Political Roundtable Part XXV

[Jamaaliver]

So glad to have a president the whole world respects.

Mike Pence Expected Applause When He Mentioned Trump in Munich. He Got Silence.

Vice President Mike Pence left room for applause. But no one clapped. At a security conference in Munich on Saturday, Pence mentioned President Donald Trump, noting he was there “on behalf of a champion of freedom and of a strong national defense.” The vice president went on: “I bring greetings from the 45th President of the United States of America, President Donald Trump.” Pence then paused for applause but no one in the room clapped. After what seem like a very long five seconds, Pence continues with his speech.

Read on Twitter

In a copy of Pence’s prepared remarks that were published on the White House’s website, there is parenthetical note of “applause” after those words. The prepared remarks also mention “applause” after Pence introduces Sen. Lindsey Graham, which he did receive. The vice president was also supposed to introduce House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (and wait for her applause) but he ended up skipping that introduction.

The silence when Trump’s name was uttered was partly a reflection of how the conference in Munich put on display just how divided Europe is from Washington under Trump. “No one any longer believes that Trump cares about the views or interests of the allies,” a senior German official told the New York Times. “It’s broken.”

Slate

[JWizmentality]

So glad to have a president the whole world respects.

Mike Pence Expected Applause When He Mentioned Trump in Munich. He Got Silence.

Vice President Mike Pence left room for applause. But no one clapped. At a security conference in Munich on Saturday, Pence mentioned President Donald Trump, noting he was there “on behalf of a champion of freedom and of a strong national defense.” The vice president went on: “I bring greetings from the 45th President of the United States of America, President Donald Trump.” Pence then paused for applause but no one in the room clapped. After what seem like a very long five seconds, Pence continues with his speech.

Read on Twitter

In a copy of Pence’s prepared remarks that were published on the White House’s website, there is parenthetical note of “applause” after those words. The prepared remarks also mention “applause” after Pence introduces Sen. Lindsey Graham, which he did receive. The vice president was also supposed to introduce House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (and wait for her applause) but he ended up skipping that introduction.

The silence when Trump’s name was uttered was partly a reflection of how the conference in Munich put on display just how divided Europe is from Washington under Trump. “No one any longer believes that Trump cares about the views or interests of the allies,” a senior German official told the New York Times. “It’s broken.”

Slate

Winning?

[gtn130]

First we preach that we don't want ignorance. Then it is okay to be ignorant. Guess we are okay with voters that are good with the best catch phrase. MAGA vs. GND - you'll never know the details... and they don't matter. Just trust me.

We live in a representative democracy. We don’t need to be policy experts to support policy outcomes. AOC and Bernie are fighting for policy outcomes that I want. I don’t have the time to sift through policy details to determine the impact each thing will have on the deficit or how certain carveouts will impact industry or costs.

The alternative is vote for people who don’t support the policy outcomes I want. That isn’t a reasonable alternative.

Questions for you: what are the policy outcomes you want? “Sustainable government” isn’t an answer. What services do you expect the government to provide and to what extent?

Who in politics do you support? Who would you most support in 2020?

I think that is the crux of your argument. Therefore you don't actually need to understand what is being proposed.

You could make that argument for the other side, no? Edit: I care about the makeup of the SCOTUS therefore I am will to vote for a tax cheat and serial liar.

And what outcomes are they fighting for that you want if you don't know what their policies will actually do? You don't - this is the definition of willful ignorance.

No, not at all. You're comparing lacking policy expertise to being a tax cheat and serial liar. These are not the same thing.

My argument is that you can elect people who you believe are smart and capable and share your beliefs and push for the same policy outcomes so that you don't need to read the fine print of every single piece of legislation that reaches public discourse. it's literally not my job to do that and it's why we elect people to represent us.

But going back to AOC and Bernie, you're attacking policies that will change many times over before there's even a vehicle to pass them. The things you're attacking literally do not matter because they won't exist in the near future.

What does matter is that Bernie and AOC are authentically fighting for policies that will help people.

[dckingsfan]

We live in a representative democracy. We don’t need to be policy experts to support policy outcomes. AOC and Bernie are fighting for policy outcomes that I want. I don’t have the time to sift through policy details to determine the impact each thing will have on the deficit or how certain carveouts will impact industry or costs.

