Page 75 of 88 FirstFirst ...
25
65
73
74
75
76
77
85
... LastLast
  1. #1481
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    78,904
    Quote Originally Posted by kaelleria View Post
    McKinsey came out already.... And it didn't hurt him whatsoever.

    Multiple stories published in many papers and many interviews on TV. It's a dead story. McKinsey allowed Pete to release his client list... In fact some think it had the opposite effect and helped Pete with the majority of people who don't gaf about it.
    And that people don't give a fuck is the problem. It's the same attitude on the right that led to them electing Trump. I'm condemning exactly that apathy.

    Please explain why you think he's an empty suit? Do you think he lacks conviction? Do you think he lacks policies? Because I can tell you he's been saying the same thing since before he started running. His team also has released a ton of detailed plans...
    https://peteforamerica.com/issues/
    https://ask.peteforamerica.com

    https://peteforamerica.com/toolkit/policy-printables/ for the quick read versions.

    https://www.vox.com/2020/2/4/2112163...tion-primaries
    As a for-instance, looking over his climate plans (which is where my own expertise mostly lies), there's a lot of "this is an issue" and "we need to spend and do more", but a lot of what he proposes doesn't go much further. When it comes to the local level, he talks about a new big spending regime on "regional resilience hubs". And let's look at a paragraph describing these, in detail;

    We must protect communities by establishing next-generation Regional Resilience Hubs to help communities understand and manage their risks.(1) The Hubs would be complemented by $5 billion per year in Resilient America Grants to support building resilient infrastructure and set a national climate risk reduction standard for federal investments (2). We will create a National Catastrophic Disaster Insurance program to provide stability to individuals and communities who experience the major disruptions caused by climate change and other natural risks such as earthquakes (3). And we will prioritize equitable disaster preparedness and relief so that all communities get the resources they need to prepare for, recover from, and rebuild from disasters, particularly communities of color; people with disabilities; seniors; and other populations especially vulnerable to climate impacts (4).
    I've added the colors and numbers, just so I can make my critique easier.

    First, the words in red are basically meaningless. They set no standards or specifics, and hand-wave the expectation. They're weasel words.

    The words in green all require massive explanation and definition. They're used liberally in climate change mitigation and adaptation measures, but having written a fair bit, you need to be citing exactly what definition you're using, or defining the terms for your own use, for them to actually mean anything. You can write entire chapters of a book defining and explaining a single one of those terms; I know because I've done so.

    (1); This seems very top-down, but expecting support from the ground up, and that's a pattern doomed to failure. The moment any community doesn't want the feds telling them what to do, things go south, fast. And it framed paternalistically enough that I foresee a lot of that reaction. You either need to empower locals, or tell them how it's got to be, you can't claim the former while doing the latter.

    (2) You really need specifics on who is getting access to this funding and how. Is it aimed at ameliorating costs in smaller infrastructure projects? In funding a few megaprojects (the seawall project in NYC is projected to cost something north of that, all by itself)? $5 billion is peanuts, frankly, too. Also, climate risk reduction is a particularly tricksy way to frame things. Do you mean reducing impacts? Then say so. Do you mean reducing losses due to insurance payouts from impacts? Not great for the person whose house got washed away, no?

    (3) One of the issues around climate change is people rebuilding with insurance payouts, on the same land plot that got hit in the last storm. One of the big things I've pushed for with groups like the IDB is not allowing rebuilding in such locations, with insurance payments. It often means you need to threaten to deny insurance coverage, rather than boosting it, ironically.

    (4) Talking about the need to focus on more-vulnerable communities first is so obvious it feels manipulative to include it. People with disabilities and seniors are often parts of a community, but aren't communities unto themselves, so that's also weird. It's just weirdly phrased.


  2. #1482
    Quote Originally Posted by Edge- View Post
    Or, the people tired with some of his supporters bullshit. That too. It's not our problem for calling out some people for being unreasonable, conspiratorial assholes, it's their problem for being unreasonable, conspiratorial assholes.

    We're not gonna turn a blind eye to this shit. That's what Republicans have done, and they've given up their morals as a result. Democrats and progressives should be better.
    Fine vote for trump then. You guys are the ones coming up with terms like Bernie bros and brocialists.

    You know the same kind of very intelligent name calling you see from trump supporters.

