Moonbox

Your vote is for your MP - the individual. The fact that you choose to vote purely by Party affiliation is your own issue. I can't stand Pierre Poilievre, but I do like my Conservative MP Michael Chong. He's a principled politician and can and has stood up to party leadership when he's felt the need to. He would probably win an election as a Liberal or as an Independent at this point, and I would vote for him either way. It's reasonable for you to be upset with an MP you voted for crossing the floor. It's unreasonable to say it's undemocratic, because it isn't. Of the ~50% who voted for Jeneroux as a Conservative, some of that support was likely soft. For the 49% who voted Liberal and NDP, they're probably happy that he crossed the floor. Both groups are his constituents. He doesn't only represent Conservative supporters.

That's true, but the Liberals still had ~45% of the vote in the last election. No, I am thinking of Canada. It's literally how it works. You vote for a candidate. That candidate can have a party affiliation, or he/she can be independent. An affiliated candidate can also be booted from their party, and that doesn't trigger a bi-election. That's about as good an indication as any for "how it works".

The voters chose the individual MP, not the party. That individual is free to exercise his/her own judgement and follow their conscience with their constituency in mind. That constituency is not limited to just the people who voted for the MP. With party power and messaging centralizing more and more under Harper's and especially Trudeau's leadership, floor crossings are a good and necessary check. The outrage over the 300+ floor crossings Canada has seen since 1867 is largely performative. This is how it's supposed to work.

As critique goes, it's about useless as it comes...you might call it pantomine and performative posturing. Building and improving export terminals is a worthy goal. Establishing and growing export markets should spurr investment in them. Seems like a pretty simple concept.

No, they ruled on the request, which they denied unanimously. The Minnesota District Chief Judge had already written opinions on that request, and the appeals panel cited him in their decision. A couple samples of his response: The five people whom the government seeks to arrest are accused of entering a church, and the worst behavior alleged about any of them is yelling horrible things at the members of the church. None committed any acts of violence.” .... (3) The government lumps all eight protestors together and says things that are true of some but not all of them. Two of the five protestors were not protestors at all; instead, they were a journalist and his producer. There is no evidence that those two engaged in any criminal behavior or conspired to do so.

No, the federal appeals court ruled there was not, in a 2v1 ruling. The one dissenting judge was a 2017 Trump appointee who the American Bar Association Standing Committee for the Federal Judiciary unanimously declared not qualified for the job - a rare distinction. After multiple prosecutors declined to take the case and 3 of 4 judges punted it, Trump's losers in the DOJ went for the Grand Jury indictment - a process with a success rate close to 100% and that virtually never fails. Actually I have, so maybe you could refer us to what Don Lemon did that was so horrifying and what specific criminal behavior he engaged in? Was it the part that he stood close to the pastor? Or where he stood near the doorway? Or was it where he "approached menacingly?" 🤡

you don't have any, so you won't? In the Dark Basement Universe you inhabit, rules of logic and reasoning work backwards. Instead of proving your claim by posting your proof, you've decided it's more effective to just keep insisting on your claim ad nauseum and explain all of the reasons why you won't provide proof. Brilliant. 👌 Other than trespassing and not leaving when he was asked? Probably not. A Minnesota and then a Federal Appeals judge both refused to sign the requested warrants, which is a better indiciation of the strength of the charges than the rubber-stamping of a Grand Jury indictment. When we see some evidence that Don Lemon was harrassing and intimidating worshippers at the church, maybe I'll re-evaluate. Being there with his producer/camera man doesn't qualify, nor does standing somewhere inconvenient. Somewhere, eventually, you must realize that "YOU JUST HATE TRUMP" isn't an actual argument. People's dislike of the man don't magically negate criticism against him.

Did he actually say that, or is that what you've invented in your head and will never be able to cite, as usual? Regardless, a grand jury indictment doesn't count for much of anything. The old joke in legal circles is that you can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich in the US. These are junk charges and follow a long and storied history of Trumpian legal frivolity. The case will likely flop and get dismissed, or at best fail. The whole intention here is to make it expensive and potentially dangerous to criticize the Great Orange Baboon.

Why are you following me around, no-life? As for miserable people on the internet, the facts speak for themselves: 38.2k posts in under 3 years. You have absolutely nobody, and nothing going on in your life. 👏

Well we know that you can't. Peaceful protesters arrested in a church? Hallelujah! Peaceful protesters removed from abortion clinics? Horrific oppression. January 6 rioters violently breaking into the Capitol? Misunderstood patriots who deserve pardons. These are the logical and factual standards of User. What Trump says is reality. Slurp slurp slurp.

This is the dumbest thread I've seen in months. Congratulation User. There are only a handful of Trump buttlickers on this forum who buttlick more eagerly than you.

Something you couldn't actually cite or provide any evidence for...which was the entire point. Your first unsubstantiated BS claim doesn't somehow get stronger because you make a second one attempting to support the first. You're an id1ot if you cite anonymous social media and think it's actually useful evidence. 🤡

Like when you claimed Michael Ma met with Chinese agents right before crossing the floor, and literally the only "evidence" you could reference was an anonymous Facebook post? Please. Let's not pretend that this was a unique event. I'm a hypocrite???? I've been on this forum for 15+ years and I can confidently state I've never cited anonymous social media as "evidence", nor applauded anyone else who has (despite your powers of fantasy claiming otherwise). The fact that you're even trying to argue that "sources" like this can accepted as proof underlines how ridiculous you're being. Once this standard is accepted, there's no limiting principle —any position can be simultaneously proven or disproven with AI-generated or low-effort junk-posting from sock puppet accounts. It's absurd that this is even a discussion.

