Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Ed Markey to unveil 'Green New Deal' bill

[Starlight]

The actual text of the Resolution submitted to congress which is here doesn't contain any errors AFAIK.

Thanks, Star. I'll give it a look. At first glance I didn't see the 10 or 12 year time frame, either.

It does:


Things, I note, however from reading it myself, are not present in it, that have been falsely asserted by conservatives, include:

• The abolition of all cars
• The abolition of all planes
• Recycling of urine
• Payments to people unwilling to work
• Flintstone-style cars

So, apparently, there was indeed a draft as I proffered....

Perhaps you should concern yourself less with rumors about alleged draft texts of documents that were posted by staffers in error and then withdrawn, and more with an actual focus on the real proposals?

[Cow Poke]

Perhaps you should concern yourself

Perhaps you should stop being such a pompous jackass and stop telling me where my concerns should lie.

... less with rumors about alleged draft texts of documents that were posted by staffers in error and then withdrawn, and more with an actual focus on the real proposals?

You mean, when Democrats accidentally expose what they're really thinking, I should ignore the man behind the curtain and wait for the sanitized version?

It wasn't a rumor, and it wasn't an "alleged draft of texts" you goofus -- they owned it, but can't seem to get their stories straight.

[Starlight]

You mean, when Democrats accidentally expose what they're really thinking

Who's thinking exactly is being exposed though? Some staffer who was responsible for this draft which hadn't been reviewed and wasn't meant to be released?

And what exactly does it tell you? That some Democrat somewhere supports a Universal Basic Income policy? I've got news for you, there's plenty of people that would support such a policy around the Western world. But putting it in the Green New Deal itself seems a bit inappropriate and distracting as it's quite an unrelated policy, besides which there would be plenty of Democrats who wouldn't support such a policy, so if it was ever in the early draft of the actual resolution it was presumably removed long before the final version because of lack of support for it.

[Cow Poke]

Who's thinking exactly is being exposed though? Some staffer who was responsible for this draft which hadn't been reviewed and wasn't meant to be released?

And you know this how? Because you're the smartest person on the planet? I got news for you, Star --- those smart pills they're feeding you are rabbit pellets.

[Starlight]

And you know this how?

I asked a question of you. That wasn't a claim to knowledge on my part.

However the various statements I've seen seem to imply a mix-up by one of her staffers. A Green New Deal FAQs had apparently been drafted initially, then abandoned and in its place they had worked on the Resolution text itself in conjunction with the other congresspeople which has now been officially submitted. AOC's intention was apparently to wait for public feedback to the Resolution text, and in light of that feedback to eventually dust off the old original FAQ draft and update it based on the feedback and on the various changes that had occurred as the Resolution went through the drafting process. Someone apparently stuck the old draft FAQ on the blog instead - I guess they were supposed to email it to someone to begin the update and re-draft process rather than stick it on the blog?

Because you're the smartest person on the planet?

Seems unlikely, and difficult to measure. Just the smartest person on this site.

I got news for you, Star --- those smart pills they're feeding you are rabbit pellets.

Hmm, if you take rabbit pellets as pills that could explain a lot.

[Cow Poke]

And what exactly does it tell you? That some Democrat somewhere supports a Universal Basic Income policy? I've got news for you, there's plenty of people that would support such a policy around the Western world. But putting it in the Green New Deal itself seems a bit inappropriate and distracting as it's quite an unrelated policy, besides which there would be plenty of Democrats who wouldn't support such a policy, so if it was ever in the early draft of the actual resolution it was presumably removed long before the final version because of lack of support for it.

I started to ignore this little tirade, but it's just too rich.

Summary....

A) You really grasp at straws to separate this from AOC by blaming it on "Some Democrat" who supports a UBI policy. You think AOC does not?
2) You try to justify this by claiming others "around the Western world" would support such a policy. No surprise. I'm glad you admit, however, that this is even too nutty for "plenty of Democrats who wouldn't support such a policy".
C) And here's the kicker --- Even though the text is right there in black and white on the archive page, and the libs already owned it, you still persist in saying "if it was ever in the early draft" (it most certainly was) it was presumably removed long before the final version because of lack of support for it. How long before? What's the timeline there?

You are REALLY grasping, Star --- this is not like you.

[Starlight]

"Some Democrat" who supports a UBI policy. You think AOC does not?

I haven't heard her mention the subject despite having watched multiple hours of interviews with her.

Googling it now I found this statement by her to the effect that she thinks the jury is still out on whether a UBI is a good idea or not.

C) And here's the kicker --- Even though the text is right there in black and white on the archive page, and the libs already owned it, you still persist in saying "if it was ever in the early draft" (it most certainly was) it was presumably removed long before the final version because of lack of support for it. How long before? What's the timeline there?

I'm not sure what is wrong with you that you are getting so into conspiracy thinking here. Take some chill pills before you turn into Alex Jones.

Perhaps you're simply so embarrassed by the number of false claims about the Green New Deal that you've made in this thread that you're desperate to find something scandalous about it somewhere to distract from your own mistakes?

[Cow Poke]

I haven't heard her mention the subject despite having watched multiple hours of interviews with her.

Googling it now I found this statement by her to the effect that she thinks the jury is still out on whether a UBI is a good idea or not.

STOP THE PRESSES --- AOC is CONFUSED about something!

I'm not sure what is wrong with you that you are getting so into conspiracy thinking here.

I know exactly what's wrong with you that you are getting so into defensive nuttery here.

Take some chill pills before you turn into Alex Jones.

Why would I want to take advice from a nut who is deranged into thinking he's the smartest person on Tweb?

Perhaps you're simply so embarrassed by the number of false claims about the Green New Deal that you've made in this thread that you're desperate to find something scandalous about it somewhere to distract from your own mistakes?

Actually, I'm welcoming new information, and have already dropped a number of claims I can no longer support. It's YOU, my little pretend genius, who seems incapable of admitting facts not in dispute.

Like your goofus " if it was ever in the early draft of the actual resolution it was presumably removed long before the final version because of lack of support for it."

Why can't you just put on your big boy panties and admit "well, yeah, it was indeed there, and it wasn't removed LONG before the final version....."

I willingly back away from claims I can no longer support -- you just keep digging yourself into a deeper and deeper hole. Perhaps that's what your alleged PhD is ... a Post Hole Digger.

[lilpixieofterror]

Power loss over distance is proportional to the inverse square of the voltage, which is why very high voltage lines are used for long distance transmission. High voltage transmission is practical to a distance of about 4000 miles, which is longer than the US coast to coast distance so distance is not really an issue within the US. In general transmission losses in the US power grid tend to be around 7%.

Solar, since it can be put on the house roof of the house using the energy, tends to not need such long-distance transmission. Though, of course, desert-based solar farms can be a thing, and electricity from them is transmitted to the nearest city via high voltage lines as per normal for any power plant.

Very large numbers of dams have already been built in the US. I am not suggesting building additional ones, merely suggesting their power be used primarily for load-balancing purposes.

And what do you do about areas of the country where dams are in short supply?

Batteries go in electric cars.

Which need to be charged by a plug into a wall. You do understand that the current electric grid would need an increase in capacity to meet an increased demand for all these cars you plan on charging up, right?

Your question seems to imply we need additional batteries outside electric cars in order to power them, which isn't necessarily true. Batteries within the power grid itself are purely for load balancing (i.e. when the sun is shining and/or the wind blowing they get charged up, and then they are drawn from when the sun isn't shining and wind not blowing), and how many would be needed is very hard to predict as it would depend one what ratio of renewables the US ends up adopting and how Americans end up using power across the day once they have electric cars (e.g. would they plug in those cars to charge during the day when they got to work? Would they plug them in at home overnight? Would they stop on their way home at a charging station? etc).

You're making wild claims here. And again you're parroting the Republican scam line where they don't ask the "how you gonna pay for it?" question about their own absurdly expensive wars and tax cuts and military funding, but whenever Dems suggest anything that would benefit the American people and the American economy suddenly "how you gonna pay for it" gets asked ad infinitum. Obviously it would be paid for through some combination of taxes and debt exactly like everything else in US history has been, and thus the question isn't particularly interesting.

Apart from my general interest in the topic (e.g. I watched multiple youtube videos yesterday about current and future solar panel tech just cos I have an interest), there are people in my scientific research group doing research on the topic so I am subjected to occasional scientific seminars on the subject, and also my best friend worked for several years in two different private companies researching and producing new methods of electricity generation so I got to hear quite a lot about that over the years.

I'm going to assume you yourself have zero expertise in the subject because you seem to be getting a lot wrong.

Not really. You seem to attack strawman of what I said though.

Yes, that is why solar panels are usually sold with inverters so they can be connected.

If what I said was true, thousands of people would already have put solar panels on their roofs and connected it to their homes and... oh, wait, that's happened. Guess what I said must be true then.

Apparently a few orders of magnitude more than yours.

I get that you have a tendency to just utterly make up wild claims like that one.

And your evidence I am wrong is....

[Mountain Man]

You are REALLY grasping, Star --- this is not like you.

I have to disagree. It is exactly like him.

[Cow Poke]

I have to disagree. It is exactly like him.

Yeah, I kinda rethought as I typed that....

[Tassman]

I haven't heard her mention the subject despite having watched multiple hours of interviews with her.

Googling it now I found this statement by her to the effect that she thinks the jury is still out on whether a UBI is a good idea or not.

I'm not sure what is wrong with you that you are getting so into conspiracy thinking here. Take some chill pills before you turn into Alex Jones.

Perhaps you're simply so embarrassed by the number of false claims about the Green New Deal that you've made in this thread that you're desperate to find something scandalous about it somewhere to distract from your own mistakes?

When it comes to the much needed Green New Deal to Reset Climate Policy, the mocking Trumpites can say what they want about Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. The fact is she is dynamic, honest, straightforward and she walks the walk.

[Bill the Cat]

When it comes to the much needed Green New Deal to Reset Climate Policy, the mocking Trumpites can say what they want about Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. The fact is she is dynamic, honest, straightforward and she walks the walk.

She's a liar. 12 hours apart, she said the Green New Farce is and isn't a government takeover.

[Mountain Man]

She's a liar. 12 hours apart, she said the Green New Farce is and isn't a government takeover.

And when an early version of the proposal was (apparently accidentally) posted to the web and then later taken down, she and her associates insisted that it never happened and that the early draft of the proposal was a hoax.

[Sparko]

Less misquoting people please.

What a nutty article. Do you actually believe this stuff?!

I linked to the actual Green New Deal FAQ which the article quoted from.

Or were you referring to actually believing the ridiculous FAQ? Yeah that was pretty hard to read without laughing. Reads like a 5th grade wish list of a perfect world. She should have added in pet unicorns for every girl.