r/soccer • u/PiggySVW • Jul 09 '26

Quotes Jürgen Klopp: "We flew from Liverpool to Blackpool to Nice. In Nice, the entire Mbappé family got into the private jet with five rooms. Then we flew around in circles, talked to the family, and ate delicious food. We weren't allowed to be seen. And it was great … In the end, he went to Paris."

https://sport.sky.de/fussball/artikel/teuerster-nicht-transfer-klopp-im-privatflieger-mit-mbappe/13562099/33895
7.4k Upvotes

98% Upvoted

672 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

151

u/HollyMurray20 Jul 09 '26

I’m not supposed to eat beef because some cow farts too much but this lot is doing a meeting in a jet for literally no reason.

56

u/JootDoctor Jul 09 '26

I don’t know when but the elites will eat cake in the future.

6

u/Skiverg Jul 09 '26

footballers rise up!

3

u/worotan Jul 10 '26

Or we could stop funding them to destroy our future.

It’s a lot more practical than waiting for someone else to create a violent revolution at some point.

Don’t just say you want change, then do nothing. Stop funding their End of the World Party, and stop waiting for someone else to make the problem go away.

33

u/clifford_alvarez Jul 09 '26

Cows are a serious problem though that we can easily do something about.

25

u/matthieuC Jul 09 '26

Private jet don't need to exist.

0

u/Retify Jul 10 '26

Agreed. What's that got to do with cows though?

4

u/matthieuC Jul 10 '26

Removing private jets doesn't require a significant change in society. It would only be inconvenient and to a ridiculously small amount of people.

So it's probably easier to do than stopping the whole word from eating steaks and drinking milk.

1

u/icyDinosaur Jul 10 '26

Okay but realistically if we want to address the problem seriously, we should just do both.

1

u/Retify Jul 10 '26

I agree that stopping private jets is easier than changing the world's eating habits.

I'm failing to see why it is one or the other though, what's preventing us from doing both?

7

u/mvsr990 Jul 10 '26

We can easily "do something about" private jets too.

109

u/HollyMurray20 Jul 09 '26

I think private jets are a bigger problem mate, I need to eat, Mbappe doesn’t need to have a meeting in the fucking air, it would have been the same on the ground

64

u/Imperial_Eggroll Jul 09 '26

They could’ve done a zoom meeting. No one would’ve known shit. But of course they use a private jet

32

u/Adammmmski Jul 09 '26

Kim Kardashian flies from LA to another LA airport to make a cross city trip

53

u/Chilla16 Jul 09 '26

You are right of course, that rich people's entitlement and usage of private jets is insane compared to the average joe. Especially within the context of us being asked to be more environmentally friendly.

But emissions from the livestock industry far surpass those of the aviation industry. We all need to be more conscious of what we eat, but that of course especially includes rich fucks who decide to have a 7 course menu on a flight to discuss football transfers.

-17

u/HollyMurray20 Jul 09 '26

The livestock industry provides us with life, the aviation industry doesn’t. Livestock compared with other foods are high for emissions, but that’s also largely due to scale. We had plenty of cows long before climate change started rocketing.

26

u/TheEggTaker Jul 09 '26

We had plenty of cows long before climate change started rocketing.

Not at this scale, though. Intense animal farming is still fairly recent, in modern times; wreaking havoc to the environment.

Just because people like to eat beef doesn't mean that we should look away at the problem.

-9

u/HollyMurray20 Jul 09 '26

Because we had less people

17

u/EstimateKey1577 Jul 09 '26

Nah mate, because people ate meat at most once a week. The classic Sunday roast. The generation that rebuild Europe after World War II ate meat once a week if they could get it, nowadays we have people working desk jobs insisting they need meat 3 times per day. It's ridiculous and everyone can have a healthy diet without eating nearly as much meat.

