Warren Embraces Inslee's Climate Change Plan

Dec 2016
5,570
2,825
Canada
#11
Untrue. Look at Warren's senate record compared to Sanders's. She's accomplished at least twice as much as him, and has been there half the time.
Considering that Sanders still sits as an independent, who caucuses with Democrats, it's surprising he gets anything done at all! During the last run against Shrillary, Bernie did mention several times that he felt pressured to cast votes in favour of legislation he wasn't so keen on to get votes for his proposals.
Gabbard seemed to have a'ight views on climate change, but overall just unimpressive as possible.
???????
Climate Change

Enslee's blew everyone's out of the water, and I'm glad Warren is taking it on.
NOOObody blew anyone out of the water on climate change, because NONE of these candidates....NONE OF THEM go beyond carbon taxes and transition from carbon to renewable energy sources. Being too bold and too ambitions...and actually doing something means taking on billionaires who profit directly and indirectly from destroying the environment! And they are not willing to do that!

Alexandria Cortez and Ed Markey's Green New Deal proposal set 2030 as the goal for energy transition in America, and according to statements and pledges, that's the goal of four presidential candidates' climate plans. The first question is: are these plans representing policy goals that will be achievable over the next 10 years? Or is it more like the annual smoke and mirrors presented at UN climate conferences....such as many western leaders...including Justin Trudeau of Canada calling for a 1.5 degree C limit in future global temperature increases and then doing the exact opposite - facilitating more tarsands extraction and pipelines to move it to market!!

And no greennewdealers in the presidential race are talking about anything beyond energy transition. So let's imagine Warren is actually able to pull the $3 Trillion out of some bodily orifice to get Congress to sign on to a 3 trillion energy transition in the American economy; what about the rest of the carbon problem? It hasn't been nailed down specifically because of difficulties tracking sources, but we do know that somewhere between 30% and 50% of annual carbon emissions are coming from commercial agriculture - from monocropping wheat and other grains used primarily for factory farming meat production.

It's one thing to take on the oil&gas billionaires and their media toadies. But Algore started doing this when he turned into Mr. Green after his failed presidential run in 2000 already. Gore's plan was simply Green Capitalism. Line up major billionaire investors who were looking for new opportunities in high tech solar, wind and new high-storage batteries. Subsidize them instead of oil, gas and coal and reap the financial and environmental benefits of energy transition to a new economy, with a new cast of billionaires.

But, the old economy billionaires fought back...mostly through the Republican Party...their natural home, but how far will any candidate get if they push for a transition in agriculture like AOC's green plan included, and get swamped with all of the propaganda and money lined up aganst them that their fighting against "cow farts?" And totally ignoring the carbon footprint of big ag meat production. But, I can't help notice that none of the presidential greennewdealers have been williing to pick up that baton.

And, when it comes to "where will three trillion dollars come from?" Will Warren, Sanders or any others take on the huge and growing Military Industrial Complex to cut down for sources of funding? Tulsi Gabbard...active duty service member or not, has been the only one to go after the military branches and their wars....and that's why the Democratic Party and allied media wags have run a campaign to keep her name out of the news as much as possible...unless it's to throw up baseless attacks connecting her with Assad or President Modi of India. Something that assholes like Wolf Blitzer would never ask any other Democrat candidates about.

The MIC also likely has America's largest carbon footprint also! So, if there weren't financial reasons to pare down the size of the Military, the environmental costs of the USA's 800 to 1000 military bases, military exercises and carrier fleets sailing around the world, sure as hell would be a good reason, and one which other nations, especially those hosting US Forces are well aware of. But, you won't hear a word about this on those useless wastes of oxygen also known as the debates. Out of fear of the evil and ruthless players who work behind and in the background of elected government, and the billions of dollars at stake weapons contractors have to keep supplying guns, bombs, ships and airplanes for US services and to sell to dubious "allies" abroad. So, I'll go back to ignoring the rest of the Campaign to run one of them against Trump. Which, if Trump doesnt' self-destruct real soon, will be a lost cause and just be the usual tepid opposition for Trump forces to tee off against for the 2nd term of the Trump presidency. Just sayin, you better hope he doesn't try to repeal any amendments blocking him from more terms in the White House, or he'll try to be president for life!
 
