By on February 14, 2019

alexandria ocasio-cortez

If you’re freaked out that the so-called Green New Deal will soon render you carless, or perhaps driving an EV against your will, I am here to tell you: Relax.

If you’re hoping the Green New Deal will save the planet from a climate crisis the federal government itself has predicted is just a hair over a decade away, I am here to tell you: Those backing the deal have their hearts in the right place, but their heads in the clouds. Or perhaps somewhere lower and darker.

Let me get a few things straight right off the bat. I believe climate change is real (and a real threat), I believe human actions are a major driver of climate change, and I believe we will, as a society, need to address climate change and do so quickly. I am no climate-change skeptic or denier. And yes, cars and trucks are part of what’s changing the climate.

This means I should’ve been optimistic about the Green New Deal (more formally known as House Resolution 109). A sweeping piece of legislation that addresses the very real challenges we face? One that may even create jobs? Seems like a winner, right?

As you know by now, people freaked when the resolution was released. And not just right-wingers objecting to a piece of legislation because it was introduced by Democrats. Nor was it just climate-change skeptics, or people who acknowledge climate change but believe in limited government regulation. No, even many on the left were verklempt. Why? Because the Green New Deal seemed to call for massive societal change in an extremely short time. Change that on the surface looked heavily restrictive in terms of freedom of choice and movement, not to mention impossible.

People believed the Green New Deal called for the complete substitution of air travel with high-speed rail, and either the banning of internal-combustion engine cars or cars altogether, depending on which hysterical person you read on Twitter.

Never mind that a CNTRL+ F doesn’t find the words cars, trucks, or automobiles anywhere in the doc. Never mind that the doc doesn’t refer to banning cars or even to moving them all to electric. As our frenemies at Jalopnik pointed out, here’s the most relevant passage to cars:

(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.

(Disclosure: I made minor formatting changes. You can see the full doc here).

As far as I can tell, the doc I am working off of is the original, not a revised version. The words airplane, aircraft, cow, cattle, methane, or cow farts don’t appear either, so the hysteria about banning air travel and cow flatulence seems to be overblown. That’s thanks to later-published FAQs that clouded the issue, about which more later.

The zero-emission line is interesting, however. But it’s followed by the words “infrastructure” and “manufacturing.” So does that mean the resolution’s sponsors are calling for zero-emission vehicles (read: EVs) or simply better infrastructure for supporting zero-emission vehicles? Does it mean that zero-emission vehicles should be manufactured or the manufacturing process should be zero-emission? It should be noted that the overhaul of the transportation section would include investment, with no mention of regulation.

Furthermore, some sections use the phrase “technologically feasible,” suggesting that the authors are at least somewhat aware of reality.

So no, the doc doesn’t call for the banning of cars, or planes, or cars with internal-combustion engines. At most, it calls for zero-emissions vehicles in 10 years. As Jalop points out and every auto industry observer knows, this is unlikely to happen. I believe that someday most of the automotive fleet – save for certain performance vehicles and trucks – will be EV, but that day is a long, long ways away. For EVs to go from under 2 percent market share to the majority of the market in a decade seems like a pipe dream.

Not to mention that even if EVs don’t emit pollution, the manufacturing process does, at least at present.

Automakers have been working on electric vehicles for quite some time now, but there’s several challenges to mass EV adoption that regular readers of this website are all too familiar with. They are, in no particular order: Affordability, charge times, range, charger availability, and consumer fear. Once we have a large amount of EVs available for under $35K, with ranges over 300 miles and charge times measured in minutes not hours, the market will start to turn. We’ll also need a lot more chargers around, and we’ll need to educate consumers better when it comes to EVs.

All of these things will probably happen, but not within a decade.

This isn’t to defend the Green New Deal. It’s light on specifics in some places, and the writers don’t seem to have done their homework on what’s feasible. “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” doesn’t seem feasible to me. The high-speed rail section? No vision laid out beyond “we want more of it.” Do they mean high-speed rail connecting cities 250-300 miles apart, or something else? High-speed commuter rail within metro areas, perhaps?

Zooming out, I am supportive of a few ideas laid out in the resolution, if not the execution. I am in favor of more high-speed rail, especially between cities that lie four or five hours apart by car. I am in favor of more mass transit. That may be weird for a car guy to say, but I like having transportation choice, and if greater availability of mass transit or high-speed intercity rail unclogs our roads and airports a bit, so much the better.

I am also in favor of better infrastructure, and solar and wind energy is promising (if not ready for prime time).

But this resolution, which is almost certainly never going to become law anyway, shoots for the moon.

Which may be the point. One of the sponsors is rookie lawmaker Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY 14th District), who is a magnet for attention. She’s a darling of the progressive left and freaks out a good chunk of the right. Maybe I’m a cynic, but perhaps this bill asked for so much so soon because AOC knew it would garner a lot of attention – because she herself attracts so much attention. Perhaps AOC and her co-sponsor (Senator Ed Markey, D-MA) are hoping to only achieve a small percentage of the goals laid out here – the ones that are more realistic and/or appealing to both sides of the aisle. It’s also possible that they aimed high while also not doing their homework – the two aren’t mutually exclusive.

Some of the hysterics came from a FAQ posted by AOC’s office that made reference to farting cows and the speed at which air travel would become a thing of the past. She and her staff later walked much of that back, claiming certain lines in the FAQ were tongue in cheek while also (falsely, according to the Washington Post) claiming some of the misinformation came from “doctored” docs (the Post only found one such doctored document).

Documents were also taken offline in the process of the Green New Deal’s rollout, raising eyebrows.

Good grief. That weirdness won’t help generate reasonable debate.

This resolution is a little bit like the kid who wants a puppy but asks her parents for a pony. Ask for much more than you can realistically get, and it will be easier to achieve the more modest goals.

If I’m right about that, cars, or the internal-combustion engine, aren’t going anywhere anytime soon. Instead, automakers will continue developing EVs, and at some point the market will tip. Zero-emission vehicles are likely a part of the future, and the internal-combustion engine may be someday be history. But not yet, and not because of this resolution.

You can relax now.

[Image: Rachael Warriner/Shutterstock]

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

Recommended

157 Comments on “The Green New Deal Is Unlikely to Change the Auto Industry Anytime Soon...”


  • avatar
    JimC2

    IBTL

    Boom!

  • avatar
    IBx1

    Don’t give that moron the time of day.

    They can’t take my car because they can’t take my firearms.

    2termz

  • avatar
    vvk

    Why does she always look like a maniac in photos? Those bulging eyes and horse teeth? And the scowl… Just not very photogenic, I guess.

    • 0 avatar
      Ubermensch

      Good job focusing on her appearance instead of discussing anything of substance.

    • 0 avatar
      JimC2

      She looks like that for the same reason that any politician looks bad in photos- it’s whenever the folks taking those photos and publishing them *don’t like* that individual politician. The opposite holds true when you see a good looking photo of a politician- that happens whenever the individual is the darling of whatever media agency.

      That’s how it works in a free society, son. It’s not always pretty but it’s better than the alternative.

    • 0 avatar
      ToddAtlasF1

      Her earlier Miranda Sings character was less absurd.

    • 0 avatar
      dukeisduke

      She’s actually pretty hot for a moonbat.

    • 0 avatar
      dukeisduke

      What’s really funny is the guy in the background, with the glasses and the dork knob.

    • 0 avatar
      sportyaccordy

      Yet I’m sure your a fan of Ann Cryptkeeper Coulter….

    • 0 avatar
      Luke42

      If you go frame by frame through a video of anyone talking, you can find a frame where they look crazy (or not).

      Try it some time.

      If you want to make someone look nutty, you just pick a frame where they look nutty. No biggie.

      Just like Sarah Palin, I could easily find pictures where she looks very attractive, and ones where she looks crazy. But what a politician says is far more important than how she looks.

      Based on what she says, though, AOC is more like Paul Ryan than Sarah Palin. I read her as being intelligent, naive, and idealistic — just like Paul Ryan when he was first elected (but with different ideology). Both have achieved the spotlight by accidentally striking a chord with a previously ignored faction of their party.

    • 0 avatar
      afedaken

      You can do that to almost anyone. Just get them talking fast, and have a camera with a decent frame rate and a nice wide-angle lense. I do a bit of event and documentary photography; sometimes it’s harder to find one that isn’t weird!

      The choice to pick those photos howecer (instead of one more “normal” looking ) is strictly an editorial decision. Tim put his name on the article, so HITA until he can successfully blame someone else for picking. Low blow really.

  • avatar
    Add Lightness

    We have built ourselves into a situation where almost everything we do leads to a disastrous global situation in the foreseeable future but we ignore the predictions and solutions.

    It sort of reminds me of what happened on Easter Island but I doubt anyone there foresaw what they were doing.

    • 0 avatar
      ToddAtlasF1

      “We have built ourselves into a situation where almost everything we do leads to a disastrous global situation in the foreseeable future but we ignore the predictions and solutions.”

      That’s because the disastrous global situations never come to pass in the predicted time frames and some of us aren’t distracted from this fact by the next shiny new crisis presented by lying aspiring totalitarians. Must be a scary time to be perpetually duped though!

      • 0 avatar
        IHateCars

        “Must be a scary time to be perpetually duped though!”

        Now THAT explains how the current President was elected….good job!

        • 0 avatar
          ToddAtlasF1

          You don’t get to break down in tears when your criminal loses an election and claim to have reason on your side. Sorry.

          • 0 avatar
            Arthur Dailey

            @Todd. Persons associated with Trump, or activities related to ‘hacking’ the Democratic Party’s e-mails, who have been convicted or indicted, to date:
            George Papadopoulos, former Trump campaign foreign policy adviser pleaded guilty.
            Paul Manafort, Trump’s former campaign chair, convicted on eight counts.
            Rick Gates, a former Trump campaign aide and Manafort’s longtime business partner, plead guilty.
            Michael Flynn, Trump’s former national security adviser, pleaded guilty.
            Michael Cohen, pleaded guilty to 8 counts .
            Richard Pinedo: This California man pleaded guilty.
            Alex van der Zwaan: This London lawyer pleaded guilty .
            Roger Stone: Indicted in January 2019.
            Konstantin Kilimnik: This longtime business associate of Manafort and Gates, who’s currently based in Russia, charged .
            12 Russian GRU officers: These officers of Russia’s military intelligence service were charged with crimes related to the hacking and leaking of leading Democrats’ emails.
            13 Russian nationals and three Russian companies indicted on conspiracy charges.

            Please provide a list of all members of HRC’s campaign team who have been convicted or indicted.

          • 0 avatar
            FreedMike

            It’s a conspiracy, Arthur. Didn’t you know? Get with it, man!

          • 0 avatar
            ToddAtlasF1

            You just spent two years being lied to about Russian collusion that only took place when Hillary Clinton was selling our uranium and you are still an eager puppet.

            https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html

            Do you and FreedMike think Hillary was innocent of mishandling classified information, that Comey did his job, or that Obama didn’t break the law to spy on Trump’s campaign? Call it a conspiracy if you’d like, but if you don’t know these facts then you are being manipulated successfully.

          • 0 avatar
            Arthur Dailey

            @Todd:
            1) Comey was about as good at his job as just about every other FBI Director.
            2) Jeff Sesssions appointed a John Humber to investigate the ‘uranium deal’. To date zero indictments or convictions. Unlike Mueller’s investigation.
            3) Any claim that Obama illegally spied on Trump’s campaign has been proven false, beyond any reasonable doubt.

            But you can try again.
            Ironic that some people are fixated on Russia getting access to uranium, but then disregard proven Russian attempts to influence the election, disrupt American democratic institutions, and Russian/Kremlin influence on numerous members of the Trump campaign/entourage.

            Either Russia is a threat, and a source of bribery/corruption or it isn’t.

          • 0 avatar
            FreedMike

            Assuming Clinton was a criminal, two criminals ran in that election. The one running with a “R” behind his name won, and then surrounded himself with an amazing assortment of crooks, liars, bigots, and…OMAROSA!!!!!

            Only a fool thinks that’s a good thing and gives him a pass on it because of the “R” behind his name.

          • 0 avatar
            ect

            Arthur, with all due respect you’re trying to fight blind prejudice with actual data. It’s a hopeless task!

          • 0 avatar
            ToddAtlasF1

            Are you guilty of foreign meddling in US elections by spreading your alien opinions as facts online Arthur? Do you view it as a crime? If it is, why did Obama meddle in Israel’s election? Why does the Democrat party do everything in its power to promote and protect illegal alien voting in US elections?

            When was Obama tried for spying on Trump? How little do you know of our legal system? Does saying every other FBI director has been a political hitman with no integrity or loyalty to the country change what Comey failed to do?

          • 0 avatar
            Arthur Dailey

            @Todd, reading your comments regarding autos and everything but politics, you come across as someone of intelligence, and fair judgement.

            Much like one of my oldest friends, who although a nice guy and quite intelligent is an anti-vaxxer, and conspiracy theorist.

            The Soviets had a phrase for foreign citizens who upset their own domestic political system to the advantage of the Soviet government. Who believed in the propaganda that they propagated. The phrase is ‘useful idiot’. Rather demeaning but meaning someone who was a traitor to democracy, without realizing it.

            Just as the USA has meddled in the elections of other nations since the turn of the 20th century, so has Russia. And Putin has never forgiven the USA for its meddling in recent elections in Ukraine. The Russians paid this back in spades in the past American presidential election.

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            @Arthur

            Were they ever investigated in the first place?

          • 0 avatar
            ToddAtlasF1

            “@Todd, reading your comments regarding autos and everything but politics, you come across as someone of intelligence, and fair judgement.”

            There is a simple explanation. I’m right about politics too. Useful idiots are the people who fall for climate change, who advocate for an ideology that killed over one hundred million people in the past hundred years, and who bend themselves into pretzels trying to keep up with the reimagining of the English language necessary to fit evolving cultural Marxism into their pointy heads without eliminating their ability to figure out which end their food goes into.

            Watch “Yuri Bezmenov: Deception Was My Job” – it is available online with those search terms. If you think he is talking about me instead of you, then at least you will get a glimpse of what happens to you if your side wins.

        • 0 avatar
          Lockstops

          So you believe that “the world is going to end in 12 years”?? That is verbatim what that crazy commie claimed. Absolutely insane.

          • 0 avatar
            Charliej

            A lot of reputable scientists say that the human race will likely be extinct in thirty years. I will not know if that is correct or not as I am in my mid seventies. My son probably won’t know as he is fifty. However his son is twenty five and his son is two. They will not have a life if the scientists are correct. And they might well be correct. Global warming is a self reinforcing trend. The hotter it gets the faster it gets hotter. The permafrost in the arctic is melting and releasing large amount of methane. Methane is over twenty times as potent a greenhouse gas at carbon dioxide. The more the permafrost melts the more methane is released and the more the permafrost melts releasing more methane. The air temperature may go up by fifteen degrees in a few years. That means that Phoenix will be 135 instead of 120 in the summer. That also means that the oceans will rise and drown almost all of the ocean side cities. The US is in for a bumpy ride as is the rest of the world.

          • 0 avatar
            JimC2

            “The air temperature may go up by fifteen degrees in a few years.”

            I’ve seen this happen in Civilization II and it’s no big deal. You just get the bulldozer things to fix each square of land again.

          • 0 avatar
            285exp

            Arthur,

            What did all those Trump cronies plead guilty to?

          • 0 avatar
            PrincipalDan

            @JimC2

            Yeah nukes are no big deal.

            Sid Meier taught me that. ;-)

      • 0 avatar
        vehic1

        Scary? He’s trying his best to rouse his riffraff, with his “crisis, ee-mergency, MS-13!” yammering – even though it flopped in the shutdown, in this last national election, current polls . . .

        • 0 avatar
          Lockstops

          Why would building a wall, and securing the border from illegal crossing be an emergency, or a horrible thing? I just don’t understand why anyone honest would fight so hard against such a simple and logical thing with basically no downsides to anyone except the cartels and human traffickers.

          • 0 avatar
            Arthur Dailey

            Wikipedia has a list of national emergencies declared by the President in US history.

            JFK did not call one during the Cuban Missile Crisis.
            Throughout his 4 terms during the Depression and WWII FDR used it 4 times.
            LBJ never used it despite the civil unrest associate with the Civil Rights movement and war in Vietnam.
            Reagan used it only once.
            Prior to this century it was rarely used.

            So the definition of ’emergency’ seems to have greatly changed. Either that or America’s last few Presidents are much more easily frightened.

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_national_emergencies_in_the_United_States

          • 0 avatar
            Luke42

            Declaring a national emergency because the legislature wouldn’t fund your pet project is a 3rd world dictator move.

          • 0 avatar
            highdesertcat

            Luke42, LOL, It’s a Vast Right Wing Conspiracy, don’t you know.

            President Trump is driving both sides of the aisle crazy.

          • 0 avatar
            Lockstops

            I have yet to hear why securing the border against illegals is in any way a negative thing.

  • avatar
    ajla

    For much of the United States, mass public transit is a non starter and a massive high-speed rail network is Land of Oz fantasy. We’re not Japan and the entire country is not NYC.

    People here like individual transportation. Take all that monorail money and goose the EV subsidy and make their tax credits refundable.

    • 0 avatar
      FreedMike

      Mass public transit may or may not be a non-starter, but so is adding enough lanes to everything to make public transit irrelevant. We can’t road-build our way out of our issues, and if we do, traffic will still be so bad that people who love driving will just give up on it. There are times I wonder why the hell I bought a higher performance car so I can sit in stalled traffic on I-25 at 3 pm on a Sunday afternoon. I think we all have.

      Massive investment in both is needed. In the end, mass transit is what may SAVE auto enthusiasm, if you think about it.

      • 0 avatar
        ToddAtlasF1

        If you think private car ownership remains available to the middle class once the majority aren’t dependent on it, you’re…never mind. It’s pretty obvious who you are.

        The traffic that leftists who have themselves confused with the elite hate so much is economic freedom expressed as economic activity. You don’t get empty roads to play on paid for by the slavery of your fellow Americans. Grow up.

        • 0 avatar
          FreedMike

          Of course car ownership will continue. Why? Because millions of people want them, and companies make money manufacturing and selling them. And mass transit will continue, because millions of people need it. It’s not an either/or proposition.

      • 0 avatar
        JimC2

        Sidewalks and walkable neighborhoods with most of the necessities nearby would also save auto enthusiasm- but the local governments and developers like each other too much and the people who elect them are too dumb to do anything about it.

    • 0 avatar
      ect

      ajla, more than 80% of Americans live in urban areas. To put it another way, 93% of the land area is rural, but that rural geography contains only about 19% of the population. The remaining 81% of the population is jammed into the remaining 7% of land area.

      In large cities, mass transit is the only way to move the numbers of people who need to get to and from work without creating total gridlock. It is simply impossible to build enough roads fast enough.

      As others have observed, there is also plenty of scope for high-speed intercity rail. The axes Boston-Chicago and Boston-Atlanta contain more than 135 million people, which is over 40% of the total population of the country.

      We may also note that wherever high-speed rail has been introduced in Europe, it has quickly taken over most or all of the market on those routes from air travel.

      • 0 avatar
        ajla

        “more than 80% of Americans live in urban areas.”

        It would be good to make the distinction between “urban areas” and “inner city”.

        citylab.com/equity/2012/03/us-urban-population-what-does-urban-really-mean/1589/

        Judging by that Census map (which is a little old at this point) I live in an “urban area”. In reality though I don’t live in the shadow of skyscrapers, but in a sprawling suburb that was built with individual transportation in mind. You could not retrofit an effective mass transit system here any more than you can drive a DRW F-350 down every street in Rome.

        Even taking those percentages at face value, 19% of the country is still 62 million people. What’s the plan for the rural population under a GND? Do they keep their ICE vehicles?

        With HSR, it is 1581km from Boston to Chicago and 1748km from Boston to Atlanta. The longest HSR line I could find in Europe is 804km. With just those two routes you mentioned the US would need to have the 2nd largest HSR system *in the world*, and you haven’t even crossed the Mississippi River yet. China has some long lines but they also have the luxury of slave labor and a command economy. HSR is just a poor use of resources for the USA.

  • avatar
    thornmark

    she got it wrong – it’s belching cows that are the problem

    nice that Newson pulled the rug out from under her by canceling most of the HS rail boondoggle

    make them vote on it

    wanna bet Pelosi has her primaried and she loses next time – they can’t have her running around and admitting Venezuela looks pretty good to her

  • avatar
    DedBull

    I agree with most of the general points here. You have a young, brash, new lawmaker trying to make a splash in a system run by the good-ol-boys club. By shooting for the moon they get attention and may be able to downsize to a reasonable approach.

    I see electric high speed rail between distant cities as a good thing. I don’t know how cost effective it will be in crossing the Rockies, and even the Appalachians, but it would be good on the densely populated coasts.

    I also generally agree on electric vehicles, there will be a point where the pros will outweigh the cons, but it will take a massive influx of funds to replace a refueling network that has built up over 100 years with a recharging network.

    It is not a bad thing to put some governmental pressure behind prioritizing projects that promote the greater good, but are unfeasible with strictly private money.

    10 years is a very aggressive time frame, realistically I can see this taking 30-50 years. Perhaps in that time frame, we will come up with ways to reduce or reverse the emissions that have been building in the atmosphere for the last hundred years.

    • 0 avatar
      jkross22

      Well written laws, I would imagine, would contain specific goals , how those goals will be achieved and a plan with dollars attached to them so the policy can be enacted. What AOC proposes misses on most of those items. It’s a wish list. Not necessarily a bad one, but it reads more like something written by The Onion as is.

      Electric hsr between cities is a nice wish, but it does nothing to address urban congestion which poses the most serious health threat as well as wasted productivity. HSR is a green badge, but it’s really an optical illusion as it puts image before substance. It’s a way of avoiding the bigger issues by claiming you’re going green. At a time when we don’t have resources to house the mentally ill who are homeless and when most middle class college education means 50-100k in debt, spending billions on a solution in search of a problem is worse than green hubris – it’s shocking waste.

      • 0 avatar
        afedaken

        “… At a time when we don’t have resources to house the mentally ill…”

        We do! We do house them! 435 of them in one big house, 100 in another one, and that dude with the funky hair and twitter finger? He gets his own because noone will room with him. :-(

    • 0 avatar
      Lockstops

      If you think that leftists build rail for the greater good then you’re naive.

      First of all “the central government must take control of people’s movement” is one of the key Marxist goals. The list of why they aim to do so is long and obvious. And definitely not ‘for the greater good’.

      In modern times, in leftist countries, with a bit of research it’s easy to see that nowadays they want rail because that makes the politicians/public sector powerful and therefore they can ask for bribes or be involved in corruption schemes. Railways focus people and economic activity in ways that the planners decide, therefore what the planners decide is what determines what happens to billions of dollars. You put a railway station into a certain place and you make that certain place massively more valuable. The right to build shopping centres on/near those railways is super valuable. Guess who gets those deals? Whoever the politicians/public sector allows to get the deal. Or maybe they themselves own a portion of the land or shopping centres or condos through their offshore shell companies? Or maybe they just get generous ‘campaign contributions’ for the rest of their careers, get cushy jobs and consultancy gigs, their children get great jobs from the friends of the contractors (never directly, or actually in many leftist countries why not directly since they make the laws and no-one will prosecute anyway)…

      Railway is hundreds of times more effective for corrupt people than roads are. And leftists have an advantage in that sector anyway, plus it’s a better fit ideologically than working with corrupt car companies (like they do in Germany especially with VW Group).

      • 0 avatar
        Charliej

        Please tell me back in the early to mid eighteen hundreds what leftists were behind the railroads? The railroads were built by capitalists to make money and they still make money. Rightists say that the US is too large for high speed rail to work. China is about the size of the US and it has almost forty thousand miles of high speed rail. For distances of five hundred miles or less high speed rail is faster than air travel. For one thing you don’t have to drive out to the airport. Then you don’t have to get there two hours early to be screened by the TSA. I would like high speed rail as I won’t fly because I refuse to be treated like cattle. Rail travel is more comfortable than air travel with it’s tiny seats and no room to breath. So many people have never been outside the US and have no idea how the rest of the world works. And for those of you who have not been outside the US the rest of the world works quite well. Better than a lot of the US as a matter of fact. It would be good if everyone could travel and see a different side of life.

        • 0 avatar
          Lockstops

          Who has said anything about 1800´s?

          There is a lot more to the world and human history, and the history of leftism than U.S. history.

          If you don’t know your history then you’re in trouble. Leftists have masses of strategists and incredibly patient, scarily calculative and conniving people. With very good funding. They have also had very many testbeds for their theories for decades in countless countries all over the world. They have done very sophisticated research on what works and what doesn’t.

          Railroads in the US were built by capitalists in collusion with completely corrupt public sector, but at least then it was very much done to meet actual needs of people and businesses, benefitting society.

          Now the land is’nt empty, the slate isn’t almost completely clear. Now its MOSTLY about power politics, as well as overall raising the level of power of politicians and the public sector. Less railroad = less power for them, less centralized power which the leftists crave. More railroad = more power for them, more centralized power which the leftists crave.

          When they hold all the strings, all they have to do is have a go-to excuse such as “the world will end unless we do as we say” or that “it’s for the greater good”, or “this what we want to do is ‘clean’ and everything else is ‘dirty\'”. None of their excuses have to be based on science or facts, and it really isn’t meant to be presented for debate either. It’s just a stage in the process which they would steamroll through no matter what. If you put facts on the table that “rail isn’t ‘clean”” or railse questions on the economic equation of it all they’ll just disregard it or attack you. Their plan must go ahead no matter what because they don’t really care about what pollutes or not, what costs the taxpayers, just what gives them more power and gives them more symbolic ‘victories’ which cement their power.

          It’s really great that you’re using China as a beacon, very telling. I guess you want a one-party system with absolute power and public sector power figures’ children all over the world spending the billions they make on corruption?

          I don’t live in the USA. I’ve lived in 6 countries and soon I’ll be in the 7th. I’m mostly drawing parrallels and sharing lessons learned in Europe. Where people have far less disposable income AND their transportation is a challenge. Where most of their life choices are only seemingly free, in reality the way they live is dictated by their politician and public sector elite. It’s not perfect anywhere, but the best basis is in the USA since there is a semblance of market economy which is by far the only way to maintain human rights and generate prosperity, happiness and good living conditions for us the citizens.

          I really don’t understand why Americans can stand sitting in traffic the amount many do, but the solution isn’t making things even worse by reducing their economic situation and freedom of choice just because some crazy ideologists want to spend all of everyone else’s money to try to create their utopia or maybe not, as long as they’re in charge and having fun plannin that utopia and feeling like the smartest and ‘purest’ people on the planet… People already can decide not to sit in traffic through their own life choices, though those choices aren’t as easy to make as they should be IMO. Fact is, lots of people would be prepared to pay more for easier commutes and movement. Giving that money to the public sector only for it to be wasted without any results to show for it isn’t the solution though. Most people just want to pay the minumum for driving, and have pipe dream hopes that things will magically one day change. Do you really think they’d want to pay MORE for being de facto banned from driving and be FORCED to move around only on very poor public transportation?

          It is a fact that in Europe, at least in most countries (Europe varies wildly in taxation, but purchasing power and living costs don’t have quite such extreme differences everywhere), people already pay more for public transportation (and inflated living costs) than Americans pay for driving.