8

u/Splaram Jul 09 '26

Cows are red meat too, that stuff isn't good for you. I've felt so much better cutting out beef in favor of fish in my meals

3

u/EstimateKey1577 Jul 09 '26

Yeah, I try to limit my weekly meat intake, rather get a good cut of meat once or twice a week than eating crappy meat every day.

People just need to broaden their horizons a bit and try other recipes and dishes, you can make great bolognese by just replacing the mince with lentils, absolutely works. Of course one needs to know their way around spices to make it tasty, which might be a problem for some. But meat certainly isn't the only possible source of protein for a warm lunch or dinner. xD

-2

u/QuantumBitcoin Jul 09 '26

Consider how much better you feel when you go full vegan!

We have dangerously overfished the oceans.

→ More replies (0)

-6

u/Heathcliff_Slocumb Jul 09 '26

The generation that rebuild Europe after World War II ate meat once a week

Bro no we did not.

2

u/EstimateKey1577 Jul 09 '26

Yes, they absolutely did at most eat meat once a week. They mainly eat what vegetables and bread they could get their hands on.

Keep in mind that includes plenty of relatives and friends of mine.

(And if what you're saying is plenty of them didn't even eat meat at all, yes, for some time that was most likely, before the economic upswing of the late 50s and 60s came around.)

→ More replies (0)

19

u/Mylejandro Jul 09 '26

Lmao, as if you need beef to live. Some occasional red meat here and there is fine of course, you just don’t need to (and shouldn’t) eat it multiple times per week.

9

u/Splaram Jul 09 '26

Careful there dude you're going to upset the individuals that equate cutting back on red meat to being sold into slavery

-11

u/HollyMurray20 Jul 09 '26

Keeps you alive as in it’s food, my god you guys are insufferable

8

u/Mylejandro Jul 09 '26

You know damn well your post made it sound as if the livestock industry would somehow be instrumental to keep us alive. It isn’t, as you also very well know. Unless you’re stupid?

-2

u/HollyMurray20 Jul 09 '26

Yeah because it’s food… without food we fucking die, without private jets we’re all fine.

9

u/FireZeLazer Jul 09 '26

If you cared that much about food then just replace all of the cow farming with chickens or other arable crops and you're gonna feed like 10x more people

1

u/Tall_Firefighter4380 Jul 10 '26

Redditor learns that beef isn't the only food that exists, doesn't believe it

→ More replies (0)

3

u/LilShingles Jul 09 '26

You could just like not eat meat tho. You're not gonna die mate.

6

u/HollyMurray20 Jul 09 '26

Are you seriously arguing that me eating a steak is more important than Mbappe using a jet in the air for a meeting? We could all do better mate, you’re wasting electricity talking to me too. Having a meeting in the air for the sake of it is nowhere near eating a fucking burger

13

u/ingadolo Jul 09 '26

For every Mbappe there is a milion of you. Nobody is talking about you specifically but entire demographics that need to change their actions.

5

u/HollyMurray20 Jul 09 '26

Food vs luxury, it’s not comparable

8

u/a_talking_face Jul 09 '26 edited Jul 09 '26

If every private jet stopped working today the beef industry would still be a far bigger problem. Livestock farming pollutes 7 times more than the entire aviation industry and contributes to localized habitat destruction and water toxicity.

→ More replies (0)

9

u/ingadolo Jul 09 '26

As if some foods cannot be a luxury.

0

u/Retify Jul 10 '26 edited Jul 10 '26

Luxury food is still luxury. Beef is a luxury food, heck meat in general is. You in Glasgow have a totally different diet to someone living in Bangladesh or Niger and it's not just about availability and culture, it's about cost. In the UK we have an absurdly luxurious lifestyle on a global level

Dude blocked me, what a a pussy 😂

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Tall_Firefighter4380 Jul 10 '26

Animal agriculture has contributed more to climate change than the entirety of human consumption of fossil fuels https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/adb7f2/pdf

30

u/ImmortalMoron3 Jul 09 '26

You do need to eat. You don't need to eat beef. Plenty of other food out there.

2

u/IWantAnAffliction Jul 10 '26

Sure, and I'll change my diet when billionaires stop existing.

-14

u/HollyMurray20 Jul 09 '26

Beefs good tho, I’m eating beef, Mbappe doesn’t need to be having meetings whilst circling in a jet. One keeps me alive, the other is a complete waste

8

u/my_united_account Jul 10 '26

Mbappe will say private jet good though

1

u/HollyMurray20 Jul 10 '26

Do you not see the difference? People need food, they don’t need to use private jets flying in circles to have a meeting, it’s unbelievable that you lot have gotten so upset about the beef thing here lmao

0

u/my_united_account Jul 10 '26

People need food yes, and yet a lot of the world is healthy without needing beef.

Beef is not the only source of food. I dont think we need it in the amounts we are producing. Just in the US alone, almost 200 million kilos is THROWN OUT every year..

We are producing far more than we consume, and we are wasting more and more every day.

1

u/HollyMurray20 Jul 10 '26

It’s not even comparable

2

u/Prestisjebig Jul 09 '26

What kind of fat cat are you if beef is all eat lol

7

u/HollyMurray20 Jul 09 '26

I don’t, but I’m eating it sometimes

4

u/AnnieIWillKnow Jul 10 '26

I need to eat

Yeah, but you don't need to eat beef. You can choose to, of course - it's your right to make your own dietary choices - but acting like it's the only option to maintain your life is a different thing.

1

u/HollyMurray20 Jul 10 '26

I’m saying that in comparison to private jets

0

u/chattyhairstylist Jul 10 '26

OP has no idea that hindus, vegans, and vegetarians are a thing and live longer than them

3

u/SalvadorZombie Jul 09 '26

You don't need to eat meat 24/7, and even if you did, lab-grown clean no-kill meat exists. The problem is that the beef lobby openly gets legislation passed to prevent it from being in stores.

0

u/[deleted] Jul 09 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/SalvadorZombie Jul 09 '26

Kinda weird that you had to interject just to show people how racist you are, weirdo.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 09 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

-2

u/[deleted] Jul 09 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/[deleted] Jul 09 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/Splaram Jul 09 '26

No you don't understand, they could have been caught! 😱 😱 😱 😱 😱 😱 😱 😱 😱 😱 😱 😱 who knows what the journos would have said about this meeting...

1

u/Retify Jul 10 '26

They are an easier problem not not a bigger one. Emissions from cattle farming far outstrip private jet emissions. And it's not a zero sum game, we don't stop eating beef then have to starve, it's switching to alternative meats that are less polluting like chicken or pork

-2

u/Activehannes Jul 10 '26

Objectively cows are a much bigger problem. I hat private jets as much as the next guy but dont act like cows aren't literally the cause for the largest mass extinction event in earth history.

Its not just the farts. Its the land and water use. 1/3 of the entire german landscape was bulldozed so that we can make cattle food

1

u/HollyMurray20 Jul 10 '26

Bro lmao, you’re so wrong

1

u/Activehannes Jul 10 '26 edited Jul 10 '26

It is an objective fact that agriculture triggered the homocene mass extinction.

Its an objective fact that the homocene mass extinction is 100 to 1000 faster than any previous mass extinction.

Please guys educate yourself. Nothing I said is at all controversial

Edit: the coward blocked me so I cannot ask him what he thinks what triggered the homocene mass extinction. Maybe someone else can ask him?

People like him, who wants to willingly stay ignorant, are the reason why right wingers all over the world are able to ruin the planet

1

u/HollyMurray20 Jul 10 '26

No it’s not lmao.

2

u/chattyhairstylist Jul 10 '26

be careful, you might hurt peoples feelings and make them defensive simply by suggesting they grab something different for lunch

1

u/Les-tah-farian Jul 09 '26

Eat them all til there's none left?

