For some definitions of “the welfare of the nation” and not others - as I’m sure you would readily agree.
I feel this should be hammered again and again - he’s stated what he considers the ideal middle to be: Fucking around (literally) and doing literally nothing to directly address the problem.
Because clearly, while he says himself “Climate change is no joke”, he believes that we should do exactly fuck-all about it.
He probably wants to address climate change the way Trump brings back coal jobs- say a few words and let tax cuts for the wealthy do the rest. He may even have a secret plan, only to be revealed after the 2020 elections!
I can understand that. I kind of agree. Who wants to pay taxes? Or have the government meddle in your own private affairs.
But I have to wonder, Mike Lee supports the massive spending on the military. Something wrong with the math there. And let’s face it, private industry is not going to pay for environmental clean up or disaster relief, but then he opposes spending anything on disaster relief, so that tallies.
As for not meddling, you mean let the forests burn and the rivers dry up? In which case, check.
Or does it mean keeping out of people’s personal affairs? I’ll give Sen. Lee props for supporting the legalization of cannabis, but why is it ok for the government to poke their nose in if you happen to be gay or transexual? Sounds meddlesome to me. Oh and he thinks Roe vs. Wade is unconstitutional. And he seems to want to meddle into women’s right on birth control as women apparently take contraceptives for recreational use. God forbid women should be enjoying sex. So, why is it ok to meddle into people’s business if it’s about women? That sounds really meddlesome to me.
Oh wait I get it. Having babies solves climate change! Hey I’ve connected the dots!
It’s hypocritical, but I can see it now.
Well, the Senator clearly said “fall in love, get married, and have some kids” was the solution to climate change.
Perhaps you can explain how having kids solves climate change?
I’m sure this has been pointed out before, but how many of the people deriding the Green New Deal have actually proposed a plausible solution that’s anywhere close to on the scale of the problem?
(The answer is “fucking nobody”.)
There’s certainly an excluded middle. It’s just that Mike Lee (and, indeed, the Republican party as a whole) has opted not just for “virtually nothing” but rather “less than nothing”, encouraging coal, oil, and gas, actively discouraging green energy, and doing everything they can to stop actual progress towards fixing the problem. Hell, most of them deny that there is a problem (and/or have found some other excuse for why “do nothing” is the correct response to a civilization-shaking problem).
Hey, I just thought of a great way to solve our national debt crisis. If we quadruple the size of government, we dramatically increase our chances that one of those people will have a solution to the debt crisis.
He was completely right except for the part where he was talking.
The absolute best thing to combat climate change would be the immediate disappearance of the human race. If even that would work.
Stop breeding, everybody. “Our country is full.”
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/our-country-is-full-trump-says-migrants-straining-system/ar-BBVEkVF
Give the devil his due, giving that speech with a straight face is impressive. Either that, or he’s shit nuts.
It’s probably too late to use emissions controls to stop global warming. There’s no realistic scenario by which we reduce emissions enough in the next 25 years to slow global warming to anything under catastrophic levels. We’re already well into a massive decline of species, including plants and insects. Our only real chance to reverse global warming is geoengineering, and we have no real ability to assess what the hazards of that step are at this point. Unfortunately, it’s probably the only real option.
Even so there are real reasons to cut emissions, if for no other reason than to clean up the air so that it’s safe to breathe in major metropolises like Beijing and Mexico City. I’ve felt that the real action on climate change and environmental protection will come organically from the local level. Once local communities find ways to run themselves not only ecologically but economically, other communities will want in on that action. Let’s say Minneapolis figures out a way to save resources and really clean up the environment with new technologies, and once people are employed in significant numbers in green industries, people in other cities like Columbus and Detroit will want to join them. As an example, wind farms seem like kooky California thinking at one point, but it employs a lot of people now.
The preamble states the objectives and aims of the constitution. One of those objectives is to promote the general welfare of all people who live in the United States, at least in the collective sense. I don’t think anyone suggests that government’s power should be unlimited, but let’s remember that the government is democratic, and that by virtue of that fact, it should represent the public’s interest. By definition, using legislative and regulatory power to protect our environment seems very much within the boundaries of what’s reasonable in terms of promoting the well-being of Senator Lee’s and every other Senator’s constituents. Preserving the quality of the air we breathe, the water we drink, the food we eat, the places in which we live, work, and play - all of these things are very much a part of promoting the general welfare.
I just keep seeing this thread and adding " cause them to urinate on their parents graves" at the end. Strange how the mind works.
Uh, no, that is actually the last argument from deniers, do not fall for it. The main reason is that there are even worse scenarios that become possible if we do not control emissions and eventually when desperation sets and geoengineering is seen as an option, the use of such a solution will be still less expensive (and easier and more effective also) if we do control emissions soon.
What climate change “mitigation policies” was he mocking exactly? Be specific please because I’ve heard some strange ones.
Which is probably a smaller gap than between AOC and Aquaman.
As for the ones talking about strange proposals, I can only say that you are a stranger to Jonathan Swift.
I’m going to be generous and assume that Senator Lee is awaiting the birth of the Kwisatz Haderach. Until then, we need to be accumulating the Water of Life.
Anyone remember the 60’s and 70’s? I do.
Nixon did one good thing for sure
The current crop of republicans want to tear that all down. Apparently, along with every thing this country stands for.
I long for the days of a bastard like Nixon, or a simpleton like GWB.
I’d encourage you to keep this in mind the next time the Republicans nominate someone you think is a bastard or a simpleton.
And they will, bet on it.