Those are some great definitions but that doesn’t change the fact that literally anyone can find someone that disagrees with these positions. Forcing them on people will not get the reaction you want. That right there throws out any thought of regulatory capture being the sole thing at play. It can hardly be considered a plutocracy when a good portion of the populous agrees with it.
Even if that is the complete reality, very few people agree with you and antidemocratic actions will result in a massive backlash.
People agree with Hitler, doesn’t make them right, or worth listening to, nor does it make them willing to compromise, some people need to be forced to relinquish their incorrect and harmful opinions through violence and death.
You’re relying on the wilfully ignorant and belligerent to go against their nature, and that’s a level of stupidity so divorced from reality that you’re effectively no different than them.
You’ll sit here and argue that you’re right till you’re blue in the face but you’ll still never change anything.
Appeasement doesn’t work, that’s why we killed the Nazi’s instead of waiting for them to agree with us.
You’re the global warming equivalent of a Nazi apologist, so it’s a bit rich when you refer to me as the one pushing a harmful agenda for caring about the survival of the human race above and beyond the ignorance of individuals.
No, it’s a legitimate question. You said objectively incorrect things so you’re either disingenuous (practiced stupid) or just stupid (naturally stupid).
You could be uneducated but you seem to think you wield cognizance and comprehension with expert skill so I’ll take you at your word and contribute your wilful ignorance to belligerence rather than lack of education.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutocracy
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC
https://www.businessinsider.com/photos-inside-luxury-bunkers-ultra-rich-prepare-for-doomsday-2022-9
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/29/us/politics/democrats-dark-money-donors.html
Those are some great definitions but that doesn’t change the fact that literally anyone can find someone that disagrees with these positions. Forcing them on people will not get the reaction you want. That right there throws out any thought of regulatory capture being the sole thing at play. It can hardly be considered a plutocracy when a good portion of the populous agrees with it.
Even if that is the complete reality, very few people agree with you and antidemocratic actions will result in a massive backlash.
People agree with Hitler, doesn’t make them right, or worth listening to, nor does it make them willing to compromise, some people need to be forced to relinquish their incorrect and harmful opinions through violence and death.
You’re relying on the wilfully ignorant and belligerent to go against their nature, and that’s a level of stupidity so divorced from reality that you’re effectively no different than them.
You’ll sit here and argue that you’re right till you’re blue in the face but you’ll still never change anything.
Well, I’m sure your unpopular revolution will force through all the changes our society needs. Just like they did in Germany in the 1930s.
Appeasement doesn’t work, that’s why we killed the Nazi’s instead of waiting for them to agree with us.
You’re the global warming equivalent of a Nazi apologist, so it’s a bit rich when you refer to me as the one pushing a harmful agenda for caring about the survival of the human race above and beyond the ignorance of individuals.
Yep, that’s how they got elected. You’re doing a great job describing exactly how they came to power. I’m not an apologist, you are an enabler.
No, you’re both.
Explain how I’m enabling climate denialism by saying we ignore climate denialists?
And how are you not the apologist for defending their indefensible position?
Do you practice being this stupid or does it come naturally?
Climate denialists claim that climate action is a red herring for socialist changes. You literally are doing that.
At no point did I defend them. That’s a strawman.
Insults mean you have run out of actual argument. Sorry about your reading comprehension. That must make it hard for you.
No, it’s a legitimate question. You said objectively incorrect things so you’re either disingenuous (practiced stupid) or just stupid (naturally stupid).
You could be uneducated but you seem to think you wield cognizance and comprehension with expert skill so I’ll take you at your word and contribute your wilful ignorance to belligerence rather than lack of education.