Jul 2019
2,646
1,421
Georgia
#12
Inslee's plan

https://www.jayinslee.com/issues/100clean/text/Inslee_100CleanPlan_2.pdf

someone on this forum posted a long thread about the cost of Bernie's plan, I think it was in the ballpark of 17 trillion

my previous post included Gabbard's take on climate change, from her website. She doesn't have a plan, but I agree with her stance. However she shouldn't be in the same conversation about candidates who actually have a plan.
 
Dec 2016
5,570
2,825
Canada
#13
Inslee's plan

https://www.jayinslee.com/issues/100clean/text/Inslee_100CleanPlan_2.pdf

someone on this forum posted a long thread about the cost of Bernie's plan, I think it was in the ballpark of 17 trillion

my previous post included Gabbard's take on climate change, from her website. She doesn't have a plan, but I agree with her stance. However she shouldn't be in the same conversation about candidates who actually have a plan.
It doesn't explain where $3 trillion will come from. Like Inslee's plan she cribbed off of...since I guess she never thought of climate change before, it doesn't address anything beyond energy production.....which you don't either apparently! And Gabbard at least put a spotlight on the Military, and that's why she's considered the enemy that is dangerous enough for Google to directly attack by coming up with some algorithm bullshit to cut her ads when her name was trending in that first debate and Google and the rest of the BORG feared too many people were taking an interest in her candidacy. Her campaign launched a lawsuit against Google, but that will take months and the damage is done...as intended! So much for Warren and other candidates 'plans' that aren't worth the paper they're written on!
 
Dec 2016
5,570
2,825
Canada
#15
let me google that for you

Elizabeth Warren Unveils Climate Change Plan, Embracing Jay Inslee’s Goals

The spending would be paid for, she says, by reversing the Trump administration’s tax cuts for wealthy individuals and corporations.

I'm sorry I can't talk about Gabbard in a climate change thread about Warren and Inslee. You can all you want, but she does not belong here, sorry.
Not only do I hate the Google monopoly...unlike you, I don't pay for propaganda either! So I can't see past NY Times paywall and have no intentions to either!
I am aware that the GOP Senate tax bill which you deliberately mislabel as "Trump administration tax cuts" is bloated mostly by military costs which are a bipartisan-supported issue by Democrats...or at least enough to get passed through Congress.

NOw, do you believe that Warren will order that budget cut, so that a new budget with billions shifted to her green new deal plans can get passed? Seriously? Has LIz Warren said a damn thing against military spending programs and wars so far? Or has she voted against defense appropriations as a Senator?

There are reasons why the generals and weapons makers don't fear Liz Warren, and this is why! And as long as Tulsi Gabbard is attacked by the corporate interests you worship, I'll keep mentioning her name......at least for trying to shine a light on pure evil if nothing else!
 
Jul 2019
2,646
1,421
Georgia
#16
Not only do I hate the Google monopoly...unlike you, I don't pay for propaganda either! So I can't see past NY Times paywall and have no intentions to either!
I am aware that the GOP Senate tax bill which you deliberately mislabel as "Trump administration tax cuts" is bloated mostly by military costs which are a bipartisan-supported issue by Democrats...or at least enough to get passed through Congress.

NOw, do you believe that Warren will order that budget cut, so that a new budget with billions shifted to her green new deal plans can get passed? Seriously? Has LIz Warren said a damn thing against military spending programs and wars so far? Or has she voted against defense appropriations as a Senator?

There are reasons why the generals and weapons makers don't fear Liz Warren, and this is why! And as long as Tulsi Gabbard is attacked by the corporate interests you worship, I'll keep mentioning her name......at least for trying to shine a light on pure evil if nothing else!
I c/p'd that from the NYT article.

Now you're just yelling a bunch of questions about Warren you could easily look up yourself, with a search engine of your choice.

Military spending is a separate issue. In fact there's a couple of threads out there about that I'm sure. If not, maybe start one. (I thought about starting a Gabbard thread for you, but that's your gig not mine)
 
Dec 2016
5,570
2,825
Canada
#17
I c/p'd that from the NYT article.

Now you're just yelling a bunch of questions about Warren you could easily look up yourself, with a search engine of your choice.

