Newfie wrote:The 3rd debate will be held in September. At that time the field will be significantly culled. Participants need 130,000 contributors and at least 2% in 3 DNC sanctioned polls to be on the stage.
Because Inslee is the only one talking climate change I chipped in a couple of bucks to help him get over the bar. But he seems to be polling very poorly. Having Inslee on the panel would help discussion about climate change if nothing else.
Here is a 538 review of the status.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/it ... er-debate/
Newfie wrote:I’ve been reading a book I think you may like. SAPIENS. He has some interesting perspectives.
https://www.amazon.com/Sapiens-Humankin ... 0062316095
Democrats need what I’d call a “first-things-first” campaign: a campaign that emphasizes progressive responses to the historically urgent challenges we face and recognizes the difficulties—political, practical, and even philosophical—of trying to check off all at once every item on the progressive wish list.
What are those historically urgent problems? The climate emergency comes first. Candidates call it an “existential threat,” but they aren’t giving it the priority those words imply. In dealing with climate, unlike many other issues, time is of the essence: The more we delay decarbonization, the more costly and political difficult it becomes, until catastrophe will be unavoidable. The basic premise of a Green New Deal also makes political sense: Combine the task of decarbonization with an infrastructure plan that creates jobs and delivers other tangible benefits in transportation, clean water, renewable energy, and other areas.
Cog wrote:As long as climate change remediation is firmly wrapped up in social justice and massive doses of socialism, it will not appeal to the majority of voters.
Cog wrote:As long as climate change remediation is firmly wrapped up in social justice and massive doses of socialism, it will not appeal to the majority of voters.
careinke wrote:Cog wrote:As long as climate change remediation is firmly wrapped up in social justice and massive doses of socialism, it will not appeal to the majority of voters.
I'm glad your bet debt was called fulfilled, and you can still contribute. I have no doubt you would have paid in full, unlike some others on the board.
Back on topic.
It would be nice if climate change remediation could be "wrapped" up with mutually agreeable ideas. Some examples:
1. Eliminate dead zones off our rivers. Probably both sides could agree this is a worthy goal, with measurable results.
2. Clean up our air. Even putting climate change aside, both sides should be able to agree ICE engines put out a lot of very unhealthy chemicals, and clean alternatives need to be found. Concurrently, less travel can also reduce our emissions.
3. Rebuild topsoils, and geoengineer where possible to retain more freshwater on land, especially in fire prone areas.
I'm sure there are many more "wrappings" that can be made, but right now my garden is calling me.......
Newfie wrote:Correct, this is the kind of argument line I’m following. You don’t even have to mention the trigger words “climate change”. There are plenty of topics that if addressed would assist with the climate change dilemma. And many things the conservative side can get behind as American values that overlap with climate change.
Ibon wrote:We here are all obsolete baby boomers born in the cold war era.
Outcast_Searcher wrote:And I'm NOT upset or offended -- I'm just making what I hope is a somewhat valid point. (I'm 60. Clearly if I make it to 80, I'll be more obsolete. I get that. But if my mind holds up, I still plan to be clued in to math, science, and technology, at least at the layman level).
Return to North America Discussion
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests