The fake Left's green-washing and betrayal of EVs

Discussion in 'Off Topic' started by 101101, Aug 11, 2020.

To remove this ad click here.

  1. 101101

    101101 Well-Known Member

    Campaign contributions from Oil and Gas to the fake left:

    Hillary Clinton 5M (2016)
    Barrack Obama 1.1 M (2008)
    Betto O'rourke 500K (2020) most in the house
    Bernie Sanders 235K (2020)
    Elizebeth Warren 83K (2020)
    Ed. Markey 65K recently
    Kirsten Gillebrand 25k recent

    Amy Klobuchar 64K (2020)
    Joseph Biden 27k in (2008)- signed pledge but still taking FF money apparently
    Adam Schiff 19K
    Alexandria Occassio Cortez 11k (2020)
    Lorena Gonzales largest contributor was fossil fuels may have close to 60K
    Kamila Harris 6.5k (2018)- not green in debates but eventually produced greenest lip service plan
    Nancy Pelosi 10k (2020)
    Eric Swawell 7k (2020)
    Tulsi Gabbard 6.5k (2020)
    Rashida Talieb 4.6k (2020)
    Pete Butigeig- was taking money from fossil fuel billionaires

    Most of this can be found on opensecret.org

    So that was a partial list of fake left politicians who directly or indirectly took fossil fuel money and many took that money even after they signed a no fossil fuel money pledge.
    And if Panama is any indication this is only the tip of iceberg of the money they received where some or most of it would go in their pockets.

    What we have in the way of progress on green is the because the global public and science demands it and not because of greenwashers on the fake left. Again, it is known that a lot of politicians on the left signed "no fossil fuel money pledges" but not known that the most prominent and most associated with the green movement then went ahead and took substantial fossil fuel money when they didn't have to. Why! Well, why did they have to make that pledge in the first place? Its all lip service. There were examples of politicians like Mark Takano that didn't sign such pledges or write lip services bills like the GND but also apparently took no fossil fuel money. What the fossil fuel money even a single dollar of it indicates is ownership and subservience to fossil fuel interests. What this marking means is fossil fuel interests can rely on a particular shill because they've literally been branded like cattle. These people might as well literally be in the pocket of the remaining Koch brother or other famous fossil fuel green washers like Bill Gates or Warren Buffet. Buffet surely had a lot to do with helping pitch the natural gas ponzi earlier on and he is like a buyer of last resort in its current wreckage. Don't know but strongly suspect it likely ties these politicians to off shore accounts (think David Cameron and Panama) and would guess it would also include shares in natural gas companies because surely fossil fuels interests want to create skin in the game for their puppets. And how could it not tie into the utterly failed PNAC and all that foreign influence through people like Epstein and the undue influence Russia and Israel have over US politics. But over and over again and in particular it must come down to issues over natural gas. The case for selling or having anything to do with natural gas is worse than the pushing of light cigarettes on teens and it it always was a total ponzi that people like Buffet helped foist (now he's been a buyer of last resort picking up the pieces.) When you think of slavery in the American South or when you think of apartheid in South Africa or the Mid East or the 3rd/4th reichs and getting rid of these it is important to realize getting rid of fossil fuels is the exact same issue for the same underlying reason. It comes down to Jefferson Davis's evil sought after "right to exploit" people and our necessary absolute rejection of that.

    Now we know there is a bit of ponzi in most investments because for the investment to retain and gain value people must come on board and generally have to be constantly buying in with shares or product purchases but NG was a pure ponzi from the start with the worst sort or rent seeking ambitions behind it. And this ponzi helps explain the core of what has happened recently where the fake left seems to be going after EVs. They don't really want EVs they want lip service and compliance cars because pentration by real EVs or the solar vision of Tesla in particular destroys natural gas and the hydrogen long tail pipe Diesel Gate 2 scam. They are behind the scenes furious about the collapse of natural gas and its de-capitalization in favor of EVs and green energy generation.