  3. #1483
    Quote Originally Posted by matt4pack View Post
    Fine vote for trump then. You guys are the ones coming up with terms like Bernie bros and brocialists.
    Unlike some of the salty Sanders supporters, I'm not terribly interested in shooting myself in the face for some "morally right" stance. I'm infinitely more interested in getting Trump out, and if that means I have to vote for a ham sandwich then so be it.

    I've never, ever, EVER, indicated that I'd vote for Trump under any circumstance.

    Quote Originally Posted by matt4pack View Post
    You know the same kind of very intelligent name calling you see from trump supporters.
    Don't think I've used "brocialist", but sadly "Bernie Bros" have proven themselves to actually exist and not just be a media creation. I'm not going to turn a blind eye to the worst of Sanders supporters just because he's a progressive. That's Trump/Republican style sticking your head in the sand.

    I'll keep calling it out because that's what progressives do, because we should always try to be better.

  4. #1484
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    And that people don't give a fuck is the problem. It's the same attitude on the right that led to them electing Trump. I'm condemning exactly that apathy.



    As a for-instance, looking over his climate plans (which is where my own expertise mostly lies), there's a lot of "this is an issue" and "we need to spend and do more", but a lot of what he proposes doesn't go much further. When it comes to the local level, he talks about a new big spending regime on "regional resilience hubs". And let's look at a paragraph describing these, in detail;



    I've added the colors and numbers, just so I can make my critique easier.

    First, the words in red are basically meaningless. They set no standards or specifics, and hand-wave the expectation. They're weasel words.

    The words in green all require massive explanation and definition. They're used liberally in climate change mitigation and adaptation measures, but having written a fair bit, you need to be citing exactly what definition you're using, or defining the terms for your own use, for them to actually mean anything. You can write entire chapters of a book defining and explaining a single one of those terms; I know because I've done so.

    (1); This seems very top-down, but expecting support from the ground up, and that's a pattern doomed to failure. The moment any community doesn't want the feds telling them what to do, things go south, fast. And it framed paternalistically enough that I foresee a lot of that reaction. You either need to empower locals, or tell them how it's got to be, you can't claim the former while doing the latter.

    (2) You really need specifics on who is getting access to this funding and how. Is it aimed at ameliorating costs in smaller infrastructure projects? In funding a few megaprojects (the seawall project in NYC is projected to cost something north of that, all by itself)? $5 billion is peanuts, frankly, too. Also, climate risk reduction is a particularly tricksy way to frame things. Do you mean reducing impacts? Then say so. Do you mean reducing losses due to insurance payouts from impacts? Not great for the person whose house got washed away, no?

    (3) One of the issues around climate change is people rebuilding with insurance payouts, on the same land plot that got hit in the last storm. One of the big things I've pushed for with groups like the IDB is not allowing rebuilding in such locations, with insurance payments. It often means you need to threaten to deny insurance coverage, rather than boosting it, ironically.

    (4) Talking about the need to focus on more-vulnerable communities first is so obvious it feels manipulative to include it. People with disabilities and seniors are often parts of a community, but aren't communities unto themselves, so that's also weird. It's just weirdly phrased.
    You didn't bother to read the actual plan did you -

    Ensure all federal investments in infrastructure are climate resilient. Promoting resilient
    infrastructure is crucial to preparing communities against climate change. The American Clean Energy
    Bank and Regional Resilience Hubs will finance investments in resilient infrastructure, and we will
    develop federal guidelines for investments in and implementation of new approaches, including
    nature-based solutions, that make our natural resources, communities, and individual Americans safer and
    more resilient. We will work with Congress to set a national climate risk reduction standard for federal
    investments. This will ensure that every federal dollar used will support programs and projects that are
    resilient to climate risks such as flooding, wildfires, and drought. All federally-funded infrastructure
    projects would be screened for climate risk and designed, built, and operated to manage that risk across
    their full lifecycle
    My plan will bring Americans together to harness the power of American innovation to eliminate
    greenhouse gas emissions. Beyond protecting us from the worst impacts of climate change, it will create
    global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty. 2018.
    more than 3 million high-quality jobs in clean industries and make America the global leader in
    developing and deploying clean technologies worldwide. This plan will intentionally support and protect
    workers and communities so that every American will benefit from the transition, creating a stronger,
    more inclusive, and more equitable society.
    https://storage.googleapis.com/pfa-w...hite-Paper.pdf
    https://storage.googleapis.com/pfa-w...merica-1-3.pdf

    Etc...

  5. #1485
    Quote Originally Posted by Vegas82 View Post
    Pete wins on delegates and Bernie wins on votes. As you say, cancel each other out. The one thing to remember is Iowa counts for 1% of the total delegates. It’s only significant because they go first. The next month should be interesting.
    Next month? pfft... by next week we'll be over Iowa. There will be a new shitshow probably in New Hampshire or wherever it is, particularly if the rumors are true of Dumbass Dump supporters planning to go en-masse to vote-sabotaging the Primary there because it's an open vote there (meaning you don't have to be a registered Dem to vote for the Dem pick).

    - - - Updated - - -

    BTW - an interesting wrinkle happened, where Yang (of all people) backed up Bernie (of all people) saying he won the Iowa Caucus via twitter.

    ... curious what Yang's gameplan is with this weird move. A sad attempt to sway Bernie Voters? =/

  6. #1486
    Quote Originally Posted by mvaliz View Post
    BTW - an interesting wrinkle happened, where Yang (of all people) backed up Bernie (of all people) saying he won the Iowa Caucus via twitter.

    ... curious what Yang's gameplan is with this weird move. A sad attempt to sway Bernie Voters? =/
    There's some very "anti-establishment" overlap between their backers and narratives so it makes sense. Neither is a fan of Buttigieg.

  7. #1487
    Quote Originally Posted by Jehct View Post
    Imagine being told women have no chance at winning against Trump

    So you are saying CNN lies?

    Please illuminate what other lies you think CNN is reporting and show us all your inner Trump eh
    If Bernie says that Warren is lying about him saying that a woman cannot win, then he is a filthy sexist for calling Warren, a woman, a liar.

    If Bernie says that Warren is telling the truth, then that means that he is a filthy sexist for actually saying that a woman cannot win.

    So basically, if a woman makes up some nonsense accusation about you being a sexist, then that means that you are confirmed to be a sexist because a woman can’t lie, and saying that they’re lieing is sexist

  8. #1488
    Quote Originally Posted by Dimensius View Post
    If Bernie says that Warren is lying about him saying that a woman cannot win, then he is a filthy sexist for calling Warren, a woman, a liar.

    If Bernie says that Warren is telling the truth, then that means that he is a filthy sexist for actually saying that a woman cannot win.

    So basically, if a woman makes up some nonsense accusation about you being a sexist, then that means that you are confirmed to be a sexist because a woman can’t lie, and saying that they’re lieing is sexist
    women are just always out to get powerful men aren't they?

  9. #1489
    Quote Originally Posted by starlord View Post
    women are just always out to get powerful men aren't they?
    Tell me, what can Bernie do to prove that he’s not a sexist after Warren made that accusation? Because according to you, saying that she’s wrong is also sexist.

    Damned if you do, damned if you don’t.

  10. #1490
    The Insane Dug's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    15,636
    Quote Originally Posted by Dimensius View Post
    Tell me, what can Bernie do to prove that he’s not a sexist after Warren made that accusation? Because according to you, saying that she’s wrong is also sexist.

    Damned if you do, damned if you don’t.
    He doesn't have to say anything. The voters have already decided she's full of shit and her own campaign backed off it instead of going full throttle. Who cares what forum warriors have to say about it.

  11. #1491
    Quote Originally Posted by Dimensius View Post
    Tell me, what can Bernie do to prove that he’s not a sexist after Warren made that accusation? Because according to you, saying that she’s wrong is also sexist.

    Damned if you do, damned if you don’t.
    he doesn't have to be a frothing misogynist to say something sexist offhand. the rage of bernie fans against "women saying things about men" is much more telling though.

  12. #1492
    Void Lord Doctor Amadeus's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    In Security Watching...
    Posts
    43,694
    Well looks like I stuck my foot in it this time, haven't been up really on 4chan alt-right trolls as of recent, always imagined they would pull bullshit in the primary a little later after propping up Tulsi, Yang and Bernie, however, I had no idea they would fucking try to stick their thumbs on the scale in Iowa and phone in bullshit.

    I still don't like Tom Perez but wow, the latest news explains a lot.
    Milli Vanilli, Bigger than Elvis

  13. #1493
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    78,904
    Quote Originally Posted by kaelleria View Post
    You didn't bother to read the actual plan did you -

    https://storage.googleapis.com/pfa-w...hite-Paper.pdf
    Count how many times he put "resilient" in there. Without defining it. It's a really important principle in climate change adaptation and mitigation efforts, but it's also one with many different definitions; not defining terms like that means you can't be held to an actual meaning. It's a lot of "we'll do the right, best thing, that's best for everyone", without getting into what that means.