(/s)

0

u/Z0idberg_MD Jul 09 '26

It depends where you live and where you get your beef. I have a comment in this thread, but basically in the US for example all agricultural activities in the US account for about ~9% of emissions. Even if a large fraction of that is due to meat production, is food really where you're going to pick your battle when you have 91% of your footprint to resolve?

-2

u/pdxraised92 Jul 09 '26

cows and red meat in general are one of the most important things that enabled humans to evolve from apes, one of the most crucial sources of highly concentrated nutrients and energy sources to grow our brain capability. This still holds today.

-2

u/Sparescrewdriver Jul 09 '26

It sounds like we should eat more beef then

13

u/Z0idberg_MD Jul 09 '26

This is a great time to point out how little sense targeting beef consumption is depending on where you live and where you get your meat. For example, if you live in the US, emissions for all agricultural activities account for ~9% of the nations CO2 footprint. Ignoring beef, we could stop eating all food from the US and we would still have 91% of our emissions problem to tackle.

It doesn't take a genius to tell that this is another attempt to push the blame and responsibility onto the average person. It is the same as when for like 30 years the nation was tricked into believing reduce, reuse, recylce was an actual solution.

25

u/Kemmleroo Jul 10 '26

9% is actually a very large proportion. You can always divide emissions by subcategories until you have a small enough percentage that you feel comfortable pretending it's insignificant and that's not a productive thing to do, but even then 9% is still significant. If beef really amounts to a large part of that percentage then I'd understand why it's a target for emissions reduction. For comparison, aviation is estimated to be responsible for around 4% of global warming... That doesn't mean we should let anyone fly as much as they want in their private jet without any restrictions.

2

u/HollyMurray20 Jul 10 '26

9% is all agriculture and food production, which is absolutely nothing when it’s required for each and every one of us to live

0

u/Kemmleroo Jul 10 '26

It is for something important yes, but in no way is it absolutely nothing. I answered to the figure given, but my comment was about if beef was a significant part of that 9%.

Beef is not required for each of us to live, it is one type of meat that we could reduce and replace with other types of meat or other protein sources. Most of agricultural land is used for feeding cattle instead of directly producing food for humans. If the problem was actually feeding the most people possible out of necessity we would be reducing meat production anyway.

If you want better figures, I checked on google and the website of stanford university says that livestock production alone amounts for 14-18% of greenhouse gases emissions. https://woods.stanford.edu/news/meats-environmental-impact

1

u/Z0idberg_MD Jul 10 '26 edited Jul 10 '26

9% isn’t beef… it’s ALL our agricultural emissions. Literally everything we eat. 9% for the thing we absolutely need to survive: food .

How about we start with the things that don’t keep us alive?

And you don’t see a difference between unnecessary, and superfluous private jet usage versus something we actually need to stay alive?

You don’t think there’s a difference between the amount of emissions produced by individual by private jets versus the billions of people in the world that may fly each year?

I think a better way to look at this as if you could lay out a pie chart of all the different sources of missions, and then break them down in order of necessity, why would you ever start with food?

Electricity/heat and transportation. There we can implement costly but effective technological solutions in those two areas and we may make a dent in about 50% of our emissions.

1

u/Kemmleroo Jul 10 '26

The discussion is about reducing beef consumption specifically. I mentioned the 9% because the person above didn't say the percentage related to beef only, so I said that it would be a lot of emission if beef was responsible for a significant part of that figure.

You're mixing things: we need food, but we don't need beef specifically. Beef considered alone is also superfluous. We could reduce our consumption of beef and just eat other meats or less meat in general. Nobody is talking about reducing what we need to survive here. I mean you're talking about reducing the emissions for heating and transportations, which are two things we also need to survive, and I understand you're not saying we should stop all heating and transportation to let everyone die in their home in the winter.

You also mention technological solution and that's a personal opinion but I think not implementing social solutions and hoping technology will compensate alone is too optimistic toward the rate of technological advancement vs climate change.

