Ocasio-Cortez demands Dems support "100% renewable energy in 10 years" plan

[PursuePeace]

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.

 

[timosman]

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.

 

[Fox McCloud]

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]

 

[Danke]

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]

They will go "freegan".

.

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]

I think 100% renewable energy is an OK goal but I think we can do better

200% renewable energy

 

[Wooden Indian]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

How about solar, wind, tidal, bio-fuel, or geothermal?

 

[Occam's Banana]

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, 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]

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, 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]

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]

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]

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
(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*