We just saw Progressives not voting for Harris, which lost her the election. The Democrats ignored that.

The good part is that the Democrats have no plan right now. So if anything Progressives should register to primary in better candidates. Also donations, but to individual candidates. This is why New York mattered so much. If Progressives can win, then it is a huge problem for the neoliberals.

In 1933 the first concentration camps also had massive improvised parts. It took about a year for them to be run fully professional. Conditions also became worse over time, with the start of WW2 being a huge step. That was also the start of the extermination camps, which were meant for genocide. Concentration camps were “just” really horrible prisons, which also had criminal and political prisoners, which were actually partly released.

This is just early concentration camp. Good chance it gets worse.

That would turn the Democrats into a progressive party, which would have nation wide positions, proper party infrastructure in every state and some funding systems. Given how few vote for third parties, that would be a huge win for progressives.

Kind of disagree. The only way the Democrats can win in 2028 is by making sure there is a fair election. That requires them to actually fight the Republicans. So any Democrats who can actually win the 2028 election would have to be much further to the left.

For anybody wondering: Yes they got merch!

WTF America…

I believe the solution is flooding…

A good rule of thumb is just to go by geography. The closer something is to the place you live in the more important it is to you. Both in direct impact and being actionable. You will not do any good, when you are depressed. That is what they want to do.

If something is really important to your life, then you are going to hear of it pretty quickly, even if you do not activly follow the news. So if you are depressed from local news, then just do not read, watch or listen to anything activly.

Russia could not even prevent Assad from falling to some militia with some training from Turkey, while Iran was also helping. What do you believe is going to happen, if they would try to fight another professional military? They are not even winning in Ukraine, which gets some support from Europe, while Russia has a full on war economy.

Right now nearly all aid to Ukraine comes from Europe and Russia is not able to win that war. At least not easily. That is with Russia in a war economy, whereas Europe half asses deliveries for the most part and obviously there are over a million professional European soldiers with some really good kit around as well.

The problem is that birth right citizenship is in the constitution. So if Trump can get rid of that, he can get ignore the Bill of Rights as well.

EDIT: Also basically every country has birthright citizenship usually be having a citizen as a parent. What is different in the Americas is jus soli, so being born in the country making you a citizen.

Why do you believe Rutte pushed through the 5% military spending target? It is needed to replace the US in Europe and be a working deterrent to both Russia and the US.

It also is a bad move to leave NATO, as this makes the EU the logical center to coordinate the defense of democracies.

The German government sold 60% of the company in 1960. So another 12 years.

Just look up the Musk followers on Xitter.

Why do you need me to come up with reasons justify your hate booner for China?

See? Moving the goalposts. Moving from cumulative, the real important metric, to per capita current emissions during a renewable transition, because otherwise the data doesn’t fit your preconceived, chauvinistic anti-china views.

I initially just wanted to point out that China does in fact consume a lot more coal, then you claimed. If you want to have the moral discussion, we can have that. The fundamental problem with your logic, is that you presume future emissions do not matter. The fact of the matter is that we will emit much more in the coming decades. Higher current per capita emissions make it much more likely that future emissions will be higher as well. At the 2023 rate of emissions, China emits as much as the EU cumulative did until 2023 in 25 years. Last year China increased its emissions by 0.8%. Current UN forecast put the population of China 633million and the EU at 347million. I hate to say it, but it is very realistic to presume that China ends up just as guilty by your metric as say the EU.

First of all greenhouse gases not just CO2.

It is also a metric China will not want to use. Per capita annual emissions are already higher in China then in many Western countries. More so UN population forecast shows Chinas population falling much more quickly then that of the West.

Now what will you come up with? Suddenly coal numbers don’t matter anymore?

Do you think I am here to hate on China or something? Your inital claim was:

How much coal has China cumulatively used in its history compared to the US or Europe? Spoiler alert: much less.

And when you looked at the numbers and you were clearly wrong, you moved the goal poast again:

So yeah, China would have to literally consume twice as much coal as it’s already consumed to reach US values of per-capita historical cumulative coal consumption.

Or 50% more to be at the level of the EU, using the Our World in Data numbers from 1900(thanks btw). Given current production, China would overtake the EU around 2040 in that metric.

Maybe that is because I have the elementary school education necessary to understand that burning coal and gas also causes emissions. So when I am looking at cummulative coal consumption, I have the very basic common sense to not look at CO2.

EDIT: Btw 2/3 of EU emissions happened in the last 60 years. So this very likely shows most of the EU coal consumption. Also if you happen to have actual coal numbers and want to share them, I am happy to have a look at them. But please no CO2 = coal bs.

Pollution per GDP is a bad measure. Mali has a high CO2 intensity, but the GDP per capita is low, so pollution is low. The best measures are emissions per capita in consumption and production terms. China is not a saint in either of those metrics, being rather close to the EU in both of them today.

Not so sure about that. China overtook the EU in 1987 in coal consumption, but today it is at 25,000TWh or so. In 1965 the current EU countries were at 4,500TWh. It certainly is not much less, if China has not overtaken the EU by cumulative coal consumption.

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/coal-consumption-by-country-terawatt-hours-twh?tab=chart&country=CHN~OWID_EU27