 or 2022, why should anyone have any hope that they’ll try to do it again, or be able to?

By Robinson Meyer May 11, 2022

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2022/05/nancy-pelosi-democrats-climate-change-bill/629822/

 

Direct Headline: House Democrats urge Biden to pass climate change portion of Build Back Better

House Democrats have reupped calls for President Joe Biden to move ahead with the $555 billion in climate change investments already passed by the House as part of the Build Back Better Act....The package has stalled for more than a month in the Senate after Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.V., sank the bill by opposing it in December....The climate portion of the legislation represents the largest-ever federal investment in clean energy....The climate investments in Build Back Better largely come through tax incentives for low-emissions energy sources....The bill’s biggest spending components include 10-year tax credits to expand and accelerate investments in renewable power, including wind, solar and nuclear. It has a proposal to provide an electric vehicle tax credit of up to $12,500 for vehicles made at a unionized factory in the U.S. It would invest in new research for carbon capture technology and create a Civilian Climate Corps to spur job growth and conserve public lands, among other things....

...Manchin, who comes from the coal-rich state of West Virginia and profits from a coal consulting business he founded, has indicated he is open to passing standalone climate provisions outside of the BBB legislation, including production tax credits for the solar and wind sectors....Manchin previously rejected the bill’s proposed clean electricity program. The initial key component of the president’s framework would have incentivized energy companies to shift away from fossil fuels to clean energy and penalized companies that did not....Manchin also opposed a proposed fee on emissions of methane, a potent planet-warming gas, as well as a provision that would provide tax credits to some electric vehicle consumers....

Emma Newburger, Feb 1 2022 5:15 PM EST

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/02/01/democrats-urge-biden-to-pass-climate-change-part-of-build-back-better.html

 

Direct Headline: Climate change: Democratic alarmism leads to failing policies

Climate change needs to be addressed but the Democrats' plan is alarmist and not going to save the planet. We need to weigh costs and benefits of climate action....Over the past few decades, climate change has been cast in ever more apocalyptic terms. A new global survey shows that almost half the world’s population and about 4 of 10 Americans believe global warming will likely lead to the extinction of the human race.... However, such scare scenarios are ideal for politicians; they can promise to save the world, and they can leave the substantial bill to future election cycles....

....Yes, climate change is a real challenge that we need to tackle smartly. But suggesting it is an “existential threat” to human existence, as Joe Biden frequently claims, causes us to panic and make poor decisions. Instead, we need to weigh costs and benefits of climate action....This doesn’t mean there aren’t real benefits to cutting emissions....the Democratic plan contains no cost estimates, despite its intention to fundamentally restructure the growth engine of the U.S. Only one nation — New Zealand — has been bold enough to request an independent cost estimate of cutting emissions to zero by 2050. The New Zealand Institute of Economic Research found that the optimistic cost would reduce GDP by a whopping 16% each year by 2050. Translated to the projected U.S. GDP in 2050, this would imply a cost of at least $5 trillion in today’s money. Not just once, but every year. That is more than the entire pre-Covid-19 annual federal spending of $4.5 trillion....

Needless to say, spending 16% or more to avoid part of a 2% problem is a bad deal. But Democrats are not alone. Many countries have made spectacular promises to cut emissions and failed....That is why Democrats — and all of us — should focus more on solutions that will actually be effective and realistic. Currently, cutting emissions is costly and involves subsidizing inefficient solar, wind, and electric cars. Rich countries can afford a little, though none can afford to dramatically switch.... Proposing unrealistic and extremely expensive policies is unhelpful. The Democrats are correct to emphasize we need climate policies, but the policies must be smart....

Bjorn Lomborg 7/23/20

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2020/07/23/climate-change-overreaction-democrats-need-realistic-solutions-column/5434178002/

 

Direct Headline: From college to climate, Democrats are sealing their doom by selling out young voters | Will Bunch

....But just nine months into the 46th presidency, Biden is struggling to earn even that “C+” on his first report card from America’s young voters. The last week of headlines — that free community college is completely dropped from the Democrats’ economic plan ....along with the Godot-like wait for major action on student debt — has shaken many teen and 20-something voters who hoped for more.....“It’s insulting that we’re not being given a seat at the table after helping deliver Biden his victory in November....And it’s absolutely devastating, honestly, that our future is being neglected to the extent that it is ... Young people are going to bear the burden of these policy blunders....”

...But what should the United States expect next from young people who’ve seen such little substantial change ....“It’s like a knife stabbed you in the back,”....While college voters, in particular, strongly supported left-wing Sens. Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren in early Democratic primaries, they overcame any qualms about Biden’s past record to rally behind him....Researchers at Tufts University found 18-29-year-old turnout had increased substantially — from about 42% to 44% in 2016, when youth apathy was one key to Trump’s victory, to a 52% to 56% range last year. Those young voters went for Biden, 61% to 36%, and the Tufts team found their votes put the Democrat over the top in Pennsylvania, Michigan, Georgia and Arizona.

Simply put, under-30 voters handed Biden the Electoral College......

.....“College students are issue voters,” ....find young voters are less wedded to party ID and more focused toward action on issues like climate or gun safety, while older voters are more drawn toward “electability,” the factor that drove Biden’s 2020 march to the Democratic nomination.....

Will Bunch Oct 21, 2021

https://www.inquirer.com/opinion/biden-democrats-young-voters-community-college-climate-20211021.html

 

Direct Headline: How Does 'Boss' AOC Plan To Pay For Her $93 Trillion Green New Deal?

Environmentalism: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has declared herself "boss" of the "Green New Deal." Maybe she can explain were the money will come from to pay its $93 trillion cost. Because taxing the rich won't even scratch the surface.....Ocasio-Cortez's response: "Some people are like, 'Oh, it's unrealistic, oh it's fake, oh it doesn't address this little minute thing. And I'm like, 'You try! You do it.' 'Cause you're not. 'Cause you're not. So, until you do it, I'm the boss. How 'bout that?"

....A new analysis from the American Action Forum finds that the Green New Deal, as laid out by New York Rep. Ocasio-Cortez and Massachusetts Sen. Ed Markey, would cost up to $93 trillion in the first ten years.

Remember, the GND isn't just about converting the entire U.S. energy supply to renewable energy in a decade and establishing a "zero emissions transportation system."...The plan also includes things like "guaranteed" federal jobs, "universal health care," and "food security."....Despite the GND's name, it's the proposals that have nothing to do with climate change that cost the most. The price tag for a federal guaranteed jobs program could run as much as $44.6 trillion over the next decade. The "universal health care" plan? $36 trillion.....

....All told, the cost of the "green" part of the Green New Deal would run from $8.3 trillion to $12.3 trillion over the next 10 years, according to the AAF report. The rest of it would cost an additional $42.8 trillion to $80.6 trillion....Looked at another way, economists expect the entire U.S. gross domestic product over the next decade to total $266 trillion.....What's most shocking about the Green New Deal is that so many leading Democrats, many of whom very much hope one day to be president, are blindly embracing it....

Investors 01:00 AM ET 02/26/2019

https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/green-new-deal-93-trillion-alexandria-ocasio-cortez/

 

************

 

https://forums.footballguys.com/topic/771204-climate-change-thread-un-report-we-need-to-take-action/?do=findComment&comment=24077538

timschochet 158.8k  Posted 06/22/22 8:36 AM

All I’m saying is that if climate change is for you the overriding issue of our time (as it is for me) then there’s no way you can support anyone but the Democrats as imperfect as they’ve been. The response “well the Democrats don’t have any solutions either” doesn’t fly because in the past 30 years (ever since this issue began to arise as an impending crisis) 100% of all proposals and actions and ideas to combat it have been from Democrats. 100%!! The only thing Republicans have done during that time is either deny it, downplay it, or simply oppose every proposal because it might hurt the economy (as they’re doing right now.) There is no way to avoid the verdict that if you support Republicans, you are supporting doing nothing about climate change. 

 

***********

I started this top level thread to address the comments by @timschochet that the only hope for positive long term climate change will come from blindly voting for the Democratic Party.

I disagree.

1) Joe Biden and the Biden Administration ( Let's call it Susan Rice And The Jackie Aprile Jr Collective informally....) had an opportunity to untether their climate change proposals out of Build Back Better to appeal to Joe Manchin to vote their way. But the Democratic Party did what it always does - Shove overly complex fat political pork, big donor corporate interests and quid pro quo for the wealthy elite that keep them in office, by the truckload into any bill.

Team Blue had the sitting POTUS and a majority in Congress. If they can't cut a deal or modify a deal or negotiate with a lone holdout, that's on them, not the GOP.

Would it have killed the Democratic Party to aim for something that dealt more with practical climate policy in stages and less about keeping the corporate donor overlords happy and full of fat political pork?  Would it have killed Team Blue to offer something smaller and "non porky" that would generate actual bipartisan support to work around Manchin's holdout?

2) WikiLeaks made it clear that Hillary Clinton conspired with then DNC HQ head Debbie Wasserman Schultz to steal the 2016 DNC ticket from Bernie Sanders. While I personally see Sanders as complete unhinged socialist empty suit, I won't deny he was the closest that Team Blue had come to getting a true "climate concerned/climate as the first priority" POTUS in office. Except he was shafted by his own Party apparatus.

If the Democratic Party and the DNC cared so much about climate change, how about not sticking a knife in the back of Bernie Sanders?  That's on them, not the GOP.

3) During the Obama Administration, "Cool Guy President" had his chance with the necessary filibuster proof majority in Congress to push effective and long term positive climate change legislation.  Did he make the most of that opportunity? He did not. In fact, Obama oversaw record breaking oil drilling and gas extraction and enabling Big Oil while courting other Big Corporate interests. Then he demanded everyone thank him for it.

If you miss your effective window when you have, again, the sitting POTUS and a majority in Congress, that's on you, not the GOP.

4) AOC, once Sanders kept getting knifed by his own Party, became the new standard bearer for Progressives with fighting for climate change. What did she do? She did what Democrats always do, again, fill the proposal with massive political pork. The rough estimates for Green New Deal was around a WTF inducing 93 trillion.  As Bjorn Lomberg of USA Today points out - You can't just have band aid virtue signaling policy being pushed forward, it needs to be smart functional measured policy that has a practical pathway for success. AOC never answers the hard question. Who is going to pay that? How could America pay for that? AOC denounced all criticism, shouting "I'm the boss!"

If Team Blue enables and pushes forward someone like AOC, who single-handedly crushes the future prospects of anyone taking some version of Green New Deal seriously, then that's on the Democratic Party and the Progressives and AOC, not the GOP.

5) Biden is only in office, in part, because younger voters made a difference for him in key battleground areas. What does he do? Renege on each and every promise he made to them. If you want your public policy to take hold and survive legal scrutiny, you need majorities. You need to win POTUS, take a major share of the seats in Congress and have your side of the aisle have an advantage in numbers in SCOTUS. How do you do that? You win a crap load of elections. Just keep winning and keep getting your people and loyalists into office, and you'll have the numbers to push the policy you want and have it be upheld.

How you don't win those elections is make promises and outright lie to people and not deliver on what you assured them would happen to make their lives better. You can't complain about policy you want, like climate change, not becoming reality if you don't rack up lots of those needed wins. You need to enrich the the day to day lives of every day working class citizens to achieve that. If you help them, they will actually want to come out and vote for you.

If Team Blue can't deliver wins for the average person and lose their votes, that's on them and their failures, not the GOP.

