Oh I thought the country was headed in the wrong direction because Trump was running. That's what your queen said anyway.
Maybe you didn't realize 9 Dems voted against that horrible bill. It would have still allowed 1.8M illegals into the country. TDS has a permanent place in your head. Are you planning to leave the US once Orangeman takes the WH again?
Let us know when you grow up, have a family of your own, and get a big boy job. Mommy and Daddy can't pay your bills forever.
Libs have to stop being afraid to answer questions like this.
Different reasons and different issues.
Let the free market determine when that happens. We don't have the infrastructure to go all in right now. How would green vehicles and homes gotten along during the last two storms? It wasn't electric vehicles and equipment clearing roads and debris.
Agreed. Which is the entire point of KH's refusal/inability to actually answer questions when she is asked. She avoided answering this question, but that was obvious and in turn actually provides the answer to anyone except peewee.
Again. Agreed. It would also explain why it may have happened under the Trump Admin, not that he is in favor of or supports it. Because (to use one of KH's new favorite stock answers), they followed the law. Of course, that doesn't address the issue of what the law or policy should be which is the actual question. The bigger issue though is your crafty use of "top notch medical care" and the argument that such a term includes physical, cosmetic sex organ changes. I would say that "top notch" is not required versus "adequate". It's prison. However, there is still a large debate as to whether one can actually change their sex regardless of what they physically do to their appearances. It's prison. There is simply no need to "treat" or pay for this while in the care and custody of the government anymore than the need to give them a Ruth's Chris steak every other Friday. I could care less what an adult wants to do with or to themselves on their own freewill and at their own expense, but there is no good argument that everyone else has to pay for it.
You are not wrong here in terms of the general premise that we should be focusing on the bigger issues. The problem is that we don't get to have things both ways. For example, you don't get to say that we shouldn't discuss the incredibly small issue of funding surgeries for a 1000 people across the country while talking out the other side of your mouth and insisting that another 1000 people is a large enough problem that we insist that it's just dandy for them to play in women's sports or give presentations in government sponsored institutions to kids. Is it an issue or isn't it? Any given issue is either too small to merit a discussion and not be discussed on everything or, they are big enough to address and discuss on everything. Trying to have it both ways is the problem. But this highlights part of the problem with the D party's sprint to the far left where they cater and bow to so many groups regardless of the actual size of the issue and its true impact on the rest of the country.
Why? I get the idea that you detest the notion of fossil fuels and the internal combustion engine on a base level, but beyond the fantastical notion that we can change this way of life by ourselves without the rest of the world coming along, how do you think this is even remotely possible to achieve without completely eliminating our country as we know it? This is so impractical from a real world perspective. We don't live on a classroom blackboard. We don't even have a grid that could support this.
The word "green" is a great thing to throw around, but unless you are advocating an incredible expansion of nuclear energy, what on earth are you talking about? The technology is just not there yet to create or store energy at the levels needed. And you think the cost of energy has been bad recently? You ain't seen nothing yet.
