AOC vs Trump

[Revoltingest]

I think the GND RESOLUTION addresses your question directly. In case you've forgotten, it's a resolution that puts forth goals. Very similar to when JFK said "get a man to the moon in a decade". JFK didn't hand NASA a detailed plan, he established a goal. That's what the GND does - it establishes goals.

To have succeeded at one audacious & difficult thing doesn't
mean automatic success at every audacious & difficult thing
imaginable.
The moon landing is vastly different from the AOC plan.
- It was achievable in a reasonable time schedule.
- It was a singular task, one which didn't require social &
economic upheaval of the entire country...nay, the entire world.
- The result was precisely knowable, unlike future worldwide
climate response over centuries.

If we're to eliminate airplanes & cars, why stop there?
Let's think of some other ambitious projects which will work simply
because of unbridled enthusiasm & urgency....
- Anti-gravity technology.
- Faster than light travel.
- A strawberry flavored pill to cure all disease.

 

[icehorse]

But I suspect that we've more time than AOC thinks.
Bear in mind that she is not a climatologist.
She doesn't cite any scientific works supporting her claims.
And she has a record of gaffe after goofy gaffe.
Her ravings are unsupported, & this harms credibility.

As even the best politicians must do, she's simplifying the message so that people can understand it. She has zillions of scientists on her side as far as the spirit of her message is concerned.

Sometimes the fastest possible way to accomplish something
is to carefully plan it out so that it will receive wide support
to get started, it will be implemented in an acceptable way,
& the results can be measured, which inspires further action.

I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on the question of urgency. But know that in non-urgent situations, I'm totally with you.

To demand leaping before thinking would never even get off
the ground. That's the opposite of an urgent solution.

Two things:

1 - Zillions of scientists have been thinking about this for decades.
2 - She's put forth a set of GOALS, not a plan. She's leaving the planning to experts.

Even AOC doesn't really believe there's no time left to be reasonable.
She rides in SUVs, eats hamburgers, & lives in a luxury apartment complex.
If AOC herself doesn't walk the walk, this points to mere environmental
pandering by scare mongering.
Note:
Some Republicans live in their offices. Now that's green!

I'm torn on this point. Walking the talk would be better, but getting the message out as efficiently as possible probably overrides any savings in emissions she might singlehandedly accrue.

 

[icehorse]

To have succeeded at one audacious & difficult thing doesn't
mean automatic success at every audacious & difficult thing
imaginable.
The moon landing is vastly different from the AOC plan.
- It was achievable in a reasonable time schedule.
- It was a singular task, one which didn't require social &
economic upheaval of the entire country...nay, the entire world.
- The result was precisely knowable, unlike future worldwide
climate response over centuries.

This gets back to our disagreement about urgency. To me this is a "desperate times call for desperate measures". To you, it's not. I think that until we resolve that difference, we won't make any progress.

Again, given your context, I agree. It's just that I don't agree with your context. Context is everything.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

I'm torn on this point. Walking the talk would be better, but getting the message out as efficiently as possible probably overrides any savings in emissions she might singlehandedly accrue.

Of course walking the walk would be better, but it's also important to remember why ad hominems are a fallacy. If a smoker tells you "smoking is bad for you", the fact they are a smoker doesn't make them wrong, just hypocritical. Likewise, it doesn't matter how many air conditioners Al Gore has, if his information is sound. Criticise him for hypocrisy, by all means, but him being a hypocrite doesn't actually make him wrong.

 

[Revoltingest]

As even the best politicians must do, she's simplifying the message so that people can understand it. She has zillions of scientists on her side as far as the spirit of her message is concerned.

"Zillions of scientists" agree that the world will end in 12 years?
That we must eliminate cars & planes to avoid total planetary destruction?

I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on the question of urgency. But know that in non-urgent situations, I'm totally with you.

How is this urgency analyzed & quantified?

1 - Zillions of scientists have been thinking about this for decades.

This doesn't address exactly what they're thinking.

2 - She's put forth a set of GOALS, not a plan. She's leaving the planning to experts.

Goals which are laughable & lacking in anything actionable are actually counter-productive.

I'm torn on this point. Walking the talk would be better, but getting the message out as efficiently as possible probably overrides any savings in emissions she might singlehandedly accrue.

IOW, she's so important to the environment that she's exempt,
ie, "Do as I say! Not as I do."?

If things really are so urgent, then we must get started now.
Laughable goals will get us nowhere. And without the whole
world involved, we'll not solve the problem. Thus, her goals are
irrelevant because no one who can do anything will act upon them.

We need politically practical proposals now, ie, things which lawmakers
might actually agree to act upon for environmental betterment.
(Not DOA pie in the sky fantasies.)
I've offered some repeatedly here.
What's she got?

 

[BSM1]

What about me?

Exactly.

 

[BSM1]

I think the GND RESOLUTION addresses your question directly. In case you've forgotten, it's a resolution that puts forth goals. Very similar to when JFK said "get a man to the moon in a decade". JFK didn't hand NASA a detailed plan, he established a goal. That's what the GND does - it establishes goals.

No, it doesn't. A lot of empty, emotional rhetoric aimed at the gullible but not one concrete idea on how to change the "inevitable". The old cowboy admonition comes to mind, "...all hat and no cattle...".

 

[BSM1]

As even the best politicians must do, she's simplifying the message so that people can understand it. She has zillions of scientists on her side as far as the spirit of her message is concerned.

Name one.

 

[Revoltingest]

Of course walking the walk would be better, but it's also important to remember why ad hominems are a fallacy. If a smoker tells you "smoking is bad for you", the fact they are a smoker doesn't make them wrong, just hypocritical. Likewise, it doesn't matter how many air conditioners Al Gore has, if his information is sound. Criticise him for hypocrisy, by all means, but him being a hypocrite doesn't actually make him wrong.

If these politicians tell us we must make huge sacrifices or
the planet will be destroyed, yet they themselves live lavishly,
it calls into question their honesty. They don't really believe
what they say....they just pander because the frightened masses
give them support, money & votes.

 

[Shad]

This gets back to our disagreement about urgency. To me this is a "desperate times call for desperate measures". To you, it's not. I think that until we resolve that difference, we won't make any progress.

That has been the bait for massive power grabs for centuries.

 

[Shad]

I think the GND RESOLUTION addresses your question directly. In case you've forgotten, it's a resolution that puts forth goals. Very similar to when JFK said "get a man to the moon in a decade". JFK didn't hand NASA a detailed plan, he established a goal. That's what the GND does - it establishes goals.

No one voted for the resolution so it is dead anyways.

 

[Revoltingest]

No, it doesn't. A lot of empty, emotional rhetoric aimed at the gullible but not one concrete idea on how to change the "inevitable". The old cowboy admonition comes to mind, "...all hat and no cattle...".

Her real goal appears to be getting a fearful populace to grant government
the authority to impose massive changes & great restrictions upon us to
solve a problem for which they've no defined solutions.
Wasn't it Peter Parker's Uncle Ben who said....
"With great power comes great responsibility...& also
great power to things to us which we never anticipated."
(I improved the quote a little.)

 

[Revoltingest]

That has been the bait for massive power grabs for centuries.

The sky is falling!
The enemy is at the gates!
There's no time to think!
Thinking wastes valuable time!
We must act now!

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Exactly.

Oh, I made that mistake again of assuming you wanted a good faith discussion, didn't I? Oh well. Third time lucky.

 

[Revoltingest]

Oh, I made that mistake again of assuming you wanted a good faith discussion, didn't I? Oh well. Third time lucky.

BSM1 can be coaxed into conversation.
Pretend you like & respect him.
(I do that.)

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

No, it doesn't. A lot of empty, emotional rhetoric aimed at the gullible but not one concrete idea on how to change the "inevitable". The old cowboy admonition comes to mind, "...all hat and no cattle...".

Your citing of actual specific elements with well constructed arguments against them sure is compelling.

Oh wait, no it's not, because you just supplied a vague criticism and an ad hom.

Have you even read what your criticising?

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Name one.

 

[Revoltingest]

View attachment 27897

Anti-Trumpettes believe they have The Truth.
Anyone who disagrees with them has no facts.
"They oppose The Truth!" We hear from them.
But ask them for evidence of the world's impending
doom if government doesn't do as they say immediately
& without question......
<crickets chirping>

There's more to making a cogent argument than claiming
to have the "facts". They must be presented as part of
a reasoned argument. Let the presentation begin.

 

[fantome profane]

That we must eliminate cars & planes

This kind of right wing talking point does nothing to advance the conversation. No one is saying we must eliminate cars and planes. There is nothing in the Green New Deal about eliminating cars or planes, Trump will tell his crowd this lie over and over again because he likes the response he gets, but there is no truth to it.

 

[Revoltingest]

This kind of right wing talking point does nothing to advance the conversation.

It was a (shorthand) left wing talking point from the GND.
Even Pelosi dissed it.
The proposal is so looney that the only conversation being
advanced is an argument about whether it's looney or not.
It isn't about any real world proposal to actually do something.