https://www.openbsdfoundation.org/contributors.html

You can't overproduce electricity. You have to match the load.

It having an inconclusive effect on wildlife, but wildlife clearly being able to survive in the region, doesn't really detract from what I originally thought.

From the article you linked:

"No matter what the consequences of lingering radiation might be, there were massive benefits to people leaving."

with the incredible advancements in solar and wind it’s no longer the best option.

I haven't heard of any advancement that makes solar generate energy when the sun doesn't shine and wind generate energy when the wind isn't blowing.

The Dems are more like 4 political parties pretending to be just one. The dems would be split up in any other country.

have ignored doing anything to put abortion rights into law. But also Democrats have enshrined abortion rights into law at the state level. We are a rather large country.

No I don't. I was never talking about whether US involvement in WW2 was justified or not?

It's uh, from the link I was replying to. By start, it really means choose to engage in. I don't think the US started WW2 but a democrat is who got us involved in it.

Please explain your alternative to liberal democracy that "pushes the hole-drillers overboard". I'm happy to hear how it's different from fascism. This is the price we pay for living for living in a liberal democracy that allows dissent.

All modern political parties in liberal democracies are fine with state violence on college protestors. It's kind of the nature of having a state that exercises police power. There is no one arguing against that.

I think you should engage in better political analysis than saying that Republicans start more wars because Democrats are the ones who started WW2 and The Mexican-American war. I just don't really see the value in that. You should instead argue that modern wars, while usually started by Republicans, tended to have large political consensus on both the Democratic and Republican sides.

You should vote in political primaries where there are many more candidates to choose from.

In the war of rhetoric, people like to use terms to try and bias you to their side.

liberal actually just means "free" and so there are many types of liberalism: social liberalism economic liberalism (as in free market economics) political liberalism etc...

In the USA liberals tend to be highly socially liberal and highly political liberal. Social liberalism tends to be associated with the political left, and when using liberal as a pejorative, it's usually meant to claim that the opponent is "too socially liberal."

US liberals also tend to be associated with the creation and maintaing of a welfare state which is commonly seen as being a left wing concept.

In the US, there is also a large history of debate between what the size and scope of government should be, and how the government should be run. This debate can somewhat be characterized as "liberal democracy vs populism", i.e good governance based on institutions rules and ideas versus well, populism, a decent example is Donald Trumps rhetoric about "draining the swamp." US liberals tend to be associated with institutionalism and supposed "good governance", and populism is commonly seen more as a right wing ideal, so in this area US liberals are considered on the political left as well.