• 1 Post
  • 39 Comments
Joined 7 months ago
cake
Cake day: June 4th, 2024

help-circle
  • In the event there is one, I expect nothing less than Senator George Lang to be right there on the front lines leading the charge.

    Last Civil war took 2% of the entire US population with it. And that was during muskets and cannons. So I’m pretty sure Senator George Lang wouldn’t mind being one of the 7 million people (if we’re that lucky to keep that number that low) that a second Civil War would inevitably kill.

    All these blow hards cry war, but would start running with shit in their pants when the shelling starts. And looking at the turkey Senator George Lang is, I doubt man could run more than ten feet before being winded. A better title would be “Poster child for heart disease coward wouldn’t mind if a lot of other people killed each other so he could feel better about being unable to see his cornichon sized penis.”

    Fuck this cunt and any other like him that call for war and clearly have zero intent or ability to actually fight in one. If you aren’t wanting peace in your own country, you should see your dumb ass out.




  • you cannot copyright a drawn apple with a piece bitten off

    That’s correct, you can not do such. Apple does not litigate its logo with copyright but in trademark disputes. Prepear and Georette are examples of this.

    You too can create a logo of an apple with a piece bitten off. It’s up to a court to decide if it’s coming too close to the Apple trademark, most people want to just avoid that and settle amicably, but if you’ve got to the pocket change to fight it in court, you can argue that your bitten off apple isn’t a trademark infringement.

    If you find a company that isn’t keen to defend their logo, you can totally get away with it. Apple is on the other end of the spectrum of being someone who will protect their trademarks to the bitter end. Jack Daniels and Disney are two more examples of companies that will legally punch a five dollar start up into a bloody mass over trademarks.











  • And what exactly is there to stop the opposition from doing the same thing?

    Process. The same that that puts barriers on this discussion from AOC. The entire impeachment process is the understanding of the people who created this country, to have a political process that is departed from the legal process. That’s why being impeached doesn’t also mean criminally convicted and vice versa. Historically, if you were a vassal of the lord and had your fief removed, you couldn’t hold court with your lord AND you basically were penniless with the potential to end up in jail. The entire impeachment process is to separate those two things. That’s why the process is spelled out fully in the Constitution and the execution solely left to Congress to implement.

    There entire point of an impeachment is to execute some political justice without having legal justice married to it. What stops anyone from just abusing the process is the process itself and what it indicates for functioning government. If the goal is have no functioning government, then there isn’t anything that stops anyone from abuse. But no functioning government means that those in Congress would lose power, and a loss of power means they become less enticing for lobbyist to enact agendas, for people to seek recourse, and for States to enhance power within the vacuum.

    So an abuse of that power would end with them loosing more and more power. This is the same reason why Congress has had a hard time really pinning impeachment and contempt charges and have talked about inherent contempt for Garland (which inherent contempt is basically using Congress to enforce a contempt charge via the Sergeant-at-arms doing the arresting and Congress inventing a “trail” system all of their own outside of the Judicial system… which by the way SCOTUS way back in the 1930s, the last time this was used, indicated that THAT specific instance was not a violation of habeas corpus, but trying to ring Garland up on inherent contempt and trying to put him in Congress jail, would be such a complex process and likely wouldn’t survive a habeas corpus challenge, but who knows at this point? For all we know SCOTUS may be completely cool with Congress tossing people into Congress jail without a proper trail. But of course that brings with it ALL KINDS of ramifications about our Federal government jailing people in a a jail completely ran by Congress and outside the entire legal system, but I digress).

    Long story short, all of this stuff is political process. And you do all of this to further a political agenda to the public. But if the public isn’t backing that action, it has the ability to backfire in that entire you don’t get to come back to Congress or you weaken the overall power of the Federal government. So you have to look at the long term goal of anything you want to do with this process. Like the inherent contempt vote got delayed after the first Presidential debate. Biden’s performance was so bad that Republicans feel that they got what they wanted. The whole Garland audio tapes, the GOP wanted them so that they could play back the tapes to the public and show that Biden was losing his marbles. But now since the debate, there’s little reasons for the GOP to go down the tossing Garland into Congress jail and going down a path that’s likely to not play well for anyone except their most harden supporters.

    The process limits the process. That’s what prevent the whole “same thing”.

    Are we going to replace the court?

