Who give a **** about any of this?

What do scientists say? That's what matters.

When you come across some msm article in some trash publication like say The Atlantic that says the world is ending, that doesn't cause you to reconsider your stance on climate change.

But let's say the Atlantic had some anti-Maduro article. You would then say "aha see it is imperialism and you are an imperialist".

That is really the double standard that you're attempting to employ here and that is why I bring up global warming.

I want to see if Birdman agrees with this or not. He has previously stated that all science is political.

You can still agree that the establishment has an agenda to promote climate change and think that is something worth fighting.

I agree that the establishment does have an agenda to remove Maduro and I consider that a good thing. It doesn't mean that I'm not anti-establishment it just means that on this particular point I agree with them.

Here is something you fail to consider: all of us, the "elites", the "establishment", the proletariat, the bourgeoisie, all of us live on the same planet. We are in the midst of a man made extinction event. Your simple theory of "if the media/governments pay attention to it/study it, then it must be a conspiracy" is, believe it or not, not effective here. What their agenda is is to capitalize off climate deterioration as much as possible and shield themselves from its effects where possible.

Like why wouldn't rich people study the climate to understand what it is going to do? They live here too. The point is that climate change will inevitably affect poor people in a much more drastic fashion than rich people. Thus, they are perfectly content ruining the environment to some extent (but not totally) if it means they can still make money.

I don't understand how on the same page you can present an article from Forbes to explain why you think a coup is necessary in Venezuela but then claim global warming is a conspiracy because the media covers it. Do you understand how demented that seems?

This article does not do that at all. It lists some vaguely social democratic ideas and then just says "this is what is causing hyper inflation".

Which of the policies in this article do you think are "marxist"?

You asked me to explain what policies caused hyperinflation and so I Googled and posted the first article I found which I had already previously posted itt.

That's how that happens.

I was sort of trolling you when I said Marxist. I don't know what specific policies that caused the hyperinflation are specifically Marxist.

The Chavez movie The Revolution Won't be Televised which I'm constantly promoting and still definitely think is worth watching for everybody, begins with Chavez giving a speech where he says (and I'm paraphrasing)

"We were being ransacked by the savage project of neoliberalism, with its claim that there is a hidden hand that regulates the market. Mentira Mentira mil vezes mentira (lies lies thousands of times a lie)"

It's not a lie. Economics actually do matter. Markets actually do matter. I was struck by that re-watching the film a few weeks ago. About how prophetic that was for Bolivarianism in Venezuela.

So what specific policies are Marxist? Idk. Price controls, printing money. Fleecing the rich until they flee along with their money? It doesn't really matter.

The media has an agenda in both cases and that is more power and control for rich people. With Venezuela there are all sorts of broader factors than just immediate profit motive (Russia, China, oil obviously). And the same goes with the climate change agenda.

The difference is that change in Venezuela in addition to benefitting the rich will also actually benefit Venezulea. I think a situation like this must be pretty rare in history. So I can see how it looks and you're right to call me out for it. But I do believe it to be the case.

Like Alaskans get money every single year, every resident and it comes out to like between 1 to 2k per person, even kids.

Venezuela nationalized their oil industry and expropriated a bunch of other stuff and what have the people gotten out of that? They own the oil now but are now starving. The people currently in no way benefit from the regime other than those at the top. So this is how you can have this bizarre situation where everybody benefits were there to be change.

I mean you just don't know what you are talking about. You are completely misinformed and are just saying nonsense.

Ok then how are Venezuelans reaping the benefits of nationalized oil?

What has happened with PDVSA is that they've padded the payroll with regime supporters, so in that sense there are people benefitting--it's just the regime not the people.

Someone sticky this post

https://mises.org/wire/why-left-isnt...mics-arguments
I thought this article "why the left isn't convinced by your economics arguments" was good and it touches on what I'm getting in my above post.
Birdman has put forth the argument that "Maduro wouldn't do this to himself" (i.e. the damage to the Venezuelan economy). But when you don't believe in economics it becomes possible.

I don't even.


https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/...35813820784640

That's called schmoozing.

The dude understands the economic advantages of slave forced labor.

Plus a whole new area to expand his Trump chain of skyrises. And who doesn't like glittery gold!

what is the significance of this tweet?

Don't engage the birdbot and he'll go back to smelling his own farts while battling with the luckbot

So other than overt racism and celebrating genocide, what possible reason could there be to write "TRAIL" like this in all caps?


https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/...68870415110145

wow

Wow did he actually tweet that?

And in case there was any doubt, here is Junior's thought on the tweet: