here's an article i read not too long ago from a reputable organization that proves that this is literally true
Yes. It was true in October and November of 2023, and then it stopped being true as domestic production fell from the peak it achieved in those months. Pretty sure I touched on this.
Your link is actually a really good overview of a lot of the issues involved, why this is still a massive problem whatever level of "progress" has been made, and the successes and failures of the current administration. Like I said, if you're up for a fact based discussion, that sounds great. It sounds like maybe you are not though. Like you didn't even seem to be aware that both of our arguments give the same date for the peak; you offered the October 2023 article as a sort of counterargument for me saying the peak was November 2023...
the policies are put in place to guarantee american hegemony and it doesn't matter if it's the chinese or the americans that will continue to fuck over the world for their own interests; i need these green products to continue earning a living in this country and so do many other people.
This is a fascinatingly specific type of non-answer to what I asked you. I asked whether climate-friendly policies that don't directly impact China were of interest to you. It kinda sounds like the answer is "no"...
nice cherry picking
Focusing on working class wages is not cherry-picking. I care more about what happens to working-class wages than I do about overall wages (although, it's also relevant that the biggest decline that I could find for overall wages relative to inflation was 3 percentage points). Doesn't that seem like a good thing to focus on? Or no?
this one is literally in recent living memory and so easy to find on google that it's crystal clear you're sealioning.
Yeah. Biden used to be much more conservative; he was part of that whole Clinton revolution of right-wing Democrats that was so horrifying in the 1990s. I didn't expect all that much out of him and then he somehow wound up being this super-progressive president, by the standards of Washington, and the Democratic congress more or less (with some fuckin HUGE asterisks on that it's true) went along with it. I was surprised. We need more of that; he was, of course, only progressive by the fairly low standards of Washington.
But it's still weird to me that you're clinging to the talking points when I'm clearly open to the conversation. IDK. Good luck I guess. You're giving me a chance to air out some of the factual details and expand on them, so I'm fine with talking about it even if you don't seem like you can really make sense of what I'm saying.
Fuck the DNC; on that we can agree
then why did you use it as an example that democrats have changed?
You are aware that "the Democrats" are not a monolith; that they have multiple people and even multiple subgroups within them? I used Bernie Sander's almost-successful candidacy as an example. The group of Democrats that kneecapped his presidency, I don't like, no. Replacing those jerks sounds great.