2019-2020 US Elections Megathread I- It Begins

[Western Vale Confederacy]

‘Tis a rather unorthodox way of causing total economic collapse, but that’s one way to do it I guess.

Never you mind it wouldn't.

I had saner and more mature ideas at age 10 than AOC and this trainwreck of a plan.

I’d make some remote sense over a period of 50-75 years, but not 10 years.

[Mystic Warriors]

Never you mind it wouldn't.

I had saner and more mature ideas at age 10 than AOC and this trainwreck of a plan.

I’d make some remote sense over a period of 50-75 years, but not 10 years.

Sorry I can't get past the fact you haven't defended your position. Mind stating why this would crash the economy or be worse than the economic impact of climate change? Or why it couldn't be altered in committee?

[The Lone Alliance]

I had saner and more mature ideas at age 10 than AOC and this trainwreck of a plan.

I’d make some remote sense over a period of 50-75 years, but not 10 years.

Sorry I can't get past the fact you haven't defended your position. Mind stating why this would crash the economy or be worse than the economic impact of climate change? Or why it couldn't be altered in committee?

Should clarify your suggestion on if you're talking about the actual bill as it's written or AOC's version of the plan as written in her FAQ or blog post.

Cause I can see why a lot of people would have a criticism on the reality of the latter.
https://web.archive.org/web/20190207191 ... w-deal-faq

Apparently an archived version of the blog.

[Caldreania]

I had saner and more mature ideas at age 10 than AOC and this trainwreck of a plan.

I’d make some remote sense over a period of 50-75 years, but not 10 years.

Sorry I can't get past the fact you haven't defended your position. Mind stating why this would crash the economy or be worse than the economic impact of climate change? Or why it couldn't be altered in committee?

It calls for 100% RENEWABLE by 2030, which is impossible without crashing the economy on purpose. The USA stand at around 15% renewable currently if I remember correctly.
Of the top ten energy producers world wide, the only two countries that produce over 50% renewable are Canada at around 60% and Brazil at around 80%, both of which produce ten times less electrical energy than the USA.

The Green New Deal would not be such a horrible concept if it called for clean energy, but it's rejection of nuclear is painfully silly. Speaking of pollution, since it decided to close down on nuclear energy, Germany has only ended up causing more pollution.

Lets not forget that the Green New Deal has been revealed to be even a bigger joke after those leaks, you know, offering welfare to those "unwilling" to work and using your own urine to make coffee.

The entire concept of the "deal" is as serious as a "Let's colonize the Moon next year" bill would be.

[Mystic Warriors]

Sorry I can't get past the fact you haven't defended your position. Mind stating why this would crash the economy or be worse than the economic impact of climate change? Or why it couldn't be altered in committee?

Should clarify your suggestion on if you're talking about the actual bill as it's written or AOC's version of the plan as written in her FAQ or blog post.

Cause I can see why a lot of people would have a criticism on the reality of the latter.
https://web.archive.org/web/20190207191 ... w-deal-faq

Apparently an archived version of the blog.

That seems a tad vague, and providing security to those unwilling to work isnt very socialist of her, all need to contribute.

But what causes you to think that would crash the economy?

[Caldreania]

Should clarify your suggestion on if you're talking about the actual bill as it's written or AOC's version of the plan as written in her FAQ or blog post.

Cause I can see why a lot of people would have a criticism on the reality of the latter.
https://web.archive.org/web/20190207191 ... w-deal-faq

Apparently an archived version of the blog.

That seems a tad vague, and providing security to those unwilling to work isnt very socialist of her, all need to contribute.

But what causes you to think that would crash the economy?

Closing down on nuclear power plants, calling for a "zero emission" economy as a whole even. You don't see the issue here?
Not to forget how nonsensical her resolution is, talking about things like a "gender wage gap" or promising millions of high wage jobs out of the blue. It is painfully childish, but what else to expect from miss "unemployment is low because people work two jobs".

Madam Pelosi explained it quite good actually: 'Nobody knows what it is, but they’re for it, right?'

[Ifreann]

Nah. We don't need it.

Do you seriously believe the entire United States can be run on Solar and Wind?

Do you know for a fact that it can't? Or do you just feel like it can't?

[Valrifell]

Do keep in mind this incarnation of the bill doesn't actually have teeth.

[Caldreania]

Do you seriously believe the entire United States can be run on Solar and Wind?

Do you know for a fact that it can't? Or do you just feel like it can't?

