PDA

View Full Version : Ocasio-Cortez demands Dems support "100% renewable energy in 10 years" plan




Anti Federalist
11-15-2018, 09:39 PM
Well, her understanding of thermodynamics and physics is as comprehensive as her understanding of economics.

If you thought toilets that don't flush, washers that don't wash and lights that make things dim were bad, wait until you see the ramifications of this.

Elections have consequences and there are differences.

Ocasio-Cortez’s ‘Green New Deal’ becomes flash point for Pelosi

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/11/15/ocasio-cortez-green-new-deal-pelosi-966748

By ZACK COLMAN and ANTHONY ADRAGNA 11/15/2018 09:41 AM EST

Nancy Pelosi is facing an unexpected flare-up on climate change that is complicating relationships among House Democrats ahead of crucial leadership elections.

Incoming liberals, led by Rep.-elect Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York, are demanding Pelosi go beyond her promise to revive a select committee on global warming; they want her and the rest of the Democratic Caucus to back an ambitious plan to transition the economy to 100 percent renewable energy in a little more than a decade.

But the party's chairmen-in-waiting are pushing back on the idea that even a new select committee would be necessary, arguing that the existing Energy and Commerce, Natural Resources, Transportation and Science committees have the tools they need to address climate change.

The tension within the party comes as Pelosi is racing to secure the support she will need to claim the House speaker's gavel when Democrats take the majority next year, and amid broader tension between moderate members worried about overreaching and progressives who see bold proposals as the key to the party's future. The new climate plan goes well beyond the Obama-era cap-and-trade climate policy that House Democrats embraced before losing their previous majority in 2010 — but since then, renewable energy's costs have plummeted while its popularity has risen in key electoral states like Colorado.

While she is confident she will prevail, Pelosi faces a thin margin for error and has launched an intense campaign to round up the support she will need, and Democrats are using that vulnerability to attempt to secure concessions on a host of issues.

Climate activists are urging Ocasio-Cortez and other liberals to consider withholding their support for Pelosi's bid to be speaker without additional concessions.

Pelosi's record "doesn't give us confidence that she is ready to do what it takes in the next two years. ... She wants to reintroduce this select committee on climate change, but basically all she wants it to do, from what we can tell, is convene people to talk about the science," said Evan Weber, national political director with the Sunrise Movement, an organizer of protests outside Pelosi's office on Tuesday. "We’ve been talking about the science for the past few decades.”

Ocasio-Cortez is gathering support for a resolution that would establish a select House committee to develop legislation on the Green New Deal, a set of ambitious principles that progressives envision as a work-in-progress Democratic Party platform on climate change.

“I don’t want to see Miami underwater, I don’t want to see my own district underwater, and I know that Leader Pelosi doesn’t, either,” Ocasio-Cortez told reporters Tuesday as she joined protesters at the leader's office. “What we need to show her is that we’re here to back her up in pushing for 100 percent renewable energy and we’re here to support that kind of bold, progressive leadership.”

Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) and incoming members Deb Haaland (D-N.M.), Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) and Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) have all endorsed the Green New Deal resolution. Other liberals, like Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), have not endorsed the Ocasio-Cortez resolution but backed similarly ambitious legislation like transitioning the U.S. to 100 percent clean energy by 2050. Most have remained coy on whether they'll support Pelosi on the floor.

The Green New Deal resolution calls for a bevy of far-reaching liberal goals to decarbonize the economy within a decade by reshaping the electric power, agriculture and transportation sector, but it includes few details outlining how to get there. That is likely too ambitious even for many Democrats — and would stand zero chance of getting past Senate Republicans or President Donald Trump — but the concept has become an important rallying cry for the need to address climate change.

“Whether or not it’s called the Green New Deal, I think there will be significant pieces of [an infrastructure package] that will touch on climate,” Jayapal told POLITICO. “There are lots of ideas out there that aren’t called Green New Deal but are addressing similar kinds of issues.”

Pelosi created the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming when she was first elected speaker in 2007, but Republicans eliminated the committee when they took the majority in 2011. Now, a growing number of senior Democrats say they don't know whether the panel needs to come back.

"As co-chairs of the Safe Climate Caucus, we believe that the committees of jurisdiction and future Chairs are ready and able to tackle this challenge," Reps. Don Beyer (D-Va.) and Alan Lowenthal (D-Calif.) wrote in a letter to Pelosi on Wednesday. "However, should you decide to create a select committee on climate change in the 116th Congress, we stand ready to work with you."

