We recommend four widely applicable high-impact (i.e. low emissions) actions with the potential to contribute to systemic change and substantially reduce annual personal emissions: having one fewer child (an average for developed countries of 58.6 tonnes CO2-equivalent (tCO2e) emission reductions per year), living car-free (2.4 tCO2e saved per year), avoiding airplane travel (1.6 tCO2e saved per roundtrip transatlantic flight) and eating a plant-based diet (0.8 tCO2e saved per year). These actions have much greater potential to reduce emissions than commonly promoted strategies like comprehensive recycling (four times less effective than a plant-based diet) or changing household lightbulbs (eight times less).

^{https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aa7541/pdf}

Nothing at all?

I’m not sure about that, as I’ve seen conflicting information. Medicare has existed for around 60 years, and not only have patients been more satisfied with their care on average than people with private insurance, the costs have also been lower than private insurance overall. Couple those factors with metrics from the most recent study I was able to find on the cost of single payer, and the picture seems a bit muddier than you’re presenting it.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8170543/

https://www.kff.org/medicare/issue-brief/how-much-more-than-medicare-do-private-insurers-pay-a-review-of-the-literature/

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/universal-health-care-could-have-saved-more-than-330-000-u-s-lives-during-covid/

https://ysph.yale.edu/news-article/yale-study-more-than-335000-lives-could-have-been-saved-during-pandemic-if-us-had-universal-health-care/

We recommend four widely applicable high-impact (i.e. low emissions) actions with the potential to contribute to systemic change and substantially reduce annual personal emissions: having one fewer child (an average for developed countries of 58.6 tonnes CO2-equivalent (tCO2e) emission reductions per year), living car-free (2.4 tCO2e saved per year), avoiding airplane travel (1.6 tCO2e saved per roundtrip transatlantic flight) and eating a plant-based diet (0.8 tCO2e saved per year). These actions have much greater potential to reduce emissions than commonly promoted strategies like comprehensive recycling (four times less effective than a plant-based diet) or changing household lightbulbs (eight times less).

^{https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aa7541/pdf}

Okay, thank you. I wasn’t sure. Why couldn’t they just pay them 50k and lobby for single payer to save money? It seems like you’re suggesting that they’d have to raise wages if single payer was implemented? Maybe I’m still confused, because it still seems like they’d save money in the long run?

Please forgive my ignorance on the topic. You seem to know a lot about it. Are you saying that they save more money than the insurance costs them?

Wow! Companies could sure save a lot of money if they lobbied for single-payer! I wonder why they don’t! 🤔

👍 Good luck out there!

I don’t have a position on cell phone interfaces and hadn’t planed to give one. No skin in this game, really, though it’s clearly a contentious issue!

I just can’t help but notice when people are being terrible conversation partners, mostly. Me finding you to be an asshole has nothing to do with how I feel about cell phone ports.

Anyone fucking stupid enough to think the 3.5mm Jack is a good thing deserves the disappointment they feel every time a device doesn’t have own, tbh, bring it on themselves

Are you 12?

I love how anyone with half a fucking brain poor conversational skills and an inability to see things from someone else’s perspective gets down voted.

Try talking to people online as though they were in the same room as you, IRL. If you’re already doing that, I have to ask, how many offline friends do you have?

So, the Amazon & Walmart strategy?

How can you call it a “free market” if it’s actually a “free market*”?

^{*terms and conditions apply}

👍

Let’s discuss this:

Belittling people is rarely a good dialectical tactic, and speaks to your own level of maturity. If this is the type of discourse employed by green party supporters and campaign volunteers, I’ll be staying away.

Based on what I’ve seen of your post history here, you’re a combative ideologue who’s not interested in building anything other than ill-will, with seemingly zero desire to talk about anything that doesn’t give you an opportunity to aggressively proselytize. You seem to turn every conversation you have into an abrasive display of your moral superiority, repeating the same talking points ad nauseum while abandoning any points that shift out of your favor.

Perhaps you hope that you can activate non-voters with your accusatory, venomous, divisive rhetoric, but I struggle to see how that strategy will be beneficial should a Green candidate make it to the Presidency. Coalition building with the Democratic party will absolutely be necessary to get Green legislation through congress early on; It seems short-sighted to belittle and alienate those who vote closest to your interests on the political spectrum by equating them with those who vote furthest from your interests. Ideals are important, but game theory underpins all political action and must be considered.

Further, RCV does not require the Green party to be implemented. Many states have been experimenting with RCV (and other alternative voting systems) without leadership from the Green party (source). That trend has been picking up steam across the nation.

Granted, but, begging the question… does that mean rightward pressure has been exerted on the overton window such that people’s attempts to move it leftward have been frustrated?

The term is named after the American policy analyst Joseph Overton, who proposed that an idea’s political viability depends mainly on whether it falls within this range, rather than on politicians’ individual preferences. … The Overton window is an approach to identifying the ideas that define the spectrum of acceptability of governmental policies. It says politicians can act only within the acceptable range. Shifting the Overton window involves proponents of policies outside the window persuading the public to expand the window.

^{https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window}

Data does not actually support the idea that politics are shifting right:

The title of your article is literally:

America More Liberal than 50 Years Ago—But Change Not Reflected in Its Politics

systematic

They weren’t even that good as a kid if you read anything else

Here’s an excellent analysis of how and why the Harry Potter hype of the late 90s was very intentionally manufactured and sold to kids.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UBftW7FzOVI

People who twist words around to intentionally misrepresent their conversational partners are neither arguing in good faith, nor are they good people, generally. Your parents should have taught you this. Do better.

Bad Faith Arguments:

It means that you’re not arguing to come to a mutual understanding. In a true debate/argument, both sides must be willing to acknowledge if the other side has good points and be open to changing their minds. If you tell someone you want a “debate” but you really just want to antagonize them or preach to them, you are lying when you say you want to “argue”.

Bad faith generally is an intent to deceive.

Here are some resources:

• Identifying fallacies.
• List and description of various fallacies. (You may want to pay particular attention to the Straw Man section)
• How to have better arguments

You can do better if you decide to. The first step to being better is learning how to converse and debate like a mature adult. You will continue to be labeled a troll if you decide you’d rather just keep acting like an uneducated, petulant child.