Not "troubled" exactly.

The Democratic establishment isn't interested in pushing a specific policy agenda, or loyalty, or anything like that. They are fundamentally interested in preserving their own party above all else. So if it means they have to shut down people who actually push for policies they claim to push, they'll do that. If they have to suck up to billionaires they claim to want to tax and regulate, they'll do that. If they have to give lip-service and a token policy to the left every so often to keep them voting, they'll do that. It's why Democrats want to "raise taxes" but conspicuously always want to raise them to a level that doesn't even go up to the level of the last tax cut. They're not actually pushing a liberal policy agenda, they're throwing a bone to the left in such a way that preserves their votes on the left while preserving their corporate donors.

And yes, if they have to snub candidates the people like and invite questionable people instead because that questionable person can do them favors, they'll do that too.

It's why the left is so disillusioned with the corporate wing of the democratic party. We all know they're not actually interested in pushing a liberal policy agenda and we're just getting a bone every so often. But we don't exactly have a home anywhere else, so what can we really do?

The plan sets out specific, and quite aggressive, timelines for net-zero emissions and 100% power production from clean sources. 10 years for the U.S., 30 years for the entire world.
The plan does not say "end fossil fuels as soon as we are technologically able to do so, whenever that might be". Given the very short timeframe, relative to the size of the task of eliminating virtually all greenhouse emissions, it seems exceedingly unlikely that we will have the corresponding technology ready by 2030, or 2035.



There are various sources of inevitable emissions, and carbon capturing technology is not very advanced yet. Barring a huge technological breakthrough on carbon-capturing, society will need all of the very tight carbon budget (that capturing affords us in a net-zero-emissions-world) for other purposes than private use or personal convenience.



Like I said: not an explicit ban on fossil fuels - just setting goals and targets that in practice will be impossible to be met without the ban.

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Aug 21 2020 11:57am

It literally says exactly what you're saying it doesn't say, and it says it multiple times. You can now admit you were just repeating propaganda and slink away.

This post was edited by Thor123422 on Aug 21 2020 12:00pm

That's b/c she didn't want to waste other people's money like Bernie. Look, if Gabbard wasn't going to retire, she probably would have been in the roll call vote for Hawaii. Instead, she decided that she's done with politics and we should respect her wishes.

Note that the "as technologically feasible"-qualifier is always attached to specific sectors, like transportation or manufacturing. See what I wrote about "various sources of inevitable emissions will remain, and eat up all of the very tight carbon budget afforded to us by capturing technology in a zero-emissions world".

Like I said: in practice, the GND implies a ban on all private and virtually all industrial use of fossils. Otherwise, it would be impossible to reach the net-zero emissions goal that is set to 2030 by the GND without any "as technologically feasible" attached to it.

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Aug 21 2020 12:07pm

You can keep repeating a lie, but that doesn't make it true. There is no implication of a ban anywhere in the GND, it sets a goal of being carbon neutral and sets out the way to achieve that goal as investment in technology to reduce emissions and in the technology to do carbon capture. All you can do is say "well, if they want to be carbon neutral, under our current technology that implies a ban", which is true, but not at all what the GND actually says, and that being what the GND says is actively refuted by the fact that it explicitly states these goals will need to be done through technological investment.

This post was edited by Thor123422 on Aug 21 2020 12:17pm

that's called a dodge
how many examples of trump gaffes and speaking poorly would i need to post for you to reconsider
there is no number
you are a trumpet
you cannot be saved
your soul is sold

Like?

This is literally how all of my political conversation go in real life

"So you think trump is racist? give me an example"

"Oh tere are so many"

"Like which"

"All of em, you know."

"No, actually I don't. Give me an example"

"Lol cultist"

His employees had to hide the black workers in the back when he came around.

He had to settle racial discrimination cases in who he rented/sold too.

That was easy.

Its not racial discrimination if your credit score is lower.

GG no re go back to school