I can and do agree with everything you argue while also maintaining the objectively obvious fact that context matters in politics.
BigNote
You either get it or you don't. I can't help you with your lack of reading comprehension.
They specifically said that "you can be mad" about it.
You want to have it the way that they're pushing some kind of agenda, when in fact they're simply stating what's true.
Fair play
but that would require major reworking of large areas.
Yes, that's precisely what will be required. There's no getting through this without implementing massive changes to our way of life. Everyone wants there to be some kind of easy get-out-of-jail-free card, but that's not how it's going to be.
Is it not the case that kale, broccoli, cauliflower and cabbage are all basically derived from the same plant?
This is what I've been told, but I am very ignorant of such matters and while you will say that I can simply Google the issue, which is true, it's never been enough of a priority for me to do so, goddammit.
As for Sequoia sempervirens or Sequoiadendron giganteum being forms of broccoli, I do in fact know enough dendrology to know that it's bullshyte.
I used to be a big tele skier, but over the years I figured out that I prefer riding a snowboard when it comes to steep and deep powder.
To me it just feels better.
You do what makes you happy and I will as well.
I'm old, in my 50s, and have no interest whatsoever in telling anyone what to do or how they should enjoy the mountains.
I leave that shit to the kids. No one my age actually gives a fuck.
Thanks for the response. That makes sense and I think I'm probably on-board.
Cry me a river....
I'm increasingly of the same opinion, however, I dislike the fact that even talking about nuclear as a potential bridge technology is such a polarizing issue.
I am very far from being an expert on the subject and accordingly don't have a strong opinion either way as to what role, if any, it can usefully play in transitioning to sustainable energy models.
What I don't like is the immediate labeling of either side of the issue as somehow automatically being indicative of bad faith or "shilling" on behalf of a larger, nearly conspiratorial interest.
I've worked for a lot of super rich people over the years in high-end construction. Most (not all) of them are deeply un-self-aware and have no idea how they are seen by regular people because it would never occur to them to ever think about it. The lives of most people are like some strange and exotic foreign country that they're vaguely aware of but that they have no real interest in. They're aware of poverty as a concept, but that's as far as it goes; it's not something they actually understand or have any desire to understand or even think about.
A lot of this, I think, is somewhat deliberate in that it allows them to ignore how unjust their hoarding of wealth and resources is.
"There's nothing here but war, where the murderin' cannons roar, And I am sick and tired of this hard fighting."
That and the fact that everything about our society shits on working people and tells them that it's their own fault that they aren't rich like the college-educated elites who look down on them.
It doesn't actually make any sense, but I am telling you that this is a huge part of the resentment that Trump was able to tap.