Why Trump won the election, the easiest way to realize is by watching “stand-up specials“ Bill Maher. This chance came again, due to the fact that a comedian – until late an icon of the American left, a Republican slayer and a whistleblower of absurd religions – recorded a fresh program after the November elections. As it is easy to see, he is more likely to make fun of the foolishness of the left than he is to make inexpensive trips to the right. The last 1 inactive doesn't like it any more, but it's the first 1 that delivers him material to ridicule with all the tone.
Maher is no longer on the left, he became a liberal centrist who fights for freedom of speech against woke and cancel culture. He is talking about protests by the left against the treatment of people with disabilities or the removal of homeless people from homelessness, due to the fact that both identities are as if they were valuable and should be protected. It shows the nonsense of a historical condemnation, e.g. George Washington for having slaves in the times in which all slaves had. He rightly impudences the Z generation that would have slaves, too, surviving then. It translates young people's vulnerability to scaring immigration and occupation losses by the fact that alternatively of studying law, economics or architecture, they end courses from “critical queer feminism in the unincorporated communities of Cambodian origin”.
Finally, he brings any privacy and complains that as he wanted in California, in his garden, to cut down 1 tree, it was essential to apply for approval to respective different offices, and so respective Berkeley students lived on that tree and megaphone told Maher that the tree had a soul.
I don't know if Maher – the most celebrated American atheist, i.e. a man who refuses even people to have a soul – let him go laughing proceeding that his tree is simply a spiritually more advanced creature than he thinks he is. However, no uncertainty accepting the thesis that trees have souls can lead them to be cut down, for in the end it means that after a long life on these tears, after being cut down, they will go to happiness in eternity.
Eternal life, about the sun, clean water and pollinating bees, would besides be waiting for road-side Polish trees, where drivers and their passengers (including families with children) regularly fry for decades. As a result, they scope eternal life faster than trees that proceed to stand and inhale smoke from exhaust pipes. Isn't it better to cut them down and plant fresh ones at a reasonable distance from the road?
Of course not. The left is here and it boils erstwhile you hear about specified ideas of absurdly expanding the safety of people utilizing the roads. It raises the right argument, that it is not the trees that are going besides fast and they do not enter the road (although in Gdańsk I know about 2 fresh roads on which trees were planted in the mediate of the street). 1 fortunate thing: if they did, they'd go to hell. Of course, people are guilty of accidents. The fact that sometimes they're not the same people who got greased up in a roadside tree (for example, they ran to the side to save themselves from a frontal collision with any madman overtaking on a tower or just riding on a lane against the current) is difficult. Trees should be defended, not people.
Besides, not only a tree is more crucial than a man. The rat too. In France, erstwhile the city of Marseille decided to deal with the plague of rodents in a humane way by catching them and spending them earlier with the aid of the Nuit and Mûre ferrets (rat ferrets are frightened of panic and run from them 3 times slower), the Paris Left picked up the rhetes (and most likely tore their noses, due to the fact that Marseille is “the province”). The capitals decided to cut themselves off from the ferret savagery and say that the problem is not rats in the city, but the mentality of the man who should accept their presence. yet – as Quentin Tarantino, SS Lieutenant Hans Landa, preached in “The Bastards of War”, a rat is fundamentally specified a poorly-haired squirrel, so what's the large deal? Plus, he might have a affirmative side. A small higher than the Marseillen position of the Paris squad in the French League table can most likely only explain the faster moving of capital footballers who know that the ferrets are not, and the rat can run behind them.
When a man from the left hears that he has human rights, only they are in the hierarchy of rights below the rights of rats and the rights of trees, he votes Trump. Let the trees and rats vote on the left. That's how democracy works.
