Coffee_Addict

Thoughts on this? I am a big proponent of nuclear energy, not just because it creates a lot of energy but because it represents a way we can combat the climate crisis.

However, geothermal energy takes advantage of the energy that’s already in the Earth; the trick is accessing it, which the article suggests may soon be a viable option to broadly generate energy without generating greenhouse gases.

Here is the archive link for those interested.

With the last eight years as context, I don’t think Trump will lose any supporters over his performance last night against Kamala Harris.

However, after watching that debate in June, I can say this one left me feeling much better. Trump was easily baited into saying ridiculous shit, such as immigrants are “coming to eat all the pets,” that there are ongoing free transgender reassignment surgeries on illegal aliens in prisons, admitted he negotiated with terrorists by bypassing the Afghan government to directly negotiate with the Taliban, wasted time defending his rallies after Harris is pointed out people were leaving them early because they were “bored,” and defended the consequences of Roe versus Wade being overturned by saying “This is what everybody wanted.”

In my opinion, Kamala Harris set the tone of this debate at the very start when she crossed the stage to force Donald Trump to shake her hand.

Here is the archived link for those interested.

It said that in seats won by the Lib Dems “voters would explain that they were voting Lib Dem in these traditionally Tory strongholds because Ed Davey’s party just seemed more ‘normal’”.

Yes.

Archived version for those who want to read the article.

Democrats are good the economy. Republican are bad for the economy.

It’s amazing that republicans have managed to convince so many people otherwise.

$10 a month. I plan to cancel after the election.

Personally, Morris’ model at 538 had such a questionable take on Biden vs Trump it shook my faith in it. I still think it’s good as a polling aggregator, and its tools (such as the interactive map) are pretty solid, but I decided that $10 per month was acceptable to get access to a model I think has a more realistic take on the election.

538’s new model is untested, and for all I know it could be accurate. However, it still has some takes I find extremely unlikely.

Nate Silver’s model (in my opinion) paints a more realistic picture of what to expect; despite Harris’s qualifications and Democrats extremely high enthusiasm, it remains an uphill battle because of the electoral college.

This is what Nate Silver's Silver Bulletin has right now.

As always with polling predictions, it's a big if. So, if the elections were to happen right now and Nate Silver's model is completely accurate (it's obviously not; no model is) then the results would be 303 Kamala Harris to 235 Donald Trump.

Screw Kari Lake. She’s an election denier.

“You’re going to have a hard time believing this, but so help me, I triple-checked it,” [Bill] Clinton began. “Since the end of the Cold War in 1989, America has created about 51 million new jobs. I swear I checked this three times. Even I couldn’t believe it. What’s the score? Democrats 50, Republicans one.”

Perhaps the greatest con the republican party ever pulled off was the notion that they are better for the economy than democrats.

Here is the archived version for those who want to read the article.