The letter from Beyer and Lowenthal came a few hours after three Democratic chairmen-in-waiting — Energy and Commerce ranking member Frank Pallone (D-N.J.), Science ranking member Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-Texas) and Natural Resources ranking member Raúl Grijalva (D-Ariz.) — announced they would be holding climate change hearings early next year, in an apparent attempt to protect their turf. "Our committees plan to work closely together to aggressively assess the public health, economic and environmental impacts of climate change and to explore the best solutions to combat this challenge," they said in a statement.

Grijalva, a member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus who has said he plans to back Pelosi, said he understood why Ocasio-Cortez and others are pushing leadership to be more aggressive in attacking climate change. “I would agree with some of their criticism. We’re baby-stepping it,” he told reporters Wednesday.

But climate change wasn’t a top issue most Democrats campaigned on in a wave election, and the incoming majority is expected instead to focus on health care, infrastructure and conducting oversight on the Trump administration.

Republicans will likely paint any Democratic plan to address climate change as too expensive, but activists say Democrats should not fear such attacks from a party that has overseen growing deficits and did not pay for its massive tax cut last year.

“I’m not interested in entertaining that question given the full board of what Republicans have funded most recently with the tax cut,” said Vijay Das, a senior campaign strategist with the public policy organization Demos who has been working on the Green New Deal concept. “To be perfectly blunt, fiscal conservatives don’t have to answer this question when they’re making decisions to embolden the 1 percent.”

That’s not to say Republicans won’t make the argument anyway.

“Green New Deal? Sounds like a lot of red ink,” Sen. Cory Gardner (R-Colo.) told POLITICO.

Brian4Liberty
11-15-2018, 10:35 PM
She should demand 100% rainbows and unicorns in ten years...

enhanced_deficit
11-16-2018, 10:18 AM
Well, her understanding of thermodynamics and physics is as comprehensive as her understanding of economics.

If you thought toilets that don't flush, washers that don't wash and lights that make things dim were bad, wait until you see the ramifications of this.

Elections have consequences and there are differences.

..


From what I heard, she loves this country. She's from NY, we should cut her some slack and give her some time to mature her political views (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?528188-Trump-quot-Nancy-Pelosi-loves-this-country-quot&p=6705455&viewfull=1#post6705455) according the winds of DC.

Yes there are differences, but very few political creatures come close to be more detrimental to American liberties than neocons on both major parties. She's might be horrible on many issues and overall still be tad bit better than Bush-Cheney genius cabal or even current MAGA's puppet masters.



BTW, is Cortez a MAGA ally under the 'enemy of my enemy is my friend' doctrine?


Wow! Big Trump Hater Congressman Joe Crowley, who many expected was going to take Nancy Pelosi’s place, just LOST his primary election. In other words, he’s out! That is a big one that nobody saw happening. Perhaps he should have been nicer, and more respectful, to his President!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 27, 2018 (https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1011795883925663744?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw)

timosman
11-16-2018, 10:32 AM
From what I heard, she loves this country. She's from NY, we should cut her some slack and give her some time to mature her political views (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?528188-Trump-quot-Nancy-Pelosi-loves-this-country-quot&p=6705455&viewfull=1#post6705455) according the winds of DC.

Yes there are differences, but very few political creatures come close to be more detrimental to American liberties than neocons on both major parties. She's might be horrible on many issues and overall still be tad bit better than Bush-Cheney genius cabal or even current MAGA's puppet masters.

She's a good commie? :cool:

enhanced_deficit
11-16-2018, 10:37 AM
She's a good commie? :cool:

'Good commie' is dangerous term and I have not seen enough evidence if she's comparable to respected anti-war liberal Dennis Kucinish but she seems to see killing of born children more immoral than killing of unborn babies.
In case this helps to rate her, she loves this country.

timosman
11-16-2018, 10:40 AM
'Good commie' is dangerous term and I have not seen enough evidence if she's comparable to respected anti-war liberal Dennis Kucinish but she seems to see killing of born children more immoral than killing of unborn babies.
In case this helps to rate her, she loves this country.