 

*****************

“The search for a scapegoat is the easiest of all hunting expeditions.” ― Dwight D. Eisenhower

My take?

The Democratic Party really doesn't care about climate change more than what is need to virtue signal to get into the national daily media cycle to ensure valuable unpaid coverage, hope to energize their base enough to come out and vote and to have a media optics hedge to say "Look, we are all going to choke to death on greenhouse gases because of the Republicans!"

Tim says all actions and proposals for climate change have come exclusively from Team Blue for decades now. OK, and what did they deliver for the American people and the entire world? What did they do when they had their chance?  Tim wants you to bet on proven losers to deal with climate change. What Tim is not going to talk about is these failures often materialize around simple self inflicted chaos within the Democratic Party and it's own ranks.

Tim wants you to use his blank check to blame Republicans because he always wants you to blame the GOP. For everything.

Do any of you believe effective climate change can be achieved by dogmatically voting Democrat no matter what given their legacy around "Go Green" failure?

I'll leave this here for others to discuss.

Edited by GordonGekko
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

CONTEXTUAL MATERIAL (Team Blue Wasted Their Chance):

 

Direct Headline: Democrats think now is their last, best chance to pass a big climate bill

Haunted by their failure to pass a climate bill in 2009, some Democrats are vowing “no climate, no deal.”...Democrats tried to pass a big climate bill the last time they controlled the White House and Congress. It failed in a Senate with a bigger Democratic majority than the one they currently have....More than 10 years after that bill — commonly known by the names of its co-authors (then-Rep. Henry Waxman and then-Rep. and now Sen. Ed Markey) — died without getting a vote in the US Senate...And progressives are also worried what not delivering on a bold climate and infrastructure package could mean for the 2022 midterms, which largely hinge on turning out a fired-up Democratic base. More liberal lawmakers are coalescing around a new slogan: “No climate, no deal.”...“We’re not going to be able to get votes for a bill that does not seriously address the climate crisis,” Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-WA), the chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus....

Fresh off resounding victories in the White House and Congress in the 2008 election, Democrats had an ambitious list of policy proposals. Combatting climate change was a big priority, but it fell behind passing economic stimulus, expanding health care, and a financial reform bill after the recent economic crash....For about a six-month window from summer 2009 to January 2010, Democrats had the 60 votes needed for a filibuster-proof majority. ...Indeed, the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill was controversial among climate activists and experts who thought it was too friendly to big business and called for a carbon tax instead. The bill also contained funding for many of the things Biden is trying to do today, including incentives to support more electric vehicles and clean energy....

....Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), who was serving on the House Energy and Commerce Committee at the time, said that cap and trade was too complicated for voters to understand. Democrats need to improve their messaging, tying a climate and clean energy agenda to a clear message about jobs, she said....“Lessons learned [are] that we have to be able to show how we’re protecting working people, how we’re creating new job opportunities, and how we’re protecting the planet,” said Baldwin. “We have to be very proactive, not just policy nerds.....”

.... Some moderates are concerned that going it alone on an expensive climate bill will come back and hurt them in the 2022 midterms, which are already expected to be difficult for Democrats. Others fear that every month they spend on these prolonged bipartisan talks exacerbates the time crunch before the 2022 midterms and the risk that they won’t have time even for a one-party bill....

By Ella Nilsen Jun 23, 2021, 10:10am EDT

https://www.vox.com/22537509/democrats-climate-bill-biden-waxman-markey

 

Direct Headline: Why the Green New Deal Has Failed — So Far

The Green New Deal program has enormous potential to generate mass popular support. But absent real leverage from labor, it's likely to be continually watered down into a toothless slogan for NGOs.....There became a sense that if we could simply eject the “denier in chief” and install a Democrat who “believes science,” we could start to take the necessary action to solve the climate and ecological crisis. The election of Joe Biden as president is stoking these hopes...

But we’ve seen this movie before..... After eight years of a pro–fossil fuel George W. Bush administration, President Barack Obama announced in a victory speech: “This was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal.” Yet, if anything, the age of American energy dominance was not a Trump creation but a product of the Obama era. Beyond rhetoric, fossil fuel extraction expanded much more under Obama than under Trump. The climate change believer even bragged about this in a 2018 public event: “Suddenly America is the largest oil producer . . . that was me, people . . . say thank you....”

....When comparing the political possibilities of 2020 and 2008, there are some major differences. First, as predicted, the climate crisis has intensified to the point where no serious person denies something is very wrong.....These ongoing effects are merely the product of roughly 1.2 degrees of warming above preindustrial levels; experts think we will likely reach 1.5 degrees by 2030 and 2 degrees between 2034 and 2052.7 Frankly, the climate system does not care if the president believes climate science. We are approaching our last chance to ignite a massive transformation of our entire industrial and energy system....

.....It can be easy to forget the real sense of momentum in climate politics in 2008. Al Gore’s 2006 documentary An Inconvenient Truth and the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 2007 created a clamoring sense of urgency.....This momentum built steadily up until the fall of 2008 with two world-historic events: the largest financial crash since the 1930s and the election of an insurgent candidate as US president named Barack Obama. .... In 2007’s Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency decision, the Supreme Court ruled that greenhouse gases should be regulated through the Clean Air Act, giving the Obama administration full executive authority to tackle the problem. Obama chose not to take this route. Instead, he proposed new legislation by compromising with Republicans and industry. The result was a neoliberal free-market policy: a cap on emissions combined with trading of emission credits (“cap and trade”)..... Obama made no effort to mobilize the public but rather created a behind-closed-doors process of what she calls “corporatist bargaining”: elite negotiation between state leaders and powerful interest groups. At the core of this process was the US Climate Action Partnership — an alliance between the large environmental organizations like Environmental Defense Fund and polluting corporations such as Caterpillar and Duke Energy.....

.....Things went from bad to worse in 2010. In spring of that year, Obama announced a major offshore drilling plan as a fig leaf to industry to garner support for the doomed “cap-and-trade” legislation. On April 2, 2010, he boasted: “It turns out . . . that oil rigs today generally don’t cause spills. They are technologically very advanced.” Eighteen days later, the largest maritime oil spill in US history (Deepwater Horizon) occurred. Even worse, after narrowly passing the House, the cap-and-trade legislation failed in the Senate, and, after Obama’s drubbing in the 2010 midterm elections, climate legislation was considered “off the table....”...Obama’s true legacy was the explosion of oil and gas extraction during his eight years in office.... At its peak in 2015, crude oil production was up an astonishing 89 percent since January 2009. Despite some notable victories to halt the Keystone XL and Dakota Access pipelines, by the end of his term, “fossil fuel companies had added enough pipeline to encircle the globe almost seven times, all with the approval of the executive branch....”

...A consensus formed on the climate left that we needed to construct political demands that were less about wonky market fixes and more about delivering real material benefits. In early 2018, climate activists were arguing that the GND could be the “Medicare for All of climate change.”....The GND exploded onto the scene in mid-November 2018, when Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez teamed up with the Sunrise Movement to occupy the office of Democratic Party leader Nancy Pelosi. This sit-in for a GND — with signs reading “Green Jobs for All” — created massive media attention and excitement in the climate policy community. It is notable that Ocasio-Cortez chose climate as her first policy intervention, just weeks before being sworn in as an elected member of Congress. ...Ocasio-Cortez’s office released an FAQ document to the media. The document — which appeared to be written by her then–chief of staff, Saikat Chakrabarti — was not only poorly written and sloppy but contained alienating environmentalist language....

.... Now, the nightmare is simply the harsh electoral realities. But the entire GND program had to be delivered through the state. This was so alluring because, as Christian Parenti and Andreas Malm rightly argue, it is hard to imagine such a scale of transformation being achieved without the coercive and fiscal power of the state. After all, it was the state that delivered the original New Deal — much of which consisted of tremendous new investments in energy infrastructure....The main problem remains that the GND movement is still, at its core, based in professional-class activist networks in academia, NGOs, and think tanks..... Indeed, the language of justice, frontline communities, and centering the most marginalized — what I call “livelihood environmentalism” — is like moralistic catnip for this activist base. While this language inundates grant applications and academic jobs, poor and marginalized communities continue to face the injustice of disproportionate environmental risks. They still lack the kind of broad-based coalition — that is, power — to take on capitalist energy firms that threaten their livelihoods. ...Third, if the GND movement is going to move beyond its professional-class activist spaces, it will need to begin building organization and consciousness directly in working-class communities — starting in the trade union movement. It is quite disturbing to consider how many unions came out against the GND; a platform based on economic justice and combating inequality. One basic problem is that the GND architects didn’t consult with unions in the formation of the core ideas and policies. A union-based climate movement should recognize what the labor movement has always understood: certain sectors of the economy are strategic to organize in. ...On the other hand, the renewable energy industry, specifically solar and wind, are notoriously nonunion — at 4 percent union density for solar photovoltaic technology and 6 percent for concentrated solar and wind — and almost entirely run for profit by private capital. The GND movement needs to engage with the electricity unions, arguing that unless a long-term strategy ensures the energy transition is controlled by project labor agreements and union labor, it will be destroyed by a form of “green capitalism....”

By Matt Huber 05.10.2021

https://jacobin.com/2021/05/green-new-deal-climate-change

 

Direct Headline: The world is on fire and our leaders are failing, poll finds

Poll respondents voice frustration at being left to take on climate action on their own after governments and companies fail to act...Adults across the United States and globally have damning opinions about the performance of their political leaders when it comes to climate change, and say they are noticing an escalation in extreme weather events and natural disasters....Consumers in 13 countries on five continents surveyed say companies should share more of the costs of combating climate change, including paying higher taxes. Fossil fuel companies, in particular, face the most skeptics....

...Biden’s base, meanwhile, is furious. Though the administration has made climate action a centerpiece of its rhetoric, executive action and legislative agenda, 80 percent of Americans who labeled themselves left-leaning said that the Biden administration is doing too little to address climate change, including 64 percent of Democrats surveyed....The United States is home to the largest ideological divide on climate action. Among Americans, 97 percent of left-leaning voters expressed concern about climate change, compared to 51 percent of right-leaning voters...

....Large majorities of voters believe that China is no longer a “poor” country and that it now needs to follow the same climate targets and timeline as wealthier nations. That view is consistent across the 12 non-China populations surveyed...Indians are the most likely to say their country is doing its “fair share” or more than its “fair share” to tackle climate change: 70 percent think this...The close alignment of Indian government policy and Indian public opinion is an ominous sign for those campaigning against coal use: Burning coal delivers around 50 percent of India’s energy supply....

....Respondents in South Africa expressed a deep concern and dissatisfaction around how climate change is handled in their country. Among European countries, French voters are the most skeptical of their government’s climate efforts. Right-leaning and centrist French voters say by a margin of 2 to 1 that their government is not doing enough on climate change...While less critical of their governments, Brazilians and Mexicans are also among the most climate concerned....Large majorities in every country surveyed support holding fossil fuel companies accountable for their climate impact. Russia topped the list: 90 percent agreed that fossil fuel companies should “definitely” or “probably” be held responsible for the impacts their products have on the environment....

By Ryan Heath 02/08/2022 10:31 AM EST

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/02/08/citizens-politicians-combat-climate-change-00004590

 

Direct Headline: Some Democrats warn they could vote against giant spending bill if key climate provisions nixed

...Several Senate Democrats expressed concerns Monday about Sen. Joe Manchin's refusal to support key climate change provisions in the sweeping spending and tax package backed by President Joe Biden, with some going as far as warning they may withdraw their support for the package if it significantly weakens the climate proposals....."I can't support a bill that does not have a robust climate title," said Sen. Chris Murphy, a Connecticut Democrat. "There's a lot of different ways to get there. But I can't support a bill that doesn't make a meaningful down payment...."