    Hillary Clinton was a natural gas sales woman under Bush-Cheney and her whole admin would have been about propping up Natural Gas as an idiotic 'bridge fuel.' Look at her core focus during Obama: Libya and the nonsense fight for a commodity the world no longer needs to make it seem relevant to keep the ponzi going. If you look a Biden, why would they run a senile Biden against Trump if they gave a damn? Well because the DNC is run by all of Hillary's natural gas lackeys who would run Biden. They'd be fine with Trump too because if you remember at the dinner that dinner guest recorded Trump was surrounded by nothing but natural gas salesmen and he's been pro fossil fuels not but not quite against Green in the ways that would allow them cover or to protect their natural gas scam or he hasn't been doing it good enough for them but they are fine with him hence only being able to choose select Biden- who didn't even want to run and will only run for one term.

    Always thought the GOP was totally wed to fossil fuels and that was the core of its money, maybe so but I think the fake left is even more wed to it. Didn't see if Jay Inslee took any. Again what this is about is the fake place holder left's constituencies want fossil fuels dead yesterday so the puppets do this lip service game but they are really fossil fuel prostitutes. As above HIllary is a special case, when she was asked about taking fossil fuel money in 2016 she tried to say it was Sander's lies but people who looked into it said she took 5 million +, but presumably the core of her fortune said to be at a billion + is all tied up in natural gas which again is presumably part of why she got caught up Libya- more fighting over an inherently obsolete worthless resource- don't need natural gas for energy and don't even need it or fossil fuels for plastic or materials and it will never ever be cost competitive or actually profitable, never was. Hillary acted like it wasn't the public's business like she was totally entitled to take bribes. She said the same nonsense that they all say: oh it has not impacted my opinion on voting or policy-getting bribed for elections is expensive. That's like saying the money that changed hands wasn't for the sex or the sex didn't matter. Some try to say ok it was negligible or I didn't know about it. Of course we need a system where politicians taking money is again recognized as the worst kind of bribery- needing money to buy ads of all things and buy from the very sponsor owned media is not a justification it is bribe taking that favors the wealthy even in running as they wouldn't have to take bribes to buy ads. Possibly the worst irony is all the money comes back to the sponsors who own and control the hyper consolidated sponsored media it is like we pay them to censor our votes and when they want influence they don't do more than momentarily loan their nickels to their prostitutes who sell us out for the loan of nickles which come right back to the sponsors in a closed loop. But here its worst of all because this money marks them for the fossil fuel interests as: you're my *****!!! Note they did a lot of lip service and even made pledges that they wouldn't take it but still took it because they are blackmailed prostitutes and the taking of the money was a tightening of their collars to make sure they wouldn't act. For comparison why did GOPer Mitt Romney recently only get $50? Well, he is already wealthy and they know they don't have to buy him. But remember there are others like Mark Takano (D) in CA who didn't make lip service noise and didn't take money- but the fake left did almost without exception.
     
  2. To remove this ad click here.

  3. 101101

    101101 Well-Known Member

    If we don't want this stuff and don't want a society based on total lies we have to recognize media that is sponsored is crime it is bribery and a democracy killing conflict of interest it totally and absolutely corrupts politics which is already prone to corruption.

    So when you see Sanders and Gillibrand going after Musk's gains since covid my guess it is because they are really pissed about real progress in true green energy and getting away from the natural gas scam- because its hurting their puppetized personal pocket books behind the scenes and yanking on their collars. And if you look at the other side with the GOP and all the division being created in the country again its all about a distraction from fossil fuels which were already collapsing yet again on their own right before covid- always collapsing because they don't don't work economically and can't be fixed too lean a thermodynamic proposition through their supply and use stack- no tech can fix them- covid was a kind of cover for that- because the demand was gone- world doesn't need this anymore- even with subsidies its a profitless future where green has already eaten all future increases in their demand and is cutting back current demand. Covid may also be the army having enough of the instability being injected into the Mid East and into the next election- Trump did say the lead Army General was in charge- not the kind of thing Trump would say. Bernie was trigged when Musk said money should go to real people and families for spending into the economy and not special interests (natural gas) and Bernie started name calling over that. Then he wanted to cut the money behind Tesla and SpaceX and but also curiously cut subsides for natural gas. Again my guess is special interests was natural gas and fossil fuels- and Musk was calling the fraud out. So the fake left wanted to hit back and cover up at the same time. That triggering was as bizarre as Bernie's taking so much from fossil fuels and bowing out 2x. Presume Musk would be less of an issue for them if their true colors as total green washers weren't showing. They are just like Gates with constant talking out of both sides of his mouth with saying stuff like electric cars don't make much of a difference and batteries aren't really clean and divestment doesn't make a difference and MS will wipe out its historical carbon by 2050 but we need to help 'energy' companies transition because we will need more energy and we need to sequester CO2 to pump more fossil fuels out of the ground.

    It seems the decision to keep fossil fuels around was made right after WWII as a support of American Imperialism deemed appropriate then to stave off WWIII. We could have and should have been done with fossil fuels then right after WWII. So unfortunate. One way to accelerate de-capitalizing the fossil fuel industry would be to tell American investors they could cash out tax free, while cutting the subsidies to nothing. That would zero out most fossil fuel investors in the mass exodus (inevitable and deserved outside of the mutual fund investors- but even the indexes should have blocked investment in fossil fuels.) Have to block foreign investment to make sure the bankruptcies were received into nationalization so the products could be discontinued on a steep schedule. Much of the money that was able to flee would further capitalize Green. Also the fossil fuel industry and ICE makers whine about pollution credits and Tesla but what about the 5 trillion a year in fossil fuel subsidies including direct or obvious subsidies of 15 billion a year in the US- that subsidizes ICE makers and that needs to go and pollution credits need to be ramped up.

    Beyond the fake progressive left the establishment left is probably getting concerned because strangely they could lose the green issue to the GOP which would cut into their brand. There are certainly some in the GOP or behind the GOP that only car about winning and will go in the direction the winds are blowing. There are some in the GOP that were never down with the natural gas ponzi and would love to pop its balloon with green. Maybe our battle with CO2 on Earth was just a first step for converting the CO2 on Mars.

    One more thing about some of the new progressive puppets. Even before covid if you tried their office you couldn't even get an intern to pick up because they are not allowed to talk outside of a script or a forum like Twitter where their responses can be curated. They are simply part of a carefully choreographed pr scripts. They act like safety valves, emergency shut offs and breakers switches. Their power to foil is magnified in secret ballot settings. If they end up in a debate its likely not without a prompter like W. used to wear. Like one of them said: Biden won fair and square. It was obvious Trump didn't want it the moment he learned it got it (it was on video) and its clear Biden doesn't want it either and will only run for one term. There are always these transparent moments like W. reading my pet goat with every other figure head around the world instantly knowing all the writing on the wall. Well, try to be grateful for what we have, must be an invisible sun holding it all together. How did we get this far?
     
  4. FloridaSun

    FloridaSun Well-Known Member

    I wouldn't count on government to make a difference. Washington, and that includes both parties, is owned by special interest. Just look at Big Pharma's influence on Washington which lobbied to make it illegal to import the same drugs from countries where the same companies sell them for pennies on the dollar.. Same goes for Big Oil.. Washington is entirely corrupt and owned by billionaires.
    It's not government that has advanced EV's.. ELON MUSK has done a lot more for EV's than government. If it wasn't for Elon Musk, we would still be paying $1000 per kwh for EV batteries.. We are approaching $100 per kwh for batteries.. At that price it is possible to produce EV's with similar range at similar cost to ICE vehicles. The free market will eventually lead to most new cars being sold being electric. Anyone with half a bran can do the math that an EV at almost 80% efficiency and low running cost is better than an ICE vehicle with 15% effifiency.. Of course, it's not something that happens over night. It took years for battery prices to come down. No matter what Washington does, EV's WILL take over..
     
  5. cmwade77

    cmwade77 Active Member

    I don't see going green as a left vs right issue though, but other than that, your points are valid, honestly no politicians should be taking money from oil and gas, it just shouldn't be allowed.

    And yes the media is a major source of problems, just look at how they have hyped up so many current events and even encouraged fear with things from COVID to the protesting and riots.

    EVs are the future no matter what Washington and the media might try to convince us of and there are already other countries requiring all new vehicle sales to be electric vehicles. Heck, even Mexico has some roads that can't be driven on except in electric vehicles and that's Mexico.
     
  6. SouthernDude

    SouthernDude Active Member

    Lol. I was wondering when the next schizo autist rant would come from this guy.

    Once again, this belongs in off topic. Waaaay too nutty to be a general discussion thread.
     
    R P, Clamps, Bruce M. and 1 other person like this.
  7. To remove this ad click here.

  8. DaleL

    DaleL Active Member

    Donald Trump has taken in the 2020 election cycle $936,155 (over 3 times that of Biden) and is number one on the list. https://www.opensecrets.org/industries./recips.php?ind=E01++

    In the 2016 election cycle Trump took in $1,227,270 to Clinton's $1,024,457.
    https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/recips.php?ind=e01&cycle=2016&recipdetail=P&mem=N&sortorder=U

    The hard fact is that it takes a lot of money to win an election. This November there are only 2 viable candidates for President. Please Vote and vote for the least "bad" candidate who has a real chance to win.
     
    Esprit1st and Bruce M. like this.
  9. Bruce M.

    Bruce M. Well-Known Member

    That would be the guy who didn't run a fake university and bankrupt a casino.
     
    DaleL likes this.
  10. cmwade77

    cmwade77 Active Member

    I know this sounds awful, but I cannot in good conscience vote for either of them. It might be a wasted vote, but I keeping looking for a decent third party candidate. Of course being in California means that my vote doesn't really ever affect the presidential election, but even if it did, I really can't vote for either Trump or Biden. Of course one could make the argument that if you are voting for Biden, you really are voting for his running mate, as he won't remain medically/mentally fit for the office for more than a few months.
     
  11. FloridaSun

    FloridaSun Well-Known Member

    I'm a registered Libertarian and seriously dislike the 2 big corrupt parties.. They are NOT working for us. They are working for their donors, no matter if it's left or right..
    This election, I will however vote for Trump despite thinking that the guy is an imbecile. The only real reason why I will vote for him is because my number 1 issue are Civil Rights. ALL Civil Rights and not just the ones that I like. I understand that Republicans want to infringe upon women's rights and I oppose that (and there is no way that it would actually happen.. Too much court precedence) BUT the most important right that we have as Americans is the 2nd amendment. This is the amendment that protects all the other rights. What if government decides to take your first amendment after eliminating all weapons that can be used as a defense against government tyranny. Biden and his gun confiscation friend Beto have pledged to ban the most popular semi automatic rifles and restrict magazine size. If Biden is elected and he actually succeeds to pass a ban on those semi automatic rifles and magazine capacity, he will have an issue enforcing it as barely anybody will register their guns as registration is the first step to confiscation.. If he decides to actually attempt to confiscate semi automatic rifles from gun owners, you will have civil unrest if not a civil war.. This is the USA and such attempt will not end peacefully. Of course, a ban like Bill Clinton passed did not actually ban ownership of such weapons. It restricted sale and there was no confiscation or fines.. The policies that Biden and Beto want, will not grandfather in existing weapons and this will not go down well. If you think that BLM riots were violent... wait until government tries to go for our guns.. Remember the standoff at the Ranch in Nevada with hundreds of heavily armed citizens?? You will have thousands of times the amount of armed citizens that will stand up against that act of tyranny..
    If this right wasn't that important, I would vote for Jo Jorgensen who is at least someone with whom I agree on most issues..
     
    YurkshireLad likes this.
  12. To remove this ad click here.

  13. DaleL

    DaleL Active Member

    The issue, considering that this is on the inside evs forum, is clean energy and the environment, not which candidate best supports "...a well regulated Militia...." As long as candidates have to raise large amounts of money to be elected, they have to take donations from various sources. 101101 has provided us with a convenient source of information as to which candidates are likely to be the most beholden to the oil & gas industry. The numbers keep getting updated based on the most recent information.

    This is the top 20 list for all donations took place during the 2019-2020 election cycle from oil & gas interests and were released by the Federal Election Commission on Tuesday, July 21, 2020. Seventeen out of 20 are Republicans; only 2 are Democrats. Then there is Sanders, the "Democratic-Socialist".


    1 Trump, Donald (R) $1,347,556

    2 Cornyn, John (R-TX) Senate $718,538
    3 Gardner, Cory (R-CO) Senate $490,881
    4 McCarthy, Kevin (R-CA) House $474,447
    5 McConnell, Mitch (R-KY) Senate $464,373
    6 Daines, Steven (R-MT) Senate $379,028
    7 Scalise, Steve (R-LA) House $375,564
    8 Biden, Joe (D) $320,667
    9 Pfluger, August (R-TX) $318,955
    10 Collins, Susan M (R-ME) Senate $262,906
    11 Crenshaw, Dan (R-TX) House $259,645
    12 Inhofe, James M (R-OK) Senate $249,042
    13 Sanders, Bernie (I-VT) Senate $239,912
    14 Hunt, Wesley (R-TX) $235,103
    15 Cassidy, Bill (R-LA) Senate $228,255
    16 McSally, Martha (R-AZ) Senate $226,932
    17 Sullivan, Dan (R-AK) Senate $215,304
    18 Brady, Kevin (R-TX) House $213,500
    19 Tillis, Thom (R-NC) Senate $211,543
    20 Fletcher, Lizzie (D-TX) House $198,430

    https://www.opensecrets.org/industries./recips.php?ind=E01++
     
    Clamps likes this.
  14. FloridaSun

    FloridaSun Well-Known Member

    Regardless of who is in power, EV's will very soon take over.. Nothing will stop it, regardless of how much money big oil donates. However, our freedoms, and I'm talking about ALL freedoms and not just select ones, are at stake.. What if government bans guns and then decides that people don't "need" a car and confiscates all cars? If you have no way of fighting back, government can do anything that they want. It's fine is you trust government to never become tyrannical. Germans never thought that Hitler would become tyrannical when they democratically elected him.. Venezuela never thought that Chavez would become tyrannical when he was democratically elected.. I always hear "That's never going to happen in this country"... but who will guarantee that it won't? Both, Hitler an Chavez first registered guns and then confiscated guns before eliminating liberties.. People are free to ignore history but I won't ignore it. I was born and raised in Austria, the country where Adolf Hitler was born. While he rose to power in Germany, he eventually invaded Austria and Austria became part of Germany. Eventually, Hitler would register guns and then confiscate them from those who he saw as a danger to him. He confiscated all guns from jewish citizens and when the SS came for the Jews, they had no way of defending themselves. We need to learn from history and always be prepared for the worst.
     
  15. DaleL

    DaleL Active Member

    Gun rights are not in danger. SCOTUS, (District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 decided in 2008), decided that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms for traditionally lawful purposes. For the purposes of this discussion, which candidate is more or less like Hitler or Mussolini? My wife and I vacationed in Europe last year and had a great time. I rented a little Skoda Citigo 5sp manual transmission in the Czech Republic. We went to my wife's ancestral home of Suchdol nad Lužnicí and on to more traditional tourist cities of: Český Krumlov, Linz, Salzburg, Passau, and Plzen.

    However, I digress. I believe that the best way to defend our rights is to vote for the individuals who are decent, honorable, and honest.
     
    Clamps and Esprit1st like this.
  16. FloridaSun

    FloridaSun Well-Known Member

    SCOTUS has only ruled that gun ownership is an individual right but it has not ruled on which restrictions on types of guns are constitutional. The 2nd amendment is worthless if you only allow .22 caliber single shot guns. What restrictions are constitutional. The balance of the Supreme Court is at stake. Once Alito or Thomas retires and will be replaced with a constitution ignoring Liberal, they could do anything with the 2nd amendment. Remember, Heller and McDonald were 5:4 rulings, so one vote and they could overturn it. Biden was clear that he intends to ban semi automatic rifles and limit magazine capacity. Both are unacceptable to most gun owners. He will first try to register and hardly anyone will comply. Remember the bump stock ban? over 500,000 bump stocks were sold and 300 were turned in after the ban.. If they try to confiscate guns, you will have many dead people.. If Democrats get the Senate and the Presidency and keep tge house, they can do anything they want once they got the majority on SCOTUS.
    As much as I dislike Trump, I will vote AGAINST anyone who wants to limit magazine capacity, register guns or ban semi automatic rifles.
    Europe is nice to visit, but there is a reason why I left.. Couldn't imagine working and living there again. I have been 23 years in Florida, most of my adult life.

    BTW, there is no honest choice for president. They are all disgusting crooks.
    Politicians are not honest and decent people..
     
    Last edited: Aug 12, 2020
  17. I think it's hilarious to take money from big oil companies and then use it against themselves. I can't see any better usage for it.
     
  18. FloridaSun

    FloridaSun Well-Known Member

    Oil companies will diversify. Look at Shell.. They run the Greenlots charging network and are expanding it, at least around here..
     
  19. I know, and they have to, otherwise they will go down. Just like physical music media. All companies have to go with the flow and evolution eventually.
     
  20. FloridaSun

    FloridaSun Well-Known Member

    Companies, including big oil will have to adopt to changes. It is clear that in the automotive sector, the trend is away from ICE and nothing that they do will slow down that trend. Electric cars are the better option, even at low gas prices. There will always be the ones who resist change but that will not stop change. ELON MUSK has done more for the advancement of EV's than Government ever could. Sure, government did help but government is usually not the source of innovation. It is the private sector.
     
    Esprit1st likes this.
  21. interestedinEV

    interestedinEV Well-Known Member

    I would argue, while true, it is an US centric point of view. On the other side of pond, in the EU the government is a lot of more active in pushing innovation. The green party has sometimes participated in the government directly. Then there are the environment activists, the most famous today is Greta Thunberg. We may criticize Toyota for all we want, but they pushed the envelope with a very successful hybrid franchise but unfortunately did not take it to the next level, giving Elon an opening.

    Don't mistake that I am in any way belittling Elon's contributions, he has done a tremendous amount to move the conversation. But to give Elon full credit would be not be acknowledging the contributions of so many others, especially in Europe. This includes the scientists who have spoken about global warming even in spite of people trying to muzzle the, It is combination of events and people, of which Elon has had a towering influence, a part of which is due the ability to self promote. But there are others.
     
  22. FloridaSun

    FloridaSun Well-Known Member

    I was born and raised in Europe and left because didn't like the lack of opportunity to have a better than average life due to the redistribution of wealth machine in Europe. It's easy for government to innovate if they take half of people's money.. Sure, if government steals that much from people, they have more to spend.. I'm not saying that Europe is bad and the US is good or the other way around.. It's a different concept. If you like security and that government takes care of you from cradle to grave, Europe is a nice place to live. If you want opportunity like I did, Europe is not the place to be. There is no way, even in my very good profession, that I could have anywhere close to the lifestyle or accumulated close to the assets that I have if I would have stayed in Europe. Net income in any decent profession in Europe is half or less than half of what you make in the US. I make about 3 times the net income in Florida that I would have made in Austria.. Austria taxes income over 50000 euros at 50%.. I didn't want to be punished for hard work, so I immigrated to the US and I achieved more than I could have ever dreamed of in Europe.. As for innovation, the critical element of making EV's affordable to the general public was battery prices. If it wasn't for Tesla, many EV's that are on the market all across the world would not exist if it wasn't for Tesla and Elon Musk. Elon Musk is the one responsible for the greatly reduced prices for batteries. Of course, now that the batteries are reasonably priced, there will be more and more competitors in that market.. Chevrolet announced several new EV's as did other manufactorers.. However, all of that would not be happening at $1000 per kwh battery cost.
     
  23. 101101

    101101 Well-Known Member

    If only it worked like that!
    But it doesn't there is correlation as is show with people like Lorena Gonzales. Its not only secret ballots they shill on. With a sponsored media they are pre-screened or screened out before they can even run but this hook is tell tale and goes deeper. Bernie and now Robert Reisch sound like natural has owning Tesla shorts all pissed off about their losses. While its saying oligarchy against democracy Reische been acting like a natural gas share holder. How many of these people have immobile bearer shares in natural gas given to them by natural gas oligarchs? How many have mobile bearer shares out of the Marshal Islands or other such nonsense to go along with their koprimat from sources foreigh and domestic. How many have straight on the books shares? How many were inducted into an eyes wide shut club to keep them puppetized? Almost all apparently.
     

Share This Page