Idk bro some opinions just ain't worth trying to understand.
"Some people don't deserve basic human rights" is a pretty simple 'youre probably a piece of shit if you think this'.
I don't need to "try to understand" that. It's wrong, and it's offensive. Validating that stance by treating it as worthy of consideration is just bigotry that you can feel better about.
The ole "this one leaks so just solder another onto the end" trick.
Not sure how a kid of a stockbroker and a marketing exec is at all "working class"
I don't disagree with the general premise.
But saying "this quarry hauler is only barely worse than pickup trucks" when it takes double the distance to see one...feels disingenuous. Same with the "this tractor cab has better visibility but requires a special license", yeah cause a heavy laden trailer massively increases the stopping distance and requires a more advanced skill set.
I also feel like the kinda situations where "a three year was suddenly less than 1m from my bumper with zero warning" is more of a walkability/road design/driver awareness issue than one specifically solvable by increased visibility. I'm also aware I'm no traffic safety scientist; also more visibility is of course better.
I feel like this focuses on something that's rooted more in emotion than logic or data, but there is a link between hood height and pedestrian injury severity iirc, and lowering that does increase visibility as a result.
Spend 8 years watching both parties ignote their struggles, and then vote for the one that's actively promising to make them worse?
Bold move, Cotton.
Uh, no? "An eye for an eye." is old school ancient.
It was however a limiting statement. When Hammurabi made "an eye for an eye" into law, it meant you couldn't just go kill a man's entire family over losing an eye and call it justified.
Hi-Points, in my experience, are alright function wise; but are also oversized, unergonomic bricks.
Hmm yes, to save the democracy one must absolutely kill the democracy. We just have to suspend certain rights and liberties until "the enemy within" is rooted out.
Certainly not fascism.
Wouldn't we all, but needs must when the devil drives.
Wounded Knee (the second one not the original one) was 1973.
Kent State in '70. The Bonus Army (homeless WWI vets) in the 30s. Blair Mountain (coal miners on strike) and the Tulsa Race Massacre in '21.
Only a half dozen times in the last 100 years or so.
So, considering the stranglehold the two party system has on American politics....what was the right answer?
Vote for a third party candidate, that is systemically prevented from attaining a position?
Yeah the Democratic Party is tragically obsessed with pandering to the right and holding their "moderate" position; but damage control is damage control.
Even wounded, I'm willing to believe the pelican just wanted to see if it could.
They love to size things up to see if they'll fit in their mouth lol.