“overhauling transportation systems in the United States to eliminate 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 transportation; and (iii) high-speed rail”
No part of that is calling for a ban on air travel. Your position is akin to saying that if I try to encourage people to switch from smoking to vaping, I am calling for a ban on cigarettes. It is nonsense.
So, onto the FAQ:
“We set a goal to get to net-zero, rather than zero emissions, in 10 years because we aren’t sure that we’ll be able to fully get rid of farting cows and airplanes that fast.”
Which part of that statement calls for a ban on planes?
:smack: Your reading comprehension is that poor, that you cannot parse the phrases “‘ban’ is too strong a word”, “half true”, or “mostly false”? Or is it just a weak attempt to strawman me, when my plain words are right there?
ETA: Bonus Q. What does “get rid of airplanes” mean to you? :dubious:
There’s a blatantly partisan attempt to here to avoid the obvious meaning of plain English, which is both really offbrand for the mission of this board as well as being a disgrace to the Pulitzer-winning PolitiFact.
That’s an interesting perspective on what appears to be a bit of rhetorical flourish. What does “fully” mean to you? “We set a goal to get to net-zero, rather than zero emissions, in 10 years because we aren’t sure that we’ll be able to fully get rid of farting cows and airplanes that fast.”
Is there some ignoble purpose in working to reduce the number of flights - certainly domestic ones - in favor of high-speed rail or other green alternatives?
The strawman is in this interpretation that the GND is calling for a ban on air travel.
SingleMalt, you’re being too kind. He’s pissing on our leg, telling us it’s raining, and then claims victory because we’re looking for a towel.
Given what a PITA air travel has become nowadays (expense, security concerns, etc.) you’d think any reasonable person would be thrilled for a reasonable alternative to domestic flights.
And, to be fair, should we end up with a robust passenger rail system, then that will decrease the amount of air travel.
As it is, rail travel takes much longer, doesn’t go to all that many destinations, and is not significantly cheaper, and can even sometimes be more expensive than air.
If that is changed, to where travel by train is a reasonable alternative, then domestic air travel will be reduced considerably. This is a good thing, and everyone wins.
If someone calls for incentives to compete against an existing industry, you could realistically make the claim that that person wishes to decrease the use of that industry, but it would take a motivated liar to make the claim that they want to ban it. (Or someone who is gullible and stupid enough to fall for those motivated liars.)
Never quite sure with SlackerInc, whether he is a motivated liar, or is just easily fooled by them.
It means “get rid of airplanes”. What does “we aren’t sure that we’ll be able to fully get rid of airplanes” mean to you?
And why we’re asking specific questions, here’s another. Please quote the part you think Politifact were inaccurate or evasive on. Not your summary (or, you know, a link to a completely different article) Just quote precisely the bit you have an issue with.
No, and furthermore I could ask you the same, since it in no way made sense for you to quote what you did and ask that question. As the younguns say, “that’s random.” :rolleyes: I guess you are trying to gaslight me?
And you believe “get rid of airplanes” could not possibly be paraphrased as “ban airplanes”? Really?
Sure, that’s easy. I already did it, in fact; but here you go again:
Sure, get rid of airplanes is something that you could possibly be paraphrased as ban airplanes, even though one does not follow from the other. If we create subsidies on trains and build maglevs, so suddenly, most people choose to use those services, rather than airplanes, and therefore, airplane use goes way down, would you paraphrase that as a ban?
And then there is the fact that you seem to be having trouble grasping that the GND doesn’t say to get rid of airplanes.
You are confused if you think the PolitiFact scale is binary, with “True” meaning “100% true, no caveats and nothing exaggerated or misleading”, and “False” encompassing every other position on the scale. When the reality is that in between are also “Mostly True”, “Half True”, and “Mostly False”.
You are confused if you think I made any claim of that sort, or even if I have even mentioned politifact whatsoever.
Are you trying to say that the GND did say that it was going to get rid of airplanes? If so, please cite.
You are under two severe misconceptions here.
The first is that the GND said it was going to get rid of airplanes, when it did not.
The second is that, even if someone did say that they wanted to get rid of airplanes, there are many more effective ways of doing so than banning them.
With those two misconceptions of yours cleared up, you can now see that the claim that AOC wants to ban airplanes is completely false, right?
Or is there something else that you are confused about?
Then you tell me where in the new green deal that is says that it is going to ban airplanes, as that is the claim that you think that I am either lying or confused about.
I give you the benefit of the doubt here that there is something that you are misunderstanding, so lay it out as to why you think that the GND is banning airplanes, and we will see if I am the one who is incorrect on this, or we can work together to see what it is that you missed.
I have laid out my argument as to why the GND contains no such language, if your only counterargument is that I am confused or lying, then that means you have no ground to stand on.
Or you can keep insisting on something that you have not shown any support for whatsoever, and claim that it is true, whichever makes you happy.
I don’t like to see PolitiFact undermining its credibility regardless of what my policy preferences are. But if the question is how I feel on the substance?
(1) I would love to see a sleek network of high-speed rail that mostly replaced domestic air travel. Heck, I already love traveling Amtrak and would do it a lot more if it were cheaper (or I were richer).
(2) I don’t OTOH want to get rid of cows. I love cheeseburgers and ribeyes too much for that.
But politics is not about just putting forth our ideal platforms and hoping against hope there’s a majority who will support us. Experience has taught me that people go apeshit over threats to change stuff that seems like a no-brainer. I lived in a rural area of an increasingly red state (MIssouri) for many years, so I witnessed this firsthand.
Two examples from the past decade or so: light bulbs and school lunches. Two modest progressive reforms that are the epitome of good sense and on their surface should not be controversial or partisan at all: replacing incandescent bulbs with CFCs or LEDs; and MIchelle Obama’s initiative to make school lunches healthier. People lost their everloving MINDS with outrage over being told what light bulbs to buy, or that maybe their kids should get some whole grains and leafy green vegetables on their school lunch tray, instead of white bread pizza and tater tots. To go way further and make them feel like Democrats might take away their beef (or their cows, in the case of farmers) and make them all ride bicycles and eat tofu is not good politics. If in a few decades we are somewhere close to this goal where it won’t seem radical or scary, revisit it then.
ETA: Obviously I meant the “bicycles and tofu” line as sardonic hyperbole. But in all seriousness, we actually need to reassure these kinds of voters that they can continue to drive gas-guzzling SUVs, water their lawns in the desert, and all kinds of things I do honestly wish we could restrict. But the politics of it does not allow us to do that, and if we try, we will end up worse off because Republicans will do much worse.
Uh, that light bulb thing was originally a republican idea:
The point here is that it was a bipartisan effort back then, and now thanks to deniers and ideologues from the right is that we got the talking point that it is the democrats who are to blame. But, as usual, the blame is also a misleading talking point. The most serious thing here is that once again we can see the Slacker falling hook line and sinker for the new anti environmentalist Republican talking points, that usually happens because of the sources an easy to misled guy like him uses.
GIGO, clearly your English failed you there, in understanding my comment. I will try to spell it out for you:
I STRONGLY SUPPORTED the transition to those light bulbs. Every light in my house is an LED currently, and for many years they were all CFCs.
I did not expect the pushback against the bulbs. I think the people who freak out about it are being stupid. It’s really annoying.
The lunch thing bothers me even more, because I had been a strong advocate for better school nutrition as soon as my eldest child started school in 2005. I was delighted that Michelle Obama made it a signature issue. But then I saw how people lost their damn minds, as they also did with Bloomberg’s very reasonable soda tax.
What I’ve learned from these things is that the smartest move is to apply your progressive regulations to things that most everyday people don’t see. Like the way power plants work, or protecting the rights of the accused in the court system, stuff like that. When you make even reasonable, scientifically justified moves on Americans’ daily lives, they get super cranky. Look also at the metric system and our stubborn continuation with using paper dollar bills and pennies instead of changing to dollar coins and eliminating pennies, both of which Canada has done.
Just as my special education teaching wife learns to pick her battles and be flexible to take into account her students’ irrational foibles, we have to do the same here and not stubbornly insisting on holding fast to any approach just because it’s the logical, rational, proven superior one.
The one that needs spelling is you, I know that that is your fig leaf already, what you intentionally miss is that the blame is also a misleading talking point from the right and you still fell for it.
Missing the point spectacularly still, again, it was mostly the right wing that became super cranky, and thanks to talking points pulled up out of their asses of right wing leaders and interests groups.
Your special gift of avoiding the obvious is clear, Canada has less stupid media or politicians.
Only that in the case of the bulbs (and with with a lot of other subjects) you are spouting nonsense, in this case the foibles are ideological and irrational at the same time among the Republicans, and worse of all, the ones you are blaming (still!!) were not the democrats, and even worse, the bulbs were not banned. It is really you the one that is demanding that we all become irrational like you.
