• Content

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

  • Feedback


Everything posted by jakee

  1. Why does the left seek Trump's incarceration? Because he did crimes. Duh. No. Why?
  2. No, those are different things.
  3. Again I'd point to the endless stream of new threads you post on the same old topics. Not an accident but certainly an irony.
  4. Do building projects usually progress at a constant rate of physical construction work from conception to completion?
  5. Absolutely that. She wants to have a baby. The ‘pro life’ GOP won’t let her.
  6. Isn't that a funny thing - because culturally speaking Liz Cheney is savagely right wing. She's significantly more conservative (regressive, even) than her dad. But the current Maga party calls her a RINO because (and only because) she thinks democracy is more important than power. Which on the one hand is terrifying, the next election in the US in many places will be a choice between mainstream candidates who want democracy and mainstream candidates who want permanent total power. On the other hand it shows that it doesn't have to stay this way. The American Right isn't necessarily beyond redemption and you can be as anti gay, anti choice, anti book, anti whatever as you like and still fundamentally believe that the people have the right to choose whether you get to implement that agenda or not.
  7. I'm saying so what? You claim that EVs aren't valid unless the free market alone makes them successful - the free market alone didn't make cars successful. Governments have paid and continue to pay (not just subsidise, actually pay out) staggering amounts of money to enable the normal use of cars. When you just drill down to one individual aspect of the world of cars and try and make it sound critically important that one type is government funded and the other one (supposedly) isn't - why should anyone care?
  8. No, that is a lie. The whole thread is really quite remarkably on topic - though I can see why you'd want to run away from it given that it mostly consists of you failing to explain why you care so much about Hunter Biden since you know that all current evidence shows that his crimes and misdemeanours are his alone and involve no-one who actually matters. I get why that's embarrassing for you. But seriously, what about the topic of this thread - you needing us to answer a question that you are incapable of even hazarding a guess at - what's going on with that?
  9. I think you have come to the same conclusion as these guys!
  10. See this is what happens when you start too many threads, you forget which one is which. You already have an active thread for the Hunter Biden special counsel probe, so why are you messing up this one? Just trying to distract from the fact that it turns out you think we have all the answers to your questions even though you don't have any?
  11. Another demonstration of the ‘feature not a bug’ aspect of these GOP culture war laws that they are just vague on what exactly is legal and where the limits are. They rely on people being so worried about what a corrupt, criminal (in the Saul Goldman sense) AG like Paxton might be able to convict that they self censor their actions to a significantly greater degree than the law explicitly requires.
  12. So you think everyone else here should know the answer to something you don’t? You really ought to spend some time thinking about what that means.
  13. If you don't have to answer it, why would you expect anyone else to?
  14. Or Mark Meadows, Dan Scavino, Kevin McCarthy, Andy Biggs or Scott Perry?
  15. Leaving aside that it's a very odd question to ask given that he is not currently in contempt of Congress, is it not a question you could have asked in any of the other threads you have open about the Hunter Biden investigation? Or maybe you're just aiming for the day that the entire first page of this forum will consist of the 50 separate threads brenthutch has opened about the same 3 issues in the last 2 weeks.
  16. The new Right on both sides of the pond: cruelty for the sake of cruelty.
  17. I seem to remember a few years ago an article which tried to argue that a Range Rover was more environmentally sound as a total proposition than a Tesla, primarily because of the amount of nickel used to make the batteries. The author had failed to realise that making the chassis of a Range Rover used more nickel than the whole powertrain of a Tesla.
  18. Did you watch the video? What does it say about green energy except that we need more of it?
  19. But did you need to say it not in your own existing EV vs reality thread that was still active as of yesterday?
  20. Of course, because of course you know that if you asked a relevant question you’d get an answer that is really, really bad for your worldview. The free market alone did not build and does not maintain the transport infrastructure necessary for everyday use of motor vehicles. EV charging stations are but one small example of that. You sure about that? None, not once, never?
  21. Can we get a heads up on how many different threads you’re going to be starting to make throwaway jokes about COP before it’s over?
  22. If you want to cling to the utter fiction that the free market alone created the current dominance of the motor car then sure they are. If you want to actually examine how much government money goes into giving people the ability to drive around, they’re really not.
  23. How many billions of dollars has the federal government spent on motor vehicle infrastructure? Hint…. It’s a fuckton.
  24. It’s long been a favourite tactic of people like him to claim that no-one can advocate for reduced consumption if they consume anything at all. It’s as if the concept of ‘less’ doesn’t exist, there’s just what we have now or nothing. There was a famous phone in on a right wing talk show in the uk (which ended with the host claiming that concrete was an environmentally friendly material because it was grown) where the caller was a carpenter whose profession was building houses out of sustainable new growth wood… and the host still claimed he was being hypocritical to advocate for lower carbon emissions because building anything at all takes energy.