Military spending is a separate issue. In fact there's a couple of threads out there about that I'm sure. If not, maybe start one. (I thought about starting a Gabbard thread for you, but that's your gig not mine)
NO, military spending is NOT a separate issue!
1. America's military spending juggernaut has excused continual military provocations during the Cold War and continues on today! The entire world at risk of extinction today because the weapons makers and their employees in the DOD, the White House and Congress have decided that War On Terror is not achieving levels of profitablility they demand. So, they have fire up the Cold War with Russia and China's supposed threats to US security and unravelled all of the nuclear control threaties that were signed in the 70's. Right now the entire world is on hair trigger alert for nuclear extinction because the US Government has continued to work towards launching a surprise attack first strike against Russia and disabling any attempted Russian counter-attacks. Nevermind the risks of nuclear contamination and death going beyond any Russian theater, all it takes is one or two of Russia's hydrogen bombs to hit cities in the US and its the end of the USA even if the war stops short of launching every available nuke. But, who in Congress is focused and trying to draw public attention on this existential risk today, that the rest of the world is aware of, except Americans, who seem completely ignorant to the hightened risks of nuclear annihilation!

2. And then there's the costs of the MIC, partially picked up by foreign despots, but mostly a monstrous and growing cost to Americans who have to face cuts to domestic spending priorities, which will soon include Medicare and Social Security also. Many Dems may decry any spending cuts/while authorizing everything on the Pentagon wishlist.

3. Until any so called progressives, including Bernie and johnny-come-latelys like Warren tell us if they are willing to cut into defense appropriations to fund their domestic goals, they are just uttering platitudes that will not be followed up with policy if they are elected!
 
Dec 2015
17,342
16,331
Arizona
#18
Considering that Sanders still sits as an independent, who caucuses with Democrats, it's surprising he gets anything done at all! During the last run against Shrillary, Bernie did mention several times that he felt pressured to cast votes in favour of legislation he wasn't so keen on to get votes for his proposals.
???????
NOOObody blew anyone out of the water on climate change, because NONE of these candidates....NONE OF THEM go beyond carbon taxes and transition from carbon to renewable energy sources. Being too bold and too ambitions...and actually doing something means taking on billionaires who profit directly and indirectly from destroying the environment! And they are not willing to do that!

Alexandria Cortez and Ed Markey's Green New Deal proposal set 2030 as the goal for energy transition in America, and according to statements and pledges, that's the goal of four presidential candidates' climate plans. The first question is: are these plans representing policy goals that will be achievable over the next 10 years? Or is it more like the annual smoke and mirrors presented at UN climate conferences....such as many western leaders...including Justin Trudeau of Canada calling for a 1.5 degree C limit in future global temperature increases and then doing the exact opposite - facilitating more tarsands extraction and pipelines to move it to market!!

And no greennewdealers in the presidential race are talking about anything beyond energy transition. So let's imagine Warren is actually able to pull the $3 Trillion out of some bodily orifice to get Congress to sign on to a 3 trillion energy transition in the American economy; what about the rest of the carbon problem? It hasn't been nailed down specifically because of difficulties tracking sources, but we do know that somewhere between 30% and 50% of annual carbon emissions are coming from commercial agriculture - from monocropping wheat and other grains used primarily for factory farming meat production.

It's one thing to take on the oil&gas billionaires and their media toadies. But Algore started doing this when he turned into Mr. Green after his failed presidential run in 2000 already. Gore's plan was simply Green Capitalism. Line up major billionaire investors who were looking for new opportunities in high tech solar, wind and new high-storage batteries. Subsidize them instead of oil, gas and coal and reap the financial and environmental benefits of energy transition to a new economy, with a new cast of billionaires.

But, the old economy billionaires fought back...mostly through the Republican Party...their natural home, but how far will any candidate get if they push for a transition in agriculture like AOC's green plan included, and get swamped with all of the propaganda and money lined up aganst them that their fighting against "cow farts?" And totally ignoring the carbon footprint of big ag meat production. But, I can't help notice that none of the presidential greennewdealers have been williing to pick up that baton.

And, when it comes to "where will three trillion dollars come from?" Will Warren, Sanders or any others take on the huge and growing Military Industrial Complex to cut down for sources of funding? Tulsi Gabbard...active duty service member or not, has been the only one to go after the military branches and their wars....and that's why the Democratic Party and allied media wags have run a campaign to keep her name out of the news as much as possible...unless it's to throw up baseless attacks connecting her with Assad or President Modi of India. Something that assholes like Wolf Blitzer would never ask any other Democrat candidates about.