Even the biggest psychopaths love our country. They wouldn't be able to get away with this kind of shit anywhere else. :cool:

enhanced_deficit
11-16-2018, 10:50 AM
Even the biggest psychopaths love our country. They wouldn't be able to get away with this kind of $#@! anywhere else. :cool:


I dunno, even some of the most conservative/GOP funded politicians are making similar calls elsewhere too. Just read this news the other day:


Israel's energy ministry plans to end coal as energy supply by 2030
haaretz
1 day ago - The plan looks to replace coal with natural gas and solar energy as well as forbidding the importation of cars that run on gasoline or diesel fuel. ...

Energy Minister calls for banning diesel, gas-based cars in Israel by ...
jpost
Feb 27, 2018 - Speaking at an energy conference in Tel Aviv on Monday, Energy Minister Yuval Steinitz said Israel will soon rely solely on renewable energy ...

Israel aiming to fully switch to electric cars by 2030 - Israel News ...
jpost
Oct 9, 2018 - New imported cars are seen in a parking lot near Eilat's port, Israel, June 12, ... longer be able to buy new gasoline or diesel-powered vehicles after 2030, the Energy Ministry ... All new cars will be electric. .... GREEN ISRAEL.

specsaregood
11-16-2018, 11:07 AM
NYExit!

dannno
11-16-2018, 11:41 AM
'Good commie' is dangerous term and I have not seen enough evidence if she's comparable to respected anti-war liberal Dennis Kucinish but she seems to see killing of born children more immoral than killing of unborn babies.
In case this helps to rate her, she loves this country.

Kucinich was a strong supporter of the Constitution, I liked Kucinich.

This chick, I assure you, has no respect for the Constitution except for what she can finagle out of it as a commie.

enhanced_deficit
11-16-2018, 12:11 PM
Kucinich was a strong supporter of the Constitution, I liked Kucinich.

This chick, I assure you, has no respect for the Constitution except for what she can finagle out of it as a commie.

Do MAGA respect Constitution during his NY days and does he respect it now? Does Pelosi respect Constitution? I was trying to make a point that focussing on her immaturish rambling as a kid fresh out of NY while ignoring bigger misdirections of opportunist RINOs in power will lead to birth of Barack Hussein Obama Cortez Al Irani in 4-8 years from now. GOP paid a huge price for not holding Bush accountable during early years of his presidency. IMO she rates much lower on the immediate threat to Constitution scale than bigger fish with greater power and responsibility that many of her critics seem to support.


Potentially Related

Shock claim: Khashoggi ‘Killer’ Huddled With Team Trump on Toppling Iran (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?528448-Shock-claim-Khashoggi-‘Killer’-Huddled-With-Team-Trump-on-Toppling-Iran&)

CaptUSA
11-16-2018, 12:46 PM
All energy is renewable. You can neither create or destroy energy; you can only transfer it.

For example, the energy she uses to talk gets transferred into my migraine.

oyarde
11-16-2018, 05:14 PM
Denny , deep down is a gun grabbing commie who was deciding vote on obamacare . This mentally impared woman is ten times worse .

RJB
11-16-2018, 05:29 PM
This is why state's rights are so important. New York should be free to experiment with her insanity without harming the rest of the country. I wonder if R3volution 3.0 would be for bombing NY City to set them free?

Anti Globalist
11-16-2018, 06:39 PM
Is Cortez deep state or is she just an idiot?

timosman
11-16-2018, 06:41 PM
Is Cortez deep state or is she just an idiot?

You sound redundant. The deep state relies on incompetent people who can not make it on their own. :cool:

Swordsmyth
11-16-2018, 06:45 PM
She's a good commie? :cool:
No, she is still alive.

Swordsmyth
11-16-2018, 06:47 PM
Kucinich was a strong supporter of the Constitution.
Sortta.


But that made him better than most Demoncrats, he was almost a RINO.

Swordsmyth
11-16-2018, 06:49 PM
This is why state's rights are so important. New York should be free to experiment with her insanity without harming the rest of the country. I wonder if R3volution 3.0 would be for bombing NY City to set them free?
I think he'd rather bomb the rest of us for not submitting to the world empire, that takes priority, he can worry about how he is going to become emperor and impose minarchy later.

oyarde
11-16-2018, 07:15 PM
This is why state's rights are so important. New York should be free to experiment with her insanity without harming the rest of the country. I wonder if R3volution 3.0 would be for bombing NY City to set them free?

I do not think they can be set free , who would feed them ?

Suzanimal
11-16-2018, 08:30 PM
I do not think they can be set free , who would feed them ?

