The GND is cheap as fuck.

57% not 'right wing'
Ink : ParD is a right wing forum



Who will you be fighting for this upcoming civil war? I don't think you fit in either side, both are too far to the right for your standards.

This post was edited by WiziLiCe on Sep 20 2020 01:49pm

Compared to the costs of doing nothing, extremely so. Most people are too focused on the here and now though, sadly.

I've personally been fairly successfull at convincing people to vote for green parties/legislature by making the argument for energy independence.

People like Ghot, who are so far up Trumps ass he can't see daylight, self describe as center on this forum.

North Korea isn't a peoples republic either btw

Anyone calling themselves a moderate here is center-right. Most of the "Left" people here are also centrists or socially center left liberals.



I'll be fighting for Free Cascadia.


The Green New Deal doesn't have a net cost.

https://newrepublic.com/article/153702/green-new-deal-costs-less-nothing

This post was edited by inkanddagger on Sep 20 2020 02:19pm

you will be sad to learn what the democratic party has been doing to the green party.
democrats often state that the republican party is preventing people from voting... as they actively remove a party from the ballot in key swing states.

So is misguided land management policy, and at least in Australia, the evidence is just as damning.

No one is arguing that climate change doesn't exist or whatever the straw man is that you've constructed in your mind. But that does not mean that every flood and fire is evidence of man made climate change, nor that radical and hyper expensive policy are the natural answer.

"Centre right" you need some mental training.

Except I never argued that any specific event is due to global warming, and neither did Bernie.

It's funny you say I'm constructing a straw man right before you smack a straw man.

The argument is that increasing instances of natural disasters will cost money, the mitigation of which offsets the cost of things meant to address the problem like the Green New Deal.

It's really that simple. You guys keep trying to say "Bernie said that the GND specifically would have stopped these exact disasters", which is just the dumbest take you could possibly have, and is only reasonable if you are going out of your way to ignore the fact that he referenced the events he did because they deal with frequency and basic scientific context on the issue.

That's actually exactly what he's saying. That these instances are specifically caused by climate change, that they cost money, and that the GND (which will stop these things) is cheap by comparison.