spidermanchild

Show us where the Cheneys registered as Democratics and abandoned the Republican party. Voting for someone from another party doesn't make you a member.

They outlined their reasoning, you continue to ignore it and make up a weird story about the democrats fully aligning all of their policy stances to those of the Cheneys. In reality, they just hate Trump and recognize the unique danger he poses. It's not complicated.

Once again you're willfully ignoring all context.

You're right of course, but the nuance is that research takes time. We need to start working on it now so we will be ready to scale the technology when we have surplus renewable energy. It's a tricky balance.

It's like you're willfully ignoring all context, wild.

"I helped put W and Cheney into power, now even those ghouls think Harris is better than Trump, so I guess I'll help out Trump in power" --> you.

When I think of a "do nothing party", the Greens are at the top of the list. They quite literally do nothing and have no power, except to spoil tight races in the direction of conservatism/fascism. I guess if that's you're goal, you're happy.

The Cheney cohort supports Harris not because she is a conservative warmonger, they support her because she'll broadly maintain US legal and political structures, which as they've stated, they feel are more important than specific policy. I.e., she will preserve the state of the Republic and not do the fascism thing. They're endorsement says a lot more about Trump than it does about Harris, which you probably know but are being purposely disingenuous about.

Good luck with your third parties in a system that mathematically will never support a third party though, real big brain stuff. You're literally playing a different game than everyone else.

To be clear, I'm not trying to convince you of anything, this is for anyone else that may happen upon this thread that might be smart enough to connect the dots about an alternate reality where Gore won the election with respect to climate change.

I'm too lazy to look this up, but I believe death rates were higher out of cities vs in cities. Half the reason hospitals were packed in cities is because rural people went where the ventilators were. Everywhere had all the covid waves, they just hit cities first.

Elderly tend to be more R, and D folks were more likely to mask and vaccinate. But elderly vaccinated pretty well across the board and the divide was bigger in the young. Lots of factors, but my money is on D making out slightly better as a broad cohort. Tragic all around though.

Ok I did some searching and excess mortality points to higher rural impact, but official cause of death data is mixed (too lazy to link though).

https://penntoday.upenn.edu/news/penn-sas-comparing-urban-and-rural-excess-mortality-during-covid-19-pandemic

Nader, the spoiler candidate that gave us GW Bush instead of Al Gore, the climate guy? If you're in FL you should be profoundly embarrassed, and if you're in a different state just regular embarrassed.

Notice they barely mention refrigerants because they are planning to use HFOs to meet low GWP targets rather than only actually sustainable choice - natural refrigerants. HFOs are PFAS and we are already seeing environmental accumulation of PFAS (primarily TFA) directly linked to HFO use around the world. We need to shift to natural refrigerants now.

Any chance this is sensitive enough to pick up methane emissions from particularly gassy individuals in their homes? Asking for a friend.

Are you just making up phrases at this point? Show us where in the definition of capitalism that human rights exist.

Yes, it was very clear (native speaker here). Something like this is more commonly spoken than written, so I can see why it might be confusing. If your experiencing with English is more formal (via education, reading, etc) vs talking to a whole bunch of different people, that would explain it.

Nobody said it was difficult to understand. I agree it's a dead simple idea, and like most dead simple ideas it's not actually a good idea. There's a reason Bernie Sanders wholeheartedly endorsed Kamala (and Hillary), but sure, all the .ml folks must know better. If you think Bernie is too centrist then you need to understand that your cohort is so laughably out of step with the populace that you'll never get anywhere. Kind of like where PSL is at with zero seats (ever, btw, not just currently).

Real people will be harmed by another Trump term. Immigrants, women, POC, LGBT, basically anyone other than healthy white men. It says a lot when you think they're all disposable enough to help Trump to win in the hopes of a future socialist movement that won't ever happen because the movement can't even win a single seat anywhere in the country. AOC correctly called the green party "not serious" and they've actually won a small handful of elections, unlike PSL. Movements start from the bottom up, not the top down.

Is that why PSL has a grand total of zero members in office? I thought surely there must be a few, but nope - zero. It's literally a joke to run a candidate for president when you don't have a single member serving in any elected office in the entire country. It's laughable.

And sure, maybe it's not "true accelerationism" but it's a common term to describe leftists that embrace people like Trump because they are deluded into thinking it will somehow break the system and a communist utopia can magically rise from the ashes. Call it whatever you want, but it will never be a good idea.