Treasury Sec. Yellen says only way to fix energy crisis is to 'move to renewables'
By: Jessica Chasmar (Fox Business)
Okay, what's the plan? These neoliberal intellectuals spend a lot of time and effort avoiding any and all responsibility for economic conditions. And when excuses don't work, neoliberal intellectuals fall back onto blue-sky promises without any mention of how to get to that bright future. The track record for free market monetary policy has been abysmal and throwing more public money at it won't fix it.
Bottom line, the only plan is to dump the sacrifices and hardships onto the American people while protecting the rich. You know, the captains of capital could speed the transition away from fossil fuels by simply investing in alternatives. But that's not likely to happen because it would require a lot more than passive investments and the payback would be far longer than a three month quarter. And these neoliberal intellectuals certainly won't require the rich to work for their profits.
Our neoliberal monetary and fiscal policies can dump tons of money into subsidizing any blue-sky alternative for the benefit of the wealthy. But nothing can be done to maintain nuclear generation that doesn't contribute to climate change? And absolutely nothing can be done to bolster energy security in the short term because there's too much money at stake for blue-sky alternatives?
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen said Sunday that the Biden administration's policies are not responsible for record-high gas prices, and the only way to fix the energy crisis in the "medium-term" is to move towards "renewables to address climate change."
During an appearance on ABC's "This Week," Yellen was asked to respond to a statement Wednesday by the American Petroleum Institute, which said the Biden administration's "misguided policy agenda shifting away from domestic oil and natural gas has compounded inflationary pressures and added headwinds to companies' daily efforts to meet growing energy needs while reducing emissions."
Yellen fired back that the historically high gas prices have nothing to do with policies and are reflective of low-producing oil companies.
"Well, I don't think that policies are responsible for what's happening in the oil market," she said. "Actually, consumption of gas and fuels are currently at lower levels than pre-pandemic, and what's happened is the production has gone down. Refinery capacity is declined in the United States and oil production has declined. I think that producers were partly caught unaware by the strength of the recovery in the economy and weren't ready to meet the needs of the economy. High prices should induce them to increase supplies over time."
Yellen argued that the best way to address the energy crisis in the "medium-term" is to transition the country off of fossil fuels.
"And look, as a medium-term matter, the way in which we can assure reasonable energy expenses for households is to move to renewables to address climate change, as a medium-term matter," she said. "That's the way to free us from geopolitical movements in oil prices."
Yellen added that President Biden is considering a range of options to help bring down gas prices, including a federal gas tax holiday.
"President Biden wants to do anything he possibly can to help consumers," she said. "Gas prices have risen a great deal, and it's clearly burdening households, so he stands ready to work with Congress, and that's an idea that certainly worth considering."
President Joe Biden and the White House COVID-19 Response Team participate in a virtual call with the National Governors Association from the South Court Auditorium of the Eisenhower Executive Office Building of the White House Complex on Monday, Dec (Kent Nishimura / Los Angeles Times via Getty Images / Getty Images)
The national average of a gallon of unleaded gas hit $4.99 on Sunday after hitting an all-time high of $5 for a solid week earlier this month. Biden has blamed the Russian war in Ukraine and the COVID-19 pandemic for fueling the price rise and record inflation, while Republicans blame exorbitant government spending and U.S. dependence on foreign oil markets.
In its statement last week, the American Petroleum Institute called on the administration to "prioritize unlocking U.S. energy resources - that are the envy of the world - instead of increasing reliance on foreign sources."
Tags
Who is online
622 visitors
Simply pulling the plug is not a plan to transition. That may allow the rich to become richer but it imposes a mountain of sacrifice and hardship onto the American people.
But, then, our neoliberal government pursuing free market monetary economic policy isn't really concerned about the American people. Money is the only thing that matters. We really have returned to the old normal.
The strange part of all of this is that candidate Biden told us all what he was going to do to American oil producers.
But as you well know, too many people were just more interested in voting against Trump than paying attention to what the alternative was promising to do. And to be fair, we have had so many candidates who have made all sorts of promises and never worked to fulfill them after being elected.
I guess the steady diet of mean tweets and "Trump can't do anything right about the pandemic" paid off.
Go to the head of the class! Yes, what we are seeing is what Biden told us he would do. But Biden has only been listening to and following the advice of experts. Biden certainly didn't think this through.
