It depends. There’s a lot of areas in coal country that are deeply conservative in part because conservative politicians promise to protect coal jobs and to disrupt renewables. That of course varies by location, but E.G. Texas which has a large oil company presence is going to have a lot of conservative voters who are anti-renewable because they’ve made their career working in the petroleum industry. So while not every conservative is going to be against solar, quite a lot of them are.

That can delay things, but ultimately it will be the US against the rest of the world and no amount of subsidies will be able to offset that. We’re already seeing the early stages of that with China having invested heavily in solar. Cheap Chinese made solar panels are starting to drive the cost of solar installs down and China is still ramping up. Between the public backlash against fossil fuels on one side, and increasing economic pressure on the other eventually they’ll cave and phase the subsidies out.

Ultimately this is how renewables win. Not because people are pushing for them, but because they’re cheaper and easier. In order to reach that point we do need a certain number of early adopters that are using renewables because it’s the right thing, but we’ll eventually hit a tipping point where it costs you more to use non-renewables and the migration becomes self-sustaining at that point.

I’ve always been partial to:

Meetings: Because none of us are as dumb as all of us.

And

Automation: If a pretty picture and pithy quote are enough to motivate you, you probably have a pretty easy job. The kind robots will soon be doing.

Silencers are very badly named honestly. A “silenced” gun is still very loud, it’s just moderately quieter than an unsilenced one. People watch movies and TV shows and play videogames that make it seem like a silenced gun barely makes any noise at all and think that’s reality. That is very much not reality, it just makes for a more entertaining story.

I’m not sure I’d say that’s more plausible, but I certainly wouldn’t say it’s implausible, and it would definitely be something that anyone with a military treaty with China (or Australia for that matter) would want to take into consideration and have some plans for handling.

Right now, where the US is, is undecided. On the one side you’ve got essentially business as usual with the Democrats. On the other side you have two warring factions. There’s the traditional GOP who would be more or less also business as usual. On the other hand though you have the MAGA who seem to be hell bent on barreling into a christo-fascist dictatorship. Things could tip any direction at this point, there’s no way to really know. Everyone is hoping it goes pretty much any way but MAGA, although right now it’s looking like the MAGA crowd have just about managed to muzzle the traditional GOP.

The issue as you pointed out in your original post wouldn’t be Trump winning, it would be what comes after that. Nobody can see the future, so nobody can say for sure, but if you trust the things that Trump has actually said, the MAGA-Reich as you put it seems a highly probable future in that event. Even if Trump were to keel over dead the day after he was sworn in, the power the MAGA faction would have would still allow them to execute a coup, and in many ways that would be even worse. Trump is a bumbling moron, but he’s apparently an amazing figurehead and his cult would never allow anyone to replace him while he’s alive.

For Australia (not to mention NATO), a MAGA-Reich is basically a worst case apocalyptic scenario. Unlike with Nazi Germany I’m not sure short of complete nuclear annihilation if anyone would be able to stop the US. Depending on who they decided to attack first the rest of the world would be forced into making a call on how they want to play things, and there’s no real winning choices there. They could stand on the sidelines, but that would likely make them a future enemy. They could join in as the treaties demand, but that’s only going to embolden the US at that point. Lastly they could actively oppose the US, but that’s going to be one hell of a fight, and most countries outside of an alliance between say China and some other major power aren’t going to be able to go toe to toe there.

So yes, as I said previously, just saying “If Trump gets elected we should withdraw from the treaty” is probably premature and overreacting. However it’s in Australia’s best interest to have a plan ready to go in case the worst case happens with Trump, because a Trump win makes it more likely than not. Even a close Trump loss should probably cause US military partners to do some contingency planning.

You don’t think being in a military alliance with the US, that a fascist coup of the US would have bearing on whether Australia would want to remain in said alliance?

As for American domestic politics, when the discussion is explicitly about “in the event of Trump winning re-election” how is that not about American domestic politics? As a partner to a treaty with the US, particular one that would obligate Australia to get involved in wars started by the US, US domestic politics are very much relevant as those are going to be a strong driver for the kinds of conflicts Australia is liable to be dragged into.

Wanting to ditch the treaty just because Trump won might be an overreaction, but it also might not. Any other president in US history it almost assuredly would be. Prior to Jan. 6th even, it would be. But Trump has not only said on multiple occasions that he wants to be president for life, not only repeatedly admitted admiration for Kim Jong Un, Vladmir Putin, and other dictators, but then attempted his own coup however badly organized and executed it was. ALL countries with military alliances with the US are going to want to take a real hard look at if the benefits out weigh the risks of continuing that relationship if Trump is re-elected. For many that calculus might not change immediately, but you can bet they’re going to be watching 2028 like a fucking hawk assuming he wins in 2024, and if he does pull off the coup this time that’s going to be a real bad time for basically everybody, because the US becoming a dictatorship is a deeply deeply scary proposition.

While you’re correct in a geopolitical sense right now, there’s a strong reason to believe things could get a LOT worse. Trump is worrying close to going full fascist, and the parallels to the rise of Hitler are incredibly worrying. It could absolutely just be overreacting, and maybe it will all blow over, but re-election of Trump would show a very worrying pro-dictatorship pro-white christian nationalist bent in the US. It wouldn’t take much in such a situation to see the MAGA party execute a coup of the US government and head down the same path we’ve seen in the past. They’ve already tried it once after all (or twice if you count the storming the the capital and the attempt to certify fake electors as two separate occurrences), and only failed by the thinnest of margins.

In such a situation it’s easy to see a hypothetical militaristic MAGA party starting a war with China, or possibly even more worryingly with someone in Europe and Australia not wanting to get pulled into the mess that would start. It could very well be the start of WW3 and nobody sane wants to see that.

Eventually. Their current boogyman is trans people followed by LGBTQ+ in general. They’ll get around to non-white and non-christian people eventually though.

Pretty sure it’s the second one. They’re not even pretending to target Hamas anymore, they consider anywhere in Gaza a valid target. I don’t think they’re going to stop until every building in Gaza has been leveled, and I bet the US and UN will just wag their finger and do nothing, if they even do that.

Why is it that you never see the headline “X considers tax cut for bottom earners”?

DO NOT CONTACT THIS PERSON! This is a very common scam, you will not get anything back, you’ll just lose more money.

Nothing says winning quite like receiving aid from North Korea. If you ever find yourself in a situation where North Korea is in a position to give you something useful, you should think long and hard about the decisions that have brought you to that point.

Are you seriously trying to argue that a war between two religious ethno-states that are a hairs breadth away from being theocracies isn’t religiously motivated?

Always remember Betteridge’s law, if a headline is asking a question, the answer is no.

Screenshots/links to other social media sites are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.

This content is (currently) allowed on c/technology, but not this community. Hopefully c/technology will adopt a social media ban as well.

It’s the same fundamental problem all the new social media sites have and why for instance there are a bunch of lemmy sites we’re defederated from. With such a small user base the initial users to join have an outsized influence on the content which then starts a feedback cycle. E.G. if the first users to join are a bunch of far right GQP nutjobs that spend all day posting about whatever the latest insane conspiracy they ran across, then anyone stumbling across the site that isn’t a GQP nutjob (or at least nominally allied with them like the various neo-nazi groups) is going to pass on it, and any marginal users who were on it previously would leave as it just becomes more extreme.

In particular these things tend to be driven by purges or mass exodus of other social media sites, so depending on who and why they left the previous site will tend to set the tone for the new one. E.G. when reddit purged a bunch of the more toxic subs a couple years ago and then there was a sudden crop of sites advertising themselves as censorship free reddit clones, only they all quickly devolved into complete cesspools. It turns out a certain amount of censorship and moderation is actually kind of important for maintaining a civilized discourse.

The issue is that it’s social media. We really shouldn’t accept content from it in this community any more than we should accept a facebook or tumblr post. If it’s a real story find whatever source it was based on and link that.

Yeah, there was an article a couple days ago that really dug deep on who these guys are and this hoax is something they’ve done a few times now. It’s a shame they destroyed an actual archeological site to steal the mummy they butchered and glued back together to make their “alien”.

This “article” is just more of the same nutjobs repeating the same BS. They already tried to claim they had the body DNA tested but a representative of the lab they said did the work said they did no DNA testing as they were only asked to carbon date the mummy which of course shows legit results because it’s actually cobbled together from a real human mummy.

Ah yes… bots… I’m sure that’s it.