They don’t. But if they already have it in for someone, which the Democrats in Congress almost certainly do right now, public opinion can give them a cover to act.

It’s certainly not for our benefit, but if one group of shitlords wants to take another shitlord down a few pegs, I’m certainly going to enjoy the show.

YOU might not. But I’m sure the politicians and bureaucrats who determine whether Musk’s businesses continue getting billions in taxpayer funded subsidies would sure like to know if the public is behind continuing to do that. I for one would consider it a bonus if say, the Democrats won control in November, looked at the numbers and decided none of their supporters are behind Musk, determined he’s been playing fast and loose using taxpayer dollars to fund pushing his own political agenda, and turned off the free ride.

Perhaps, but that motivation is only useful when it can be translated into political action - not creating an untrained army to be fed directly into fascist prisons and police brutality meat grinders.

You might be creating more revolutionaries under a conservofascist administration, but in practice it’s just doing this:

Edit: You don’t even need to look far into the past to see that this doesn’t work. Look at Hong Kong. The city’s leadership swung to fascism, and your prediction came true. Some of the biggest protests in the history of the city by some of the most motivated demonstrators… followed by a brutal crackdown, arrest, exile, and now fascist control of the city is more or less guaranteed for generations. The population is no longer CAPABLE of mounting ANY kind of resistance. Yes, Hong Kong had its fascism forced on it rather than choosing it at the ballot box, but the result will be the same. Fascism doesn’t care how it gets its power.

They might have their causality backwards regarding the serious brain damage.

I mean, the amount of time the US takes is an outlier. Most countries announce and have elections in a shorter time span than 2 months, and if it’s a proportional government, sometimes you don’t find out the leader until AFTER the election.

If I had to guess, I’d think it’s because the main two parties have a spot on the ballot that is going to be filled by SOMEONE, so it’s not exactly the same… They have time to replace a candidate, but it would be inconceivable to seek to REMOVE their spot from the ballot and forfeit the state. There’s a slot that is to be filled. In the case of a third party candidate it’s a full expunging of not just a person, but the whole party itself. I guess if he really wanted to, he could make the case that he should be able to remove his name and substitute another candidate, but that’s not the same thing.

None of that is incompatible or inconsistent with a Harris victory. If this is your expressed goal and desired outcome, it is MUCH easier to do under Harris than under Trump where any action you take is more or less guaranteed to be met with responses from any number of empowered supremacist groups.

Also, I only EVER hear these revolutionary ideas and pushes during the last 6 months before an election when people proudly virtue signal about their intent not to vote for the Democrat. Just like with third parties, where is all of this political will and activity during the off-years when there’s time to actually BUILD a grassroots movement?

I’m with you. Our choices suck. The time to start doing something about that is November 6th, after the election is won and a backslide has been prevented. Build out a movement and come back in 2028 with a platform, a base, and a candidate.

deleted by creator

They were as bad, but there weren’t so many. Most of them weren’t “activated” yet.

Yeah, it sounds like the kind of thing you could do but would pay out the butt for as a private service. Road map books and asking directions were my go-to.

Of course, post-internet but pre-GPS there was always mapquest.

To be fair, I think people looked at the folks who were into mermaids as outlandish too. “Been around for a long time” doesn’t mean the same thing as “totally accepted socially”.

You are absolutely right that cars are heavier now, which means they are putting more energy into a collision, but cars are also better at dissipating that energy. I don’t actually know enough to know what wins in that face-off. You could very well be right. I’d defer to someone with more expertise in collisions.

Number of cars. Increase the number of cars, you increase the number of deaths. But any given collision is more likely to be survivable than in the past.

Also, it’s not a perfect analog, but a quick search for deer hits and you can see modern cars crumple just fine.

Don’t get me wrong… I’m not saying this deer was out dancing that very night, but if you’re gonna hit me at 30 MPH with either a flat, unyielding piece of steel with potentially sharp edges and/or rusted spots, or a soft piece of plastic or fiberglass formed to cushion my impact into the engine where the REALLY hard parts are, I’m going to choose the plastic/fiberglass every time.

Edit: Here. Just to back up the information I’m giving you…

The ABSOLUTE number of deaths are increasing, because the number of people and cars are increasing. But as a function of percentage of population they are only slightly above the lowest they’ve been since the 20’s. Modern cars are much safer. Even a bad SUV with horrible visibility is safer to all involved in a crash than an average car in the early 80’s. The numbers don’t lie.

Source

Edit again: To give pedestrian numbers to go with that:

You do have a point… there ARE increases in recent years, but overall the rate is still nearly half of the rate in the 80s. You are correct the most very recent trend is worrying, however.

Don’t forget the inability of the rich to keep you in poverty wages when there aren’t 50 people waiting to replace you at every job!

Totally viable as an option if that’s the goal.

If that’s New Zealand’s goal, they should do exactly the same.

But if they’re looking for a balance between risk and convenience, there’s factors to be considered that the article glosses over.

If you get the opportunity. It’s just as likely the impact of the all-steel frame with no crumple actually bisects your body right in half, or crushes your internal organs to paste.

Rolling over a hood is “better” because it consumes energy. Everything about mitigating a crash impact is about putting as much of the energy of the impact as possible somewhere other than a human body. You don’t get the opportunity to do that at all if the initial impact is rigid. It’s putting all that collision energy directly into you.

It is - both things can be true. There are certainly some types of vehicles and conditions that are less safe than others, often for unjustifiable and stupid reasons, but the general trend of the average vehicle over time is towards being much safer than in the past. You’d still rather be hit by an SUV with a crumple zone than a sedan with an all steel body, all else being equal.

It’s also worth noting the current speed limits were set in 1985. I know this is the wrong place to point it out, and I do hate cars, but acknowledge they have value for some use cases. That said…

Since 1985, car safety evolution has introduced: -Traction Control -Anti-lock Brakes -Airbags -Electronic Stability Control -Crumple Zones -Adaptive Cruise Control -Blind spot detection -Pedestrian detection

…just to name a few. Cars are safer now than they’ve ever been, for both drivers and pedestrians (the Cybertruck not withstanding), so it’s equally strange to suggest that the same speed limit that was set in the mid-80s is the best balance of convenience and safety. If it’s simply a matter of reduction in absolute terms, why not LOWER the speed limit?

Not saying the article’s premise is wrong, but it’s kneejerk. In fact, smartly using speed limits can help to push traffic into out of the way areas where it will be less problematic to pedestrians. For example, lowering the speed limits in pedestrian areas in cities and increasing them less dense, outer areas can both improve traffic flow and make dense spaces more pedestrian friendly by diverting traffic into roads with fewer people. And intercity traffic through areas with little to no pedestrian traffic is a no-brainer.