You asked a question (where have Kamala and Trump been?). I answered in what I believe was a relevant manner to the topic at hand and is a salient rebuttal of your “observation”. I don’t see how your claim to not care is relevant, you’re going to have to explain that one to me. For the record, I’m not the person you were replying to, nor have I watched a single episode of Maddow
We are maybe talking past each other? You responded to a comment asking where Jill Stein was the last 4 years, which is a question attached to the argument that her lack of efforts in the off years is evidence that she is not running a serious candidacy. You responded by asking what about the two big party candidates offseason’s actions, implying that you believe their actions are deficient under a similar line of critique. I pointed out that they did campaign to increase the standing of their platform and their party through lower level elections in the off years, which seems like a pretty strong rebuttal to the implication that they are not actively working to promote their positions throughout government. Perhaps you can explain why you view that as irrelevant
Literally, they were both out campaigning for their party’s candidates in elections in 2021, 22, and 23
… Your ballot was 74 pages? How? My city makes a big deal when we have to use the back of the 1 sheet of 11x18 paper. Granted we have off year elections in our state, so things are a little more divided, but that’s a long way from a 74 page short story of a ballot
This passive language bullshit is so obvious sometimes. “Oh, I wonder what the cyclist did to get run over? And that poor SUV driver getting charged for murder because of this event, Paris is really going off the deep end finding ways to attack innocent drivers.” And yet, per the article, the SUV driver ran down the cyclist in a fit of road rage. That sounds an awful lot like an active choice by the driver, not some passive circumstance that the headline implies. If this person got angry and attacked someone with a knife, and the victim died, the headline wouldn’t be “Knife owner charged with murder after person stabbed”. But use the “right” weapon and all of a sudden we put the kiddie gloves on
How does this article not include a picture of the namesake genitalia of this spider? Looks like it is out of frame on the one picture included
I’m assuming they are referring to the fact that this is an unironic usage of a format that typically contains an ironic message. But I think this format is used to express counter narratives of all kinds, both serious and unserious, so I wouldn’t call this an incorrect usage. I mean, the format already has some bone hurting juice energy to start with, so I think gatekeeping its usage is maybe outside of the spirit of the template
Hi! I just want to say fuck you for making me laugh at such a bad pun. I thought I had taste. I’m devastated
It’s maybe worth pointing out that the analysis covers 10 years and appears to account for $0 in GDP growth (and corresponding tax base growth) dependent on those policies. If I’m reading this correctly (big if to be fair): Assuming the government continues to capture 17.5% of US GDP, Harris’ policies would need to generate roughly 4% GDP growth per year (no small feat, granted) to be net zero relative to absolute debt levels and less than that to be net zero relative to debt as a percentage of GDP. Government expenditure is not like consumer spending because almost every dollar it spends looks less like consumption and more like an investment, and leveraging investments is actually a valid strategy, especially when you have the economic momentum/inertia of a nation state to balance the risks involved with debt, and that is before you even get into fiscal monetary policy
Dang, you’re right, I was wrong. It calls for NWS to be commercialized, which could technically be interpreted as either sell off the assets to weather.com or as lay off all the employees and pay weather.com 10x their salary in contracts to get the same product. It calls for NOAA to be downsized alongside NWS’ commercialization. It calls for FEMA to pay much less out to states and eliminate its preparedness grants and insurance programs. All that in mind, it kind of seems tailor made to specifically fuck over Florida and other hurricane/flooding prone states, but it doesn’t call for eliminating the agencies. My bad, thanks for the correction!
I don’t know why I was surprised to see pictures of an actual dick in that article and not just statues
Okay, but they literally said they would eliminate them in Project 2025. It’s being awful generous to claim they only want to do the lite version of eliminate. Boil the frog is over, MAGA is masks off crazy. They probably won’t be able to do it, because odds are good that the House at least will be blue in 2025 thanks to some of the more egregious gerrymanders getting fixed, but that doesn’t mean they don’t openly want to do it. These people are not smooth operators stealing brand awareness, they are chimpanzees flinging shit at the wall
And natural gas was supposed to be an transition energy source to get America off coal so that we could transition to renewable energy. History has not been kind to the “if we can just implement this greenwashed fossil fuel process, it’ll really allow us to unlock green energy potential down the road” promise
He’s not running for reelection, the Rs are getting that Senate seat this year
Sure, but 23% of LGBTQ voters aren’t voting for Harris, which is significantly less than a third (33%). Still higher than it should be, granted, but I am pretty sure that is what the original reply comment was pointing out.
From memory and a couple quick Google searches
I wouldn’t say there was just a little violence after the 2020 loss
Italy is 60% of the size of Spain and has a similar ratio of arable land (27.1 vs 27.9% per Wikipedia, Spain is also quite mountainous). Doesn’t really invalidate the point in your comment, but I expected a bigger difference when comparing "immense spaces and flat fields"to a mostly mountainous fraction of the territory
The city already settled to pay about $3 per resident for the cops’ bad behavior and to put cops in a training on political violence. If some of the cops in question live outside of the city (not uncommon), they probably won’t pay a dime and the only impact they will feel is sitting through a training session that they will probably not take seriously
short distances in solar radii
I think astrophycisists and I may have a difference of opinion on the meaning of the adjective short
12x GW*km at 9x the price is better than 1:1 performance/cost scaling. Obviously labor price and other factors make it not apples to apples, but that doesn’t seem like an awful scaling price premium