The alternative is vote for people who don’t support the policy outcomes I want. That isn’t a reasonable alternative.

Questions for you: what are the policy outcomes you want? “Sustainable government” isn’t an answer. What services do you expect the government to provide and to what extent?

Who in politics do you support? Who would you most support in 2020?

I think that is the crux of your argument. Therefore you don't actually need to understand what is being proposed.

You could make that argument for the other side, no? Edit: I care about the makeup of the SCOTUS therefore I am will to vote for a tax cheat and serial liar.

And what outcomes are they fighting for that you want if you don't know what their policies will actually do? You don't - this is the definition of willful ignorance.

No, not at all. You're comparing lacking policy expertise to being a tax cheat and serial liar. These are not the same thing.

My argument is that you can elect people who you believe are smart and capable and share your beliefs and push for the same policy outcomes so that you don't need to read the fine print of every single piece of legislation that reaches public discourse. it's literally not my job to do that and it's why we elect people to represent us.
But going back to AOC and Bernie, you're attacking policies that will change many times over before there's even a vehicle to pass them. The things you're attacking literally do not matter because they won't exist in the near future.

What does matter is that Bernie and AOC are authentically fighting for policies that will help people.

Okay, I hear you - you like what they represent (generally) so you are going to back them. Got it.

We are of two different mindsets then. I want to know what they back AND how they will accomplish their policy proposals. I don't believe (based upon their proposals) that either are smart and capable (at this time).

I also don't agree with the way both have laid out their argument(s) either. But, I guess there is no point in having the discussion - you don't want to go into that level of detail. And you believe it will change anyway, so why have a policy discussion.

But, isn't that the definition of tribal? And isn't that exactly why folks voted for that POS Trump at least as a subset (I want the guy that gets a conservative SCOTUS) (replace: authentically fighting for policies that will help people with authentically fighting for policies that will help unborn babies).

[Ruzious]

Florida sixth-grader charged with misdemeanor after refusing to recite Pledge of Allegiance

A Florida student is facing misdemeanor charges after a confrontation with his teacher that began with his refusal to recite the Pledge of Allegiance and escalated into what officials described as disruptive behavior.

The student, a sixth-grader at Lawton Chiles Middle Academy in Lakeland, Fla., east of Tampa, refused to stand for the pledge, telling the teacher that he thinks the flag and the national anthem are “racist” against black people, according to an affidavit. The teacher then had what appeared to be a contentious exchange with him.

Spoiler:

Alvarez responded by saying, “Well you can always go back, because I came here from Cuba, and the day I feel I’m not welcome here anymore, I would find another place to live.” She then called the district office because she did not want to keep dealing with the student, according to the statement.

Officials said the situation escalated. The student yelled at the dean and a school resource officer who came to the classroom, accused them of being racist and repeatedly refused to leave the room.

“Suspend me! I don’t care. This school is racist,” the student, who is black, told the dean as he walked out of the room with his backpack, according to the affidavit.

The student was later charged with disruption of a school facility and resisting an officer without violence.

The Lakeland Police Department said in a news release that the student was not arrested for refusing to recite the Pledge of Allegiance.

“This arrest was based on the student’s choice to disrupt the classroom, make threats and resisting the officer’s efforts to leave the classroom,” the release said.

Washington Post

11-Year-Old Arrested After Refusing to Stand for Pledge of Allegiance

A student at the Lawton Chiles Middle Academy in Lakeland, Florida was arrested after he refused to stand for the Pledge of Allegiance. The incident began after a substitute teacher asked the 11-year-old to stand and he refused, explaining that he thought the U.S. flag was racist. The teacher then apparently got into a contentious argument with the boy and asked “Why if it was so bad here he did not go to another place to live,” according to a statement the teacher gave to the district. “They brought me here,” the boy replied.

Slate




I expect kids to do/say dumb things. But it's problematic when the adults are even dumber.

Guess what; it's gonna continue to get worse - probably much worse. Look at the thing we elected President.

[gtn130]

I think that is the crux of your argument. Therefore you don't actually need to understand what is being proposed.

You could make that argument for the other side, no? Edit: I care about the makeup of the SCOTUS therefore I am will to vote for a tax cheat and serial liar.

And what outcomes are they fighting for that you want if you don't know what their policies will actually do? You don't - this is the definition of willful ignorance.

No, not at all. You're comparing lacking policy expertise to being a tax cheat and serial liar. These are not the same thing.

My argument is that you can elect people who you believe are smart and capable and share your beliefs and push for the same policy outcomes so that you don't need to read the fine print of every single piece of legislation that reaches public discourse. it's literally not my job to do that and it's why we elect people to represent us.
But going back to AOC and Bernie, you're attacking policies that will change many times over before there's even a vehicle to pass them. The things you're attacking literally do not matter because they won't exist in the near future.

What does matter is that Bernie and AOC are authentically fighting for policies that will help people.

Okay, I hear you - you like what they represent (generally) so you are going to back them. Got it.

We are of two different mindsets then. I want to know what they back AND how they will accomplish their policy proposals. I don't believe (based upon their proposals) that either are smart and capable (at this time).

I also don't agree with the way both have laid out their argument(s) either. But, I guess there is no point in having the discussion - you don't want to go into that level of detail. And you believe it will change anyway, so why have a policy discussion.

But, isn't that the definition of tribal? And isn't that exactly why folks voted for that POS Trump at least as a subset (I want the guy that gets a conservative SCOTUS) (replace: authentically fighting for policies that will help people with authentically fighting for policies that will help unborn babies).

I will clarify a bit - there's a difference in my mind between the ACA policy discussions that dominated political discourse in 2009 and the GND discussions of today. The difference is that ACA was policy that could very realistically be passed and implemented in the near future, so those policy details were important and were going to decide the fate of the bill and how successful it would be.

GND is all pie in the sky - by design. The GND is primarily a tool to define policy objectives and build support. From my perspective, as a person who shares those policy objectives, I can look at the GND and say: Yes, those are things I want. I'm not sure how they'll eventually get there, and I'm sure there will be many changes and compromises along the way, but if they get 70% there it will be a huge victory.

To your point about tribalism - I don't think that's fair. I certainly wouldn't support the scorched earth tactics anti-abortion folks do. There are plenty of lines I would draw, but I don't think anything relevant has actually come up yet? Like if it turns out Bernie sexually assaulted someone or wore blackface, I would obviously no longer support him. Basically anything Trump has done is disqualifying behavior for anyone I'd support.

[Jamaaliver]

Guess what; it's gonna continue to get worse - probably much worse. Look at the thing we elected President.

I see this through a different lens. I'm of the belief that Trump's election is a symptom of simmering issues of race. Not the cause.


And I see a direct correlation between Colin Kaepernick's nuanced, silent protest during the anthem...and some smart mouth kid refusing to say the anthem 'because it's racist'.


That kid showed his a** in front of a substitute. But adults should know better than to argue with children. Particularly over issues of race and politics.

The young person defied authority (because rebelling is cool?) and the authority figure escalated a minor dispute into the arrest of a young child.

There are no winners in that scenarios. There are no 'good guys' here.



PS My name is Jamaal; I grew up in Atlanta. You can deduce my background pretty accurately from there.

[dckingsfan]

No, not at all. You're comparing lacking policy expertise to being a tax cheat and serial liar. These are not the same thing.

My argument is that you can elect people who you believe are smart and capable and share your beliefs and push for the same policy outcomes so that you don't need to read the fine print of every single piece of legislation that reaches public discourse. it's literally not my job to do that and it's why we elect people to represent us.
But going back to AOC and Bernie, you're attacking policies that will change many times over before there's even a vehicle to pass them. The things you're attacking literally do not matter because they won't exist in the near future.

What does matter is that Bernie and AOC are authentically fighting for policies that will help people.

Okay, I hear you - you like what they represent (generally) so you are going to back them. Got it.

We are of two different mindsets then. I want to know what they back AND how they will accomplish their policy proposals. I don't believe (based upon their proposals) that either are smart and capable (at this time).

I also don't agree with the way both have laid out their argument(s) either. But, I guess there is no point in having the discussion - you don't want to go into that level of detail. And you believe it will change anyway, so why have a policy discussion.

But, isn't that the definition of tribal? And isn't that exactly why folks voted for that POS Trump at least as a subset (I want the guy that gets a conservative SCOTUS) (replace: authentically fighting for policies that will help people with authentically fighting for policies that will help unborn babies).

I will clarify a bit - there's a difference in my mind between the ACA policy discussions that dominated political discourse in 2009 and the GND discussions of today. The difference is that ACA was policy that could very realistically be passed and implemented in the near future, so those policy details were important and were going to decide the fate of the bill and how successful it would be.

GND is all pie in the sky - by design. The GND is primarily a tool to define policy objectives and build support. From my perspective, as a person who shares those policy objectives, I can look at the GND and say: Yes, those are things I want. I'm not sure how they'll eventually get there, and I'm sure there will be many changes and compromises along the way, but if they get 70% there it will be a huge victory.

To your point about tribalism - I don't think that's fair. I certainly wouldn't support the scorched earth tactics anti-abortion folks do. There are plenty of lines I would draw, but I don't think anything relevant has actually come up yet? Like if it turns out Bernie sexually assaulted someone or wore blackface, I would obviously no longer support him. Basically anything Trump has done is disqualifying behavior for anyone I'd support.

Yep, GND is pie in the sky (worth reading BTW):
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/5729035/Green-New-Deal-FAQ.pdf

So was MAGA.

Sorry. It really is tribal. Imagine if the anti-abortion folks finally had some brains, realized RU 486 isn't going anywhere and came out with proposal which endorsed motherhood and a baby's rights. They would still be the conservatives but their proposal would be solid and worth endorsing.

Look, you are clearly not a global warming denier. But I am thinking you are still a believe that global warming can be reversed with the simple proposals in the GND. They can't. And the GND doesn't even START to address that fact. Worse, the only way to address the problem(s) ahead is to get a super majority behind the proposals. This wasn't the way to get there...

[dckingsfan]

Guess what; it's gonna continue to get worse - probably much worse. Look at the thing we elected President.

I see this through a different lens. I'm of the belief that Trump's election is a symptom of simmering issues of race. Not the cause.

What I don't understand is that people of color didn't come out and vote. So, is it a symptom of race and apathy?

[Ruzious]

Guess what; it's gonna continue to get worse - probably much worse. Look at the thing we elected President.

I see this through a different lens. I'm of the belief that Trump's election is a symptom of simmering issues of race. Not the cause.


And I see a direct correlation between Colin Kaepernick's nuanced, silent protest during the anthem...and some smart mouth kid refusing to say the anthem 'because it's racist'.


That kid showed his a** in front of a substitute. But adults should know better than to argue with children. Particularly over issues of race and politics.

The young person defied authority (because rebelling is cool?) and the authority figure escalated a minor dispute into the arrest of a young child.

There are no winner sin that scenarios. There are no 'good guys' there.



PS My name is Jamaal; I grew up in Atlanta. You can deduce my background pretty accurately from there.

Adults should not make stupid arguments to kids and have police charge kids with a crime over whether or not he says or stands for the Pledge of Allegiance. It's a completely idiotic situation - almost... unbelievably so.

[Jamaaliver]

Guess what; it's gonna continue to get worse - probably much worse. Look at the thing we elected President.

I see this through a different lens. I'm of the belief that Trump's election is a symptom of simmering issues of race. Not the cause.

What I don't understand is that people of color didn't come out and vote. So, is it a symptom of race and apathy?

Sadly, the voting numbers of African Americans are consistently underwhelming.

Apathy and a complete lack of faith in the system are part of the problem.

Gerrymandering and voter suppression efforts are at issue as well.


Ease/availability of voting are also issues. If you have to work and have kids at home, it's hard to carve out a couple of hours on a Tuesday to vote.

(And Republicans have specifically cited this as motivation in keeping election day from being a federal holiday or moved to the weekend.)

Spoiler:

Mitch McConnell: making Election Day a federal holiday is a Democratic “power grab



Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell doesn’t think Election Day should be a federal holiday because that would give Democrats too much power.

“Just what America needs, another paid holiday and a bunch of government workers being paid to go out and work ... [on Democratic] campaigns,” he snarked on the Senate floor. “This is the Democrat plan to restore democracy? ... A power grab.”

The proposal to make Election Day a federal holiday is based on a simple reality: A wide swath of the American public doesn’t vote — and most of those nonvoters say they skipped the polls because they had to work or get kids to school and didn’t have the time.

Vox -- Jan 2019

[dckingsfan]

I see this through a different lens. I'm of the belief that Trump's election is a symptom of simmering issues of race. Not the cause.

What I don't understand is that people of color didn't come out and vote. So, is it a symptom of race and apathy?

Sadly, the voting numbers of African Americans are consistently underwhelming.

Apathy and a complete lack of faith in the system are part of the problem.

Gerrymandering and voter suppression efforts are at issue as well.

Ease/availability of voting are also issues. If you have to work and have kids at home, it's hard to carve out a couple of hours on a Tuesday to vote.

(And Republicans have specifically cited this as motivation in keeping election day from being a federal holiday or moved to the weekend.)

Spoiler:

Mitch McConnell: making Election Day a federal holiday is a Democratic “power grab



Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell doesn’t think Election Day should be a federal holiday because that would give Democrats too much power.

“Just what America needs, another paid holiday and a bunch of government workers being paid to go out and work ... [on Democratic] campaigns,” he snarked on the Senate floor. “This is the Democrat plan to restore democracy? ... A power grab.”

The proposal to make Election Day a federal holiday is based on a simple reality: A wide swath of the American public doesn’t vote — and most of those nonvoters say they skipped the polls because they had to work or get kids to school and didn’t have the time.

Vox -- Jan 2019

I hear you on voter suppression. But I walked on election day and I talked to Hispanics and Blacks who were at home but didn't go to the polls (I really didn't get this behavior, especially when the polls were two to three blocks away). And they came out large for Obama but stayed home for Hillary?

[Jamaaliver]

I hear you on voter suppression. But I walked on election day and I talked to Hispanics and Blacks who were at home but didn't go to the polls (I really didn't get this behavior, especially when the polls were two to three blocks away). And they came out large for Obama but stayed home for Hillary?

Absoluitely. That speaks to the apathy concerns.

A response i heard from multiple people of color throughout election season, "I'm with her...I guess."

Not a ringing endorsement.

Not exactly the enthusiasm Democrats hoped to hear.

Even with someone as scary as Trump on the other side, these voters needed someone to vote FOR, instead of merely someone to vote against.


It's no coincidence yo u see so many women and minorities vying for the Democratic nomination now -- they each hope to invigorate the many folks across the spectrum who failed to vote in 2016.

[I_Like_Dirt]

What I don't understand is that people of color didn't come out and vote. So, is it a symptom of race and apathy?

It's a symptom of race. The data is strikingly clear on this. And the change happened right after Obama was elected, not Trump. Once that happened, suddenly something changed in the minds of lots of voters. There are also lots of voters who vote the same way every time, or never vote, but once Obama was elected, the Democratic and Republican parties suddenly started connecting in people's brains consistently as parties being for and against minorities respectively. Trump's team picked up on that really quickly in the game and he got out in front on the issue.

And yes, there is a certain degree of apathy. You only have to see the African American vote drop dramatically in 2016 while the Caucasian vote trends back upwards after sliding under Obama. There are other factors at play, too. Sometimes it can be social factors. A person might not care so much for a particular candidate and not voting can be a means of holding a party accountable for internal political reasons. Or maybe someone sees the anger and frustrations amongst their friends and decides that it's time. How many people didn't vote in the Obama elections because they felt it was a foregone conclusion or because of some sort of condescending reasons of it being time.

The thing with apathy is that's it's always going to be there. And it's also tough to separate from a lot of the vote suppression tactics out there. Realistically, of those who weren't apathetic, and it was still quite a lot of people. This has been about race basically since Obama and it isn't showing signs of slowing down. Republicans now have their new brown bogeyman to blame everything on and the mounting hatred creates a rather easy target for many Democrats. It puts a wedge in almost every issue imaginable and in the end, as with most things, invariably devolves along rich/poor fault lines even though the poor in particular often fail to identify the issue as such.