When the experts began pushing alternatives really hard, some of us were asking questions about the transition. Questions like 'what happens to the price of oil and gas as we cut use?' We can only replace gas powered vehicles with EVs at a rate of about 10 million per year. So a transition will require more than a decade. The risk is that without support and subsidies, oil and gas will drop out of the market before the transition can be completed and we'll be screwed.
Just like we're screwed now. This isn't the first time oil has been selling at $120 per barrel. But we haven't experienced a national average $5.00 pump price before. Biden has botched the transition before we've really started. Way to go, Joe.
Correct.
Our highly divisive political environment drives the party in power to 'go for it while they can'. This means that medium/long-term sensible solutions are not even considered. Our political parties (and that includes the voters supporting same) have rendered the federal government entirely incompetent under the burden of divisive partisan politics.
Further, it does not help when a large chunk of the electorate is indifferent about the strategic urgency to move to clean renewable energy.
The political environment drives toward larger scale. The government is subsidizing big business to score green political points. From the viewpoint of consumers nothing changes. The consumer doesn't care if power is generated by coal or wind. What the consumer cares about are the reliability of energy supply and the size of the utility bills. Green energy isn't going to liberate consumers from dependence upon large scale providers. So, a transition in generation doesn't really mean much to consumers.
IMO people aren't that opposed to a transition to alternative energy. What people are opposed to is the scale of the transition. The advocacy for green energy benefits utilities and large businesses; they're not intended to benefit consumers. Consumers are only being required to bear the burden of sacrifice and hardship for a transition and when that transition has been completed everything remains the same from viewpoint of the consumer. We're spending a helluva lot of money and end consumers won't see any change other than the size of their utility bills.
The politics is pursuing the wrong scale. That big government support for big scale projects isn't intended to benefit consumers. Abstract idealism won't pay the utility bills.
A vague claim that is not supported by your argument.
Of course it does; the transition itself directly affects prices they pay and the technologies they use. But, as you affirm, many are indeed indifferent to renewable energy.
I did not argue that the people are opposed to it but rather that a good portion are indifferent. Meaning: they do not care about a transition and are perfectly comfortable continuing with fossil fuels.
I'm not aware of government advocacy to transition away from utility scale generation. In fact, the government has been sponsoring increased size of solar and wind farms.
The energy efficiency of alternatives (solar, wind, and, even, nuclear) isn't improved by increasing scale. Utility scale deployment of alternatives is actually less energy efficient than micro-scale deployment. So far government advocacy for alternatives has prioritized profit efficiency.
Yes, I missed the significance of 'indifference' in your comment. But that 'indifference' is because consumers will see no change from their viewpoint. Consumers are at the end of the supply infrastructure and only obtain energy from that infrastructure. It really doesn't matter how that energy is produced because consumers are separated from production by the supply infrastructure. Consumers expect that infrastructure to deliver a reliable supply of energy at the lowest possible cost.
You seem to be on a different topic. I do not know about you, but I was speaking of the relationship between political divisiveness and the lack of a sensible, strategic initiative to transition towards renewable energy.
And they are not aware of the substantial problems of continuing our dependence and usage of fossil-fuel (and related) energy.
Doesn't the political divisiveness stem from lack of a sensible plan to transition? As we've already discussed, the end consumer of energy is indifferent to renewable alternatives because they're obtaining energy from the supply infrastructure.
Hardly, the political divisiveness is a dynamic that has been growing for decades and entirely spans any issue.
No. Turn the statement around.
Political partisanship, tribal mentalities and Zero Sum thinking has led to a culture where the party in power razes what the prior one laid, fueled by thoughts from the outliers of both sides.
Now would seem to be an appropriate time to remind everyone that, in the United States, planning by political government is performed by lawyers. Attorneys are trained to be adversarial reactionaries; not trained to be proactive planners. Attorneys are trained to rely upon undemocratic, autocratic courts for solutions. Attorneys are trained to be Zero Sum thinkers. That's who we are electing to do the people's business and plan for the country's future.
If memory serves, we could have started the transition under Carter (39) but Reagan (40) said that this is AMERICA and we don't have to.
The United States began the transition in 1958 at . Any guesses who put the kibosh on that transition?
Who was responsible for choosing environmental regulations instead of fuel efficiency?
Not who but what. Three Mile Island 1979.