They will go "freegan".


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MJmCUSb-ZVo

PursuePeace
11-16-2018, 09:05 PM
Is Cortez deep state or is she just an idiot?

I've been watching her carefully (after desensitizing myself to her creepy psychotic eyes) and I'm fairly certain she's a robot.

Have to admit she does look pretty realistic.
Just need to hack the program and change it from "commie traitor scum" to "liberty minded patriot" and adjust the eyes a bit. I think it may work.

http://www.israellycool.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/alexandria_ocasio-cortez.jpg

timosman
11-16-2018, 09:21 PM
All energy is renewable. You can neither create or destroy energy; you can only transfer it.

For example, the energy she uses to talk gets transferred into my migraine.

You must not be familiar with entropy. :cool:

Fox McCloud
11-16-2018, 10:15 PM
This could, realistically, probably be done (or at least the construction plans finalized and started), but it would leave those on the left even more unhappy than they currently are, most likely.

Fast Breeder nuclear reactors actually produce more fuel than they consume (since they turn other things radioactive) and they can even consume nuclear waste from weapons and other reactors (that's currently being stored).

It still produces waste that you can't use, of course, but the amount of fuel available for such a reactor could potentially last for millenia if not into the millions of years.

This isn't technically renewable, but, then again, nothing really is; the sun burns out and solar panels require non-renewable resources to build, wind will probably be around as long as the earth is, but still requires non-renewable resources to build.

You're always going to have a non-renewable point inf your chain.

So, yeah, if the government lifted regulations on nuclear and subsidized it (not that I'm advocating for the latter), then I could easily see the US go the "France" route.

That said, the left's head would probably explode (though there's a number of environmentalists, even on the left, who are warming to nuclear, quite rapidly, as they're recognizing that we need something more than wind and solar to power a 21st century economy).

I somehow doubt this is what Cortez wants though.

Occam's Banana
11-16-2018, 11:43 PM
https://i.imgur.com/gLa4140.jpg

Danke
11-17-2018, 06:39 AM
All energy is renewable. You can neither create or destroy energy; you can only transfer it.

For example, the energy she uses to talk gets transferred into my migraine.

I was just about to type that last night until I saw u already said it.

Danke
11-17-2018, 06:46 AM
They will go "freegan".


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MJmCUSb-ZVo.

Thanks, this will save me some money for my homes. And the gals will get some fresh air and a little exercise too.

Amazing they throw some of that stuff away. Probably a lot to do with government regulations that can just discount it or give it away.

TheTexan
11-17-2018, 09:05 AM
I think 100% renewable energy is an OK goal but I think we can do better

200% renewable energy

Wooden Indian
11-17-2018, 09:21 AM
She is a commie; she is a puppet of the enemy.
She is an idiot; she is a liar.

She is a beastly hag and a Godless Whore.

Hope I cleared up any disinformation.

Swordsmyth
11-17-2018, 04:10 PM
She is a commie; she is a puppet of the enemy.
She is an idiot; she is a liar.

She is a beastly hag and a Godless Whore.

Hope I cleared up any disinformation.
+Rep

Brian4Liberty
11-17-2018, 06:18 PM
I think 100% renewable energy is an OK goal but I think we can do better

200% renewable energy

Double plus good think, comrade!

osan
11-17-2018, 06:27 PM
Yet another anecdotal notch indicating a further nudge toward eventual civil war or similar bloodshed.

These people are megalomaniacal ignorants who, if they actually manage to get something enacted (which probably won't happen), they will place in direct jeopardy the lives of millions of Americans. This would be a cataclysmic cluster copulation. But make no mistake, those folks are plenty insane enough to keep doubling down on their foist no matter how many people were damaged or destroyed by it. It is what they do.

fisharmor
11-17-2018, 06:30 PM
She is going to stay in the spotlight. She is going to piss offall the old guard Democrats, and she is going to get away with it because she is saying what the radicals in the Left want to hear. She won't get everything she is asking for but she will get some of it, because that is how this works, and the country will move incrementally in her direction precisely because she is a radical.
And still nobody will put the pieces together and realize that strategy would work equally well for liberty, if anyone was interested in trying it, as opposed to trying to blend in with the old guard and become them in the process.

Swordsmyth
11-17-2018, 06:43 PM
She is going to stay in the spotlight. She is going to piss offall the old guard Democrats, and she is going to get away with it because she is saying what the radicals in the Left want to hear. She won't get everything she is asking for but she will get some of it, because that is how this works, and the country will move incrementally in her direction precisely because she is a radical.
Or she will cause a breakup of the Demoncrat party and scare independents to the right.



And still nobody will put the pieces together and realize that strategy would work equally well for liberty, if anyone was interested in trying it, as opposed to trying to blend in with the old guard and become them in the process.
I know some here would like to make Rand not use the alternative strategy he uses but aren't Amash and Massie good enough for you?

VIDEODROME
11-17-2018, 07:00 PM
How about solar, wind, tidal, bio-fuel, or geothermal?

Occam's Banana
11-17-2018, 10:23 PM
She is going to stay in the spotlight. She is going to piss off all the old guard Democrats, and she is going to get away with it because she is saying what the radicals in the Left want to hear. She won't get everything she is asking for but she will get some of it, because that is how this works, and the country will move incrementally in her direction precisely because she is a radical.

And still nobody will put the pieces together and realize that strategy would work equally well for liberty, if anyone was interested in trying it, as opposed to trying to blend in with the old guard and become them in the process.

Ron Paul was right (again) - Purism is Practical: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?487693-Purism-is-Practical


I know some here would like to make Rand not use the alternative strategy he uses but aren't Amash and Massie good enough for you?

I very much like all three. I won't hesitate to criticize any of them (as I did when Rand opposed the yet-to-be-implemented Iran Deal), but I also won't hesitate to praise them (as I did for Rand's recent speech at The American Conservative (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?528459-Rand-Paul-Saudi-Arabia-is-Number-One-at-Spreading-Terror), wherein he opposed scrapping the already-implemented Iran Deal, denounced Saudi Arabia in no uncertain terms, and signaled his support for rapprochement with Iran).

However, to answer your question - no, they aren't "good enough" (but this is not necessarily their fault - see below). We so-called "purists" want more than they are able or willing (due to personal temperament or political "realities" or etc.) to provide or accomplish (yet). But as Ron Paul pointed out in the essay I linked to above (and as I elaborated in my response in that thread), this makes us complements to one another, not opponents. (Unfortunately, this is something that many on both sides of the false "purism vs. pragmatism" dichotomy seem not to understand.)

If the "moderate pragmatists" are in a position to get something done, then the range of possibilities they have is greatly foreshortened without the presence of a vigorous and assertive "radical purism." In the absence of "radical purists", "moderate pragmatism" becomes the extreme - and as a result, the center of gravity will be weighted much more toward the status quo than it otherwise would be.

As fisharmor correctly notes, this dynamic is perfectly illustrated by Ocasio-Cortez & the radical left vis-à-vis Pelosi & the Democrat party establishment. Unfortunately, libertarians don't have nearly as many "radicals" as the leftists do, and so our "pragmatists" (such as Massie, Amash and Rand) don't have nearly as much "juice" behind them ...

Swordsmyth
11-17-2018, 10:30 PM
Ron Paul was right (again) - Purism is Practical: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?487693-Purism-is-Practical



I very much like all three. I won't hesitate to criticize any of them (as I did when Rand opposed the yet-to-be-implemented Iran Deal), but I also won't hesitate to praise them (as I did for Rand's recent speech at The American Conservative (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?528459-Rand-Paul-Saudi-Arabia-is-Number-One-at-Spreading-Terror), wherein he opposed scrapping the already-implemented Iran Deal, denounced Saudi Arabia in no uncertain terms, and signaled his support for rapprochement with Iran).

However, to answer your question - no, they aren't "good enough" (but this is not necessarily their fault - see below). We so-called "purists" want more than they are able or willing (due to personal temperament or political "realities" or etc.) to provide or accomplish (yet). But as Ron Paul pointed out in the essay I linked to above (and as I elaborated in my response in that thread), this makes us complements to one another, not opponents. (Unfortunately, this is something that many on both sides of the false "purism vs. pragmatism" dichotomy seem not to understand.)

If the "moderate pragmatists" are in a position to get something done, then the range of possibilities they have is greatly foreshortened without the presence of a vigorous and assertive "radical purism." In the absence of "radical purists", "moderate pragmatism" becomes the extreme - and as a result, the center of gravity will be weighted much more toward the status quo than it otherwise would be.

