It's not a rabbit hole. Its history. Sorry if history is too complicated for your political lens. If actual behavior doesn't fit cleanly into the pidgin holes you use imagine/

The US Coal you refer to is primarily for export. US Industry continues in its 70 year long trend of replacing coal with cleaner burning fossil fuels like natural gas. Unlike China, which burns as much coal as they can mine or import. Hence its status as the #1 polluter in the world. If China had followed the western practice of replacing coal with cleaner fuels like natural gas the world would be a cleaner place. Today, both renewables and natural gas should be displacing coal in China, China's focus on renewables and coal is misguided.

It is highly regulated, thanks to unions.

That it exists at all, is thanks to unions. What is it set to was left to gov't, not industry.

No, for example they believed every worker should have an inexpensive family car (VW Beetle). That all workers should have family vacation time at at nice resort each year. Well, all workers that fit a particular racial and political demographic.

Yes and no, if they genuinely believed an idea they would embrace it, it would not be rejected because it's popular in socialist circles toot. They were absolutely practical, but not just in terms of loyalty, but in terms of what their sometimes quackery science believed would contribute to worker health or productivity.

Nope, they supported worker unions and industrial syndicates that were supervised by the party. As I said previously, both labor and industry were subordinate to the party. It was independence, operating outside of the party, or elements of socialism and capitalism that would compete against the party, that was crushed.

You misrepresent what I said. What I said is that the nazis would embrace a liberal socialist idea when and if it served the party in attaining or retaining power. The same was true for capitalism. That they were very practical in that manner. That the only thing they really cared about was that the party was supreme above all. To pretend they had no overlap with socialism is the falsehood.

Actually the top 1% of college athletes are probably the target. According to google, only 0.05% of all NCAA athletes qualify for the olympics, so if you're not in the top 0.5% you are probably not even on the tryout list.

Sounds like mentoring and development, encouraging a stretch to broaden an individual's skill set. Plus as more opinions are voiced the result may be better decisions, or at least fewer surprises.

And if bad times come around, they are the first to go and also with the least impact on the team or management.

They are following Trump to China for the same old scam that western business has gone to China for for nearly two centuries. The fantasy of selling whatever it is they make to the vast potential Chinese market. It never works. But each generations thinks "this time it will be different".

Not the way you think. Its not going up against, its going into partnership with. Big management, big labor, its just a game where they both skim a percentage and play polical power games.

Yes and no. The nazis genuinely believed in some of the idea from the left.

That's what many do, left and right. The demographics of the territory they wish to represent dictates their party affiliation.

Quite the contrary. It's the one-size-fits-all gov't solutions that typically make things worse. The conservatives tend to want to focus on smaller solutions that address those in trouble, not remake an entire system that is working well for many. Plus, some problems has a highly localized component, so solutions need to be more local in nature. In other words, if some are falling through the cracks address those people, not the entire system.

While a balanced budget is important, DOGE's goal was to shine a light on waste, fraud, and abuse. That is ongoing, just under a different name and under different leadership.

Quite the opposite. Child labor, unsafe working condition, 40-hour week, right to organize, minimum wages, compensation/insurance for on-the-job injuries, etc. And the retaliation they suffered was far greater than what today's activists face.

In the USA a "political liberal" is center left. Although there has been a stretching towards the deeper left in recent years.

The broader concept of "western liberalism" is something the US political left, center, and right had much agreement with.

Quite the opposite. Per capita is the misrepresentation in the case of national emission. The reason is because national emission are largely based on industrial behavior, not individual behavior. If anything, the proper alternative to total emissions would be per GDP since GDP is the metric of national output, both industrial and individual behavior.

China's per GDP numbers are also very bad compared to the west. While we all continue to use fossil fuels, the west at least prioritized based on emissions. The preference is natural gas due to lower emission. Unlike China where the preference is for coal due to low cost.

Note that China’s leader Xi Jinping describes emissions as per GDP:

"[2026 March 26] Despite being a renewables superpower, China continues to permit and build new coal-fired power plants at a rapid pace. Analysts say the nation’s new five-year plan will ensure further coal plant expansion and jeopardize China’s ability to deliver on its climate promises.
In 2021, China’s leader Xi Jinping made two important promises intended to signal China‘s commitment to fighting climate change. At the Leaders Climate Summit in that April, he announced that China would “strictly control” coal generation until 2025 when it would start to gradually phase it out. He also pledged that year that China would reduce the energy intensity of its economy — the amount of CO2 used to produce a unit of GDP — to 65 percent below 2005 levels by 2030. This month, as China unveiled its plans for the next five years, both promises appeared to be in trouble.
The 15th Five-Year Plan offered a chance to correct these negative trends and get China’s climate ambitions back on track, but it is an opportunity the government appears to have missed ... Instead, they changed the way they calculate energy intensity, perhaps to disguise the failure to meet Xi’s target, and set a looser ambition for the next five years. "
https://e360.yale.edu/features...

Management would be a good application for AI.

AI isn't trying to get promoted and doesn't need four-hour status meetings twice a week.