Message from @Iamma Fa'Got
Discord ID: 615703076061577250
SAD
Well Chick Fil A is better, but Wendy's is utter savagery
Alternative title, *Business supports the party that doesn't want to destroy them.*
how is this news?
"orange man bad" is all news
The story fulfills two objectives.
1. Get the trump bump (mentions trump)
2. Scare business away from supporting trump (public ridicule)
None of it is news worthy, in that you are correct
Its purpose is to support the narrative orange man bad and so are his supporters
"2018 filings show that the company donated $50,000 to Californians for Jobs & a Strong Economy, a pro-business PAC led by moderate Democrats "
They donated more to Democrats but how dare someone give any money to Trump I guess
“It’s clear why they’re checking for sex offenses only: they’re trying to label the LGBT population in this city as sex offenders, which is offensive in and of itself,” Equality Kansas director Thomas Witt claimed
It's unfair that they found that a lot of drag queens also happen to be sexual deviants I guess
What are those monsters in the thumbnail
It's almost as if you're more likely to be a sexual deviant if you are a drag queen than if you're not a drag queen
🤔
if the (high heeled) shoe fits...
The drag queen story time shit is fucking demonic
Beto is such a low IQ individual
@Legalize atleast beto didn't change his view when challenged by the young man, he could have gone all wishy washy instead of sticking with theory that a mother defines the value of her kids
Ok. The fact that yang supports nuclear makes him somewhat better, but I won’t vote for him because his other ideas are dumb.
Beto’s response is pure cuckholdery
Yang not wanting to put a limit on abortion at all combined with him raising his hand for the healthcare for illegals means I don't think I can vote for him in the primary then again I don't know who would be any better
yang:
Same problems, different plans
1) all of the proposed ideas are not subject to a prioritization or a comparison of value in how they respond to the proposed problem
2) what does giving people money to donate to their candidates have to do with climate change
3) some ideas are inconsistent. Why invest in co-ops and at the same time invest in sustainable agricultural methods. What if the most sustainable agricultural method is industrial? Are we here to fix a climate issue or organic food availability issue? That is one example of inconsistency
4) no mention of deregulation when we know that cronyism and selective regulation are leverage to slow innovation that could lead to solutions.
5) "invested in vocational and apprenticeship programs". What does this have to do with climate change?
6) there shouldn't be emphasis on transforming the economy. If you believe the economy should be free and you believe it is free. Then saying "transform the economy" means make it unfree
7) its not honest that global warming at current levels has contributed to increased life expectancy. Humans are much more tolerant to heat than cold. Cold deaths far exceed heat deaths in our current model. Has anyone even calculated the optimal global temperature as it relates to human life expectancy due to heat/cold death?
8) "We also need to work with corporations in order to ensure that they’re considering their sustainability in making their decisions" this is not free markets, this is regulation, regulations lead to cronyism.
9) "also adopt the provisions of the Climate Risk Disclosure bills" also not free markets. this is a report on a business's vulnerability to climate change, not a report on their actions to mitigate environmental impact or any other valuable detail. It's only point is to create additional reporting requirements and scare off investors.
10) what if the best option to reduce climate change is not renewables? what if its nuclear or geoengineering. Do we still invest resources, effort, time into renewables?
11) "commit to purchasing American-made items at a massive scale" is the priority to manage climate change or not? why include this in a climate change proposal?
12) "set sustainable infrastructure standards for all new buildings" more regulation, more expense that does not directly correlate to climate change. Why is it here? Do we need more cronyism?
13) "carbon fee and dividend" "Starting at $40/ton". Carbon fee and dividend do not give credit for offsets. I truly believe any form of carbon fee (whether is carbon fee and dividend or cap and trade) should include credit for carbon offsetting. ex. a company could buy/protect amazon land or invest in carbon capture technology. and where does the $40 a ton number come from, fee and dividend proposes starting at $15
14) if you enact fee and dividend, there is no reason to force conversion to EV vehicles, people will convert based on the increased cost in fuel. Another inconsistent policy
15) complex tax systems around "incentizing" grocer understocking, food donating, etc is just more bureaucracy
16) why subsidies vertical farming vs lets say vertical tree growing. The purpose, as i understand it, of vertical farming is to increase density for growing. Does it matter if its for farming or for nature? Maybe we are chasing this practice for farming and it would be better used for nature. Vertical farming seems more necessary in a high population density area like bangladesh
17) "Fund research into any method that could lower the energy requirements of data storage" you don't need to invest in energy efficiency if your intention is to go full on renewables. these objectives overlap
18) "This system will lower the bureaucracy and hassle of working under a government contract so that scientists, engineers, inventors, and entrepreneurs can focus on innovating" wait! work for the government so you can reduce the bureaucracy associated for working with the government?
19) "loan up to $3 trillion over 20 years to individuals to purchase heat pumps, solar panels, batteries, and other technologies for their residences" once again, if we build a renewable network, there is no need to invest in efficiency upgrades
20) "Quintuple the budget for the U.S. Forest Service to $24.5 billion for at least 5 years, and specifically tailor it to focus on fire prevention" this fails to acknowledge the main issue with wildfires today is the fire prevention actions of the past create environments prone to mega fires
21) "Establish a National Fire Insurance Program" another program to have poor states like West Virginia help ensure those in rich states for living in risk prone environments. In one breath the report rises concern on the flooding insurance program but then calls for a fire insurance program.
i like
1) removing government subsidies for construction in flood zones. The leading cause of increased hurricane damage costs is directly related to increased construction cost/values in flood zones and higher population density in flood zones, not the flooding itself. Why is the coal minor in West Virginia subsidizing rich retired white peoples home insurance via the government who live in flood zones in florida
2) removing subsidize for energy companies (but it should go both directions no subsidies for oil, coal, gas, nuclear, wind, solar, etc)
3) like it mentions getting rid of farming subsides. unfortunately its not across the board as it stipulates "a portion"
4) "offer military assistance in stabilizing and rebuilding the region, improving its ability to withstand climate change" at least he is admitting that at some point military action will be required for climate change initiatives.
I remember Chernobyl. I remember watching Bugs Bunny when Ted KOPPEL (I think) cut in.
I trust y'all will understand why I'm hesitant to jump head first onto the nuclear bandwagon.
Nuclear denial is science denial
Chernobyl was 45 deaths, how many deaths are associated with coal?
And how much of the damage that actually happened at chernobyl was actually caused by the 'dangers' of nuclear instead of because they were cutting corners, and operating the reactor recklessly?
The us had 89 coal deaths the same year as chernobyl
And that is just mining deaths, norhing relates to coal plants, carbon impact, etc