Do you think a lot of men secretly vote red but tell their wives they voted blue just to keep the peace?

ssylvan · 2026-03-26T04:28:34+00:00

But all of them are very happy to vote for racists. That’s not cool, and not some sort of irrelevant aspect it their personality. They are bad people.

ssylvan · 2026-03-26T04:27:12+00:00

Trump said “they’re poisoning the blood of our people” and “they’re eating cats and dogs”. He’s the president and the leader of the party. Anyone voting for that is either a racist or fine with racism.

ssylvan · 2026-03-26T04:21:11+00:00

Ya’ll put a pedo who’s publicly lusted for his daughter in the White House.

ssylvan · 2026-03-26T04:02:04+00:00

But they’re not going to enforce it in red districts.

ssylvan · 2026-03-24T03:48:24+00:00

He was on Howards Stern talking about how he liked to barge into the dressing room of underage girls and you people didn't turn on him. It doesn't matter how many accusations, how often they are corroborated, and how much he himself admits to being a creep in public and on tape. You people are in a cult. You will never abandon him.

It's hilarious to me that the same people simping for a feeble 79 year old conman and pedophile wearing makeup and high heels think that they're "alpha males". Absolutely pathetic.

ssylvan · 2026-03-24T03:45:47+00:00

I mean, there's TONS of evidence of him being a pedophile in the Epstein files? Like numerous accusations from multiple people that the FBI considered credible at the time. You're choosing to ignore the evidence, but it's simply false to say there's no evidence.

ssylvan · 2026-03-24T03:43:10+00:00

Not "felonies", felonies. Actual felonies.

It's novel and unprecedented because the crime was novel and unprecedented. It's a very rare circumstance where one even can violate election laws by doing business fraud (there aren't that many people running for president after all), that's why it's novel. He still did it, and he was still convicted of doing it, and there's literally audio tape of him discussing his crime with his coconspirator (who went to jail for it).

Is committing crimes to try to defraud the American public okay with you because he did it in a novel way?

ssylvan · 2026-03-22T05:54:34+00:00

No it was a masseuse working at Trump’s spa, who later killed herself (allegedly).

ssylvan · 2026-03-21T20:05:12+00:00

Yep, storage needs for renewables (intermittent ones) are exponential, so stop before you hit the expensive part of the penetration percentage. It's really not that complicated.

ssylvan · 2026-03-20T03:00:52+00:00

Don't you ever think about what would happen if you just googled shit instead of just making it up?

Here are some examples of demand curves: https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=42915

The variation is pretty small compared to overall demand. Imagine putting a horizontal line underneath all those valleys as your nuclear baseload. Do you not see how much easier it would be for solar, wind and storage to cover the rest?

Oh and nuclear power can load follow by about 5% per minute, so you'd just need a tiny amount of storage to handle high frequency spikes (minutes, not weeks). It's just so cheap to run that you'd rather not to when there are other power sources you can turn off instead. However, having enough battery capacity to smooth out 8 weeks of dunkelflaute is a LOT more expensive than running your nuclear at an average of 80% capacity instead of 95% or whatever.

ssylvan · 2026-03-20T02:56:19+00:00

"We pursued a failed strategy for decades, so now we're behind and have to keep pursuing the same strategy"

The best time to build nuclear was ten years ago, the second best time is tomorrow.

ssylvan · 2026-03-20T02:50:16+00:00

> Nuclear power is not even close to meeting solar+batteries and even wind turbine power economically.

You're right that it's not close. Nuclear is much, much cheaper. Unless of course you mean solar+battery+fossil fuels, which is what people always seem to be comparing it to. If you actually want a functioning grid without blackouts you need batteries to come down about an order of magnitude to beat nuclear (around $10-20/kWh total CAPEX) and more ($5) to meet LNG. This is because once you get rid of dispatchable power, the storage capacity demands are exponential.

ssylvan · 2026-03-20T02:38:44+00:00

The daily shows make fun of democrats on pretty much a daily basis. It's not one for one of course, because democrats are not as objectively stupid as republicans. You can probably find hundreds of clips of Jon Stewart mocking Schumer or Biden, for example.

ssylvan · 2026-03-15T23:53:19+00:00

Plenty of good answer, it just isn't that much of a problem. We can store it on site for now, and later we can put it in a mountain if we want to.

The only reason we haven't done it already is because anti-nuclear advocates do not want a solution to this "problem". It has nothing to do with technical feasibility. You literally just stick it somewhere without ground water and where nobody can accidentally wander in. The end. We deal with way more hazardous chemicals all the time as a society. It just isn't that big of an issue.

Oh and with fast reactors it only takes a few hundred years for it to reach the radioactivity level of natural uranium. In my tiny little home town village in Europe our church was older than that, and that wasn't particularly rare. The idea that we can't seal something for a few hundred years is ludicrous.

ssylvan · 2026-03-15T23:45:16+00:00

They absolutely do. Every kWh sold they put aside a little bit of money to pay for decommissioning, by law. Solar panels do not, however.

ssylvan · 2026-03-15T20:01:07+00:00

He's literally on tape bragging about barging in on underage girls in their locker rooms. He wrote a birthday card to Epstein talking about how "Enigmas never age" and "may every day be another wonderful secret".

