A thread for Democrats Only
POSTED BY: THGRRI
UPDATED: Sunday, September 6, 2026 15:36
VIEWED: 755368
PAGE 249 of 725
Quote:
Originally posted by second:
If you wanted tremendous economic growth, America could make every roof a solar electric roof, every car an electric car, every city connected by 400 MPH high speed rail, etc. It is the Green New Deal.
No. It's not.
I'm on board with all of that. Unfortunately, there is a LOT more in the Green New Deal, including a lot of identity politics and open border bullshit.
Take the shit out of the Green New Deal and then we'll talk about it.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:6ix, quote some of those parts you object to in the Green New Deal from Congress's website:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:Quote:
Originally posted by second:
If you wanted tremendous economic growth, America could make every roof a solar electric roof, every car an electric car, every city connected by 400 MPH high speed rail, etc. It is the Green New Deal.
No. It's not.
I'm on board with all of that. Unfortunately, there is a LOT more in the Green New Deal, including a lot of identity politics and open border bullshit.
Take the shit out of the Green New Deal and then we'll talk about it.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-resolution/109/text
There is not even one item (A to N, see below) that will pass in the Senate. It is the way it will be for as many years as there are at least 41 GOP Senators to filibuster these goals:
The goals should be accomplished through a 10-year national mobilization (referred to in this resolution as the “Green New Deal mobilization”) that will require the following projects—
(A) building resiliency against climate change-related disasters, such as extreme weather, including by leveraging funding and providing investments for community-defined projects and strategies;
(B) repairing and upgrading the infrastructure in the United States, including—
(i) by eliminating pollution and greenhouse gas emissions as much as technologically feasible;
(ii) by guaranteeing universal access to clean water;
(iii) by reducing the risks posed by climate impacts; and
(iv) by ensuring that any infrastructure bill considered by Congress addresses climate change;
(C) meeting 100 percent of the power demand in the United States through clean, renewable, and zero-emission energy sources, including—
(i) by dramatically expanding and upgrading renewable power sources; and
(ii) by deploying new capacity;
(D) building or upgrading to energy-efficient, distributed, and “smart” power grids, and ensuring affordable access to electricity;
(E) upgrading all existing buildings in the United States and building new buildings to achieve maximum energy efficiency, water efficiency, safety, affordability, comfort, and durability, including through electrification;
(F) spurring massive growth in clean manufacturing in the United States and removing pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from manufacturing and industry as much as is technologically feasible, including by expanding renewable energy manufacturing and investing in existing manufacturing and industry;
(G) working collaboratively with farmers and ranchers in the United States to remove pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from the agricultural sector as much as is technologically feasible, including—
(i) by supporting family farming;
(ii) by investing in sustainable farming and land use practices that increase soil health; and
(iii) by building a more sustainable food system that ensures universal access to healthy food;
(H) overhauling transportation systems in the United States to remove pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector as much as is technologically feasible, including through investment in—
(i) zero-emission vehicle infrastructure and manufacturing;
(ii) clean, affordable, and accessible public transit; and
(iii) high-speed rail;
(I) mitigating and managing the long-term adverse health, economic, and other effects of pollution and climate change, including by providing funding for community-defined projects and strategies;
(J) removing greenhouse gases from the atmosphere and reducing pollution by restoring natural ecosystems through proven low-tech solutions that increase soil carbon storage, such as land preservation and afforestation;
(K) restoring and protecting threatened, endangered, and fragile ecosystems through locally appropriate and science-based projects that enhance biodiversity and support climate resiliency;
(L) cleaning up exi
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
On June 7, 1892, a dapper shoemaker purchased a first-class ticket on a Louisiana train for a short journey he knew he wouldn't finish.
The 30-year-old man of mixed-race heritage sat in the whites-only section of the train. When a conductor ordered him to move to a dingy rail car reserved for blacks, he refused, was arrested and convicted at a trial.
