From: Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com>
Newsgroups: can.politics,alt.politics.trump,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: "Bat poop crazy"
Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2025 12:31:42 -0700
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
On 2025-07-30 16:50, pothead wrote:
> On 2025-07-30, Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 29 Jul 2025 10:29:17 -0400, -hh wrote:
>>
>>> On 7/28/25 14:14, Alan wrote:
>>>> On 2025-07-28 10:51, pothead wrote:
>>>>> ...
>>>>> Again, let the market decide.
>>>>
>>>> But keep the subsidies for big oil, right?
>>
>> This is the kind of partisan thing I've been talking about, pothead.
>
> Well maybe I am not presenting my points clearly.
> See below.
>
>
>> You're perfectly ok with government meddling in markets as long as it
>> only meddles in the markets YOU want meddled with.
>
> Wrong.
> First off depending upon the market I have differing opinions.
That is LITERALLY what he just said about you.
> So for example, I was not against the auto industry bailout as it was implemented.
So you are fine with that industry being meddled with.
Got it.
> It saved jobs however as a free trade person I'm mixed on the reasons for the
> bailouts in the first place which were mainly crappy cars nobody wanted and
> mismanagement.
>
> In the end though the money was paid back AFAIK.
>
> As for the current discussion of EV vs ICE and subsidies I have no problem
> either way as long as the other platform is not attacked and restricted by
> over regulation.
But that's exactly what you've been advocating. No subsidies for EVs,
but huge subsidies for ICE are fine (subsidies for big oil make fossil
fuels less expensive and therefore ARE effectively a subsidy for ICE).
> Promoting American made cars or EV or both is not a problem for me as long
> as at the same time you don't tell me ICE cars will have major regulations
> put on them all for the purpose of destroying them and pushing the people to EV.
>
> Same goes for say wind farms vs coal plants.
> Let the market decide but don't hamstring one or the other in order to
> push an agenda.
>
> Again "free market" or more accurately a fair market.
Where your definition of "fair" is actually completely bonkers.
>
>
>>> Ah, good catch: I'd forgotten about how pothead has avoided answering
>>> why its okay for fossil fuels to receive huge government subsidies.
>>>
>>>
>>> -hh
>>
>> Still hasn't answered it despite answering Siri's post.
>
> Answered already in different threads but you can see my answer above.
>
> I am a free/fair market person.
> Sometimes subsidies are good and sometimes bad.
Then you're not really a "free" market person at all.
> I have opinions on both and I prefer to not make a blanket statement.
>
>
>> As an aside:
>> On the one hand, Republicans whine about losing manufacturing jobs.
>> Otoh, they're deliberately killing them.
>
>
> They are killing green energy jobs which have produced almost zero for
> the working class but lined the pockets of the elite with tons of money.
LOLOLOLLOLOLOLOLOL!