Well, you have to think about the people who are of child bearing age
nd
how they think. They might also use "climate change" as an excuse not
o
have any when they really just don't want any.
Especially if it's a multiple choice question.
Indeed. "Cause global warming" or "overpopulation" probably sound a lot
less selfish than "we don't want any" or "my spouse/partner want them but I don't." That latter one is probably a reason they were already covering
for.
I'm wondering when and why the media/crats changed their wording from "global warming" to "climate change?" I guess there's a limit to how much money can
e
squandered for "global warming," so then "climate change" keeps more avenues open.
People started noticing that it was not always getting hotter like they
were originally claiming. So, climate change covers hotter/colder,
more/less precipitation, more/less storms, etc. They throw a large enough blanket now so they can blame any event on "climate change" whether it is really to blame or not.
Several years ago, I had a global warming fanatic try to tell me (either in
one of the echoes or in a usenet newsgroup) that global warming was the
cause of the Sun's surface getting hotter and not the other way round.
There was a poll where most Republicans don't want Trump to run in 2024 and believe their chances are worse if he does... and where most Democrats feel the same ways about Biden.
It sounds fake. Consider the motives of the leftists; they're sacrificing Biden with the hopes that conservatives will sacrifice Trump. (One 2024 Democrat candidate is as "good" as the next.)
I dunno. There are probably a lot of Democrats that are concerned that,
while a mentally-degrading Biden could beat Trump that he might not be able
to beat someone who is sharp but not as condesending.
This morning, on a news show on PBS, a political analyst was discussing the results of the Georgia run-off and also the recent election in general.
She pointed out that voters in most districts seemed to reject the most
radical of candidates regardless of which side (right or left) they were
coming from and suggested that the voters who were "up for grabs" in recent elections were voters who chose the candidate that was not too far to one
side or the other. She also suggested that both parties, and mentioned the Democrats in particular, need to take a note of this.
There are undoubtedly some individual districts that would prove that
false, like the districts "the Squad" represent, but I believe she is right about most districts. It would explain why the candidates that Trump got
out and stumped for didn't do well, and also why some of the more radical left-wing Democrat candidates also didn't do well (if they even made it out
of their primaries).
If she is correct, the Independents and undecideds are not flocking towards fringe candidates. One things she also noted about Republicans was that
many that were not successful had "extreme" (conservative) views on things
like abortion, which make them seem too far from center.
There's a myth that if you say something enough times, it will become true, and it has worked for them before. They're putting ideas in peoples' heads.
True.
* SLMR 2.1a * In his hand a moving picture of the crumbling land
--- SBBSecho 3.14-Linux
* Origin: capitolcityonline.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/HTTP (1:2320/105)