[dckingsfan]

So, Bernie's campaign (not Bernie) was both racist and misogynistic. Maybe he should take a pass in 2020.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/17/us/politics/bernie-sanders-black-voters-outreach.html

[gtn130]

Yep, GND is pie in the sky (worth reading BTW):
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/5729035/Green-New-Deal-FAQ.pdf

I've read it.

So was MAGA.

The false equivalencies are tiresome, man. If you can't see that Trump and the GND are not the same thing, I can't help you.

Sorry. It really is tribal. Imagine if the anti-abortion folks finally had some brains, realized RU 486 isn't going anywhere and came out with proposal which endorsed motherhood and a baby's rights. They would still be the conservatives but their proposal would be solid and worth endorsing.

I don't actually see what is bad about building a coalition around policy goals. It doesn't seem tribalistic at all in any colloquial interpretation of the word. I'm literally just looking at candidates with policy goals I agree with and voting for them. I'm not sure what else I'm even supposed to do?

But I am thinking you are still a believe that global warming can be reversed with the simple proposals in the GND.

I have no idea why you'd that. I've never once said that the GND would solve all of humanities problems. I just said I support it.

I'm not sure what you expect of liberal progressives other than to just abandon their policy objectives. You're calling it 'tribalism' when people are literally building a coalition around polices like M4A - what is tribalistic about that?

I asked and you didn't respond - what are your personal policy goals? Who are the candidates you support?

[I_Like_Dirt]

So, Bernie's campaign (not Bernie) was both racist and misogynistic. Maybe he should take a pass in 2020.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/17/us/politics/bernie-sanders-black-voters-outreach.html

Bernie's supporters push to the radical side of the political spectrum which is actually closer to the reactionary side inhabited by Trump's supporters. And while I don't think Bernie is racist or sexist himself, it's clear where his priorities lie and people pick up on that. The condescending tones against the unenlightened Ds from Bernie Bros were and area seriously concerning. It isn't actually that hard to bring in a lot of the social details into Bernie's larger plan, and he clearly addresses them in his platform, but then when it's time to really speak up and/or act, he proves time and again that his priorities don't really extend that far, either. I hope the Ds do better.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/may/03/bernie-sanders-failure-diversity-hispanic-black-voters

[Jamaaliver]

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Celebrated Amazon Pulling Out of New York––But the Governor Says It Cost the City 25,000 Jobs

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez declared victory when Amazon announced Thursday that it would not build a second headquarters (known as HQ2) in Queens, New York. Gov. Andrew Cuomo called it a “lost economic opportunity” and blamed “a small group [of] politicians [who] put their own narrow political interests above their community.”

The dispute between the two Democrats lays bare a divide over the plan to offer $2.8 billion in tax breaks for Amazon to establish a major presence in New York City. On one side, old hands like Cuomo; on the other, the newly insurgent, left-leaning wing represented by Ocasio-Cortez.

“Today was the day a group of dedicated, everyday New Yorkers and their neighbors defeated Amazon’s corporate greed, its worker exploitation and the power of the richest man in the world,” Ocasio-Cortez wrote on Twitter. The new development would have been in the Long Island City neighborhood of Queens, near Ocasio-Cortez’s district.

Cuomo and other supporters of the project said that Amazon would have brought more than enough investment to the city to justify the tax breaks, and would have established New York as a tech hub to rival other hubs like San Francisco.

Additionally, he said, HQ2 would have brought “at least 25,000-40,000 good paying jobs for our state and nearly $30 billion dollars in new revenue to fund transit improvements, new housing, schools and countless other quality-of-life improvements.”

However, Ocasio-Cortez on Twitter questioned the validity of the jobs figure and pointed to a report that Amazon will pay zero federal income tax in 2018, despite $11 billion in profits.

Read on Twitter

Time

[dckingsfan]

Pretty interesting one... on the one hand you have the local side those that were overstating the return on investment:
https://www.businessinsider.com/amazon-hq2-leaving-new-york-city-would-mean-tax-revenue-loss-2019-2

On the other hand, locally it seems like it would have been good for NY City and State long-term - even if the ratio had been 3:1.

A bit of truth on both sides...

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Celebrated Amazon Pulling Out of New York––But the Governor Says It Cost the City 25,000 Jobs

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez declared victory when Amazon announced Thursday that it would not build a second headquarters (known as HQ2) in Queens, New York. Gov. Andrew Cuomo called it a “lost economic opportunity” and blamed “a small group [of] politicians [who] put their own narrow political interests above their community.”

The dispute between the two Democrats lays bare a divide over the plan to offer $2.8 billion in tax breaks for Amazon to establish a major presence in New York City. On one side, old hands like Cuomo; on the other, the newly insurgent, left-leaning wing represented by Ocasio-Cortez.

“Today was the day a group of dedicated, everyday New Yorkers and their neighbors defeated Amazon’s corporate greed, its worker exploitation and the power of the richest man in the world,” Ocasio-Cortez wrote on Twitter. The new development would have been in the Long Island City neighborhood of Queens, near Ocasio-Cortez’s district.

Cuomo and other supporters of the project said that Amazon would have brought more than enough investment to the city to justify the tax breaks, and would have established New York as a tech hub to rival other hubs like San Francisco.

Additionally, he said, HQ2 would have brought “at least 25,000-40,000 good paying jobs for our state and nearly $30 billion dollars in new revenue to fund transit improvements, new housing, schools and countless other quality-of-life improvements.”

However, Ocasio-Cortez on Twitter questioned the validity of the jobs figure and pointed to a report that Amazon will pay zero federal income tax in 2018, despite $11 billion in profits.

Read on Twitter

Time

[dckingsfan]

Yep, GND is pie in the sky (worth reading BTW):
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/5729035/Green-New-Deal-FAQ.pdf

I've read it.

So was MAGA.

The false equivalencies are tiresome, man. If you can't see that Trump and the GND are not the same thing, I can't help you.

Sorry. It really is tribal. Imagine if the anti-abortion folks finally had some brains, realized RU 486 isn't going anywhere and came out with proposal which endorsed motherhood and a baby's rights. They would still be the conservatives but their proposal would be solid and worth endorsing.

I don't actually see what is bad about building a coalition around policy goals. It doesn't seem tribalistic at all in any colloquial interpretation of the word. I'm literally just looking at candidates with policy goals I agree with and voting for them. I'm not sure what else I'm even supposed to do?

But I am thinking you are still a believe that global warming can be reversed with the simple proposals in the GND.

I have no idea why you'd that. I've never once said that the GND would solve all of humanities problems. I just said I support it.

I'm not sure what you expect of liberal progressives other than to just abandon their policy objectives. You're calling it 'tribalism' when people are literally building a coalition around polices like M4A - what is tribalistic about that?

I asked and you didn't respond - what are your personal policy goals? Who are the candidates you support?

Actually, it is not a false equivalent in how I am comparing it. Both MAGA and GND didn't have workable details (the fence and no southern immigration and getting to zero carbon emissions were/are both wildly overstated). Both said "trust us", details to come. Both appeal to their policy "goals" at the expense of real policies. I know this sucks.

Looking at the actual policies proposed and critically understanding if they are realistic is the key. And then pushing forward in a politically, economically and technologically feasible way is solid politics. If you just throw out pie in the sky proposals, no one will take you seriously (what has happened to the GND folks from both the Rs and Ds (see Pelosi).

Me personally, I would like to move the country from the "yeah, Global Warming is Happening" to the "oops, too late - it is going to happen and now we have to mitigate the disaster".

I absolutely wouldn't tie Global Warming to each of my favorite projects. I believe each of those initiatives needs to stand on their own. Think if the Rs floated a Global Warming initiative linked to pro-life initiatives and a doubling of the military. It would be rejected immediately.

Each of those initiatives need to stand on their own (M4A, College for All, Economic security for those unwilling to work, etc..).

And we should be honest about the costs and how to get to a sustainable model which neither the MAGA or GND folks even try to do.

But in the end - if you are saying MAGA vs. GND. I choose GND. But not happily - both suck.