Orbits and their height are determined by the speed the object is moving at. Getting into orbit isn’t about getting something very high, it’s about getting it moving very fast. Geostationary height is the height that the object is moving at the same rotational speed as the body it’s orbiting. Any lower or higher and it won’t be geostationary anymore.

It sounds like those pig butchering scams.

They didn’t care. They got to live through the benefits and not have to worry about the consequences. As far as the climate is concerned, they were the party generation, and we’re the hangover generation.

No, even better. They could have learned from our (the US) mistakes the way Biden urged them to. Why go through what you just witnessed did not work?

That’s what I’m asking. What are you talking about?

Screaming? I thought I was typing…

as if somehow the popular vote has ever won a presidency

Uhh, that’s exactly how it works per state. The most popular vote in that state gets the electoral votes for that state.

Is it really that hard to conceptualize 90,000 > 550? Or that green party voters back then were much closer to democratic voters than republican? You have to ignore the most obvious fact in order to contrive others.

I mean if you’re ignoring the context of the election and 2000, then maybe you can make that leap.

I did read the link. And it still seems like a ton of mental gymnastics to ignore the vote totals.

Lol, no. Why would you even think that?

I don’t understand that conclusion. According to their table there, Gore lost by ~550 votes and Nader had over 90,000 votes. Do you really think those votes would have been evenly split?

Apparently a lot of people were thinking the same way you were if judged by the votes.

Chill? I’m not heated. Clearly it was a misunderstanding, that’s why I explained it. I didn’t mean any disrespect.

No… Because I’m only referring to one post.

He’s wrong anyway, the green party isn’t a threat to any of the parties, but it’s designed to shape off 1-3% off the democratic vote to help republicans.

I’ll break it down for you. The first part of the post literally says this:

the green party isn’t a threat to any of the parties

And then the very next part of the same sentence is:

but it’s designed to shape off 1-3% off the democratic vote to help republicans

Which is exactly what I pointed out. It starts by saying the green party isn’t a threat and then gives the exact reason why it is a threat.

Are you saying that something helping the republicans isn’t a threat to democrats? Or are you saying it’s not enough to help because you’ve already forgotten the lesson from 2000?

Tell that to Al Gore.

No, that commenter literally said they’re not a threat and then gave the exact reason the green party is a threat to democrats.

You said it’s not a threat and then gave a reason it is actually a threat.

Also, being a fascist seems to really lead to violence.

Good thing they ended up doing the sensible thing.