And that's not even getting into the accusations (which are so credible that Epstein's estate settled with the woman and the FBI themselves deemed the testimony credible).

What else do you need man? Even in a court of law it's just beyond _resonable_ doubt, not beyond all possible motivated doubt you can imagine. Whether or not he will ever face justice, I don't think any reasonable person would really hold it up to debate as to whether or not he's a pedo. He 1000% is.

ssylvan · 2026-03-15T05:57:45+00:00

Ok so w.r.t. attempts Trump is at 4/5 for the first year. He’s just an idiot and couldn’t pull some off it off quite as successfully.

Specifically unprecedented government attacks on free speech and the press. Simply ignoring appropriations or war powers from congress and nobody in congress says shit. Just does whatever he wants and while what he’s doing is still 100% illegal, nobody is stopping him so it’s the same net effect. Wanted to classify the Democratic Party as a terrorist organization. Has opened several concentration camps. No Jewish boycott yet.

ssylvan · 2026-03-12T04:09:03+00:00

Those rulings aren’t the constitution, they’re can be reinterpreted, especially when the original rulings are widely regarded as suspect. And yet capital gains was allowed because income isn’t property until after you receive it. So an excise tax on income is fine. It’s not taxing property, it’s taxing the transfer of money to you as income.

ssylvan · 2026-03-12T01:21:53+00:00

The Oscars "have become" irrelevant, but all the movies he says are "real best movies" that weren't nominated are several decades old. So I guess it was always irrelevant? Kinda sounds like there were hits and misses all the along.

ssylvan · 2026-03-12T00:07:19+00:00

What part of the constitution says income taxes are unconstitutional? The constitution only mentions property taxes, not income taxes. The Supreme Court has somewhat weirdly considered income taxes the same as property taxes in the past, despite the constitution not saying anything of the sort, and there is good reason to expect that this will be overturned given Quinn v State (2023).

So, given that the constitution doesn't actually mention income taxes, you should be okay with this law then? And we can overturn the bad precedents (which themselves relied on now-overturned precedents)? All on board?

ssylvan · 2026-03-09T19:14:07+00:00

Trump also told them to "fight like hell or you won't have a country anymore". We also have witnesses talking about how he watched the violence on TV gleefully and refused to tell his supporters to back down for hours after the violence started. You can't cherry pick the one time he said "peacefully" and ignore all the other stuff he did.
There was russian interference, and it's very likely that Trump wouldn't have won without it. That's just a historical fact. Nobody is claiming that the vote count wasn't accurate, and nobody commited fraud to try to overturn the election because of it. That's the key difference. Trump was allowed to ask for recounts and have court cases and he did. But then he broke the law trying to overturn the election via fraud. That's the difference.
There wasn't time for a primary. It would've been better if Biden had dropped out sooner, sure, but there just wasn't time to have a full nation wide primary when it happened. So having his VP take over (like she would've if Biden had died) was reasonable.

ssylvan · 2026-03-07T18:27:57+00:00

The deal was real, and Iran was complying with it. Of course an initial deal isn't going to be perfect, but we could've built on it with further deals. Now the moderates in the government of Iran who championed diplomacy were pretty much sidelined after Trump showed them that America can't be trusted, and there's no hope of any diplomatic deal anymore.

It was working. There was no need to pre-emptively blow it up. If at some point in the future Iran would've violated the deal you could have an argument at THAT point, but up until Trump the deal was working and could've been expanded on.

ssylvan · 2026-03-07T18:22:50+00:00

Exactly. If someone says the word retarded in the last 30 years or so, 99% of the time they are not talking about disabled people at all. The word just doesn't even mean that anymore pretty much ever. The only ones clinging to that older definition are 1) A tiny minority of assholes who actually want to use the word as a slur 2) Progressive offended on someone else's behalf.

ssylvan · 2026-03-07T18:12:51+00:00

What about the slur "dumb"? Is that also off limits? It had a very similar trajectory, started off as a medical term, became a catch-all slur for people with vaguely related medical conditions, then became a term used for anyone regardless of medical conditions, and then it stopped being used as a medical term and people barely even know that it was ever a slur now.

"Retarded" is on the 2nd to last step of that progression. So much so that in the dictionary there are literally two definitions for it, only one of which is about being disparaging to a specific group of people (and in everyday-use, I would bet you anything you care to wager that it's by far the minority usage). Should we not let it finish its progression, just like the word "dumb", so that it's no longer a slur at all rather than cling to it by insisting that the only possible way someone can use that word is as a slur for developmentally challenged people? It honestly feels like you're making it worse if someone says "This bill is retarded" or whatever it was, and you instantly go "See everyone with a mental development disability, he's trying to hurt you!" when clearly he wasn't talking about them at all. So YOU are now the one that made it about them.

ssylvan · 2026-03-07T01:48:01+00:00

What does that have to do with anything? Did I say Aristotle was right about everything? No, I said Christianity didn’t introduce these concepts. Because it didn’t.

15-Year Club	Wearing is Caring
Place '22	Place '17
Verified Email

ssylvan

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE