Make it either an electric or hydrogen powered truck and you got a deal.
I don't think that works when one party has catapulted themselves as far to the right as possible.
Doesn't have to be. I think everyone here knows I'm a shill for Electric cars. My next truck will likely be electric. (My current one is a hand-me-down, so it's paid off and cheap. Can't blame me there)
Driving is also wrong because it's dangerous. Driving is pretty irrational on the whole because we're risking life and limb out there every day just to get to our job and that's how the city was made.
I don't know if the damage can be undone in most non-european cities like one city managed to do it in spain but it might be possible to turn a city like New York car-free due to its density and public transit (let me know if this is naïve). I can't imagine cars leaving the south tho. From what I understand it's a matter of survival if you have one or not.
If we didn't measure efficiency in money anymore there are other avenues that can open up to help the environment. The ROI for a nuclear power plant has to be pretty bad since they're not being built as much as coal plants but if we got rid of coal and replaced it with nuclear and solar and wind and batteries we'd go a long way to fixing the climate even if we don't switch to electric cars. Changing modes of production would help a lot too reducing travel and making things locally.
We should tackle our own institutions and the way they work before we blame things like CO2 pollution and plastic straw pollution on individuals.
Yeah, if we tackle the big stuff a truck here or there isn't going to kill the planet. Also can't forget agriculture. I don't want to be a vegan so let's rev up that lab grown steak.
Just going to take this opportunity to point out that the Democrats support everything except the gun toting part, and even then it's up in the air depending on where you live.
I'm very pro-gun. I'd love to see the NFA repealed, the HPA passed, and a general loosening of restrictions on firearms ownership. But I'm voting solid blue until the Republican party unfucks itself.
I think the question of how a fantasy civil war scenario would turn out is besides the point. The path to tyranny is built on more than government killsquads. You're prepared to deal with them, I'm sure, but who do you shoot to fix voter suppression? Information control, lack of transparency? I believe the 2nd amendment does have the power to help against a worst case scenario, and if you want, go ahead, fight tooth and nail to preserve your right to use that power in the future. But please, acknowledge that it has another power, and it is being used right now. As political rhetoric, as fearmongering, as a cultural litmus test more divisive than just about anything else in American culture. If you allow yourself to be bought by promises on a single issue, and ignore all the other ones that concern the power US citizens have in the political process, you can't claim to be standing against tyranny
It's seemingly gaining a lot of ground recently, including more media coverage even within the last week. Just last Wednesday I was able to get my university student government to agree to try to start transitioning to it for the next election, and Purdue is a pretty large D1 school so I'm stoked. FairVote and their affiliate orgs do a lot of great work with this and other voting issues if it's something anyone is interested in.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/17/us/politics/massachusetts-voting-lori-trahan.html
https://www.stuffyoushouldknow.com/podcasts/how-ranked-choice-voting-works.htm
I think the big problem here is that it's hard to say what would have happened otherwise. More likely, it's extremely context-dependent which solution is better. A big reason the democratic party in the US even became relatively centrist was because strong left-wing progressives got annihilated in elections by moderate-appearing republicans. The only democrats to become president since 1960 to 2008 were southern democrat moderates.
Also, this is probably a bit less relevant in a multi-party democracy like Germany. The big failure for the SPD seems to have been being subservient in a groko yeah, but their voters seem to have jumped largely to the greens. Why would they have jumped to the AfD? AfD's rise seems to be driven by conservatives upset that the CDU is being too centrist.
Call me crazy but this is why I do not think there should be any party platforms on the federal level, while I'm sure there are states that love our current Dems, America is too diverse of a country culturally to cover every single person under a single platform or maybe even a single progressive/conservative party. Maybe it would be better to split up platforms / parties in general into individual states, where they can be tailored to the culture of the state instead of ending up with a single party with the same platform trying to appeal to people in vastly different states like Washington and Louisiana.
https://www.versobooks.com/blogs/4033-last-chance-flash-ebook-giveaway
free ebooks at verso for the next 22 hours
Surely, these books were always already free, for intellectual property is theft and is illegitimate?
I honestly think it would be so easy to convince a large percentage Middle of the country right wingers to vote for a Democrat. If they just focused their campaign on helping those people, and told them they could have heir guns.
ehh if you live in a society you have t live by it's rules generally,
even if you're an anarchist I think you still need to buy food, that doesn't make them a hypocrite.
All they have to do is say guns are a states rights issue.
haven't called anyone a hypocrite, just stated that i find what i can only assume to be some flavor of far-leftist to be funny when such a post is made.
the question posed is whether this is their only source of gaining money necessary for sustenance as a result of living in said society, or if they do it so they can live more comfortably.
if the latter applies, said people can be called hypocrites under certain circumstances if such a position of the invalidity of private property (not based on use-rights), intellectual or otherwise, is held.
Can't, the 2nd amendment specifically says "right of the people".
Combine that with the 10th Amendment that says anything specifically not said in the previous 9 amendments are the right of the states, that won't includes guns.
If they dropped non-sense gun control laws like AWB and other feelgood blanket bans, I guarantee you the dems would gain a fuckton of votes from the moderate crowd and especially the gun owners. Hell, I personally know people (and yeah anecdotes w/e) that would love to vote dem but have invested so much money into guns as a hobby that they just are not willing because of the threats of AWB and other dumb shit.
doesn't matter for political propaganda tbh
the idea is "we don't intend on doing much more with guns on a federal level" but stated in a nice ideological way.
Federal laws trump state laws, however.
That is why no state has had a blanket ban on firearms, even California and New York.
It does if the federal government intends to legislate and enforce it, if they leave it well alone, it pretty much winds up de facto being up to states. See weed, or hell, conceal carry.
California and New York have no desire for a blanket ban anyhow.
I've always been uneasy about states running laws that the feds don't currently enforce because there's nothing to prevent the feds from suddenly taking a renewed interest in it.
Honestly it's a miracle Trump hasn't ordered the DEA to just nuke Colorado already.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.