@bobsal u1553115,
bobsal u1553115 wrote:
Dump your own vitriol and read it again.
You can read my most critical posts about the Democratic party, but you will find that I always give reasons that explain what my critique is based on and it's not just scapegoating and calls for retaliation/punishment as you anti-Trumpers post.
Instead of posting negativity against Trump, why don't you just work on explaining for a change why you continue to believe in ideologies of the Democratic party in light of the reasons they are false or fail in practice.
E.g. I have often explained how creating spending programs, growth, and jobs in the name of environmental/climate sustainability has negative effects by pumping up the very economic activities that are causing harm in the first place.
Presumably Democrats either see the harm as unfortunate but necessary because they think everyone needs a high-paying job so they can drive around and shop and fly places, invest and otherwise stimulate the waste economy; or they just don't see their spending projects as really stimulating the economy any more than it would grow in the absence of their spending, in which case they shouldn't promote what they do as growth-stimulus to begin with.
So which is it? Is the growth worth the environmental/climate harm, or would the environmental/climate harm occur due to the same amount of growth regardless of whether the Democrats would inject money into the economy through all these spending programs designed to ostensibly reform the economy to be more environmentally friendly/sustainable?