Turns out they were just fascists who will say whatever they think will gain them the most power in any particular situation, and they never actually cared about anything but that power.
Now that going after pedophiles doesn't get them power, they don't care. But don't worry, they'll revive that rhetoric when they decide it's time to go after "groomers" (ie LGBTQ people)
You're almost certainly correct, but fascism doesn't follow logic. It's merely seeks power. Even if giving up the tiniest bit of power would be a better strategy, fascism will eventually try to grab that power back.
Fascism craves power. The mere existence of a second party is a threat to that power, even if it's an unrealized threat. But the potential is still there. Fascism will always seek to create a single-party state for this reason.
Diamonds aren't stable and will eventually, over billions of years, decompose from their cubic molecular structure to carbon's more stable form, graphite, which has a hexagonal molecular structure.
Oh, here's another good gemstone related one!
Amethyst and citrine are both quartz varieties, and if the color source happens to be from traces of iron in the crystal lattice, one can be turned into the other. Heating amethyst can make citrine, and irradiating citrine can turn it into amethyst. This is because the only actual difference between the two is the valiance level of a specific election in the iron atom giving the stone its color.
The word "currency" is used interchangeably with "money" but it's actually a lot more specific. "Currency" is money that is "current" not in the sense of time ("here/now") but in flow, like a river.
When there isn't enough money to flow through an economy, it stops being "currency"and gets abandoned in favor of something else that can sufficiently fulfill the role of money in the economy.
So you're absolutely right. When that fiscal river dries up, the American dollar will become worthless. History shows that something else will fill the gap, but those sorts of transitions take a long time and aren't without their human cost.
You make some perfectly valid points, the only thing I take issue with is
Money is actually pretty useless
So, I do historical reenactment and one of my focuses is the history of money. Money has been in use, in some form or another, all over the world, for about ten thousand years. Roughly twice as long as written language.
Again, I agree with what you're saying about time and how important it is. But go back to when humans had huge swaths of free time and you still find money. It's just INSANELY useful.
3.2. Potential as Medicinal Crop
Utricularia is recorded to be edible and high in nutrients. Some species used as folk remedies are mildly astringent and diuretic. U. caerulea is used to dress wounds while U. bifida is used to treat urinary diseases. Although yet to be widely researched, the medicinal potential of this species-rich genus is immense. In Peninsular Malaysia, U. bifida and U. minutissima are pioneers of open disturbed wetland and are often locally abundant, although U. caerulea is increasingly rare. U. bifida is highly suited for acidic damp soils. Neither chemical nor organic fertilisation is necessary. It can be cultivated without having to modify bad drainage or liming the soil to increase pH, therefore, it is a suitable alternative for small-scale herb cultivation on nutrient-poor, waterlogged soils.
Russia is very good at maintaining plausible deniability for things like this. Like the polonium in the tea. Everybody knows, but there's no proof that Russia was behind it, which makes it harder to take action over it.
Why would Russia put itself at risk by directly taking out an under cover CIA agent when they can just publicly reveal the agent's identity and let things take care of themselves?
In my previous comment "good" is synonymous with "least bad" which apparently isn't obvious enough despite my previous clarification about the world not being black & white.
So no, when faced with multiple options, all of them bad, picking the least bad option ISN'T the same as picking the most bad option and therefore a person picking the least bad option can't reasonably be "shit on"
Because we all know the Eastern countries would NEVER adopt Western concepts, ergo the idea MUST be universal!
Case closed! Good job! You should treat yourself.
Meanwhile, OP (who is clearly, obviously wrong) must live in shame. Because there's just NO WAY they might be correct, and have stated facts that are easily google-able and even has a whole Wikipedia page with all these details with cited sources in the opening paragraph, like this one https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaywalking
I don't disagree about anything you said, just a quick note because it's a term that's worth understanding:
"Newspeak" is a concept based on the dumbing down of language in order to make communication more difficult and complex concepts almost impossible. It's not just new words or phrases. If it's not damaging our ability to think and communicate, it's not Newspeak. For this reason, "politically correct" alternatives (like "POC"), as well as increasingly specific terms (like "omnisexual" or "demi girl") don't qualify as Newspeak because they either continue the existing ability to think and communicate or enhance it by being more exacting about the concepts involved.
I'm not trying to be pedantic, it's just important to me that people understand what Newspeak really is because the fascists really are trying to implement it as a means of reducing resistance against them. My favorite example is "climate change" which was a term introduced by right wing think tanks to undermine the more accurate (and more alarming) term "global warming." And it worked.
Anyway, again I don't disagree with your points, so please carry on!
Of all the other criticisms people have had of Newsom, you're only posting about his relationship with Israel. This suggests an ulterior motive or a bias on your part.
So you are saying that by not voting, you voted for everyone.
Literally not what they said. They said "supporting," which is different. One doesn't need to vote in order to support. But by giving equal support to all candidates, you bear some tiny responsibility for whoever wins regardless of whether the winning candidate is "good" or "bad."
Basically your abdicating control of your responsibility to everyone else, but that doesn't make you any less responsible for it.
Turns out they were just fascists who will say whatever they think will gain them the most power in any particular situation, and they never actually cared about anything but that power.
Now that going after pedophiles doesn't get them power, they don't care. But don't worry, they'll revive that rhetoric when they decide it's time to go after "groomers" (ie LGBTQ people)