Not just different things, but whether those things even exist
Like, I'm all about debating the best approaches to fighting climate change. I'm not about debating whether it exists.
You can't debate solutions when you disagree about what the problem is
I think you're missing their point. They aren't saying they are going to do that, or that it's a good idea, they're saying enough people are going to react that way for it to be a problem. It's not good enough to be correct, you need to be convincing. Just because I can hold my nose and vote for the lesser evil doesn't mean I'm not concerned that not everyone will.
So dumb. Also insanely naively hopeful/optimistic.
I remember when I was a teenager and starting to question religion I talked to my sister about it a little. She was certain that if we didn't have Christianity that everyone would just be going around raping and killing each other. I was super confused at the time (cause I was a child) but a little later realized oh, she has no empathy or morals, no internal sense of right and wrong....and she doesn't know that other people actually do. The convo was confusing because at the time I didn't understand her at all when she asked things like 'without hell what would stop you from killing people?'. A little later I started thinking about how many people thought this way and if it was possibly enough to f up a democracy. Anyway here we are
I accepted it when I was a teenager. What's difficult is getting people that grew up in loving families to comprehend that I'm not anti family, and would love to have a family I could talk to, but the one I was born into are unempathtic narracisstic Nazis.
'Have you tried x? Have you tried y? I don't think you're trying z enough'
One close friend recently married into a similar family and it's been super eye opening for them.
When I meet magas one of the questions I like to ask is something along the lines of describe your ideal healthcare system. 90% basically describe Medicare for all. I clarify, get more detail (basically make them really think about it as much as possible), and then ask which candidates or party they believe is in line with them. Obvs I want to avoid backing them in a corner so don't say 'Aha you're a socialist!'. Rather, I work though it with them, google candidates and see what their policy is. Bonus points when half the R websites don't even have policy so they can see that. Anyway we generally get to the point that they think they might be left of both parties on that issue. And then I try to plant a seed that this is a totally normal process for figuring out who to support and get out of there while they feel some mutual respect between us. It's harder these days when the fascism is so blatant but I don't know what else to do when I find myself living in a democracy with a bunch of insane people
I recognize you're doing some form or devils advocate and I appreciate that. I grew up in the ruins of one of those cities and it really helped define my political beliefs. I think it's important to not suddenly frame NAFTA as this wonderful thing just because trump opposes it. There is a real reckoning we need to have as a country when it comes to rebuilding our industrial base. Are tariffs the answer? Almost certainly not, but that doesn't mean that the people asking for them are completely delusional. Trump is capitalizing on a real pain that people are feeling, and have felt for a generation now. I wish we had a proper progressive to reframe the debate. It's not about us vs Canada, it's about the disgustingly wealthy vs everyone else. You don't want people to support tariffs? Then we need real left wing populist arguments.
I know it's stupid. Being right should be good enough. But it's not. We need to be convincing. And not 'republican lite' convincing - more like teddy Roosevelt f'ing come at me unabashed progressivism convincing.
I mean presumably he's getting a pile of money. Or there's kompramat. Or, more likely, both. Also he just likes when people talk to him like he's special, I'm sure it took the KGB all of 6 seconds to figure that out and take advantage of it
If destruction be our lot, we ourselves must be it's author and finisher
Yeah my assumption would be that it was open on both sides, otherwise it wouldn't be deenergized. But that doesn't mean you can't get induced current flow. Let's say our dead line shares a tower with a high voltage live line. Our dead line has multiple ground connections via undergrowth. The live line experiences a line to ground fault, creating high currents in its faulted phase but also a ground potential rise at the fault location. So now our dead line is experiencing possible potential differences between its many ground locations as well as induced current. This current would be inherently directed to the lower potential ground which in this case is likely via a tree branch. I don't think it would take much current or much time for that to create a fire.
Again, I don't think any of this is particularly likely, but I don't think it's out of the question either. At the very least it's the kind of question industry should always be asking itself
My first reaction is also pretty skeptical. That said, while the article was written by someone not really in the industry it is an interesting question. We know normal line operations create mutual inductances...I think if there were a dead line that temporarily shared a ROW or even a tower with an energized line could be subject to this. Esp during a fault on the energized line.
Basically, I think it's unlikely but it's definitely not impossible and is probably worth looking into
They are arguing that a real progressive would try to fix democracy. Overturn citizens United. Get money out of politics. Push for an alternative to first past the post. Remove the electoral college. You do those things and fascism becomes much easier to defend against.