One problem is cost. It takes millions of dollars to do a truly scientific poll these days. Robocalls don’t work anymore due to cell phone penetration. The phonebook is dead, and along with it any credible listings of numbers that represent real people. Plus very low response rates and spam filters blocking much of polling calls even then. You pretty much have to go door-to-door in order to get a truly good poll, which is something few organizations can do.

As a result, most cheaply done polls use non-random samples and add a giant “fudge factor” to make it look random. It’s not clear how there models really work and there’s no way to audit them.

It’s also known as Appeasement. Liberals that always compromise on everything, especial their core beliefs, are basically part of the problem.

Yeah, same pro-fascist shit as always. Seen your type a thousands times now.

US isn’t Russia. Nor is this something no one else has ever done. It’s basically an argument from nihilism to claim that commonly solved social problems are unsolvable or aren’t part of natural progress in society.

Climate doomerism is also a form of nihilism BTW, although it is off-topic.

No one said otherwise. But you won’t have this congress and this SCOTUS forever.

And again, it is basic legal reform. It is not some hard problem. And since nearly every Western country has both universal health care and gun control, it is pretty feasible for those ideas to spread to the US at some point. All your doing is apologizing for the modern incarnation of racist violence.

The point is that opposition to both is not some permanent feature of the US government. Nor will the SCOTUS always be far right.

As the saying goes, “this too shall pass.” No one can say when, but major political shifts always happen after a while.

When half the country is literally fascist, sure you can admit it isn’t going to happen anytime soon. But that is a temporary phenomenon. Eventually, all of them will die. At some point, the US will be a country run by normal people. You’re going to have large-scale agreement for major reforms.

How many countries have pulled it off? It’s laughable to think it is impossible here. Everything I’ve suggested has already been implemented elsewhere. It’s pretty logical to assume it can happen here too.

Because everything today is exactly as it was when the US constitution was first ratified…

This is anti-progress thinking. It’s laughable that you actually think basic legal reforms can’t happen.

It’s the same story as every other form of cruelty or injustice in American history. People look abroad, realize that such a problem never existed or was solved elsewhere, and eventually will push for the same type of reform in the US.

It doesn’t matter how long it takes or how hard it is. It’s the same story as every other big accomplish of the past, whether it’s ending slavery or women’s voting rights. They took decades to happen, but they all eventually happened.

Those things will all vanish eventually. We currently have the most conservative SCOTUS in basically a century, and the Republican party is near-fascist politically. These are not sturdy foundations for a legal concept. The truth is, society has never accepted murder and cruelty as a necessary part of society. It’s always just a handful of elitists or bigoted fanatics holding society back.

Eventually, many of our current laws and customs will become viewed as the next version of Jim Crow or anti-LGBT laws, and become so unpopular they get repealed. Some take decades to go down, but they always go down. The concept of gun rights will be one of them.

Disagree. The solution is to push for as much gun control as possible, until eventually the dam breaks and the 2A dies. In the long run, gun ownership in the US will resemble how it works in other Western countries, which is to say not much at all.

Some variation on this is the inevitable outcome. It’s same story as with say, universal health care. We already know the solution, we just have assholes and people stuck in the past preventing it. At some point, most of them will die off and society moves on.

It’s the same story as with diesel or ethanol cars. There are always some short-term “easy” solutions that don’t scale or aren’t really that green. BEVs is just the next stage of that. You can obsess all you want with a transitional technology, but that doesn’t stop the march of progress.

Hydrogen is the future. Batteries are unsustainable and will only be a transitional technology.

We have had hydrogen pipelines for decades, and large scale storage in the form of underground salt caverns. These things basically work the same as natural gas pipes and storage systems. The only real challenge was local storage, which has mostly ceased to be a problem with the rise of carbon fiber tanks. There are tens of thousands of FCEVs around the world, and rarely any issues with dealing with hydrogen storage.

The main limiting factor is infrastructure, or rather lack thereof. But the difference here is that you think it is technically impossible or at very least difficult. I believe it is simply a matter of building it, which is pretty straightforward.

BEVs also were impossible to buy for most people until around the mid-2010s. They went a century of near non-existence before then. FCEVs are simply going through a similar process. Sooner or later, they will be everywhere and BEVs will be abandoned afterwards.

You can buy whatever you want right now. It’s not like anyone’s stopping you. The point is that BEVs are not the answer. They are just a transitional idea and won’t last.

No, there are not. A lot of these concerns are from people stuck in the past, or have an agenda.

You can generate your own hydrogen, and there are a few companies building products for that. Though realistically there will be some degree of centralization. Most people will buy hydrogen and not bother with home production.

BEVs are really the result of subsidies and virtue signaling. It is a mandate driven by delusional pseudo-environmentalists. The same people that got nuclear banned in much of the world. It is not a serious attempt at green transportation. And it will likely die-off in favor of FCEVs or other ideas once the time comes.

Which is why car makers need to pursue ideas like e-fuels and hydrogen cars. The obsession with BEVs is tunnel vision, and is doing more harm than good.

The advantages of a chemical fuel is that you make them when costs are very low and save them for when you need them. Even months later if need be. Not doable with batteries. Even the ICCT is admitting that electricity used to make hydrogen is going to much cheaper than electricity used to charge BEVs. It will likely be cheaper to operate a hydrogen car due to that fact.

At least with e-fuels, there’s an argument to be made that there are too many unnecessary steps and that costs will be high. But with hydrogen, that argument doesn’t really hold water. Fuel cell cars are also EVs. The gap between BEVs FCEVs on efficiency is small and shrinking. When the full lifecycle factors are included, it is likely the FCEV is the more efficient idea even now.