2020 US presidential election

[Golden_Gonads]

Like Felter, I want to see Trump re-elected, but my reason is that I'm pretty sure we're going to have another global recession before 2024, and I really don't want to read Trump's gloating over how 'This would never have happened with ME! in charge'. No no, I'd much rather laugh hysterically at his attempts to weasel out of it.

[Masterbagger]

2020 seems a long way away but my choices do seem to be President Trump or socialism. That makes things kind of easy.

"Socialism."

I find that hilarious. Hey, sure, there are some wacky socialist sympathizers in the Democratic party. Trouble is, most of them already hold political office. To be honest, I don't think any of those are worthy contenders for President no matter if Mickey Mouse was in the White House. (Mickey might not be a bad choice, but he really, really, likes kids a little too much. Creepy guy.)

Almost anytime anyone suggests that the government fund something, someone jumps up and screams "Socialism." Then, when you ask them to explain why they think it's "Socialism" they say something like

"I had to work for everything I got and my daddy fought in The Great War to defeat Socialism and the Nazis. With his own hands he stormed Heartbreak Ridge and defeated the Socialist Vietnamese to free all those students in Grenada being held hostage by Castro!"

Et tu, Morkonan? I expect some posters to project a stereotype onto me. You I know have some sort of understanding of what democrats are embracing when they let radical elements of their party spout off with "green new deal" talk.

[Grim Lock]

Again with the hypocrasy, you should not be offended when stereotyped while providing several stereotypes yourself, especially after electing and defending a guy who does nothing but talk in stereo-types and hyperbole, wanna call us out on it? Great go right ahead, but do us the courtesy of aplying the same standards to whomever you vote for then.

[Bishop149]

Ok. . . . let do some more Political theory 101, because this always goes well.

"Socialism"

Is not a single thing, there are 3 main versions at play in the world today.

1) Marxist Socialism
This is the one that most people, and Americans in particular will immediately jump to.
The idea here is that that the workers (the "proletariat") will revolt against those that own the "means of production" (and thus can exert control of Capital), the "bourgeoisie". In doing so the workers take over the State and it then functions as the sole owner of the means of production and will administer Capital in the interests of the people. Now, (and here's the bit most people miss) this is SUPPOSED to be a temporary state of transition. . . now everything is owned by the workers (in theory) it's supposed to naturally transition in to communism.
As we're all well aware that has never happened.
What happens instead is that those tasked with administering the state in the interests of the people simply administer it in the interests of themselves and become a new, often more authoritarian, bourgeoisie. This BTW is why most of these states don't refer to the THEMSELVES as "communist". . . . they are aware of the difference and very much invested in maintaining endless socialism thank you very much! Wouldn't want to give anyone the idea that our power should be reduced now would we!

2) Bolivarian socialism
Can largely be thought of as a variant on the above which shifts the focus of "the bourgeoisie" on to external powers. Given the history and geography of this philosophy that external power is almost always the USA.

This is very clever.
1) An perfect excuse to keep the socialist "transition" going for ever. A perfect entity upon which to shift any blame that might otherwise be directed at the administrators of the socialist state.
2) It has the benefit of being true. The external power DOES control a lot capital and IS using it to behave imperialistically. To extract benefit for itself at the expense of the socialist country.

Hint: If the USA really wanted to undermine such regimes, the BEST thing they could do is to just butt out and leave them alone. Depriving the state of one of it's primary and most effective mechanisms of control. Although by this point you've been interfering for so long that even if you did it would probably take decades to sink in.

3) Democratic socialism
THIS is the one that is most relevant to American society, the one preached by the "extreme" left wing of American politics and the one successfully applied (to a greater or lesser degree) across most of Europe and Scandinavia.

The key difference is that the State does not seek sole control of the "means of production", but some state ownership is often a feature of the system. The function of the state is to mediate and balance the interests of the bourgeoisie, the proletariat and everything in between. . . consumers etc. Free market capitalism remains the basic economic system upon which everything is based but the socialist state acts as an impediment against the excesses that system can produce.
The democratic bit comes from the voters being able to enact control over the exact nature of all the regulation and balance. . . . with varying success.
As we should all be aware, even under the most authoritarian democratic socialism systems around today plenty of such excesses remain, IMO, out of control. . . this is due (again IMO) to the failures within the "democratic" bit. The bourgeoisie can still exert far too much political power unchecked by democracy . . . . The USA is perhaps the worst example of this.

Take home point: Don't confuse Marxist socialism with democratic socialism. . . . they are UTTERLY different.
Also stop using Soviet Russia as an example of what might happen to the USA under socialism, you're making yourself look VERY stupid.

[Morkonan]

Et tu, Morkonan? I expect some posters to project a stereotype onto me. You I know have some sort of understanding of what democrats are embracing when they let radical elements of their party spout off with "green new deal" talk.

No, I'm not trying to project. I'm with you on the whole "Green New Deal" crap, too. But, not because it's "Socialism," but because it's stupid and not at all thought out, only designed to gain enthusiastic supporters while being cloaked in the robes of undertaking a "Great Righteous Act." It's garbage.

But, "Socialism" isn't our Federal Government doing things as a government for the "Greater Good" of the people. That's not socialism. And, that's too often what people refer to as being "socialism." And, too often, opposition to Democrats/Liberals jumps on words like "Socialism" to gain reactionary support. That's unethical, IMO.

There are programs that are necessary for any government of human beings to have. We outlined that sort of stuff in the Constitution. Is, for instance, "Welfare" actually "Socialism?" Is it not smart to ensure that you don't purposefully create a portion of the people that will be willing to kill and rebel against the government because the only alternative they would have otherwise is to starve to death or die in a blizzard? Do we have a duty to our "fellow man" to step in where, in today's world, charities and charitable organizations are no longer large enough or capable enough to handle needy populations in a country of 300+ million people? Probably...

I'm not saying you're saying these things, I just reacted when you wrote "socialism" without defining what you thought was "socialism." Even the "Green New Deal", as much as I know about it, isn't "Socialism." It's collective, Federal, action and regulation, but that's not Socialism. Once could define any government act as socialism if that was the case. We have a Federal Government that's intended to allow us to act collectively.

PS - On the Green New Deal: I have stopped reading/listening to people spouting it, so I don't know if they've come up with some new aspect of it. But, when something plops down on the ground and is brown, squishy, and stinks, I'm not likely to agree that it's candy no matter how many times someone tries to put a candy-wrapper on it...

[Observe]

I'm with you on the whole "Green New Deal" crap, too. But, not because it's "Socialism," but because it's stupid and not at all thought out, only designed to gain enthusiastic supporters while being cloaked in the robes of undertaking a "Great Righteous Act." It's garbage.

We all know the Green New Deal is a kitchen-sink framework of ideas to curb global warming. No one, including it's adherents, expect it to become law.

Let me ask you this: If the human impact on global warming, is as dire as many respected scientists forecast, do you see even a hint of an alternative to the Green New Deal currently in the legislature? If not, why and when? When it's too late?

On the other hand, if humans are not accelerating global warming, then yes, the Green New Deal may not be what we need. Then again, there are aspects to the plan, which I think may not be bad ideas, regardless of climate change.

Anyway, I wouldn't worry about the Green New Deal, because it is too radical for most to swallow. The good thing, is it is engaging discussion on serious issues that behoove us humans to examine.

[red assassin]

We all know the Green New Deal is a kitchen-sink framework of ideas to curb global warming. No one, including it's adherents, expect it to become law.

Let me ask you this: If the human impact on global warming, is as dire as many respected scientists forecast, do you see even a hint of an alternative to the Green New Deal currently in the legislature? If not, why and when? When it's too late?

On the other hand, if humans are not accelerating global warming, then yes, the Green New Deal may not be what we need. Then again, there are aspects to the plan, which I think may not be bad ideas, regardless of climate change.

