Then we agree it’s not multiple decades.

And 10 years is nothing. The anti-abortion movement set Dobbs into motion in the 1990s, when they put Thomas on the SCOTUS. Their work only paid off 30 years later. Your “movement” doesn’t have the kind of patience necessary for success.

It really was mostly performance. If you ask someone today, “What did OWS want?” they will likely be unable to tell you.

you seem to think its impossible to win an election and not do well in your home state.

That’s not what I’m saying.

I’m saying there is exactly one data point that directly compares Bernie to Kamala, and it shows more support for Kamala than Bernie.

And since that is the only place where they can be compared, there is no evidence at all that Bernie would have more support than Kamala in other states.

right wingers constantly allign with people like Bernie

There are right wingers in Vermont too. That’s why their governor is a Republican. Yet among all the people who voted for Gov Scott, there weren’t enough Bernie supporters to make a difference.

In other words people were willing to vote for Harris and a Republican governor more than they were willing to vote for Sanders. He simply does not have the support you think he does.

Right wingers do not constantly align with AOC. There very few Trump + AOC voters, she was just interested in hearing from them.

So people were literally voting for Harris, but refusing to vote for Sanders. Whereas nearly everywhere else, people voted for their Senator but not Harris.

That tells you all you need to know.

I’m saying that unlike nearly every other Democratic Senator, he performed worse than Harris. That’s a lackluster result.

If he somehow won Fox News voters, then it was at the expense of losing even more voters elsewhere. That’s not a recipe for winning nationwide.

And no, you cannot blame it on Vermont. Harris turned out Vermont voters, why couldn’t Sanders turn out as many as she did?

deleted by creator

Given his lackluster election results, apparently they don’t actually find him very captivating.

deleted by creator

A movement that calls it quits after losing an election is not a serious movement. It’s more like a performance.

Maybe that’s why nobody was listening to you.

I assure you there are Fox news viewers in Vermont, too.

Bernie won fewer votes in Vermont, his home state, than Kamala. One of the rare incumbent Democratic Senators who actually underperformed Harris.

Here’s a meaningful difference:

Harris supported a two-state solution with the eventual goal of an independent Palestine.

Trump will oversee the formal annexation of Gaza and the West Bank “Judea and Samara”, marking the end of any hope for a future Palestinian state.

A few observations:

• This won’t be the first time those media outlets have been sued for libel. It’s a common enough occurrence that they keep lawyers around ready to litigate. So this isn’t as chilling as Trump might hope.
• Litigation means discovery. If Trump wants to win, he’ll have to turn over his private records to NYT lawyers. If he refuses then his case will be thrown out.
• Once Trump takes office, it will be harder to pull this kind of crap. Only private individuals can sue for defamation, the government cannot.

And how did you determine what the purpose of fruit is? It certainly can’t communicate its preferences or desires.

All you can observe is that the species as a whole thrives when fruit is consumed. But the same is true of farm animals. You are simply projecting the motivations you want to see, like self-sacrifice, onto one but not the other. After all, many fruits are poisonous. That suggests that fruits don’t want to be eaten, but animals evolved mechanisms to safely eat some fruit.

Finally, factory farms certainly cause animals to suffer but from an evolutionary perspective thriving is not about avoiding suffering. It’s about producing offspring, and in that sense farm animals thrive. And given that the OP is about the potential suffering of plants, I don’t see why fruit farms are any less horrific than animal farms.

Yes, it’s possible but undesirable for both pigs and fruits to survive without assistance from humans. In both cases, that assistance is offered because humans eat the creatures they assist.

You still haven’t explained why this relationship is good for fruits but bad for pigs.

Simmons argued that this move would keep Harris from having to oversee “her own defeat” when the presidential election is certified in the Senate

If Gore can do it, so can Harris

By that reasoning, fruit is not in a biologically obligatory symbiosis with the animals that eat it. There are many cases of fruit falling to the ground uneaten and forming a new plant near its parent. Those plants eke out an existence just as feral pigs do.

Why does the length of time matter? Domesticated varieties of cows and pigs would go extinct if humans stopped raising them for meat. The only niche where they can survive is a farm. They are in symbiosis now even if they weren’t 10,000 years ago.

So cows and pigs - like many fruiting plants - co-evolved with the creatures that fed on them. In both cases, those creatures became necessary for their long-term survival.

If you want to make a teleological argument, then you could equally ask why agricultural animals, compared to wild animals, have much higher fat content and other characteristics that humans find delicious.

All evidence suggests those features are favored by humans, who are the animals currently responsible for ensuring their continued reproduction.

You just asserted that the fruit is freely given, but you haven’t supported that.

I mean, one could also say that cows and pigs willingly sacrifice themselves so humans will continue to feed their descendants, but there isn’t any evidence of that either.