Youtube comments of S S (@SS-yj2le).
-
123
-
64
-
49
-
Completely untrue for one. In fact, California has the best geography in the whole country behind only Alaska, Washington, Oregon, and Hawaii varying by what makes good geography. Secondly, California is a huge state with a wide range of geography and weather. There are even rainforests in the northwestern part of the state and the mountain areas in the south like Lake Arrowhead collect a small amount of rain water from the tropical monsoons. Evn the coasts with SoCal having May gray June Gloom clouds hitting the mountains and the fog drip which gets heavier the farther North you go. It is also able to sustain redwoods as far south as monterey county. For earthquakes, they are not that serious and especially with great earthquake infrastructure which we have the best of in the country. For the erosion, those are mostly for certain types of sea cliffs with lose mud and clay that produce mudslides. For the wildfires and droughts, they are common in the summer, but never that bad. Climate change has made them very unusually terrible. The fact that they are happening into winter is what the problem is and even before with controlled burning, wildfires never did anything. For the droughts, we normally get so much water it lasts well beyond summer. There are rainforests in the mountains in the northwest that get over 100 inches of rainfall a year. Though then, if you people want to leave my state, I say go. More room for me and cost of living will go down.
48
-
42
-
39
-
28
-
26
-
22
-
21
-
19
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
16
-
16
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
14
-
13
-
13
-
12
-
12
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@brendougbake4958 I used to live on the outskirts of southern San Antonio, Texas. I even fired 3 different pistols there at 2 different ranges. Everyone is extremely strict on who even has a gun to begin with. Let alone what you do with the guns. If you are seen carrying a rifle around or a pistol, people will look at you like you are crazy. For kamikazes, there was a whole war in the Pacific with this problem. Not a big problem due to how hard it is to build and fly aircraft. A 6-year-old kid isn't going to exactly pull off flying a Boeing747. Same with most adults who wouldn't even get one off of an airport and that is just if they can even manage stealing it. Arson is ridiculously common. 17,000 acts of it per year in the US and in various situations, far more dangerous than gun shots. Chemical attacks are used among terrorists quite frequently. Though yet, most people are incompetent with using these. Hence, low success rates and lower attempts as well. Then again. Wasn't the point. The whole point is that there are countless different ways for people to kill each other without guns and have been. There could be 0 deaths per year due to arson. It is still possible for people to use that means to kill others. It is also completely undeniable that people can and do kill each other with knives, fire, their own fists and feet, electricity, stone, animals like elephants and dogs, and numerous other ways every single day. These are not even uncommon. They happen all the time. For majority of crime, not true as most crime isn't violent crime. That clear issue is the fact that there are people willing to commit these atrocities. Again, why only the guns here? Why are we allowing these people to drive when they can drive into crowds and kill lots of people? Why are we allowing them access to easy fire lighters where they can probably burn down a whole small town in California? One military guy with this issue was planning to poison water supplies to commit a genocide only a few years ago. No. Banning guns isn't a good decision and would take away guns from people doing nothing wrong. In fact, most guns used in crime are obtained illegally anyways. Being as effective as Trump's wall in preventing illegal immigration. You also have the issue that people will build guns too. In fact, Shinzo Abe was killed last year by a guy using a homemade gun. For rounding up mentally unstable people, that is far easier and effective. You round up the people who are actually doing the crimes. They get rounded up and then if they try anything, they are under surveillance. Versus them having to turn to the black market to do shootings and still carrying them out. That also reduces a huge amount of strain for law enforcement and the extreme pain that it is to even find out where the guns are to start with. Let alone grabbing them all. That even helps with the healthcare system as well with less medical debt weighing down the government's budget and the programs of other services. All uncovered by shooting doesn't even make sense. Especially when gun registration is already a thing. Also, you should be saying someone using one of said guns to do a shooting. Except those shootings will still happen and even then, 20 people could get stabbed. A hundred people could die in a fire. Even if these actually did work, to have this type of violence avoided completely, you would have to literally isolate everyone from everything and cut off everyone's arms and legs. What are you even talking about? That wouldn't remove that other type of crime at all. Especially as most crime that even involves gun, are with guns obtained illegally. Even then, you still need safety from other threats as well like gang beatings or arson. I remember one gang member stating that he would rather be caught by the police with a gun than be caught by the others without one. Guns don't improve or worsen safety. It is their handling of them. Czech Republic is pro guns and has among the lowest violent crime rate in the world. So does Japan who banned guns. It doesn't change anything. Even in the US. Heavy armed upper Rockies have lower crime compared to most other states. What does change things though, is how the citizens are treated. Also, you say rather one dies rather than 15. Why don't you say something for the stabbing to also prevent that single one? What is now of that person who you supposedly stopped from shooting up the place? Are they just going to decide to not do it? These people are not going to back off of anything merely because of some restrictions. Also, it is unfair to restrict gun access to everyone when most people didn't even do anything wrong with their guns just as it would be unfair to ban everyone in France from driving because of the trucker who killed 86 people (far more than all American school shootings).