As fisharmor correctly notes, this dynamic is perfectly illustrated by Ocasio-Cortez & the radical left vis-à-vis Pelosi & the Democrat party establishment. Unfortunately, libertarians don't have nearly as many "radicals" as the leftists do, and so our "pragmatists" (such as Massie, Amash and Rand) don't have nearly as much "juice" behind them ...
I agree that there is a place for purists like Ron and pragmatists like Rand.

I think you are saying that even Massie and Amash don't make extravagant enough demands and that is why they aren't archetypal purists, is that correct?

The problem is that the left supports their radicals but the Swampublicans would crush ours and the LP or the Constitution Party simply don't have any power, it will be difficult to keep any radicals in office until we have a greater number of pragmatists in office to support them.

Occam's Banana
11-18-2018, 12:00 AM
I think you are saying that even Massie and Amash don't make extravagant enough demands and that is why they aren't archetypal purists, is that correct?

Not quite.

While it is true (by definition) that "they aren't archetypal purists" because they "don't make extravagant enough demands", my point is that even if they did make such demands, they wouldn't get anywhere with it - at least, not in terms of how "success" is measured within the context of legislative politics (see: Paul, Ron, career of).

The reason for this is that we just don't have enough "radical purists". If we did, I think it quite likely that Rand, Amash & Massie would all be markedly more "radical" and "extravagant" than they have heretofore been - and that they would be markedly more successful in getting at least some of their demands at least partially met.


The problem is that the left supports their radicals but the Swampublicans would crush ours and the LP or the Constitution Party simply don't have any power [...]

The reason that the establishment left supports[1] their radicals is that there are so many of them. They can't afford not to support[1] them.

The reason that the Republican establishment can crush our radicals is that there are not enough of them. They CAN afford not to support them.

[1] I'm not sure that "support" in really the right concept here. Perhaps "tolerate" or "not especially try to obstruct" is more accurate. Pelosi & Co. are establishment hacks and I strongly suspect that they hope and intend to use the Ocasio-Cortez rabble as useful idiots. They can't really do otherwise, as there are just too many of that rabble to be completely ignored or thwarted. I also strongly suspect that this is going to end up biting the "Inner Party" Democrats in the ass ...


[...] it will be difficult to keep any radicals in office until we have a greater number of pragmatists in office to support them.

I agree. But it will be impossible to get a greater number of "pragmatists" (let alone "radicals") into office until we have a greater number of radicals outside of office.

We need more "radical purists" in order to shift the "center of gravity" towards our end of things (just as the leftist radicals have done on their end) - otherwise, our "pragmatists" will continue to remain just as few and ineffectual as the "purists" themselves ... (IOW: our "purists" and "pragmatists" need each other, and we need a lot more of both ...)

Swordsmyth
11-18-2018, 12:12 AM
Not quite.

While it is true (by definition) that "they aren't archetypal purists" because they "don't make extravagant enough demands", my point is that even if they did make such demands, they wouldn't get anywhere with it - at least, not in terms of how "success" is measured within the context of legislative politics (see: Paul, Ron, career of).

The reason for this is that we just don't have enough "radical purists". If we did, I think it quite likely that Rand, Amash & Massie would all be markedly more "radical" and "extravagant" than they have heretofore been - and that they would be markedly more successful in getting at least some of their demands at least partially met.



The reason that the establishment left supports[1] their radicals is that there are so many of them. They can't afford not to support[1] them.

The reason that the Republican establishment can crush our radicals is that there are not enough of them. They CAN afford not to support them.

[1] I'm not sure that "support" in really the right concept here. Perhaps "tolerate" or "not especially try to obstruct" is more accurate. Pelosi & Co. are establishment hacks and I strongly suspect that they hope and intend to use the Ocasio-Cortez rabble as useful idiots. They can't really do otherwise, as there are just too many of that rabble to be completely ignored or thwarted. I also strongly suspect that this is going to end up biting the "Inner Party" Democrats in the ass ...



I agree. But it will be impossible to get a greater number of "pragmatists" (let alone "radicals") into office until we have a greater number of radicals outside of office.