20 years after the transition began. Three Mile Island was an indicator that steam generation wasn't the best use of nuclear power. Those large reactors were initially designed to quickly produce material for weapons. Our military policy locked the transition into the wrong scale.
And we're now locked into utility scale for solar and wind. Wrong scale. There's been no planning for a transition. The beauty of alternatives (including nuclear) is ability to provide energy at point of use -- no grid and no logistics. But that would be a micro-scale application.
Isn't she partially correct? I mean didn't the demand for oil reduce due to the pandemic and as a result there was a glut of oil so they stopped pumping so much. Then Russia and OPEC got into a price war in an effort to cripple the American domestic production industry which caused Trump to reach out to OPEC to agree to reduce their production in an effort to save domestic production. But demand was low still and that also included refineries that were not working anywhere close to capacity. Then the Biden administration brought about their new rules and EO's to reduce climate emissions which caused refineries to shut down because the demand wasn't there and it was cheaper to shut down the refineries than to upgrade them to meet the new requirements. And now that demand has come back, supply cannot meet demand which as we all know results in higher prices.
But rather than relax the enhancements for climate emissions to allow the old refineries to be brought back online it seems the government would rather use the opportunity to continue to push for their green new deal. I forget who first said 'never let a crisis go to waste' but this sure seems to fit the bill...
Being partly (or even mostly) correct on the diagnosis doesn't address the problem. Finding the appropriate scapegoats and excuses isn't a solution to the problem.
Oil has achieved $120 per barrel before and pump prices didn't rise to a national average of $5.00 per gallon. The price of ethanol is very much higher now than pre-pandemic. And gasoline requires ethanol; it's not just about the price of oil. The new environmental requirements imposed during the pandemic on both gasoline refining and ethanol production really has created a bottleneck at the end of the supply chain. This isn't a supply chain problem, it's a production problem.
Biden has invoked the Defense Production Act and temporarily lifted tariffs on solar panels. But Biden can't do anything about gasoline prices except blame Putin or Trump or oil producers? How many oil refineries could be built with the $40 billion in aid to Ukraine? Biden has been pretty extravagant with public money for a variety of favored pandering objectives. But the best Biden can do is shift the sacrifice and hardship onto the American people when his politics doesn't fit the problem.
Our oil prices are NOT caused by the USA lacking refineries (we have plenty of refinery capacity; we did not just magically lose refineries) and building refineries now would at best increase capacity for years down the road; which is NOT what we should be doing anyway.
Those gross numbers also tell us that releasing oil from the petroleum reserve won't solve the problem.
The EIA is reporting a decline in refinery capacity for 2020. Even the link you provided shows a decline in refining capacity of 1 million barrels per day for 2021 (looking at the annual data). Keep in mind that not all the oil supplied to refineries are converted to fuels, too.
The EIA is also showing disruptions in fuel ethanol production.
Also keep in mind that the east and west coasts are pretty much isolated from supplies of refined product. The east and west coasts depend upon regional refineries to supply refined product.
A more granular look at the data really does suggest that refining capacity has become a bottleneck.
Correct.
Do we have unused capacity? It the unused capacity significant? The answer is 'yes' on both counts. Thus the current prices are not a consequence of capacity and thus it is incorrect to point to Biden's policies as the culprit.
The link you provided explicitly shows a decline of 1 million barrels per day in operating capacity between 2019 and 2021. Idled capacity doesn't mean that capacity can be utilized. Changes in environmental requirements can idle capacity. Disruptions in pipelines, shipping, or rail service can idle capacity.
According to EIA, there are 129 operating refineries in the United States. So, losing one refinery would have an extremely large impact on gasoline prices. And constructing one new refinery would also have a dramatic impact on gasoline prices.
Changing environmental requirements on a single cracking unit at a refinery can have a significant impact. That doesn't mean the entire refinery has been shuttered. Refining capacity depends upon operating units within larger facilities.
You refuse to acknowledge that the decline is minor and that plenty of capacity exists.
Says who? Also, constructing a refinery takes years.
You have failed to demonstrate that domestic refineries do not have the capacity to meet current demand. The problem is not capacity, it is that production was cut due to lack of demand driven by the pandemic and production has NOT returned to a suitable level. No new refineries need to be built to accomplish this.
Yellen is a good trooper, pushing the Biden party line no matter what.
