6 ms·

Yep. That, and space force, and cheap energy, and renegotiating trade agreements, and not starting any new wars.

BurningFrog 4y ago
This is rapidly becoming a Monty Python sketch :)
sodality2 4y ago
"Cheap energy" is not the boon you think it is. You have to consider other factors - deregulating the food industry and getting rid of the FDA would save millions of taxpayer's money, would lower prices of the supply chain and let consumers pay significantly less for food, yet would have drastic side effects. Cheap energy that requires deregulation, more alarming and precarious climate effects, etc might not be a net positive. Likewise, "not starting any new wars" can be perceived as bowing to foreign nations by anyone who wants to frame it negatively, or vice versa as an amazing success for diplomacy.
- 0des 4y ago
  > "not starting any new wars" can be perceived as bowing to foreign nations This is an interesting take on peace in the middle east.
  - sodality2 4y ago
    Hey, I agree with you there, but my point is that any aspect of politics can (and will) be reframed by both sides to support their preconceived beliefs. I've edited my comment to speak in a more neutral political tone.
    - nicodjimenez 4y ago
      The "both sides" idea is an illusion, the two sides disagree on everything but on one very important point there is no disagreement...
      - sodality2 4y ago
        I'm not sure what you're referring to. I said that in any political situation, people tend to posit the evidence to support their own beliefs. It sounds like you're referring to false balance [0]. But that's not what I'm doing at all - I'm not posing any political beliefs as equally valid, I'm stating that everyone will change the parameters of an argument in order to solidify their beliefs. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_balance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_balance
  - nicodjimenez 4y ago
    <laughing emoji />
- kstrauser 4y ago
  Thank you for saying so. Flooding the market with cheap, low-quality crude would drop the price of gasoline, but it'd be horrid for the environment.
  - willcipriano 4y ago
    Go to the gas station and tell the struggling families how good for the environment it is that they have to choose between essentials and going to work.
    - kstrauser 4y ago
      Yeah, that sucks. We've gotten ourselves into a bad situation where we're still dependent on a horrible form of energy for common needs. That doesn't change the fact that every gallon of gas we burn screws up the entire planet just a little bit more.
      - willcipriano 4y ago
        If anyone made a mess it isn't the single mom trying to feed her kids, she shouldn't be the one who is punished. How about huge tax on international travel? On the order of say 500%, make it totally unaffordable. A trip to Europe produces far more carbon than a few years worth of trips to the grocery store and isn't at all necessary.
        kstrauser 4y ago
        I mean, that seems like peak Big Government Overreach, but to each their own. Alternatively, people could quit buying wholly inappropriate vehicles. If your job requires you to carry lots of cargo around, then a pickup makes a lot of sense. If you drive a spotless Ram 2500 that never leaves the suburb, then I don't want to hear a damn thing about the price of gasoline. And even if you personally don't drive an idiotically wasteful vehicle, a huge portion of Americans do, and their gas guzzlers drive up demand for the same fuel that you and I want to purchase, causing its price to skyrocket. We don't all need to be driving something like a Nissan Versa, but a lot of people whose real requirements would be met perfectly by something like that are driving Yukons and whining about gas prices.

This is rapidly becoming a Monty Python sketch :)

"Cheap energy" is not the boon you think it is. You have to consider other factors - deregulating the food industry and getting rid of the FDA would save millions of taxpayer's money, would lower prices of the supply chain and let consumers pay significantly less for food, yet would have drastic side effects. Cheap energy that requires deregulation, more alarming and precarious climate effects, etc might not be a net positive. Likewise, "not starting any new wars" can be perceived as bowing to foreign nations by anyone who wants to frame it negatively, or vice versa as an amazing success for diplomacy.

0des 4y ago
> "not starting any new wars" can be perceived as bowing to foreign nations This is an interesting take on peace in the middle east.
- sodality2 4y ago
  Hey, I agree with you there, but my point is that any aspect of politics can (and will) be reframed by both sides to support their preconceived beliefs. I've edited my comment to speak in a more neutral political tone.
  - nicodjimenez 4y ago
    The "both sides" idea is an illusion, the two sides disagree on everything but on one very important point there is no disagreement...
    - sodality2 4y ago
      I'm not sure what you're referring to. I said that in any political situation, people tend to posit the evidence to support their own beliefs. It sounds like you're referring to false balance [0]. But that's not what I'm doing at all - I'm not posing any political beliefs as equally valid, I'm stating that everyone will change the parameters of an argument in order to solidify their beliefs. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_balance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_balance
- nicodjimenez 4y ago
  <laughing emoji />
kstrauser 4y ago
Thank you for saying so. Flooding the market with cheap, low-quality crude would drop the price of gasoline, but it'd be horrid for the environment.
- willcipriano 4y ago
  Go to the gas station and tell the struggling families how good for the environment it is that they have to choose between essentials and going to work.
  - kstrauser 4y ago
    Yeah, that sucks. We've gotten ourselves into a bad situation where we're still dependent on a horrible form of energy for common needs. That doesn't change the fact that every gallon of gas we burn screws up the entire planet just a little bit more.
    - willcipriano 4y ago
      If anyone made a mess it isn't the single mom trying to feed her kids, she shouldn't be the one who is punished. How about huge tax on international travel? On the order of say 500%, make it totally unaffordable. A trip to Europe produces far more carbon than a few years worth of trips to the grocery store and isn't at all necessary.
      - kstrauser 4y ago
        I mean, that seems like peak Big Government Overreach, but to each their own. Alternatively, people could quit buying wholly inappropriate vehicles. If your job requires you to carry lots of cargo around, then a pickup makes a lot of sense. If you drive a spotless Ram 2500 that never leaves the suburb, then I don't want to hear a damn thing about the price of gasoline. And even if you personally don't drive an idiotically wasteful vehicle, a huge portion of Americans do, and their gas guzzlers drive up demand for the same fuel that you and I want to purchase, causing its price to skyrocket. We don't all need to be driving something like a Nissan Versa, but a lot of people whose real requirements would be met perfectly by something like that are driving Yukons and whining about gas prices.