The Green New Deal

Roger Ramjets said:
Yes, yes, oh yes please! We desperately something to put in our vehicles that we can pretend is gas. Even though it only 'might' be viable and isn't as far away as we 'might' think (sooner, later, never?).

Meanwhile, in the real world...
Click to expand...

Oh, don't mistake me, there are a lot of problems with hydrogen besides in-vehicle storage. I'm just saying the in-vehicle storage part may well be tractable. That doesn't mean hydrogen will be able to replace gas even if we solve that bit, and I'm not suggesting otherwise.
 
The final vote was 57 against and no one for the plan, with 43 Democrats voting present.

Red State Democratic Sens. Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona voted no.
Click to expand...


:thumbsup:

AOC:
“The GOP’s whole game of wasting votes in Congress to target others ‘on the record’, for leg they have no intent to pass, is a disgrace. Stop wasting the American peoples’ time + learn to govern. Our jobs aren’t for campaigning, & that’s exactly what these bluff-votes are for,” the freshman lawmaker clapped back on Twitter this week.
Click to expand...


Backatcha' you moron. This so-called "bluff vote" was just what was needed - another chance to see what a dimwit everyone with an actual brain thinks you are, as well as everyone who voted for you. Now get out of the way, you give congresspersons bartenders a bad name.

Thank you, Dems.
 
mgidm86 said:
[emoji106]



AOC:







Backatcha' you moron. This so-called "bluff vote" was just what was needed - another chance to see what a dimwit everyone with an actual brain thinks you are, as well as everyone who voted for you. Now get out of the way, you give congresspersons bartenders a bad name.



Thank you, Dems.
Click to expand...
You just can't stand that she exists, can you?

LOL
 
acbytesla said:
...Take care of your batteries and they will take care of you. Keep your vehicle charged. Don't let it run down. Try to keep it FULLY charged as much as you can. Trust me on this.
Click to expand...

My understanding is that when it is fully charged don't leave it too long at that state.

And enjoy the drive, Roger Ramjets, as electric is fun (I have a 2017 Renault Zoe).
 
Delphic Oracle said:
You just can't stand that she exists, can you?

LOL
Click to expand...


I'm a little leery of statements like this. I remember 2008, when Republicans were constantly saying "Democrats must be terrified of Sarah Palin. They never pass up an opportunity to attack her." I'm not saying that the two women are equivalent, but blanket dismissal of criticism isn't really productive. Assuming it's constructive criticism. Insults and name-calling are even less productive.
 
Delphic Oracle said:
You just can't stand that she exists, can you?
Click to expand...

Existential complaints aside, it does seem kind of stupid and dishonest for her to bring forward a resolution to be voted on, and then complain when her fellow legislators vote on it. It also seems kind of dishonest and stupid for her to insist that legislators should only hold votes for stuff they want to pass. It's obvious she just wants to have it both ways: All the acclaim for having the idea, none of the ridicule from actually having others respond to the idea.

I'd put more effort into calling out and ridiculing her stupidity and dishonesty, but it's my position that politicians are generally dishonest and stupid all the time anyway. So she's fitting right in.
 
Mr Clingford said:
My understanding is that when it is fully charged don't leave it too long at that state.

And enjoy the drive, Roger Ramjets, as electric is fun (I have a 2017 Renault Zoe).
Click to expand...

I'd do whatever the manufacturer recommends. My study of lithium and lead acid batteries recommend not letting batteries run down. Better to keep them always charged 90 to 100 percent than 80 to 100 percent and its better to keep them between 80 to 100 percent than 50 and 100 percent and so on. But you also don't want to overcharge them But I'm guessing that there is electronics in the leaf that would prevent it.
 
Last edited:
theprestige said:
Existential complaints aside, it does seem kind of stupid and dishonest for her to bring forward a resolution to be voted on, and then complain when her fellow legislators vote on it. It also seems kind of dishonest and stupid for her to insist that legislators should only hold votes for stuff they want to pass. It's obvious she just wants to have it both ways: All the acclaim for having the idea, none of the ridicule from actually having others respond to the idea.

I'd put more effort into calling out and ridiculing her stupidity and dishonesty, but it's my position that politicians are generally dishonest and stupid all the time anyway. So she's fitting right in.
Click to expand...
There's a vote that comes after the committee process, amendments, and debates. Then there's a procedural vote taken after nothing but posturing and talking points are exchanged in the media with no intention of actually giving the bill consideration.

For the record, my take on this is "wow, the Democratic party in the Senate is even more spineless and useless than I thought."
 
Delphic Oracle said:
There's a vote that comes after the committee process, amendments, and debates. Then there's a procedural vote taken after nothing but posturing and talking points are exchanged in the media with no intention of actually giving the bill consideration.
Click to expand...