Anyway, I wouldn't worry about the Green New Deal, because it is too radical for most to swallow. The good thing, is it is engaging discussion on serious issues that behoove us humans to examine.

Yeah, I mean, the Green New Deal is radical because we've procrastinated long enough that only radical action can save us. Climate change falls in this fascinating balance where the longer we leave it, the more obvious the urgency starts to become, and yet by the same token the more radical the action necessary to do something about it becomes. For thirty years the action necessary has been just a bit more radical than people have been prepared to accept given the political climate at the time, and so nothing significant has been done.

Fortunately for everyone worrying about the Green New Deal, this is all still true, so nothing significant will be done and we'll continue towards self-inflicted chaos, safe in the knowledge that boy, at least we haven't let radicals like AOC tell us what to do!

[Morkonan]

...Fortunately for everyone worrying about the Green New Deal, this is all still true, so nothing significant will be done and we'll continue towards self-inflicted chaos, safe in the knowledge that boy, at least we haven't let radicals like AOC tell us what to do!

But, when asked by an interviewer, where all this first really came up, how these "radical" things could be implemented, her response was basically "I don't know" or "magic."

Admittedly, the whole "magic" quote is just the aggregate of her response, which should have just been "magic" instead of the things she said... Things like "I don't know enough about taxes to say" and "smart people will have to look at it" or something along those lines. And, of course, the whole idea of "Aim high to succeed low" logic problem she has. That does not work. It's not a cake-baking contest she's talking about, it's forcing people to do things "or else."

"Aiming high to succeed low" is a strategy of ignorance. Ignorance of where one is going, ignorance of one's own capabilities, ignorance of one's ability to truly influence the chances of success and a very easy way to begin a project by purposefully setting low expectations... All sure signs of winning ideas and projects all over the world, I'm sure. (This is why I called the idea "juvenile." It shows that someone has just not taken the time to think it through and gather credible information that can be used to formulate a workable plan. THAT kind of juvenile.)

To be honest, we're already screwed. The only questions remaining are "how much" and "how long." But, if it's "much" then it's not going to be "long." The worse it gets, eventually we won't have the capacity to continue contributing as much to it.

I am heavily in favor of strong policies to reduce and eventually, as soon as is possible, to eliminate industrialized greenhouse gas emissions. (ie: Anything driven by our need to convert portable forms of thermal energy, typically carbon based fossil fuels, to other forms of energy.) I am also in favor of other initiatives to stop making a mess of things and for us to clean up as much as possible. I personally willing to endure hardships if that will help, just so long as everyone else (or a majority) of others can share my pain...

But, as it stands, however the heck that is, the Green New Deal is a "gimmick." The politicians using it are hiding behind the curtain of the "Green New Deal" and capitalizing on votes. A very few, maybe even AOC, are "true believers" in it. But, even there I'm skeptical.

But, it sounds cool and it's a rallying cry for some people, especially younger people. (AOC is a young attractive woman, so there's probably a lot of bathwater drinkers jumping at the chance to associate with her.) What's not to like? But, the substance isn't there... So, it's just "words."

[Mightysword]

Yeah, I mean, the Green New Deal is radical because we've procrastinated long enough that only radical action can save us.

And this is exactly the kind of "rationality" behind almost every single fanatic/dictator used to justify their action. Be it historical or in literature, fiction or non-fiction, be it economy, military, religion or anything under the sky ... "extreme time calls for extreme measure", right?

Pick up the history book and you'll realize just about all the biggest pool of bloods were spilled under that kind of justification. But hey, thousands of years and at least we're still consistent about something.

[Masterbagger]

I'm not saying you're saying these things, I just reacted when you wrote "socialism" without defining what you thought was "socialism." Even the "Green New Deal", as much as I know about it, isn't "Socialism." It's collective, Federal, action and regulation, but that's not Socialism. Once could define any government act as socialism if that was the case. We have a Federal Government that's intended to allow us to act collectively.

PS - On the Green New Deal: I have stopped reading/listening to people spouting it, so I don't know if they've come up with some new aspect of it. But, when something plops down on the ground and is brown, squishy, and stinks, I'm not likely to agree that it's candy no matter how many times someone tries to put a candy-wrapper on it...

I don't really have an exact definition for what democrats seem to want. They appear consumed by a desire to grow the government to provide more and more benefits. I think they are straight up lying about funding their programs by taxing the wealthy. The burden of paying for their nonsense is going to come back to me and I don't want to participate. I don't have a word for that and I have to call it something.

[Grim Lock]

In response, Bernie Sanders says it well in this interview:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d4dSJyL1PAI

[fiksal]

I don't have a word for that and I have to call it something.

I think "Communism - BAD... Socialism - BAD" are good and logical responses for every topic. Go with those, I have no objections, but that's just me.

[red assassin]

Yeah, I mean, the Green New Deal is radical because we've procrastinated long enough that only radical action can save us.

And this is exactly the kind of "rationality" behind almost every single fanatic/dictator used to justify their action. Be it historical or in literature, fiction or non-fiction, be it economy, military, religion or anything under the sky ... "extreme time calls for extreme measure", right?

Pick up the history book and you'll realize just about all the biggest pool of bloods were spilled under that kind of justification. But hey, thousands of years and at least we're still consistent about something.

This is exactly what I meant when I said "For thirty years the action necessary has been just a bit more radical than people have been prepared to accept given the political climate at the time, and so nothing significant has been done", though. What we're asking is always just a little easier to dismiss than to do. 30 years ago the corrections were pretty minor - certainly nothing I'd describe as radical by modern standards - but nobody was really feeling the effects of climate change, either, so it was easy to prevaricate. 30 years later lots of ordinary people are feeling the effects one way or another, and the evidence has only become more damning - but now we're already so colossally f***ed that a suggestion of a plan to do something about it looks to you like an off-the-shelf wannabe tinpot dictator. Never mind that the scientific evidence is overwhelming - the suggested action is unpalatable, which is enough to condemn the whole thing, because it's easier to question the science than volunteer to suffer some negatives right now. Believe me, I'd far rather we'd done the sensible thing when we could have done, but failing that, of the options left on the table I'd much rather we do something difficult now and deal with the consequences of that, than continue to sit on our hands and wait for the end times, but I don't for a moment expect that we will.

[RegisterMe]

I think that might be the first time I've seen Red Assassin genuinely pissed at the world.

Fair play.

[Masterbagger]

This is exactly what I meant when I said "For thirty years the action necessary has been just a bit more radical than people have been prepared to accept given the political climate at the time, and so nothing significant has been done", though. What we're asking is always just a little easier to dismiss than to do. 30 years ago the corrections were pretty minor - certainly nothing I'd describe as radical by modern standards - but nobody was really feeling the effects of climate change, either, so it was easy to prevaricate. 30 years later lots of ordinary people are feeling the effects one way or another, and the evidence has only become more damning - but now we're already so colossally f***ed that a suggestion of a plan to do something about it looks to you like an off-the-shelf wannabe tinpot dictator. Never mind that the scientific evidence is overwhelming - the suggested action is unpalatable, which is enough to condemn the whole thing, because it's easier to question the science than volunteer to suffer some negatives right now. Believe me, I'd far rather we'd done the sensible thing when we could have done, but failing that, of the options left on the table I'd much rather we do something difficult now and deal with the consequences of that, than continue to sit on our hands and wait for the end times, but I don't for a moment expect that we will.

Link to the evidence please.

[red assassin]

I think that might be the first time I've seen Red Assassin genuinely pissed at the world.

Fair play.

I'm beyond furious about it. I've been angry about it for as long as I can remember. I've been depressed about it. One particularly bad day quite a long time ago (when I was still in physics), I went to a climate researcher I know and respect a lot, and what she said to me (more sympathetically than this short summary will do justice to!) was "it's grief, and we all go through it".

Link to the evidence please.

Sure, I'll humour you.

The IPCC is the big one for summary reports, though they can end up a bit conservative from the committee effect. https://www.ipcc.ch/ In particular, https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/ discusses the effects if we limit warming to 1.5C (which we won't). Their most recent full assessment is from 2014, but it's still worth reading. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/syr/

https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/ The references section here is good, and likewise https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/ on the same site.

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1 ... 1/4/048002 This is the definitive meta-meta-analysis of climate change studies' position on anthropogenic global warming: 90%-100% (depending on study) of published climate change papers argue that it's human-caused, with 97% the overall supported figure, and an additional finding that consensus rises with expertise on climate science (i.e. the papers that disagree are less likely to be published by actual climate scientists).

Finally, https://xkcd.com/1732/ (sources cited at the side) deserves a mention for quality of presentation of data.

If you have any specific questions once you've read all that, let me know - I can definitely find more specific papers.

[Ketraar]

Link to the evidence please.

[lots of stuff linked]
If you have any specific questions once you've read all that, let me know - I can definitely find more specific papers.

[Insert sound of a mic drop]

Not that I think any actual evidence will be read and/or have any impact at changing the opinion, as in typical Trumpian fashion I'm sure some half assed excuse will be presented to dismiss any, if not all of it.

MFG

Ketraar

[Morkonan]

I don't really have an exact definition for what democrats seem to want. They appear consumed by a desire to grow the government to provide more and more benefits. I think they are straight up lying about funding their programs by taxing the wealthy. The burden of paying for their nonsense is going to come back to me and I don't want to participate. I don't have a word for that and I have to call it something.

First, when you say "grow the government" that's far too reminiscent of the standard accusation that opponents have levied against all Democrats since FDR... All politicians are in "Teh Gubbermint" and anytime any of them mention programs or inducing change or making reforms, they're basically talking about "growing government." Unless they are firing people, they're growing the government. "Deregulation" is often interpreted as "shrinking government" but it's often done without any sense, only the goal of having claimed to "shrink government." Some of those kinds of regulations are actually there to protect "The People," 'cause "we" put them there in the first place.

Every darn politician out there is scrambling to tell people what they are going to "give them." They're telling people "elect me and your taxes will be lower." They're saying "elect me and your kids won't die." "Elect me and I will give you everything you ever wanted."

No party has a singular claim to pandering to the voter... They all do it and it's disgusting.

"Taxing the wealthy" is a popular notion, these days. It's always had a number of supporters, but it's gone over the edge with this latest crop of Democratic and Independent hopefuls, all trying to catch the latest wave of support. It's a "panacea." It's supposed to solve "everything" by "throwing money at it." I have yet to see anyone say what sensible things they're going to do with all their "rich peoples monies." It's as if all they need is just ALL THE MONEY ALL THE TIME and we'll soon all be living in paradise...

Meanwhile, back in reality, the tax-code is written to encourage Rich People to invest in ways that their money and earnings are not fully counted as "income." On purpose. So that otherwise stagnant money can be funneled into the economy instead of being hidden in a mattress...

SOoooo... In effect, someone saying "tax all the rich people" is also saying "take that money out of the working economy so the government can spend it on something we haven't even figured out yet, but we're going to study it and get some smart people to figure it out by hiring them on as overvalued government contract workers."

The largest employer in the US is the Federal Government. That's "direct employees who get a Federal Paycheck." After that? It's probably Federal Contractors or businesses that depend on the Federal Government.

Any idgit who jumps up on a platform and says they should be elected so they can "shrink the government" is a moron.... They can push for rampant deregulation if they want, and we'll hire some Federal Deregulators to oversee that, I'm sure. IF we can make it from the dinner table after eating DDT-laced salmon washed down with water with just a tad bit of lead in it. A tiny bit. Just a little. Only slightly more than is necessary to render continued accumulation of lead in our brains a permanent learning disorder.

Sorry, just ticked off, seeing so many darn politicians pandering for votes, trying their darndest to ride the wave of screams emanating from their anti-Trump-no-matter-what supporters. They are literally saying anything that "sounds good" to people who are "angry."

"High, I'm Dipswaddle, running for President against Donald Trump! What are you angry about, today?"
"WARBARRRGGARBLLL REEEEEEEE HARUMPH!"
"ME TOO! I am so angry about that! I am going to do something about that and give you a present if you elect me! Won't that be great!"

Just friggin' once. Just once. Just one time I want a political candidate to step up to the podium and say "Here's the straight facts and you're not going to like it, but that's just the way it is and you are not a special little snowflake. We need to get to work. Here's what I think we should do and it's not based on trying to get you to vote for me, it's based on solving this problem the way I it should be solved. If you don't like it, don't vote for me. Thank you and goodnight. Don't forget to read a bedtime story to your kids, tonight, instead of getting drunk and plowing into a bridge abutment."

I'm beyond furious about it. I've been angry about it for as long as I can remember. I've been depressed about it. One particularly bad day quite a long time ago (when I was still in physics), I went to a climate researcher I know and respect a lot, and what she said to me (more sympathetically than this short summary will do justice to!) was "it's grief, and we all go through it".
...

^--- This is "A Thing ™" these days. You're not the only one experiencing depression, anxiety, grief, or whatever depressing and sad stuff is going on in someone's head in regards to anthropogenically induced climate change and the tremendous amount of self-serving pushback that's being generated, even to the point of outright lies meant to mislead the ignorant.

That's what gets me. It's not that some people are pushing back against recommendations, it's that others are outright lying to people who don't know much about the subject in order to further their own agendas. And, that's usually profit based in some way, too. So, they're out there lying to people who are ignorant in order to make money. Being ignorant isn't bad. Everyone's ignorant about something. But, taking advantage of ignorance to further one's selfish goals is... evil. I don't like evil. It's bad.

I'll be dead by the time the results are in. I'll be alive to witness the beginning, maybe even to the point where "deniers" have to admit they were wrong. But, I'll be dead before it could truly become culturally destabilizing. I'm NOT thankful for that... I'd rather be here. I'd rather try to help. But, I'll likely die knowing that a bunch of bad people lied and "the future" is going to have to pay for it.

But, there's certainly an increase in disillusionment, disenfranchisement, depression and a bunch of other needless pain being experienced by much younger people these days. It is practically endemic in some populations, even perpetuated as some people are want to do. "Join the outraged and depressed movement we're starting and find solace in crying in your Starbucks over how they're treating our planet." There are healthy ways to combat those feelings without gravitating towards commiserating with others who just want to wallow in them. I think seeking solidarity in some cases is the wrong personal approach. It's certainly helpful to feel as if one is "making a difference" or "acting" instead of "reacting," but some of these groups are just unhealthy and end up producing "lies" of their own, too.

IOW - I sympathize with people who are very distraught about this and empathize with them. Been there, done that, too.

So, vote for the Green New Deal if you want to, but you're going to be even further disillusioned if it's not workable, doesn't make sense, or can't possibly be implemented because it was only ever created to "get votes" from reactionaries and not to help solve "the problem."

[red assassin]

^--- This is "A Thing ™" these days. You're not the only one experiencing depression, anxiety, grief, or whatever depressing and sad stuff is going on in someone's head in regards to anthropogenically induced climate change and the tremendous amount of self-serving pushback that's being generated, even to the point of outright lies meant to mislead the ignorant.

That's what gets me. It's not that some people are pushing back against recommendations, it's that others are outright lying to people who don't know much about the subject in order to further their own agendas. And, that's usually profit based in some way, too. So, they're out there lying to people who are ignorant in order to make money. Being ignorant isn't bad. Everyone's ignorant about something. But, taking advantage of ignorance to further one's selfish goals is... evil. I don't like evil. It's bad.

I'll be dead by the time the results are in. I'll be alive to witness the beginning, maybe even to the point where "deniers" have to admit they were wrong. But, I'll be dead before it could truly become culturally destabilizing. I'm NOT thankful for that... I'd rather be here. I'd rather try to help. But, I'll likely die knowing that a bunch of bad people lied and "the future" is going to have to pay for it.

But, there's certainly an increase in disillusionment, disenfranchisement, depression and a bunch of other needless pain being experienced by much younger people these days. It is practically endemic in some populations, even perpetuated as some people are want to do. "Join the outraged and depressed movement we're starting and find solace in crying in your Starbucks over how they're treating our planet." There are healthy ways to combat those feelings without gravitating towards commiserating with others who just want to wallow in them. I think seeking solidarity in some cases is the wrong personal approach. It's certainly helpful to feel as if one is "making a difference" or "acting" instead of "reacting," but some of these groups are just unhealthy and end up producing "lies" of their own, too.

IOW - I sympathize with people who are very distraught about this and empathize with them. Been there, done that, too.

So, vote for the Green New Deal if you want to, but you're going to be even further disillusioned if it's not workable, doesn't make sense, or can't possibly be implemented because it was only ever created to "get votes" from reactionaries and not to help solve "the problem."

Oh, don't worry, I'm not voting for the Green New Deal - I'm British, so I can't, and our politicians don't even bother showing up to climate change debates. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/p ... 03291.html I'll admit I haven't exactly drilled deep into the specifics of the Green New Deal proposals given I can't vote for it, but I feel like even if you're right and it's not been thought through, it's not like voting for people who support it is going to replace literally the entire government with true believers who also haven't thought it through. It shows that the issue is important and that people will vote to do something about it, and then hopefully more sensible proposals will get drafted and implemented. Or maybe not, but it's still a better shot than the current approach of not doing anything, given the complete lack of alternatives.

On the young, I would actually say there's some reason for optimism - Greta Thunberg and the school strike movement aren't moping around in coffee shops, they're doing something that's starting to be noticed. It sucks that that's what it's come to (and of course the reactions of various adults to the whole thing is yet another thing that makes me incredibly angry), but maybe that'll help guilt trip adults into doing something.

[Morkonan]

Oh, don't worry, I'm not voting for the Green New Deal - I'm British, so I can't,

Bah, you should just take the plunge and join us! It's pretty nice over here, even if the President is the World's Largest Comb-Over. Maybe one day you will? I mean "The British." You guys got any oil over there? You sure?

and our politicians don't even bother showing up to climate change debates.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/p ... 03291.html [/quote]

That is sad. This is why a Representative Democracy can not be run by "agendas."

It has to have "leaders." Leaders are not a list of things on "agendas." Leaders aren't a "platform." Sure, people want to know what a candidate thinks, but a real politician has to be capable of being a "leader" if they are ever going to do ...anything.

Leaders get people to show up. And, if it's hard to get them to show up, they figure out a way.

I'll admit I haven't exactly drilled deep into the specifics of the Green New Deal proposals given I can't vote for it, but I feel like even if you're right and it's not been thought through, it's not like voting for people who support it is going to replace literally the entire government with true believers who also haven't thought it through. It shows that the issue is important and that people will vote to do something about it, and then hopefully more sensible proposals will get drafted and implemented. Or maybe not, but it's still a better shot than the current approach of not doing anything, given the complete lack of alternatives.

This is pretty much the line of current thinking on the subject. But, the problem with that is that such a malformed idea can not withstand even the briefest scrutiny. Surely, someone thought that someone else might oppose such a radical plan, right? But, maybe they didn't care, because it would show people how "important it was?" That right there is ungood thinking. It's not strategic, it's not based on a firm foundation that targets implementation. It's based on... getting votes and looking like a "maverick."

I'm all in favor of a plan that is likely to at least have a positive impact. I'm in favor of having to make certain sacrifices. I'm not in favor of people just shouting stuff and raising a bunch of other shouting people to go shout stuff for no other reason than to rail against people who tell them to stfu... "WHY U NO LIKE SHOUT? ANTI-SHOUTER!

On the young, I would actually say there's some reason for optimism - Greta Thunberg and the school strike movement aren't moping around in coffee shops, they're doing something that's starting to be noticed. It sucks that that's what it's come to (and of course the reactions of various adults to the whole thing is yet another thing that makes me incredibly angry), but maybe that'll help guilt trip adults into doing something.

I wasn't familiar with her, so I looked her up and read the wiki, etc.

The problem is that reality says she's not really doing anything... Don't misunderstand me, here - I approve of what she's doing. It's just I do not agree she's "starting to be noticed" and I do not agree that she's actually "doing something." She is expressing herself and some others might be joining in that chorus, that much is true. Maybe something "real" will come of it? Maybe. But, do you think she was invited to speak at those important meetings of powerful people because they wanted to listen to her or because they wanted to make it look like they were sympathetic to the causes of young people, especially if they're a little girl child?

Wolves do not like being told on what's on the menu by sheep. They just don't. But, if there's enough sheep telling them and there's a few sheepdogs in there, they might not have any other choice.

Here's a guy from the US: Ralph Nader

Now, in a lot of ways, this guy is a Grade A Crackpot. But, he worked tirelessly, ceaselessly, haranguing anyone haranguable about automobile seatbelts. There was a time in the US that cars didn't have seatbelts in them. (My father's car didn't have seatbelts! No kidding. I suck 'cause I'm old.. :/ ) So, what did he do? Well, he was a fanatic, that much is true, but he was a smart fanatic. He didn't just do the "easy thing" of going outside and yelling at people. He didn't do the easy thing of just walking a bit and calling it a "March." He didn't do the easy thing of just "giving a speech." He busted his ass, organized, wrote books and wrote them well, targeted organizations, set up his "Maverick" image and captured the imagination of people with enough money to "move things." And, he basically worked his entire life to promote what he felt was important and was single-handedly responsible for "Consumer Advocacy" in the US. If it wasn't for him, more products would be on the shelf that hurt people.

I disagree with his politics and still think he's a bit twisted... But, dang, the man worked his butt off and got results.

In other examples here on the forum, I've stated this, so I'll just sum it up: A march, a speech, people yelling, someone taking an afternoon to sit on something, none of those things are really "doing anything." They just aren't. But, what they accomplish isn't for the signs the people are holding, it's for the people participating. By and large, you tell most of those people that they're going to miss lunch and they won't show up. Unless you can sell "missing lunch" as a "sacrifice for the cause" they won't bother. But, when they do miss lunch? Then they will say they have "done something" and they have "made a sacrifice for the cause."

It's not hopeless. But, what makes it more hopeless is when people identify "activism" with what amounts to doing nothing more than they would do at a sporting event or standing in line waiting to get into a movie theater. That's BAD. That's VERY BAD. It misdirects their intent and acts to diffuse their enthusiasm, to misdirect it to a point where it's entirely self-serving, just so they can go home and sleep a bit better at night knowing that they have "done something."

Her wiki entry? It briefly says she credits the kids in Florida that, for a time, became "activists" to promote gun control after their school was shot up and students died. In reality, their efforts were basically just camera fodder for current-events viewers. Since then, they've been called up, here and there, as sympathetic figures to promote an idea, but that's it. And, at the time, so many young people were saying "this is it, this is when our voice matters." Voices don't mean crap unless they're heard and unless focused action follows.

Adults do not like being lectured by children, either, no matter how good it makes the child feel. They just don't. It's a fact. That doesn't mean something can't grow from that, but it's got to be more than just caterwauling and curses. It's going to have to involve the more seasoned and deliberate approach a fully devoted adult would commit to a project that involves the adult world. That's what works.

And, it's not easy.