Of course, and that’s part of the charm. They bag out like a pair of leather slippers. I read something recently about them using a shit ton more adhesive in the new Forester so maybe it’s improving? My 2015 isn’t that bad, but I hate driving in general so basic appliance standards is fine by me.
They’re not a distraction. Lots of us have solar, eliminated fossil fuels in the home, use public transit, don’t buy shit we don’t need, etc. Thats literally collective action, and we need a lot more people to do it. Nobody is pretending like their single action is going to magically fix everything.
What does collective action mean to you? We have tax incentives for electrification as a result of policies borne from voting correctly in 2020 - now actually getting those solar panels is an individual action that magically doesn’t matter? Or is it a result of collective action and it is ok?
Everyone should be doing as much as they possibly can given their means - personal and collective. It’s not an either or.
You’re absolutely right that he’s dumb. It would therefore be extremely easy for progressives to get their message out because Joe isn’t smart enough (nor cares to) push back. He just agrees with everything you say if you sound convincing. So why aren’t Democrats and progressives going on his show? We’ve entered this spiral where people like Kamala don’t want to “legitimize” him or whatever, despite him being the easiest person to talk to ever with a huge audience. Just play the game people! Ignoring this whole sphere isn’t working.
None of that changes the reality that they did not vote for harm reduction and now more harm will come to the people they purport to protect (and likely themselves, now that evangelical christians are in power). This is textbook shooting off your nose to spite your face. There is no rule saying you need to pass a moral purity test to earn a vote, that’s a dumb construct that is hampering progress. You can vote for harm reduction, it’s ok. The conservatives keep winning and moving further right. The democrats could win and move further left if their cranky coalition would accept not getting everything they want for once.
Lawyers hate this one weird trick! That wouldn’t work because you’re not actually being more “strict”, you’re still in opposition to the federal law. Being more “strict” means you’re still in compliance with federal law, you just do extra stuff on top. Semantics can’t change that.
How exactly does not voting/3rd party voting create any justice in your opinion? Opting out of our limited and imperfect democracy doesn’t magically create justice, it silences your own voice. Nobody here hates you, and broadly speaking the Democrats don’t hate you either. I can’t say the same for the cult of Trump. If you truly have a strong sense of justice, wouldn’t you want to at a bare minimum try to prevent am actual criminal from gaining power?
Who told you that your vote has to be based on morals and not practicality? It’s just a vote, you’re not swearing allegiance to them or agreeing with their every stance. It’s really not that complicated.
If you want to bring morals in, is it moral that women are literally dying because SCOTUS allowed states to deny women healthcare? Is deporting 11 million people moral? Seems like you get a lot of immorality when you let fundamentally immoral people have power.
What does this even mean? What TV shows are you even talking about? Indiana is a US state.
Unless the plan is something more like Terminator. If you “unshackle” AI and give them a mandate to get CO2 back to 250 ppm things are going to get real.
That’s entirely the wrong denominator for this comparison. IRS doesn’t write the budget nor do they write tax law, they just collect.
You’re right, 50k is the same as 30k, a 5ft tall hood is the same as 2.5ft, 40 mpg is the same as 20 mpg, and getting hit by a pickup is the same as a crosstrek. Look I ride a cargo bike most of the time and am very much fuckcars, but pretending like every since vehicle that isn’t a sedan is equally dangerous and polluting isn’t helpful.
So you’re saying that millions of fragile men are bullied into buying full size trucks and they have no agency whatsoever into their purchase? This is no different than exposing your kids to second hands smoke because you are afraid if you don’t smoke you won’t look cool. I seriously don’t understand why we’re making excuses and coddling these weak egos instead of actually supporting the victims of the violence these people inflict on other road users. I’m more than happy to criticize the regulatory bodies and the manufacturers for failing society as well, but that doesn’t mean the purchasers that make this all possible are innocent. It’s a rotten subculture that needs to be called out at all levels.
There’s a world of difference in pedestrian safety between a RAV4 and a Suburban or F150. Just because they call an e.g. CX30 a crossover doesn’t mean it’s as dangerous as a full size pickup truck. Your affordability argument doesn’t even make any sense - smaller vehicles are cheaper than larger vehicles. If affordability is such an issue why don’t we see more crosstreks? The mental gymnastics to avoid blaming a bunch of fragile dudes for buying ridiculously pickup trucks is absurd.
Americans don’t have the choice not to buy gigantic pickup trucks and SUVs? Gimme a break. I have never bought one, it’s not some kind of one weird trick thing, you just literally don’t fucking buy them and buy something smaller and cheaper instead.
The extra votes in PA beyond the magical single winning vote are meaningless too by that logic. And there are paths to victory for both candidates that don’t involve PA, so you don’t really know who got to cast the special winning vote until afterwards. The “swing states” only exist because of states like CA that vote more predictably. The EC is dogshit because of the disproportionate voting power and because the winner takes all at the state level (usually), not because of some post hoc analysis.
Pennsylvania is a large state, a vote there is barely worth more than a vote in California.
https://medium.com/practical-coding/whats-my-vote-worth-3ca2585b5d51
My point isn’t to defend the guy, it’s to put some context around the fact that half the Senate is even worse, so this is a disproportionate amount of villification. Let’s say he had an R next to his name, we then have a R majority leader and the whole Senate grinds to a halt. Then will you magically give him a pass because now being an asswipe is fully expected of him? That’s the kid gloves treatment you’re giving to the other 50 GOP senators that are the actual problem.
He’s not the Senate Majority Leader and doesn’t control what comes to a vote. I just don’t see the point of vilifying a centrist when there are 50 other lunatics that vote against progress 100% of the time. Manchin voted for all the judges, infra, chips, IRA, all the budget stuff, etc. Lets focus on the real problem - way too many GOP senators.
Manchin is a moderate that voted with Biden 88% of the time. You’ll be happy he’s not running for reelection and will be replaced with a worse R, so yay I guess? He’s the best you’ll get from WV anytime soon.
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/biden-congress-votes/joe-manchin/
What? Of course you can base your political views on rationality. For example, climate change is literally an existential threat to life on this planet, so the rational thing to do would be to support policies that preserve the biosphere and therefore dramatically reduce carbon emissions. This is rooted in the core biological desire to reproduce and care for your offspring. Similar arguments can be made for all basic human and animal needs, like food, shelter, etc.
If your point is that everything is contrived and therefore irrational, then that precludes this entire conversation to the point of uselessness.