| ▲ | meibo 6 hours ago |
| Maybe "accidentally killing fossil fuels" will be DT's singular good deed |
|
| ▲ | Tade0 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| Just Stop Oil announced the cessation of all activities in my country. Officially it's because reportedly they've achieved their goals locally, but I can't help but think that it was really because the POTUS Just Stopped way more Oil than they ever imagined they could. |
|
| ▲ | marcosdumay 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| The man is an overachiever. He is in the process of killing the rise of neonazism, exposing those religious extremists that want constant wars on the Middle East, creating a multipolar world commerce chamber, turning the EU into a federation, popularizing socialism (and even outright communism) in the US, dismantling the US's foreign government overthrowing apparatus, creating actual diplomatic relations between the Eastern Asia governments... |
| |
| ▲ | pfdietz 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | He's also making the case for radical downsizing of the US military, since he's shown the military's take that it won't obey illegal orders was a sham. |
|
|
| ▲ | citrin_ru 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| In a long run - hopefully but in a short run big oil (outside the gulf) collecting windfall profits and Asian countries returning to coal. |
| |
| ▲ | dv_dt 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | A substitution of coal for oil, or more likely natural gas, isn't that big a shift of emissions in the short run if it's a stopgap for massive solar and wind investments. Solar and wind install quick. |
|
|
| ▲ | iso1631 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| The world's most effective ecoterrorist. Greenpeace should name their next ship after him. |
|
| ▲ | stavros 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| You can't really attribute to someone something they did unintentionally while trying to do the opposite. |
| |
| ▲ | fxwin 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | i think that's why they used the word "accidentally" | | |
| ▲ | stavros 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | Let me rephrase: You can't really attribute to someone something they did accidentally while trying to do the opposite. | | |
| |
| ▲ | boxed 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I mean.. we do all the time no? Hitler tried to make Germany great and made it shit. Mao tried to make China great and killed tens of millions. Stalin, Pol Pot.. the list goes on. If we attribute accidental evil, why should we not attribute accidental good? | | |
| ▲ | stavros 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | If Hitler was trying to find a gold mine under Germany and instead found a bomb there that killed a bunch of people, we wouldn't blame him for murder, it was an honest mistake. Murdering millions of people wasn't exactly "accidental evil", it was very deliberate. Which parts of what these guys did do you think were accidental? | | |
| ▲ | vidarh 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Mao's campaign to kill sparrows was a result of a belief that they were a net loss for harvests. Stalin's support of Lysenko was a result of thinking Lysenko was actually able to drive agricultural growth. Both mistakes led to mass deaths. We still tend to attribute those deaths to those leaders, because their brutally authoritarian rule was what allowed those mistakes to go unchallenged and get fixed before they caused that level of harm. Both of them also killed a lot of people maliciously and intentionally, but a large proportion of their death toll as a side-effect of their oppression, not the goal of it. | | |
| ▲ | stavros 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | > We still tend to attribute those deaths to those leaders, because their brutally authoritarian rule was what allowed those mistakes to go unchallenged and get fixed before they caused that level of harm. What is the analogue here for attributing the rise of alternative energy sources to Trump? Being too incompetent to avoid harm isn't the same as being too incompetent to avoid benefit, because your job is to create benefit. It's Trump's job to create positive outcomes. If he creates positive outcomes by accident while trying to create negative ones, he should get panned for trying to create negative outcomes. | | |
| ▲ | decimalenough 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Trump's stated goal of regime change in Iran would (likely) have been a positive outcome if it has actually happened. The problem is that it hasn't. | | |
| ▲ | deaux 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > Trump's stated goal of regime change in Iran would (likely) have been a positive outcome if it has actually happened The number of Americans still believing this is baffling and saya everything about their history education. "The previous 20 times we forced regime change ended up a net negative for the people in those countries, but surely this time it would've been different!". | | |
| ▲ | JumpCrisscross 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | > previous 20 times we forced regime change ended up a net negative Plenty of counter-examples, too. WWII. South Korea. Potentially Venezuela, mostly because we constrained our objectives. I also don’t think it’s fair to constrain OP’s statement to “the people in those countries.” Regional impacts matter, too. An Iran that isn’t funding terrorist proxies everywhere could still be a net positive even if the average Iranian is no better off afterwards. (To be clear, I’m in no way supporting this stupid war.) | | |
| ▲ | deaux 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | > Plenty of counter-examples, too. WWII. South Korea. To even hint at those being in the same category of "regime change attempt" as Iran (2x), Chile, Iraq, Afghanistan, Guatemala, Congo is really desperate. Come on now. Not comparable and irrelevant. | | |
| ▲ | JumpCrisscross 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | > the same category of "regime change attempt" as Iran (2x), Chile, Iraq …why are Japan and Germany not comparable to Iraq? We’re talking methods and outcomes, not motivations. All involved a wholesale invasion, occupation and supervised restructuring followed by disarmament. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | stavros 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | This is off topic for what we're discussing (whether his accidental positive changes can be attributed to him), and agrees with my general point. | | |
| ▲ | decimalenough 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | No, it doesn't, because you're asserting he is "trying to create negative ones". | | |
| ▲ | stavros 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | We were clearly talking about the context of energy sources, where he's trying to push something he calls "clean coal". What's the positive outcome there? |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | xorcist 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > It's Trump's job to create positive outcomes For whom? |
|
| |
| ▲ | boxed 21 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | > Murdering millions of people wasn't exactly "accidental evil", it was very deliberate. Which parts of what these guys did do you think were accidental? His belief that the jews were the problem was the issue. But Germany has still not recovered scientifically or technologically. He was just as wrong about jews as Mao was about sparrows, or Stalin about wheat. I don't see the distinction you're trying to make. Millions died in all three cases. |
|
|
|
