Same here in Oregon but it's about 50/50. The problem is the conservative right likes to keep the peace and are too quiet. They do not like to rock the boat even when it is sinking.
Same here in Oregon but it's about 50/50. The problem is the conservative right likes to keep the peace and are too quiet. They do not like to rock the boat even when it is sinking.
So true! This Texas family took our annual beach trip to our OR roots during the pandemic and were STUNNED when our liberal cousins from Portland, and in the medical field, visited us and wore masks on the windy beach!!! Our conservative cousins from rural towns did not. Not much has changed there.
In Jeff's post he noted the study showing how extreme and narrow the ideology of the left is. Yes, it can be made a weak point (generally it's success feeds its certain failure), yet the broadness of the right also has some drawbacks. The post in the always free not a news feed substack "Global Warming" is an illustrative example...
This birds eye view is problematic to express, so most folk send one detailed post on one aspect or another of a multifaceted issue. The person reading only has to find some critique of that particular study, or a contrary paper on that particular assertion, or a contrary assertion from an MSM narrative “fact checker” and they go on, unconvinced and perhaps resentful.
Indeed, when one is taking a contrary to the narrative position, one is at a disadvantage based on the inescapable reality that every other possible perspective is loaded into the skeptics position, thus your view, no matter how rational, is part of the everything else “denier” camp. You deny GHGs have any possible warming. You deny viruses are real. You are a Moon landing denier, and a “conspiracy theorist”. You are lumped with “them” and often effectively marginalized.
This is why I do not address things like chem-trails, or weather modifications, or the position that there is no greenhouse effect, or the possible US cause of 911, or the “viruses are not real” position. They may, or may not be supportable, but they are in a losing position, (a minority even within the skeptics camp) and often a distracting position from the main issues affecting policy and destroying nations and lives. So, as I have not committed the time and effort required to have a position on those rare views, I leave them be. (“Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof.”)
That is why I wrote this below article on Global Warming, to, as articulately as I am able, tackle the issue from every important policy affecting perspective, and yet kept it on solid well established peer review and established national and international databases. Kennedy is attacking the vaccine issue the same way, so as to not be lumped in with "them" https://anderdaa7.substack.com/p/global-warming Always free, not a news feed.
Same here in Oregon but it's about 50/50. The problem is the conservative right likes to keep the peace and are too quiet. They do not like to rock the boat even when it is sinking.
So true! This Texas family took our annual beach trip to our OR roots during the pandemic and were STUNNED when our liberal cousins from Portland, and in the medical field, visited us and wore masks on the windy beach!!! Our conservative cousins from rural towns did not. Not much has changed there.
In Jeff's post he noted the study showing how extreme and narrow the ideology of the left is. Yes, it can be made a weak point (generally it's success feeds its certain failure), yet the broadness of the right also has some drawbacks. The post in the always free not a news feed substack "Global Warming" is an illustrative example...
This birds eye view is problematic to express, so most folk send one detailed post on one aspect or another of a multifaceted issue. The person reading only has to find some critique of that particular study, or a contrary paper on that particular assertion, or a contrary assertion from an MSM narrative “fact checker” and they go on, unconvinced and perhaps resentful.
Indeed, when one is taking a contrary to the narrative position, one is at a disadvantage based on the inescapable reality that every other possible perspective is loaded into the skeptics position, thus your view, no matter how rational, is part of the everything else “denier” camp. You deny GHGs have any possible warming. You deny viruses are real. You are a Moon landing denier, and a “conspiracy theorist”. You are lumped with “them” and often effectively marginalized.
This is why I do not address things like chem-trails, or weather modifications, or the position that there is no greenhouse effect, or the possible US cause of 911, or the “viruses are not real” position. They may, or may not be supportable, but they are in a losing position, (a minority even within the skeptics camp) and often a distracting position from the main issues affecting policy and destroying nations and lives. So, as I have not committed the time and effort required to have a position on those rare views, I leave them be. (“Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof.”)
That is why I wrote this below article on Global Warming, to, as articulately as I am able, tackle the issue from every important policy affecting perspective, and yet kept it on solid well established peer review and established national and international databases. Kennedy is attacking the vaccine issue the same way, so as to not be lumped in with "them" https://anderdaa7.substack.com/p/global-warming Always free, not a news feed.