I think a more useful way to have this conversation if we're going to have it is as looking at it from an array of possible alternatives. Politicians tend to talk in absolutes, not alternatives. For instance AOC's green new deal which wanted to upgrade all energy to sustainable forms of energy. Without discussing the costs of that (and the possible unintended consequences, like extinction of birds from wind turbines, massive land use from solar panels) it's pointless and would only cripple the economy or cause massive inefficiencies.

Let's say the taxpayers spend 15 billion on "climate change." What is it going towards? Grants towards entrepreneurs. OK that's... okay. How do they decide who gets the grants? Female? Black? That's how they decide most contracts in DC. So is it really for the best model for what will save the world? If the idea is that great, and feasible, why don't they go on shark tank, or ask a VC, rather than go for a government grant? Guess what, they would. And they'd get more money for it.

Nuclear energy, which already exists, is probably the cleanest and most practical solution. At least according to this guy, who knows more than me about renewables.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N-yALPEpV4w&t=127s

you are clearly misguided.

1. China is not communist. It is run by elite oligarchs and corporate cartels. this aint Mao's China.

2. You really dont think the US would use facial recognition? well, mebbe bc we dont need it. We have already confirmed that Feds and local Police scan social media for non violent protesters and have arrested many of them.

Also, the Amazon doorbell camera that has become ubiquitous in suburbia is by default tied into the local Police monitoring. legit Big Brother.

Now, I am not gonna sit here and say the Dems want to get rid of this stuff. They obv dont. But neither does the right, nor this administration, nor the Republicans.

The rest of your ideas of small and big govt and left and right are just bullshit generalities. When you look at the specifics, its clear the right is far more authoritarian, far more "big government", and far more in favor of censorship. That doesnt absolve the so-called left in this country, ie the Democrats who are quite bad themselves.

But again, we are getting off topic. The point is that there would be little difference if the Chinese "take over" as you say. Also, the Chinese wont really take over, they will just combine with the elite oligarchs that already extract all of the wealth, labor, and resources from the populace. in fact that has likely already happened to a large extent.

It's impossible to have this conversation meaningfully when Trump and by extension the GOP take the position that the whole thing is a hoax. Can you not see that?

Why do you think this is specific to climate change? Government gives grants, loans and tax breaks to researchers and start-up businesses all the time, based on prevailing policy.

Why don't farmers go to VCs instead of getting subsidised by taxpayer money?

Why do you continue to think your opinions are facts?

If a guy makes a crowd laugh, that's a victory for a comedian or for a politician. If you can't see that, you're a fool. And if you think it's easy, go out and try it.

No, China is communist. They're called the Communist Party of China. They brainwash their citizens and anyone who doesn't agree with them. They can prosecute me for saying that if I ever step foot there. They separate children from parents, which is something Marx knew to be necessary for the state.

They sounded like they were cheering, not laughing. I should have said "cheering". Those are different things. I'm sure I could get on stage and insult someone the crowd hates and get cheered too, doesn't need a lot of skill.

No I can't see that Trump's all-powerful grasp is preventing us from having a meaningful discussion.

Did I say it's specific to climate change?

You really love non-sequitors.

Do you think the crowd has to like him for him to get those cheers?

Cheering is actually superior to laughing if you're a politician.

I'm not disputing that his supporters like him. He ran on a populist platform (or "popularist", as he calls it). Clue's in the name.

I don't see pandering to the basest instincts of the lowest common denominator as a sign of shrewdness. Demoagoguery doesn't require a huge amount of skill - just a moral, and in Trump's case intellectual vacuum.

none of that has anything to do with Communism. Communism is an economic system.

and 3 out of 4 of those criteria are true for the USA as well. brainwashing, prosecution, and child separation. I dont think anyone would claim USA is communist.

I think he characterizes people beautifully, albeit in a mean way - but this is politics not kindergarten. "Crooked Hilary" - perfect, as everyone in America thinks she is crooked.

