The Biden Presidency - 2020

[JPhillips]

I'll agree that those ten people shouldn't hold power.

[PilotMan]

Defund the police was the dumbest catch-phrase ever. It didn't encapsulate at all what the efforts were trying to do. Take away multiple layers that fall on the police's shoulders and let them get back to doing what will be more effective for them as they serve their constituents. Their attitude of "this is what we do, and we'll do it how we like" is one of the biggest problems. There are a million ways to skin this fish, and it appears that here, top down cultural change has to happen. That's a far cry from 'defund the police.'

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by miked

I still don't know what the radical left is? People who want clean energy? People who want healthcare?

Not hard to figure out really. Some examples:

** People who want abortion on demand with no restrictions
** People who don't just want healthcare, but want the government to run the system. Anything this side of Medicare 4 all is not radical left
** People who don't just want clean energy, but want us to drive the oil business out essentially immediately and won't consider nuclear as a transitional option.
** People who think racism is a severe enough problem in modern America that it justifies tearing down the justice & law enforcement system, not merely reforming/adjusting them
** People who believe the 70% top marginal tax rate in the 1970s was not excessive, and that we generally should use Denmark etc. as our model for economic policy.

Etc.

Look at any issue, see what the general consensus is, then find the position that's left enough that said consensus is unacceptably moderate to them. Or similarly, right enough - there's certainly a plethora of positions we could stake out as radical there as well, though that wasn't the question here. That's the 'radical wing'. I might add that there's nothing wrong with being radical. I'm radical on prisons (axe them all), I'm radical on abortion and individuality, radical on constitutional matters in general and the rule of law, and I'm borderline radical economically as well in the liberal direction. The only responsibility I think radicals have is to be straight up that they're being radical and not dress it up as mainstream.

If you're radical, just own it.

[thesloppy]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

Defund the police was the dumbest catch-phrase ever. It didn't encapsulate at all what the efforts were trying to do. Take away multiple layers that fall on the police's shoulders and let them get back to doing what will be more effective for them as they serve their constituents. Their attitude of "this is what we do, and we'll do it how we like" is one of the biggest problems. There are a million ways to skin this fish, and it appears that here, top down cultural change has to happen. That's a far cry from 'defund the police.'

Agreed. Here in Portland for example, we have a huge homeless problem, and I think everybody involved would prefer that the police were not the first & only party responsible for handling those issues, but the politicization & labeling of 'defunding' will likely serve to make any kind of resource shifting that much more difficult in the future.

[GrantDawg]

I think you did a good job there, Brian. That is a pretty solid list. There are some things on that list that would make me radical, but mostly not.

One thing I am radically against is automatic spell checking. I am about to throw this phone into a lake.

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

Defund the police was the dumbest catch-phrase ever. It didn't encapsulate at all what the efforts were trying to do. Take away multiple layers that fall on the police's shoulders and let them get back to doing what will be more effective for them as they serve their constituents. Their attitude of "this is what we do, and we'll do it how we like" is one of the biggest problems. There are a million ways to skin this fish, and it appears that here, top down cultural change has to happen. That's a far cry from 'defund the police.'

Except there are those that are 100% serious. They want to get rid of the police, not just reform it.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

One thing I am radically against is automatic spell checking. I am about to throw this phone into a lake.

Thanks - and I agree with you on spell-checking that you can't turn off. In my line, it is a constant struggle to make sure you're not asking a customer about the Homeless (instead of Hormel) chili or somesuch.

Wonder if Biden would consider an executive order on this subject, similar to Dubya's Do Not Call list/registry? I'd likely find it unconstitutional, but it would still be a small temptation to support it anyway.

Ah well.

[Radii]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

** People who want abortion on demand with no restrictions

What kind of restrictions? meaning a certain trimester/weeks along or other things?

** People who don't just want healthcare, but want the government to run the system. Anything this side of Medicare 4 all is not radical left
** People who don't just want clean energy, but want us to drive the oil business out essentially immediately and won't consider nuclear as a transitional option.
** People who think racism is a severe enough problem in modern America that it justifies tearing down the justice & law enforcement system, not merely reforming/adjusting them
** People who believe the 70% top marginal tax rate in the 1970s was not excessive, and that we generally should use Denmark etc. as our model for economic policy.

