17 votes

Republican congressman: Ideas behind Green New Deal 'tantamount to genocide'

12 comments

  1. [9]
    clerical_terrors Link
    Once again the tactics discussed in an earlier thread are on full display. Not only are the claims presented completely overblown and largely unfounded, but there is no alternative proposal: If...

    Once again the tactics discussed in an earlier thread are on full display. Not only are the claims presented completely overblown and largely unfounded, but there is no alternative proposal:

    McCarthy was asked by a reporter to name the most significant piece of climate legislation that House Republicans are working on right now but McCarthy declined to name specific ideas.

    If the GOP could actually muster a believable, costed, alternative proposal they could perhaps fight for it on the house floor, and possibly sway moderate/centrist voters over to their side. Instead they're doubling down on hyperbolic fearmongering.

    Pure rhetoric, no solutions, no ideas, no sense of pragmatic realism. All bark and no bite.

    22 votes
    1. [3]
      gtwillwin Link Parent
      It's hard to come up with real solutions when half the party still says there's no issue. The Republican party has been hijacked by those who have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo.

      It's hard to come up with real solutions when half the party still says there's no issue. The Republican party has been hijacked by those who have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo.

      9 votes
      1. clerical_terrors Link Parent
        Almost all political groupings, especially if they are vested, will have a degree of interest in perpetuating the status quo. The problem is that change is inherent to our reality, and people...

        Almost all political groupings, especially if they are vested, will have a degree of interest in perpetuating the status quo. The problem is that change is inherent to our reality, and people either don't understand this or like to pretend to be able to halt it while actually profiting off of it before giving up and letting other people deal with the mess they've created. I think the Republican party, more than anything else, now houses a vast number of these kinds of people. As do the Democrats, but the Democrats seem to have at least some part of their party realise that in order to maintain that beneficial status quo some sacrifices need to be made and some change is necessary.

        2 votes
      2. alyaza Link Parent
        and see, your comment doesn't even account for at least a few representatives who are basically soft deniers because they do think climate change is bad, but they also think it's a great business...

        and see, your comment doesn't even account for at least a few representatives who are basically soft deniers because they do think climate change is bad, but they also think it's a great business opportunity and those opportunities more than make up for the bad and therefore that climate change is okay as a sum.

        1 vote
    2. [5]
      Jehosephat Link Parent
      Just to play devil's advocate here regarding the 'where's their solution' bit... If someone presented you with a solution (that you think is outlandish) to a problem (that you don't believe...

      Just to play devil's advocate here regarding the 'where's their solution' bit... If someone presented you with a solution (that you think is outlandish) to a problem (that you don't believe exists) you wouldn't feel like that compels you to come up with a 'better' solution. And even if you did, that wouldn't automatically make your solution 'good'.

      Example:
      My solution to global warming is to go lasso a huge asteroid and tow it into low-earth orbit to block out some of the sun's rays.
      You would probably say that's idiotic. So I say 'Oh yeah? what's your great plan?'
      You could propose just about anything and it would be better than my plan, but that doesn't really get us anywhere.

      Don't get me wrong here, I'm not defending the mischaracterizations of GND but I don't get the 'where's their plan' line of thinking.

      3 votes
      1. [3]
        Greg Link Parent
        Even in a hypothetical, I don't think it's fair to give anyone a pass because they don't believe the problem exists. The reality of the situation demands a viable solution of some kind, regardless...

        Even in a hypothetical, I don't think it's fair to give anyone a pass because they don't believe the problem exists. The reality of the situation demands a viable solution of some kind, regardless of the merits (or lack thereof) of the GND - that alone makes it a fair question to ask.

        At best, denying the problem amounts to a deeply dangerous level of ignorance or negligence. The denial itself already puts them at fault. Even then, that's assuming a good faith argument - which is something that most of these politicians have unfortunately long since demonstrated is above them.

        8 votes
        1. [2]
          Jehosephat Link Parent
          I completely agree that the denial should be the crux of the argument. I just think that even if both parties do agree that the problem exists, one (hypothetically unrealistic) proposal from one...

          I completely agree that the denial should be the crux of the argument. I just think that even if both parties do agree that the problem exists, one (hypothetically unrealistic) proposal from one party does not require the other to somehow 'best' it, in order to say that it is unrealistic. Similar to the burden of proof being on a person making a claim rather than the other to somehow disprove it. To be clear, I'm not making a statement about the original GND statements in the article, but a statement about the futility of the 'what's your plan?' argument in general. It's just not useful.

          1 vote
          1. Greg Link Parent
            I see where you're coming from, and I don't entirely disagree, but I think that having their own plan is table stakes for being part of the conversation at all. Even if the GND proposal were...

            I see where you're coming from, and I don't entirely disagree, but I think that having their own plan is table stakes for being part of the conversation at all. Even if the GND proposal were utterly, clearly, transparently stupid it would still be reasonable to ask the critics what their own plan is - not because that gives them the right to criticise, but because the wider conversation is about a problem that needs solving. They're obliged to provide an answer because an answer is needed, and criticism of the GND is just a handy prompt to segue into that conversation.

            3 votes
      2. clerical_terrors Link Parent
        If you are actively engaged in policy making and you know there are voters to be had by being the party which proposes the workable solution over the outlandish one you would. But I suppose that's...

        Just to play devil's advocate here regarding the 'where's their solution' bit... If someone presented you with a solution (that you think is outlandish) to a problem (that you don't believe exists) you wouldn't feel like that compels you to come up with a 'better' solution. And even if you did, that wouldn't automatically make your solution 'good'.

        If you are actively engaged in policy making and you know there are voters to be had by being the party which proposes the workable solution over the outlandish one you would.
        But I suppose that's just not the case here.

        1 vote
  2. Nmg Link
    As a member of an ethnicity that was actually genocided in recent history, I really don't appreciate this nonsense pandering that waters down the claim, and I am sure other minority groups under...

    As a member of an ethnicity that was actually genocided in recent history, I really don't appreciate this nonsense pandering that waters down the claim, and I am sure other minority groups under the same circumstances feel the same way.

    I have supported some Republicans in the past, but if this was my congressperson, you would be damn sure I wouldn't vote for them.

    4 votes
  3. [2]
    StellarTabi Link
    I read the article, the use of the word genocide was never justified. Again with Republicans, "everything I don't like is white genocide, but actual genocide is ok. "

    I read the article, the use of the word genocide was never justified. Again with Republicans, "everything I don't like is white genocide, but actual genocide is ok. "

    3 votes
    1. jimbo Link Parent
      The only hint of a justification was the suggestion that the policies would hit the rural poor hard. Actually discussing that assertion would have been worthwhile, but of course the "genocide"...

      The only hint of a justification was the suggestion that the policies would hit the rural poor hard. Actually discussing that assertion would have been worthwhile, but of course the "genocide" claim overshadowed it.