1. I dont think legitimate terms of the Green New Deal have even been discussed. For all intensive purposes it could just be a plan to convert electricity to solar which would give more jobs to installers and while in process, would send government subsidies to electric companies, etc. I'm sure some parts of it could be good or bad for the economy but without knowing the actual details of what they're planning, all debate on the subject is just hyperbole. I know fox and rush are hammering it, but I'm at least waiting to say it's bad until I know what the hell it is. It seems like your negative opinion is probably largely based on your opinion of Democrats because it's not based on anything contained in the Green New Deal, because the Green New Deal doesnt even exist outside of an idea. I'd like to see a professional opinion on your assertion after more details come out.
The 'legitimate term of the Green New Deal' are published in the Congressional Record.
Some choice quotes:
"meeting 100 percent of the power demand in the United States through clean, renewable, and zero-emission energy sources" -Seriously? 100% in only 10 years?!?
""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" - Yes, it says to upgrade ALL existing buildings in the United States. ALL.
"guaranteeing a job with a family-sustaining wage, adequate family and medical leave, paid vacations, and retirement security to all people of the United States" - Yes, it says a family-sustaining wage to ALL people of the United States. ALL. GUARENTEED.
I encourage everyone to read the resolution that was actually submitted. [https://www.congress.gov/...house-resolution/109/text
] And please dont just listen to the flowery words, but consider each point in how the goals could actually be achieved by legislation (and by coercive use of government power to enforce the legislation if it turns out unpopular or difficult). And at least a thought to the cost to implement.
3. The late term thing is weird and I dont fully understand it. What I've read from both sides on that is strange. I had heard originally that it was only allowed when the fetus was already deceased or the mother was in a life or death situation. Not just killing babies late term for a prostitute or something. Idk. I'm on the fence about it. For already dead fetuses I'm way ok with it, but for the life or death situation for the mother idk how to feel. Itd be a tough decision for sure........
I dont know why you think it is weird and it is actually pretty easy to understand. The law passed in New York, and the legislation proposed in Virginia allows abortion for virtually any reason (the 'mothers mental health' provision has been upheald as meaning virtually anything to include depression and anxiety - and what woman who is pregnant does not have some depression and/or anxiety? New York law removed provision for a psychiatric professional to diagnose and now the abortionist can 'validate' the mental condition, without even evidence of prior history of the condition.). The provision is explicit in allowing abortion up to the time of actual birth. So a full 9 month term baby can be aborted -- and for a baby at that stage of development that is viable and capable of life outside of the mother 'abortion' means killing the child in the womb either by injecting corrosives or poisons into the amniotic sac or by using sharp instruments to cut the baby into smaller parts.
Governor Northam took it one step farther - to his credit this is the logical conclusion of the 'abortion up to birth' position - by stating that even if a child was born alive during the abortion then the mother/doctor could decide to kill it or let it die from inattention. His actual words: "The infant would be delivered; the infant would be kept comfortable; the infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desire, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother". Sorry, not hard to understand infanticide when it is so clearly stated. The governor says he was only talking about cases of severe deformity and 'non-viable' babies. However those cases resolve themselves - the babies die even when provided basic care and treatment. And - most importantly - while he mentioned the most horrific and extreme cases, the LAW DID NOT MAKE ANY SUCH DISTINCTION. So what if the baby delivered has Downs... or a cleft palate... or one limb shorter than the other... or the birth was difficult and the doctor says there is high chance of brain damage.... or really anything else. The mother could have the baby aborted 30 minutes ago, why not get rid of it now? Surely she would have chosen abortion half an hour ago if she had known of the problem and there is no difference between the baby then and now except a minor change in geographic location.
The law - as stated clearly by the bill author Delegate Tran - allows abortion even while the mother is in labor. So why not AFTER labor? That is the question that Governor Northam honestly answered.