WW2 was already won by the time the USA officially joined in.

What? WW2 started in September 1939 and ended in September 1945. The US was already assisting the Allies with cash and carry purchases as early as November 1939 and joined the war December of 1941. For a war that was "already won", why did it last 4 more years? Also, this timelapse doesn't show the Allies making any real counter-gains until mid-November 1942 in North Africa. Most importantly, the reason history says the US was critical to the war effort is because they not only opened up a second front with Japan (If that wasn't present, Germany and Japan together could have taken Russia), but also supplied critical materiel for the war effort via the Lend-Lease Act. The US spent about as much as all the other allies combined, paying for nearly half the war.

You're deluded if you don't think the US had a critical role in ending that war.

The only one of your responses that applies specifically to blue states, is "Ideological and political reasons." The other hinderances apply equally to red states. So what is it about blue-state ideology and politics, that hinders expansion of green energy? They *say* they want it and that it's important, so why is it not happening? Texas, by contrast, has a governor who is openly against green energy. And yet, Texas has *3x* more wind power than *any* other state, and is #1 in solar and soon, #1 in battery storage. What gives?

I mean it's not rocket science...it's not politics. Red states have the most wind. And the most sun.

https://www.google.com/search?...

https://www.google.com/search?...

It's almost as if there's an invisible hand at work...

Last I looked, about a third of Americans weren't working.

Where did you get that number? It's nowhere near that. Are you included the ~25+% of the country that's retired and wouldn't return to work no matter what the jobs are paying?

different configurations of bacteria extract different levels of energy from the same food?

Yes, different people have slightly different numbers for "calories in" for the same food

You do know that metabolic response can dramatically alter how the body conserves and expends energy, right?

Yes, different people have different metabolic burn rates

Nothing in what you said alters the laws of thermodynamics, and you should stop pretending it does. If you know your body's burn rate and your body's general caloric intake from the food you eat, you can 100% with absolute certainty use calories in/calories out to guarantee the direction of your weight gain/loss. I will literally never understand you people that latch onto very niche biological processes and use them to try to make insane claims about energy conservation. I'll tell you right now...ANY human that limits themselves to say ~1000 calories a day will lose weight. I don't care what your "gut biome" is or your genetics, or whatever. Just because people are slightly different doesn't make the physical laws of reality stop. Yes, it sucks that one person can eat an extra piece of cake than you and still lose weight easier. Maybe your body makes you feel hungrier than the next person with a smaller caloric deficit. Make you're dealing with insulin resistance that another person doesn't deal with. NONE of that means you're "doomed to be a fattie" because minor biological differences are "impossible to overcome". It's always a matter of willpower.

I was riding as a passenger in my friend's Tesla (forget which model). And it apparently had a feature where it ran the high beams all the time unless the car detected a vehicle a certain distance in front of it. However, whatever that distance is/was is wayyyyyy too short. Because I kept saying: "dude, that guy on the highway a quarter mile away is totally getting blinded by you right now". And he was all "nah, the car knows best". To say nothing of opposing traffic in other lanes the car likely can't even see.

Why not though? Moderating as part of a discussion should be perfectly normal. If I think you're an idiot I should be able to mark you as one while also explaining to the world (and you) why that is the case.

Because many (most?) people use moderating just to bury posts they disagree with. Even if they're factually relevant. Which is generally what creates silos. That' encourages an environment that is the exact opposite of "discussion". More "soapboxing", less critical thought.

the real story is way more complex than that, because the legality of the permit was in question and had been under scrutiny by the courts for the entire period in question

It's really not. The vast majority of lawsuit were bourne by environmentalists challenging with laws that were effectively EPA fiat (which change with a favorable administration, or by spending additional time addressing deficiencies). None of them were insurmountable (which is why the project continued on, even in light of the lawsuits). The permit rescinding by a hostile administration, however, was insurmountable.

There's a reason that the oil companies did not bother to fight the Biden administration's decision to rescind the permit, and simply shut down the project.

The project was never shut down; it was suspended: https://www.theguardian.com/en...