I don't much care if I'm defined as radical. It's another label I don't really care about, though I do think Edward uses it in a condescending way. I'm further left than many of my friends, but also know there is a not insignificant contingent significantly further left than me.


But overall - I think if our definition of radical would be moderate in most of western Europe, then we have a big problem.

[Brian Swartz]

Or alternatively, Europe has a big problem. Being different from them doesn't automatically mean we're wrong. It might, but the opposite might also be true

Originally Posted by Radii

What kind of restrictions? meaning a certain trimester/weeks along or other things?

I didn't have any particular one in mind. With the 'eh, polls aren't so great anymore' caveat, the polling I'm aware of indicates about a quarter of Americans want abortion to be unrestricted and available in any circumstance. The consensus falls roughly where current law is, with a modest lean to additional restrictions of some kind.

[NobodyHere]

#BestEpisode_EVER pic.twitter.com/n7oJx9BrhE

— Mark Hamill (@HamillHimself) November 7, 2020

[Brian Swartz]

FWIW, the term I would use instead of radical, at least as I understand how Edward64 means it most of the time, is insular . One can have extreme or radical views and still be open to points of view that are much different than their own. Similarly, you can be quite moderate compared to others and still have no use whatsoever for entertaining why they think what they do, and highly dismissive/disrespectful of those differences.

Personally, I would consider insular to be a much greater insult than radical, and a far greater danger. I also think Edward's main point here is basically correct; Biden won't be able to be 'President for all Americans', because the gulf to bridge is orders of magnitude too large for anyone to bridge. We're well past the point where anyone can do that. I hope he manages to simply do what he believes is right.

[Atocep]

The Trump admin reportedly plans on slamming Iran with sanctions sometime before inauguration to ramp up tensions and make it more difficult for Biden to rejoin the nuclear treaty.

I think we'll see more of this in the coming weeks and anyone that thinks the GOP is suddenly going to play nice is crazy.

[miked]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

Not hard to figure out really. Some examples:

** People who want abortion on demand with no restrictions
** People who don't just want healthcare, but want the government to run the system. Anything this side of Medicare 4 all is not radical left
** People who don't just want clean energy, but want us to drive the oil business out essentially immediately and won't consider nuclear as a transitional option.
** People who think racism is a severe enough problem in modern America that it justifies tearing down the justice & law enforcement system, not merely reforming/adjusting them
** People who believe the 70% top marginal tax rate in the 1970s was not excessive, and that we generally should use Denmark etc. as our model for economic policy.

Etc.

Look at any issue, see what the general consensus is, then find the position that's left enough that said consensus is unacceptably moderate to them. Or similarly, right enough - there's certainly a plethora of positions we could stake out as radical there as well, though that wasn't the question here. That's the 'radical wing'. I might add that there's nothing wrong with being radical. I'm radical on prisons (axe them all), I'm radical on abortion and individuality, radical on constitutional matters in general and the rule of law, and I'm borderline radical economically as well in the liberal direction. The only responsibility I think radicals have is to be straight up that they're being radical and not dress it up as mainstream.

If you're radical, just own it.

Sure, I'll buy most of those, but there is nuance. FWIW, I don't know anyone who believes that. I think most of the congresspeople and senators don't either. Electing Jon Osoff does not mean you can abortions on every street corner and have it paid by the government, but that term is thrown so loosely around (radical left) that everyone fits it. Nobody I know wants to defund the police (including Biden), but rather re-prioritize spending.

I would not mind seeing no oil and fracking anywhere. They are both horrible for the environment and none of the companies ever take responsibility for trashing nature. How many times have we heard some pipeline that needed to be built through a conservation area leaked/broke and we are left holding the long-term bill.

[Radii]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

I also think Edward's main point here is basically correct; Biden won't be able to be 'President for all Americans', because the gulf to bridge is orders of magnitude too large for anyone to bridge. We're well past the point where anyone can do that. I hope he manages to simply do what he believes is right.

This I agree with. But I think he's sending an important and consistent message. If you voted for Trump, or you are in a red state, or hell even if you had some QAnon tweets, this government is not going to be out for revenge. This administration won't do what Trump did and villify opponents. And if you can come back from your QAnon ways, and make reasonable points, this administration will listen to what you have to say and you get to be a part of the conversation.

