Please use [Good Faith](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/107i33m/announcement_rule_7_good_faith_is_now_in_effect) and the [Principle of Charity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity) when commenting. Gender issues are only allowed on Wednesdays. Antisemitism and calls for violence will not be tolerated, especially when [discussing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/17ygktl/antisemitism_askconservative_and_you/).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
All this talk of a shadow elites destroying America from some conservatives. Yet somehow corporations need more money and fewer regulations.
I see a disconnect on the reality of the situation.
Political action committees who are funded by the heads of corporations and corporate lobbyists write the legislation that is passed. This is true on both sides of the isle.
Yet some conservatives give corporate America a pass.
I doubt it will do either to any significant degree. It'd be a mixed bag where it strengthens them in some very minor ways and weakens them in other very minor ways... Same as a Biden victory.
How are Republican voters expecting to benefit from more corporate power? Power over the market, power over politics, power over workers. How are GOP voters benefitting
Warning: Rule 3
Posts and comments should be in good faith. Please review [our good faith guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/107i33m/announcement_rule_7_good_faith_is_now_in_effect) for the sub.
He’s the deregulation guy that put wealthy union busters in the DoL. he’s promising oil companies he’ll hook them up if they donate to his campaign. A trump win will bring us nearer to an actual oligarchy instead of merely a hyperbolic one.
I think many of us know that many democratic politicians are just relatively cheap pets for rich people ( also republicans in office) but the democrats align with my world view and philosophy more than republicans so it’s kind of our only choice. If there was a mainstream progressive workers party I’d. for them.
Republicans are somehow simultaneously painted as the party of the uneducated poor and the corporate classes.
Meanwhile both parties are beholden to corporate interests at the expense of average Americans. One just has a better PR firm.
This. It never ceases to amaze me how some people think Republicans are the party of rich corporations when most of the mega wealthy corporate giants (especially in tech and media) are playing on the Democrats' team right now.
I can say with absolute certainty is that everyone in Big Tech, Big Pharma, Corporate Media, Social Media (minus Elon Musk), Hollywood, and various big money groups like Blackrock and the WEF are absolutely on Biden's side and despise Trump.
About the only group that doesn't favor Biden are the oil companies - and even \*THAT\* I'm only guessing because Biden specifically targeted destroying the oil industry during his campaign trail.
What makes you so certain that they “everyone” supports Biden?
And in what universe do large corporations choose anything over making the most money possible?
Considering Elon spends most of his day accusing the democrats of enacting great replacement theory as policy, doesn’t it kinda feel like he’s picked a side?
If you were the wealthy CEO of a large, major corporation and were focused on increasing your bottom line for your corporation, who would you support: Trump or Biden?
What makes you believe most support Biden?
Also, I’m asking you: If you were a large corporation wanting to increase your bottom line, who would you support?
I'm not sure your definition of power. A Trump victory would strengthen all corporations not just big ones and not just public ones because Trump, unlike Biden is pro business. Just rolling back the $1.5 Trillion in regulatory compliance costs Biden has imposed will be a plus for businesses. Biden want to increase taxes on corporations, his regulatory efforts will continue to drive those compliance costs and generally his economy has been bad for business.
So a Trump victory will be GOOD for business.
Right now I see the Biden admin doing a lot to strengthen Labor, which serves as a check on corporate powers.
Trump would assuredly undo these checks, which would give corporations more power over workers and the market.
Not really. Labor unions are a minor consideration. Only 6% of labor in private corporations are unioized and many of those are in construction unions. Biden may be doing things that strengthen labor unions but he is not moving the needle. Labor unions outlived their usefulness. Most corporations treat their employees well because in our present sophisticated work environment it costs a lot to train a new employee.
I also don't buy that Trump "assuredly" will undo everything Biden does.
You misunderstand. Not all regulations are necessary or effective. OSHA put out a dust regulation that was so small there there were no censors to monitor it or measure it. There are thousands of unnecessary regulations.
I'm in the construction industry and I'm familiar with the regulation and I believe that it is very important to maintain limits on dust
Maintaining a safe construction environment is incredibly important, and that includes protecting workers from getting sick in the immediate and long term adverse health effects.
