[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by RedDevil

I stopped watching Scott Adams years ago. Predicting Trump would win the election was no mean feat, as it sure did not look like that at first. Adams correctly identified the methods Trump used, the mechanism at work.

I'm much less susceptible to non-rational forms of persuasion, so I was blind to how motivating Trump could be. SA has been helpful at pointing these methods out to me. As freebeard says, I find him to be annoying too, and I don't subscribe to "might is right" philosophy, though that isn't exactly where SA is coming from. Still, his thought processes through things are generally rational, and therefore worthwhile to consider.

That does not make it right though. What I see is someone doing what suits him best while as the POTUS he should really be focusing on what's best for the USA. There is, for now, more money to be made with oil than science or green technology, so he plays the pipes of Big Oil.

All presidents incorporate their self-interests into their "service" to the citizens. Although I don't follow politics, as best I can tell, Trump is no worse than average in this regard, and possibly a little less. He's already wealthy, so that isn't his motivating factor, and there's no political career after this, so sleezey politics isn't a factor either.

What does that leave then? What's best for the USA is open to debate. We've got Communists like Bernie that think Communism is best. He's focused on what he thinks is best. I can't call it self-interest just because I disagree with his conception of best.

It may radically change when the price of solar and wind not only competes but falls way below fossil fuel. Then the US, like everyone else, will switch over, and Trump will then lead the parade.

Of course it will. New ways of doing things are the domain of liberalism. Once something goes mainstream and is clearly better, it gets incorporated by conservatives. Once renewables are adopted by conservatives, you'll see them pushing back against whatever comes along to replace those, because you don't change what's working unless it's clearly and demonstrably better.

It may be too late though, there's a tipping point where the permafrost in Canada and Siberia melts and releases large amounts of methane, the oceans warm up too much and release large mounts of methane from methane hydrate deposits on the ocean floor and it all runs away to several degrees up, melting all the ice and raising the seas by 80 to 100 meters no matter what we do.

Perhaps. Democrats consume 3.9% less energy than Republicans. We can blame them 3.9% less when the apocalypse arrives.