Of course there's a significant percentage of Trumper's who won't believe any of that and who will dig in on QAnon or whatever conspiracy is next. But from a leadership perspective, the message is really important.

I assume ya'll all know that too, but just to put it down in writing.

[Radii]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

Or alternatively, Europe has a big problem. Being different from them doesn't automatically mean we're wrong. It might, but the opposite might also be true

That's fair, I think. I think it's absurd, and I think its an incredibly strange view given all of the metrics that I would point to that I feel state the obvious, but yeah, I gotcha.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

Not hard to figure out really. Some examples:

** People who want abortion on demand with no restrictions
** People who don't just want healthcare, but want the government to run the system. Anything this side of Medicare 4 all is not radical left
** People who don't just want clean energy, but want us to drive the oil business out essentially immediately and won't consider nuclear as a transitional option.
** People who think racism is a severe enough problem in modern America that it justifies tearing down the justice & law enforcement system, not merely reforming/adjusting them
** People who believe the 70% top marginal tax rate in the 1970s was not excessive, and that we generally should use Denmark etc. as our model for economic policy.

I'd toss out some more.

1) Proponents for free flow/very little control of people crossing borders and/or opening up immigration to everyone
2) Proponents of Portland protesting of BLM (or whatever they are protesting about and don't know if BLM even supports them anymore) after month 6 (arbitrary) of 8
3) Absolutely no justification of any US military action (successful or not) since WW2
4) Thinks vast majority of Trump supporters are primarily driven by racism vs other additional combination of factors including economic, political, military, societal, competitiveness etc. and different mix of priorities

[Edward64]

Yes, although I consider myself moderate right, I too have views that would fall under the radical right such as my support of the Wall, and I suspect many here think my views on the China threat is extreme. But overall, I classify myself as moderate right.

I don't much care if I'm defined as radical. It's another label I don't really care about, though I do think Edward uses it in a condescending way.

I can see why you would say this. It's not my primary intent when talking to the broader group here but admittedly it can be that way when discussions go off the rails with the "extreme radical left" and responding to rude behavior in like . I like to organize my thoughts by putting things in buckets and in other discussions, I think you've seen evidence of this.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

I didn't have any particular one in mind. With the 'eh, polls aren't so great anymore' caveat, the polling I'm aware of indicates about a quarter of Americans want abortion to be unrestricted and available in any circumstance. The consensus falls roughly where current law is, with a modest lean to additional restrictions of some kind.

You would consider a quarter of Americans as the radical left? Well not to mention that there are people who don't want abortion on demand but want Medicare 4 All. So 30% of Americans are radical left? Seems a bit of an expansive definition of 'radical'.

[GrantDawg]

To be fair, I think there is more than a quarter of Americans that are radical right.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

[Brian Swartz]

I wasn't combining issues, I was taking each of them separately. I.e. as I described, I am radical left on some issues, radical right on others, moderate on more. I don't think it makes sense to throw issues together and try to come up with some overall label for a lot of people.

In a country as divided as ours where it's rare to get above 60%, sometimes even 55% agreement on most issues, I don't think it's particularly expansive to consider 25% as being radical. YMMV. As mentioned I would do the same on the other side. 25% is less than support than there is for building a wall with Mexico (40% ish), which is generallly and correctly considered to be strongly opposed, less than the % who would not take a FDA-approved COVID vaccine if it were free (at least 35%) which is certainly considered a radical view around these parts, etc. 'Only' 25% is quite a limited amount and definitely identifies issues outside of mainstream political thought IMO.

[JPhillips]

Trump GSA appointee is refusing to sign paperwork authorizing a transition.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

I wasn't combining issues, I was taking each of them separately. I.e. as I described, I am radical left on some issues, radical right on others, moderate on more.

That's not how these terms are used in real life. People are considered radical left or reactionary right and it's considered a whole hog sort of thing.

[Brian Swartz]

Add it to the list of ways in which I refuse to be party to the misuse of language then? I think political labels in the sense you describe them, are at very best of limited use and very often misleading. People are more nuanced than that.

[ISiddiqui]

Language is what people decide it is. There is no idealized notion of language.

And it makes no sense to me to proclaim most people have a radical position (30% on both sides is 60%). It basically makes the term useless, imo.