And I don't understand why you think they would fight it. The President clearly wasn't going to let the permit through. His words had nothing to do with legality and everything to do with ideology ("Obama said his decision was in agreement with the State Departmentâ(TM)s assessment that the pipeline âoewould not serve the national interests of the United Statesâ): https://www.theguardian.com/en...

The construction companies correctly surmised this project was going to be shelved until they got a more favorable administration.

So it's not really the same thing. It's not even close.

I mean, it's not far off

Also, fuck off with the open borders bullshit. No one wants completely unregulated immigration. The far left in the USA and presumably everywhere else just wants lots of opportunities to move here...not let ANYONE without any sort of security checks whatsoever.

This is only recently true, after substantial political losses. There were next to no checks during the Biden period...you'd just say "asylum" and you'd get in. Then you'd live in the US for years waiting for a court case. Then if you got booted out, you'd just do it again. Wash, rinse, repeat. Dems did not care. One iota. Now that they've lost pretty brutally in the recent election on the topic, they suddenly changed their tune. Funny that.

really need to have the banks and schools take loan risk then you will costs come down.

That's not the only thing that would occur. Risk assessments would then necessarily come into play and way less student loans would be offered. So average cost would decline, but less kids would be able go to college. This is the extra same mantra that gave us the shit home loans of the housing bubble, where risk was a secondary factor to making sure everyone got to live the american dream of home ownership

Eh, Republicans choose not to vote for Nikkey Haley

Yes, Republicans did. Not independents, which is the comment I was replying to. Because of the way our shitty party system works, both Republicans and Democrats effectively vote in their extreme candidates during the primaries, and the moderates and independents in the middle are forced to choose between two shitty options every year. So it oscillates back and forth. Just because "your guy" gets picked in the general election doesn't mean we like his ideas. It just means the last guy was shitty and we're hoping your guy wises up and returns to a sensible middle (or at least a more sensible spending pattern). Though that hasn't happened in several decades.

what bothers me is the vast swath of independent voters who for some inexplicable reason believe the Republican party is better for the economy even though every time they get in charge they immediately crash it and the Democrats have to try to clean up the mess.

You act as if they're choosing the Republican candidate. For the last several decades, the winners have come from protest voting (ala hating the other guy/girl). Though that doesn't stop people from assuming they have some kind of mandate and overreaching like crazy. Which then leads to the pendulum swinging in the other direction when the next party overreaches.

In the old days, we had long runs of same party control...MckKinley/Roosevelt/Taft. Harding/Coolidge/Hoover. FDR/Truman. Reagan/Bush. You'll note that pattern stopped in the early 2000s when the presidency started seesawing back and forth. People don't want any individual anymore. They don't want the other guy. And you're gonna see this again in 2028 when the Dems landslide a win. And of course the message they take away again, like fucking fools, is that the public somehow is in love with all their policies and wants them to ignore half the country and go as extreme as possible with their agenda. And then we're going to get a Republican again in 2032.

You're technically both correct. They are a monopoly, as Webster's defines the word. They aren't yet a monopoly under US law.

None of them were/are Democrats. Neither are they Republican; they are all opportunists. They just discovered that conservatives (especially the religious ones) are easier to gaslight.

I'd argue it's not that Trump is an opportunist. It's that he's a narcissist. And the Dems refused to suck up to him or even give him an ounce of respect. They had the opportunity to advance so much of their agenda by just kissing his ass a bit, but they were too proud. Foreign leaders have generally leaned this lesson as well.

Gas takes time and money to get those boilers (steam engines) up and running..

Not really...relative to the other energy techs, gas is one of the quickest and cheapest to toggle on and off as needed. That's why they're ideal as peakers.

I believe that you are gullible. Which of us is correct?

I am. The man is actively giving away his wealth and has been for at least half a decade now: https://www.forbes.com/sites/k...

He's on record on wanting to give away 99% of his wealth over the next two decades. If he actually wanted to keep growing his wealth, his wealth growth wouldn't have been flat for the past 5 years (when practically every other billionaire has nearly doubled or tripled in that time: https://ips-dc.org/total-u-s-b...).

I know you really badly want to believe Gates is still a cutthroat little shit. But believe it or not, people's priorities do change.