This is directly contradictory to other super obvious evidence. Like the fact that conservative states have much lower life expectancy.

https://www.prb.org/resources/liberal-u-s-state-policies-linked-to-longer-lives/#:~:text=People in U.S. states with,environment%2C according to new research.

I think there’s some tomfoolery with this study.

Removed by mod

Nah, we’re far too resourceful to be killed by climate change.

It may take out large chunks of the global population, but we will adapt with technology to be able to still sustain billions of humans.

Humans are social animals, you’re the odd one out here from a social perspective, not that you’re not entitled to that choice but choices have consequences.

I’d suggest just ignoring them. You aren’t going to find a better work environment anywhere else unless you literally have no coworkers.

My abortion was okay, it was for a republican politician’s baby, and he flew me out of state

/s

I’m not sure that’s going to hold true with so many people being effectively inflated into poverty.

It’s going to get worse, a lot worse.

If your job is so physically demanding as to make it impossible to stand, cut, and stir things, then why the fuck are you working out on top of that? Not to mention how much harder it should be to get fat in the first place…

You can eat ultra processed meals at that point, just don’t have four potions of them per meal and you won’t gain weight.

Strategically it doesn’t make sense. It’s better for him to run and lose intentionally, then step down after the loss.

That allows the people to get their hate out, and resets the playing field for the next election cycle when people realize the Conservatives haven’t done shit all to make life more affordable.

The core problems Trudeau is being blamed for aren’t really his fault. They’re global trends happening everywhere, including places with conservative governments.

The biggest problem is the lack of planning. If you come home after working and don’t know what you have or what you’re going to make of course it’s going to feel difficult.

So spend 15 minutes on the weekend making a plan for all your meals for the week. Do a single grocery shop for everything you need to reduce trips to the store.

The when you get home on Wednesday, you already know you’re going to cook up some grilled cheese with soup (that’s in your freezer from last week when you made 5 portions) and you can pull it together while you watch an episode of your favorite tv show on the tablet you prop up on your counter.

When we say cheaper we mean dollars. The easier part of the statement covers the time.

If it takes you 30 minutes to make a single meal, it takes you 35 minutes to make 5-10 portions and freeze them. Then you can do the same as the processed meals and pull a different one out each day.

I can’t wait for the new expansion. It looks fucking amazing.

The person who makes the original assertion needs to prove it, not the one that “asserts something logically stronger”

I can also just point to the fact that we’ve tried a bunch of these policies at a smaller scale, other places have tried a bunch of these policies at various scales, and as far as I know there isn’t a developed country that has declining home prices in cities, or that have managed to keep any of their bigger cities affordable.

25th percentile for median household income is only $133,000 per year, that’s not per person, that’s the entire household. You’re still working a full time job (or likely more) for that kind of wage. You probably also live in a high cost of living area. That’s comfortable, but hardly what I’d consider “easier” than the previous generation.

I am Canadian, and I was taught Cost as past tense in school and university. I’ve never seen it written Costed for past tense in any government publication either.

Palestine also had Jews pre-biblical times, around 1000 BC. There are verses about the Kingdom of the Israel in the old testament, and it’s all part of that region.

I’m just arguing that it’s not BOTH cheap and easy. It’s only one of those.

Also, don’t cook every meal. I cook 10 portions at a time for my family every time I make dinner and put leftovers in the fridge (or freezer) which reduces the total time to cook per week quite significantly. It barely takes longer to cook 10 portions compared to 2 portions, which drops the per portion cook time down to single digit minutes.

You could probably take a 50% pay cut and still be better off if you took a job that can work from home (or much closer)

You may want to run the actual math and think outside the box for options.

No, go look it up. Top 5% maybe…

Unless you’re an elite athlete, your body consumes more calories per day just to exist than you will burn through exercise.

It takes 30 minutes of decent exercise to work off the calories in a single can of pop. An bowl of chips can set you back an hour.

It’s not even hard to eat 4 hours worth of exercise in a single afternoon snack.

Your situation is valid, but you’ve missed about a half dozen important components.

First. You need to eat slower, 900 calories to feel full is more of a time thing than a volume thing.

Second. You need to be eating more protein and fiber. Which also help with fullness.

Third. You need to give your body time to reduce the size of what it thinks it needs. Your stomach actually gets used to a certain quantity of food, and it needs to re-adjust to a lower amount.

Fourth. Hunger sucks. Drinking water helps. Especially before a meal it will help you with the first point here too.

Fifth. Hunger is a mental thing, you can overcome it with practice, you’re not actually malnourished. As a child I used to participate in these 30 hour famine fundraisers where you didn’t eat anything between dinner on Thursday and lunch on Saturday, only clear fluids were allowed. You can just practice ignoring hunger and get better at it.