"it’s a decent enough starting point for you to do some more thinking and reach your own conclusion."
What make you assume I haven't done this "thinking" to reach my own conclusion? I have done so all my life. My conclusion stands:
"The Left" is not trying to "crash the economy" to start the New World Order or any other fantasy dreamed up by QAnon goobers. Period.
I agree with your lineup of mediocre politicians, but you forgot the dimwits from the Republican side of the aisle. Boebert? Gaetz? Greene? Trump and his pals?
Trump did not preside over the highest inflation in 40 years, or over two years of historic learning losses among school children. He’s also completely IRRELEVANT to the point of the thread, which is leftist idiocy.
The point of this thread may be "leftist idiocy," but it's perfectly fair to make the comparison because you're pretending that only the Left is lousy at governing. Plenty of idiocy on all sides to go around. I didn't list Trump to bash or single him out, only as one of the looney tune on the Right.
As for "he didn't preside over" high inflation and learnings losses, he would have had he been re-elected. Markets and social force are more powerful than any President.
This is strange but I find myself agreeing with you. I despise both parties and wish there was a strong middle of the road party but that wish is a fantasy.
I wish there was a strong centrist party, too, LP. One more interested in rebuilding our electric grid, filling potholes, rewriting our broken immigration policy, and upholding the Constitution rather than staging Shouty Theater minute after hour after day. I don't see that happening, alas.
Good to have agreement now and again, though! Best to you.
For the third and final time, I listed Trump along with a half-dozen other examples of lame politicians in Rightyland. In contrast, your obsession with the Left is tiresome, so I'm out.
If you let down the shields of your ideology and actually looked at history with honesty you would find the information necessary to explain all of this. Go back to Woodrow Wilson and the beginning of progressivism, the whole design was evolution not revolution. He understood that it would take an infiltration onto the media and the educational system and, as he stated, "three generations" to own the minds of the electorate. You have been trained to see everything that falls outside the scope of the media narrative as a conspiracy. You have been trained to hate those that disagree with you so that you will consider their opinions invalid. Closing your mind right now is EXACTLY what they want you to do. The simple thing to remember is that in this Republic, our elected representatives are there to do OUR bidding, no their own. Why would there be career politicians if the system was working the way it was designed? How do our representatives go to Washington as paupers and emerge as millionaires? Because they are representing the corporate interests that pay for them to get elected. If they keep us at odds, it stays this way. Considering the viewpoints of those you disagree with is imperative right now if we ever stand a chance of having government "FOR THE PEOPLE" again.
I like your comment, Michael, but I no longer celebrate the Wilson Presidency. Wilson, a Dixiecrat at heart, re-segregated the Civil Service and showed "Birth of a Nation" with its celebration of the KKK in the White House. I'd rather plant the birth of progressivism and the first trust-busting attacks on the gilded age with Teddy Roosevelt. But then I squirm at his efforts to launch American imperialism, the Treaty of Portsmouth, and other regrettable moves. But thanks for your cogent and potent comment.
"It's about control" is hardly exclusive to progressivism. That's the entire goal of politics, amassing enough power and control to impose a particular point of view.
The difference is, progressivism isn't just trying to control thought, it's also designed to limit and control personal freedom. That is counter to the American way of being.
Sorry, Michael, I misread your earlier remark which is neither cogent nor accurate. The progressive era began before the Wilson Presidency, its birth usually ascribed to 1896. And, today, nothing "falls outside the scope of the media." Everything, including every mendacious conspiracy theory, is propagated somewhere on the media. Sifting through the lies and distortions to find nuggets of truth is the responsibility of every serious citizen. Sadly, most seek affirmation of their pre-existing beliefs, not information that might enlighten them. I certainly share your concern about the excessive and pervasive influence of corporate interests in our political discourse. Many comments posted in this thread reflect that perverse power, especially those denying anthropogenic climate change.
Neither cogent or accurate? It's true history, it's not up for debate. Being insulting while exhibiting proper grammar and an extensive vocabulary is still being insulting. I won't subscribe to your approach except to say, only you think you're smarter than the rest of us.... Your comment about climate change tells me all I need to know, you don't study, you just believe what they tell you to. There is plenty of scientific evidence to prove that human beings have virtually NO effect on the climate. But you keep looking dreamily into the mirror, those of us that DO get it are completely discounting you.
There was "plenty of scientific evidence" proving that tobacco was harmless and denying the prevailing scientific view expressed in the Surgeon General's admonitions until the deadly impacts of smoking and chewing tobacco took so many lives that the contrarian's "evidence" was shown to be completely bogus. The sugar industry paid a scientist at Harvard University to publish "research" that refuted the deleterious impact of sugar consumption on human health. His mendacious claims and his scientific reputation have been, thankfully, dismissed by real science.
Yes, there are legitimate scientists, very few of them climate scientists, who deny the reality of anthropogenic climate change. It appears to me that you and the climate change deniers are the ones who sought out views that affirmed what you wanted to believe and denied the overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Suggest you read a book by the distinguished historian of science at Harvard, Naomi Oreskes: "Merchants of Doubt.: Oreskes documents how industry-supported "scientists" sow doubt and confusion about tobacco, climate change, sugar, and more recently, Covid-19.
There is a series of lectures on Hillsdale.edu from 2021. They concern the Great Reset as defined by the World Economic Forum, Klaus Schwab. Suggest you listen. If you think the world’s billionaires convene in Davos once a year just to party, think again. These people hold all the power and they envision a very different world than the one we live in. And they are exerting it. They use climate change as the justification. Here’s an example of their power—ESG. Bullying companies to “voluntarily” comply with their standards, or they won’t get loans. They won’t get financial services. Talent will be dissuaded from working for them. This is a kind of fascism.
Schwab’s vision is to destroy capitalism as we know it. He wrote a book about it. So, yes, there is a plan, and he has powerful billionaires signing on.
NCMaureen: It's clear that "capitalism as we know it" has failed in a number of respects. Without adequate regulation, capitalism inevitably falls into brutal boom and bust cycles that exacerbate the unequal distribution of personal income resulting in the rich getting richer while the middle class stagnates or slips into poverty.
Any economic system will ensure prosperity and well-being only if it's compatible with the resources available to it from planet earth. Inadequately regulated capitalism is depleting our resources and natural systems faster than they can be replenished.
We're on the road to environmental implosion. The only acceptable kind of growth is sustainable growth. Our politics are still driven by the Bill Clinton mantra: "It's the economy, stupid!" We on the road to self destruction until and unless we accept that "It's the ECOLOGY, stupid!" and adjust our lifestyles to that imperative. Hillsdale College serves the interests of the billionaires that fund its extensive ties to far-right interests.
Kstils, you cited only part of my statement, leaving out the important qualifier, "in a number of respects." I stand by the statement and everything that follows about the need for adequate regulation to preclude the otherwise inevitable boom and bust cycles of capitalism and its relentless need for "growth" on a finite planet that has led us down a path leading to environmental implosion. That's hardly a "sane" option.
One of the Hillsdales lectures that you won’t listen describes the environmental costs of the green movement. Guess how much earth has to be mined to get enough rare earth minerals to build one Tesla battery?
NCMaureen: I'm well aware of the limited supplies of lithium, cobalt, rare earths, and other essential components of our hi-tech world. I've read an entire book on the subject, Michael Klare's The Race for What's Left. But I'm also aware that scientists at MIT have developed battery technology based on three abundant and inexpensive materials -- aluminum, sulphur, and salt.
But we already know that we cannot go on pouring greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere, so alternative energy sources must be found if we hope to sustain a lifestyle as energy dependent as ours.
And I know enough about the Hillsdale lectures to view them with skepticism. The fossil fuel companies take their cues from the tobacco industry. When the surgeon general tied tobacco use to cancer, Big Tobacco initiated a propaganda war to counter the science. They established "research" centers at universities and bought off scientists who sold their integrity by claiming to have experimental evidence that tobacco is safe. Now, after countless needless deaths, we know it was all a scam. Big Oil is doing the same thing today, using outlets like Hilldale sow doubt and confusion about climate science and alternative energy.
As for the allegation about environmental costs of producing lithium-ion batteries, they are dubious at best.
Transport and Environment, an NGO that studies the environmental impact of transportation systems compared the impacts of gas-powered and electric vehicles. They found:
Electric vehicles require far less in the way of mined metals.
It is anticipated that the amount of lithium, cobalt, and nickel to produce a car battery will drop significantly over the next decade, and by 2035 it is expected that over a fifth of the lithium and 65% of the cobalt and nickel will come from recycling. The full study can be found at:
So, instead of technology we know to be harmful (internal combustion engines powered by gas) let us hope that the technology to produce electric vehicles powered by clean energy can be perfected. Otherwise, we're in deep doo-doo.
"it’s a decent enough starting point for you to do some more thinking and reach your own conclusion."
What make you assume I haven't done this "thinking" to reach my own conclusion? I have done so all my life. My conclusion stands:
"The Left" is not trying to "crash the economy" to start the New World Order or any other fantasy dreamed up by QAnon goobers. Period.
I agree with your lineup of mediocre politicians, but you forgot the dimwits from the Republican side of the aisle. Boebert? Gaetz? Greene? Trump and his pals?
There it is: “what about trump”
Trump did not preside over the highest inflation in 40 years, or over two years of historic learning losses among school children. He’s also completely IRRELEVANT to the point of the thread, which is leftist idiocy.
The point of this thread may be "leftist idiocy," but it's perfectly fair to make the comparison because you're pretending that only the Left is lousy at governing. Plenty of idiocy on all sides to go around. I didn't list Trump to bash or single him out, only as one of the looney tune on the Right.
As for "he didn't preside over" high inflation and learnings losses, he would have had he been re-elected. Markets and social force are more powerful than any President.
This is strange but I find myself agreeing with you. I despise both parties and wish there was a strong middle of the road party but that wish is a fantasy.
I wish there was a strong centrist party, too, LP. One more interested in rebuilding our electric grid, filling potholes, rewriting our broken immigration policy, and upholding the Constitution rather than staging Shouty Theater minute after hour after day. I don't see that happening, alas.
Good to have agreement now and again, though! Best to you.
The left is awful at governing. Don't you have any family? Don't you have any children you care about???
Two years of closed schools, that means nothing to you, you just want to talk about Trump??
For the third and final time, I listed Trump along with a half-dozen other examples of lame politicians in Rightyland. In contrast, your obsession with the Left is tiresome, so I'm out.
If you let down the shields of your ideology and actually looked at history with honesty you would find the information necessary to explain all of this. Go back to Woodrow Wilson and the beginning of progressivism, the whole design was evolution not revolution. He understood that it would take an infiltration onto the media and the educational system and, as he stated, "three generations" to own the minds of the electorate. You have been trained to see everything that falls outside the scope of the media narrative as a conspiracy. You have been trained to hate those that disagree with you so that you will consider their opinions invalid. Closing your mind right now is EXACTLY what they want you to do. The simple thing to remember is that in this Republic, our elected representatives are there to do OUR bidding, no their own. Why would there be career politicians if the system was working the way it was designed? How do our representatives go to Washington as paupers and emerge as millionaires? Because they are representing the corporate interests that pay for them to get elected. If they keep us at odds, it stays this way. Considering the viewpoints of those you disagree with is imperative right now if we ever stand a chance of having government "FOR THE PEOPLE" again.
I like your comment, Michael, but I no longer celebrate the Wilson Presidency. Wilson, a Dixiecrat at heart, re-segregated the Civil Service and showed "Birth of a Nation" with its celebration of the KKK in the White House. I'd rather plant the birth of progressivism and the first trust-busting attacks on the gilded age with Teddy Roosevelt. But then I squirm at his efforts to launch American imperialism, the Treaty of Portsmouth, and other regrettable moves. But thanks for your cogent and potent comment.
You can't change history... It started with Wilson and it's never been about progress. It's about control, period.
"It's about control" is hardly exclusive to progressivism. That's the entire goal of politics, amassing enough power and control to impose a particular point of view.
The difference is, progressivism isn't just trying to control thought, it's also designed to limit and control personal freedom. That is counter to the American way of being.
Sorry, Michael, I misread your earlier remark which is neither cogent nor accurate. The progressive era began before the Wilson Presidency, its birth usually ascribed to 1896. And, today, nothing "falls outside the scope of the media." Everything, including every mendacious conspiracy theory, is propagated somewhere on the media. Sifting through the lies and distortions to find nuggets of truth is the responsibility of every serious citizen. Sadly, most seek affirmation of their pre-existing beliefs, not information that might enlighten them. I certainly share your concern about the excessive and pervasive influence of corporate interests in our political discourse. Many comments posted in this thread reflect that perverse power, especially those denying anthropogenic climate change.
Neither cogent or accurate? It's true history, it's not up for debate. Being insulting while exhibiting proper grammar and an extensive vocabulary is still being insulting. I won't subscribe to your approach except to say, only you think you're smarter than the rest of us.... Your comment about climate change tells me all I need to know, you don't study, you just believe what they tell you to. There is plenty of scientific evidence to prove that human beings have virtually NO effect on the climate. But you keep looking dreamily into the mirror, those of us that DO get it are completely discounting you.
There was "plenty of scientific evidence" proving that tobacco was harmless and denying the prevailing scientific view expressed in the Surgeon General's admonitions until the deadly impacts of smoking and chewing tobacco took so many lives that the contrarian's "evidence" was shown to be completely bogus. The sugar industry paid a scientist at Harvard University to publish "research" that refuted the deleterious impact of sugar consumption on human health. His mendacious claims and his scientific reputation have been, thankfully, dismissed by real science.
Yes, there are legitimate scientists, very few of them climate scientists, who deny the reality of anthropogenic climate change. It appears to me that you and the climate change deniers are the ones who sought out views that affirmed what you wanted to believe and denied the overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Suggest you read a book by the distinguished historian of science at Harvard, Naomi Oreskes: "Merchants of Doubt.: Oreskes documents how industry-supported "scientists" sow doubt and confusion about tobacco, climate change, sugar, and more recently, Covid-19.
You're responding to the wrong person with this.
I responded to the correct person, what happened in this system is beyond my control.
Since your comment had nothing to do with what I said, yeah, this system does get squirreley at times,
There is a series of lectures on Hillsdale.edu from 2021. They concern the Great Reset as defined by the World Economic Forum, Klaus Schwab. Suggest you listen. If you think the world’s billionaires convene in Davos once a year just to party, think again. These people hold all the power and they envision a very different world than the one we live in. And they are exerting it. They use climate change as the justification. Here’s an example of their power—ESG. Bullying companies to “voluntarily” comply with their standards, or they won’t get loans. They won’t get financial services. Talent will be dissuaded from working for them. This is a kind of fascism.
Schwab’s vision is to destroy capitalism as we know it. He wrote a book about it. So, yes, there is a plan, and he has powerful billionaires signing on.
NCMaureen: It's clear that "capitalism as we know it" has failed in a number of respects. Without adequate regulation, capitalism inevitably falls into brutal boom and bust cycles that exacerbate the unequal distribution of personal income resulting in the rich getting richer while the middle class stagnates or slips into poverty.
Any economic system will ensure prosperity and well-being only if it's compatible with the resources available to it from planet earth. Inadequately regulated capitalism is depleting our resources and natural systems faster than they can be replenished.
https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/story/were-gobbling-earths-resources-unsustainable-rate
We're on the road to environmental implosion. The only acceptable kind of growth is sustainable growth. Our politics are still driven by the Bill Clinton mantra: "It's the economy, stupid!" We on the road to self destruction until and unless we accept that "It's the ECOLOGY, stupid!" and adjust our lifestyles to that imperative. Hillsdale College serves the interests of the billionaires that fund its extensive ties to far-right interests.
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/05/12/hillsdale-college-trump-pence-218362/
It is certainly not true that 'capitalism as we know it' has failed.
Compare it to any other economic model and you'll find it's really the only sane option.
Kstils, you cited only part of my statement, leaving out the important qualifier, "in a number of respects." I stand by the statement and everything that follows about the need for adequate regulation to preclude the otherwise inevitable boom and bust cycles of capitalism and its relentless need for "growth" on a finite planet that has led us down a path leading to environmental implosion. That's hardly a "sane" option.
One of the Hillsdales lectures that you won’t listen describes the environmental costs of the green movement. Guess how much earth has to be mined to get enough rare earth minerals to build one Tesla battery?
NCMaureen: I'm well aware of the limited supplies of lithium, cobalt, rare earths, and other essential components of our hi-tech world. I've read an entire book on the subject, Michael Klare's The Race for What's Left. But I'm also aware that scientists at MIT have developed battery technology based on three abundant and inexpensive materials -- aluminum, sulphur, and salt.
https://news.mit.edu/2022/aluminum-sulfur-battery-0824
But we already know that we cannot go on pouring greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere, so alternative energy sources must be found if we hope to sustain a lifestyle as energy dependent as ours.
And I know enough about the Hillsdale lectures to view them with skepticism. The fossil fuel companies take their cues from the tobacco industry. When the surgeon general tied tobacco use to cancer, Big Tobacco initiated a propaganda war to counter the science. They established "research" centers at universities and bought off scientists who sold their integrity by claiming to have experimental evidence that tobacco is safe. Now, after countless needless deaths, we know it was all a scam. Big Oil is doing the same thing today, using outlets like Hilldale sow doubt and confusion about climate science and alternative energy.
As for the allegation about environmental costs of producing lithium-ion batteries, they are dubious at best.
https://www.verifythis.com/article/news/verify/environment-verify/electric-vehicles-carbon-footprint/536-92531ae7-c68f-4eaa-a24d-6c04c4b9ff95
Transport and Environment, an NGO that studies the environmental impact of transportation systems compared the impacts of gas-powered and electric vehicles. They found:
Electric vehicles require far less in the way of mined metals.
It is anticipated that the amount of lithium, cobalt, and nickel to produce a car battery will drop significantly over the next decade, and by 2035 it is expected that over a fifth of the lithium and 65% of the cobalt and nickel will come from recycling. The full study can be found at:
https://electrek.co/2021/03/01/mining-electric-car-batteries-hundreds-of-times-better-than-petrol-car-emission-cycles/
So, instead of technology we know to be harmful (internal combustion engines powered by gas) let us hope that the technology to produce electric vehicles powered by clean energy can be perfected. Otherwise, we're in deep doo-doo.