    Like I said; I've actually written up this kind of stuff for outreach to professional practitioners and the like. You need to define terms, or everyone takes it their own way, and not bothering to define them usually means that kind of confusion or uncertainty is the expected outcome.

    Both passages you quoted feel great, but don't actually communicate any real solutions. Which was my point.


  14. #1494
    Quote Originally Posted by Doctor Amadeus View Post
    I still don't like Tom Perez but wow, the latest news explains a lot.
    Why not, and what latest news?

  15. #1495
    Quote Originally Posted by Dimensius View Post
    If Bernie says that Warren is lying about him saying that a woman cannot win, then he is a filthy sexist for calling Warren, a woman, a liar.

    If Bernie says that Warren is telling the truth, then that means that he is a filthy sexist for actually saying that a woman cannot win.

    So basically, if a woman makes up some nonsense accusation about you being a sexist, then that means that you are confirmed to be a sexist because a woman can’t lie, and saying that they’re lieing is sexist
    We can play the "IF" game all day. The facts are that Bernie did say women can't beat Trump. That's just sad. It's still hard for people to believe women. That's even more sad.

    Bernie supporters go out of their way to be crazy about the Bernie / Warren stuff. Bernie was wrong. That is that.
    Quote Originally Posted by Machismo View Post
    Yes, I think a company should be legally allowed to refuse to serve black people.
    Quote Originally Posted by Orbitus View Post
    I don't know what you are watching, but it isn't fucking reality.
    Hes talking about me saying Joe Biden has dementia. LOL

  16. #1496
    Quote Originally Posted by Jehct View Post
    We can play the "IF" game all day. The facts are that Bernie did say women can't beat Trump. That's just sad. It's still hard for people to believe women. That's even more sad.

    Bernie supporters go out of their way to be crazy about the Bernie / Warren stuff. Bernie was wrong. That is that.
    You don’t know what a fact is.

  17. #1497
    Quote Originally Posted by Dimensius View Post
    You don’t know what a fact is.
    It's ok little Trumper. Someday you will understand.
    Quote Originally Posted by Machismo View Post
    Yes, I think a company should be legally allowed to refuse to serve black people.
    Quote Originally Posted by Orbitus View Post
    I don't know what you are watching, but it isn't fucking reality.
    Hes talking about me saying Joe Biden has dementia. LOL

  18. #1498
    Quote Originally Posted by Jehct View Post
    It's ok little Trumper. Someday you will understand.
    No, this is nonsense. It's a "he said/she said" and we don't have any recordings to back up either side.

    Unless I've totally missed something, in which case link that so I can give it a look.

  19. #1499
    Quote Originally Posted by UnifiedDivide View Post
    You know, as an outsider looking in, who gives a fuck?

    Why is so much importance placed on this one single state and what comes out of it? By all accounts, it is a shitshow every year, yet things carry on as though there is something inherently important in what happens in this single state. Surely it could be improved if so. And not with some shitty app.

    Do people believe this state is a good prediction of how the entire country will lean? Does the "winner" mean anything at this point?

    Is Andrew Yang even relevant at this point?
    The reason the first couple states like Iowa and NH are important is as a filter. They start showing you what candidates are probably viable and which ones are not. Take biden the presumed front runner coming in a distant fourth? He has one or two more states where if he does not turn it around probably flames out of this election cycle. Yang is clearly just sticking around as long as he can to push his message he probably drops out before super tuesday and endorses sanders.

  20. #1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    Count how many times he put "resilient" in there. Without defining it. It's a really important principle in climate change adaptation and mitigation efforts, but it's also one with many different definitions; not defining terms like that means you can't be held to an actual meaning. It's a lot of "we'll do the right, best thing, that's best for everyone", without getting into what that means.

    Like I said; I've actually written up this kind of stuff for outreach to professional practitioners and the like. You need to define terms, or everyone takes it their own way, and not bothering to define them usually means that kind of confusion or uncertainty is the expected outcome.

    Both passages you quoted feel great, but don't actually communicate any real solutions. Which was my point.
    I literally quoted the exact passage defining resilient infrastructure but ok.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •