metalslug

Let's break this down then into two parts of your sentence; "Convincing people that reality is not what it is" - ie; a lie, an illusion, a false perception .. "does mean that you have changed reality into what you say it is" - you're saying that actual reality and truth has been changed to match that false perception or lie. As absurd as, for example, claiming to fabricate a clone of a real item using nothing more than a mirror. ....and you maintain that a statement that absurd should be a good liberal belief?

This scenario sounds familiar. Do you recall a popular media fed line about "being a dictator on day one" ? ..or the "fine people on both sides" ? Glass houses...

You're seriously sticking with that? Read that (above) back to yourself slowly at least once, because that's truly next-level bullshit. So you're OK with an outcome of compromise just so long as liberals get to propose which areas are acceptable to cede. Just a few more years of war to go then despite more than a few voices from within Ukraine who are much less interested in Crimea than retaking the rest of Ukraine. Riiiight. Because that's the kind of person who gets who win the presidency twice with less campaign spending than both his opponents. "vain"?. Absolutely, and many worse things too, but "fragile"? You're not exactly across events within the last year then; being shot at, prosecuted under absurd new legal precedents with flagrant political motivations.. and came out where he is now. But you're welcome to your opinion; the kind of insight and intuition that had Dems surprised that they lost the election by so much and surprised when Biden had been exposed as impaired. Carry on...

?? I had not yet seen anyone making that argument here, but suffice to say: " Duh ! ". If one cherry-picks enough you can make the rise of Trump look similar to a dozen other people, but Godwin liberals know where the best way to scare the electorate lies (well, they thought they did until earlier this week).

Now there's a typical liberal philosophy if ever there was. <facepalm>. Ukraine forces have been exceptional. That much is true. However; show me one credible and objective military expert or analysis that shows, or even strongly states, that Ukraine can retake all their land with equipment and financial aid alone. I'll wait.... Putin briefly elaborated on his preference for Biden by stating that Biden was more "predictable", thereby implying that Trump was not, and said during a time after Trump had been gloating to North Korea about the "big red button" on his desk. With that kind paranoia, Putin might as well have been a "never Trumper". Yup, they sound like best mates for sure.

Yes, the people of Israel are certainly also onboard with your fears...

That's priceless considering progressive minds just lost the US election through naivety. Just sometimes; pragmatism beats idealism. I truly hope I am wrong in this next prediction; there is no amount of US aid, other than significant US personnel on the ground, that will allow Ukraine to completely recover all the ground that Putin has taken. Future aid will be a bottomless pit that either stalemates that war indefinitely (as it has for about the last 2 years) or erodes to a loss, especially since Putin seems to have acquired North Korean troops. A compromising deal would be only sane way (as compared to nuking Moscow) to stop that war soon. And, yes, such a deal would be unjust and Putin would have seized much more than he deserves and I wish it were not so. If you think that means I'm a Putin supporter then have at it. and then refer back to the first line of my reply above.

Which one were you doing? Which one was Trump doing? ...and answer that with your preferred political narratives only please. <sarcasm>

Let me get this straight - We're in opposites world? If Putin states that he prefers Biden then that actually means he prefers Trump? ...and if Putin were to ever state that he supports Trump then may we then assume that he actually supports Biden (or whichever new D candidate emerges)? ...and not forgetting that it's apparently acceptable for a progressive on this forum to (objectively) compliment Putin on his smarts, but it's abhorrent when any conservative does, as Trump did. There's no version of lefty logic here that doesn't end with your preferred narrative of Putin and Trump as pals. "Heads I win. Tails you lose."

I'm no more a Trump supporter than you are a Harris supporter. It's a conservative vs progressive choice and those were the two names on the ticket. However; it's impressive that yourself and jakee made it through university being unaware of research sources outside of dz.com. With Trump's win today the further debate of his policies becomes moot for me, at least for a while. I'm content to leave the hard-left here to do what they do best; remain in a fantasy bubble which they believe to be 'moderate' and 'mainstream' and piss into the wind as the USA, and indeed the affected world, now carry on without them.

With all the sources independently available to you, free of any spin I could put on them, would you really still want to ask me? (as with yourself, I'm not even American). You'd be making the same mistake as nigel99.

Therein lies your mistake. SC is so far left that most here would not be aware of any good one's since their preferred news media never reports them. You could pick a few of Kamala's later policies (build more wall, no tax on tips) as they are poached from Trump policies. Alternatively you can rely on brent for more examples or consult conservative media sources.

Nah; ousting your boss was patented by the Dems this year. Reps cant re-use it. But; feel free to play any slur card on your fellow Americans other than actual political policy reasons . It's an SC tradition.

That's pretty much what Trump also said. You're onboard too now?

Of course it was. Now collect your tin foil hat.

No he wont, since he publicly stated he preferred a Biden victory (stated when Biden was still in the race.) .

Using the Dem's election strategy I'm quite certain that many fictitious characters will indeed be voting for, if not endorsing, Harris.

Nope, read again. It was you who mixed them up and moved the posts. You even confused yourself with bill. For as long a batteries exist in the mix, their performance is relevant. Actually.. let's screw this. I came back to this forum after a long time only to be reminded, in my first thread contribution, why I left in the first place; reading asinine arguments for sake of argument. It's time (again) for me to rejoin the adults, elsewhere. I might check in once in while, if only to read more parodies of reality and resist taking the bait.

Not when solar is down (for example; evenings) they can't, which was the comparison I stated, unlike a turbine that can. So, the topics shouldn't be confused with each other - I'm sure you have mental capacity to keep them separate... blah (Are we really going to do this.. again?)

..and batteries provide when solar is unavailable (e.g; evening), therefore their ability to do that becomes very relevant. Not obvious to you? Scroll up again. I wasn't replying to bill's post, I was replying to yours. Are you OK ?

By what percentage do reactors and gas turbines reduce in output or capacity over the same period? (assuming maintenance and not replacement). And yet, as others have said, most are not recycled, as it's currently cheaper to mine more lithium than to recycle. It's thereby implied that as recycling increases in future years, the price goes up. Herein lies another contradiction; renewables are hailed as the cheap form of energy and yet in (nearly?) every place where solar and wind are are on the rise to replace fossil fuel electricity there are no trends of a drop in wholesale electricity pricing. People can 'brush up' on renewable talking points all day, but most are 'brushing up' on what they read on their utility bill, and a future of recycling costs (potentially more than mining costs) and many more batteries to be built for sustainable all-day output. The whole site is effectively down, in terms of active solar, for about 12 hours of every day. I'll bet turbine and nuclear plants wish they had that percentage of maintenance opportunity.

Did you forget the original context of your statement? ; "After a while you pay off the plant. At that point you are making that $4 forever." What you dismiss as 'maintenance' are replacements of entire panels and batteries over time as they age. While sunshine may be an infinite resource, the minerals and materials to replace the harnessing infrastructure are not infinite; expected supply&demand pricing and the countries controlling those markets, you'll rival or exceed the original capital cost after (I'll be generous now) 30 years, a ratio higher than equivalent gas or nuclear 'maintenance'. You'll be spending a good percentage of that $4 forever. "..since energy will get more expensive.." As renewable solutions? I don't doubt it.

..and what did my post state by comparison? Are you standing with bill on that $4 forever ? Nuclear technology is also improving, arguably a truly long-life plant or cost reduction breakthrough could be possible someday. Are you asserting that replacement is only required when it gets to zero? By that standard I can confidently state that I recycle paper cups filled with warm coffee. The coffee inside them is valuable to me, the rest of the item goes someplace else. Win !

Nah, depending on geography the sun stops shining for around 12 hours of every day and that's assuming there's no inclement weather to reduce sunlight further. Here we see the repeated outright green lie. Most solar panels currently in use will last perhaps 20 years, the supporting batteries about half that, and then someone gets to decide which landfills to dump them in (any toxic materials in them notwithstanding), and that assumes they wont have a 'Fort Bend County' moment before then. Other than their much smaller site footprint; gas and nuclear plants will get 50 to 80 years of life and won't be dependent on wind or sunshine.

Right on cue! The echo chamber has responded.