NO LOL! All this article does is repeat what I just got finished telling you. A best-case scenario for he-3 extraction from this site would produce maybe 1kg of he-3 per year. Since a fusion power station would require tons of the material every year to keep going, the Topaz gas field would produce enough to run a plant for no more than a few hours annually. When you can comment on that mathematical reality, let me know, but going around in circles with you on this is getting boring.

This is another AI-generated junk article. It has a fake author (no actual Rose Averio) and it's literally citing pictures from facebook. This is an LLM tool that's scraped social media and news feeds to make a frankenstein article that (once again) you've fallen for as a legitimate source. That's not too say the project isn't real. Legato (IIRC) already cited this project in Minnesota. The implications from the article are mostly balogna though. At the concentrations listed (1.3-14.5 molecules of he-3 per BILLION molecules of gas extracted), this sort of project might yield a singlre kilogram of he-3 per year if all best-case assumptions turned true and 100+ wells were drilled. A single fusion reactor would require thousands of kilograms of he-3 per year to run.

No, I did not say that. I said that you cite anonymous Facebook and social media posts. You can see the difference, right? Even so, it doesn't really make that much of a difference. When you put forward anonymous posts as compelling sources and expect reasonable people to put credence in them, you're filtering yourself out of reasonable discussions. There needs to be a floor when it comes to standards of information and facts, and if someone's floor is pretty much the most useless and least reliable type of internet content, folks aren't going to give you any of their limited time or bandwidth even if you're later providing good or useful information. I'm not trying to troll you. It would just be nice if we didn't have to debate zero-effort and AI generated click-bait on this forum.

Considering I've listed multiple times the various ways it already is extracted, this is a pretty goofy thing to say. Let me re-iterate: We don't have any he-3 "deposits" that can be mined on earth as you and your OP proposed. What little extracting and refining we can do terrestrially amounts to tens of kilograms a year. That's why the US government and NASA etc are funding research to harvest it from the moon - because we don't have enough here. If you want to actually engage with above paragraph and stop pretending that I'm saying things I'm not, let's do that, but right now it appears that you're just playing dumb.

Okay well then why are you critiquing me in this thread for dismissing AI-generated junk content? I don't know why you keep bringing up medical studies in this thread either.

All I'm pointing out is that the video you posted was useless AI-slop, and that we're not sitting on mineable deposits as you proposed. It would be great if it were true, but it isn't. Pretending that I'm "against" a resource that sells for $20M a kg or that I think it's useless is about as ridiculous as saying I'm "against" curing cancer because I don't believe eating moose meat gets rid of tumors.

No, I have never referenced these things, especially not Facebook which nobody under 50 uses for anything but group messaging and local marketplace in the first place. No you haven't. You're just making that up and projecting. At best, an anonymous social media post is worthless. Next time you see me upvoting some goon trying to get away with this, call me out and ridicule me because I'd deserve it. Most people know better in the same way they know better than to trust masked strangers with watching their kids. You have absolutely zero reason to trust them, and plenty of warnings signs why you shouldn't.

I keep saying that because you keep doing it. You're defending an AI-generated talking head in this thread, and you recently referenced an anonymous facebook post for your claims about Michael Ma's floor crossing being tied to supposed meetings with Chinese agents. These are just the most recent ones, and they're kind of ridiculous.

No, you haven't shown anything of the sort. I read your links and they don't say what you pretend they do. I specifically outlined what they actually say and how they disprove what you're saying, but you don't seem to be interested in engaging in any sort of substantive discussion. I'm a die-hard fusion energy cheerleader and have been following it regularly for at least a decade. With that comes at least a basic general-level of knowledge on the topic and the challenges that researchers and engineers currently face. There's a reason that current fusion power prototypes use Deuterium-Tritium fuel mixes rather than He-3, despite the fact that the latter is a theoretically superior fuel. 30 seconds of Google research can answer why and save you a lot of trouble and embarrassment, but you obviously prefer to dig your heels in and defend an obviously ridiculous position.

Isn't this just a self-affirming fallacy though? Why is it hard for you to understand why someone wouldn't give anonymous facebook posts or youtube and AI-generated clickbait any credence? When you can't even put your name and your face to what you're saying, why should anyone believe what you have to say? We only have so much time in our lives and only so much bandwidth for information. I don't think it's unreasonable to save that for people willing to put their name on what they're saying, especially in an age where generative AI can barf out videos and articles saying anything you want them to with near-zero effort.

I mean, that's what the video you posted is. It's AI-generated slop with a fake talking head, but now you have a problem with AI???? 😆 Regardless, if what you were saying was true, then at ~$20M per kg and a total annual production of around 18kg/y, then surely you'd be able to point to some "deposits" that are being developed for mining? Seems like a no-brainer, doesn't it??? The only terrestrial sources (this is from the article you posted earlier btw) are from tritium decay (nuclear byproduct) and separating helium from natural gas at near-absolute zero temperatures, which your own article says could only produce mere kilograms per year. Beyond that, your own article lists lunar mining and nuclear fusion as the only viable sources. There are only a few people on this forum who botch citation as badly as you, but well done.

Including results for are there mineable deposits of the-3 on earth? Search only for are there mineable deposits of he-3 on earth? AI Overview No, there are no significant, economically mineable deposits of Helium-3 (He-3) on Earth . Helium-3 is extremely rare in the Earth's crust, with the total accessible amount estimated to be only in the range of 100 kg to a few tonnes, which is not commercially viable to extract. 🤡🤡🤡