[Radii]

Originally Posted by Edward64

2) Proponents of Portland protesting of BLM (or whatever they are protesting about and don't know if BLM even supports them anymore) after month 6 (arbitrary) of 8

Police brutality disproportionally affecting black people is still an issue, and even with increased and heavy focus on this we've still had countless new issues in the last few months. Why would the protesting stop when the issue still exists in exactly the same way?

Most movements like this take 1+ years of consistent protesting and other forms of activism to see results.

So this one I would argue heavily is not radical by any stretch.

[Mota]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

Not hard to figure out really. Some examples:

** People who want abortion on demand with no restrictions
** People who don't just want healthcare, but want the government to run the system. Anything this side of Medicare 4 all is not radical left
** People who don't just want clean energy, but want us to drive the oil business out essentially immediately and won't consider nuclear as a transitional option.
** People who think racism is a severe enough problem in modern America that it justifies tearing down the justice & law enforcement system, not merely reforming/adjusting them
** People who believe the 70% top marginal tax rate in the 1970s was not excessive, and that we generally should use Denmark etc. as our model for economic policy.

Etc.

Look at any issue, see what the general consensus is, then find the position that's left enough that said consensus is unacceptably moderate to them. Or similarly, right enough - there's certainly a plethora of positions we could stake out as radical there as well, though that wasn't the question here. That's the 'radical wing'. I might add that there's nothing wrong with being radical. I'm radical on prisons (axe them all), I'm radical on abortion and individuality, radical on constitutional matters in general and the rule of law, and I'm borderline radical economically as well in the liberal direction. The only responsibility I think radicals have is to be straight up that they're being radical and not dress it up as mainstream.

If you're radical, just own it.

Also, if you disagree with a slight bit of anything they said, you are a nazi or a facist.

With both the extreme left or extreme right, there is no dialog.

[Radii]

Originally Posted by Mota

Also, if you disagree with a slight bit of anything they said, you are a nazi or a facist.

With both the extreme left or extreme right, there is no dialog.

I think there's a huge number of exceptions to this, especially with the exaggeration of "disagree with a slight bit of anything they said" :P

I don't think anyone is changing anyone else's minds, but I think a lot of people are at least having conversations without yelling fascist at the person or people they're talking to.

A lot of us are on this board.

On the list of Brian's radical examples, the only partial one that I don't fit is "won't consider nuclear as a transitional option." All of the rest of that I agree with 1000%.


Of course, there are people like this, and they're very loud on twitter. Unfortunately all we can do is block them. They likely have value for their respective sides but anyone on the left who considers the GOP, or moderate right folks who separated themselves from trump - their sworn enemy can go fuck themselves.

[ISiddiqui]

Well the abortion on demand without restrictions is basically a Democratic Party platform position. President Obama fought for it.

M4A and 70% tax rates is Bernie Sanders/Elizabeth Warren positions. They are definitely pretty far left, but I consider radicals to be the folks beyond them. You know the folks who say Sanders is a 'compromise candidate'.

Like if Sanders is radical left... then what is Jacobin Magazine?

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Mota

Also, if you disagree with a slight bit of anything they said, you are a nazi or a facist or a racist.

FIFY

With both the extreme left or extreme right, there is no dialog without insults and devolving into irrelevance

FIFY

[Qwikshot]

I think the issue at hand, is before when people shouted at each other at some point you could retreat to your homes, but with social media, and the internet there is no respite. It's always there to engage and it's really hard to turn it off and not feel disconnected when you re-engage. You may have lost the narrative, you may have escalated it when cooler heads were prevailing, you may engage and be totally outnumbered..

When Trump is constantly barraging all discussion (worldwide not just locally), there is a question of whether you ride on the crazy train or stand in front of it. I would say unless your Superman, you are stuck on the train until it crashes or if you are lucky, slows down.

[Radii]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Well the abortion on demand without restrictions is basically a Democratic Party platform position. President Obama fought for it.

M4A and 70% tax rates is Bernie Sanders/Elizabeth Warren positions. They are definitely pretty far left, but I consider radicals to be the folks beyond them. You know the folks who say Sanders is a 'compromise candidate'.

Like if Sanders is radical left... then what is Jacobin Magazine?

I agree with this too, but didn't seem worth the discussion here, tis a shockingly moderate place

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Radii

I agree with this too, but didn't seem worth the discussion here, tis a shockingly moderate place

That's true. This board is a center-left place. I don't get the folks who say it's far left because Rainmaker gets ganged up on here from time to time (I'm guilty of doing that at times )

[Brian Swartz]

All I would say to that is you can always find someone more extreme. I mean, QAnon could say they aren't radical because they aren't as radical as Attila the Hun who is not as radical as ... etc. There's virtually no end to that game.

That's why I think the American public is the most relevant control group. That way we can place terms like 'radical' in the context of the society in which they exist.

[ISiddiqui]

Attila the Hun is involved in US politics? (Loeffler doesn't count)

[JediKooter]

What's funny (not the laughing kind of funny) is that it's considered far left wanting health care for everyone that doesn't have the chance of bankrupting someone or having a clean environment and cutting our reliance on oil by having the burden shifted over to clean and renewable energy sources or having the rich pay a higher tax rate. Then call me far left I guess.

[Vegas Vic]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

What's funny (not the laughing kind of funny) is that it's considered far left wanting health care for everyone that doesn't have the chance of bankrupting someone or having a clean environment and cutting our reliance on oil by having the burden shifted over to clean and renewable energy sources or having the rich pay a higher tax rate. Then call me far left I guess.

I don't view those as "far left" proposals in the abstract way you've presented them, and I don't think most people do either. I suppose everyone has a different definition.

For me, some specific "far left" proposals are sanctuary cities, abolishing Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE), decriminalizing illegal border crossings, giving taxpayer funded health benefits to illegal aliens, Medicare for All, Green New Deal extremism (e.g. banning all fracking, relying on 100% renewables), and excessive tax rates on corporations and the upper class.

[JPhillips]

ICE isn't even twenty years old. We'd be fine without them. Honestly, we have too many different federal law enforcement groups and should consolidate as much as possible.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

What's funny (not the laughing kind of funny) is that it's considered far left wanting health care for everyone that doesn't have the chance of bankrupting someone or having a clean environment and cutting our reliance on oil by having the burden shifted over to clean and renewable energy sources or having the rich pay a higher tax rate. Then call me far left I guess.

The Overton Window is pushed so far to the right in this country that national health care is considered extreme. Every first world country has it and almost all have much better results at a fraction of the cost.

Your average Democrat in this country would be far right just about anywhere else.

[RainMaker]

Also, in case anyone was actually worried Biden would morph into a socialist, this should clear your mind. Transition team is loaded up with corporate executives in almost every industry.

Agency Review Teams | President-Elect Joe Biden

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Mota

Also, if you disagree with a slight bit of anything they said, you are a nazi or a facist.

With both the extreme left or extreme right, there is no dialog.

The former campaign manager and chief of staff of the President is an unapologetic fascist. Like I don't think he'd deny it (and more or less admitted to it the other day). One of the head policy makers in the White House is a white nationalist with ties to neo-Nazi and white supremacist groups.

The words get tossed around too much, but what would you call them at this point?

As for the radical left, they have no power in this country. There are not going to be any communists or anarchists in Biden's cabinet. Not sure why we "both sides" this stuff.

[CrimsonFox]

President-Elect Biden is a great man. So good to have someone in office who isn't a baby piece of shit

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

... Every first world country has it and almost all have much better results at a fraction of the cost.

This is the thing that just makes me want to slam my head into the wall. You bring up even having a public option, and the Right starts talking about Venezuela and Cuba. It is so ridiculous.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by Vegas Vic

I don't view those as "far left" proposals in the abstract way you've presented them, and I don't think most people do either. I suppose everyone has a different definition.

For me, some specific "far left" proposals are sanctuary cities, abolishing Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE), decriminalizing illegal border crossings, giving taxpayer funded health benefits to illegal aliens, Medicare for All, Green New Deal extremism (e.g. banning all fracking, relying on 100% renewables), and excessive tax rates on corporations and the upper class.

Then I guess I'm far left then by your definitions. There's some nuance, but, for the most part (I probably don't agree exactly 100% with how they should be implemented), I'm for all of those things.

Originally Posted by RainMaker

The Overton Window is pushed so far to the right in this country that national health care is considered extreme. Every first world country has it and almost all have much better results at a fraction of the cost.

Your average Democrat in this country would be far right just about anywhere else.

Exactly! The conservatives and the GOP have been pretty successful at demonizing these things, like national health care with the scary SolcIaListS are coming for you tactic. It's the new Red Scare. We currently live in a 3rd world country with a 1st world façade on the outside of our house and it's disturbing how many people are ok with that because they are afraid others might get 'free stuff'.

[ISiddiqui]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/clima...limate-change/

President-elect Joe Biden is poised to embed action on climate change across the breadth of the federal government, from the departments of Agriculture to Treasury to State — expanding it beyond environmental agencies to speed U.S. efforts to mitigate global warning and to acknowledge that the problem touches many aspects of American life.

The far-reaching strategy is aimed at making significant cuts in greenhouse gas emissions even without congressional action, by maximizing executive authority.

This is great news. If we really want to be serious about climate change we really have to view it as affecting to all agencies and not just leave it in EPA and/or Interior.

Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

https://www.washingtonpost.com/clima...limate-change/



This is great news. If we really want to be serious about climate change we really have to view it as affecting to all agencies and not just leave it in EPA and/or Interior.

Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk

Nice! Even the DoD acknowledged the importance and seriousness of climate change a few years ago and it makes sense that it will affect pretty much every single agency.

[Brian Swartz]

I'll just throw in here that there are some people - a diminishing number yes, but still some - who think that freedom is a pretty good idea and that's why they don't want government running the lives of ordinary citizens more than necessary. This idea that it's all just a bunch of socialism scare tactics is becoming more and more true, but there's a pretty darned robust school of thought going back centuries behind the concept that excessive government power tends to lead to some very bad outcomes.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

I'll just throw in here that there are some people - a diminishing number yes, but still some - who think that freedom is a pretty good idea and that's why they don't want government running the lives of ordinary citizens more than necessary. This idea that it's all just a bunch of socialism scare tactics is becoming more and more true, but there's a pretty darned robust school of thought going back centuries behind the concept that excessive government power tends to lead to some very bad outcomes.

That's an incredibly small amount of people.

[sovereignstar v2]

Well, I like freedom. However, there is so much wealth and opportunity disparity in this country how does that get fixed without the government?

Some people like freedom as long as it means the status quo. Protect my wealth, protect my beliefs, and leave me the fuck alone. To me that isn't freedom. That's just taking advantage of a system that fucked up somewhere along the way.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by VegasVic

some specific "far left" proposals are sanctuary cities, abolishing Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE), decriminalizing illegal border crossings, giving taxpayer funded health benefits to illegal aliens, Medicare for All, Green New Deal extremism (e.g. banning all fracking, relying on 100% renewables), and excessive tax rates on corporations and the upper class.

Best polls I can find on these (with the previous polling caveat):

** 2:1 or more against abolishing ICE, so that one's borderline. At least as recently as 2018 a majority of Democrats were against it.

** The Green New Deal is pretty much supported strongly by those left of center, so it's really wouldn't qualify.

** Sanctuary cities are in the middle - approximately 40% support from what I can find so a minority position but not an extreme one.

** Banning fracking has slightly more support than that, so again not extreme.

On relying 100% on renewables - I think those that support that would change their tune very quickly if we actually did that. There's a reason no industrialized country in the world has eliminated fossil fuels completely. The debate as I see it is really about how fast to move and in what ways. If we stopped using all oil, coal, natural gas etc. tomorrow the resulting economic collapse would be so massive that it's unimaginable in some ways. There would be no first-world nations, as we define them today, within months. Possibly weeks.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by sovereignstar2

I like freedom. However, there is so much wealth and opportunity disparity in this country how does that get fixed without the government?

This is a good point, but also a straw man. Very few people think there should be no government at all. Then we need to define how much wealth disparity is acceptable, and how we are going to measure it know we've reached the goal. Zero wealth disparity has never happened, so I'm assuming we're both talking non-zero here.

BTW, to the assertion that it's an incredibly small number of people being talked about; 41% this past year think the government is doing too much as opposed to not doing enough. That's the lowest it's been in a long time, it was 20 points higher eight years ago. So it's definitely headed that direction, but there are still a lot of people concerned about it.