I don't think the House Democrats actually gave the bill consideration, either. I think it was just talking points and grandstanding from the beginning. Freshman Representative introduces a sweeping, overbroad policy resolution that has no hope of ever passing into law. A couple "allies" in the House co-sponsor, and she gets a bunch of media hype and attention out of it. Then she complains when it's the rest of the legislature's turn to respond, and they say, "hahaha nope!" with a side of "that's nice, now sit down".
 
theprestige said:
I don't think the House Democrats actually gave the bill consideration, either. I think it was just talking points and grandstanding from the beginning. Freshman Representative introduces a sweeping, overbroad policy resolution that has no hope of ever passing into law. A couple "allies" in the House co-sponsor, and she gets a bunch of media hype and attention out of it. Then she complains when it's the rest of the legislature's turn to respond, and they say, "hahaha nope!" with a side of "that's nice, now sit down".
Click to expand...
Sure, since every perspective is valid and things mean whatever you want them to mean.
 
theprestige said:
I don't think the House Democrats actually gave the bill consideration, either. I think it was just talking points and grandstanding from the beginning. Freshman Representative introduces a sweeping, overbroad policy resolution that has no hope of ever passing into law. A couple "allies" in the House co-sponsor, and she gets a bunch of media hype and attention out of it. Then she complains when it's the rest of the legislature's turn to respond, and they say, "hahaha nope!" with a side of "that's nice, now sit down".
Click to expand...

I wouldn't call it grandgrandstanding or overly broad. Introducing a bill in Congress is only the beginning of the legislative process. It's not the end of it. It starts the conversation.

That McConnell decided to seize on something a freshman house member introduced which hasn't had a single hearing on and call a vote in the Senate on that was representative on the GOP's political maneuvering and had nothing to do with governing.
 
acbytesla said:
I wouldn't call it grandgrandstanding or overly broad. Introducing a bill in Congress is only the beginning of the legislative process. It's not the end of it. It starts the conversation.

That McConnell decided to seize on something a freshman house member introduced which hasn't had a single hearing on and call a vote in the Senate on that was representative on the GOP's political maneuvering and had nothing to do with governing.
Click to expand...

No, but it did continue the conversation. AOC isn't entitled to have a legislative conversation go the way she wants, just because she's good at social media or whatever. And again, I'm not convinced that her resolution had much to do with governing in the first place.

ETA: There's also the idea - which I generally subscribe to - that pretty much anything official done by a branch of government has to do with governing. "Governing" doesn't mean "doing the stuff I want the way I want it done". The Senate voting, essentially, "this idea is a non-starter for us right now" is just as much an act of governance as ignoring the proposal, sending it to committee, etc. Nobody is entitled to have their proposal go through committee on its way to a floor vote. Hell, they're not even entitled to a vote at all.

AOC wants all the benefits of actually gathering support for her idea, without actually having to gather support for her idea. The Senate is reminding her that's not how it works. What you should be asking yourself is why her House co-sponsors didn't tell her that in the first place, instead of sponsoring her proposal.
 
Last edited:
theprestige said:
No, but it did continue the conversation. AOC isn't entitled to have a legislative conversation go the way she wants, just because she's good at social media or whatever. And again, I'm not convinced that her resolution had much to do with governing in the first place.

ETA: There's also the idea - which I generally subscribe to - that pretty much anything official done by a branch of government has to do with governing. "Governing" doesn't mean "doing the stuff I want the way I want it done". The Senate saying, essentially, "this idea is a non-starter for us right now" is just as much an act of governance as ignoring the proposal, sending it to committee, etc.
Click to expand...

No, it didn't continue the conversation. The Senate didn't hold any hearings, seek testimony or propose a single amendment. it was an attempt to divide Democrats and that was it.
 
acbytesla said:
No, it didn't continue the conversation. The Senate didn't hold any hearings, seek testimony or propose a single amendment. it was an attempt to divide Democrats and that was it.
Click to expand...

Turns out, Democrats are divided on the GND. Looks like McConnell didn't have to try very hard. And of course it continued the conversation. Just not in the way you would have liked. Again, you're not entitled to hearings or testimony every time a proposal comes to the legislature. The legislature gets to decide for itself, on a case-by-case basis, how the conversation is going to go.

I wonder if AOC expected the Senate Dems to react this way to her proposal? Of if she thought all her supporters on Twitter translated to support in the Senate?
 
Last edited:
theprestige said:
Turns out, Democrats are divided on the GND. Looks like McConnell didn't have to try very hard. And of course it continued the conversation. Just not in the way you would have liked. Again, you're not entitled to hearings or testimony every time a proposal comes to the legislature. The legislature gets to decide for itself, on a case-by-case basis, how the conversation is going to go.

I wonder if AOC expected the Senate Dems to react this way to her proposal? Of if she thought all her supporters on Twitter translated to support in the Senate?
Click to expand...

I doubt she thought the bill would ever reach the Senate and the truth is, it didn't. It was a sham vote.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom