Given that a fair quantity of that material also covered why even a person who agreed completely with Trump’s policy should be angry at Trump for incompetence, mismanagement, laziness, and corruption, I don’t find your annoyance to be particularly honest sounding.
Not all Trump supporters are racist, but an overwhelming majority of deep fears and anxieties about the rapid cultural changes that have taken place over the last 30-40 years. And you know what? That’s not entirely abnormal - on some level, I get it.
Any common ground that we might eventually find is when both conservatives and progressives can identify similar fears. Maybe it’ll be AI and robotics. For the good of the country, we have to move on beyond and rethink some of the ideals upon which our society was founded upon: things like individualism and capitalism. I don’t mean we should completely abandon these principles but reconsider what they mean at a time when there’s going to be massive environmental and technological change and increasing scarcity of quality resources as a result.
To me, Trump’s election is a symptom that the machinery of this country and perhaps Western society is starting to malfunction. And we can either upgrade the machinery and systems ourselves, or have some foreign power absorb us into something that is superior to ours - superior in terms of relative power, but not so much in terms of ensuring things like justice, fairness, equality, prosperity for the masses.
OK, then what are you going on about. It’s already happening.
At some point electric cars will be cheaper to own than gas guzzling cars and people will start buying more of them and that means people will start offering a greater variety of them and pretty soon owning a gas guzzling cars will be like owning a race horse or a vintage car.
Sure they were expensive in the beginning but as more competition entered the market, you can now buy an EV for ~30K and while this is more than what you would pay for a similarly equipped gas powered vehicle the cost of ownership is lower because the equivalent mileage can be achieved for half the energy cost. So a a gallon of gas might cost $2.50 and let you drive 30 miles, a similarly equipped EV can go 30 miles on $1.25 worth of electricity. And every year we see more variety and lower prices which leads to more demand which leads to more variety and more competition, this leads to lower prices which leads to more demand, you get the idea.
We see something similar happening in meat substitutes. One of the primary benefits of meat substitutes like beyond meat burgers and beyond meat sausages is that it helps the environment. I used to eat half a cow’s worth of meat every year. That means you had to keep two cows on the ranch just for me. About half a cow’s meat yield goes to identifiable cuts like ribs and steaks and roasts, etc. and the other half goes to ground beef. Pretty much every baby boomer needs to reduce their red meat consumption and if i can reduce the srtock of beef that needs to be kept to satisfy my demand for beef from 2 cows to 1 cow, that is the equivalent of reducing my gasoline consumption by about a gallon a day and for a suburbanite like me, that’s more than i use.
Oh I agree. we are not going to politick our way out of thois global warming mess, we are going to science our way out of it. Science to develop alternative energy, science to develop battery technology and most importantly science to deal with the carbon that is already in the air. Scientists are going to save us, not activists.
Right now I think all the resources that can reasonably be put to bear to address this issue is being put to use. I don’t think the scientific community is holding back on this waiting for the government to do something to help them along.
At this point there are a lot of people screaming fire as the firefighters are tryign to put out the fire. The alarm bells have already been rung. The market is shovelling money at alternative energy and anything that will solve global warming. At this point, more money or invesment might be pushing a rope.
What more can we do? Outlaw internal combustion engines? Outlaw fossil fuels?
They filed amicus brief in support of affirmative action at University of Michigan in their home state.
Are you saying that GM has retreated from affirmative action? Do you have a cite for this?
Yes, that goes for you too.
He is engaged in a trade war with China.
He has practically shut down the immigration of cheap illegal labor.
He opposes affirmative action (but that’s really no different than what any republican president would do so it’s not really a uniquely Trump thing)
The unemployment rate is historically low and they credit him for this.
Whether he deserves the credit or not is besides the point. There is a plausible case for giving him at least some credit for this.
[/quote]
Why would I lie?
[/QUOTE]
I’m not saying you are lying but a person might lie to promote their agenda.
Are you trying to have me on? You asked how long infrastructure would take to replace the existing fossil fuel infrastructure and I observed that the process has already started with electric car charging stations all over the nation. A simple, agreement would suffice. Here, let me show you…
Agreed. We’re on common ground.
However, Trump ran on revitalizing the fossil fuel industry. They are not going to be happy and they seem to be in denial about where things are headed despite his [del]promises[/del] lies.
Agreed. We’re on common ground.
However, Trump ran on revitalizing the American farming industry and has given them subsidies while he picked a fight with China. They are not happy about how things are going despite his [del]promises[/del] lies.
Agreed. We’re on common ground.
However, Trump is a climate change denier and doesn’t trust the scientists. Neither do his supporters. They are not going to be happy when science and the new economy leaves them further behind while they embrace his lies.
a)People are screaming fire because fires are literally burning around the world due to chronic drought conditions due to climate change.
b)Nobody is talking about outlawing combustion engines or fossil fuels.
My turn to ask you what you’re on about, eh?
Every conservative is for deregulation of business and letting big business make it’s own decisions. But I guess that’s a step too far for some.
:dubious:
I’m going to avoid stating the obvious and let you ponder these last two quotes in context of this entire topic. You’re smart. I’m sure you can sort it out.
I pondered, and partially wrote, several replies, but I decided to start out on a more positive note: I think there’s a great deal of common ground between left and right in this country, and between quite a few individuals on both sides. It just happens to be that since we agree on much of that, we don’t spend much time discussing it. Instead, we argue vociferously about the areas we don’t have “common ground” or agreement.
Perhaps we’re talking past each other.
Perhaps it would help if you stated whether you think the green new deal is a workable blueprint for addressing climate change.
Politicians lie, both sides do it. I cannot criticize Trump or his supporters for things that Trump does that any other Republican president would do.
I suspect you will be disappointed by how much longer we will be using fossil fuels for energy. We are a net exporter of coal to developing and industrializing countries.
While electric cars make sense for the majority of vehicle owners (particularly those in transportation and shipping), we are a long way before they don’t make sense for a person with my driving habits. If you only drive a couple thousand miles/year (you live in a city or a dense suburb), the savings on gas is not as important as the cost of the vehicle. Paying 37K for an EV may not make sense, when I can buy a similarly equipped gas guzzling car for 23K. It’ll happen, just not as quickly as you might like.
Politicians lie. Not every Trump supporter thinks that the trade war is a bad idea.
Trump is not that different than other Republicans on climate change.
Have you read the green new deal?
It’s not an outright ban on fossil fuels but it would make them prohibitively expensive and disrupt our economy.
So are you saying that GM has reversed direction on affirmative action or something?
You asked why she wouldn’t believe you. You asked why you would lie. I said that she might think you might be lying to promote and agenda.
What the fuck is there to figure out? You say she should trust you instead of other conservatives. She doesn’t trust you because you’re a liberal.
Well, the dates that these bans go into effect range between 2025 and 2050. America is conspicuously missing from that roadmap, so there is hardly a gun to the heads of those who are already in a panic about having their corner gas station pumps go dry.
This is not to trivialize the glaring signs that blue collar jobs dependent of fossil fuels are on a downward trajectory. People hate imposed change and the adjustment will be hard on many of them. That said, Trump and those who advocate for a reinvigorated fossil fuel industry are doing a huge disservice (telling bold faced lies, really) by telling some folks what they want to hear.
I get that you’re trying to make your point, but it’s the same point over and over and I’m done with this merry-go-round. This is where I get off.
She believes a pathological liar who lies more frequently than some people check the time on their watch. She lack the judgement to see the difference between that individual and those who want to provide her and hers with a social safety net. And it’s me she doesn’t trust! I didn’t think I’d need to explain the absurd irony, but there you go. I guess she deserves the government and result she voted for.
Yes, mainly.
Also again, Obama and Clinton before him were pro deportation. The current crop of dem candidates is all about open borders (via decriminalizing illegal entry) and stopping ICE from deporting illegals including criminals.
How the hell could we afford UC for our own let alone everyone who wants to move here?
I think this rests on a misconception that for some reason people from Latin America are coming here for our social services. This isn’t really… true. All Central and South American countries except Guyana have free healthcare, though a few (Suriname, Guatemala, Honduras, and Costa Rica) have free but not universal healthcare. They’re not gonna be coming here specifically to leech our healthcare.
Of course, i’m being slightly reductive, UHC isn’t always evenly applied and systemic discrimination and other factors may disrupt care for some groups (e.g. queer people, ethnic minorities, etc), but this isn’t by any means unique to South America, nor UHC. The US, even when people have healthcare, can be bad about getting care to certain groups and Canada has recently been discovered to have hospitals sterilizing indigenous peoples.
While it’s true that people arriving in the country, especially the impoverished, put some strain on our infrastructure and social services, there seems to be this idea that people are going to come here from those “backwards countries” to leech our healthcare when most of them already have some variation on what’s being proposed. People are more generally fleeing political violence, instability due to things like (sometimes US-sponsored!) coups, or other poor conditions. They’re not going to see “oh it has UHC! I’ll go there!” because they could go to like… the neighboring country for that.
I think there’s almost some bias that we’re not going to do UHC, because it would be bad, and awful, and unworkable but if we did it it’d be so much better than everyone else’s that they’d come specifically here to use it because they’re “backwards” and don’t have it or their doctors aren’t as good as ours
Yes, I remember when everyone was in agreement about how our current healthcare system was terrible and then one party decided to do something about it, invited the other party to participate in shaping a new health care system, and all of the sudden it became a huge partisan issue. I blame this squarely on the Republicans’ strategy to make Obama a one-term president.
So you may think there is common ground, but the only reason is because Republicans haven’t taken a stance yet. And yes, I think this is mainly a Republican strategy. I didn’t see Democrats bailing on prison reform because the Republicans suddenly supported it (thanks to the Koch’s support of it).
What are some of the “common ground” areas shared by the political left, right and middle, in your view?
There’s still a fairly broad consensus in areas like the importance of free speech, the inappropriateness of violence against political opponents, that democratic institutions are the best mechanism to govern our nation, and we all hate politicians. Admittedly, I see some erosion in some of these areas, but not so much that I wouldn’t still label them as items of broad, national consensus.
Yet you consider Trump, who has encouraged violence against political opponents, to be doing a good job. Was it the money or the prospect of seeing prisoners tortured and their families murdered that convinced you to vote for someone who doesn’t share our universal views regarding the appropriateness of violence against political opponents?
Perhaps that’s the erosion of which he speaks. Let’s see, though.
No, No, No. You are NOT going to convince me that the US must be just as crowded as say Japan (which btw, allows NO immigration).
Also allowing millions in will NOT solve the problems they face back home like poverty and violence.
As I said several times YES, Obama deported. I applauded him for that.
However the CURRENT crop of dems (especially Harris) are NOT the same and are pro open border.
That is an enormous excluded middle there. Japan is a tiny island nation. How can you possibly compare them with the US? That’s like comparing a rowboat with an aircraft carrier.
Also, America is not reproducing enough. We are on a negative population growth path without immigration. We will not have enough people to do everything that needs to be done, and not enough tax payers when we are old and need them to support society.
We. Are. Not. Full. Not even close. This is a fiction peddled by those who hate all immigration because they feel it lessens their political power. That’s all it is.
Stop right there. You will NOT convince me that the US is full nor will you convince me that we can easily allow in millions more.
Nor will you convince me that us allowing in millions of immigrants will solve the problems back in their home countries like poverty and violence.