US Pulling Out of Paris Climate Accord
- Thread starter Red
- Start date
DutchJazzer
Banned
HALLELUJAH!
HALLELUJAH!!!!!!!!!
BRING DOWN the GLOBALIST!
didnt obama go to some climate thing a few weeks ago after spending time on a superyacht went with private jet to the conference with a 14 car stuff!
soo they wanna create a lower class of citizens who are not allowed to burn c02!!!!
while they will keep on more burning co2 in 1 day then i will burn in 10 lifetimes!
look if i beklieved in catastrophic man made globalism and was one of these elitist(obama, leonardo, sorros, dick cheney) i would use BYcicles. and would not spending my time one a superyacht and private jets!!!!!!!!
the problem is these ****ers don't lead by example!
one of the few lessons a kid learns!
HALLELUJAH!!!!!!!!!
BRING DOWN the GLOBALIST!
didnt obama go to some climate thing a few weeks ago after spending time on a superyacht went with private jet to the conference with a 14 car stuff!
soo they wanna create a lower class of citizens who are not allowed to burn c02!!!!
while they will keep on more burning co2 in 1 day then i will burn in 10 lifetimes!
look if i beklieved in catastrophic man made globalism and was one of these elitist(obama, leonardo, sorros, dick cheney) i would use BYcicles. and would not spending my time one a superyacht and private jets!!!!!!!!
the problem is these ****ers don't lead by example!
one of the few lessons a kid learns!
Now there's a bit of hate speech to conjure with.... Dutch, you're a genius.... "Catastropic Man-Made Globalism". I think that's the more immediate threat to mankind.
Globalism by the elites..... for the elites.... of the elites. That's worth fighting, for sure.
Of course, Christians have an ideal they dream of too.... Jesus, King of Kings and Lord of Lords. Pretty sure some folks are scared of that. But logically speaking, [MENTION=3085]Red[/MENTION], if a supposedly perfect Man like Jesus should not be "elite" enough to rule the world, why would Hillary or Obama be your pick?
Globalism by the elites..... for the elites.... of the elites. That's worth fighting, for sure.
Of course, Christians have an ideal they dream of too.... Jesus, King of Kings and Lord of Lords. Pretty sure some folks are scared of that. But logically speaking, [MENTION=3085]Red[/MENTION], if a supposedly perfect Man like Jesus should not be "elite" enough to rule the world, why would Hillary or Obama be your pick?
The elites, in the U.S. and around the world, control the capital. However, expanded trade and (gasp) globalism increases the quality of life of all people.
I see anti-globalism as a flawed effort by idiots in wealthy nations to keep the wealth in the hands of their elites with the misconception that it means also in the hands of their middle class. It is essentially an effort to keep the average person in developing nations in poverty and destitution. It also doesn't do **** to put wealth into the hands of the middle class.
The U.S. gains far more than it loses in globalism. Wealth is not a zero-sum game. The greatest boost to our national security and our western way of life is the increase of affluence of average people in developing nations.
Globalism = U.S. patriotism.
Protectionism and nationalism = decay of the U.S.
Well, Trump might not believe in all the things warmist alarmists fear will mean the loss of pretty beaches and lotza little isles, some of them private resorts for the very very elites of mankind, flush with underage pleasure slaves.
But I think what he's probably more concerned about is the loss of American exceptionalism and dominance, if not the bad economic times a carbon tax will impose on most ordinary humans, folks whose dreams of improved lives and lifestyles will be quashed in favor of a new global serfdom where about all people can hope for is a secure government job or a gig changing the sheets in mansions and finer hotels.
And, as matter of fact, the reason your political handlers are feeding you all this Hate Trump stuff is because it does conflict with the general idea of proposed world management, which includes population reduction strategies like bringing all the ignorant, uneducated proliferating hordes into the modern world where there are planned parenthood facilities located in the slums where they'll have to live. Bring the United States unquestionably into post-Constitutional management is seen as "good", too. And making the world safe for elites does mean that the elites get to fully manage people's expectations of human rights, their economic opportunities and political options.
Gun control, global taxation and redistribution of wealth, unelected governance, and communitarian society wherein dissenters can be easily isolated and dealt with.
That's the dream you're fightin' for, Red.
Now, if you really do want to keep your RI beaches, get on the technological progress train and support development of alternative energy that is truly economically superior.... well, some say wind is not going to be cost-effective, but geothermal developments are now a "thing". New plants being opened up out here where we have a lot of hot rock not too deep. Nuclear needs to be developed in a truly secure, safe manner. LENR has attracted investment now from the very elites I habitually decry. They're pouring millions into prototype plants right now. Solar has now become competitive with carbon-burning as a power resource as well. And yes those elites are putting solar panels on their mansions. All around California, solar panels are selling like crazy.
So, anyway, it looks to me like, even if a reasonable concern, the most effective way to respond is with the new technologies.
The only reason for the push on alarmism is truly for political control.
imo, political control that is detrimental to human progress.
This is actually a well-stated and reasoned contrary view.
Beantown
Well-Known Member
There's more potential in clean energy jobs than fossil fuel jobs. Plus we get the benefit of clean air and water.
https://futurism.com/solar-industry-creating-jobs-17-times-faster-rest-us-economy/
Trump and his cronies are moving us in the wrong direction. Globalism and globalization is the way forward. It is of no surprise that the nationalists either deny, or downplay, climate change. Because nationalism has no solutions to offer.
Nonetheless, the Trumpists are right. Not all is well for the people of the US. The progressive establishment has moved in a direction that, while enriching our lives immensely overall, left millions of people behind.
When I talk to my liberal friends, they don't seem to give a **** about the plethora of people whose livelihood depends on oil and coal. Those technologies are causing environmental damage, and we must move toward zero-emission replacements. It's just common sense. But the people who currently depend on them are important too, and we can't just go "they can find a job at McDonald's or something". That's the other issue with protectionism. What does it promise? That the US will retain the sweatshop jobs being outsourced to China? Oh, what a dream to get behind!
Instead of moving in this awful direction of climate-change denial and authoritarianism (we're going back to the horrible sentencing for "drug offenders" when we just baaaaarely started moving in a more contentious direction), we should be looking at real solutions to stagnating wages, underemployment, and wage slavery. Universal basic income is my favorite of these solutions, since it rewards us more evenely, and more richly, for our pro-growth agenda. But there are other interesting ideas out there.
All I know is that the Trumpists are looking at real problems, but they are doing their best to worsen the situation.
Nonetheless, the Trumpists are right. Not all is well for the people of the US. The progressive establishment has moved in a direction that, while enriching our lives immensely overall, left millions of people behind.
When I talk to my liberal friends, they don't seem to give a **** about the plethora of people whose livelihood depends on oil and coal. Those technologies are causing environmental damage, and we must move toward zero-emission replacements. It's just common sense. But the people who currently depend on them are important too, and we can't just go "they can find a job at McDonald's or something". That's the other issue with protectionism. What does it promise? That the US will retain the sweatshop jobs being outsourced to China? Oh, what a dream to get behind!
Instead of moving in this awful direction of climate-change denial and authoritarianism (we're going back to the horrible sentencing for "drug offenders" when we just baaaaarely started moving in a more contentious direction), we should be looking at real solutions to stagnating wages, underemployment, and wage slavery. Universal basic income is my favorite of these solutions, since it rewards us more evenely, and more richly, for our pro-growth agenda. But there are other interesting ideas out there.
All I know is that the Trumpists are looking at real problems, but they are doing their best to worsen the situation.
Last edited:
The USA is going to have to move towards a guaranteed income level for everyone with how far automation is going to go. Just imagine what happens when every truck in America is fully automated.
I tend to agree. Right now, the cover used by the establishment is employment numbers. We're at full employment! Nothing needs to be done. But that will change in 10 or 20 years, when half of us lose our jobs, and McDoland's will have no need for anyone's service since the robots do all the work.
It kind of sucks that we have to wait until the situation gets that bad before we address it. But it is what it is. A couple of years ago, UBI was voted on in Switzerland, and 75% of the voters rejected it. I think most people are invested in the current paradigm, where if you're not spending your day making money for someone else, then you must be a drain on society. We'll see what happens when the capital-hoarders no longer need you to make them more money.
DutchJazzer
Banned
lol i meant to say catastrophic man made climate change to conjure up globalism voluntary
DutchJazzer
Banned
that's good news then!
lets assume for a second that this fairy tale about catastrophic man made climate change is real! seems like we do not need the government then!
because the free market always goes for more potential!
i mean if you believe coal is the way to go, your choice. you will make money now but you gotta invest in the future! ! people who want to make money will then go to clean energy industry and make their money their!
that's just simple economics!
so let the paris climate accord **** off!
their nis a built in incentive! no need to rob taxpayer sof the money! or ram globalism down my throat
♪alt13
Well-Known Member
I think we need a UBI now to address stagnant wages. I think a UBI alone will be insufficient in the coming decades.
DutchJazzer
Banned
still will lead to slavery of the humans! under a world government that is not chosen and cant be fought!
I heard an idea where UBI is tied to level of automation. The more automated a company is, the more they contribute to the UBI fund. That way, the more automated an economy becomes, the bigger the payment everyone gets.
Do you think that wouldn't be enough? If so, what else can you do within the current system?
♪alt13
Well-Known Member
I'm so happy that free trade is slowly being adopted by the left/center and abandoned by the right. Soooooo happy
RandyForRubio
Well-Known Member
An agreement between countries where involvement is voluntary with no penalties is doomed from the beginning. It's not an awful idea, but it would never work.
RandyForRubio
Well-Known Member
I definitely think we're headed towards a UBI bc what else do we do? We've engineered so well that we no longer require the amount of workers we used to. We can't just let them rot because we don't need them.
Unfortunately, I'm not as optimistic about it. I think it will lead to a pronounced lack of productivity. If you look at groups of people who are given income for nothing, it typically doesn't result well for that group.
Unfortunately, I'm not as optimistic about it. I think it will lead to a pronounced lack of productivity. If you look at groups of people who are given income for nothing, it typically doesn't result well for that group.
♪alt13
Well-Known Member
The big problem that I see with a UBI in an automated economy is the creation of an near absolute permanent propertied and unpropertied class.
I love this post.
There is this idea that if you're not doing your 40hrs and asking for more than you're just a bare minimum type person who doesn't care about anything. Where I work they definitely prefer the employees who beg for 60+ hrs a week. It means the person "cares" about what they do. I find it laughable that I have to give half a **** about the fortune of the company I work for. Employment is a mutually beneficial exchange. I perform work that they need done in order to operate and they compensate me for my time, which I need in order to pay for food and shelter. Devotion to your employer is a one-way street. It absolutely doesn't pay extra unless you're desperate to go from being an hourly worker to a low-level manager and they use the "cares" and "devoted" criteria when making those promotions.