Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[SalmonGod]

The idea of cleaning up coal is one environmentalists will recognize as used to avoid compromise for decades, and is taken as demeaning at best.  It's planting trees on the corpse of a mutilated mountain.  It's "We understand your concern, and will address it when it's convenient for us."

Maybe you're right that in this one case, it's invoked as an empty appeasement.  But you couldn't talk up stop and frisk to get a nod from scared racist white people, and expect no consequences.

[Dozebôm Lolumzalìs]

Actually from a political science point of view..

The fact that politicians HAVE to pander is a good thing. It is what prevents political parties from bunkering down and acting in their own interests.

It is why, for example, if the republican party gets into power they won't just make gay marriage illegal again (or... democrats... I honestly forget who is who)

Yeah.  This was largely the argument I had with my brother today...  He was insisting that politicians should always pander 100% to the people who elect them (the 51% who chose them over the other guy, and who probably disagree with them on tons of issues).  Specifically, it's evil to ever make a concession in Congress because it's selling out your constituents.  You should always stubbornly insist on getting exactly what you want, which is somehow what your constituents want (ugh).

I tried to argue that it's not wrong for a senator to approve an important bill in exchange for a rider boosting their state.  They represent their state.  Is gay marriage really so wrong that they need to sacrifice their states own interests to fight it?

Well here in NC, McCrory sure thinks so...  Guy's more dedicated to his principles (destroying "Obamacare" and putting guys in women's bathrooms) that he's turned down *billions* in federal funding, and doesn't care that corporations are boycotting us in droves.  Guy's more principled than a 3rd party protest voter (except that it's us citizens who get the shaft).

Sorry, just watched the local governor debate.  The balls on him to say we created that issue due to Charlotte.  He made it a state issue by, ironically, demanding a regulation on business.  Ugh.

Also, apparently Clinton's a liar for calling single-payer "untenable" in the leaks.  See, see??  She promised single payer allllllll this time, yet secretly thought it never had a chance! /s  (My brother was claiming this, I suspect because that SecularTalk blowhard screamed it)

It's like that wasn't one of the core issues of the primary debates, fuck!
Hell I'm pretty optimistic about single payer now, thanks to Trump destroying the Republican party.  But noooooooo, after 3 hours, my brother still insists she's a duplicitous bitch for """secretly""" calling it untenable.

I'm sitting there agreeing that maybe she's a liar on tons of other stuff, but surely not this, but nope.  Completely irrational.  It's deeply frustrating.  Sorry.

Odd. It's usually the Democrats who compromise, and the Republicans who hold staunch to their principles.

...to a degree. And this of course describes the politicians, not the actual people (). And of course "Democrats" and "Republicans" aren't homogeneous.

[Rolan7]

Not the hardcore progressives he's listening to.  They're kinda a reaction to the Democrats giving too much - Now, any compromise is weakness and betrayal of your constituents.

Except when the Conservatives do it, I'm sure.  But it's so simple - just elect a bunch of progressives who never compromise!  If we scream enough, that'll happen, right?

[mainiac]

It's easy - the Republicans are the science-ignoring, pandering, evil, bribed sleazeballs. The Democrats are the slightly-better sleazeballs.

But the important thing is that you are able to feel smug and superior to both.

The idea of cleaning up coal is one environmentalists will recognize as used to avoid compromise for decades,

Gee, that sure does explain all the endorsements from environmental organizations...

There is such a thing as political reality.  If you want to sell voters in west PA on the idea of 100 new gigawatts of solar capacity installed in four years then you throw them some bones.  Subsidizing some stupid clean coal plants is totally worth it if it means the funds are there for solar or for a 60 billion dollar modernization of energy infrastructure.

But it's so simple - just elect a bunch of progressives who never compromise!  If we scream enough, that'll happen, right?

Yep!  And then we can have the fun spectacle of watching say, healthcare reform efforts where the democratic senators from California, Colorado, New York, Maryland and Massachusetts all refuse to budge an inch because the ideal health care law looks different for each state.

[Neonivek]

Not the hardcore progressives he's listening to.  They're kinda a reaction to the Democrats giving too much - Now, any compromise is weakness and betrayal of your constituents.

Except when the Conservatives do it, I'm sure.  But it's so simple - just elect a bunch of progressives who never compromise!  If we scream enough, that'll happen, right?

Why does it sound like some people have an idea of politics as parties against the American people themselves?

Like the purpose of democracy is to bypass democracy.

[Max™]

Clean coal, hah, obviously the solution is to take the coal plants and set them up somewhere outside the environment, beyond the environment, so if there is pollution it is not going to hurt the environment. Just hope the front doesn't fall off of one.

As was said though, plastic is a big deal and kinda is kinda the other, less awful half of how oil made the modern world possible, before you get into burning dinojuice, though given the fauna of the carboniferous, really we should be calling it bugjuice. Yuge bugs, the best bugs, dragonflies that could carry off a small dog, three meter centipedes, spiders with 30 cm leg spans--well, we have those still, and they aren't bugs--but yeah, the very best bugs!