It could, if you'd spend several decades developing the capacity and technology for it, it however can't be done in a single decade as this whole Green thing wants to put it.
Besides, why should the USA turn it's back on nuclear energy?

[Ifreann]

Do you know for a fact that it can't? Or do you just feel like it can't?

It could, if you'd spend several decades developing the capacity and technology for it, it however can't be done in a single decade as this whole Green thing wants to put it.
Besides, why should the USA turn it's back on nuclear energy?

Not fans of nuclear waste, I guess.

[Mystic Warriors]

It could, if you'd spend several decades developing the capacity and technology for it, it however can't be done in a single decade as this whole Green thing wants to put it.
Besides, why should the USA turn it's back on nuclear energy?

Not fans of nuclear waste, I guess.

People who want to save the planet and mitigate climate change. Nuclear energy doesn't have a good reputation.

[Washington Resistance Army]

It could, if you'd spend several decades developing the capacity and technology for it, it however can't be done in a single decade as this whole Green thing wants to put it.
Besides, why should the USA turn it's back on nuclear energy?

Not fans of nuclear waste, I guess.

Launch it into the sun tbh

Not fans of nuclear waste, I guess.

People who want to save the planet and mitigate climate change. Nuclear energy doesn't have a good reputation.

Nuclear is fine, modern plant designs are exceptionally safe and only prone to accidents when there's serious human error or if you do something retarded like build it in an area that gets hit by big ass earthquakes.

[Ifreann]

Not fans of nuclear waste, I guess.

Launch it into the sun tbh

Yes, we should definitely put nuclear waste on top of a huge amount of fuel and then ignite it. What could go wrong?

[Washington Resistance Army]

Launch it into the sun tbh

Yes, we should definitely put nuclear waste on top of a huge amount of fuel and then ignite it. What could go wrong?

Glorious Elon would never allow such a thing.

[Valrifell]

So, not only is this resolution a do-nothing meant to grab headlines ("We need a Green New Deal, if we made one, it should look lile this" is all the resolution does.) but it also doesn't define what "renewables" are.

So everyone's complaining about a resolution which is essentially just an outline of several dozens or more policies that are deemed necessary to implement. If passed now, it wouldn't do anything, because the resolution doesn't let it do anything.

The doom and gloom about an outline crashing the economy without dealing in specifics is rather funny, though.

[Valrifell]

To tie it back in, though, I have seen that Booker sees the need for a Green New Deal.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Howard Schultz is gonna have a presidential town hall with CNN on the 12th for anyone interested.

I personally think he's gonna sink the Dems by splitting the lefts vote but I do agree with his desire for a non-Republican and non-Democratic power in DC.

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

I have an Idea for how the green new deal could work:

Solar, wind and,dam increase with more nuclear power plants. Invest trillions of dollars into fusion. When nuclear fusion becomes workable, decommission the fission reactors and replace them with fusion.

It would be worth the trillions of dollars into fusion beacuse fusion is a giant leap for mankind scientifically. It would lower electricity costs to the point where it would be cheaper in the long run to buy electric cars then gas powered. It would lessen the need for natural gas to be used in heaters and stoves. And it would make cost of living go down as electric bills become 30-40 a year or something else ludicrously cheap. Because fusion would just give America and the whole world when everyone copies American fusion so much power.

It would flex American muscles as a superpower, it would help billions, it's the only way to go.

[Trumptonium1]

Has anybody else had a read of AOC’s "Green New Deal" yet?

The excerpts yes. A lot of it is ok, a lot of it is horseshit.

In a way AOC is unintentionally the FDR of the 21st century - saving capitalism from itself. As the world searched for solutions in fascism and socialism, both shit ideologies, because of relative economic stagnation, FDR found a different way. Albeit there's a good argument he prolonged it too, but the core part of the issue is his extra spending and labour laws prolonged the existence of capitalism for a good century.

Of course this time round we don't have the same problem of depression, but stagnation is. Not sure of the figures for the US (other than off-by-heart knowledge real median wages are lower than in mid 80s) but in the UK I know this is the first generation which will be earning less than their parents since Napoleonic times. Ergo, QE was a failure and something needs to be done before real damages are done by people like Sanders / AOC / Corbyn.

But I should note that she is batshit crazy, but parts of what she's suggesting are quite reasonable. In a way she's just regurgitating what Trump promised in 2016 and didn't deliver (infrastructure spending, America 2.0)

[Ifreann]

Yes, we should definitely put nuclear waste on top of a huge amount of fuel and then ignite it. What could go wrong?

