Jump to content

DEPACincy

Great American Tower 665'
  • Content Count

    1,468
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

DEPACincy last won the day on May 30

DEPACincy had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

377 Excellent

Recent Profile Visitors

493 profile views
  1. Five Thirty Eight's pre and post debate poll analysis:
  2. The downtown signals haven't been re timed in so long it doesn't really matter. They're not efficiently timed as is.
  3. I guess our fundamental disagreement is over whether this is all nefarious. I think Pete has a different approach than you (or I, for that matter) would prefer on some of these issues. You believe that he is insincere and I don't. And I'm not convinced that this evidence you've presented proves your point if you look at it with an unbiased eye. Victor is a very well-respected voice on climate policy. I don't think anyone in the field would question his sincerity or integrity. He is more than qualified. I don't agree with a lot of what he says, but I think he's valuable as one voice in a room of many. If you had to put our view on climate on a left-right spectrum, here's where I think they fall: <--YOU---ME-------Victor---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Republicans-->
  4. I think his take there is a bad one for being so easy to parody, but I don't think he's saying we shouldn't blame fossil fuel companies. He's saying focusing on the large producers isn't sufficient. We need systemic change. Which is what Pete has said on the campaign trail. The government has to be the one to make the change, we cannot expect fossil fuel producers to do it on their own. And again, fossil fuel companies do not pay his bills. He once worked for a university that received funding (among many other sources!) from BP. He no longer even works there. He's at Brookings now. I assisted in some climate research as an undergrad at OU. I have no idea who funded that research, but I guarantee if you followed the paper trail you'd find at least one company that makes money off of fossil fuels. It is the nature of the beast, unfortunately. I can tell you, though, that who was funding our research never even came up and our findings were not at all good for fossil fuel companies. I can also tell you that I don't think anyone who has ever worked at OU or OSU or UC or wherever should be banned from advising political campaigns.
  5. I don't know what Hill Heat is, but that's a pretty uncharitable view of the guy. It took several quotes out of context to try to paint him as an oil company shill. He's a leading scholar at Brookings: https://www.brookings.edu/experts/david-victor/ And we should all be troubled that Stanford turns to BP for funding of energy research. Our government should be providing that support. But let's not be naive. Every large university in the country has turned to troublesome sources for research dollars. If we are disqualifying everyone who has worked at one of these institutes we are basically saying that no one who has worked at a large research university can advise a campaign or work in the government. And by the way, here's a statement from Stanford on the BP funding: All of the program's research is public and published openly, including on its website (http://pesd.stanford.edu/). The gift from the BP Foundation, as well as all similar gifts to support the program's research, includes special provisions that assure the research program's independence in setting its research agenda. The agreement with Stanford is one in a series of BP partnerships with universities in the United Kingdom, the United States and China, representing a total commitment of more than $600 million. The program at Stanford complements work on similar topics at Princeton University, Tsinghua University and Imperial College, among others. Founded in 2001, the Program on Energy and Sustainable Development focuses on the "political economy" of modern energy services—the interaction of political, institutional and economic forces that often dominate energy markets. It collaborates with the Stanford Law School and other university departments and schools, including economics, engineering and earth sciences. About half of the program's resources are devoted to research partnerships in key developing countries, including Brazil, China, India, Mexico and South Africa. Program researchers have examined the emergence of a global business in natural gas, reforms of electric power markets and the supply of modern energy services to low-income rural households in developing countries. Seems a lot less nefarious when you have the whole story.
  6. Bingo! When you say M4A a lot of people are actually thinking of a program where they can pick between a public option and their private insurance. When you explain to them private insurance is going away it becomes less popular. That's exactly the case in the poll that @Cavalier Attitude posted. Also, it is from over a year ago. If you look at the poll I posted, at that same time they showed about 60% support of M4A (compared to 70% in @Cavalier Attitude's poll). Not that big of a difference. BUT more recent polling shows that that number has dropped, because more people understand that they would have to give up their private insurance. Look, I think private insurance is bad. It's predatory. It should be done away with. I'm just trying to consider what is politically possible. And incrementalism is a lot more palatable to people than blowing up an entire industry overnight.
  7. That's fine. You can prefer Bernie's policy position. You can look at Pete's idea and say "nah, that's not for me." That's the whole point of the primary. What I was drawing attention to, is that Pete has not changed his position. This has been his position from day one. That was my only beef. There's no need to fabricate things (I don't think D&S was fabricating anything, but it seems like there is a media narrative that is false) when there are legit policy differences (albeit small ones in the grand scheme of things) that you can debate. I personally view this as a positive. If Warren tried to shoehorn M4A into her first two years we could see a huge backlash in 2022 and the GOP would take large majorities in Congress. That would cripple the rest of her presidency. I think if she extended Medicare to those over 50 who want it in her first two years (again, presuming she can even get that done) it would prove to be massively popular and we could potentially see Dems buck the trend of midterm losses. Then in year three she would be in a good position to push for a full M4A transition. This is obviously all speculation. Who knows what will happen. But I could see it going that way.
  8. He hasn't attacked their M4A plans, he has merely tried to distinguish between their plans and his plan. Which is exactly what a primary is for, no? He thinks his plan is better so he's going to highlight why. It's a much different thing to say that Pete has changed his position when he has not. Agreed that neither plan is going to get passed so it's all pretty pointless anyway. But again, that's what primaries are for. You're positioning yourself and voters get to choose which positions they like better. I agree he has a problem with AAs. The Douglass Plan rollout has not been good. He'll need to fix that if he wants to compete in SC and moving forward.
  9. Right. Which kind of proves my point. Bernie doesn't really every mention the transition period. And up until this week Warren never campaigned on a transition. Pete was the only one saying we need to transition to M4A on the campaign trail. Their actual positions have been similar all along, just with different branding. And I 100% agree that it's silly to have infighting about this because all of their positions are so similar. You're the one that slammed Pete and a few of us didn't feel you were accurately representing his position so we pointed that out. Notice we're not slamming Bernie or Elizabeth's positions. I respect you a ton but I think you're letting your dislike of Pete cloud your judgement here.
  10. Again, that's a misrepresentation of his position. You can believe that M4A is the best option and also that it is politically DOA. I happen to think his incremental approach is the only way to get it done and I'm glad Warren has come around to it. I suspect she planned to pivot all along. And that's ok. It's a good decision in my view. It would actually be naive to promise everyone M4A right away. That's not going to happen. Her new plan of sweeping reforms and expanding Medicare and then working on M4A in year three is far better. That way, she doesn't suffer huge losses in 2022 for not delivering and instead Dems are motivated to give her a majority in the Senate to finish the job.
  11. This isn't true. Pete's position has not changed. In February, he said in that interview that single-payer was the right direction for us to head as a country. And that we should get to Medicare for All eventually. But then and now, he is proposing that we start with Medicare for All Who Want It. And then folks will like it so much they'll be happy to move to complete Medicare for All. His position has always been basically the same as Warren is now taking (and she actually changed her position).
  12. Population density and density of pavement. And the higher value applies. So an industrial park that is 100% paved and takes up an entire tract, but has zero population, would be given a value of 10 and be classified as urban.
×
×
  • Create New...