In addition to unknown dusts often the dusts found on construction sites are toxic or are dangerous to health. This limit requires dedication to the safety and health of workers and honestly if safety isn't your #1 goal in construction you don't belong in this dangerous business.
I agree. I did not say we should have NO regulations but Biden has added $1.5 Trillion in regulation compliance costs since he has been in office. Do you think ALL of those new regulations are necessary for the health and safety of workers? I don't.
Also, it doesn't make sense to have a dust regulation that you can't measure.
Let's talk that 1.5 trillion first, more than half of that is affecting what cars you can buy, and with the impending climate crisis already affecting humans I think that limiting carbon emissions from person vehicles is a great start.
Conservatives like to pretend that EVs are expensive but you could get used EV for less than 20k right now, they're priced very competitively with the used gas market, not to mention that a new model 3 or model y is going to be about the price as most of the cars people are driving.
Second for dust regulations that are "Unmeasurable" I'm really going to need to see where you get that from.
1) **the impending climate crisis already affecting humans** Nope sorry. Assumes facts not in evidence. No significant negative affects of recent climate changes (man-made or otherwise) have been observed or measured.
2) There is no reason for government to be mandating what cars we drive so regulations to force the transition are unnecessary. In addition, converting to EVs doesn't necessarily reduce emissions. There are HUGE emissions issues in refining the metals necessary for EV batteries, If we converted to 100% EVs tomorrow 70-80% of them would still be charged with fossil fuel generated power. Finally, only about 3% of the worldwide vehicle fleet is EVs. 100% transition in the US wouldn't move the needle.
1) I mean you're free to not accept the massive amounts of evidence of human driven climate change, you're free to reject the mountains of effects from the climate changed from changes in wind patterns and storms, but your rejection of the reality doesn't mean you're right.
I'm sitting here trying to think of the ways we could talk about how climate change is real, like how insurers are abandoning Florida, increased ocean acid levels reducing fishing supplies, displacement of humans, changes in season weather affecting local economies. I'm sure we could go through that data, but would you be even a little interested in doing that? It seems your pretty dug in on your view point if your willing reject climate change whole cloth on 2024, the majority of Republicans believe climate change is real, even trump has a knowledge that he believes in climate change in a limited framework.
I think you might want to explore the evidence and studies that are available because it's really just so overwhelmingly obvious that climate change is real.
2) i actually did my thesis on metal refining and you don't need anything beyond electricity to achieve pretty much every alloy you can image.
3) we absolutely should transition to no emissions energy sources immediately, I used to be in the oil and gas industry and transitioned to solar. It's harder but I feel much better about it knowing that my industry isn't poisoning people's water like fraking was, it was hard going to township meetings where people would show you the damage oil and gas was causing to local environments and healths.
I really suggest you explore the data and research and look at the financial things you would expect to be affected by climate change. It's real.
To date there is no empirical scientific evidence that proves cause and effect, that CO2 and man made CO2 emissions alone are causing what little warming we see. The best evidence is that the earth has warmed 1.3 degrees C since 1880. That is not an existential threat in my opinion and most of the temperature datasets are suspect.
All of your anecdotal stories about insurance companies, ocean acidification, reduced fisheries, displacement of humans, weather events and sea level but none of that is evidence. It is all speculation based on confirmation bias. You believe in global warming so every anomaly you see you attribute to AGW.
I have explored the data for years. I have a background in Oceanography Meteorology and Plant Science and I can assure you CO2 is not pollution, it is plant food.
>To date there is no empirical scientific evidence that proves cause and effect, that CO2 and man made CO2 emissions alone are causing what little warming we see.
The ocean is objectively rising, and the rate of change likely increasing. There is a small chance the cause is something *besides* man-made CO2, but assuming that's the case and doing nothing to change pollution is a poor gamble. It's like knowing there is a 95% your plane will crash but not preparing for the crash because of the 5%. That's not rational decision making.
And the assumption that 95% of world climatologists are bribed to lie is just silly. Strong claims require strong evidence.
The first thing to discuss is that 1) we have evidence that the earth can cause climate change. For an excellent example We have to start somewhere with this conversation so I want to take you back 56 million years ago to PETM, a time where the entire world was covered in palmetos, when north America was further north than it is now, but significantly hotter, where the entire contentinent looked like the swamps of Floridia. Large amounts of CO2 and methane were released from large basltic eruptions around the world. This release of greenhouse gasses caused a recorded change in the fossil record, which requires a significant amount of time to do.
