Cool. Why would I hate you? I don't give a shit if you have 18 cars.

Who has monoculture thinking? It's certainly not me. Right now, in America, you basically need a car per adult. All I'm saying is it would be awesome if that wasn't essentially a requirement.

Maybe calm down a little bit? Good lord. My exact words: "But it's head and shoulders above anything I've experienced state side. The public transit here sucks ass." ANYTHING I'VE EXPERIENCED are the key words there. Sorry I should have been more specific that those two sentences that appeared right next to each other were indeed related to each other.

How about this in Minneapolis: They just shut down the one commuter rail route between the Northwest suburbs and downtown. The project was originally supposed to connect Minneapolis and St Cloud, but it only ever made it half-way there. So now that they killed it, the only option is busses that still have to fight the freeway traffic. So now instead of a 20 minute train ride it's a 50+minute bus ride. And even when the train was running it was basically useless for anything other than getting to a Twins game. The schedule wasn't compatible with a quick trip downtown. If I wanted to take it to work it would have been a 90 minute commute each way including 2 bus changes and a mile walk. I work 3.5 miles from the train station. Oh, and there's no bike paths. At one point we did have "trolley routes" that were at least half-ass predictable, and faster than busses since they had dedicated routes, but those got ripped out in favor of busses for some damn reason or another.

A decent public transit system would make it so your hour-long sweaty bike ride would turn into 30-minute bike->bus/train->bike ride. Again, nobody is taking your car, us liberal/progressive morons just want you to be able to not HAVE to drive it to the office every damn day. I know from my Suburban American perspective our current public transit system does not support such things.

Cool. I live in a suburb next to a major metro, top 20 in the nation as far as size goes. It would literally take me 3-4x longer to get to work taking public transit. It's not an option. Hell, I'd be willing to take a 2x time increase if it meant I didn't have to fight with freeway traffic, but it's literally not an option here. The public transit system in this country is bullshit, plain and simple. It would be a long damn time before I gave up my car, but that doesn't mean commuting here couldn't be drastically improved.

No, what they meant is that they would like actual reasonable public transportation. To a point where maybe a family of 4 doesn't need two cars.

Legit question: Have you been to somewhere that had passible public transit? I have. Is it perfect? Of course not. But it's head and shoulders above anything I've experienced state side. The public transit here sucks ass.

Yes. "Fresh off the boat" seafood in Minneapolis is expensive as fuck already, and this area is a fairly major point of entry. I'm sure the Red Lobster in Rapid City SD is the only place within a day's trip that has anything that resembles fresh seafood.

They also sell "cable conditioners" that "burn in" the cables before you use them. And every audiophile forum on the planet has threads extoling their virtues. This one cracked me up "I inadvertently installed my fully broken-in digital cable backwards and that just killed my system to the point it sounded broken." https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fforum.audiogon.com%2Fdis... It's like they can't help themselves.

Fixed that for you. Every genera from every decade since the beginning of music has had A LOT of shit music. There are no exceptions.

How can you get people to agree to accept something when a significant portion of them do not agree on what the fundamental problem is? Or that a problem even exists? I absolutely agree with your sentiment, we would be better served advocating policies the majority of people are willing to accept. But sometimes the adults in the room need to stand up and do the right thing instead of the popular thing. So no, I'm not willing to compromise on the fundamental "excess carbon in our atmosphere is a hazard to our future existence.". Again, the "what should we do about it" is certainly open for debate, but you cannot have a constructive debate with someone who disagrees with what the problem is.

I agree.

Unless we agree on the foundational "continuing to add carbon to the system is a bad thing" that "tradeoff" conversation cannot take place.

That distinction was apparent for about 30 seconds immediately following November 3rd 2020. It vanished completely (again) the moment the run for Trump2.0 was announced. Those MAGA coattails are mighty large. You may get occasional bluster from the GOP, but when the rubber meets the road they are nearly in 100% lockstep in whatever direction MAGA is taking them.

By starting somewhere. Undoing Citizens United would be a great place to start. From there, any dime a politician, or their proxy, takes in has an individual's name attached to its source. If there's a political ad being shown to the public every red cent that went into it has a name attached.

Compromise on what? That pollution is bad? It's a fundamental question: Is continuing to add carbon to the system a good thing, bad thing, or neutral? This administration, against the feedback from the vast majority of the scientific community, has quite literally just said "nah, it's fine". There's no compromise to be made, you either agree on the fundamentals or not. The part to compromise on is the "what should we do about it?" question, but you can't even begin to answer that question until you agree on the underlying premise that we need to curtail our carbon emissions.

I'm not sure what you've seen out of this administration that would indicate holding people accountable for their actions was on the table. I mean, if you said something mean about Trump or his goon squad that's going to garner some attention, but that's really the end of the list.

That reaction requires activation of the "introspection" gene, of which most ignorant people lack.

I have a feeling you're wasting your breath. Convincing an Incel that the reason they aren't getting laid is their personality, not the feminists', is a tough row to hoe.