(post shortened)
That seems to be the official story according to yellow dog Democrats.
Others may believe that some yellow dog Democrats are only trying to explain ol’ Hillary’s 2nd failure to become POTUS.
I’ve noticed over the decades that when people spend time telling the other side how they should think, or what they should say, there is little chance of reaching a compromise. Oh well, life goes on.
Actually, what you should have said is, “(Post removed)”, because you removed my entire argument and utterly failed to address any part of it. As usual. You just provided some wild-ass assertion about sour grapes and left it at that. And if you think that’s an actual argument, then I will gladly tell you what to think, because this is great debates, and there is such a thing as a level of discourse.
I don’t view the oil and gas leases, that I believe the companies pay something resembling a fair market price for, as ‘give aways’ or subsidies. YMMV.
If someone has a plan to make a profitable solar or wind farm in San Juan County, I’ll be thrilled.
One of the points I made many times before was the case of Joe the Plumber who was one of the early examples of that mentality.
One of the best metaphors made by scientist Richard Alley (who is still a Republican BTW) is about how many naysayers of change were there to attempt to stop the development of water works and sewer systems whose worth to human wellbeing is really incalculable.
What does Joe the Plumber has to do with that? Nothing much, except that his early livelihood** would not had existed** if his “forefathers” had succeeded on denying clean water and a sewage system.
This is why that point from conservatives that think that green jobs should be just for liberals is a dumb one: making change possible, or working for change for that matter, does not mean that there will be no “Joe the solar installer” guys that are conservative to the core in the future.
But it is a risk that me and many others are willing to take.
In this thread about bringing extremes together for the benefit of the country, what political issues have you compromised on?
As in, are there certain Democrats you have voted for? Ballot propositions you have voted for that are supported by liberal groups? Liberal causes that you’ve donated to?
I can say that I’ve often voted for independent or Republican candidates in local elections here in DC, often times because those candidates had good plans and seemed to be of quite high personal caliber.
Well thanks for showing all that you are not reading nor looking carefully, John Oliver did cite first the Facktcheck article that was also sourced extremely well that showed how the new EPA guy has lied to you and many other conservatives. As it is also true that the coal executives mentioned are really worthy of jail time rather than the love Trump did shower them (in one occasion, by phone).
Of course your underwhelming silly response was to just kill the messenger. Never mind that that is a logical fallacy.
I want to live in a future with something to be conservative about. A time when change is not so urgently required, when we can afford to be prudent and cautious.
First, we have to have a future.
I wasn’t intending to ‘single out’ wind and solar. Perhaps reading my post #402 would clarify that. If we were having a discussion about ethanol subsidies or some other industry, I’d also view them with disfavor. At least, that’s my general attitude towards them, and I’m having trouble thinking of an exception to that at the moment, but maybe someone here will point one out.
Nope, didn’t read the Kansas cite. It’s a big, fairly fast-moving thread with lots of people talking to me at once. It’d be very helpful if you’d either link to it here in this post where you’re bringing it up again, or at least provide a post # where I could scroll back to and get the cite.
To your broader point, you seem to be trying to argue both sides of the renewables-need-subsidies vs no-they-don’t debate simultaneously. It’s confusing.
I’ve voted for many Democrats over the decades. I would never vote to put a Chicago Democrat into the Whitehouse.
(I grew up in Chicago. I’m probably still voting for Democrats. 
)
This thread asks the question, “How Did We Become Bitter Political Enemies?” The simplest answer is the all sides have stopped listening to the other side. Finger-pointing, name-calling, fake news, propaganda, and horseshit have replaced reason. Some people actually look to comedians for their news??? (That’s probably because the news media outlets have done such a shitty job of reporting.)
At what point did this thread become yet another man-made-global-warming debacle?
Oliver, and the other comedians, are not considered news sources, as far as I’m concerned. They will say anything to get a laugh. Even if it doesn’t get a laugh. Comedians can not, must not, be held responsible for anything they say. Of course, YMMV.
I don’t know that all that many look to the comedians for news.
But, to be honest, comedians do make the news these days more palatable.
We come back to the question of how we became political enemies, and you point out that because of who a person is, he cannot be trusted, even though he cites his source, and shows the blatant lie of an official appointed by the person elected president, but your response is to go after the comedian about it?
How about a response to the fact that Pruitt absolutely lied on national TV, and as far as I have seen, has not yet issued a retraction for his deliberate misinforming of the public.
I didn’t remove your post. It’s still there. Right were you left it.
All you have to do is convince other voters that your views are right, and that theirs are wrong. Failing to do that, you’ll need to turn out more voters than the other side can. If you can’t do that, then the Republicans will control both houses of Congress, most governorships, the Whitehouse, and most state legislatures.
Do you hold the EPA chief responsible for his lies?
:sigh:
It is only confusing if the choice was just about economics. Again, they are about even when compared to other energy sources, this is confusing only by ignoring what the science says about what we need to do to prevent bad scenarios from becoming reality. It is only by looking at unfounded doubts when it becomes a confusing choice.
It is not wonder that there are groups that influence the Republicans that in reality just have doubt as their product.
If you believe they pay anything even close to fair market value, you are badly mislead.
There are Republican candidates in DC? Surely you jest! 
I’ve said that comedians can not be held responsible for what they say. It’s still your choice whether or not to believe/trust them. It’s also an individuals choice as to whether they chose to quote them.
If YOU would like to state YOUR opinions about Pruitt, or Pruitt’s actions, please feel free to express them.
Pruitt absolutely lied on national TV.
Do you have any defense for that? Do you believe that the Chief of the EPA should be responsible for what he says?
OK, educate me. How much do they pay? What would a fair market price be? Where did you learn the truth? Where can I learn the truth?