    I mean, yeah, that’s the goal. SCOTUS has had about a dozen cases that they’ve overturned decades long, and in some cases century long, established rule. One or two per lifetime of a justice is a lot to completely overturn. This court has overturned nearly a dozen long established rulings. The entire point of a justice system is to bring about stability to the political process. Congress answers to the public, and the public can change their mind often, so random laws flying over the place isn’t unusual. SCOTUS is not elected and thus they faintly answer to the public. So they need to have some stability to maintain legitimacy. Even Robert’s talked about this in the ruling that overturned Roe and felt the majority was going too far.

    So I think if the court itself is saying that it is ruining their own legitimacy, bringing them up into the political process to answer to these statements the court itself is making is fair game. And I don’t think that’s unfair to mention in that whole process. Judges don’t answer to the public, so justices that massively change the landscape in short orders of time, are shaking the stability they’re supposed to be building. If SCOTUS wants to rewrite the law of the land, it needs to be gradual not as fast as possible.




  • If they don’t replace Biden, we will get another Trump presidency

    One, they aren’t going to replace Biden. Two, that outcome they aren’t entirely concerned about. There’s some who look at that and go “Biden couldn’t possibly win now” and the thing is there’s an insanely small amount of people who are at this point undecided. We could have the election tomorrow and the vast majority of people know which button they are pushing and there is nothing that’s changing that outcome.

    It’s basically Trump vs Harris at this point, but with Biden still being a stand-in, Harris doesn’t have to get up there and show how little she can tango with Trump. That would actually move the needle. If Biden started pushing daisies tomorrow that would actually change the calculus.

    But this debate, as far as I know, zero people have changed their mind about who they are voting for. The RNC is going to nom a felon. The DNC is going to nom a zombie. Neither group is making sane decisions at this point in time because none of them give a shit. They aren’t replacing Biden just like the Republicans aren’t replacing Trump. We are all on this short bus full of Senior Citizens to hell for better or worse. Kicking and screaming all along the way, this is who have for November.

    If you think Biden can win after the world saw the debate performance, you’re delusional.

    The DNC brass, they don’t care, it’s a Tuesday to them if they lose. If Trump gets into power and rounds up all the gay people and shoots them in the head, hey I guess we’ll get on that in 2028 or something is what the DNC has to feel about that. It’s not that pressing a matter for them. And if Biden wins, the Republicans will just obstruct November 6th, the day after the election, just like they obstructed on January 6th. It is water under a bridge if Trump loses.

    You know I heard all this nonsense about “we just need to get Trump out of office” back in 2020. And I knew the day of the 2020 election, Trump isn’t going anywhere. If Trump loses 2024, Trump isn’t going anywhere. What people ought to be concerned about isn’t Trump sticking around, it’s when Trump dies off. Because we’re not getting rid of the crazy, we’re just going to get version 2.0 of the crazy.

    The people most affected by whatever outcome happens, those are the ones that are going to take the win or loss the hardest. But the political parties, and especially the RNC and DNC, all of this is just drops of rain on the glass. They are not replacing Biden, that is who we have unless he specifically croaks before we can get to the election.

    So if you do not like Trump, you push the Biden button or just stay home. That is the strat here from the DNC. But there’s so little undecided here, there is no energy to change course. If say the undecided was like 20%, maybe. But everyone knows whose button they are pushing, these debates aren’t going to change that.

    If Biden doesn’t win in November, Biden wasn’t going to win in October of last year. There are zero things either candidate can do that could change some number of people’s minds at this point to radically change the outcome of this election. Any everyone is quite aware of this, that’s the reason the DNC is going to send in a geriatric senile man and the RNC is going to send in a pompous felon.

    The election is already over, we just haven’t cast the ballots. The debates are just bread and circus.

    The whole thing is from the DNC and RNC perspective is like that Futurama poster, “you gotta do what’cha gotta do.” The DNC is NOT replacing Biden unless he literally dies before we get to the election. That is the only way who is on the Democratic ticket changes.


  • Go in reverse of so much that’s come before the court should be grounds for most of them coming under impeachment.

    Like that should kind of be a rule. If any court made up of at least 40% the prior overturns case law more than 50 years old absent a constitutional amendment or Federal law laying the foundation for such an overturn, should be brought before the Congress on impeachment inquiry.

    Like the whole way they’ve redefined the 2nd within the last ten years that overturned 200 years of prior understanding, that alone should have most of them barred from federal office for the rest of their lives. And how they redefined it without so much as a Federal law to point to or a hint of a Constitutional amendment suggesting the way they’ve made it now.

    A literal garbage court sits the bench. What’s worse is that one day the lean in the court will change and Republicans will cry about judges legislating from the bench.


  • HVAC suffers from loss over distance. Large distances like what’s between the western US deserts and the eastern seaboard would suffer large losses to heat via HVAC.

    HVDC can solve this, but that requires an investment into this kind of infrastructure. Moving the batteries is using a preexisting infrastructure because the assumption is that new infrastructure won’t be upgraded. We will build new so long as a ROI has quick turn around, another assumption here being that long term profit planning won’t happen so everything needs to be planned to have profiting within two or less years. But we won’t build new if usage of that new happens a decade later.

    We could totally send the electrons over, but sending the batteries over is adding a bunch of assumptions that people won’t want to do massive investments in basic infrastructure to facilitate that, so we’ve got run with what we have that can ensure profits in a fairly rapid pace before investors bore of it or the next election cycle tosses everything in chaos.


  • I think the two of you are focusing on either end of this and not really seeing the bigger picture.

    China absolutely (stole / acquired) all the technology they have for solar, EV, and grid based storage. They have literally innovated 0% in this particular industry. I don’t think there’s any debating this aspect.

    At the same time, China has pour billions into domestic production of solar panels, lithium and sodium batteries, vehicle production, and grid based storage solutions the likes that no other country has even remotely attempted. They recent demonstrated cheap sodium based 10MWh storage systems that can be built using seawater sodium. Something that California makes a shit ton of in their desalination plants, that they currently just shove the salt off as waste byproduct.

    Like, if we wanted to, that kind of thing that China just demonstrated, we could be building GWh level storage systems for 10% the cost of a 1 GWh nuclear facility strictly off a byproduct that California distinctly doesn’t want and is literally paying people to take away. They could literally flip a cost into a revenue stream, but we don’t because “reasons”. We could literally have large batteries charged in Utah, and then use rail to move the sodium based batteries into the Eastern sections of the US, using literally the same infrastructure that we use today to move the tons of coal we move around for the TWh of power we generate. We could be doing this today. But we don’t because many nations just buy the arguments politicians feed them, or “it’s complicated”. And then there’s China demonstrating at small scale that it’s doable. So instead we say “oh well it wouldn’t scale” or “oh well you stole all that tech” because apparently our pride is more important than climate change.

    The thing is, yes China has not committed to educating their population into novel development of these technologies. But at the same time they are deploying this stuff at rates every other developed nation has said they’d like to try and do that one day off in the future. Or can’t do right now because their hands are tied.

    For the folks pointing at China as the enemy, fine. I’m not going to debate it. But there’s still things to learn from what they are doing with that stolen technology. Do we need to cozy up to them? Nah. But they’re showing off that grid based storage at scale and cheap is a thing even though people like France and the US say that such a thing is not possible at this time. They are showing LFP is viable if you’re willing to take an initial domestic loss to invest in the infrastructure, something the US citizens know but keep saying “well oil interest are holding us back”. No, there’s only a few dozen oil execs, there over a three hundred million non-oil execs. It’s a lack of will power.

    Like most western nations keep coming up with excuses for delaying EV and green technology pushes and China keeps showing many of the excuses given to be false. And we know they’re false. We know the expectation of no less than $36k USD for an EV is some bullshit that car companies are pulling to offset all the baggage they have from leaving ICE. We know we could have charge stations every 100 miles on the Interstates, but we don’t because oil companies don’t want to lose their investments in the infrastructure they’ve got right now.

    We know the reasons being given by our political and industry leaders are all bullshit. China is over there showing IRL how bullshit they are. Yeah, they stole everything they have, but at the same time all this “oh we couldn’t possibly do that here in the US” is shown for the BS it is, that we already know it to be, in China.

    I mean, great, we’re all very smart people. Awesome. What good is that awesome smartness if we keep letting dumb fucks in politics pander off dumb excuses for why we don’t get to enjoy any of the stuff that awesome smartness provides? What good is being innovative if corporations keep handicapping that innovation to ensure they have a steady stream of revenue?

    I mean yeah, let’s call China out of the bullshit they pull. But I mean, let’s not forget all the damn windows we’ve broken ourselves in our glass house here.