Their answer will come this November.
I'm glad that Yellen has a fifty year plan for inflation.
I was beginning to worry that Democrats might get hammered in November.
It won’t be long now.
Dems better gird their loins for the coming judgement day of Bidenomics.
November 8th.
For liberals it’s going to be a ....... bad dream!
I think what people need is some straight talk on our inflation as opposed to spin.
Because it doesn't look like either party has a realistic plan to do much about it beyond letting the Fed tinker with interest rates.
Plenty of straight talk out there right now.
You just have to be willing to listen
The Republicans have little in the way of helpful ideas on inflation.
Fortunately, Joe Manchin knew how to keep it from getting worse.
Straight talk by Republicans:
Don’t be an enemy to one of the largest sectors in our economy adding to inflation. The fossil fuel industry.
Biden? Not so much.
I am particularly biased against inflation because I am on a fixed income. Larry Summers caught my attention early on with regard to whether inflation was transitory or not.
For the record Larry Summers claims he supports the BBB spending bill because it is spread out over a decade and will do things that will make the economy more productive. I'm a little too panicked about inflation to want to hear another word about the biggest spending bill since FDR. Anyway, BBB seems to be dead and buried. It's yesterday's business talk.
The question is what to do about the inflation we have? Some of it is no doubt due to the Covid relief we've already spent. I guess they put too much money in people's hands? The thing is a killer recession back in 2021 might have been harder to control than the inflation we have now.
It's always easier to point at past inaccurate moves than guess the correct next ones.
Here's another thing to notice. Everyone talks about putting too much money into consumers' hands and nobody talks much about how we spiked the financial markets a bit too much. They had basically negative interest rates and were doing all that quantitative easing for far too long.
The Fed is finally playing catch up and fixing the demand side of the economy with higher interest rates and a quashed policy on purchasing debt.
What could we do about the supply side? Something nobody really wants to discuss right now: ease up on immigration restrictions.
There's something like two job openings for everyone seeking a job. Ouch.
Here's a quick read over at Forbes which gives a more nuanced take:
What Is Holding Back U.S. Oil Production?
It seems that the oil companies were disrupted by Covid both with regard to consumer demand suddenly cratering in early 2021 and labor shortages. Some wells were permanently capped and some are hard to restart. And then there is pressure from investors to emphasize return on investment rather than growth. (Raise prices on the oil you have to sell rather than increase supply.)
I think that last sentence might be translated by some Democrats as "corporate greed."
A close reading of that article gives little reason to believe that a change of political parties in Washington, DC will fix the oil production problems over night.
Don’t know if you’ve ever owned and/or run a business before but words matter when they are uttered by a POTUS. Not just Republican presidents.
Joe Biden and I quote:
“I guarantee you, we’re going to end fossil fuel.”
That does not exactly inspire the investment and confidence required to help lower energy costs. Republicans don’t talk that way towards the fossil fuel industry.
Put another way:
I guarantee you, we’re going to end (insert way to make a living). Your job, my job, anyone’s job. I’m sure you would understand it then.
Yes they do! Keep that in mind not just for Biden's words but in consideration of the evidence provided by the Jan 6th committee.
No need to. If you had read my comment with comprehension, you would have seen that was already implied.
As for reading comprehension, you should have seen that my reference was specifically to the Jan 6th hearings.
So, specifically, when Trump spoke publicly as PotUS angering crowds by declaring a rigged election, disenfranchisement and encouraging his supporters to act to save the country, his words carried great influence. Do you agree with that or will you dismiss his words as merely free speech?
I wasn’t responding to your comment. You were responding to mine. Please practice better reading comprehension next time you do so or simply don’t bother responding.
So as I’ve already clearly implied, all presidents own the comments they make. That said, how microcosms of deluded individuals interpret those comments is of little interest to me.
Ever.
When Trump spoke publicly as PotUS angering crowds by declaring a rigged election, disenfranchisement and encouraging his supporters to act to save the country, his words carried great influence.
When that argument is used as part of an argument that Trump was complicit in the Jan 6th insurrection, you will not claim that Trump's words had nothing to do with the insurrection.
We shall see.
And the House committee is going to do as much to address Trump as Janet Yellen is doing to address inflation and high gas prices. Yellen has even argued that what is happening in the economy is a 'good' thing. Why would it be surprising to hear arguments that what Trump did was a 'good' thing? Goose and gander get the same sauce.
Everyone's trying to ride the fence. Politics has been riding the fence so long that now all we have are a bunch of sore assholes in elected office. Our democracy isn't hemorrhaging; it has hemorrhoids.
Explain how Trump's Big Lie campaign (all that it entailed, I hopefully need not enumerate) is a good thing for the nation.
Yes we will.
That said, I once again refer you back a previous post for your comprehensive assistance:
The bias of your comments made here, is well known.
The 'good' thing about Trump's asshat scheme? The scheme depended entirely upon state governments asserting authority over the Federal government. Trump succeeding in his scheme would have required state governments to be subordinate to the Federal government which wasn't going to happen. State governments would have rejected the legitimacy of Trump remaining President. States run elections, the Federal government does not. And state governments have authority over the legitimacy of elections, the Federal government does not.
Trump attempted to create a Constitutional crisis that would have strengthened the original intent of the Constitution. Trump's scheme would have strengthened state governments as a check on the Federal government as outlined in the Constitution. Why do you think Federal level politicians were scared shitless by Trump's scheme? The house of cards they've built would have fallen. The Constitution would have worked as it was intended to work.
So where is the benefit to the nation by Trump acting on his Big Lie? You offer no explanation of why his words and deeds in this campaign were good for the nation.
The benefit is strengthening the Constitution against political shenanigans.
Trump failed because of the strength of the Constitution. Trump's misuse of assumed authority was rather obvious. The response to Trump's scheme has assumed authority that less obviously attempts to weaken the Constitution.
The Federal government does not determine the legitimacy of elections. The Senate procedure to accept election results certified by the states is really about acknowledging that the Federal government is subordinate to state authority over democracy.
Trump's actions did not strengthen the CotUS. It is the exact opposite — the CotUS and those who support it stopped Trump's attempted stealing of an election.
Your argument is akin to saying that the catching of a thief strengthens laws against stealing.
Doesn't it?
So following your logic, would you think it a good thing if crime were to increase because it would lead to more criminal charges and thus 'strengthen' the laws against stealing?
Yes, it proves the laws/rules that were legislated, are theoretically working.
If someone tries to break a law you consider that a good thing because it proves the law 'theoretically works'?
That reasoning suggests it would be good for every losing PotUS to attempt to steal the election because that proves the CotUS is "theoretically working".
Yours is a fine example tortured logic.
A specious argument. The ridiculous counter argument would be that you are claiming that decreases in crime demonstrates the law is weak. That counter argument would be as specious as your argument.
The original intent of the law has not changed. An increase in crime would indicate a change in interpreting the original intent of the law that ultimately weakens the law. Straying from the original intent really does weaken the purpose of the law.
Strengthening the law isn't about creating more laws, it's about removing interpretations that weaken the original intent of the law.
A renewal of the original intent and purpose of the law is a 'good' thing for society. The same is true for the Constitution.
No, Nerm, you are the one who claimed that breaking a law is GOOD because doing so strengthens the law. Thus the ridiculous counter argument goes against your own argument.
A renewal —in and of itself— of the original intent and purpose of the law is good for society. The same is true for the Constitution.
You, however, have claimed that it is GOOD for people to break the law or violate the Constitution. You take a BAD initiative (Trump's Big Lie campaign) and attempt to spin it as GOOD because all the shit the nation went through might cause us to renew our laws/interpretations.
Such tortured logic. Coupled with the dishonest tactic of attempting to transfer ownership of your argument to me. Amazing.
Bottom line: you claim it was GOOD for the nation for Trump to engage in his Big Lie campaign to steal the election by turning people against the government, etc. because this attack on our constitution and laws causes us to maybe 'renew' same.
Thus by the same stupid logic you would find a crime spree to be GOOD for the nation since it would cause us to 'renew' the laws that were being broken.
Let's take a major league BAD and try to spin it into a GOOD.
No, that's NOT what I said. YOUR falsehood isn't a truth, no matter how much political spin you put on it.
Best to understand logic before preaching about logic. You've been caught in a 'Trump' -- own it.
Okay, Nerm, state your argument in concise and clear terms.
Seems to me you are trolling, but I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt (see above).
Nah but your constant attempts to obfuscate and insult, what others say here on NT, is strange.
[Deleted]
And there it is .... the ever present and obligatory accusation of trolling of a person who simply holds a different opinion.
Sad.
@5.1.20 is a precise and clear statement. You're response in @5.1.21 explains why.
From your simile, it is catching the thief that strengthens the law.
You're the one who pursued a strawman fallacy in @5.1.27. And the weird thing about it, the strawman argument is being made against your own comment @5.1.21. Now you are attempting to lecture others about logic and trolling?
You are trolling yourself and don't even realize it.
That's good.... No ! That's bad
Your logic would claim that it is GOOD for the thief to steal. Your logic justifies that nonsense by arguing that stealing strengthens the law.
Thus, using your logic, thievery is GOOD.
Now apply this to the Trump scenario:
Your claim is that it is GOOD that Trump engaged in his Big Lie campaign. You justify that nonsense by arguing that stopping his campaign strengthened the CotUS.
Thus, using your logic, Trump's Big Lie campaign was GOOD.
Your logic is bizarre. You take a profound BAD (Trump's Big Lie) and deem it to be GOOD for the nation because dealing with it ostensibly strengthens the CotUS. You are bending over backwards to find a silver lining and then you flip Trump's Big Lie BAD for the nation into a GOOD for the nation.
Here is another analogy to illustrate your bizarre logic; your logic would yield: 'It is GOOD for you to be infected with COVID-19 because your immune system will develop antibodies.' (Assuming you survive.)
Yes it is GOOD to have antibodies but it is BAD to be infected with COVID-19. (Being vaccinated, however, does not do harm to the body and accomplishes the same result.)
It is GOOD for the nation to strengthen the CotUS but it is BAD for the sitting PotUS to engage in a large-scale lying scheme, coercing officials, suborning the VP to act unconstitutionally, etc. Trump's actions were BAD for the nation, not GOOD for the nation. Your silver lining of 'strengthening the CotUS' does not flip a profoundly BAD act into a GOOD one for the nation.
That's a strawman argument. And you are arguing against your own statements. You are the one that stated the predicate that catching thieves strengthens the law.
The purpose of the law is to catch thieves. It's catching thieves that strengthens or weakens the law. Catching more thieves strengthens the law, catching fewer thieves weakens the law.
I'm not making any claims about Trump's Big Lie campaign. I'm pointing out that the benefit from stopping Trump's Big Lie campaign strengthened the Constitution. The Constitution fulfilled its purpose. The Constitution worked as it was intended to work. The Constitution working as it was intended reaffirms and strengthens the Constitution.
It wasn't Trump's Big Lie campaign that strengthened the Constitution. And the House Big Show campaign isn't strengthening the Constitution, either.
Trump is supposed to represent a problem, a threat to Constitutional government. But everyone is straddling the fence. The Constitution working as it was intended threatens the Big Lie of Trump's opposition, too. That's what Janet Yellen is doing; straddling the fence for much the same reason.
Nerm, that was an illustration of the absurdity of your logic. Hello? If stopping Trump's Big Lie strengthens the CotUS then catching thieves strengthens the law and, as I noted, getting infected with COVID-19 strengthens your immune system.
In all cases we have a net BAD that has an arguable silver lining. But that silver lining does not flip the net BAD into a net GOOD.
To wit, Trump's Big Lie campaign as well as the nation having to deal with it was BAD for the nation; your silver lining does not change that.
And, thus, as I have noted, your logic argues that it would be GOOD to have more thieves because that would cause us to catch more and thus strengthen the law. And the corollary, your logic suggests that if we had fewer thieves we would catch fewer and thus weaken the law.
Your logic is tortured.
Yeah, Nerm, I have been addressing that in this thread. You point out the benefit (aka silver lining) of stopping Trump's Big Lie campaign. You focus on a silver lining:
Trump's Big Lie was BAD for the nation; focusing on a silver lining does not flip the BAD into a GOOD.
Is it GOOD to be infected with COVID-19 since this causes your immune system to develop antibodies (assuming you survive)?
I would say that it is BAD to be infected with COVID-19. It is GOOD to NOT be infected. But if you are infected, there is a silver lining of antibodies if you survive. That silver lining does not flip being infected from BAD to GOOD.
Don't all those 'illustrations' do exactly what you say they do?
You are the only one making that claim in this discussion. And that claim is a strawman argument against your own 'illustrative' predicates.