I love watching Trump on Letterman. He's been on maybe 20 times. Every time Dave gives him a ton of sh-t and Trump always comes out smelling like a rose. He answers all the questions, shows that he knows what he is talking about, and Dave is shut up, but makes jokes about it. Dave openly insults him and Trump doesn't let it phase him - he's a true salesman, maybe a narcissist, maybe a dick, but no dummy.

Here's one, plenty more going back to the 80s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PR_SoJpWzOA

I don't think pointing out that the guy in charge calling the problem a "hoax" and refusing to acknowledge it is a hindrance to resolving the problem is a sign of TDS. Seems like common sense to me, but you seem to want to argue against it.

So you object to any government incentives in any industry, because of the difficulty in deciding who gets them?

It's not a non sequitur. Why is subsidising farmers a desirable intervention in the free market, and subsidising innovation in renewables an undesirable intervention in the free market?

dam marx was wildin out!

Watching a brief clip of that video, and even the clips you linked from 4 years ago, in juxtaposition to his recent appearances, his recent cognitive decline really comes into sharp focus.

Communism is not only an economic system, it is a political ideology and most importantly it is an all encompassing philosophy that is largely borrowed from Hegel, and a historical philosophy. The idea of the family needing to be suppressed for the interest of the state is still widely accepted, especially with the 1 child policy but also in the kidnapping of children today. Religious worship is still banned in China, a Marxist notion. The only difference is the economy, which has been opened up due to years of failure under the communist paradigm, but the state still controls all the money, and business leaders can always be killed by the government. Everyone should watch this interview: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XSPFcztxni8

Mao is still revered in China. Modern China still uses much from Marx. The state will always be in control. Go to China and say, "I hate communism" and see what happens to you.

Heh, even Marx got one right, that old devil.

I jest, I wouldn't ban it, but I certainly don't like to see it encouraged and coddled to the extent that it is in the US.

And Biden's has been clear for many years

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z_wlQZ5N_2k

I urge you to watch the "Trump's Greatest Words" videos I posted earlier ITT.

In any case, if I am forced to choose between two people who are clearly suffering from dementia, I am going against the narcissistic, ignorant, anti-science fascist wannabe every time.

Imagine reading this and thinking that the person who said it has an IQ of 120-130 and is a very stable genius with a very big bbb-bbbrain:

Nothing would happen to you.

Regardless, none of that crap has anything to do with Marxist or communist doctrine. Maybe educate yourself and stop relying on idiotic sources.

Finally, saying the economy failed under communism is a blatantly false. Communism and Mao oversaw the fastest industrialization and increase in standard of living of the largest population in history. Even more successful than the Soviets.

I couldn't figure out why you even said that. Just because Trump states a thing for political purposes doesn't mean it's true, and it doesn't mean smart people can't have a conversation about it. It's like if Boris Johnson says he doesn't believe in God, now British folk can't talk about God? This isn't China, we don't look to our Great Leader for all our answers. Maybe Americans are freer than you realize.



No, you missed the point. You need to have an efficient way of dealing them out, which currently is not the case. Much of the money goes towards organizations that do not promote renewable energy.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features...ither-do-they/




It's not. I haven't brought farmers up, you have, which is why it's a non-sequitur.

Did he write those words or speak them?

What are your credentials? I'm a former Marxist who has studied Marx in graduate level courses and took courses on China. I also live in Asia.

During the cultural revolution and great leap forward over 100 million Chinese died. At one point Mao decided all the sparrows needed to be killed as they ate the crops. So they did that and then it turned out sparrows also eat insects, which also eat the crops.

You are sadly misinformed and its tragic that so many died and are forgotten.

He spoke them, so I guess the fact that the man in charge of the most powerful country in the world is incapable of speaking in coherent sentences is not a problem (although his Tweets are barely better and it's pretty obvious that if he had more than 280 characters to work with, they'd be almost as bad)?

I care far more about a man's policies than his speaking habits. Considering he sold billions of dollars of real estate by speaking, clearly it didn't hinder him there.

I don't always speak in complete sentences either. Don't care at all. See, just like that.

Calvin Coolidge didn't talk much at all and was a great president.