You could post an example and invalidate my point, but I think there's a good reason why you didn't.
webadict
You will never get an answer from them because the small nuggets of truth that exist in Republican talking points are then used to make batshit claims and then turned into a point of profit for some grifter somewhere.
I have yet to see the trucks with an idolized Kamala Harris holding an American flag on them or even a single article of cultwear pushed out like the MAGA hat, so the Democrats are really slacking in their zealotry.
There is really only one major party against ranked choice voting. Every year, Democratic caucuses vote to add ranked choice voting to their platform. Democrats have managed to get Ranked Choice Voting in several cities.
Republicans do not. Republicans repeal RCV. Every RCV repeal in the US was done by Republicans.
Both parties are not the same, and if you really want a third party candidate, you're better off getting rid of every Republican you can.
My point is why mess with a place what has nothing to do with climate change, and not mess with places that absolutely do have something to do with it?
They did. They do. They probably will in the future as well.
But, it seems as though people care more about art being faux-vandalized than they do about the planet dying, so those don't make the front pages, or you would've known this.
Also, no, it looked at 9 specific studies, not "all" studies. It's conclusions are basically "We need more studies."
I looked at your study, but all it showed was that there were no statistically significant side effects for puberty blockers, so what's the problem?
No, a bad faith argument would be using one study and a handful of doctors that aren't specialists in the area that agrees with you versus the hundreds of studies and thousands of doctors that specialize in the area that don't.
I'm gonna call bullshit on "too toxic." There were literal riots over getting civil rights. There were literal murders over getting civil rights. A lot of the reason why MLK looked so good was because there were those who took extreme actions, and his nonviolent protests would sometimes be treated the same as the violent ones. But you think a stall-in would be too far? Should we use the Suffragettes instead, who also vandalized museums (worse than these guys)? Was that too toxic? What a silly argument.
Condering that the art is unharmed, and they glue themselves to the gallery waiting for the police while explaining what their goals are so that passersby film them to spread the message, I'd say that they are, frankly, pretty distinguishable from vandals, or do you know of other vandals that do that?
I can't believe you would trample on my freedom to extinct an animal like that.
The only way to stop a good guy with a skateboard is a bad guy with a gun!