I choose guilty sex.
It makes it a little raunchy, without explaining why.
I choose guilty sex.
It makes it a little raunchy, without explaining why.
I know you’re getting downvoted a lot, but I don’t think you’re a Trump supporter or arguing in bad faith. I know what you mean.
People on the left, like myself, were always going to call the parade a failure. It was always going to be a sad, pointless attempt at spectacle. By its very nature, it was a failure. In no world were we going to say, “yeah I hate the guy, but damn if he doesn’t know how to throw a bitchin’ parade.”
On the flipside, Trump and Maga folks were always going to call it a success. Or maybe there are reports of angry red hat people who expected a better show and were disappointed. Unlikely, though.
On what terms do you define its success or failure? Yes, attendance is one. If they expected ten times as many people, then, as you say, it’s a failure. You aren’t wrong for asking for a source.
I think your original comment was less along the lines of, “how do we know it wasn’t an amazing success, though?” and more like, “wasn’t the parade exactly as expected?”
It’s not the same exact plane, but another article mentions a Boeing employee who did have nightmares about specific planes being sold to Air India. This plane was produced shortly after the time when she was keeping track of those ones:
Cynthia Kitchens, a former quality manager who worked at the Charleston plant between 2009 and 2016, has a binder full of notes, documents and photos from her frustrating years at Boeing, one page of which lists the numbers of the eleven planes delivered between early 2012 and late 2013 whose quality defects most kept her awake at night. Six of them went to Air India, whose purchases were bolstered by billions of dollars in Export-Import Bank loan guarantees. The plane that crashed was delivered in January 2014 from Boeing’s now-defunct assembly line in Everett, Washington, though its mid- and aft- fuselages were produced in Charleston.
Thanks for answering.
“I don’t have any evidence, I just think so, and I’m old” is enough for me to understand your mentality.
I don’t see it as a cage at all.
I know my comment was long, but you haven’t answered:
If you want to believe in a conspiracy, why not look at the ways in which the auto industry has suppressed other modes of transport, from inventing the term “jaywalking” to suppressing electric trams to building giant highways through poor neighbourhoods?
I looked this up and found this information about it:
In its Local Plan 2040, Oxford City Council proposed installing elements from the 15-minute city urban concept in neighborhoods throughout the city over the next 20 years. These plans included proposals to improve accessibility to local shops and other amenities for residents so they didn’t have to always drive. Separately, Oxfordshire County Council announced traffic-reducing measures throughout the city, with infrastructure to encourage car travel around the city by using the ring road rather than already congested roads. Initial opposition to the plans led to proposals to introduce permit schemes to facilitate car travel at certain times, allowing car access to areas that the council planned to restrict to motorists.
First, the article says it was separate. Nobody said, “We are blocking everybody’s access to this road because the goal of 15-Minute City is to restrict people and forbid them from leaving their zone.”
Second, it was just traffic-calming. They put up some planters blocking roads to vehicles to encourage access by bike, pedestrians, etc. That’s not restricting access, that is INCREASING access. By bikes.
They decided that a different, busier road was more appropriate for cars. How on earth does that equate to restricting access? So your car had to drive further, using a big busy road instead of a local quiet street - boo-hoo! This, to you, was a sign that the government wants to confine you to a 15 minute area and never let you leave?
Are the following measures, to you, a sign of nefarious “restricting access”?
All of those technically “restrict access” by your seeming definition. Well, at least by vehicle. Is it your assertion that private vehicles reign supreme, and if the government does anything to slow down, discourage, or increase the cost of vehicle travel, it means their future goal is to create walled mini-cities that folks can’t leave?
Edit: also, you say that people threatened to hang the city council to get them to renege - are you proud of this? Your “side” is threatening to murder people if they don’t govern the way they want, and that’s just “being vigilant”? To prevent planters from being placed on a street? What the hell?
Has anyone ever actually said, “I think we should have all services within a zone of 15-minute travel, and we should restrict people from leaving their zone, and this is called 15 Minute Cities and I support that idea”?
“Having services readily available” is the entire idea. “You’re not allowed to go to another area” is nonsense that someone else tacked on to the concept to make people hate it.
I’m sure they actually did the study in an organized way, but I imagined them checking the snake species one by one. “Okay guys, that’s eight out of eight so far. If the next snake also has a clit, we’re calling it - all snakes have clits.”