Glorious Elon would never allow such a thing.

Space X rockets would never explode...again...

[Caldreania]

Howard Schultz is gonna have a presidential town hall with CNN on the 12th for anyone interested.

I personally think he's gonna sink the Dems by splitting the lefts vote but I do agree with his desire for a non-Republican and non-Democratic power in DC.

From what I could have gathered, he is openly against the growing leftist influence in the Democratic Party, pro-market, while being socially liberal. True centrist right there.

Plus, being a self-made billionaire makes him a perfect pick for the job. I'd trust a non-politician, especially with such a track record of success, over a professional politician as POTUS anyways.
Schultz is thousands of times better than any of the currently running Democratic candidates.

[Valrifell]

Howard Schultz is gonna have a presidential town hall with CNN on the 12th for anyone interested.

I personally think he's gonna sink the Dems by splitting the lefts vote but I do agree with his desire for a non-Republican and non-Democratic power in DC.

He's not a leftist, though. He'd be going after the center of the Party, I mean, he's essentially the fear of a vanishing center manifested.

At least, that's his cover to use the White House to make his corporate friends richer. Anyone who likes any of the current crop of Dems running should find Schultz unpalatable. Not to mention ignoring the very real possibility of him siphoning votes from moderate Republicans who don't like Trump but put up for his economics is a real threat that I don't think you (or many) are considering.

[Caldreania]

Howard Schultz is gonna have a presidential town hall with CNN on the 12th for anyone interested.

I personally think he's gonna sink the Dems by splitting the lefts vote but I do agree with his desire for a non-Republican and non-Democratic power in DC.

He's not a leftist, though. He'd be going after the center of the Party, I mean, he's essentially the fear of a vanishing center manifested.

At least, that's his cover to use the White House to make his corporate friends richer. Anyone who likes any of the current crop of Dems running should find Schultz unpalatable. Not to mention ignoring the very real possibility of him siphoning votes from moderate Republicans who don't like Trump but put up for his economics is a real threat that I don't think you (or many) are considering.

At the very least, here's hoping he'd snatch the center of the Dems, lowering the chances of any of the current Dem candidates winning against Trump, who is, for all his flaws, still better than they are.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Howard Schultz is gonna have a presidential town hall with CNN on the 12th for anyone interested.

I personally think he's gonna sink the Dems by splitting the lefts vote but I do agree with his desire for a non-Republican and non-Democratic power in DC.

He's not a leftist, though. He'd be going after the center of the Party, I mean, he's essentially the fear of a vanishing center manifested.

At least, that's his cover to use the White House to make his corporate friends richer. Anyone who likes any of the current crop of Dems running should find Shultz unpalatable. Not to mention ignoring the very real possibility of him siphoning votes from moderate Republicans who don't like Trump but put up for his economics is a real threat that I don't think you (or many) are considering.

I find him to be far too liberal on social issues to potentially draw any amount of worthwhile votes from the right tbh. But I think he could do a good job winning over non-progressive NeoLib types who are dissatisfied with the party potentially shifting further left, especially if someone like Sanders/Warren etc wins the nomination.

[Valrifell]

He's not a leftist, though. He'd be going after the center of the Party, I mean, he's essentially the fear of a vanishing center manifested.

At least, that's his cover to use the White House to make his corporate friends richer. Anyone who likes any of the current crop of Dems running should find Shultz unpalatable. Not to mention ignoring the very real possibility of him siphoning votes from moderate Republicans who don't like Trump but put up for his economics is a real threat that I don't think you (or many) are considering.

I find him to be far too liberal on social issues to potentially draw any amount of worthwhile votes from the right tbh. But I think he could do a good job winning over non-progressive NeoLib types who are dissatisfied with the party potentially shifting further left, especially if someone like Sanders/Warren etc wins the nomination.

I don't know how strong the NeoLiberal voting blocs are nowadays, though, and it seems like the 2020 election would be more defined by "holy fuck anyone but Trump" rather than "go this guy!"

That is to say, a lot of Dems are just too peeved to not strategically vote, I think.

Plus if the NeoLiberal blocs were as pivotal as you postulate, we wouldn't see a candidates moving to the left

As for Schultz being too liberal, I don't think that's an issue so long as he doesn't actually talk about injustice and focus on the freedom of the markets, which is what NeoLiberals like to do. I don't think he's going to make "IdPol" a center of his campaign, so nobody can screech at him for that.