“Eleven months ago, I inherited a mess, and I’m fixing it,” Trump said, starting as he meant to go on by telling a lie: he claimed that inflation was the worst in 48 years when he took office, when in fact it had come back down to 3%.
He went on to place blame at the feet of Biden, previous trade deals, immigrants and what he described as a corrupt system.
Fascists can't actually solve problems, even though they will tell you they're the only ones who can. They don't have problem solving skills, that's why they're fascists. They blame, deflect and scapegoat, and do it very aggressively and forcefully. Unfortunately, many people mistake that for strength. But fascists are not strong, they're weak, and they try to compensate for their weakness by acting very strong, in very superficial ways. That's why they are so focused on hyper masculine performance.
REAL strength is not an over inflated ego, it's not threats and cruelty, it's not being ignorant and proud of it, it's not unnecessary aggression and violence. Real strength is accountability. Weak people think it shows strength to never admit when you're wrong, but that's completely false. Real strength is owning up to your mistakes, but not so you can crumble into self loathing, it's so you can learn from them and become better. Real strength is learning, it's knowledge and understanding.
You can't fix a problem that you don't understand, and you can't understand a problem if you are unwilling to look at it honestly and critically, without bias. But that takes humility and weak people think humility is weakness, and they think arrogance is strength. The opposite is true. Humility is STRENGTH. That's why fascists can never lead, because leadership takes real strength and they don't have it.
If driverless taxis ever go mainstream (and that's a big if), it will be from companies like Waymo, not Tesla. Tesla shouldn't be seen as a serious company. I mean, they do sell legitimate products, but their $1.6 trillion market cap isn't based on what they sell today, but what their cult member investors think they're going to bring to market in the future. You know, all the stuff that will usher in the post-human, techno utopia. It's all nonsense, and someday it will all come crashing down, though that could take a while. People can stay delusional for a long time.
work on honing the party's messaging in the coming years.
I think focusing on the message isn't going to help all that much. I think most voters have become desensitized to political messaging. Obama's own "hope and change," message helped with that desensitizing, after people felt that in the end they had neither.
I think most Americans are now looking more for a real, material plan for improving things. And I don't think the problem is that no one has a plan, plenty of politicians do, but I think Americans just aren't sure which plan will work. It's the perfect environment for political grifters who are able to convince people they have a plan to help them, even though they have no such thing. One thing I think most Americans were pretty confident about was that the plan that establishment Democrats put forward of "nothing will fundamentally change," was not appealing. When the people are absolutely desperate for positive change, that's the last thing they want to hear.
Look, maybe you will be able to get another 30 years out of your car, and if so good for you, but eventually we have to stop using fossil fuels. That's all I'm saying. The longer we keep using oil, the more impacts on the climate. But also, the more oil we use, the faster it runs out. And once it's gone, it's just gone. Forever, no more. Sure, we probably won't run out in 30 years, but it is a finite resource so we run out eventually. I just don't know why people are in such a hurry to completely use it all up as quickly as possible, especially knowing what it's doing to the climate. I just don't get it.
Then get an EV. Or drive less, or just pay the premium for biofuels, if you absolutely MUST have an internal combustion engine.
We have to stop using fossil fuels. We just have to. And it's not just about the climate, although that should be reason enough. Fossil fuels are non-renewable. Once fossil fuel reserves are depleted, they cannot be replenished on human timescales. And I know, I know, people will swear up and down that we're not in danger of fossil fuel reserves becoming depleted anytime soon, but it's inevitable, even if it isn't imminent.
Plus, we've already depleted most of the reserves that were relatively cheap and easy to extract, so what's left is only going to get more difficult and more expensive to get out of the ground. Oil extraction would have peaked a long time ago if we didn't start using more expensive extraction methods like hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, which comes with its own ecological issues.
I'm ok not having the bubble boat car. Of course, having better, more affordable EV options here in the US would be nice. But a lot of people don't like EVs. Not sure why, but if you just gotta have your ICE vehicle, run it on biofuels that are at least renewable. Some of y'all are ridiculous: "Electric car? Biofuels? No, I HAVE to have an internal combustion engine, and it HAS to run on FOSSIL FUELS only!" Why?
How would a civil war be fought in the US in 2025? Where would the battle lines be drawn? It seems like if any skirmishes were to break out anywhere, the police and the military would come in and reestablish order very quickly. Maybe if there was fighting within the military itself, but then whichever side controlled the most strategically important military bases would win quickly and easily. I just don't see it happening.
I could see some kind of guerilla action, however. I could see assassinations, shootings and bombings, kind of like what happened in Northern Ireland in the 90s. Maybe cyber attacks as well.
I want my taxes to go to ensuring that everyone, even those who live in poorer areas, have good schools, including colleges and universities, at low or no tuition; good quality well maintained infrastructure, and quality universal healthcare, at low or no cost at the point of service. I also want my tax dollars to go to public sanitation and public safety services, so that everyone can live in clean, safe neighborhoods. I do not want this out of pure altruism, I want all of this for selfish reasons. I know that I am better off when EVERYONE has a clean, well maintained, safe, healthy and educated community to live in. I benefit from that, so I am more than willing to pitch in my fair share for it.
Deflation would be bad, for a lot of reasons, not the least of which is that debt defaults, both public and private, would skyrocket. So, no, we don't want lower prices, as that would certainly mean a significant recession, if not depression.
What people, desperately, desperately need is for their income to AT LEAST keep up with inflation. Any household that doesn't see their yearly income increase at least as much as the rate of inflation, are getting a pay cut. And when you consider that housing, a ubiquitous, universal human need, has increased in price much faster than the overall rate of inflation, really people probably need their income to increase much more than the base inflation rate.
I really think we'd be better off just reducing GHG emissions as quickly as possible. I realize we're not doing that, but that fact doesn't necessarily make solar geoengineering (or solar radiation management, whatever you want to call it) a better idea. In fact, it might make it a worse idea. Geoengineering should only be done (if at all) in conjunction with rapid reductions in GHG emissions and carbon capture and sequestration. Doing geoengineering without GHG emissions reductions and carbon capture is at best a complete waste and at worst a total disaster.
And the neoliberals/libertarians/anarcho capitalists cheered. Of course people who worship the "free market," and who believe that governments can only ever do harm and that taxation is theft, want the government to be dysfunctional. Because, ultimately, they don't want the government to function, at all. Why would they? Why would someone who adamantly believes that governments are always bad want a functioning government?
It's the tragedy of the commons. However, there are solutions to the tragedy of the commons, but for the solutions to work, we need to hold each other accountable. If we don't rein in these out of control, egomaniac billionaires, we will succumb to tragedy. No longer can we celebrate, indulge, or even tolerate the actions of people like Musk. There must be accountability.
The only thing I remember from Session 9