....The concerns, echoed by a range of Democratic lawmakers, come after Manchin has refused to budge from his months-long opposition to give $150 billion in new incentives to power plants to use cleaner-burning fuels in a bid to reduce greenhouse emissions up to 52% by 2030....Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin said on Monday that if Democrats fail to "seriously and meaningfully" address climate change then "shame on us...."

By Ali Zaslav, Ted Barrett and Manu Raju, CNN Mon October 18, 2021

https://www.cnn.com/2021/10/18/politics/democratic-reaction-climate-provisions/index.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you had wanted to disagree with something I posted, why not do so in the thread in which I posted it?

In any case, not once in your lengthy, verbose, nearly unreadable posts did you offer any example of Republican solutions to the issue of climate change- which was the entire point of my argument that you are attempting to refute

. I am not arguing that the Democratic solutions offered thus far are perfect, nor that they haven’t missed opportunities, nor that they haven’t attempted to use this issue for political advantage, nor that they haven’t acted hypocritically at times. All of these are reasonable criticisms which others have made long before you did, (and with much more brevity). I agree with all of these criticisms. But my main point continues to be: for all their faults and errors, at least the Democrats are making proposals and addressing the issue. Meanwhile the Republican alternative is to simply ignore it and expand oil drilling. Therefore my proposition remains valid: if you truly care about this issue as the priority of our times, you must vote Democrat. There is no good alternative. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, timschochet said:

If you had wanted to disagree with something I posted, why not do so in the thread in which I posted it?

In any case, not once in your lengthy, verbose, nearly unreadable posts did you offer any example of Republican solutions to the issue of climate change- which was the entire point of my argument that you are attempting to refute

. I am not arguing that the Democratic solutions offered thus far are perfect, nor that they haven’t missed opportunities, nor that they haven’t attempted to use this issue for political advantage, nor that they haven’t acted hypocritically at times. All of these are reasonable criticisms which others have made long before you did, (and with much more brevity). I agree with all of these criticisms. But my main point continues to be: for all their faults and errors, at least the Democrats are making proposals and addressing the issue. Meanwhile the Republican alternative is to simply ignore it and expand oil drilling. Therefore my proposition remains valid: if you truly care about this issue as the priority of our times, you must vote Democrat. There is no good alternative. 

I guess if they were going to be all-in on this, they shouldn’t worry about gas cards and blaming Putin and Big Oil..  they may as well make gas $10/gal and use the surplus for infrastructure.  
 

I’m not for those points, but that’s the direction they want.  

Edited by FairWarning
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, timschochet said:

If you had wanted to disagree with something I posted, why not do so in the thread in which I posted it?

In any case, not once in your lengthy, verbose, nearly unreadable posts did you offer any example of Republican solutions to the issue of climate change- which was the entire point of my argument that you are attempting to refute

. I am not arguing that the Democratic solutions offered thus far are perfect, nor that they haven’t missed opportunities, nor that they haven’t attempted to use this issue for political advantage, nor that they haven’t acted hypocritically at times. All of these are reasonable criticisms which others have made long before you did, (and with much more brevity). I agree with all of these criticisms. But my main point continues to be: for all their faults and errors, at least the Democrats are making proposals and addressing the issue. Meanwhile the Republican alternative is to simply ignore it and expand oil drilling. Therefore my proposition remains valid: if you truly care about this issue as the priority of our times, you must vote Democrat. There is no good alternative. 

The Democrats are the ones primarily responsible for our lack of nuclear power.  With the benefit of hindsight (although many were saying this at the time so it's not exactly Monday morning quarterbacking), that was a massive unforced error over the span of nearly a half century.  The Republicans certainly haven't been helpful on the topic of climate change, but Democrats have been actively harmful.  I don't think it's an exaggeration to say that our retreat from nuclear power over the last half-century or so has been the single most destructive mistake that we've made as a society on this issue.  It's the sort of decision that an evil super-villain might have made if they were intentionally trying to make climate change worse.

Today we have a broader portfolio of non-fossil fuel sources, so nuclear only needs to be one arrow in the proverbial quiver.  But that's a lot of damage already done, and it's 100% on you guys.

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, IvanKaramazov said:

The Democrats are the ones primarily responsible for our lack of nuclear power.  With the benefit of hindsight (although many were saying this at the time so it's not exactly Monday morning quarterbacking), that was a massive unforced error over the span of nearly a half century.  The Republicans certainly haven't been helpful on the topic of climate change, but Democrats have been actively harmful.  I don't think it's an exaggeration to say that our retreat from nuclear power over the last half-century or so has been the single most destructive mistake that we've made as a society on this issue.  It's the sort of decision that an evil super-villain might have made if they were intentionally trying to make climate change worse.

Today we have a broader portfolio of non-fossil fuel sources, so nuclear only needs to be one arrow in the proverbial quiver.  But that's a lot of damage already done, and it's 100% on you guys.

 

I am not sure about hindsight, I have been harping on nuclear power as the most viable and best solution to global warming for 30 years.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

It looks like the narrative pushed by Tim is not entirely correct. Republicans do want to address climate change but Democrats want no part of their ideas.  

Republicans in Congress pushing climate initiatives

Key point

“Democrats often balk at those solutions. They reject nuclear power because of its toxic waste and hydroelectric energy because of its impact on ecosystems.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, IvanKaramazov said:

The Democrats are the ones primarily responsible for our lack of nuclear power.  With the benefit of hindsight (although many were saying this at the time so it's not exactly Monday morning quarterbacking), that was a massive unforced error over the span of nearly a half century.  The Republicans certainly haven't been helpful on the topic of climate change, but Democrats have been actively harmful.  I don't think it's an exaggeration to say that our retreat from nuclear power over the last half-century or so has been the single most destructive mistake that we've made as a society on this issue.  It's the sort of decision that an evil super-villain might have made if they were intentionally trying to make climate change worse.

