E=mc2 is the equation for how much energy is created by destroying a given amount of mass.

That’s why it would fuck over causality. If I destroyed 1 that could be the natural end of the electrons “life” of bouncing back and forth through time. I would need to destroy a 2nd which would then have to be the same electron from earlier in it’s timeline.

The end state doesn’t have to be at the end of time if the electron can travel backwards in time. It can go to the end, head back towards the beginning, and get destroyed somewhere in between.

Strictly speaking it would have to get destroyed at some point, or at least have something stop it from going back and forth, otherwise the universe would be all electron.

So I have to destroy 2 electrons to fuck over causality.

So if I can destroy 1 electron I destroy every electron?

Supreme Court justices are nominated by the president and then the house and Senate approve or deny the nomination. The current justices were nominated by Democrat majorities.

It’s the Senate that approves nominations to the supreme Court.

Of the Supreme Court Justices that voted to overturn Roe v Wade:

Amy Coney Barrett was approved by a Republican controlled Senate.

Samuel A. Alito was approved in 2006 by a Republican controlled Senate.

Brett Kavanaugh was approved in 2018 by a Republican controlled Senate.

Neil M. Gorsuch was approved in 2017 by a Republican controlled Senate.

Clarence Thomas was approved in 1991 by a Democratic controlled Senate.

4 out of 5 of the Supreme Court justices that voted to overturn Roe v Wade were approved by Republican majorities. Two of which happened after the Republicans used their majority to block Obama from being able to nominate anyone to the Supreme Court. The one approved by Democrats happened 33 years ago when American Politics were significantly less partisan.

This is why I pushed you to stop speaking in metaphor and say something factual, because once you did you proved you were not speaking about actual reality.

Republicans abuse power to push through their agenda, and your response to that is to allow Republicans to continue to have enough power to continue to abuse the system while you blame Democrats for not stopping them. Your arguments make no sense in reality so you have to hide them behind metaphor.

“Why didn’t Democrats stop them”? Because they did not have the seats to do so. Refusing to give them seats won’t allow them to stop Republicans from overturning the next civil right while they continue to turn back the clock on progress.

How exactly did they “invite the other guy over and help him steal it”?

Are Democrats holding a gun to your head? Or are they saying “if you leave him alone with your stuff he’s going to steal it, you better leave me alone with your stuff as I won’t steal it.”

“Could you lock up my stuff so he doesn’t steal it?”

“No, I’m just not going to touch your stuff.”

I’m still angrier at the person who is actively trying to steal my stuff.

If one person is standing by not doing anything while another person steals my stuff, I’m definitely going to be more mad at the person who actually stole my stuff.

If I am forced to leave one of them alone with my stuff I will make sure it’s not the stole from me.

You’re saying if a party strays too far that another party can steal some of its voters, the party can “return to its roots” and get all those voters back.

You’re also saying if a party strays too far it can’t just “return to its roots” and get those voters back because they don’t trust them.

You are contradicting yourself. If Republicans suddenly become a rational party they’ll be trusted by rational people as much as if Democrats suddenly became a leftist party.

You’re also telling yourself: there’s no reason for the Democrats to move left because you’re not going to trust them anyway. If Kamala came out tomorrow and promised everything you were wanting to say you wouldn’t believe her or vote for her.

The fact is Republicans are going full Fascist, and there are people with conservative ideologies who don’t want fascism. That is why they will vote for a Democratic Party shifting to the right instead of the “original right wing party”.

Sure, creating a vacuum on the left increases the viability of a third party, but that’s not going to be viable this election so they don’t have to worry about it.

It’s the Republican politicians that actually robbed you of those rights, and you are actively helping them get more power to do it again. Make it make sense.

So if Dick Cheney said “Russia is terrible, you should support Ukraine” you would oppose Ukraine because Dick Cheney supports them?

Opposing everything Dick Cheney does is mindless and is allowing Dick Cheney to decide what you support.

I will not vote for you

I will not vote for you

I will not vote for you

It looks like you’re not going to vote for anyone anyway so why should either party care what you want?

It’s not by chance that in Europe even whilst becoming full-on Neoliberal parties, Center-Left parties maintained a leftwing discourse and would throw a bone to the Left once in a while (say, minimum wage raises) when in government.

Are you talking about nations with better electoral systems that can support more than 2 parties?

Yes, in a 3+ party system Party A moving closer to Party B to take 1000 votes from them but losing 1500 votes to Party C in the process is a bad play.

In a “Winner takes all” 2 party system where the only thing that matters is having 1 more vote than your opponent to have 100% of the power, Party A moving closer to Party B to take 1000 votes from them is a better position even if it causes them to lose 1900 votes from people who now won’t vote for either party. Moving further away from Party B to get 1000 votes from people who are refusing to vote is a losing position if it causes them to lose 501 votes to Party B.

In a 2 party system chasing the people who are actually voting will always be twice as good than chasing the people who aren’t voting.

inability to protect abortion rights

“I was robbed”

“I blame you more than the thief because you should have protected your stuff better!”

“Be more than just orange man bad”

Here’s a list

“Kamala bad”

I thought we were asking for more than just “opposition bad”?

But if we’re going the “opposition bad” route find me a single item in that list that Trump wouldn’t make worse.
You know, the entire topic of the thread: even if Kamala isn’t good, Trump is significantly worse in every way, and one of them will be president.

So Dick Cheney decides your politics for you?

• If the Leadership of Democrat Party manages to whilst refusing to walk back on their active support of a Genocide, win the election with a “otherwise it’s Trump” strategy, they will move even further to the Right because that confirms to them that they can do whatever they want and still keep in power.

If the Republicans get absolutely walloped in the election for running a wannabe dictator, it will show them that the extremism isn’t going to work and they have to run reasonable candidates to have a chance at winning. Then next election when they present someone who isn’t a megalomaniacal idiot who wants to be a “Dictator Day 1” it will require the Democrats to do better and put more effort than “not a dictator.”

Letting the Republicans be this close will cause the Democrats to move further right because the leftists aren’t going to vote for them anyway, and they sure as fuck won’t vote for Republicans, so moving to the right to steal 1000 votes from Republicans is better than moving left and gaining 1500 votes from people who otherwise wouldn’t vote.

https://kamalaharris.com/issues/

Looks like the campaign has a whole bunch of things besides “orange man bad”. All there on the official page easy to find.

It seems like someone saying the entire campaign is “orange man bad” hasn’t bothered to listen to anything being said and is just focusing on the most salient point in a bad faith effort to discredit them.

It’s been quite some time since I did pre-calc, but I remember there being equations where it was relevant that one infinity was bigger than another.

We’re talking about increasingly smaller fractions here. It’s more like saying if you ground up all the rocks on earth into sand you would have more individual pieces of sand than individual rocks.