spidermanchild

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.

"Electoral pressure" just means regular people don't actually care that much, no? That seems like a big part of the problem to me.

Is inequality actually the problem when it comes to carbon? Just as a thought exercise, if everyone on earth, or even within each county, received an equal share of GDP, I suspect emissions may increase. You'd replace the private jets with more of everything else. Inequality is a major issue for a host of other reasons though, absolutely.

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.

Depends on whether it vents outside or just blows the fumes back in your face. But generally it will be slightly to much worse than a dedicated range hood. What/how you cook matters a lot - don't sear ribeyes inside on cast iron without a vent hood.

Right. And once it gets rolling, the disconnect (electrification) rate will undoubtedly increase. The sooner folks understand this, the sooner we can all get along to managing the wind down of the gas infrastructure in an intelligent way.

Yawn. Humans have been cooking long before natural gas became popular and will keep cooking long after we finally stop burning fossil fuels. We have electric ovens, induction cooktops/griddles, we can make hot water, steam, etc with electricity just fine. Even electric pizza ovens seem to be better.

Goodbye, Gas. The Future of New York City’s Pizza Is Electric. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/30/dining/new-york-pizza-electric-ovens.html?smid=nytcore-android-share

What does this even mean? What TV shows are you even talking about? Indiana is a US state.

Show us where the Cheneys registered as Democratics and abandoned the Republican party. Voting for someone from another party doesn't make you a member.

They outlined their reasoning, you continue to ignore it and make up a weird story about the democrats fully aligning all of their policy stances to those of the Cheneys. In reality, they just hate Trump and recognize the unique danger he poses. It's not complicated.

Once again you're willfully ignoring all context.

You're right of course, but the nuance is that research takes time. We need to start working on it now so we will be ready to scale the technology when we have surplus renewable energy. It's a tricky balance.