FlowVoid @ FlowVoid @lemmy.world

Posts

1

Comments

2,031

Joined

2 yr. ago

Ah yes, defeat Trump by appealing to conservatives. A time-tested strategy.

I read it. A list of failures.

Even Bears fans are more resilient than leftists. But that's fine, you can just pack it in and show yourselves out. I don't think anyone will notice.

Pundits are losing their minds, but I don't think the Democratic party leaders are giving up.

My hunch is that they are playing the long game. They are counting on three things. First, Trump's plans will crash the economy. Second, the Trump White House always turns on its own. Third, with a GOP trifecta there isn't much Democrats can do to stop Trump - for now.

So any demands they make now will be ignored, and even used in the future to blame Democrats as obstructionist. I think they are lying low and giving the GOP what they need to hang themselves. When the public is furious about the economy, it will be time to start making demands.

Basically, it's the political equivalent of the Willy Wonka gif

Finally, a Jacobin article I agree with.

Then we agree it's not multiple decades.

And 10 years is nothing. The anti-abortion movement set Dobbs into motion in the 1990s, when they put Thomas on the SCOTUS. Their work only paid off 30 years later. Your "movement" doesn't have the kind of patience necessary for success.

It really was mostly performance. If you ask someone today, "What did OWS want?" they will likely be unable to tell you.

you seem to think its impossible to win an election and not do well in your home state.

That's not what I'm saying.

I'm saying there is exactly one data point that directly compares Bernie to Kamala, and it shows more support for Kamala than Bernie.

And since that is the only place where they can be compared, there is no evidence at all that Bernie would have more support than Kamala in other states.

right wingers constantly allign with people like Bernie

There are right wingers in Vermont too. That's why their governor is a Republican. Yet among all the people who voted for Gov Scott, there weren't enough Bernie supporters to make a difference.

In other words people were willing to vote for Harris and a Republican governor more than they were willing to vote for Sanders. He simply does not have the support you think he does.

Right wingers do not constantly align with AOC. There very few Trump + AOC voters, she was just interested in hearing from them.

So people were literally voting for Harris, but refusing to vote for Sanders. Whereas nearly everywhere else, people voted for their Senator but not Harris.

That tells you all you need to know.

I'm saying that unlike nearly every other Democratic Senator, he performed worse than Harris. That's a lackluster result.

If he somehow won Fox News voters, then it was at the expense of losing even more voters elsewhere. That's not a recipe for winning nationwide.

And no, you cannot blame it on Vermont. Harris turned out Vermont voters, why couldn't Sanders turn out as many as she did?

Given his lackluster election results, apparently they don't actually find him very captivating.

A movement that calls it quits after losing an election is not a serious movement. It's more like a performance.

Maybe that's why nobody was listening to you.

I assure you there are Fox news viewers in Vermont, too.

Bernie won fewer votes in Vermont, his home state, than Kamala. One of the rare incumbent Democratic Senators who actually underperformed Harris.

Here's a meaningful difference:

Harris supported a two-state solution with the eventual goal of an independent Palestine.

Trump will oversee the formal annexation of Gaza and the West Bank "Judea and Samara", marking the end of any hope for a future Palestinian state.

A few observations:

• This won't be the first time those media outlets have been sued for libel. It's a common enough occurrence that they keep lawyers around ready to litigate. So this isn't as chilling as Trump might hope.
• Litigation means discovery. If Trump wants to win, he'll have to turn over his private records to NYT lawyers. If he refuses then his case will be thrown out.
• Once Trump takes office, it will be harder to pull this kind of crap. Only private individuals can sue for defamation, the government cannot.

And how did you determine what the purpose of fruit is? It certainly can't communicate its preferences or desires.

All you can observe is that the species as a whole thrives when fruit is consumed. But the same is true of farm animals. You are simply projecting the motivations you want to see, like self-sacrifice, onto one but not the other. After all, many fruits are poisonous. That suggests that fruits don't want to be eaten, but animals evolved mechanisms to safely eat some fruit.

Finally, factory farms certainly cause animals to suffer but from an evolutionary perspective thriving is not about avoiding suffering. It's about producing offspring, and in that sense farm animals thrive. And given that the OP is about the potential suffering of plants, I don't see why fruit farms are any less horrific than animal farms.

Yes, it's possible but undesirable for both pigs and fruits to survive without assistance from humans. In both cases, that assistance is offered because humans eat the creatures they assist.

You still haven't explained why this relationship is good for fruits but bad for pigs.

Simmons argued that this move would keep Harris from having to oversee "her own defeat" when the presidential election is certified in the Senate

If Gore can do it, so can Harris

By that reasoning, fruit is not in a biologically obligatory symbiosis with the animals that eat it. There are many cases of fruit falling to the ground uneaten and forming a new plant near its parent. Those plants eke out an existence just as feral pigs do.