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

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!

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

• January 6th, including both the violence at the national Capitol and related, often violent protests outside verious state capitols
• Death threats to election count and poll workers
• Republican legislator invites armed men into the Oregon State Capitol during a protest
• Armed protestors rally around the tallying center in Detroit while the count was ongoing
• Brawl with counterprotestors at the “million Maga march”
• Violent “Stop the steal” protests in Sacramento

I wouldn’t say there was just a little violence after the 2020 loss

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

That’s not right wing. Do not allow right wingers to hide in the shadow of your reasonable political views by assuming their identity. Call yourself a market capitalist, a liberal, or even a Reagan-era Republican if you believe that is what your views align to and are speaking in an American context, but don’t let yourselves be used to rehabilitate the image of the right wing. They will only take that as a permission structure to hold more and more heinous views while pointing at you and others like you and saying "see, we are reasonable people with serious political positions that deserve a voice at the table. They don’t represent you, so why give them leverage to claim that they do?

Spending energy to convince conservatives to vote D is not a winning strategy. The idea is to convince those who are convincable, not to create some epiphany moment when all the Republicans stand up and say they were wrong and switch parties. This is naming and shaming as an electoral strategy, not as a punishment

It’s easier to read if you read it as a line spoken by the Silicon Valley TV character Jian Yang

To be honest, I’m struggling to keep track of the points you are making because you brought in several tangential topics all at once without much context (shale gas vs. oil, oil exports, LCOE, Poland all in a thread about solar energy in Finland compared to fossil fuel energy in Texas). I’ll just point out that the US is #4 in oil exports, by either barrels or export value (source: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_oil_exports) and the number one oil producer (source: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_oil_production), so I think it is pretty obvious that the investments into fossil fuel infrastructure in the US are well and above what is necessary for a “strategic reserve” use case

Right now a lot of “renewable energy” sources are subsidized in Europe for only political reasons.

I can assure you the same is true for fossil fuels in Texas right now, so I don’t see how this is a strike on renewable energy

Nvidia does not have a strong history of open sourcing things, to say the least. That last bit sounds like pure hopium

It’s definitely not that. They are just pointing out that the right to free speech prevents the government from impeding someone’s ability to say something, it doesn’t (despite implications made by a lot of people who cry out that their right to free speech is being impeded) force others to listen to or agree with that thing being said. If anything, the people that abuse the name of free speech by implying that it means people need to agree with them, or need to amplify their message, are attacking free speech by mudding the water around what it means and making it harder for good faith entities to invoke that right