Today we have a broader portfolio of non-fossil fuel sources, so nuclear only needs to be one arrow in the proverbial quiver.  But that's a lot of damage already done, and it's 100% on you guys.

I’m forced to agree with this criticism. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, IvanKaramazov said:

The Democrats are the ones primarily responsible for our lack of nuclear power.  With the benefit of hindsight (although many were saying this at the time so it's not exactly Monday morning quarterbacking), that was a massive unforced error over the span of nearly a half century.  The Republicans certainly haven't been helpful on the topic of climate change, but Democrats have been actively harmful.  I don't think it's an exaggeration to say that our retreat from nuclear power over the last half-century or so has been the single most destructive mistake that we've made as a society on this issue.  It's the sort of decision that an evil super-villain might have made if they were intentionally trying to make climate change worse.

Today we have a broader portfolio of non-fossil fuel sources, so nuclear only needs to be one arrow in the proverbial quiver.  But that's a lot of damage already done, and it's 100% on you guys.

This is probably fair, but are you sure Republicans were supporting nuclear power after Three Mile Island and Chernobyl? Correct me if I’m wrong, but I thought it was a radioactive political topic for a couple decades for pretty much everyone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, IvanKaramazov said:

The Democrats are the ones primarily responsible for our lack of nuclear power.  With the benefit of hindsight (although many were saying this at the time so it's not exactly Monday morning quarterbacking), that was a massive unforced error over the span of nearly a half century.  The Republicans certainly haven't been helpful on the topic of climate change, but Democrats have been actively harmful.  I don't think it's an exaggeration to say that our retreat from nuclear power over the last half-century or so has been the single most destructive mistake that we've made as a society on this issue.  It's the sort of decision that an evil super-villain might have made if they were intentionally trying to make climate change worse.

Today we have a broader portfolio of non-fossil fuel sources, so nuclear only needs to be one arrow in the proverbial quiver.  But that's a lot of damage already done, and it's 100% on you guys.

Nuclear energy has been in my backyard 30 miles south at Turkey Point since about 1967. It survived a direct hit from Hurricane Andrew in 1992, although some non-nuclear structures had to be rebuilt. It's mostly a plus for the environment, manatees like the warmth of the cooling canals and there are lots of bird species. It provides energy for 900,000 homes per FPL. Their license was recently extended, i think it will be reviewed again in 2034. Almost no threat from earthquake, but sea level rise is a concern as 2028-2034 will be another astronomical cycle resulting in higher seas. The high use of nuclear in France is given as a major reason for their lower inflation.

Republicans and some Detroit democrats have done harm by resisting the push towards more energy efficient cars. Where would we be on car fuel efficiency without California? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guys, just because I said something critical of Democrats doesn't mean that I think Republicans are the bee's knees.  I was responding to a very specific argument advanced by tim.

If you care a lot about climate change, your choices over the past few decades have been between a party that talks a lot about climate change but implements policies that make climate change worse (Democrats) and a party that hardly even mentions climate change and implements policies that make climate change worse (Republicans).  

Edited by IvanKaramazov
  • Thinking 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, IvanKaramazov said:

Guys, just because I said something critical of Democrats doesn't mean that I think Republicans are the bee's knees.  I was responding to a very specific argument advanced by tim.

If you care a lot about climate change, your choices over the past few decades have been between a party that talks a lot about climate change but implements policies that make climate change worse (Democrats) and a party that hardly even mentions climate change and implements policies that make climate change worse (Republicans).  

I don’t know if I’m included here, but honestly thought both political parties avoided nuclear power after the meltdowns. Only recently have people (maybe R, I don’t know) began mentioning it again as a viable alternative energy source.

ETA I also don’t know what policies you mean, though admittedly I don’t pay much attention to energy policy. Didn’t Gore try to push something to limit climate change?

Edited by Terminalxylem
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Terminalxylem said:

I don’t know if I’m included here, but honestly thought both political parties avoided nuclear power after the meltdowns. Only recently have people (maybe R, I don’t know) began mentioning it again as a viable alternative energy source.

ETA I also don’t know what policies you mean, though admittedly I don’t pay much attention to energy policy. Didn’t Gore try to push something to limit climate change?

He made a movie and then bought a 10,000 sf home that uses more than 21x kilowatt-hours than the US household average.  

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, IvanKaramazov said:

Guys, just because I said something critical of Democrats doesn't mean that I think Republicans are the bee's knees.  I was responding to a very specific argument advanced by tim.

If you care a lot about climate change, your choices over the past few decades have been between a party that talks a lot about climate change but implements policies that make climate change worse (Democrats) and a party that hardly even mentions climate change and implements policies that make climate change worse (Republicans).  

While I agree with your comments about nuclear energy in particular, I strongly disagree with your conclusion that Democrats implement policies that make climate change worse. There are a thousand ways this is untrue, starting with Democratic support of the Paris accords. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, unckeyherb said:

He made a movie and then bought a 10,000 sf home that uses more than 21x kilowatt-hours than the US household average.  

 

Al Gore did that?  I thought he was one of the original climate change guys.

So tired of the "do as I say, not as I do" people in politics.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, timschochet said:

While I agree with your comments about nuclear energy in particular, I strongly disagree with your conclusion that Democrats implement policies that make climate change worse. There are a thousand ways this is untrue, starting with Democratic support of the Paris accords. 

That’s what I was thinking. If we looked at climate friendly legislation (ex. Cap and trade) proposed over the last 50 years, I suspect it would strongly skew Democratic. Conversely, if we looked at stuff detrimental to the environment, I bet it’s mostly R. And nobody on either side has been advocating nuclear energy since the 80’s - only recently do you hear it mentioned again.

But you guys follow this stuff much more closely than me - is my assessment off-base, and in any world is IK’s assessment that D’s have caused more damage debatable?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Terminalxylem said:

How does it compare to the average rich guy’s mansion? Is every environmentalist short of Ed Begley Jr. a hypocrite?

 

You bet.  The thing with leadership is you need to walk the walk if you're going to talk the talk.  All these grifters want YOU to walk the walk while they simply just talk the talk.  Al Gore is the poster boy for that and you all let him do it.

YOU are giving up yours for sure.  They are keeping everything they got and taking more.

Edited by BladeRunner
Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, Terminalxylem said:

That’s what I was thinking. If we looked at climate friendly legislation (ex. Cap and trade) proposed over the last 50 years, I suspect it would strongly skew Democratic. Conversely, if we looked at stuff detrimental to the environment, I bet it’s mostly R. And nobody on either side has been advocating nuclear energy since the 80’s - only recently do you hear it mentioned again.

But you guys follow this stuff much more closely than me - is my assessment off-base, and in any world is IK’s assessment that D’s have caused more damage debatable?

 

Cap and trade is a joke.  All it  ever does is transfer production to under developed countries where they will do the same work with more pollution.  

And yes the Republicans have been advocating for cleaner burning energy including natural gas and near power for decades.  Advocating for nuclear power was in the GOP platform back in 1988.  George Bush advanced a nuclear power initiative when he first took office to advance new nuclear power plants and provide subsidies for them.

Every idea the Democrats advocate for are either meaningless, counterproductive or power grabs.  Nuclear power has been the clear answer to global warming for decades and all the democrats do is try to shut them down and make it impossible to start new ones.  

Edited by jon_mx
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Terminalxylem said:

That’s what I was thinking. If we looked at climate friendly legislation (ex. Cap and trade) proposed over the last 50 years, I suspect it would strongly skew Democratic. Conversely, if we looked at stuff detrimental to the environment, I bet it’s mostly R. And nobody on either side has been advocating nuclear energy since the 80’s - only recently do you hear it mentioned again.

But you guys follow this stuff much more closely than me - is my assessment off-base, and in any world is IK’s assessment that D’s have caused more damage debatable?

While I agree with the majority of your post, Cap and trade was a Republican idea, a “capitalist/MBA”alternative to Democratic proposals to simply regulate industry. And of course Nixon established the EPA.

Those were the good old days before government became so dysfunctional.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Whyatt said:

While I agree with the majority of your post, Cap and trade was a Republican idea, a “capitalist/MBA”alternative to Democratic proposals to simply regulate industry. And of course Nixon established the EPA.

Those were the good old days before government became so dysfunctional.

Thanks for the clarification. Looking into this further, it appears both sides have been advocating nuclear power for decades, at least at the presidential level. Some Democratic strongholds, notably CA, have put the kibosh on expanding infrastructure, but construction of new plants has been slow in all states, regardless of political affiliation. A lot of it can probably be chalked up to NIMBYism, which only worsens with infrequent but headline-grabbing events like Fukushima.

While anti-nuclear environmental extremists are certainly at the far left of the political spectrum, I don’t think it’s fair to pin that stance on the Democratic Party. Like most issues, it’s multifaceted, and intellectually lazy to blame on just one party.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Terminalxylem said:

Thanks for the clarification. Looking into this further, it appears both sides have been advocating nuclear power for decades, at least at the presidential level. Some Democratic strongholds, notably CA, have put the kibosh on expanding infrastructure, but construction of new plants has been slow in all states, regardless of political affiliation. A lot of it can probably be chalked up to NIMBYism, which only worsens with infrequent but headline-grabbing events like Fukushima.

While anti-nuclear environmental extremists are certainly at the far left of the political spectrum, I don’t think it’s fair to pin that stance on the Democratic Party. Like most issues, it’s multifaceted, and intellectually lazy to blame on just one party.

 

Lol.  Get serious.  Fighting against nuclear power has been a central theme among mainstream democrats for my lifetime.  Hardly just the extremist.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Terminalxylem said:

I wouldn't care one way or the other, but think your assessment is correct. And that sentiment extends to all political ideologies.

Agreed re: bolded.

Even seemingly innocuous solar, wind and new transmission lines have faced major siting/permitting issues that have stopped otherwise great projects cold in their tracks.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BladeRunner said:

 

You bet.  The thing with leadership is you need to walk the walk if you're going to talk the talk.  All these grifters want YOU to walk the walk while they simply just talk the talk.  Al Gore is the poster boy for that and you all let him do it.

YOU are giving up yours for sure.  They are keeping everything they got and taking more.

Meh. We're all hypocrites on some level. I can evaluate legislation on its merits, independent of the moral fiber of its sponsors. Kinda like I'd trust an obese physician to prescribe a cholesterol lowering medication.

And who cares if rich guys have big houses anyway? If you really want to impact climate change, don't have kids. Should I not support any environmental policy from politicians with families?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, jon_mx said:

 

Lol.  Get serious.  Fighting against nuclear power has been a central theme among mainstream democrats for my lifetime.  Hardly just the extremist.  

For decades nuclear power has received more support from R than D, but it's hardly a central theme for either party. Both R and D presidents have passed nuclear-friendly legislation, but still nobody is making a concerted effort to build more plants.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Terminalxylem said:

How does it compare to the average rich guy’s mansion? Is every environmentalist short of Ed Begley Jr. a hypocrite?

