The “nutty far left” has not supported treason and insurrection. Neither has “the nutty far left” lied for years about the reality of gun violence killing children, causing emotional distress and real-time threats of violence to the parents of those dead children. The “nutty far left” may have policies you don’t like or support but they …
The “nutty far left” has not supported treason and insurrection. Neither has “the nutty far left” lied for years about the reality of gun violence killing children, causing emotional distress and real-time threats of violence to the parents of those dead children. The “nutty far left” may have policies you don’t like or support but they have not made fortunes telling lies that threaten the political stability of the United States. Whataboutery and bothsidesism try to equate the harm done by Jones, Trump, Stone, Carlson et al with what in other democracies is called social democratic policy - countries that, measured by health care, education, equality and social cohesion, score far above the US - a country which is dangerously close to becoming a failed democracy precisely because of dangerous liars like Alex Jones.
The nutty far left doesn't want to enforce gun laws. We lost a decade of progress on reducing homicides in NYC when De Blasio, at the behest of the NFL, ordered NYPD to stop enforcement. Hundreds more died from homicides after that. :(
Huh? Are you talking about Stop and Frisk? NYPD stops plummeted after national outrage about the dramatic rise in the use of stop-and-frisk, litigation by the NYCLU and other organizations, and community organizing. Since Mayor de Blasio came into office in January 2014, the NYPD now reports only 10,000 stops per year. As stops have receded, crime in New York City has dropped significantly. In 2018, New York City recorded the lowest number of homicides in nearly 70 years.
Opposition to nuclear power generation is still “a thing”. Rachel Carson published “Silent Spring” in 1962 which was one of the first alarms that began to make people aware of the harm humans were doing to the planet.
Not a problem. EVs will mostly be charged overnight when demand for electricity is lowest.
That assumes of course that we don't replace fossil fuel heating of buildings with electric heat, which the nutty far left wants to do. Electric resistance heating works great -- at multiple of the cost of gas or oil heating. Or, how to impoverish the poor and middle class. Atmoshperic heat pumps do not work well in the Cold Belt. Geothermal heat pumps are too expensive and can't work in dense urban environments.
Could you please cite an instance of “the nutty far left” credibly arguing that we should all switch to electric heating? It seems to me that most of that is coming from electricity-producing companies which is so not the “nutty far left”. And could you also name at least two examples of what or who is the “nutty far left” of which you so glibly speak?
There are, indeed, practical existing alternatives to fossil fuels - geo-thermal, solar, wind, passive heating, proper insulation… these work on the individual level. If homes were built or retrofitted to these existing technologies, we could drastically reduce total national fossil fuel consumption. Offices, factories, most work places could also retrofit. We could stop the crazy consuming of stuff we use three times or once and throw out. There is no one innovative solution that will “save” us. We have to work together with what we have.
In the late seventies and early eighties there was a concerted effort to educate people about the dangers of nuclear technologies and the radioactive waste that has a toxic half-life of 125,000 years. Since then, the nuclear energy industry went quiet for a couple of generations and now is making a big campaign to greenwash nuclear energy as an answer to the climate crisis when, in fact, nuclear energy is part of the problem.
Are you aware that the previously-secure nuclear plant in Ukraine is being bombed by Russia even as we speak? How will that play out, do you think? Nuclear plants are only as safe as the humans allow them to be and in this world that isn't much. It is not disingenuous to worry about death with a Putin or Xi or Trump on the planet.
You still have not addressed the problem of nuclear waste. And there is not death until there is. Nevertheless, there are strong arguments for nuclear, but you have not made them.
The “nutty far left” has not supported treason and insurrection. Neither has “the nutty far left” lied for years about the reality of gun violence killing children, causing emotional distress and real-time threats of violence to the parents of those dead children. The “nutty far left” may have policies you don’t like or support but they have not made fortunes telling lies that threaten the political stability of the United States. Whataboutery and bothsidesism try to equate the harm done by Jones, Trump, Stone, Carlson et al with what in other democracies is called social democratic policy - countries that, measured by health care, education, equality and social cohesion, score far above the US - a country which is dangerously close to becoming a failed democracy precisely because of dangerous liars like Alex Jones.
The nutty far left doesn't want to enforce gun laws. We lost a decade of progress on reducing homicides in NYC when De Blasio, at the behest of the NFL, ordered NYPD to stop enforcement. Hundreds more died from homicides after that. :(
Thanks for being so clear on your positions. You're another one who I can scroll past.
Huh? Are you talking about Stop and Frisk? NYPD stops plummeted after national outrage about the dramatic rise in the use of stop-and-frisk, litigation by the NYCLU and other organizations, and community organizing. Since Mayor de Blasio came into office in January 2014, the NYPD now reports only 10,000 stops per year. As stops have receded, crime in New York City has dropped significantly. In 2018, New York City recorded the lowest number of homicides in nearly 70 years.
No.
Then what are you talking about?
Yes, just who is “the nutty far left”.
The “nutty far left” also hasn’t pushed climate denialism.
Their opposition to nuclear power shows that their agenda is something other than addressing climate change.
When opposition to nuclear power was a thing, climate change wasn't yet--other than among some climatologists.
Opposition to nuclear power generation is still “a thing”. Rachel Carson published “Silent Spring” in 1962 which was one of the first alarms that began to make people aware of the harm humans were doing to the planet.
Burning fossil fuels has done more damage to people and the environment than nuclear power has or could, even using 60's technology.
Not a problem. EVs will mostly be charged overnight when demand for electricity is lowest.
That assumes of course that we don't replace fossil fuel heating of buildings with electric heat, which the nutty far left wants to do. Electric resistance heating works great -- at multiple of the cost of gas or oil heating. Or, how to impoverish the poor and middle class. Atmoshperic heat pumps do not work well in the Cold Belt. Geothermal heat pumps are too expensive and can't work in dense urban environments.
Could you please cite an instance of “the nutty far left” credibly arguing that we should all switch to electric heating? It seems to me that most of that is coming from electricity-producing companies which is so not the “nutty far left”. And could you also name at least two examples of what or who is the “nutty far left” of which you so glibly speak?
There are, indeed, practical existing alternatives to fossil fuels - geo-thermal, solar, wind, passive heating, proper insulation… these work on the individual level. If homes were built or retrofitted to these existing technologies, we could drastically reduce total national fossil fuel consumption. Offices, factories, most work places could also retrofit. We could stop the crazy consuming of stuff we use three times or once and throw out. There is no one innovative solution that will “save” us. We have to work together with what we have.
In the late seventies and early eighties there was a concerted effort to educate people about the dangers of nuclear technologies and the radioactive waste that has a toxic half-life of 125,000 years. Since then, the nuclear energy industry went quiet for a couple of generations and now is making a big campaign to greenwash nuclear energy as an answer to the climate crisis when, in fact, nuclear energy is part of the problem.
Glass vitrification.
The alternatives are fossil fuels which actually kill people, unlike civilian nuclear power plants in the US.
Not in the US. The number of deaths from civilian nuclear power plants in the US is zero.
It is spectacularly disingenuous to compare Soviet nuclear plants to American ones.
Are you aware that the previously-secure nuclear plant in Ukraine is being bombed by Russia even as we speak? How will that play out, do you think? Nuclear plants are only as safe as the humans allow them to be and in this world that isn't much. It is not disingenuous to worry about death with a Putin or Xi or Trump on the planet.
"as far as we have been told"
Yes, the nutty far left is also into conspiracy theories.
You still have not addressed the problem of nuclear waste. And there is not death until there is. Nevertheless, there are strong arguments for nuclear, but you have not made them.
You are the one who posted a conspiracy theory in a comment, not me.