Scoring 15 presidential candidates on their commitment to climate action, the advocacy group 350 Action found that only three contenders have demonstrated true leadership by supporting key policies to address the crisis of a rapidly warming planet.
Disappointed in Tulsi on this extremely important point
If you have to be ‘convinced’ at this point, or you are still TRIANGULATING on this issue to see how you can have it both ways, You are worthless. Go home.
Tulsi has an even more aggressive, practical bill to combat climate change: The Off Fossil Fuels for a Better Future Act, is a piece of legislation that Tulsi introduced back in 2017.
Unlike the green new deal that was a resolution, the OFFact is a bill that would create the necessary oversight and legal framework to combat climate change.
When Tulsi didn’t endorse the GND, I did my homework, and realized the GND became intractable, it was only a resolution, it focused in the wrong things (measuring carbon emissions), and proposed many other things unrelated to climate change.
It turned from a good idea, to a terrible implementation, that the Republicans seized, and effectively pushed back.
Here is a link with the details comparing the bill and the resolution.
Good to hear. She came up in the article as: They’re getting there.
Tx for the heads up
(Perhaps @LibWingofLibWing might be interested in commenting - I’d be curious as to whether she has seen the Medium piece)
Thanks for that link - I had seen the one on Medium about her LGBT turnaround and 100% voting record but not this one. I see the GND has 91 Cosponsors but the Off Fossil Fuel Act has only 46. I haven’t cross referenced these yet, but perhaps we should be asking reps who signed on to GND but not to Tulsi’s Act what is their reasoning?
I also learned something (I thought H.R. was House Resolution too as the author mentions is a common misconception). Given how hard it is for House Resolutions (H.Res.X) vs House Bills (H.R.X), I know wonder why AOC thought of going that route. In general I am not for humongous bills. H.R.1384 is an exception as it is proposing a complete overhaul of the way we pay for health care and there has to be some substance in there, but H.R.1 could have been broken up (and will be according to someone talking about it on the Real News or Democracy Now recently) and attempted to get through individually. One could argue the GND would have to be pretty big, but when I see some of the items there I have to ask if it was as focused an effort as I thought it was - I think it would be better to concentrate on the Green Energy part for now (and health care somewhere else, labor rights somewhere else, etc.)
I think Tulsi has a lot of potential and I’ll be mainly deciding how to spend my CA primary vote between her or Sanders. I’m not that optimistic about her winning this time and the way she is treated by most of the media sickens me (she is treated better on Tucker Carlson than most places - he gets to make the liberal media look pathetic which is his agenda and they oblige). If this doesn’t change, she is going to have that much of a tougher time. I hope she is a rising star and that this won’t be her last run if she doesn’t win - if she does win the primary, I will have a blast trying to convince Republicans I know to vote for her - ‘hey Tucker likes her!’
This is the conclusion I have come to on Kamala Harris and her effort recently to have it both ways on AIPAC (don’t go to conference but invite them all to your office - what the hell is the difference?). If you dig into Tulsi more, you will see she is pretty thoughtful and has the best stance on regime change (even Bernie has to qualify himself when talking about Venezuela - I guess he thinks he has to do this in order to win Florida in the general, but it is still sad). I’m aware of some problematic things she has said that I’m still looking for qualification on (what drone strikes are going to be considered justified, and I’d like to hear more about her attitude on torture which was Kyle Kulinski’s reservation initially). However she has built up enough of a cachet in my mind that even when she says something I wish she had said differently (e.g. in the CNN townhall she wasn’t definitive enough on drug legalization or getting rid of private health insurance), she won’t lose my support.
It is ironic that Tulsi is downgraded for supporting something much better. It would be like grading Bernie down for not supporting Medicare For America.
what the hell is the difference?
Well, in her office she can take the bribes behind closed doors…just sayin.
I have no interest in Harris. I wouldn’t get off the couch for a ticket she was on. Hope you’re listening Bernie.
So there are quite a few marked “?” indicating unknown, which makes me wonder if it is because the candidate refused to say or the organization didn’t investigate sufficiently. Gabbard, Inslee & Yang all have met 2 of the 3 criteria, while being marked questionable for the 3rd.
Keep in mind that these are goals, & having these as your goals does not mean that you expect them to be applied immediately. But making these goals official does help spur innovation & development towards making them feasible even if they may not be at present.
Could you please summarize what this plan Tulsi supports that’s better than the Green New Deal? I’m eager to know.
Never mind, somebody else above already did.
The Medium piece that Alan linked to above is not that long, it summarizes things pretty well I thought.
Yes, looking upthread, I discovered it. Thanks!
Since this is your first post in this thread, you should probably define acronyms that most aren’t going to know (I didn’t know any of these).
CCS - Carbon Capture and Storage - if this means any new coal plants I’m not excited at all, if this means some more research on existing coal or existing/new natural gas plants, then let’s try it, but I don’t here that much optimism (you read a lot more than I do on this subject, so I’m always interested in reading what you have to say - are you that optimistic?)
HELE - High Efficiency, Low Emissions - this seems to be associated with coal and I’m not keen on investing in new coal plants. I’m probably more accepting of Gen IV nuclear plants (though it will take a while to gear up I’m afraid) than I am for new coal plants.
CHP - Combined Heat and Power ? (this doesn’t seem to imply storage unless it is heat storage?).
What I’d be interested in seeing is research into making economical load filling natural gas power plants. I’m sure this is a difficult problem, but if they can act as a substitute for grid storage which looks like a very difficult problem.
As far as this assessment of politicians goes - it is almost worthless to me, it’s only 3 things yes or no and didn’t even handle Tulsi’s viewpoint very well at all.
Ok, I just got my torture question resolved. Perhaps @LibWingofLibWing, @AlanMyron, or @Phred_Pharkel are interested. Basically, I had heard the clip of Tulsi being interviewed after the CIA torture report came out where she said what I would consider both sides nonsense (torture is bad, but what about a ticking atomic bomb?) on Secular Talk (Kyle’s show) and that gnawed at me though not enough for me to want to drop her. So what could absolve her for this? The fact that she read the torture report, thought about it, and then supported amendments to the defense bill that actually ban torture when she was on the Armed Services Committee. I care most about what people show me in government - people say a lot of things - what they do matters most. Of course until we get more people like Tulsi in office her bills or amendments often don’t succeed. But one has to try.
For a single video clip that has both interviews, see this commentary by Niko House: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ia3HatMXPg . 13:30-14:40 is the problematic earlier interview and Jordan Charaton’s interview clip that in my opinion absolves her is from 15:25-16:35. I found the whole video interesting, but it is a bit long and is also a hit piece on Ana Kasparian (not saying she doesn’t deserve it) so it might not be the best Tulsi reference, but it did have both clips.
Niko will interview Tulsi tomorrow (Fri) and Jordan’s 25 min interview is at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k0q3mqsBeDA
Yes, Tulsi responded in that interview in India right after the report was out before she could even read it and she expressed her feelings of being ‘conflicted’ because she was against the mistreatment of any human being but also understood the need to want to do what it takes to protect the US in the ticking time bomb scenario, which wasn’t her idea, but was what was ubiquitous in that time and was promoted in Oscar winning films like Zero Dark Thirty and popularized on hit TV shows like 24. She didn’t say she supported torture, she said she understood the other side.
You are so right. What she has done since then is what matters.
Most of the media who smear her are doing so because they don’t like her anti-war position. Nico thinks Ana is jealous. I find that hard to believe. I think she just has this irrational view that to support Bernie she needs to attack Tulsi. But I don’t like Ana anymore, she has been a rabid Russiagater and LOTE Hillary promoter. She’s like the alt media lesser version of Rachel Maddow. No thank you.
I appreciate Nico taking her down on this.
There has been so much smearing of Tulsi and it is so ubiquitous the far left was taken in and Kyle had to be enlightened on this and Mike Figuerado had to be enlightened on her LGBTQ support, etc., etc., etc.
Glad you saw that.
The big difference is the Green New Deal does nothing. That has been my critique of it from the start- that it was just hot air about let’s do nothing pretending we’re doing something so that we’re ready to do something after 2020.
We already know what we need to do. So we work to pass a law, not gab about it for a few years. That’s what Tulsi is doing- actually trying to do something. A BILL, not a resolution. Real laws, not vague goals.
Get us off Fossil Fuels. Not with vague goals. Not with fiddling with tax codes (Inslee- I’m looking at you.) Not with NeoLiberal cap and trade market based Capitalism (that’s what got us here in the first place.) But by making it against the law by a reasonable date.
Go Tulsi! She’s my Candidate!
I see that the March 31 deadline is almost here. I was going to send a check to skip the credit card fees, but it seems that using Act Blue makes it easier on the candidate according to http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/03/2020-democratic-debates-which-candidates-have-qualified.html:
To demonstrate that the fundraising threshold has been reached, candidates must provide verifiable evidence, which they may do by authorizing ActBlue and/or NGP VAN to provide that evidence.
I didn’t realize you don’t have to get 65,000 unique donors to get into the debate, you can also meet polling thresholds. Fingers crossed that Tulsi gets in either way.