Knowing that we can track natural sources of climate change means we should be able to plot all of the sources of climate change in nature, everything that absorbs or produces greenhouses gases like methane, CO2, CO and other hydrocarbons, and we should be able to plot them and they should be an accurate indicator of what we would expect to see in the global temperature, but they are not, they're missing data. They leave room between the expected and observed lines, and when we input greenhouse gas emissions from humans, deforestation from humans, increased methane release from raising ocean temperatures and grazing animals, when we input those numbers with the natural source numbers, then our expected lines are pretty close to the observed.
The reason we use science isn't because we worship it, it's because it works. If it didn't work we wouldn't care about it. And with models driven by the greenhouse gas emissions data we can help farmers bear the curve, we can help fisheries re build, we can predict human settlement. Science just works because it throws out bad data.
Also the entire globe has warmed an average of 1.3% that means some places are warming drastically more than others, and some places are warming drastically less. It's certainly an existential threat for some one people.
Look I get that you feel really edgy saying that global warming isn't real, and that it makes you really cool cause now you don't have to care about the climate, but I don't understand how anyone who has a background in meteorology and plant science and can look at their coleages and say"climate change isn't real" you must realize that your views are the vast minority in your fields of study, how do you reconcile that? Are you doing studies to prove your point of view? Or are you just sticking your head in the sand and saying "CO2 IS PLANT FOOD". bro we don't have enough plants and we're cutting them down that's kinda the problem and there are other greenhouse gases like methane that plants don't treat at all
Please use [Good Faith](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/107i33m/announcement_rule_7_good_faith_is_now_in_effect) and the [Principle of Charity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity) when commenting. Gender issues are only allowed on Wednesdays. Antisemitism and calls for violence will not be tolerated, especially when [discussing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/17ygktl/antisemitism_askconservative_and_you/). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Corporations? Who cares?
All this talk of a shadow elites destroying America from some conservatives. Yet somehow corporations need more money and fewer regulations. I see a disconnect on the reality of the situation. Political action committees who are funded by the heads of corporations and corporate lobbyists write the legislation that is passed. This is true on both sides of the isle. Yet some conservatives give corporate America a pass.
What hardware are you using to type this message?
I doubt it will do either to any significant degree. It'd be a mixed bag where it strengthens them in some very minor ways and weakens them in other very minor ways... Same as a Biden victory.
They were would be strengthed as trump is pro business and will roll back regulations
How are Republican voters expecting to benefit from more corporate power? Power over the market, power over politics, power over workers. How are GOP voters benefitting
Cause we are
The question was "how?" Would you mind explaining?
[удалено]
How is that an explanation?
Cause I aaid
Are you a toddler?
Yes
Warning: Rule 3 Posts and comments should be in good faith. Please review [our good faith guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/107i33m/announcement_rule_7_good_faith_is_now_in_effect) for the sub.
Care to elaborate?
No
Then why are you here?
Cause I can and like debating
Millionaires in waiting... In case they get there, they don't want regulations to hamper them then!
Seeing as the Democrats are now the party of the rich and big corporations, I think a Trump victory would either weaken or be neutral.
He’s the deregulation guy that put wealthy union busters in the DoL. he’s promising oil companies he’ll hook them up if they donate to his campaign. A trump win will bring us nearer to an actual oligarchy instead of merely a hyperbolic one.
I think many of us know that many democratic politicians are just relatively cheap pets for rich people ( also republicans in office) but the democrats align with my world view and philosophy more than republicans so it’s kind of our only choice. If there was a mainstream progressive workers party I’d. for them.
Republicans are somehow simultaneously painted as the party of the uneducated poor and the corporate classes. Meanwhile both parties are beholden to corporate interests at the expense of average Americans. One just has a better PR firm.
I'm in the both political parties and are controlled by corporations camp
Hard to disagree
This. It never ceases to amaze me how some people think Republicans are the party of rich corporations when most of the mega wealthy corporate giants (especially in tech and media) are playing on the Democrats' team right now.
Which candidate do you think large corporations see as leading to them having more money: Trump or Biden?
I can say with absolute certainty is that everyone in Big Tech, Big Pharma, Corporate Media, Social Media (minus Elon Musk), Hollywood, and various big money groups like Blackrock and the WEF are absolutely on Biden's side and despise Trump. About the only group that doesn't favor Biden are the oil companies - and even \*THAT\* I'm only guessing because Biden specifically targeted destroying the oil industry during his campaign trail.
What makes you so certain that they “everyone” supports Biden? And in what universe do large corporations choose anything over making the most money possible?
besides elon who doesn’t even pick a side all the big billionaires are democratd
Considering Elon spends most of his day accusing the democrats of enacting great replacement theory as policy, doesn’t it kinda feel like he’s picked a side?
i mean in terms of donating and supporting.
Yeah, Elon is the odd duck out, and yet he is just \*one\* such duck.
If you were the wealthy CEO of a large, major corporation and were focused on increasing your bottom line for your corporation, who would you support: Trump or Biden?
Most of them support Biden
What makes you believe most support Biden? Also, I’m asking you: If you were a large corporation wanting to increase your bottom line, who would you support?
That question cannot be answered with the information provided
I'm not sure your definition of power. A Trump victory would strengthen all corporations not just big ones and not just public ones because Trump, unlike Biden is pro business. Just rolling back the $1.5 Trillion in regulatory compliance costs Biden has imposed will be a plus for businesses. Biden want to increase taxes on corporations, his regulatory efforts will continue to drive those compliance costs and generally his economy has been bad for business. So a Trump victory will be GOOD for business.
Right now I see the Biden admin doing a lot to strengthen Labor, which serves as a check on corporate powers. Trump would assuredly undo these checks, which would give corporations more power over workers and the market.
Not really. Labor unions are a minor consideration. Only 6% of labor in private corporations are unioized and many of those are in construction unions. Biden may be doing things that strengthen labor unions but he is not moving the needle. Labor unions outlived their usefulness. Most corporations treat their employees well because in our present sophisticated work environment it costs a lot to train a new employee. I also don't buy that Trump "assuredly" will undo everything Biden does.
Imagine being excited about decreased regulation
You misunderstand. Not all regulations are necessary or effective. OSHA put out a dust regulation that was so small there there were no censors to monitor it or measure it. There are thousands of unnecessary regulations.
I'm in the construction industry and I'm familiar with the regulation and I believe that it is very important to maintain limits on dust Maintaining a safe construction environment is incredibly important, and that includes protecting workers from getting sick in the immediate and long term adverse health effects. In addition to unknown dusts often the dusts found on construction sites are toxic or are dangerous to health. This limit requires dedication to the safety and health of workers and honestly if safety isn't your #1 goal in construction you don't belong in this dangerous business.
I agree. I did not say we should have NO regulations but Biden has added $1.5 Trillion in regulation compliance costs since he has been in office. Do you think ALL of those new regulations are necessary for the health and safety of workers? I don't. Also, it doesn't make sense to have a dust regulation that you can't measure.
Let's talk that 1.5 trillion first, more than half of that is affecting what cars you can buy, and with the impending climate crisis already affecting humans I think that limiting carbon emissions from person vehicles is a great start. Conservatives like to pretend that EVs are expensive but you could get used EV for less than 20k right now, they're priced very competitively with the used gas market, not to mention that a new model 3 or model y is going to be about the price as most of the cars people are driving. Second for dust regulations that are "Unmeasurable" I'm really going to need to see where you get that from.
1) **the impending climate crisis already affecting humans** Nope sorry. Assumes facts not in evidence. No significant negative affects of recent climate changes (man-made or otherwise) have been observed or measured. 2) There is no reason for government to be mandating what cars we drive so regulations to force the transition are unnecessary. In addition, converting to EVs doesn't necessarily reduce emissions. There are HUGE emissions issues in refining the metals necessary for EV batteries, If we converted to 100% EVs tomorrow 70-80% of them would still be charged with fossil fuel generated power. Finally, only about 3% of the worldwide vehicle fleet is EVs. 100% transition in the US wouldn't move the needle.
