Just refer to it as “stimulus for American manufacturing”. Convincing people is all about how you present things. If you’re the senator from CA, you’re going to present things differently than a presidential candidate. Even if the proposal is exactly the same.
Like, what would it take to begin transitioning a substantial amount of our meat production to lab grown meat? It would massively reduce the amount of greenhouse gasses we produce from industrial farming, but the public is kinda terrified of new things they don’t understand, and there’s an awful lot of money in industrial meat production.
We can’t call that the Kill Meat Act, despite how tempting the irony. It would have to be called something friendly and enticing that everyone would want. The Happy Cows Act or something.
That’s not anything that’s going to happen now. No presidential candidate is going to care about that.
That’s not what I was saying. I was just agreeing with your point about how bills need attractive names to get passed.
No. No, no, no, a thousand times No.
I look at the Green new deal as a messaging bill that came up at a time where they knew it had zero chance of gaining any traction at all. And I think that, because they knew it was always going to go nowhere, the left allowed it to balloon into what was essentially the left’s version of Mars One. Remember Mars One? They had great ideas for the colonization of Mars. Ideas that we as a society should be striving for. But their plans and methodology to achieve those goals ranged from completely unworkable to laughably absurd. Remember how it was going to be funded by a reality show?
If they are going to push the Green New Deal, the first thing they need to do is give it a new name not already tainted by Trump. Call it a “New Way Forward” or something. Doesn’t matter. Just don’t call it anything that already has a negative stigma attached to it. Accept the fact that the “Green New Deal” as a term is dead.
Second, they need to strip out anything not related to climate change. Yes, homelessness is a problem that needs to be addressed. But this is not the bill for that. Work on that separately. Keep the bill focused entirely on climate change, and let people know how it’s going to directly affect them. How are you going to get fresh water to areas like the southwest that are becoming increasingly water-challenged? How are you going to shore up our power grid to meet the demands of a society that is charging up their cars at home while also increasing their reliance on air conditioning to keep cool? How is this going to impact your utility bill? Bring it to the families and show them exactly where the benefits are. If it’s not directly related to climate change, handle it somewhere else. And using semantics and six-degrees-of-separation wordplay to say that XYZ is related to climate change will do little to advance the bill while giving your opponents ammunition to be used against you. “See? This isn’t about climate change! This is about passing a far-left agenda masquerading as climate change!”. Keep it simple, stupid, and on topic.
And third, come up with realistic timetables. We are not going to have our entire energy grid on 100% renewables before the end of the decade. We’re already halfway through it. It’s just not going to happen. Is that kind of conversion possible by 2050? 2040? If so, go with that. Put milestones in between so voters can actually see progress. “We plan on having X% converted by the end of the decade, 50% converted by 2035, and 100% converted by 2045.” Something like that. Easily achievable and trackable milestones instead of pie-in-the-sky goals that put the solution to climate change in the same category as flying cars and fusion power – perpetually just 20 years away, forever.
That is the kind of plan she needs to embrace. Attaching herself to an idealistic messaging bill that didn’t even have the support of her own party and is considered toxic to a percentage of the voters she needs to actually win is a great way for her to see the strides she made in such a short time evaporate just as quickly.
Second, they need to strip out anything not related to climate change.
Then it goes nowhere. It’s just more political posturing. Absolutely 100% entirely dead in the water. The Senate and House are both so split down the middle by both parties, it’ll require bipartisan support. It necessarily will have to have riders associated, otherwise it won’t receive the support it needs.
Yes… this is exactly how wasteful legislation gets passed, but it’s entirely outside the realm of possibility in the real world
Your argument is based on the premise that the GOP will negotiate in anything even remotely close to good faith. Any rider they introduce will have exactly zero to do with good faith ideas for their constituents and will be 100% based on introducing poison pills to the bill that they know the left will never, ever accept, solely for the intent of killing the bill before it even gains significant traction.
And on the off-chance they do get their riders inserted into the bill,
then they’ll vote for itHAHAHAHA i couldn’t even finish typing that. Of course they’ll never vote for it anyway. They’ll use the riders that they introduced into the bill as examples of wasteful spending, and then they’ll vote it down anyway. That’s how they kill Democrat bills. That’s how we got the heavily watered down ACA instead of universal healthcare on par with the rest of the developed world. That’s how the GOP works. They promise their support by introducing poison pills that they know will force some democrats to withdraw support. And then once that happens, they vote against the bill anyway because fuck you that’s why. These people have fillibustered their own bills, remember?
The 2019 plan is moot now. She needs a project climate 2025.
This kind of pandering is beyond irritating. The Republicans are literally planning to ram project 2025 down our throats if they win. Voters should be rewarded with the Green New Deal I’d we can defeat them.
Has anybody actually read the Green New Deal? Kind of amazing the use of that term without a definition of what it is.