        • 0 avatar
          Lockstops

          For flying: isn’t it great that you have a personal choice in what you want to do? Why would it be better to have choices taken away, and you giving up your money and power to faceless, hidden public sector people to make those decisions for you and provide services to you instead of market economy companies?

          Where does the public sector provide better services than the private sector? Only those who can’t really afford those services at all and use the public sector as a means of weath transfer from others to them maybe benefit in the short term. In the long run most of them lose too, since if they get on their feet they are losing out too, and since hurting others like that decreases the performance of the economy as a whole then they’re most likely also losing out overall. If you use socialism to take away money from your boss, your service providers etc. then who believes it won’t affect them too, through their salary, purchase prices of the stuff they need/want to buy? Leftists have taxed their employers out of business or out of the country before, don’t think that eviro-taxing won’t do the same.

        • 0 avatar

          While I agree that rail travel can make sense for the distances you describe, I think you’re making some very flimsy assumptions here. If regional HSR were to approach the passenger volume of regional air travel, what makes you think that the security, overcrowding, and other cattle-like aspects of air travel wouldn’t become part of the rail travel experience in short order?

          • 0 avatar
            JimC2

            “what makes you think that the security, overcrowding, and other cattle-like aspects of air travel wouldn’t become part of the rail travel experience in short order?”

            Point of order: “security theater” is the term you should have used.

  • avatar
    Drew8MR

    Wanting something doesn’t make it a “right”. Does no one take civics anymore?

  • avatar
    carguy

    It seems that every party needs a Ted Cruz.

    AOC is the Ted Cruz of the Democrats.

    • 0 avatar
      dwford

      Are you sure she’s not the Democrat Michelle Bachmann?

      • 0 avatar
        dukeisduke

        dwford, that’s probably closer.

        • 0 avatar
          FreedMike

          AOC’s political positions are debatable. Agree with them, or disagree with them, but they’re positions. Meanwhile, Bachmann’s “positions” included stuff like ‘you can talk people out of being gay,’ and ‘HPV vaccine causes mental retardation.’ She’s certifiable, which is why Republicans broomed her long ago.

          • 0 avatar
            Lockstops

            The world is going to end in 12 years is a “position”? Costs don’t matter because taking a country to the stone age will be fine as long as some leftist loon thinks that electric cars are ‘clean’ and are the only way for the world not to end? AOC is not certifiable?

          • 0 avatar
            highdesertcat

            FreedMike, I understand that Gov Cuomo is quite upset with AOC about chasing off those 25,000 Amazon jobs.

            Virginia is howling with joy, ROTFL their @sses off!

            That, and the fact that SALT caps have caused a massive tax revenue SHORTAGE for NY State, and I’d say it was not a good week for Gov Cuomo.

    • 0 avatar
      ToddAtlasF1

      Ted Cruz is the smartest and most informed Republican. AOC is the stupidest and most delusional Democrat. It works!

      • 0 avatar
        FreedMike

        Yeah, Todd, here’s your smartest, most informed Republican in action, making calls for the guy who he called a “sniveling coward” after said sniveling coward made fun of his wife.

        http://uberhumor.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/dEgO3c5.jpg

        How smart and informed is Cruz? He barely beat a guy named “Beto”…in Texas.

        Comedy gold…comedy gold.

    • 0 avatar
      thornmark

      not really

      OK, Cruz graduated Princeton and graduated at the top of his class at Harvard – Law Professor Alan Dershowitz said, “Cruz was off-the-charts brilliant”.

      she got a degree in economics w/o learning much at some university that took the money

      • 0 avatar
        Fordson

        And on the other hand, she got elected to the U.S. House of Representatives at age 29. And in a district with a major U.S. metro area in it, not some backwater.

        Be honest – what had you done by age 29? Seriously. Tell us.

        • 0 avatar
          ToddAtlasF1

          I learned what the three branches of government were.

          If you think she is smart, that is because it is all relative. She was elected by people so clever that they just used their political power to prevent Amazon from making them all rich. I have been struggling not to laugh continuously.

          • 0 avatar
            Luke42

            …”they just used their political power to prevent Amazon from making them all rich. I have been struggling not to laugh continuously.”

            https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gentrification

            It’s likely that the new residents of their neighborhood will be rich(er), while the people protesting Amazon will be left behind or pushed out. It’s not like the neighborhood is inhabited by software engineers, designers, and supply chain management professionals at the moment.

            Gentrification feels like a good thing when you visit a neighborhood where it’s happening. But it’s easy to see that some people get screwed over (e.g. tennants) — and making that right is an important part of maintaining public support for a plan like this. Amazon failed to play ball, because they only gained support from the elites in the neighborhood (e.g. landlords). Classic mistake.

        • 0 avatar
          jkross22

          How many people voted for her? Who did she beat? Was the person she beat seen as successful or part of an entitled class of politician who didn’t spend much time with voters?

          • 0 avatar
            afedaken

            AOC took the Trump formula to heart. Find a disaffected group of voters in a district taken for granted by traditional “machine” politics, and conduct a grass roots campaign to undermine the existing power by using nebulous campaign promises and position statements.

            She doesn’t always talk well; she speaks often with her heart, and off the cuff. She wants what she wants, and has no problem putting it out there despite what all the “establishment” players would prefer.

            Ideologically? They couldn’t be further apart. But from a political tactics and strategy viewpoint however, they’re practically cut from the same cloth and pattern.

          • 0 avatar
            jatz

            Afdaken, I completely agree. DJT and OAC are purest rabble rousers.

            Hillary, otoh, is a polished and practiced criminal conspirator, what effective leaders in a democracy have always been.

          • 0 avatar
            Lockstops

            afedaken:
            They are completely different. Trump wants to achieve certain smart, clear, real-world goals that actually benefit people. He has goals for society that directly benefit the economy, people and their wellbeing, giving them more power and security. Trump wants to take power away from the corrupt elite and give it back to the people.

            AOC wants to throw out BS buzzwords to rile up a religions frenzy with no real-world aims other than her own promotion to higher positions, status and greater personal wealth. She has goals that directly hurt the economy, people and their wellbeing, take away power and security. She wants to take power away from the people and businesses and give it to herself and her inner-circle cronies, plus an army of ideological foot soldiers but only because she has to.

        • 0 avatar
          Lockstops

          If you think an insane person being elected by an insane asylum is an outstanding achievement then I don’t know what to say…

  • avatar
    dwford

    It’s not that individual items in the Green New Deal aren’t laudable or desirable, it’s the timeframe in which all these changes are proposed to take. It’s either the epitome of ignorance about how things get done in the US (most likely), or displays a real desire to upend personal freedoms and property rights in order to have the government take over the economy. Either way it is a non-serious document.

    • 0 avatar
      Lockstops

      Well, what if it’s not a non-serious document? It wasn’t presented as a joke or a light-hearted thing. It was presented as their fundamental policy. So: As a serious document it’s a super hostile, aggressive, militant attack on the people of the USA. The only ones benefitting from such a destructive plan are those who gain power from it, in other words AOC and her inner circle of cronies.

      Radical centralised plans like that by their nature focus power into certain hands. That’s why leftists go for them. That’s why that’s straight out of the Marxist manifesto.

  • avatar
    RRocket

    While the Green New Deal doesn’t specifically say it’s targeting internal combustion in it, that’s precisely what would happen.

    It calls for a swift change away from a fossil fuel economy and a switch to 100 percent renewable energy….which would mean the end of gasoline. Under the deal, even synthetic gasoline wouldn’t be a good alternative because it uses natural gas in its creation; natural gas is also on the list in the Green New Deal.

    So if the document calls for a banning of fossil fuel, it’s a bit disingenuous to say it isn’t, in a round about way, after the internal combustion engine.

    • 0 avatar
      Tim Healey

      Fair point, but it’s just not gonna happen. The market will likely adapt EVs on its own (if the obstacles to mass adoption can be overcome fast enough) without being forced by the feds.

      Not to mention that this resolution is DOA, anyway.

  • avatar
    ToddAtlasF1

    The Green New Deal could be the best thing that the Democrats have done for the country since they gave us Donald Trump! Slimeball Mitch is going to make them vote on it. The party of Marx is facing a giant Lose-Lose. Vote for it and no adult will ever vote for you again. Vote against it and the brainwashed children will throw a temper tantrum. Brilliant. Republicans are expected to be sane, so voting against it won’t hurt them a bit.

    • 0 avatar
      highdesertcat

      ” Mitch is going to make them vote on it”

      Yeah, I thought that pretty much backfired on all the ‘crats. What were Markey and AOC thinking when they introduced this bill, and then had it written in legislative language as a Bill?

  • avatar
    gottacook

    Although it might have been nice for the sponsors/writers of this resolution to have done a little research first (for example, by reading the most recent few dozen white papers produced by the International Council on Clean Transportation), I think the whole idea was to put out something spontaneous that would attract a lot of attention, irrespective of how poorly considered it may have been. Or, to put it another way, fighting Trumpism with Trumpism.

  • avatar
    SCE to AUX

    I’m a climate change “denier”, EV fan, and vote R most of the time. I don’t have much sympathy for the New Green Deal.

    However, I believe AOC is being groomed as the 2024 DNC presidential candidate. She will turn 35 a month before that election, which would make her the youngest person ever elected to the office, and barely age-qualified (constitutionally-speaking). The Hillary days are over, and the DNC will be looking for a fresh face who is not a centrist, because centrists lose elections.

    • 0 avatar
      FreedMike

      “I’m a climate change “denier”, EV fan, and vote R most of the time. I don’t have much sympathy for the New Green Deal.”

      This is what people just don’t get these days, SCE – having a “R” or “D” on your voter registration form doesn’t mean you have to buy into everything either party is into at any given time. I can’t tell you how f*cking sick I am of being tagged as a Bernie-loving socialist because the guy’s a Democrat. I disagree with about 70% of what the guy says, and the other 30% is probably a pipe dream.

      I’m sure plenty of Republicans who aren’t particularly fond of Trump are sick of being tagged as a “Trumpie.”

      At some point, our politics ceased being about ideas, and started being about idiotically lumping people together. No wonder things are such a mess.

      Cheers to you for being an individual.

      • 0 avatar
        Arthur Dailey

        @FreedMike, cheers to that posting. Just because you generally support or a member of a political party, does not mean that you have to check your brain at the voting booth and support all of their candidates, all of the time, or all of their policies.

        Shouldn’t democracy mean being able to vote according to your individual beliefs, on each and every topic?

        The UK (the Mother of Parliaments) demonstrates how it should be done, as MPs often vote or speak against their own party/leader.

      • 0 avatar
        JimC2

        But… but… arghrhwehrhfsljfjhwwerdsjhr!!!!!

    • 0 avatar
      TMA1

      You’re not alone, I too think she’s going to be running for the White House someday. It’s like she was engineered to appeal to the broadest possible “big tent” on the left. Spanish name, woman, and has probably read some sapphic poetry in her time.

      • 0 avatar
        vvk

        She is antisemitic, so I doubt it. Although it turned out to be OK for Obama, so who knows.

        • 0 avatar
          PrincipalDan

          lol…

          You guys realize that AOC is a Rorschach Test for the viewer, just like T-R-U-M-P.

          Whatever you see when looking at either says more about you than it says about them.

          OTOH Bannon seems to think she’s a legitimate threat, so that’s something.

    • 0 avatar
      PrincipalDan

      The Hillary days are over…

      Please God let it be true.

      • 0 avatar
        FreedMike

        From your mouth to God’s ears.

      • 0 avatar
        JimZ

        “The Hillary days are over…

        Please God let it be true.”

        they were over as of November 8, 2016. some people just can’t let go. They’ll still be b****ing about her while sitting in a nursing home in 2030.

        Heck, several posters in this thread demonstrate that people can’t let go of *McCarthyism.*

  • avatar
    Roberto Esponja

    If there’s something I’ve learned in life, it’s to never trust anyone with crazy eyes. This lady has crazy eyes.

  • avatar
    FreedMike

    There are some ideas worth talking about here, but some of this stuff is just a non-starter, and as Tim says, it’s a non-starter in her own party.

  • avatar
    ect

    “solar and wind energy is promising (if not ready for prime time).”

    Tim, you’re a bit behind the times – in 2017, more new solar and wind generation capacity was installed than new capacity from all fossil fuels combined. This trend will only continue as technology continues to reduce the cost of generation from renewables.

    In November, Bloomberg released a research report that concluded that power generation from renewables is now less expensive than from fossil fuels in every market in the world – except Japan, for some reason.

    Looks like prime time has arrived.

    • 0 avatar
      chuckrs

      Careful. Windmills are rated at about 3 1/3rd times their actual annual energy production. Maximum power rating in watts is wonderful for marketing, but what counts is actual energy production in watt-hours. Sam way HP is swell for bragging rights, but mpg is reality.

      As for solar, that works best when the big yellow ball hangs in the sky for a long time every day and is relatively unobscured by cloud cover. Promising in the South, not so much in, say, Syracuse or Rochester, where I grew up. I now live about 30 miles from Babcock Ranch in SW Florida, where Florida Power and Light has installed 75MW of solar and 10MW-hrs of battery on land donated by Babcock/Kitson Developers. This week saw an announcement by FPL that they paid (indicating economic feasibility) for enough land there to double the solar installation. Not gonna see this in Andy Cuomo’s backyard. And AOC can’t compel the sun to shine enough no matter how many green term papers she produces. She could ask the Germans about their solar investment but that would require a little genuine critical thinking.

      • 0 avatar
        ect

        If power companies are installing more solar and wind capacity than new fossil fuel-based capacity, it is because it costs them less to generate power from renewables than it does from fossil fuels.

        This was exactly the point of the Bloomberg research report – renewable generation now costs less than fossil fuel generation, and the gap is growing. I grant you that there is nuance to be found in this, but the data tells us that the overall trend is clear and continuing.

        • 0 avatar
          FreedMike

          Exactly what I’ve been saying for a LONG time now – the key thing that sells alt energy isn’t fighting climate change, but rather *PROFIT.*

          The last revolution in energy production was petroleum. A guy we may have heard of made a few bucks off that deal.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_D._Rockefeller

          Whoever comes up with a workable fusion reactor will have a license to print money.

          God, the…COMMUNISM of it all!

        • 0 avatar
          rpn453

          “If power companies are installing more solar and wind capacity than new fossil fuel-based capacity, it is because it costs them less to generate power from renewables than it does from fossil fuels.”

          Not always. Sometimes it’s just greenwashing.

          I worked for my local power company for a few years right after I got my mechanical engineering degree. They installed wind turbines with an ROI of 25+ years, for public perception. There’s nothing renewable about the energy and resources that went into that. They diverted money that could have been used to make the coal plants more efficient, with ROIs under the normal 7 year maximum. All the while adding more natural gas generating capacity so we’d have something we could actually rely on.

          One could argue that natural gas is cleaner than coal, but it’s also a more valuable and more limited resource. It’s a shame to consume so much of it that way.

          Oh well. That coal will still be there if we need it.

    • 0 avatar
      cdrmike

      No, prime time for green energy has certainly not arrived. That is a feel good lie that is being sold by the new Al Gores, for their own self-enrichment. Please look at unbiased studies of how much energy wind, solar and geothermal are actually capable of providing. It is statistically insignificant. I wish it was not so, but it is.

  • avatar
    tonycd

    A “moderate” response is not appropriate when you’re about to die. Guess what: While we debate whether those calling for dramatic action look ugly on camera or are “moonbats,” all those “potential, future” climate disasters are already underway right now. Call me whatever you want, but read this.

    https://guymcpherson.com/2018/11/extinction-foretold-extinction-ignored/

  • avatar
    Middle-Aged (Ex-Miata) Man

    Permitting such malignant stupidity solely for the purposes of pandering to the resentful underclass is no way to run a country.

    • 0 avatar
      jkross22

      Are you talking about AOC or 1600 Pennsylvania? That description fits both.

      • 0 avatar
        Lockstops

        1600 Pennsylvania has succeeded magnificently.

        It is certain that AOC’s BS would ruin the country.

        • 0 avatar
          jkross22

          There’s $2 trillion in debt more today than when Trump came to office. Is that succeeding magnificently? Racists certainly feel more emboldened, which I guess is a good thing since they’re outing themselves.

          I’m a glass is half full guy.

          How’s the North Korea deal coming along? China trade negotiations?

          AOC is a fool, and she is getting angry people to appeal to her message. The same way Trump did running against Hill.

          That’s appealing to lowest common denominator voters. To the rest of us, it’s just garbage.

  • avatar
    Zipster

    I believe that he added “atlas” to his name because he was so moved by Rynd’s book that he skipped the delusional state and went straight to psychotic.

    • 0 avatar
      ToddAtlasF1

      You are 100% consistent. A broken clock runs rings around your powers of deduction. AtlasF1 was a Formula 1 news and discussion forum website that was eventually absorbed by Autosport. You didn’t have to know that, but you did have to be wrong about something to maintain your average.

  • avatar
    chris724

    It’s odd that so many regulars here are leftist. The left hates cars! Also, America, and everything else that is good and decent.

    • 0 avatar
      Adam Tonge

      You can be left of center and still like cars. You can be right of center and want a clean environment and national parks.

    • 0 avatar
      jkross22

      I’m about to blow your mind.

      There are Republicans who don’t want Roe v Wade touched, who aren’t religious, who don’t own guns and want some common sense gun control and who want to see free market economics take the lead instead of crony capitalism.

      All of these ideas run contrary to the 2019 Republican Party.

  • avatar
    jatz

    She keeps triggering memories of this old Bugs Bunny cartoon:

    youtube.com/watch?v=sjeveGthEYk

  • avatar
    cimarron typeR

    haha the only ones being manipulated are the B&B. Every time writers on this site post politically bent manifestos, ahem, articles, the click count goes up and the TTAC makes more money.
    Which is fine as long the money is spent on writeups of actual cars, and cool retro rides, JY finds, not more incendiary topics.Otherwise I’ll spend my clicks on Rennlist or BAT.

    • 0 avatar
      jatz

      Truth. And I’d bet clever members of both Cro-Magnon and Neanderthals made bank off the first rumble between us, too.

    • 0 avatar
      Tim Healey

      While we love making money to bring you Rare Rides, JY Finds, and all the rest, we don’t write opinion pieces for clicks. It’s a nice side benefit — yes, political editorials will bring clicks, but we write them because one of us has something to say about whatever topic.

  • avatar
    Blackcloud_9

    Well that was an enjoyable, reactionary read. Thank you everyone. My only regret is that I didn’t pop some popcorn to munch on.
    My two cents…Yes, the Green New Deal proposed is a moonshot and it should be. Will everything in it get done? No. But hopefully some ideas will get through. We have to turn this Climate Change ship around and we gotta start somewhere. Because if we don’t, it won’t matter if you love AOC and hate Trump or the other way around, this world is going to be in a really bad way. And YOU may not be alive to see it happen but your children and/or your grandchildren will. And they’ll be talking about moving to some beachfront property in Tennessee or Nevada – in the best of circumstances.

    Oh, and Arthur Dailey and FreedMike: Your responses were way too reasonable and thought out. You two should probably skip the next “Knee-jerk reaction” fest.

    • 0 avatar
      vvk

      At least you are not calling it Global Warming. Smart!

    • 0 avatar
      ajla

      “And they’ll be talking about moving to some beachfront property in Tennessee or Nevada – in the best of circumstances.”

      What CC study shows NEVADA as the new coastline under any circumstances?

      • 0 avatar
        FreedMike

        If Lex Luthor had his way in the first “Superman” film, folks in Vegas would have been on a Surfin’ Safari.

        youtube.com/watch?v=kqD0pqDOAtk

        • 0 avatar
          28-Cars-Later

          MISS TESSMACHER!

        • 0 avatar
          PrincipalDan

          The earthquake with Lois’ death as the centerpiece was shot in “Superman Canyon” (as it is now known) not far out of the Gallup, NM city limits.

          And yes if you ask some locals approximately where they live they’ll say “Superman Canyon.” (Even 40 plus years after the movie shoot.)

          • 0 avatar
            sgeffe

            I recall reading a story about Margot Kidder (may she RIP) shooting that scene—that dirt was real!

            (But I think I saw both years of that era Galaxie 500, or maybe two trims (with different taillights, and maybe a hardtop sedan), in the various drive/car-fall-into-big-crack sequences; Lois was driving a pillared sedan away from the exploding gas station.)

    • 0 avatar
      SCE to AUX

      Al Gore’s ~1992 predictions of a 20-ft rise in ocean levels in 100 years ought to have manifested in a 5-ft rise by now.

      Such hysterics are unwarranted, and don’t help the cause of the global warmists.

    • 0 avatar
      Lockstops

      So you find it responsible, intelligent etc. to stir up a false frenzy about ‘the end of the world in 12 years’? And electric cars or trains being ‘clean’? Absolute lunacy.

  • avatar
    indi500fan

    I’ve not seen the fine print, will they allow my kids (or grandkids depending on the timing of the edicts) to keep my 67 Camaro as a non-operable piece of artwork?

    • 0 avatar
      Lockstops

      No, your kids will have to give them to the AOC party elite. The party elite will run everything and your kids will only have the role of working hard, though even that will not produce much yield since the economy has been ruined. But the elite must be given everything and they must decide everything, for they are the only ones wise enough to determine what is ‘not clean’ and what is ‘clean’, and therefore they are the only ones who are able to prevent the world from ending (perpetually, there will always be new reasons for the world’s end and new ending dates).

      Even now AOC has determined building massive amounts of railways all across the country as ‘clean’, changing the whole automobile system to electric as ‘clean’, and everything that is against her plan is ‘dirty’ and therefore equal to ‘sin’. If you are ‘dirty’ then the world will end, therefore anyone ‘dirty’ or even thinking ‘dirty’ must be dealt with. If you are ‘clean’, and follow every single instruction that AOC gives then you will be ‘clean’ and the world will be saved…for now.

      • 0 avatar
        Sam Hall

        “and everything that is against her plan is ‘dirty’ and therefore equal to ‘sin’”

        This doesn’t get nearly enough attention. Certain cohorts on the left, such as the greenies or the SJWs, are engaging–in all but name–in a messianic religion. They tell themselves and everyone else that they’re atheists, but they behave like religious fanatics. If you don’t believe like they do, you’re an outsider, to be either converted or shunned, and sometimes stoned. All of society, and everyone’s personal lives, must be governed by their precepts, and where they hold sway you’d better never let them know you’re a skeptic.

        Note that you don’t need to be opposed to all of their precepts to recognize the nature of this phenomenon, or to be threatened by it. Solzhenitsyn was a decorated officer in the Red Army during WW2 before he was packed off to the Gulag for being insufficiently enthused about the party line. And by “before”, I mean literally the minute before.

        • 0 avatar
          Lockstops

          True. I’m not against building rail if it’s economically viable and beneficial to people, I’m not against all kinds of measures to reduce pollution (when based in science and have a solid business case to back them up), but people like AOC must be opposed because what they are doing is religious/ideological fundamentalism/extremism and not serious problem solving or serving anyone else except themselves.

          They’re ready to tank the whole economy to get a bit of gain for themselves. They are extremely dangerous, not based on hyperbole, but on concrete results from exactly that same behaviour across the world. We’ve seen it before, unfortunately lots of Americans aren’t aware of this situation and don’t understand what’s behind all this and what centralised leftism leads to.

          The reason even such a weirdo as Trump is doing so much good is that he’s actually managing to somewhat undo some of the grip of leftists on government (how much will be cleared out off our backs remains to be seen, as this has also riled up a ‘resistance movement’ which has increased the recruitment efforts of the leftists and caused them to react with even more aggression). Usually it’s a natural law that leftists keep growing like cancer, they are so good at conniving their way into all positions of power they can, where normal people want to just focus on doing their jobs and therefore not realising they’d have to constantly fight against the creeping growth of leftists. ‘Normal’ people hate politics so they aren’t there to put up a fight, leftists are always there looking for all the ‘ins’ they can.

      • 0 avatar
        sgeffe

        I think it’s been debunked, or maybe blown a little out of proportion by my side, but the “high-speed rail to Europe” might be interesting, in a Muskian sort of way.

  • avatar
    el scotto

    AOC and the Orange Duce cause a great many people to completely bee-zerk crazy out of their for completely opposite reasons. AOC’s plan is a moonshot at best; but it got her press coverage. President Trump is about to claim executive or such to fund a border wall. NASCAR’s running tonight and I believe my local still has cold beer on tap.

    • 0 avatar
      highdesertcat

      I see you are just about as disconnected from all this as I am.

      But I would like to add that the Trump Rally in El Paso, TX, was a huge disappointment.

      I had tickets to attend the Trump Rally inside the Colosseum, so we drove the 105 miles down there, only to find out that we couldn’t get anywhere near the Colosseum, nor the venue outside the Colosseum because the crowds had been gathering there for many hours earlier. It was packed, and nothing moved.

      So we went to the Texas Roadhouse at Fort Bliss, ate dinner, and drove back home.

      What a waste of time and money!

      I would not have believed it if I had not seen the throngs of people for myself.

  • avatar
    GM JUNK

    Anybody who would align themselves with baby killing Democrats should meet the same fate themselves. EOL.

    PS-Trump WILL be re-elected so prepare for more baby rage REEEEEEEEEE.

    TOOTLES!

  • avatar
    labelnerd

    #1…..I look forward to driving a majorly high pollluting internal combustion engine for many more decades. Suck my exhaust Al Gore.

    #2…..The President will not be re-elected. He may not live that long.

    #3…..Global warming is one of the biggest fantasies ever created by mankind.

  • avatar
    Sceptic

    The woman is crazy. Send her back to Cuba.

  • avatar
    HotPotato

    I just read a mind-blowing article on the subject; you can copy and paste the link below into your browser. In short: Lazy analysts may assume the Green New Deal is what divides the Ocasio-Cortezes and Trumps of the world, but in fact it’s based on foundational principles that unite them: Alexander Hamilton’s vision of industrial policy. The same thing that brought us the transcontinental railroad, the cookie cutter suburb, the home appliance, and the computer. (Or more romantically, the moon shot and World War II mobilization.)

    It seeks to strengthen and revitalize the domestic manufacturing sector in order to produce something that’s ultimately a competitive, environmental, and national security advantage: cheap renewable energy. Whatever side of the fence you sit on, read this article; it will shatter your preconceptions. Seen clearly, the GND actually presents an opportunity to MAGA, and to overcome the overblown divisions among us.

    https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2019/02/green-new-deal-economic-principles/582943/


Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • Fordson: Some makes just should never produce SUVs…this is one of them. Look at the Maserati car in the group...
  • FreedMike: Toyota. Why do you think they haven’t invested in EVs?
  • redapple: Who will buy Tesla? GGM?
  • forward_look: Once I bought a ’74 (?) Colt/Mitsubishi for $100 that had the strut towers rusted out. I welded...
  • thelaine: Tick tock

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Staff

  • Contributors

  • Timothy Cain, Canada
  • Matthew Guy, Canada
  • Ronnie Schreiber, United States
  • Bozi Tatarevic, United States
  • Chris Tonn, United States
  • Corey Lewis, United States
  • Mark Baruth, United States
  • Moderators

  • Adam Tonge, United States
  • Corey Lewis, United States