The Green New Deal

Trakar said:
If you think that other elected Party representatives have any "boss" other than their electorate, that they should be listening to, it is just a further example of how out of touch you are with regard to elected politicians, and the people who send them to DC to change the status quo.


Welcome to the Revolution.
Click to expand...
If you think there's no hierarchy in Congress between older established members and Congresspersons that are newly elected, you might be as foolish as the backers of the GND.

The point is, bring people on board before announcing some grand new scheme you think Congress can effect.

Oh, and sorry but said revolution isn't. I know Sanders supporters don't believe that, but history and the current social/political climate says otherwise.
 
Last edited:
Skeptic Ginger said:
If you think there's no hierarchy in Congress between older established members and Congresspersons that are newly elected, you might be as foolish as the backers of the GND.

The point is, bring people on board before announcing some grand new scheme you think Congress can effect.

Oh, and sorry but said revolution isn't. I know Sanders supporters don't believe that, but history and the current social/political climate says otherwise.
Click to expand...

Guaranteed, in almost any organization or group, the people who have been there longer have more power and more say then newcomers. Just seems to be the way orgnizations made up of people works.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Restore checks and balances no matter your party affiliation
Click to expand...

Unless you are talking about the DNC internal checks and balances,...apparently, then it's whatever it takes to get the candidate our corporate sponsors prefer.


Let's put democracy back into the forefront of the Democratic Party
 
dudalb said:
Guaranteed, in almost any organization or group, the people who have been there longer have more power and more say then newcomers. Just seems to be the way orgnizations made up of people works.
Click to expand...

Until it doesn't anymore; one way or another, the dead wood is cleared out and new light and space expand and invigorate new growth. Systems evolve, many follow the same general route as the old system and repeat their mistakes, but occasionally real change occurs. Despite the Trumpian "Business Model," most modern business theories and practices don't use, and generally denigrate, the term "Boss" and all that it implies, for good reason, and yet there are throw-backs and antiquated left-behinds who continue to bandy the term about in casual conversation as though it connotates anything business appropriate, yet alone positive.
 
Last edited:
Trakar said:
Unless you are talking about the DNC internal checks and balances,...apparently, then it's whatever it takes to get the candidate our corporate sponsors prefer.


Let's put democracy back into the forefront of the Democratic Party
Click to expand...

Gave up on the aspect of the GND discussion we were having then, did you?

Think I'm pro-corporate rule of the world? :rolleyes:

The DNC doesn't have checks and balances, AFAIK.
 
Trakar said:
Until it doesn't anymore; one way or another, the dead wood is cleared out and new light and space expand and invigorate new growth. Systems evolve, many follow the same general route as the old system and repeat their mistakes, but occasionally real change occurs. Despite the Trumpian "Business Model," most modern business theories and practices don't use, and generally denigrate, the term "Boss" and all that it implies, for good reason, and yet there are throw-backs and antiquated left-behinds who continue to bandy the term about in casual conversation as though it connotates anything business appropriate, yet alone positive.
Click to expand...

Bernie is old wood, it's just a different species.


But as far as the GND being the change of the future, maybe, but you can't change the world that fast. I don't think some of the 'revolutionaries' you speak of know that.

I also don't think some of the backers are looking at the whole of the voters. They have tunnel vision.
 
Last edited:
Trakar said:
I don't believe that is accurate, but if it were, that would be the best place to start adding a little democracy into the Democratic Party, doncha think?!
Click to expand...

Do you understand what checks and balances are? Because the way you're addressing this makes me believe you don't.
 
acbytesla said:
Do you understand what checks and balances are? Because the way you're addressing this makes me believe you don't.
Click to expand...

Well, I'm using the term to refer to a defined set of rules and procedures which seek to decrease the risks and harms of: a) individual and group actions which exceed the defined authority of that individual or group often while disadvantaging the ability of others in that organization to freely exercise and benefit from their own defined authorities and rights b) correct issues where individuals/groups selectively ignore the responsibilities of their roles to gain personal advantage over others in that organization, and c) identify and remediate sources of incompetence, negligence and criminality within an organization.

While most commonly used in reference to governmental authorities, it is also an important, oft applied, corporate principle in which there is a division of operational decision making, execution, and oversight responsibilities in a manner similar to the governmental process of a division of powers. In the U.S. our major political parties are corporations operating under the auspices of individual corporate charters and bylaws.

If I'm understanding SG correctly, she seems to be asserting that there is no principle of checks and balances in the Democratic Party corporate charter. On the initial face of it, I find that difficult to accept, but I am not intimately familiar with the details of the Democratic party Articles of Incorporation and am researching it in more detail in an attempt to verify her statement.

If she is correct, then this would seem to be the first place focus on to help make the Democratic party a more democratic organization.
 
Trakar said:
Well, I'm using the term to refer to a defined set of rules and procedures which seek to decrease the risks and harms of: a) individual and group actions which exceed the defined authority of that individual or group often while disadvantaging the ability of others in that organization to freely exercise and benefit from their own defined authorities and rights b) correct issues where individuals/groups selectively ignore the responsibilities of their roles to gain personal advantage over others in that organization, and c) identify and remediate sources of incompetence, negligence and criminality within an organization.

While most commonly used in reference to governmental authorities, it is also an important, oft applied, corporate principle in which there is a division of operational decision making, execution, and oversight responsibilities in a manner similar to the governmental process of a division of powers. In the U.S. our major political parties are corporations operating under the auspices of individual corporate charters and bylaws.

If I'm understanding SG correctly, she seems to be asserting that there is no principle of checks and balances in the Democratic Party corporate charter. On the initial face of it, I find that difficult to accept, but I am not intimately familiar with the details of the Democratic party Articles of Incorporation and am researching it in more detail in an attempt to verify her statement.

If she is correct, then this would seem to be the first place focus on to help make the Democratic party a more democratic organization.
Click to expand...

Not in the way that you seem to believe they do. Sure they have a charter and a set of rules. But those rules are not created by primary voters but by delegates. And the rules delegate authority to the DNC to conduct the affairs of the Democratic Party.

Here is a link to the charter and bylaws to Democratic party.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...FjAAegQIBhAB&usg=AOvVaw02jhGyPqT9lunI4HarXAXV
 
Last edited:
acbytesla said:
Not in the way that you seem to believe they do. Sure they have a charter and a set of rules. But those rules are not created by primary voters but by delegates. And the rules delegate authority to the DNC to conduct the affairs of the Democratic Party.

Here is a link to the charter and bylaws to Democratic party.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...FjAAegQIBhAB&usg=AOvVaw02jhGyPqT9lunI4HarXAXV
Click to expand...

Here is an easier link and a link to a new thread if you'd care to discuss this in more detail: In short, I don't see that the distinction you state in anyway negates or opposes anything I have stated.

Democratic party charter and bylaws
https://democrats.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/DNC-Charter-Bylaws-8.25.18-with-Amendments.pdf

New Thread
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=335008
 
Trakar said:
You would think that after what happened in their last attempt at something like this with the Berkeley Earth self-administered spanking, that these people would learn their lesson and leave the hyper-partisan demagoguery to the professionals like Hannity, Limbaugh, and the rest of those who make a nice living throwing applause bait to the nation's dunderheads looking for someone else to blame for their self-generated problems and issues. But, I guess as long as Dunderheadism is chic, there will be hucksters to enflame their need to give away their money.
Click to expand...
The Berkeley Earth principles were actual scientists. They had been swayed by false claims of climate deniers going in, but being actual scientists they produced a solid product that, unsurprisingly, show the same results as the NASA,NOAA, HadCRU, etc datasets. Naturally the usual suspects went from cheering on their forthcoming “debunking” of climate science to vilifying them at every turn as soon as they released their results. The problem is that Trump probably would not select scientists, let alone climate scientists to his panel.

Speaking of the usual suspects here is a great recent example of the type of BS they feed into the conservative echo chamber for idiots like the current POTUS.
WUWT recently presented the graphic below to suggest sea ice was recovering strongly. If you look carefully, you can see all the greyed out years they didn’t include. The next image shows where this “recovery” stands in the full dataset. (basically it’s just the same old trick of saying “hey look, it’s not the absolute worst year on record so climate change must not be happening)

figure.png


fig2.jpg
 
lomiller said:
...The problem is that Trump probably would not select scientists, let alone climate scientists to his panel...
Click to expand...

...that would render the "panel" and its "findings" rather moot from the get go. Kind of like trying to get second opinions about an upcoming multiple bypass heart surgery from a local nail salon staff. If all he wants are laugh lines he can just hold pressers where he expounds upon his great physical health and own self-recognized brilliance concerning things he just discovered but no one else ever knew!
 
Canceling debts sounds great for countries, but what about the lenders?

Belz... said:
How does that answer my question?

If you owe money to someone and just decide to forgive your own loan...
that doesn't sound like an idea that'll see you get a loan in the future.
Click to expand...


Maybe, if I quote the dictionary.

GREECE, n. A nation in Southern Europe famous for philosophy, mathematics,
architecture, and shortchanging its creditors. Greece was in default or behind
on its debt in 51 percent of the years between 1826 and 2008, according to
economists Carmen Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff. Nevertheless, professional
investors rushed to buy Greek bonds in the late 2000s. When Greece defaulted
again in 2012, these "experts" were astonished — even though the average
seven-year-old would have advised against lending money to a borrower
with such a history.
​
When making a loan both parties have obligations. The borrower has an
obligation to pay back the loan; but before the borrower takes the loan,
the lender has an obligation to make sure the borrow can in fact pay back
the loan. Just loaning money to anyone regardless of circumstances just
leads to losses.

Note: In the case of Greece, the lenders took a 50% hard deleveraging
in 2012. In the case of Venezuela lenders get a softer form of deleveraging
in the form of inflation every year.


Belz... said:
What do you think of the environmental impacts of digging up rare earths for those technologies?
Click to expand...


Very bad. Like most forms of mining. Since 95% occurs in China, one hopes
they have a program that charges the end user a fee for reclamation of the
land and waste products. Unlike the United States where the taxpayer picks
up the cost of the clean up decades or centuries later for a very high price.

P.S. If I remember correctly, NASA had a program for mining asteroids
costing about 2.5 billion dollars that would bring back about 50 billion dollars
worth of rate earths and other materials. Congress last year canceled it favor
of tax cuts. And maybe because no one really knows what it take to clean up
mining in space.
 
Trakar said:
...that would render the "panel" and its "findings" rather moot from the get go. Kind of like trying to get second opinions about an upcoming multiple bypass heart surgery from a local nail salon staff. If all he wants are laugh lines he can just hold pressers where he expounds upon his great physical health and own self-recognized brilliance concerning things he just discovered but no one else ever knew!
Click to expand...


They get to have a panel of 'government experts' who support their climate change denial.

That's plenty for the credulous to accept as authoritative, and Trump supporters are nothing if not credulous.

As long as it is in favor of their Supreme Leader, of course.

They don't care about anyone who isn't already a Trump supporter. Those are lost to them. After two years of Trump presidency they know they aren't going to win over any new ones. They're just trying to keep from losing the ones they have.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom