February 10, 2019

Just a Link to a PDF.( For Historical Purposes)

When the "Green New Deal" first came out there was a FAQ sheet and I downloaded it got halfway through page 2 and reralized that the Cray-Cray was stronger in this document than I'd thought possible...and stopped reading. 


I commented on another blog that nuclear power was not just absent from the proposed solutions, it was specifically singled out for elimination. 

to wit:
A Green New Deal is a massive investment in renewable energy production and would not include creating new nuclear plants. It’s unclear if we will be able to decommission every nuclear plant within 10 years, but the plan is to transition off of nuclear and all fossil fuels as soon as possible.

The blogger asked for a citation saying he could not find that in the document. This struck me as odd because Lowther does his research and, as I said, it was on page two. 

Well lo and behold it appears that online versions of the FAQ page are being removed and/or edited; It's just that crazy a document. 

Well, I downloaded it and it's HERE (WARNING: May cause SAN loss)

It will remain here at least until Mee.nu gets blowed up. 

Neo has thoughts on the purpose of releasing the document as crazy and incomplete as it is. 

Pixy meanwhile, has run the numbers

They are not little numbers.

Posted by: The Brickmuppet at 02:25 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 233 words, total size 2 kb.

1 "I can't be out of money, I still have checks!" seems to be about the level of Occasional-Cotrex's economic understanding.

Posted by: Mauser at Sun Feb 10 12:15:54 2019 (Ix1l6)

2

If it were not for all the typos, you would have thought this idiocy was the product of a false flag operation by the GOP to smear the Democrats, rather than what might come from the College Young Communists after they got done smoking a lot of opium.

Anyone can come up with something as insane as this codswallop.  What is the scary part is that serious politicians on the Left believe in it enough to sign onto and endorse it (As a disclaimer, I think Neo is right to worry that a lot of voters are gullible to buy it, but I disagree in that I doubt enough of them will.).  Even Huey Long was not as absurd.

Of course, it does mean we have grounds to prevent anyone supporting this from ever riding on an aircraft, or a car, again.  Maybe eat steak too, but Obama already got that covered from eating thousand dollars per ounce steak when he was in office.

Posted by: cxt217 at Sun Feb 10 15:36:34 2019 (LMsTt)

3 I fear another edition of, "We have to pass the bill to see what's in the bill." on the horizon, however this time it will be enhanced (made more confusing) by the addition of (not linking to "the tropes") Xanatos Gambit/Xanatos Speed Chess efforts...something along the lines of, "we have to pass the bill so we can stop changing it..." although I doubt that would stop 'them' from continuing to modify such bill.

Posted by: RedLeg at Sun Feb 10 19:39:49 2019 (8MSbf)

4

Pelosi is an expect on that as well, if the stories about how the Democrat House staffers were still writing the ACA while the final vote was being taken are true.

One major difference is that Pelosi does not have a higher party leader hounding her to put his priorities first before her party's ability to hold the House and keep her in the Speaker's chair.  Given how thin the Dems' current margin is in the House, and the rumors about how unpopular AOC is among the Dems themselves (A seat, as has been noted, that is situated in the only part of NYC outside of Staten Island that voted Trump in 2016.), Pelosi might want to wait before doing something that will cause her to have to move offices again.

Posted by: cxt217 at Sun Feb 10 19:52:23 2019 (LMsTt)

Hide Comments | Add Comment




What colour is a green orange?




31kb generated in CPU 0.07, elapsed 0.1521 seconds.
68 queries taking 0.1273 seconds, 263 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.