The flaw in your logic is that catching more thieves doesn't mean there would be more thieves; there would actually be fewer thieves because they are being caught.
Joe Biden really is POTUS; Donald Trump is not POTUS. Why? The states ran elections and the states certified the validity and legitimacy of their elections. The states asserted their authority over the Federal government as the Constitution intended.
The Federal government was not involved in Biden becoming POTUS. Congress wasn't involved in Biden becoming POTUS.
So, what is it about Trump's Big Lie that makes it BAD?
Do you understand what is meant by the term 'silver lining'? You seem to act as though I do not recognize that you are saying that the 'silver lining' is good. I of course recognize the silver lining and labeled it as such. I offered examples with silver linings so labeled. What I am pointing out is that it is ridiculous 'logic' to deem something GOOD simply because one can find a 'silver lining' somewhere in the outcome.
The fact that you even ask such a question supports my position that you are trying to flip a BAD to a GOOD.
Trump's Big Lie campaign and the effort expended to prevent him from succeeding is BAD for the nation because it lowers the bar. The next time someone engages in activities like this it will not be seen as so outrageous because " after all, what Trump did was worse ". And if the future activity is on par with what Trump did then we have " This is no worse than what Trump did in 2020 ". This is why Trump, et. al. must be held accountable.
This is also obviously bad because the PotUS has introduced even more divisiveness into the nation. He brought the integrity of the US electoral system into question based on proven false charges. He demonized the D party with a claim that they had tried to steal an election while he (with support from some of the GOP) engaged in precisely an attempt to steal an election.
On top of that, we have all the negatives resulting from Trump attempting to overturn the results of the election by abusing the authority of his office and against the Constitution:
And you ask what makes Trump's Big Lie campaign BAD??
The purpose and intent of the law, Constitution, and immune response were established before the event. When those work as intended that isn't a 'silver lining'.
The purpose for asking is to obtain an understanding of the claim of 'BAD' by those making the claim.
Which election? There were actually 51 separate elections for President. There wasn't a single election for President. Trump attempting to manipulate the election outcome in various states may (or may not) have violated the election laws of those states. That's up to state courts to decide. Trump's Big Lie did not violate Federal law other than possibly requirements and restrictions on the activity of the President. And Trump was impeached for violating the requirements and restrictions on the activities of the President. Trump has been tried by Congress and acquitted for Jan. 6th.
Incendiary political language is not illegal. Political language that is not factual or attempts to mislead is not illegal. Political language that is deliberately divisive is not illegal. Using the courts for political purposes is not illegal. Utilizing legal methods and procedures for political purposes is not illegal.
Trump's Big Lie is ethically questionable, in bad taste, delusional, separated from reality, subversive, and deliberately divisive. But those attributes apply to many other political activities in today's society.
The silver lining you expressed is the strengthening of the CotUS.
And now you resort to pure deflection.
We were talking about Trump's Big Lie being good for the nation. Clearly it was not. Now you offer that other people do bad things too.
Good grief man.
The purpose of the law is to make thievery illegal.
Weather or not someone steals or not neither strengthens or weakens the law.
My take on Nerm's strengthening point is that the act of enforcing the law strengthens the law in terms of perception. So in the case of Trump's Big Lie, the actions taken by many agents (independent and without central coordination other than the rule of law founded in the CotUS) to block Trump's scheme reinforces the rationale and importance of constitutional safeguards, procedures and methods. One could also argue that this could lead to legislators fixing weaknesses in the law and thus making the law stronger. This is tepid reasoning at best but if one is generous one can see a point in there.
So I can grant Nerm, for the sake of argument, this 'good' as a silver lining; and I did that.
However his notion that this somehow means that it was good for Trump to engage in his Big Lie campaign so that it can be stopped by enforcement actions is clearly ridiculous ... it is tortured logic offering a bizarre semi-defense of Trump. It is as ridiculous as arguing that it is good to be infected with COVID-19 because (if you survive) you will have antibodies.
"the way in which we can assure reasonable energy expenses for households is to move to renewables"
And the way to fight obesity is to stop producing food.
No, it’s to tell people what they can and can’t eat. And tell them what they can and can’t think. Then we all can party like it’s 1984.
I would question the tortured logic that brought that statement about, but I think I will let it stand as a testament to obtuseness