It’s definitely not that. They are just pointing out that the right to free speech prevents the government from impeding someone’s ability to say something, it doesn’t (despite implications made by a lot of people who cry out that their right to free speech is being impeded) force others to listen to or agree with that thing being said. If anything, the people that abuse the name of free speech by implying that it means people need to agree with them, or need to amplify their message, are attacking free speech by mudding the water around what it means and making it harder for good faith entities to invoke that right

And yet the demise of the coal industry accelerated in his administration, with no apparent pause despite Trump rolling back the safety regulations that were protecting the coal miners. He’s pro coal baron, not pro coal miner

Vivian was victimized by her father’s heartless disregard and rejection of her identity. Elon is now going around stating a narrative that her coming out to him is at least a significant contributing reason he is a fascist (“I lost my son to the woke mind virus”), a narrative that this headline plays directly into. You can take the same sequence of facts and headline it as “Musk is going public with the same bigotry that he wielded against his transgender daughter. A lot of trans people have family members like him” that doesn’t make it sound like Elon Musk would have been politely building his rockets and evs in a corner if only his daughter hadn’t come out as trans, and doesn’t make it sound like Vivian indirectly donated 10s of millions of dollars to Trump’s 2024 campaign by coming out as someone that that exact campaign wants to suppress. The headline as written is almost a threat to closeted trans people. “Yeah, your parents may be Schrodinger’s bigots right now, but come out and they will go full scorched earth to dehumanize you and you will be responsible for their shift”.

I’m pretty sure you are agreeing that that isn’t the case, and it wouldn’t surprise me if the text of the article is also aligned against that message, but the headline (probably written by an editor hungry for rage clicks) is solidly aligned to it, and should be called out for that

Mike Johnson moves one heartbeat closer to the Whitehouse in this hypothetical. And the remaining heartbeat would be on tour campaigning, which we’ve seen can expose someone to high velocity lead poisoning. Plus, Kamala would have to oversee an unplanned administration turnover, taking time and energy away from her campaigning efforts. It’s all painfully obvious why they want this and none of it has to do with the good of the country

Am one of those “assholes”. Kamala was far from my favorite candidate in 2020, but I just donated a hefty (for me) chunk of change and will be volunteering. I didn’t need perfection, just a feasible path to victory in November and now we have it. I’m so pumped right now, project 2025 no longer looks like an inevitability. LFG!

That’s generally true for all VPs. Biden was rarely on the news during the Obama years, same with Pence in the Trump years. She’s not an ideal candidate, but she does have some freedom of motion that is unprecedented. She gets to own the incumbency as the VP but only partially. Time and messaging will tell if she is able to define her candidacy by the positive things the Biden administration has done and the positive things that she can do moving forward or if Republicans will succeed in tying her down with whatever negative aspects of the Biden administration they can latch onto. It will be hard for them to pitch her as some kind of puppet for Biden or the DNC seeing as they spent some much air trying to convince everyone that she was puppeteering Biden from the start. If she can get a solid VP candidate (and there is a deep bench of Democratic Senators and Governors that she could pull from) and inject some energy into this campaign (suddenly Trump is the old man in the race), I think she’s got a really strong shot. There’s an outside chance someone will attempt to contest her at the convention, but as much as my personal views may be likely to better align with a more left-leaning candidate, I think the atmosphere of hesitancy from folks calling on Biden to step down or primary ing Biden in the first place suggests that the likelihood of a strong contender appearing and damaging her candidacy is low. I know there were plenty of folks on here who thought getting Biden to step down was some effort by the elite or the Republicans to steal away the incumbency advantage from the Democrats, but I really have a hard time seeing this as anything but a positive step in the campaign to beat Trump in November

The monkeys paw curls. Texas has implemented more laws to stop minorities from voting

Was 68 the last time an incumbent was switched out? Because as conflicted as I am about wanting Biden to give way for a candidate who is physically capable of campaigning vs being concerned about the ability to find someone with a better probability of victory than him, I don’t find the conventional political wisdom of 1968 a very convincing argument in today’s media and political landscape

Porque no los dos?

Rabbit hole incoming: If you have to pick one, I suppose it depends on what metric you are trying to maximize. One doublestacked intermodal train car takes two long haul trucks off the road. One Siemens Venture passenger train car takes 74 people, or about 50 cars at 1.5 people per car, off the road. You can generally run longer freight trains than passenger trains, but 25x to normalize for VMT (which could be used as an approximate measure of direct health impacts from driving: crash risk, elevated blood pressure, obesity. It could also be used to approximate societal impacts of car culture: real estate dedicated to surface parking, voting bloc size that supports car-centric planning and development regulations) is probably excessive. On the other hand, if we normalize for emissions (hard to find data here, but as far as I can tell trucks are on the order of 10x as emissive), that gets us down to 5x train length, which is about on par (northeast corridor trains are typically in the 1/6 of a mile range, and median freight train length is somewhere in the 1-1.5 mile range from what I could find), and if we use infrastructure damage/maintenance cost (trucks are about two orders of magnitude worse than even today’s SUV saturated passenger car market, I’m assuming without reason or evidence that damage to steel rail infrastructure between a freight and a passenger car scales significantly less harshly for the sake of simplicity), things look downright strongly in favor of freight traffic. At the end of the day, it probably just depends on which use case has more unmet demand on a case by case basis. Of course, both pale when compared to the opportunity that high speed rail gives to take short haul flights out of the sky, but that is another set of analysis and does partially correlate to the elevated infrastructure cost of high speed rail vs conventional rail.