We need more "radical purists" in order to shift the "center of gravity" towards our end of things (just as the leftist radicals have done on their end) - otherwise, our "pragmatists" will continue to remain just as few and ineffectual as the "purists" themselves ... (IOW: our "purists" and "pragmatists" need each other, and we need a lot more of both ...)
I think we are mostly in agreement but I believe the left purposely cultivates their radicals in order to use them as weapons, I also believe that you are right that they will be destroyed by the radicals because they have gone too far with that strategy, the right on the other hand purposely suppresses its radicals (our kind or any others) because they don't care about winning, they would rather take 2nd place forever than risk losing control of their side, that has created pressure from the grassroots that brought us Trump and will end up destroying the old guard on the right.

The only hope we have of growing our faction is if some of our people like Rand can work with Trump enough to get a seat at the table in the power structure of the GOP and in the public eye, then we can perhaps recruit both the purists and pragmatists that we need, at that point we would need to either take over the GOP or have a mass party jump of elected officials to a new party or the Constitution Party.

Suzanimal
11-18-2018, 10:58 AM
Not quite.

While it is true (by definition) that "they aren't archetypal purists" because they "don't make extravagant enough demands", my point is that even if they did make such demands, they wouldn't get anywhere with it - at least, not in terms of how "success" is measured within the context of legislative politics (see: Paul, Ron, career of).

The reason for this is that we just don't have enough "radical purists". If we did, I think it quite likely that Rand, Amash & Massie would all be markedly more "radical" and "extravagant" than they have heretofore been - and that they would be markedly more successful in getting at least some of their demands at least partially met.



The reason that the establishment left supports[1] their radicals is that there are so many of them. They can't afford not to support[1] them.

The reason that the Republican establishment can crush our radicals is that there are not enough of them. They CAN afford not to support them.

[1] I'm not sure that "support" in really the right concept here. Perhaps "tolerate" or "not especially try to obstruct" is more accurate. Pelosi & Co. are establishment hacks and I strongly suspect that they hope and intend to use the Ocasio-Cortez rabble as useful idiots. They can't really do otherwise, as there are just too many of that rabble to be completely ignored or thwarted. I also strongly suspect that this is going to end up biting the "Inner Party" Democrats in the ass ...



I agree. But it will be impossible to get a greater number of "pragmatists" (let alone "radicals") into office until we have a greater number of radicals outside of office.

We need more "radical purists" in order to shift the "center of gravity" towards our end of things (just as the leftist radicals have done on their end) - otherwise, our "pragmatists" will continue to remain just as few and ineffectual as the "purists" themselves ... (IOW: our "purists" and "pragmatists" need each other, and we need a lot more of both ...)

I give this post :monocle::monocle::monocle:
(someone posted something about if you punctuate three times you're sincere - probably timosemen) (I know emojis aren't grammatically correct but, poorly paraphrasing Tom Robbins, I'd rather have fun than be grammatically correct and monocling is fun;I highly recommend it.)

I agree with everything Mr Banana has posted but I would also add a reason I suspect the Dem radicals have pull within the party is because a lot of celebrities, pundits and the press are radical Dems and they have the mic.

Radical conservatives don't have the mic. When they do, it's easy for the Republican party to ignore them because the radical Dems in the press do the dirty work of painting conservative radicals as dangerous crazies. Also, probably racist.
(see: Paul, Ron, career of).

On making more radical purists...
Ideas need to be heard over and over and over again before they start becoming mainstream. This is why I thought Ron Paul running for president was so important and also why I was disappointed with Rand's run. I didn't expect Ron to win. I wanted him to win but I didn't expect it. I rallied, sign waved, donated, and talked to people til it hurt because I wanted the establishment to know there are purists out there - I felt like Ron gave me a voice and I wanted other people who thought like me to know they weren't alone. I was disappointed that Rand's campaign wasn't as radical as Ron's. I like Rand and I get why he toned it down but I felt a little betrayed. *Pauses to stroke ego & want a freer country*

Personally, I cheer any small step toward a freer country no matter which side of the aisle it comes from BUT I fall firmly in the purist camp and will probably be that asshole yelling it's not enough!!! until I spontaneously combust (hopefully, keeping my fingers crossed - I want to go out with a literal bang).

The whole Pelosi/Ocasio-Cortez (Old Crazy VS New Crazy is easier to spell) drama reminds me of one of those nature shows where a big ugly croc and a giant nasty snake are in a battle to the death and I'm sitting there watching hoping they both die but, in my heart, I know one will consume the other and live on to haunt me and in this case take more of my shit.*Pauses to want a freer country, stroke my ego, and wonder if spontaneous human combustion hurts or if ya just blow up and don't feel a thing*