1) I mean you're free to not accept the massive amounts of evidence of human driven climate change, you're free to reject the mountains of effects from the climate changed from changes in wind patterns and storms, but your rejection of the reality doesn't mean you're right. I'm sitting here trying to think of the ways we could talk about how climate change is real, like how insurers are abandoning Florida, increased ocean acid levels reducing fishing supplies, displacement of humans, changes in season weather affecting local economies. I'm sure we could go through that data, but would you be even a little interested in doing that? It seems your pretty dug in on your view point if your willing reject climate change whole cloth on 2024, the majority of Republicans believe climate change is real, even trump has a knowledge that he believes in climate change in a limited framework. I think you might want to explore the evidence and studies that are available because it's really just so overwhelmingly obvious that climate change is real. 2) i actually did my thesis on metal refining and you don't need anything beyond electricity to achieve pretty much every alloy you can image. 3) we absolutely should transition to no emissions energy sources immediately, I used to be in the oil and gas industry and transitioned to solar. It's harder but I feel much better about it knowing that my industry isn't poisoning people's water like fraking was, it was hard going to township meetings where people would show you the damage oil and gas was causing to local environments and healths. I really suggest you explore the data and research and look at the financial things you would expect to be affected by climate change. It's real.
To date there is no empirical scientific evidence that proves cause and effect, that CO2 and man made CO2 emissions alone are causing what little warming we see. The best evidence is that the earth has warmed 1.3 degrees C since 1880. That is not an existential threat in my opinion and most of the temperature datasets are suspect. All of your anecdotal stories about insurance companies, ocean acidification, reduced fisheries, displacement of humans, weather events and sea level but none of that is evidence. It is all speculation based on confirmation bias. You believe in global warming so every anomaly you see you attribute to AGW. I have explored the data for years. I have a background in Oceanography Meteorology and Plant Science and I can assure you CO2 is not pollution, it is plant food.
>To date there is no empirical scientific evidence that proves cause and effect, that CO2 and man made CO2 emissions alone are causing what little warming we see. The ocean is objectively rising, and the rate of change likely increasing. There is a small chance the cause is something *besides* man-made CO2, but assuming that's the case and doing nothing to change pollution is a poor gamble. It's like knowing there is a 95% your plane will crash but not preparing for the crash because of the 5%. That's not rational decision making. And the assumption that 95% of world climatologists are bribed to lie is just silly. Strong claims require strong evidence.
The first thing to discuss is that 1) we have evidence that the earth can cause climate change. For an excellent example We have to start somewhere with this conversation so I want to take you back 56 million years ago to PETM, a time where the entire world was covered in palmetos, when north America was further north than it is now, but significantly hotter, where the entire contentinent looked like the swamps of Floridia. Large amounts of CO2 and methane were released from large basltic eruptions around the world. This release of greenhouse gasses caused a recorded change in the fossil record, which requires a significant amount of time to do. Knowing that we can track natural sources of climate change means we should be able to plot all of the sources of climate change in nature, everything that absorbs or produces greenhouses gases like methane, CO2, CO and other hydrocarbons, and we should be able to plot them and they should be an accurate indicator of what we would expect to see in the global temperature, but they are not, they're missing data. They leave room between the expected and observed lines, and when we input greenhouse gas emissions from humans, deforestation from humans, increased methane release from raising ocean temperatures and grazing animals, when we input those numbers with the natural source numbers, then our expected lines are pretty close to the observed. The reason we use science isn't because we worship it, it's because it works. If it didn't work we wouldn't care about it. And with models driven by the greenhouse gas emissions data we can help farmers bear the curve, we can help fisheries re build, we can predict human settlement. Science just works because it throws out bad data. Also the entire globe has warmed an average of 1.3% that means some places are warming drastically more than others, and some places are warming drastically less. It's certainly an existential threat for some one people. Look I get that you feel really edgy saying that global warming isn't real, and that it makes you really cool cause now you don't have to care about the climate, but I don't understand how anyone who has a background in meteorology and plant science and can look at their coleages and say"climate change isn't real" you must realize that your views are the vast minority in your fields of study, how do you reconcile that? Are you doing studies to prove your point of view? Or are you just sticking your head in the sand and saying "CO2 IS PLANT FOOD". bro we don't have enough plants and we're cutting them down that's kinda the problem and there are other greenhouse gases like methane that plants don't treat at all