The MIC also likely has America's largest carbon footprint also! So, if there weren't financial reasons to pare down the size of the Military, the environmental costs of the USA's 800 to 1000 military bases, military exercises and carrier fleets sailing around the world, sure as hell would be a good reason, and one which other nations, especially those hosting US Forces are well aware of. But, you won't hear a word about this on those useless wastes of oxygen also known as the debates. Out of fear of the evil and ruthless players who work behind and in the background of elected government, and the billions of dollars at stake weapons contractors have to keep supplying guns, bombs, ships and airplanes for US services and to sell to dubious "allies" abroad. So, I'll go back to ignoring the rest of the Campaign to run one of them against Trump. Which, if Trump doesnt' self-destruct real soon, will be a lost cause and just be the usual tepid opposition for Trump forces to tee off against for the 2nd term of the Trump presidency. Just sayin, you better hope he doesn't try to repeal any amendments blocking him from more terms in the White House, or he'll try to be president for life!
Yadda Yadda--same song 5th verse. Aren't you glad you don't have to worry about voting.....for someone other than Princess Tulsi?
 
Likes: se7en
Dec 2016
5,570
2,825
Canada
#19
Yadda Yadda--same song 5th verse. Aren't you glad you don't have to worry about voting.....for someone other than Princess Tulsi?
You're at least as old as I am, and that's old enough to have developed some degree of wisdom from seeing how this game is played over and over again. And yet for you it's all about the game!

I never said I would get behind Tulsi Gabbard, if I was still voting in US elections, but I want it put out there that she is the only one (besides Mike Gravel-who was completely shut out of the process) who is challening the MIC and LOOK at the reaction! If that doesn't tell you this is all a sham process,, I don't know what does! This is all about who the real rulers decides who best represents their interests. And right now, they love Donald Trump's slavish devotion to their industries and their military goals, but just wish they had a better messenger who wasn't such a stupid, loose lipped lightning rod! If they decide to put their resources behind dumping Donnie out of the White House, it will be for a Clinton-type candidate who is part of their club, but a lot smarter about delivering the message.
 
Dec 2015
17,342
16,331
Arizona
#20
You're at least as old as I am, and that's old enough to have developed some degree of wisdom from seeing how this game is played over and over again. And yet for you it's all about the game!

I never said I would get behind Tulsi Gabbard, if I was still voting in US elections, but I want it put out there that she is the only one (besides Mike Gravel-who was completely shut out of the process) who is challening the MIC and LOOK at the reaction! If that doesn't tell you this is all a sham process,, I don't know what does! This is all about who the real rulers decides who best represents their interests. And right now, they love Donald Trump's slavish devotion to their industries and their military goals, but just wish they had a better messenger who wasn't such a stupid, loose lipped lightning rod! If they decide to put their resources behind dumping Donnie out of the White House, it will be for a Clinton-type candidate who is part of their club, but a lot smarter about delivering the message.
YUP! AND I'm old enough to know that the game NEVER changes, but the PLAYERS do. Tulsi is OUT. Warren is IN. WE play the GAME with the candidates we have---NOT the ones we WISH WE HAD. The process may be a sham but it's the only ONE IN PLAY and I can't change that.
You have been preaching Gabbard--a lackluster milquetoast candidate- for months. Don't pretend otherwise. The goal is to DUMP DONNY at all costs. If Warren can do it........then I'm supporting Warren--financially and in every other way. The fact that I think she's a fighter-- brilliant, organized, experienced and a HUMAN BEING with a heart.....well...that helps.
AND BTW, Warren and Sanders are VERY good friends. When asked, Warren told Anderson Cooper, “Bernie and I have been friends forever, long before I ever got involved in politics, I went up to Vermont and did town halls with Bernie. I’ve given Bernie much of my work when the housing crash was coming. So I’m always glad to be anywhere with Bernie.”
They may not agree on everything, but they are a team. I wouldn't be surprised if Warren is also chummy with the other candidates and who knows? She may have a WHOLE cabinet full of 2020 presidential candidates.
 
Likes: se7en

Similar Discussions