Not sure your point, but yeah, Gore and Kerry certainly are.  Demanding that people make sacrifices while they do the exact opposite is kind of the dictionary definition.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, Terminalxylem said:

For decades nuclear power has received more support from R than D, but it's hardly a central theme for either party. Both R and D presidents have passed nuclear-friendly legislation, but still nobody is making a concerted effort to build more plants.

 

The Democrats wrote a thousand page bill on clean energy last year, with just one token mention of nuclear power.  It was focused on eliminating combustion and expanding wind ans solar.  Obama paid lip service to nuclear giving hints he might favor new technology but all he really did was throw up road blocks with concern over nuclear waste and killing Bush's efforts which would expand our capacity to dispose of it. 

I wish the GOP was far more aggressive with pushing nuclear power.  It is their lack of concern over global warming which is why it is not a big issue they spend political capital on.  The Dems do consider global warming to be a huge issue, but have aggressively refused to include it in any proposed solution for over 30 years.  There are finally a handful of dems who are getting luke warm to the thought of nuclear.  But if you are really concerned with global warming as a serious issue, it has been moronic to not be pushing nuclear energy.  It is more of a power grab than a real concern from what I see.  

  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, unckeyherb said:

Not sure your point, but yeah, Gore and Kerry certainly are.  Demanding that people make sacrifices while they do the exact opposite is kind of the dictionary definition.  

 

1 hour ago, Terminalxylem said:

Meh. We're all hypocrites on some level. I can evaluate legislation on its merits, independent of the moral fiber of its sponsors. Kinda like I'd trust an obese physician to prescribe a cholesterol lowering medication.

And who cares if rich guys have big houses anyway? If you really want to impact climate change, don't have kids. Should I not support any environmental policy from politicians with families?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, timschochet said:

If you had wanted to disagree with something I posted, why not do so in the thread in which I posted it?

In any case, not once in your lengthy, verbose, nearly unreadable posts did you offer any example of Republican solutions to the issue of climate change- which was the entire point of my argument that you are attempting to refute

. I am not arguing that the Democratic solutions offered thus far are perfect, nor that they haven’t missed opportunities, nor that they haven’t attempted to use this issue for political advantage, nor that they haven’t acted hypocritically at times. All of these are reasonable criticisms which others have made long before you did, (and with much more brevity). I agree with all of these criticisms. But my main point continues to be: for all their faults and errors, at least the Democrats are making proposals and addressing the issue. Meanwhile the Republican alternative is to simply ignore it and expand oil drilling. Therefore my proposition remains valid: if you truly care about this issue as the priority of our times, you must vote Democrat. There is no good alternative. 


The alternative is to realize that politicians won’t fix the issue.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Terminalxylem said:

Meh. We're all hypocrites on some level. I can evaluate legislation on its merits, independent of the moral fiber of its sponsors. Kinda like I'd trust an obese physician to prescribe a cholesterol lowering medication.

And who cares if rich guys have big houses anyway? If you really want to impact climate change, don't have kids. Should I not support any environmental policy from politicians with families?


If everyone decided to not have kids the entire human race would go extinct. But everyone could make the decision to drive fuel efficient cars and live in energy efficient or smaller homes. Equating rich guys hypocrisy on climate change to having children is quite a stretch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, shader said:


If everyone decided to not have kids the entire human race would go extinct. But everyone could make the decision to drive fuel efficient cars and live in energy efficient or smaller homes. Equating rich guys hypocrisy on climate change to having children is quite a stretch.

Yes, I realize it’s an absurd argument. But my point remains: we’re all hypocrites on some level, but that shouldn’t influence our politician’s ability to promote meaningful legislation to curtail climate change.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, IvanKaramazov said:

Guys, just because I said something critical of Democrats doesn't mean that I think Republicans are the bee's knees.  I was responding to a very specific argument advanced by tim.

If you care a lot about climate change, your choices over the past few decades have been between a party that talks a lot about climate change but implements policies that make climate change worse (Democrats) and a party that hardly even mentions climate change and implements policies that make climate change worse (Republicans).  

Kind of like Republicans and "limited government."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Terminalxylem said:

Yes, I realize it’s an absurd argument. But my point remains: we’re all hypocrites on some level, but that shouldn’t influence our politician’s ability to promote meaningful legislation to curtail climate change.

 

It is one thing to be hypocritical on issues you have little concern about.  But when you go around spouting how the world will cease to exist if we don't tackle a problem and then be not only hypocritical in lifestyle choices but to ignore the one only real solution which is available, that takes hypocrisy to the highest level possible.  Being critical of Republicans inaction is a legit criticism, but to equate it to the massive hypocrisy and ignorance the Democrats have displayed on this issue is to be a Democratic apologist.  Until I see otherwise, the Democrats are only interested in using global warming as a power and money  grab.  That is the only logical conclusion at this point and that applies especially to Al Gore.  

Edited by jon_mx
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/23/2022 at 1:37 AM, timschochet said:

If you had wanted to disagree with something I posted, why not do so in the thread in which I posted it?

In any case, not once in your lengthy, verbose, nearly unreadable posts did you offer any example of Republican solutions to the issue of climate change- which was the entire point of my argument that you are attempting to refute

. I am not arguing that the Democratic solutions offered thus far are perfect, nor that they haven’t missed opportunities, nor that they haven’t attempted to use this issue for political advantage, nor that they haven’t acted hypocritically at times. All of these are reasonable criticisms which others have made long before you did, (and with much more brevity). I agree with all of these criticisms. But my main point continues to be: for all their faults and errors, at least the Democrats are making proposals and addressing the issue. Meanwhile the Republican alternative is to simply ignore it and expand oil drilling. Therefore my proposition remains valid: if you truly care about this issue as the priority of our times, you must vote Democrat. There is no good alternative. 

 

Obviously because he wants an excuse to clutter up this board with yet another one of his threads (I counted 13 on Page 1 recently). If he had answered you directly in the thread in which you posted, some people might have missed it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
  • Create New...