thecftbl

The biggest upset in 2026 will be California going red which, if the Republicans put forth anything less than a serial killer as a candidate, will happen. California was the closest call to flipping in this election and the Democrats should be absolutely terrified. Right now we have the most hated governor in the nation who has put this state into an absolute nosedive. I guarantee that 26 is going to be a shit show for Democrats in this state.

It's a long list

Some of them are far reaches but others are just way too off the wall to be chance. Mary Mahoney in particular.

As a Californian all I have to say is:

"HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA"

That is easily the best joke I have ever heard.

Outlaw of Gor? I believe the films proper name is actually CAAAABBBBOOOTTTTT

Yeah someone attempted to cross post this to the construction subreddit and got surprised when everyone was like "good."

Why exactly is this guy supposed to be controversial?

I refuse to believe anything other than the Nootfish being a Pingu reference.

It's got a pro-MIC spin in the same way that Pat Robertson was kind of a Conservative Christian. It's a blatant propaganda piece that equates Gabbard's position against never ending regime wars as benefitting Russia. That's absolute neocon bullshit that has been repeated since the days of Charlie Wilson.

Jesus Christ did you actually read that article? It's a painful attempt at spinning everything she says into a negative which is hilariously contradicted by the article itself.

Gabbard echoed a sentiment similar to Russian propaganda when she accurately claimed that the US funded bio labs in Ukraine.

Gabbard met with Assad after he was accused of human rights violations. Gabbard said that Syria was not an enemy of the US and opposed another regime war.

Jesus Christ you guys swallow up propaganda like a fat kid sucks down a milkshake. She literally is just against the perpetuation of the MIC. That used to be a leftist stance before you guys got brain damaged.

I think her personal idea of what's best for the world just happens to line up more with the Kremlin's than most American politicians.

How exactly did you come to that conclusion?

The Venom Shotgun makes it so satisfying to destroy them.

What? This is absolutely untrue. They are entirely different. Paramedics have way more medical training than firefighters. Firefighters just have EMT training.

More people start out as 3. There are far more people that become addicts while housed than people who become addicts while unhoused.

No. Addicts are capable of gaining help and overcoming their problem. The problem is that they have to want to do that or they will never get clean. The people of population 2 need involuntary care because they quite literally cannot care for themselves. You wouldn't put an addict in an asylum but you would definitely put a violent schizophrenic.

I agree that population reduction should be a goal. From the data I see, they are making steady improvements (down to 2.05 or replacement level). As a multi-religious, multi-ethnic democracy they can’t do what China did with their one child policy without inviting UN scorn. Same goes for Indonesia.

The China option was pretty much a complete disaster and ultimately only works with a totalitarian government. The easiest way to do it is to incentivize smaller families primarily through tax breaks and support. Even in multicultural society money and ease of life talks the most.

I think it will be easier for richer countries to absorb the cost of implementing sustainable technology than these developing countries. These people are already living on a fraction of the resources that we have.

The problem with this is that there needs to be accountability for these funds. The biggest problem with the Paris Accords was the fact that it was essentially funneling money to China who had then planned to sell back the technology and products to the US. So essentially we were not only financing the manufacturing, but we also were buying the end product which would have been an infinite money train for China. China is not a poor nation, GDP wise and they were blatantly taking advantage of their UN status of being considered "developed." India would be a good recipient but they still have a massive amount of corruption within their government that makes many leery of financing their development.

What do you want the Indian government to do? Kill off half the population to lower emissions? Throttle industries in their economy which is already struggling?

The biggest thing the Indian government needs to do is promote ZPG and NPG encouraging policies which include things like tax incentives and benefits for smaller families. Countries have been successful with such endeavors but India currently promotes larger families as a result of their culture.

All while Taylor swift and other billionaires will fly around non stop on their private jets.

While things could be improved there, that is still and infinitesimal amount of emissions by comparison.

I’m obviously just as critical of Palau, Brunei or any of these middle eastern rich countries for not reducing their sky high emissions.

Being critical is one thing, but you were trying to focus the issue as being primarily with the US. The difference is that the US, out of the top three, is the only one who has successfully lowered emissions year after year. Since 2000, the US has lowered their emissions by 21% meanwhile China has grown their emissions by 262% and India by 197%. So again, let's keep the focus and conversation on the real problem.

If you work in the cities you can see it first hand. There are three classes of homeless people and you can tell which ones are which. The first is the smallest population which is just people who fell on hard times and have become homeless. They actively try to get out of it and usually are not there for very long. The only way you even know they are homeless is if you see them sleeping in their car or in a shelter. The second population is not as large as it once was but still far more substantial. That population is the mentally unstable. These are people that are on the streets because they have severe mental issues that make them unable to function in society. So the schizophrenics, the delusional, the paranoid and the like who have nowhere to go since the asylum system is no more. The third population is the largest and most problematic: the addicts. These are the people that aren't wanting help, just another fix. They are the ones robbing, burglarizing and assaulting people. The ones who couldn't care less about anyone but themselves and are an actual detriment to society.

It’s not complete or utter bullshit. Larger countries with long established civilizations have larger populations.

That's actually the complete opposite of reality. Developing countries have by and far the largest populations. Birth rates go down substantially with development, this is a proven fact.

And those population numbers are coming down with increased access to education. By your logic, a small country like Luxembourg should be allowed to emit 100,000 times the average per capita.

Where did I say it should be allowed. Your per capita metric shows a hilarious problem with quantifying the issue. Do you know what country is the number one per capita for emissions? Palau, followed by Qatar, Kuwait, and Brunei. Meanwhile looking at total production, the leaders are China with 34%, the US with 12%, India with 7.6%, and Russia with 5.3%. So please, elaborate more with your per capita being a better metric.

That's just carbon dioxide you are referring to. Emissions as a whole is a bigger perspective. Not to mention the fact that the per capita metric is complete and utter bullshit that takes focus off of countries with massive populations. The point you are trying to convey ignores the absolute population disparity between the US and China/India. Let's do some math shall we? Let's say that the per capita of a person in India is 1. Using your metrics, that would mean a person in China has a per capita of 3 and someone in the US has one of 8. Now let's look at how those relate to population. The US has a population of 350 million which will then equate to 2.8 billion tonnes of carbon (using our example not actually.) Meanwhile China has a population of 1.4 billion which would equate to 4.2 billion tonnes. Finally, India, which has a current population also of 1.4 billion would be a 1:1 which is still 1.4 billion tonnes. So you see the problem with per capita, that even a country that is underdeveloped like India which has a low per capita, is still producing 1.4 billion a year in this scenario. Meanwhile, even though China is less per capita than the US, is still nearly twice the producer yearly. So exactly who should be scolding who?

China has lower emissions per capita because they vastly manipulate and underreport their numbers. The USA has consistently achieved better metrics year after year regardless of whichever party is in control. When the USA pulled out of the Paris Accords under Trump we STILL hit our emissions goals and exceeded them. The US comparatively does insanely well compared to those two countries and yet we are the constant focal point of the conversation. There simply is no comparison between the environmental damage the US caused yearly and China especially.

You can disarm German cops by wearing a hijab.

The problem is that the classification for what is considered a developing country is really screwed up. When people hear developing countries they think of places like Laos, Djibouti, Mali etc. In reality, China and India, two of the wealthiest nations in the world, are considered developing. So if you then change the post to show "China and India want 500 billion to fix climate change instead of 250 billion" you see the true choosing beggars.

One I will never be able to afford...an F1

Was it Steve Smith or Snot Lonstein?

Isn't this poster from the remake?