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Hawaii and New York have higher rates for one. It isn’t be that much. Especially when accounting for population size. Also, California has below average poverty compared to the national rate and below half of all state. Other states have differences in reporting homelessness. Making the indication of poverty among the states very inaccurate. For wealth i equality, the politicians here are not that wealthy. Most of the wealth here are in non-politician billionaires like Tech CEOs in Silicon Valley. You will only find a range of a few hundred thousand to a few million in the politicians. Not even close enough to drive up inequality to said extremes. Nice you talk about Los Angeles. Care to talk about San Francisco who grew? Or Sacramento, one of the fastest growing cities in the country? Ballooning out our already big GDP. LA most reliable jobs are in entertainment, law, civil infrastructure, military, and aerospace. While Sacramento and the Bay Area have all of that and way more. These places also as one might notice, have lower homelessness and poverty rates than LA. Also interesting on that last part that you only said LA and not California the same way you try to use homelessness to indicative the state of economic growth (which homelessness doesn’t. Otherwise, some of the poorest, poverty stricken states like Arkansas would be the wealthiest states with the best pay and highest life expectancies). Maybe learn about a state first before you criticize it.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
No. We do not have the cleanest air in the world. Especially when you take nitrogen dioxide into account for the lower Mid-West along the rust belt, the LA-riverside area which gets really smoggy, and the DC to New York area with all of south New Jersey. Our pm2.5 is actually not that bad and the US is one of the better countries, but not the best with the east being the main bad area. Overall, not the best and we are really bad compared to most in NO2. But, not the worst with decent pm 2.5. The NO 2 though is a real issue that should be addressed and the only areas that have truly acceptable standards on pm 2.5, pm 10, and NO2 are the American northwest, patches of the rockies, most of Alaska, and most of Hawaii.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@brendougbake4958 Even in an anti-gun argument, that is definitely false. People have been killing each other since the stone ages. Long before guns were even thought of. Also, if others didn't have guns, the people without them would have an even easier time. I'm not even a republican here. I'm a left-wing registered Green who voted for Bernie Sanders and for Joe Biden in 2020. For the guns don't kill people, that matters. Fists don't punch people. People punch people, right? Are we going to go around and cut off people's arms now? No. I hope you don't advocate that. Also, people can and do beat each other to death. What should be done is better ways to manage these threatening people. One of them would be a universal mental healthcare for all system. Hence, the people don't commit the violence as they will have no motivation to do it. It wouldn't even just fix gun violence. It would fix issues like people driving into crowds (which has actually been a growing problem lately), stabbings (has been reported among people with psychiatric issues), bombings (at least one pipe bomb at the capitol put there during the coup), chemical attacks (ricin against Obama), projectile plane crashing (kamikaze pilots and 9/11), arson (especially problematic here in California due to wildfire risk), and even smaller things like people stoning each other. Muslim nations based on religion, have literally advocated stoning people to death. For access to the legal guns, you do realize that these guns are hard to get, right? They have had background checks long before any gun legislation. Even in Texas. In fact, people in Texas would generally never even loan a gun to someone they don't know or to someone who they think is unstable. It is even within the culture there and they use that partly to preserve it. Messed up politics, but they are definitely not giving out guns like it is candy. The issue is the background checks were either not through or they weren't enforced for their access to guns. Let alone the shootings to happen. Then again, why are we even allowing these people to walk among the streets? Why only guns? Your comparison of the value of children's lives and guns is not comparable as a man living in the mountains of Montana hunting moose is not going to affect anyone living in Memphis. It is honestly disturbing to me that the focus is on what this person has, not the fact that this person has something extremely wrong with them. If you are going to argue for gun control, your best argument would be in comparison to regulating nuclear bombs. What is too far and what is not? How are the regulations enforced? How do we preserve people's rights to use the same materials used in building a gun. But please. Please actually pay more attention to the fact that these people were willing to use guns to take people's lives. Not simply the fact that they had guns to begin with.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@dlazo32696 There isn't that much of it and rather, a very gross generalization of the most populous state with huge regional differences. Even then, most of the homeless are not living outside people's houses. They are living in parks, along streets of businesses, and even out of their own cars. For needles, it actually is better here compared to most other places as California has lower drug abuse compared to most other states. Third world?! LOL! The most technologically sophisticated state that is responsible for your ability to even type this comment is a third world country. Ok. But if California were Mexico, most other states are the same third world level hdi as North India and West Virginia and Mississippi would be about the same quality as Haiti and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Texas would be about the same as Ghana. Also, when describing those states, they do not have as much geographical variance and population variance as California does. Hence, being more descriptive of said states. All well, I guess enjoy living in the rest of the country that is low on sewage divers.
2
-
@hairbarnes530 California has over 10 million more people than Texas. You are guaranteed to have not only more homeless in numbers, but also more homeless percentage wise due to increased variability. Also, that is not that much better and some can find it not very significant. Let's compare other states. New Mexico for instance, had a far lower homeless population both in total size and in percentage and that is due to lower population which results in lower variability. Same applies with the rural rocky states and the New England Backyard states. For companies moving to other states, the don't appear to be reducing the homes issues in those states as their homelessness actually got worst while California has actually declined. For technologically sophisticated state, it still is and by a huge margin with the only real competitors being New York, Washington, Massachusetts, and Texas. This is the place where the rockets and best military technology are developed. The best computer tech is designed here in California and the state has actually widened the gap between the other states in technological innovation. For success, I think it can do much better and should. But in the end, it is better than basically all the other states. I don't care for your state unless it were Washington, Alaska, Hawaii, or Oregon.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
The shrubs I'm talking about are not the ones you are talking about here. What you seem to be referring to are the scrubs seen in the high desert and areas that border them like mountain gaps not far from Tejon pass. Yellow grassland is still grassland and has the same amount of yearly precipitation as the great plains. The yellow is simply the dry season which is common in other non-arid regions. Only really far down to San Diego is it actually that type of climate and due to diverse topography and position of it along the coastal currents, there is variation. The trees there are not that sparse and make scatter or semi-clustered oak woodlands. Even farther south, the Torrey pine is generally medium size that can get really big. That is along the southern most coast where maritime influence is common. The agriculture is dependent on the rivers and reservoirs from the mountains that are entirely in California and the coastal areas from the central coast to the rainforests along the northwest. Also, the very same water received there comes from the spot that recorded the heaviest snowfall in an entire season in the entire world. A record that still stands today. Also, the central valley only has a desert climate and a semi-desert climate in the southern area of the valley. Even without such either, the whole central valley gets tule fog and maritime influence from San Francisco and the upper delta marshlands. There is an area that has California with the fourth highest 24 hour rainfall total in the whole country. Even exceeding Florida. I have lived in Virginia for years and I was not impressed with the precipitation compared to what I am used to. Even when hurricanes actually came when I was east in Delaware and New Jersey. Even assuming those dry grassy places are desert, there is so much forest, wetland, and mountain that it takes up at least half of the state's land area. Especially in the north where once north of San Francisco, any dry grassland will always be found with at least a few big trees. Applies for the coast once near big Sur. You also have the numerous oak woodlands and even forest groves that are along those dry grasslands. Even in places without trees along the coast, it may not be dry. Just bad terrain or positioning of weather that limits plant growth. Santa Barbara which is directly on the coast of southern California gets more rain than Athens, Greece and various other areas of Southern Europe that are not associated as being deserts. San Francisco gets more rain a year than London, England which is well known for being the complete opposite of a desert and this doesn't even count totals from fog. Even Los Angeles and possibly San Diego get the same amount as places that are green year round and with fog, support coastal plants more than many of the same areas. @ericastier1646
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@thesingingjanitor1850 Moving those areas or moving to those areas? Most California who move are moving outside of cities for cheaper rural areas and inland cities like Sacramento. Though even then, are you going to suggest that my state be forced to provide Arizona and Nevada with our snowmelt and rainforest water? What about people from other states including Texas who move to those states? For taking responsibility, why doers them being a California matter in the first place? Secondly, entirely anecdotal and from my experience, we are really not much different other than being more educated and actually being more responsible resource wise. Third, this drought is extending beyond California and is hitting Texas and numerous other states really hard right now. You should take concern with those states and their resource management as well. No kidding that it isn't one population's fault. Hence, makes no sense to go on about merely one population of a state. For Los Angeles, they do indeed use a significant amount of it, but it would survive without it. We have more than enough from Northern California which is only 40% of the state population and even now with the drought, some smaller ones are actually more full right now than usual in the central Sierra Nevada. Arizona, Nevada, Utah, and New Mexico are the states that should really be worried if it dries up. For burning to ashes, when? Wildfires are a natural occurrence here and the redwoods actually survive better with wildfire due to the thick bark on the trees and the wildfires killing the other plants taking up nutrients. In that sense, we are pretty fine. The main issue with the wildfires though is that they are unusually big and longer lasting. They are also happening in areas where they are not supposed to happen frequently like the rainforests we have here, and it is a problem going as far north as Alaska.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@klassiconetea9983 Hormones change muscle and do affect bones. It can even alter bone shape around the pelvis if it is administered early enough. Trans women are even warned about becoming weaker when they start hrt.
For lung capacity, there is quite a bit of variability on this within the sexes even if assuming that they are different here. Though whether they are different or not isn't certain.
For body sizes like height, everyone knows that and wasn't claimed such. For that, simply do what we already do and create different body class division on those like they have for wrestling.
No. Hormones only change the voice and body hair for trans men. They don't affect those for trans women.
No one claimed that anyone gets a uterus from hrt. Some claimed correlation with emotional cycles that could be linked to periods, but nothing else and that is largely anecdotal.
Looks like you don't know what hormones change. Hormones change the muscle via weakening or strengthening depending on gender, certain aspects of the bones which are why many trans women have to go on iron or even end up having their bones changed around their hips if done early, breast growth if it is male to female, softening of skin if male to female, deepening of voice if female to male, body hair growth if female to male, hair line not receding if present in male to female, thinning of certain body hair possible in male to female, fat redistribution in both male to female and female to male to respective patterns to what they transition to, nipple development for male to female, thinning of skin if female to male, and possibly others I don't know of.
So no. Not duh. You don't have as many answers as you think you do you simpleton. Maybe learn to take complexity and different outlooks rather than always picking what appears to be the simplest answer to everything. On top of that, you make claims of claims that were never even made like growing a uterus. No one ever claimed that and is why many trans women opt for sex reassignment surgery on that. Which even then, isn't there yet.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I put they to distinguish it for you since you don’t seem to understand implications I put in, but was originally going for plural. No. The whole point is that the statement is wrong. Southern California has very varied topography and climates. Something that is also relevant in water management which is what is being discussed here. For straw man, the person who you thought I was talking about alone literally said that they are deserts. Also the same one who said parts of Utah are deserts rather than the whole thing like the main commenter. Also based on said phrasing, they said it was like living in a desert rather than actually living in one. Making it more open ended to what place is a desert while also still calling said places a desert. A open statement that is still a statement.
You are comparing two large land areas in what is further south? What part of Southern California is farther south? For elevation, are you counting populated areas like Palmdale and Lancaster on the high desert? Most people in Utah are in Salt Lake City which is also a high desert which would mean by your own reasoning using climate and topography, most people in Utah don’t live in the mountains either as 82% of the states lives around Salt Lake City. That is just there alone not even counting places like St George who are lower elevation than even the average elevation of the whole state who I didn’t even mention. Average of California not meaning much due to how big it is and the facf that I was only talking about the south. For California’s highest point, it is higher than all of the entire continental United States. This point you made means nothing. Especially when elevation isn’t everything when it comes to temperature ranges. There are countless spots in California that are way cooler than most of Utah that span a very large area.
For people living in said mountainous areas too, this means nothing when we have several aqueducts and more that have the water running out of the mountains. Though even then, we have loads of people living in the mountains here in California even if they are a small percentage of our population. While Utah has a small percentage of its population living in said mountain areas rather than high deserts. California as a whole having at least 100,000 living in the mountains rather than high desert while Utah has somewhere in the range of the same population. Even if using elevations at least 5000 feet above sea level.
For the snowfall, that is completely relevant. That is literally everything here. That is where most of the water in the entire American western states and drier regions comes from. Sierra Nevada snowpack is what feeds the Central Valley farmers, the entire Colorado river basin which Utah is dependent on, and numerous water reserves in Southern California. You talk about it anything intelligent to say, but what you said here was the anti-thesis to intelligence if intelligence involves having at least the most basic understanding of where places get their water from.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
who_killed_the_w0rld Based on what? The most dangerous cities in the country are in the Mid-West and the American South. Seattle isn't ranked high at all. From what I found, Seattle is ranked in the middle of the pack or slightly higher or lower. Also ranking particularly lower in violent crime and somewhat higher in petty crime. It has had a large increase in crime, but it is not even close to the worst. Also, cities are not even the only dangerous places. The moonshine backroads of West Virginia and meth labs in Arkansas. The second most dangerous city in one report behind only Detroit is Memphis, Tennessee which is in the American South. There are also numerous other cities in the American South that are considered dangerous. New Orleans, Brimingham, Little Rock, Nashville, Houston, Chattanooga, Baton Rouge, Shreveport, and others.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Just some guy People move everywhere. There are even Americans who have moved to Venezuela and I don’t think it is the best place to live. For Florida being a waste pit, the poor environmental standards of the state like the sinkholes, loads of fat slow minded people who probably have the world headquarters for the flat earth society, an uninhabitable humid climate where only people who like horrid odors could inhabit (probably why they couldn’t wear masks. They would actually die from suffocating on their own smells), the most poorly designed cities of any place on Earth with Fort Lauderdale probably the only somewhat decent city there in anyway, buildings and bridges falling appart due to incompetent people designing them, less medicare as you have to watch out for all the fake doctors there, the Karen capital of the world, overly judgmental people who judge you for wearing a mask and even threaten violence over it, no anti-covid-19 mandates to prevent their already slow witted population from being even more slow witted, the culture of complacency(probably why Jacksonville is the only city that has a really large population despite it being in the state with the third highest population in the country (I wonder what will happen to those nice housing prices once they run out of that rural space to build on. Especially when a storm with rising sea levels eventually washes up property. Maybe the Dutch route, but I doubt it as that would be seen as woke), very bad water infrastructure with 12.5% of all lead pipes in the entire country, gross looking swampland (at least Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas have good looking swamps), a government that forces their religion or their own beliefs onto you, lack of decent public libraries if into any kind of social studies, hostility to lgbt content even with no kids around (even then, double standards here), ugly scenery and people, terrible beaches, Trump lives there, natural disasters like hurricanes and tornadoes are common which are worsened by a government that does little to nothing, the state’s people are dangerous and criminal, loads of sex offenders if not counted under dangerous and criminal, the state has the most drama, and Florida is the craziest state in the entire country and is what makes the US look bad on the world stage the way it does. Other states do make the US look bad, but not even close to as bad as what Florida does. You have literal bath salt zombies there. There is more, but I can’t list them all.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@wwlittlejOfficial The studies are not conclusive and Sabine even states it herself. She even goes over the other factors that the studies do not take into account like age, height, size, and more. The other athletics have even taken those factors into consideration like the weight classes in wrestling and between those of the same cis gender athletes. There also isn't a single one of those studies with a sample size beyond 1000 which is the bare minimum standard to even be considered useful. How do you know they would always have an advantage assuming it were to be true? There also isn't even one that goes beyond three years and the Brazilian study which was the only one Sabine was able to find, found no advantage at all.
It appears you don't understand why trans people go through the huge hurdle and mess of taking years of transition. People don't choose to become transgender. They either are or they aren't. The changes are irreversible. Even if there was somehow one guy who was going to attempt to try it somehow, they will fail to even get past the psychologist to even have it prescribed. Even if they were able to get through that, they would definitely fail to endure the years of grueling transition. If somehow, they were able to skip all of that just for the sake of argument and be at the place you are thinking of, they will have to go through all their training again just to even have a chance against cis women as trans women generally under-perform in athletics. Especially when women's sports are dominated by cos women with androgynism. Also, they will have to live in an awkward mental state on top of it as well. There is not a chance that they would make any significant athletic achievements.
Why are you telling me to not be triggered? Also, athletics is also a business. Everyone wants money. No. You are denying money from women who have no proven advantage due to their birth sex. Also, even if they did, you would also have to remove the women who have androgynism as well who are the main ones setting the records. Saying blatant advantage and repeating it doesn't make it true.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Excitement for opening a border and pretending a problem isn’t there? I can’t believe what the first and second worlds have come to in losing their values. China, the US, Russia, India, Saudi Arabia, and Europe. None of them are going to be on top if this keeps going on. The only countries I can see having any chance of surviving allied with the west or east are Japan, Norway, Scotland, Australia, Oman, North Korea(though unhealthy), Bhutan, Israel, possibly Palestine depending on their recognition status and Israel’s choice in settlements, and that is it. Anywhere else is a toss up that is third world.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I think the way we measure how good or bad a country, let alone a whole continent, is very flawed. Especially with Africa as American and European media always look at Africa like it is one place when it is the second largest continent behind only Asia and has numerous completely different countries. You have a dictatorship like Eritrea and then going out west, you have a democracy in Ghana and Botswana has a lower corruption index than even Italy and barely below South Korea. You have mining giants like Botswana and oil giants like Nigeria. You have dangerous places like South Sudan and safe countries like Ghana and Algeria who have lower murder rates than the US. You have places lacking in education like South Sudan and education hubs like South Africa. The main issue with Africa I see is similar to what is going on with Latin America. That is corruption, inequality, and lack of infrastructure. All in varying degrees among Latin American countries just as what is seen in Africa. Ones with less of these issues in both regions fair much better with some even competing on some measures with the US and Europe. Most African countries are developing and very fast. They do have a chance to reach that point where most people are not dealing with these same issues. In South Africa for instance, a lot of people in Cape Town do well and pretty much live the same standards seen in the US and the UK. While if they leave out to say the outskirts of Durban, it is a whole different story. The US and UK have those issues too, but not to that extreme. Not counting lack of infrastructure available there and in other countries, not even being able to feed them. Having the largest inequality gap in the entire world. Hence, leaving the country as a whole as very much behind where it should be. Same applies for most other African countries. Part of the key to Africa’s success is tackling the same issue hitting us here in the US in regards to high inequality. If they get past that and get all the necessary means to utilize all the rich resources those countries have, some of the countries are going to be potent world powers on the world stage with the likes of China, India, Russia, Pakistan, the US, the UK, and the EU.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@rayq6734 California is a huge state with huge regional differences. It is the third largest state in the nation behind only Texas and Alaska and is nearly as long north to south as Texas is north to south. Not even all the areas are blue with millions of republicans living here. Though the republican areas tend to either be super empty or really poor with the exception of Orange County and San Diego. The Northern and Southern parts of the state are commonly seen as two different states as they are both geographically, socially, and politically different from the southern part of the state. The rain being a huge example with NorCal being much rainier and colder than the south with actual large forests and even a few glaciated areas. We also are not even desert with the only desert being in the northeastern area of the state which extends into Oregon, Washington, and British Columbia. Most of it is grassland, woodland, and mountainous forestland with quite a number of rivers and lakes. Including the second deepest lake in the US being Lake Tahoe and is also one of the cleanest lakes in the entire country. So please. In industry, we are also completely different from the south. The south relies on entertainment, military activity, some farming in some inland areas for certain tropical plants, transport services, technology development for aerospace and mechanics, medicine is big in San Diego, and mineral and petroleum extraction. The north on the other hand is the largest agricultural producer in the entire world, the famous silicon valley which goes into entertainment and is continuously the most innovative area in the entire world for all technology sectors, water management(though climate change has caused this to become a new problem), and manager of the largest extending inland sea port on the entire west coast and countless government run jobs. There have even been disputes within the state because many people in NorCal see SoCal people as stealing our water. The democrats of LA and SF are also completely different with the south tending to be more conservative. So there is no way you can simply compare NorCal and SoCal together to different states due to the huge differences and that should also apply to other states like Pennsylvania and Florida. For red areas, you do realize there are loads of blue areas in Florida and other red states right? That is where they commonly go and those are places like solid blue Austin. Even then, politics isn't the factors in why people move. Even in your example, it isn't true.
You have Arizona, Nevada, Colorado, and Washinton with high amounts of growth.
No. I am saying that you implied points here. If you truly didn't argue them, then I will take your word for it. Ok. Though then, I still don't know why you would single out California. Why do I feel like you are changing your words? I'm just going to assume what you are saying in this one is what your real claims are.
Then again, why does Newsom matter here if it isn't his fault?
For those trends, have you been to the other states. That is the entire country and that has been happening for a while. Though not as extreme as many people make it out to be like many who claim being in San Fran is like being in Kinshasa. The governors also did basically nothing. They are irrelevant as everything is always left up to these worthless corporation that they choose to invest in.
For bankrupt, California gets too many investments and money laundering to fail. It has everything and has a huge financial sector. There will likely be recession at some point with the housing bubble, but California is not going to go bankrupt. Your concern should be the states that are going to suffer with California's output going down. Not just the state. All the food and technology we produce here.
The fact that that money has not gone to us is the very reason we vote the way that we do. It is also part of our history with how we ended up with the mandatory propositions to super pass the money bought politicians who controlled basically everything.
1
-
@rayq6734 Colorado has been solid blue for a while. They are not a swing state anymore from the latest election trends and Nevada has been mostly blue for the past few election cycles and is largely socially left-wing as well. Even if a state might vote red or blue, the politics within the state itself could be different. Like with Alaska. They are solid red but have been pro-marijuana recreational legalization and as of recently, been supportive of abortion rights. Acting as a major outlier. The other way around exists as well which would apply to a number of rust-belt states like Ohio and Illinois. Also, Washington politically is about the same as NorCal. It is more left leaning than California which is another mis-conception. California is not that left leaning. The left wingers in the bay area are often heavily influenced by big money which turns out politicians like Dianne Feinstein who have ruled for decades. The big tech companies who also got the governments to get hose subsidies were also the ones who turned out Elon Musk and despite him being a conservative, took him quite a while to leave the state and still operates Tesla here. They also get away with not paying their taxes. Making the tax laws even more meaningless.
For politics, it all really depends again on weighed specific issues. If you are not making that much, taxes are not going to be as much weight on you. Most people are not going to go through the trouble of moving to another state for slightly lower taxes and far fewer resources. If you are upper middle class and are trying to buy a home, then that is a different story. That will make a difference. Especially with the housing bubble going on right now and all these techies are driving up prices even out in the far out rural lands. Now for the real reasons people will move, they will tend to be around job opportunities, business openings, environments, and other areas like lifestyles. Lifestyle being one of the reasons why coastal areas are insanely expensive.
I know the stress of moving as I have moved before. I even lived in Texas before. If you are thinking about moving, you should probably consider Canada, Australia, or Western Europe(excluding Scandinavia due to the Russian nonsense).
Inflation checks?! For one, it was a proposal. It has never even happened. Two, 600-1100 one time is not going to inflate the economy by any significant amount. You would need to do it continuously for a while. Three, inflation is simply excusing the price gauging these companies, specifically the oil companies, are doing. Then it forces transportation to become more expensive and then the goods delivered become more expensive which everyone relies on and then, everything is more expensive. All to make the oil CEOs extra war oil money that they had faced in decline for the past few years.
Ineffective? California had the lowest covid-19 per capita rate in the entire nation and San Francisco itself was a huge leader. San Francisco did so well that you could actually go to places without a mask with no risk of covid-19. Though this was ruined by the interstate traveling bio-terrorists spreading it on purpose and mutating it to strain the government's pandemic resources to where concessions had to be made. Everyone could have won in this case, but no. It is now probably going to be the same thing with monkey pox though unlike covid-19, the death rate is actually low.
I'm not saying the politicians don't play a role. I am say that they are all the same. Only exceptions are outliers like crazy De-Santis. I hate Gavin Newsom. In the original election, I didn't even vote for him and voted against him in both democrat primaries he ran in. After Biden's apathetic treatment of covid-19 with him never mentioning it at his summit and going around places without a mask on, I am voting only in the green party even if the republicans win. If the democrats want my vote, then they will have to earn their lesson the hard way and it is one I will take even if I have to deal with these bad people controlling the government again. What I am doing is calling out the other states for having issues. They love to target my state California and then never mention anything wrong with their states. They have so many more issues in their own states that they should be focused on. They need to fix their own issues before they criticize my state for its own.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Healing and Growth -INFP Even if you were right, using God is not a justification. This is a secular country. God is not a justification for any laws that is to be made and is unconstitutional. Two, you fail to even define a life. What about the millions of sperm a man waste in ejaculating into a vagina? Would that make him a murderer? Three, assuming they are a person, what right do you have to force a woman to carry a baby? You can’t find a way to remove the fetus and carry it yourself to term? Four, biologically speaking on what defines a sentient person, you are forcing a woman to create a child. The child isn’t formed at conception. It is formed much later. Five, you also didn’t count rape, incest, unviable fetuses, and miscarriages. Six, keep your religion out of the laws. You have absolutely no right to enforce it on anyone. I doubt you would like it if we lived under Sharia law. Seven, a blessing to have a child you never even wanted. Especially rape babies that can also serve as a type of reminder of said trauma. That is not a blessing. That is lifelong torture.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@StLouis-yu9iz Not exactly. For one, the majority of California, Oregon, Washington, and Idaho are not even desert. Even then, the deserts of the west are not that dry. The mountains produce enough moisture to have natural lakes, forests, and rivers. These are large areas too unlike other desert regions of the world like the Sahara, Arabian Peninsula, the Namib desert, or the Atacama. There is also the fact that not all of the west is even desert. The wettest places in the continental US that are wetter than any place east of the Mississippi span from Northern California to Washington. The source of the rains and snow feeds major rivers like the Sacramento and the Columbia rivers. Especially during winter when it strengthens and extends its influence across the whole west coast. It is how California has the most productive agricultural region in the entire world. The second thing is the Mississippi and Missouri rivers are heavily influenced by the west as it is the source of the Missouri. Hence, part of what contributed to its drying. Enough to even disrupt inland shipping, expose 100-year-old shipwrecks, and connect an island. The third thing is the weather is not entirely getting wetter or drier in every place. The west coast is getting drier, but it is having the rain and snow happen in shorter periods with a number in greater intensity. There are also more tropical influences on the weather happening which was why Southern California had an unusually wet summer that even flooded Death Valley. Stranding people. That same even also slightly helped the Colorado as well. With climate change, that will likely happen more. Resulting in potential hurricanes reaching California and influencing Arizona. The changes in weather patterns have also caused places in Texas and east of the Mississippi to have abnormally dry weather. Saudi Arabia will always be powerful as long as they have Mecca because of all the resources other countries will pour into ensuring its maintenance. Some of those countries are wet and powerful like Indonesia. Even then, that country has numerous mineral resources that are being exploited and they are expanding into other economic sectors fast. They do desalinization and also drilling. The ground has loads of freshwater. The grounds of Arizona and New Mexico are very rich in freshwater. Even then, there is a project proposal to connect the Salton Sea to the Gulf of California. The Salton Sea is extremely close to Arizona which can definitely achieve a connection for supply for de-Salinization. Arizona can also share some of that water as well with New Mexico and California and Nevada can probably set up more from an alternate route for Utah's proposal for getting salt water from the Pacific Ocean into the Great Salt Lake. Route going south of the Sierra Nevada rather than having it pumped over the huge Sierra Nevada while being closer to Arizona and New Mexico.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@qwertyplm13does51 If you are implying most of California is of Mexican heritage, you are completely incorrect. Especially in Northern California where there are Asian majority cities. In fact, Texas has a higher percentage of Hispanics than we do. Care to talk about how Texas is Mexico? Also, even if the majority of the state did have Mexican heritage, it wouldn't make it Mexico. People coming from one place isn't what changes the way a state is. Maybe in who lives there, but not the actual place itself. Not even all people of Hispanic heritage are even from Mexico. Guatemalans, El Salvadorans, Peruvians, Colombians, Argentines, and even Chileans come here. All of the countries of origins being very different.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
These tactics are actually the reason I don’t debate people anymore. Constant topic changing. I can’t count how many times I’ve seen anti-vaxxers and republicans do this. Having to try to continue arguing a point and never being able to finish if while they finish theirs in these gross simplistic approaches that also attempt to gas-light me. The twister is also constant as it is what creates so many annoying right wing strawmans. Making it harder to debate the point you want to debate. The wrangler isn’t that big of an issue as I could simply just create other solutions or prompt them and they can’t deny that it is fair. Though, it tells me that they don’t care about improving information though. For the lying, that happens mostly through people parroting points rather than actually lying themselves and the lies are always partial lies or lying by omission. I think politicians debating each other do this one the most. I will say that democrats definitely do these too and I’ve seen it numerous times as well. With gun violence, drugs, sometimes taxes, police violence, international relations in both politics and economics, and a few electoral political topics. But, I see it far more with republicans, conservatives, and certain libertarian types. I would say it is 4 times worst than the democrats, liberals, and social democratic groups at least. Especially as the left here at least uses science and will actually back off and utilize science itself. Though the left can represent science better as republicans accuse democrats of gas-lighting with this and have unjustly retaliated with their own forms of gas-lighting in other areas. For the anti-science ones like anti-vaxxers, anti-maskers, anti-lockdowners, covid-19 deniers, flat-earthers, fake medicine people like those who claim marijuana can cure cancer, race-realists(also extremely racist), climate-change deniers, chem-trail conspiracy theorists, and numerous others, are even worst than the general right wing when only examining these positions alone(saying as right wingers and left wingers overlap with these). I would say they do these 16 times more than the lefties do. Topic changes happen even faster as they are also how they dot so many conspiracies. The lying is common as they parrot each other quite a bit and even themselves as they lack engagement with their own ideas. Though with that, it is lying by omission more. Twisting is extremely common. Flat earthers with “it’s photo-shopped, but, but, it has to be” and plenty of others. The wrangler is very common with them always claiming that the reason for this event can only be this wild theory. I can’t believe I wasted so much time debating these people.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Dr.House92 No. I was also told over a year and a half ago that I was going to be dead within a year. Unless I have become some kind of internet ghost, I am pretty sure I am still alive. I was also not magnetic like they claimed that I would be. The only thing that happened with the vaccine was a mild allergic reaction that happened with the first booster that I took and quickly got over. Also, why should anyone believe you about the vaccines? You all don't demonstrate any credibility whatsoever like CDC and the WHO do. Plus, they are honest in their knowledge being limited on covid-19 while others are jumping to conclusions about a virus they know absolutely nothing about. Who do I trust? The people who haver the most knowledge of medicine and biology from thousands of years of studies and countless successes in curing and even wiping out diseases like smallpox, or some people without any medical credentials, without any known medical successes, many openly admitting to being limited in medical knowledge, questionable ways in gaining such information and making conclusions, and extreme oversimplifications of established over 100 year old scientific concepts? I can't simply make the decision on my own as I don't have the necessary medical knowledge to make such decisions either. Unless, I do what that one doctor did and study medicine for 10 years and do vaccinations, medical treatments, and surgeries on myself. The again, I don't exactly have a hundred thousand dollars to throw that amount of time from my engineering degree or time to cut hours away from my work to do that.
1
-
1
-
@pagejustin5572 Shot to pieces? In my perspective, I just feel like I'm debating flat earthers using the out of context "It's photoshopped, but it has to be". For watching the news, shouldn't people have the choice to free speech and choice on consumption? Also, even though I am very left leaning, I'm not a liberal. I am also what I would describe as socially centrist. I am pro-LGBT, pro-choice, pro-BLM, anti-drugs(including marijuana unless used for other purposes of drug abuse), pro-guns, big military(though ties into my beliefs in bigger government), and somewhere in the middle when it comes to immigration as unrestricting violates some of my beliefs of a well-regulated society. I am a hardcore science supporter and believe in expanding science funding and combatting climate change. Despite believing in a bigger military, I am also very anti-war with only extreme exceptions like slavery or Nazi Germany coming to power again. Against Iraqi invasion, though do think all nations should have specific human rights and war would be justified in certain instances and if there are no nukes involved. Despite being pro-BLM, I do think that the police force should indeed be big.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@onelove7883 Doesn't change the fact that it is a significant portion of the most productive agricultural region in the entire world. Those crops even if successfully relocated in nearby nature reserves, fertile valleys near there, or up north in the Northern Sacramento Valley, are going to take time to actually establish. For the same applying here, not exactly. It depends on where the water is coming from, what crops are being grown, and types of soil. The area of Gilroy is located in a smaller valley with a very different climate and watershed. For where the water is to go, there are numerous different places to pump it to. Owen's valley is not far from there and has been depleted for 100 years from LA's usage. There are also other valleys, channels, and even places with depleted ground water that would make great use of that water. Ideally, preparation should be done rather than waiting for the lake to return, but this would be far more practical. The Inland empire doesn't have even close to enough land area to compensate for all the farmland that could go underwater. Even if homes were removed, it would probably not be enough. Plus, the area is much drier and would put a heavier strain on water sources that these farmers previously didn't use while they were in the San Joaquin Valley. Not even counting soil fertility being a possible problem as well with the area being sandier. The cows though, can be relocated to the high desert. For foreign investors, what percentage as the output here is still very much big for the US. The main area foreign investors seem to be after is the cattle which Arizona has been doing. For infrastructure, even the most well paid of companies will struggle in relocating the infrastructure or building entirely new ones. It would take years just to even get approval, let alone actually build or relocate. Every single significant change here will take time. No. If an area is a deep enough depression and the channels all go there, the water will not go to the previous lake bed. It would also not change the soil type of the farming region that sit along the lake bed. Making it more beneficial than raising the area. Once again, relocating is difficult, time consuming, and will fail for various different farming groups as there isn't many other options.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@evanR09-2 Where are those lands being cleared for farming? Are they arable? What kind of water streams are near them? Are they located near the numerous military bases the state has? How much sunlight does the place get? There is a reason why the Mojave desert is still largely desert in contrast to the fertile central valley. Also, the state needs more housing. Especially in the growing northern areas.
RELOCATING WATER IS NOT GETTING RID OF WATER! Water relocation. People can create depressions to store more water in a smaller amount of space and there are areas in the valley to actually do it. It has even been done before with river courses farther north. We have been building reservoirs for 100 years. We already have them and have had them. Thei issue is abnormal timing of receiving the precipitation. Also, more reservoirs also means more water rerouted away from the lake bed.
The lake staying has numerous square miles of farmland being destroyed, lost of probably some of the most fertile soil on earth which cannot be made up for with certain crops in the Sacramento valley in the North, pollution from the cities being flooded, and thousands of people losing their homes. Also, the lake is shallow. If used up enough or under drought conditions, it will dry up and leave behind debris that pose a health hazard to a place that already has enough issues with air pollution. If concerned about water, relocate the water and keep the farmland. That protects the water more, prevents whatever could be in the farms and cities from polluting the water, and keeps people's homes and the most productive farmland on the planet for certain instead of taking years to go somewhere else where other crops won't even probably grow as efficiently or at all.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1