The man appealed his case to the Supreme Court. Four years later, the court rejected his claim that sitting in a segregated train car stamped him with "a badge of servitude."
The New York Times published only two paragraphs on the 7-1 decision. But Homer Adolph Plessy, the man on the train, did not fade from history. Plessy v. Ferguson eventually became known as one of the Supreme Court's most nakedly racist decisions. The 1896 ruling played a pivotal role in giving legal cover to Jim Crow segregation that would last for more than half a century.
It's hard today not to marvel at the casual cruelty of the Plessy decision. How could the court accept the transparent lie that blacks lived in separate but equal worlds with whites? And how could they give Constitutional sanction to a blatant display of racism?
You don't have to study history to answer those questions. Watch what happens this week when the US Supreme Court issues its decision on whether the Trump administration can add a question about citizenship to the 2020 census, some legal scholars and historians say.
They say the conservative majority on the court is on the verge of embracing in the census case some of the same legal rationalizations that produced Jim Crow segregation.
If they accept the census question, they are following the same pattern that the late-19th-century and 20th-century court made that was clearly intended to cement white rule. The census-citizenship case is expected to be one of the most significant Supreme Court cases involving race in recent history.
The formula for this version of White Supremacy 2.0 is the same as it was then: Ignore the racist intent behind laws to justify a preordained decision. Supporters of the census-citizenship question say that its purpose is actually protecting racial minorities. But documents from the Supreme Court case show that the Trump administration’s true purpose in putting the citizenship question on the upcoming census was not its stated one to help Hispanic voters under the Voting Rights Act, but rather to create policy that would be “a disadvantage to the Democrats” and “advantageous to Republicans and non-Hispanic Whites.” It’s difficult to produce a greater smoking gun than explicitly saying you are hoping to help the GOP by increasing white voting power.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/05/census-memo-supreme-court-
conservatives-white-voters-alito.html
But instead of asking about those memos describing the purpose of the citizenship question, the conservative justices focused on tangential questions revolving around the Trump administration's authority to add the question to the census.
What the court does -- and the court does this often -- is evade reality. It allows them to focus on technical questions.
More at www.cnn.com/2019/06/23/us/supreme-court-census-citizenship-blake/index
.html
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
There is zero comparison between the two scenarios stated above if you have an ounce of common sense within you.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Wow, then I should have ended as a complete failure because my commonsense doesn't work like your oh-so-superior commonsense. Every single time you comment I understand more about why you fell to the bottom of the economic scale, 6ix. In the census-citizenship case, the Supreme Court may once again affirm 'white rule'. That 19th century Supreme Court case wasn't about blacks only railroad cars, but about whites only railroad cars, or 'white rule'.
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
There is zero comparison between the two scenarios stated above if you have an ounce of common sense within you.
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I don't give two shits what that was about.
Right now it's about citizens (which include blacks and legals born of Mexican and South American descent), vs illegal aliens.
Go fuck yourself for purposely trying to conflate the two as being even remotely similar by making it a "white" thing.
Idiot.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
People who claim it's a 'white' thing are racist.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:The existence of conservative Southern Democrats — the Dixiecrats — was the fundamental fact of Congress in the mid-20th century.
Originally posted by 1kiki:
People who claim it's a 'white' thing are racist.
The Southern Democratic Party was an institution unto itself. As the political scientist V.O. Key Jr. observed, “the one-party system of the South is an institution with an odd dual personality. In state politics the Democratic party is no party at all but a multiplicity of factions struggling for office. In national politics, on the contrary, the party is the Solid South; it is, or at least has been, the instrument for the conduct of the ‘foreign relations’ of the South with the rest of the nation.”
The Dixiecrats had hegemonic control of the South. They ran it as an authoritarian state built to sustain a violent racial hierarchy. And they protected their autonomy by currying favor with, and amassing power in, the national Democratic Party.
For Southern Dixiecrats, good relationships with the broader Democratic Party were the currency of Southern power. So long as they had seniority and allies, they could protect the South. The moment they didn’t, they were endangered.
By the time Joe Biden got to Congress, the Civil Rights Act had passed, and the realignment of the South from Dixiecrat to Republican was beginning. . . . but the Southern Dixiecrats still had the power to slow-walk civil rights legislation, and they wielded that power cunningly, ferociously, and with a smile. Biden could cut deals with Eastland the Dixiecrat because it was in Eastland’s interest to cut deals with him. Eastland’s power — his committee chairmanship — came from remaining a Democrat in good standing. If he didn’t cut deals and build relationships with young bucks like Biden, his influence was over. This was the strategy and the structure of the Dixiecrat bloc.
Biden wasn’t a master legislator at age 30; he was one piece in a much larger game, a game that was ending even if the players didn’t yet know it. That is not a knock on him. We are almost all pawns of the larger forces that order our worlds. What’s important is to be aware of that fact, to not get so caught up in our individual stories that we lose sight of the structures that shape us.
The Republicans of today may be the inheritors of the Dixiecrats’ seats, but they have adopted an entirely different strategy. It is not in Mitch McConnell’s interest to cut true deals with Biden. Here, again, Biden is a pawn in the politics of his era, not the master. The problem is he doesn’t seem to realize it.
More at www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/6/26/18715650/joe-biden-2020-prim
ary-democrat-senator-segregation
Did I mention the Dixiecrats were all white? They are all gone now, but they were replaced with all whites from another party.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:With Census Decision, Trump’s GOP Falters in March Toward White Minority Rule
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
I don't give two shits what that was about.
Right now it's about citizens (which include blacks and legals born of Mexican and South American descent), vs illegal aliens.
Go fuck yourself for purposely trying to conflate the two as being even remotely similar by making it a "white" thing.
Idiot.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
Today the Supreme Court agreed with the government that a citizenship question on the 2020 Census could be legal, if justified by a legitimate reason.
Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts said Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross’s justification for adding the citizenship question was “contrived,” and remanded the decision back to the lower courts.
The ruling essentially says, ‘You can’t give a fake reason.’ Ross would now have to give a real reason, but the time window is closing quickly on that. And if Ross can come up with a justification, derived from a reasonable decision-making process, it would still have to survive the scrutiny of New York City District Judge Jesse Furman, to whom the case has been remanded. But Furman has no shortage of skepticism for Ross.
The court’s characteristically narrow ruling, however, elides the most important revelation of the census saga: that the Donald Trump administration allied with anti-immigrant demagogues and the architects of Republican gerrymandering in an effort to specifically suppress the political power and participation of immigrants and people of color. Emails released by the Commerce Department during litigation revealed that former Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach, mastermind of nationwide voter suppression efforts, wrote to Ross in July 2017, “at the direction of Steve Bannon,” urging him to add a citizenship question because its absence “leads to the problem that aliens . . . are still counted for congressional apportionment purposes.”
Then, earlier this month, it was reported that the late Tom Hofeller, a Republican National Committee redistricting expert, had urged the Trump transition team to adopt a citizenship question after determining that it “would clearly be a disadvantage to the Democrats” and “advantageous to Republicans and non-Hispanic whites.” A paragraph drafted by Hofeller and found on his hard drive by his estranged daughter supported the premise that citizenship data would help enforce the Voting Rights Act. That paragraph later appeared word for word in a draft letter from the Justice Department to the Census Bureau requesting the citizenship question.
This accumulation of evidence suggests not just that Ross’s justification — to Congress and the public — was a lie (or, as Roberts would put it, a “contrivance”), but that the real motive was the one suspected by Democrats and civil rights advocates from the outset: to transfer political power from minority communities to white people in red states.
More at https://theintercept.com/2019/06/27/census-citizenship-question-suprem
e-court/
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
People who claim it's a 'white' thing are racist.
Quote:fify
Originally posted by SECOND:
fart
And if democrats don't do anything different, how are they any better?
tic tac
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME