We also do not - yet! - have carbon-neutral alternatives for energy usage, either in amount or kind. This is why people are working both to scale up the kinds of energy use that is already carbon-neutral but which there is not yet enough of, and to figure out alternatives for things that do not already have carbon-neutral solutions.
but it is a fair comparison - there's currently no real alternatives for fossil fuels. Renewables do not have the density required for a lot of transportation, not to mention fossil fuels like oil are the feedstock for a lot of chemicals required for modern day manufacturing.
Some sources of electricity could be replaced by renewables, but not all. And certainly not as cheaply as oil or gas is.
Alternative to fossil fuels are synthetic fuels, for example E85 (ethanol 85%). Government can subsidize a clean local production of ethanol from air, like it did for solar panels, to boot start it.
Calling Trump an authoritarianism when it was Biden that tried to coerce people to take a novel medical treatment or face losing their job, a fundamental violation of medical ethics.
What executive orders has Trump signed that are racist or authoritarian?
Please list the EO numbers and explain your rational of how you arrived there using the text in the EO, rather than some highfalutin opinion written by an activist.
I keep hearing this, but nobody can seemingly answer such a simple question. I can only conclude they are blatant liars and propagandists.
"Nobody is going to waste time indulging in my sealioning, so they're liars."
I'm also not going to waste my time indulging in it, but it's worth pointing out for passers-by that that's exactly what this is. It's a low-effort rhetorical gambit designed to waste time demonstrating from first principles something that the questioner isn't going to change their mind about anyway just because somebody more clued-in than said questioner sighed and pulled up EO 13769 to cite chapter-and-verse.
How exactly are you arriving at racism without first explaining why economic, political, and military relations between these countries were not the cause? Are the continued sanctions of Cuba racist? What is the discerning factor for why Biden continues these sanctions in the year 2023?
The word "racist" has been so over-used by activists to silence dissenting voices pointing out how brain-dead their ideas really are, that the word has lost all meaning. Just imagine if the word "dumb" had the same effect. How long would it take before it's meaning is completely eroded away to protect indefensible positions? That's is where we are.
I'm convinced there is no legitimate rationale here other than "orange man bad". This is very easy to falsify, but the fact there's a continued refusal to engage in the argument presented speaks for itself.
Well he did say he'll be a dictator for his first day in office. Can't think of the last time a non-authoritarian struggled to say "No" to "Will you be a dictator?"
He had a whole term to be a dictator. Why didn't he go full dictator last term? Or are you just saying in a hyperbolic way that that he'll do the same stuff he did last term?
And I don't think the surprise win of 2016 with no GOP machinery backing him out of the gate is going to be a good analog to the preparations that are ongoing right now. He will have far, far more capable people around him, a sense of revenge, and nothing to lose.
The correct answer to "Will you be a dictator?" when asked to a US presidential candidate, is "No." The fact that ridiculous question even had to be asked, and came from someone throwing him a softball (Hannity), and he still couldn't answer it correctly are all serious alarm bells.
> I am literally stating what he literally stated.
And if you look what he said in full context it doesn't seem that bad?
>"You are promising America tonight you would never abuse power as retribution against anybody?" Hannity asked.
>"Except for Day One," Trump said.
>When asked to clarify, Trump said he would use the presidency to close the border and increase oil drilling in the U.S.
>"That is not retribution," Hannity said.
>"I love this guy. He says, 'You're not going to be a dictator, are you?' I said, 'No, no, no. Other than Day One.' We're closing the border, and we're drilling, drilling, drilling. After that, I'm not a dictator," Trump said.
I agree that it's not a great thing to say as a presidential candidate, but it's tenuous to go from that to "he's going to go full dictator like Xi Jinping/Putin/Maduro/Orban".
I didn’t say he is going to (especially not successfully). I said two things:
1) he is clearly authoritarian (adjective) and
2) there are several answers other than self-control or lack of willpower/desire that could explain the fact he didn’t successfully “become a dictator” in his first term, and some of those components have changed dramatically between then and now
You can always twist anything into enough knots to construe it as "blatant lies and propaganda" – clearly you've already made up your mind – so this is not an exercise worth doing for anyone.
It seems you've made up your mind without any evidence, but it's too embarrassing to admit you've been propagandized so you're making excuses and deflecting. Asking for a single bit of evidence isn't unreasonable.
For all that's been written about Trump, you'd think this should be easy to retrieve. I've personally looked and found nothing, but maybe my methodology was flawed which is why I asked.
If no evidence is provided, it's reasonable to conclude the claims are false.
I would prefer a government that maintained a liberal ecosystem - one where violence is delegitimized and disputes are resolved via due process. I would however prefer that the government then did not try to meddle in the outcomes that ecosystem produces.
I don't see a moral justification in the use of force to shackle the capable and the fortunate, forcing them to toil in maintenance of the incapable and the unfortunate. The ideal I'm describing was more or less the case in the US before United States v. Butler (1936), which changed the interpretation of the general welfare clause of the constitution.
What you get with this kind of system is powerful people meddling with the government to reinforce their power using anti-democratic means. A plutocracy. You also have to contend with the toxic economics of monopoly.
I bet you want unregulated utilities too because you a) don't understand macroeconomics and b) subscribe to anti-social and psychopathic economic theories.
We already have a mechanism to prevent such meddling - a constitution. The authority of the government should be confined to the small box required to maintain liberal order. Limiting power is the best way to minimize corruption. The power of the government being allowed to grow without limit is what led to that power becoming susceptible to capture.
This was successful for centuries, but the constitutional protections of this order eventually eroded. Were they stronger and more explicit (say there was no general welfare clause), we could well be living in such a liberal order today.
I guess we're just ignoring the Robber Barons and the monumental effort to reign in their power through trust busting. It would be nice to live in your fantasy world but we don't. Plutocratic power must be checked by government. The alternative is monopoly and collapse. We have reams of evidence discrediting your view.
> powerful people meddling with the government to reinforce their power using anti-democratic means
As the other commenter alluded to, the solution to this is to limit the power of the government so that even if they meddle and gain influence, the harm they can do is limited because the government itself isn't allowed to do whatever it is the plutocrats want to do.
