Communism?

Desperation is a stinky perfume, glad to see "you people" are running on fumes.

And I am speaking to the overly performative nature of this administration, I mean, "sam.gov" because of Uncle Sam? Like that has zero to do with anything, it's just performative "patriotism" masking what is overall a bad action and they are expecting their supporters to just "relax guy, don't worry about what spy tools the government uses, just feel patriotic! Uncle Sam!"

It's the same with Trump putting his face on every agency federal building (including the DOJ) nothing ominous about that at all! Relax!

So if supports of the administration don't want people calling them fascist maybe you need to tell the admin to stop doing fashy shit.

Then you're a Democrat, just a moderate one. It's a big tent.

"God damn you, Walter! You fuckin' asshole! Everything's a fuckin' travesty with you, man! And what was all that shit about (communism)? What the *fuck* has anything got to do with (communism) What the fuck are you talking about?"

I'm not OP but myself, being a fan of liberalism and American values (unlike the conservatives today) know you couldn't or shouldn't criminalize viewpoints or political affiliation.

However there is nothing stopping the rest of us from making being or associating with conservatives so socially repugnant that they should hide themselves in shame, disengage from having strong political opinions (because it's obvious they are incapable of understanding American institutions, law and values) so as to make conservatism politically irrelevant for the next 2 decades until they root out the rot they have allowed to take over their movement and come back to the table with sane people and sane policy.

And here we have the classic "just do talking points, don't worry about context!"

Agreed and the thing is this type of article doesn't even allow us to have that conversation, it's already made it's determination.

I know you're not saying that but anyone who says that is making the argument of a child and should be discarded, a complete inability to take in the context of each thing and judge it accordingly and take the pros and cons and adjust accordingly. They're not the same as diesels other than they are both bus shaped.

"Way more" is carrying a lot of effort and cities can and should build exactly that type of infrastructure. If EV busses are anything like EV cars the cost upsides are in the long term and considering most busses run everyday the TCO over their probably 2 decade lifetime should be quite high instead of burning diesel all day long.

Even more so for busses than cars it makes pretty obvious sense since they already have dedicated depots they return to end of shift and they also spent quite a lot of time idling and waiting as well as doing stop and go driving, all things EV have advantages with.

Oh and the part i left out, this would have to be framed in comparison to traditional diesel busses. Do they never have safety recalls? Heres one of a tranditional bus model having to do recalls of 16000 units due to safety recalls. Does that means buses are a failed concept and the manufacturer should be charged with fraud? Have no diesels had recalls due to their DPF systems? Carbon coking or other ICE specific problems?

https://news.buses.org/motor-c...

Sure but you're doing the same thing by leaving out the context of that issue: the trucks originally were working with charging in any temp and in the garage but then there was a fire risk issue with a recall on the batteries so the manufacturer did a software update for safety that places restrictions on charging to mitigate fire risk until the replacement.

Now sure that kinda sucks in the winter sure but this is somewhat new tech but that is hardly showing the idea is failing or anywhere close to "fraud" as the narrative here is presented. Meanwhile the bus company already said they have more busses with newer batteries on order.

If the article was called "new EV bus program experience growing pains in winter" that's more fair to whats happening.

That's not really blaming the government either, what he says is correct; The grant is there to give a leg up for places to try something new, it being new means it could have growing pains as we see here, issues that in the article they are already addressing.

This is my point, this is fossil fuel lobbyists doing "perfect is the enemy of good" as a backhanded tactic.

Not that these concerns aren't worth discussing but consider the narrative in this article and who is presenting it:

"energy workers advocacy group Power the Future"

Now for one thing "energy workers" pretty much means "oil and gas industry" and when you go the website of Power the Future it's full of them representing themselves on Fox news. "We believe America is blessed with abundant and reliable energy sources that have been the lifeblood of our national advancement and prosperity." Come on, that's a dog whistle as loud as a bullhorn.

Second one is "Institute for Energy Research" and that itself has a Wikipedia entry "IER is often described as a front group for the fossil fuel industry.[3][4][5] It was initially formed by Charles Koch, receives donations from many large companies like Exxon, and publishes a stream of reports and position papers opposing any efforts to control greenhouse gasses."

So is there a real issue here? Maybe but the article and how it's being presented is presenting a narrative, exactly the type of thing climate deniers accuse their opposition of doing all the time. Interesting aint it?

That's great but doesn't address my first point, have we seen a relative increase in consumption of high protein non-meat products which have been around forever or is it mainly meat based protein? They are cheaper and more convenient than a steak without as many of the health side effects.

I was not making a judgment on the actual health one way or another, just how the whole thing is muddled in culture war. How many high protein body bros also swear off seed oils despite there really being no actual science to the negative, toxic and inflammation claims (other than what applies to all fats anyway).

Lentils as well (which i guess are really just different beans), also seitan, tofu, quinua.

The high protein thing is as much cultural as it is anything about health or nutrition, not saying about OP but for many it's about the virtue signal of eating meat, it's become a social signal.