[mainiac]

Just hope the front doesn't fall off of one.

That's not very typical, I'd like to make that point.

[alway]

Though all this talk about Clean Coal is well and good, it's also worth noting that clean coal is not on *any* of Clinton's website's talk about her policies. It's pretty explicit about moving from coal to natural gas power generation, repeating it several times on the page about energy: https://www.hillaryclinton.com/briefing/factsheets/2016/02/12/hillary-clintons-plan-for-ensuring-safe-and-responsible-natural-gas-production/
And the page about coal country in particular can be summarized as "Coal is dead, and that's okay" https://www.hillaryclinton.com/briefing/factsheets/2015/11/12/clinton-plan-to-revitalize-coal-communities/

[SalmonGod]

Not the hardcore progressives he's listening to.  They're kinda a reaction to the Democrats giving too much - Now, any compromise is weakness and betrayal of your constituents.

Except when the Conservatives do it, I'm sure.  But it's so simple - just elect a bunch of progressives who never compromise!  If we scream enough, that'll happen, right?

I think maybe there's some misunderstanding involved in this.  I can only speak for myself here, but I'm sure it applies to many others who are seen as not accepting compromise...

I expect compromise on the job.  But give & take in negotiation is completely different in my point of view from being clear about what exactly you stand and will fight for.  Don't present me a halfway that you think is possible as what you stand for.  You're not presenting yourself as my candidate.  Tell me what you really want in the end, and then tell me how far you think you'll get.  I'm totally ok with that.  Then if I vote you in and your name is tied to something that's counter to what you promoted yourself on, then you better do your damnedest to make sure I get the memo "Hey I tried but we lost this one" or "Yeah, this looks bad, but it was part of a deal to get this other thing that I think was an overall win or part of a longer play."  Otherwise, it's not my fault if I assume that you're not really on my team.

Do I think that Sanders would have accomplished everything he proposed?  Fuck no!  I don't know anybody who did.  And I doubt many wanted to vote for him on the basis that he wouldn't compromise.  But he was crystal clear about what he stood for.  That's what energized the apathetic left.

I understand that politics is complicated, and there's more things I'd be able to appreciate with deeper research on the history and players behind decisions that look bad to me otherwise.  Mainiac - you've taught me that a lot, for as much as we disagree.  But to accept everything I don't like by default as the consequence of some political reality I don't understand is to make myself a sucker. 

I also understand that to play today's politics that way would not be a practical way to get elected, but that's why everyone hates politics.  I expect that there would be much less bitterness over compromise and the occasional loss on one's interests, if people were able to know with confidence that they had people on their team working for them.

[mainiac]

But we know what Clinton is in favor of.  She is in favor of continuing the all of the above strategy of Obama. And the all of the above strategy of Obama means coal continues to decline but we keep investing in clean coal experiments.  It's no great mystery or some radical thing.  It's just the status quo except hopefully we make the acceleration of solar panals go even faster.

[Neonivek]

But we know what Clinton is in favor of.  She is in favor of continuing the all of the above strategy of Obama. And the all of the above strategy of Obama means coal continues to decline but we keep investing in clean coal experiments.  It's no great mystery or some radical thing.  It's just the status quo except hopefully we make the acceleration of solar panals go even faster.

What I laugh at is that the American people WANT Solar panels but don't want to pay for it.

I fully expect them to complain about the price of electricity soon.

[Calidovi]

But we know what Clinton is in favor of.  She is in favor of continuing the all of the above strategy of Obama. And the all of the above strategy of Obama means coal continues to decline but we keep investing in clean coal experiments.  It's no great mystery or some radical thing.  It's just the status quo except hopefully we make the acceleration of solar panals go even faster.

What I laugh at is that the American people WANT Solar panels but don't want to pay for it.

I fully expect them to complain about the price of electricity soon.

You can want advancements in solar tech while realizing that it's not currently within your means.

[mainiac]

I fully expect them to complain about the price of electricity soon.

Sooner or later the natural gas glut will end so yeah.

[Frumple]

Pretty sure americans have been complaining about electricity prices for at least a decade or two, now, though. Probably longer. Not very loudly, but folks I've been around have been occasionally grumbling about higher prices since at least the 90s. Usually well overshadowed by kvetching about gas prices but *shrugs*

Mind you, yeah, sooner or later the prices are going to catch up and complaining about what we get now will be like grumbling about quarter sodas.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

What would be a real change is permanently transferring a few billion from the coal and oil subsidies budget to the renewable subsidies budget. You wanna talk about cost effectiveness? Fossil fuels get 100 billion dollars in subsidies every year. Renewables get, at my last check, about 7 billion.

That's right. The "impractical solar panels" are about ten times as actually practical as fossil fuels. Don't even get me started on the others. If we didn't have the state propping it up even the reddest most ornery sweaty Texan would be demanding renewable expansions.