america has been doing that for years. pretty much everyone is doing national buyin but Europe (because it is controlled by unelected ex goldman sachs managers, mondialists that are promoting the idea of a free market)
He was deemed a racist for all of his racist behavior. The most positive thing people had to say about his presidency was his efforts to confront China on trade, though the first phase of that trade deal appears to be a failure. I don't know how much blame to assign him personally though, we're not seeing many examples of success to compare it to.
To be clear, that guy was deemed racist for promoting stereotypes from a position of power. There are ways of fighting against CCP / Chinese govt. aggression without resorting to racism
sure. he was deemed a racist for saying china is responsible for the virus and was countered by politicians who willingly infected people with covid by pushing them to go to superspread events from chinatown parades to BLM riots.
Comments like these make it really difficult to not argue on the internet.
* He was deemed a racist for many reasons. One of which was using his leadership and influence to stoke anti-Asian sentiment. You're not debating this point, right? Whataboutism is one thing, but worse when paired with denialism.
* "Politicians who willingly infected people with covid" - Does it bother you that politicians would downplay the safety of American citizens related to an infectious disease to suit their own political ends? Or is this is a criticism you only levy against your political rivals? Do you really want to compare scorecards on Trump vs. his political rivals on public health?
* Ignoring that the vast majority of BLM events were peaceful, which superspreader events are you referring to? They were outside, in the summer, often mobile, with a large share of mask-wearing attendees. I don't see any evidence of any of these events becoming superspreader events.
>because the guy who fought against it was deemed a racist for saying it
The guy who was against it was a racist because he couldn't articulate anything other than "China bad" and his policies to address China were useless at best and harmful to America at worst. He only wanted to look tough against a made up enemy but refused to change anything at home.
If he was actually serious about competing with China, we would have been talking about Trump's infrastructure bill and had a plan on how to ween us off Chinese high-tech manufacturing (which is the best in the world), but now 4 years later we are scrambling trying to figure out how we will build fabs (one part of the equation) at home. For all the crying about China, he did shockingly little in actually addressing the issue (like almost all the issues he cried about).
Anyone who looks at out current situation and comes to the conclusion we need to bomb China is a racist in my eyes. They are only motivated a fear of a rising eastern power and have no motivation in actually investing stateside to improve American hegemony.
Check the pictures of where your gas is cracked from crude oil, or of the farming methods used for your meat consumption, or the trees and forests cut down for banana, soy and palm oil plantations.
Mass production never looks sustainable when framed in isolation, but in comparison to the alternative of fracking in tar sands and leaking methane by the galleon those mines aren't so bad.
Your video also misses the point. Firstly, the mix of where that power comes from will depend on where you live. In places where the grid is dirty, of course it's going to be dirty. In other places there are ample amounts of renewables available at many times to be used. There's also the fact that changing the mix of the source of the power is much much easier than getting people to change vehicles. If solar becomes massively widespread on the grid, everyone with an EV immediately benefits from it. If a new ICE is produced then it's not until the old ones are out of circulation that the gains can happen
>by your own logic then we should just skip electric and go full on hydrogen
This would be true only if hydrogen extraction, transport, storage, and use had no downsides or costs. Instead of playing childish "gotcha" games, why don't you actually articulate a cohesive point about why hydrogen is the best route forward.
you argue that electricity will become clean depending on where I live (pretty much clean for 5% countries on earth that are full nuclear or small countries as of today) which is probably true if everyone goes full electric and in 50 years but yet say I am childish for saying that once infrastructures will be there for hydrogen it will be way cleaner than electric... "a 1,000-pound electric-car battery requires the extraction and processing of some 500,000 pounds of materials. “Averaged over a battery’s life, each mile of driving an electric car ‘consumes’ five pounds of earth.” By contrast, an internal combustion engine consumes about 0.2 pounds of liquids per mile.",
https://ideas4development.org/en/rare-metals-rich-countries-...
That wasn’t me. I actually think that a hybrid solution is the best way to go, with most passenger vehicles going BEV, and heavy transport (trucking, freight, shipping) going FCEV. Your “once infrastructures will be there for hydrogen” is a big “if”. FCEVs are basically useless without extensive infrastructure for your average person. A BEV can be charged in your garage and would be perfectly usable as a commuter car with zero electric vehicle infrastructure.
Maybe “in 50 years” is not really useful for what we need to do now. I can go out today and buy a new BEV to replace my current car and other than the occasional road trip, get 100% of the same functionality. At my house, I am 10 feet away from the nearest fueling station. If I could even find an FCEV to buy, I would be over a thousand miles from the nearest fueling station. Charging stations, fast chargers, super chargers, etc. just augment and add to what every home has for a BEV. An FCEV needs gas stations like an ICE car, and there is a reason that gas stations are never more than a mile away.
For commercial purposes, it is logistically feasible to put in filling stations at specific end points, hubs, or defined distances along a route and make it work. Maybe that builds up infrastructure so that in 50 years, it could be a legitimate alternative to BEVs for average people.
you can do that. not everyone can. try waiting 20minutes in front of a tesla charging dock for each car that is in front of you. it does not scale. try harvesting the needed rare earth to replace all the fuel cars ull drive costs up, eco-systems will fall.
