Ah, we should be glad the MAGA movement is doing 2 of those things to catch up to China then... which senator do I talk to about child labor? Oh they're mostly sitting on one side of the chamber?
You mean actually putting criminals in Jail and removing illegal immigrants from the country that the previous administration just let in? More of this please.
Even if Trump was authoritarian (which he's not), it doesn't excuse China's behavior. It's odd that you seem to think it does.
My guess is Chinese government shills, which always seems to happen when discussing these topics.
China is installing solar capacity at three times the rate of coal. What exactly is your point?
There's no "wonders of china", just the fact that we are falling further behind because of dumb policy which is justified by non sequiturs like "china also installs coal" or "china uses child labor".
It's weird to bring it up in response to an article about the US falling behind authorities china and how that's bad. Unless you think we can't improve our energy infrastructure in the USA without using child labor too?
> Unless you think we can't improve our energy infrastructure in the USA without using child labor too?
I think pointing out child labor anytime we're discussing someone who is doing it... actually is a good thing. You seem to not have your priorities on this.
Please stop being obtuse just because you're wrong.
Using "what about child labor" as a counterpoint to they are advancing at neck breaking speed, is a pointless argument because it's using a moral argument against a non-moral statement.
It's like saying: green energy is displacing coal towns, therefor it's bad!
Do you think moving a town is similar to child labor? What environment/culture do you live in where you do not want to stand up for children and would rather child labor not be brought up? Do you benefit from child labor?
> Weird you brought it up as something that should be ignored?
They didn't say it should be ignored but instead that it's not relevant to any point that was made by the person it's in reply to.
They are pointing out that something is true and then someone else points out how that thing became true, seemingly as a refutation of the initial point. The first point wasn't about how, so the second point is changing the topic.