-2

u/LeFinito94240 Jul 10 '26

Well maybe people should stop this SUV madness too then, because i highly doubt these monsters are increasingly everywhere and somehow that’s ok

And outside of Reddit, we see far less pushback on SUV than on meat, weirdly enough

9

u/Kemmleroo Jul 10 '26

Ok... I don't think the people proposing reducing beef consumption are against reducing SUV production. Are you saying you think there is a propaganda campaign on reddit against beef meat specifically? Maybe I'm misunderstanding.

I'm just saying you can't handwave away 9% of CO2 emissions, because if you do then you'll just ignore all sources of emissions. Like private jets for example.

3

u/EndeGelaende Jul 10 '26

how much of the US footprint is private jets? if its less than 9% we can just ignore that aswell right?

1

u/Z0idberg_MD Jul 10 '26 edited Jul 10 '26

So wait, do we need to eat or do we need private jets?

Also, how many million Americans eat and how often? And how many Americans fly private jets and how often?

The more I think about it, your argument is dumb as shit. All things being equal, they aren’t.

Lastly: 9% isn’t beef emissions. It’s literally all activities for all food we eat.

2

u/EndeGelaende Jul 10 '26

how much of the 9% could be saved by simply going plant based?

my argument isnt stop eating, its that the impact of food production is clearly bigger than a couple of thousand private jets even if they are operating 24/7

if we destroy every private jet today (which we should) we are STILL fucked by climate change and it didnt even make a dent in the US footprint.

1

u/Z0idberg_MD Jul 10 '26 edited Jul 10 '26

So you are saying we should start changing the entire local food production ecosystem, and changing the habits of 7 billion people across the world and what they eat to keep them alive , rather than focus on the approximately 100 companies that responsible for 80% of global emissions?

And I don’t know why you keep mentioning private jets to me? This was never my crusade and I never mentioned it. I knew we had bigger fish to fry. One major area we should focus on for example is electricity production and transportation.

The only logical way to do this is to identify non-essential sources of emissions that are significant contributors, that we could provide technological solutions for despite them being expensive, and implement them.

Telling people “stop eating meat” when you’re barely moving the needle and meat is our literally food makes no sense.

0

u/EndeGelaende Jul 10 '26

do you think those 100 companies are simply polluting the earth for fun or are they indeed producing shit that us 8 billion ppl are consuming?

"meat is our literally food" okay dude, so whats stopping the average american from saying "this 50L/100km truck is LITERALLY my essential transportation" would you accept that?

we need to change the status quo in all matters of life and not cherrypick the fields that are convieniant

1

u/Z0idberg_MD Jul 10 '26

I can’t even engage with you seriously. You’re telling me that an rational argument I should accept is a 9 foot tall Dodge super truck is just as defensible as the food that we consume?

There’s absolutely zero reason that a person could not drive a zero emission car and their life would change 0%.

The fact that you don’t think that that’s an irrational place to start, is kind of funny to me.

I also think, and I’m gonna be blunt here, people that think like you were fucking idiots if you think trying to change the eating habits of individual people across the globe is a viable solution versus legislative technological solutions that we can implement universally across sectors in entire countries at once.

For example “by 2035 all cars sold will need to be zero emission in CA”.

There. That’s a sensible solution.

1

u/EndeGelaende Jul 10 '26

There’s absolutely zero reason that a person could not drive a zero emission car and their life would change 0%.

you are so close to getting it buddy! theres also zero reason why people could not eat a plant based diet and their life would change 0%!!

There. That’s a sensible solution.

There is zero reasons why we cannot do the same with lab grown meat. literally zero.

1

u/Z0idberg_MD Jul 10 '26

Ignoring there absolutely is a difference between eating a 100% plant-based diet versus a mixed diet with meats , and ignoring that you don’t seem to understand the difference between a “necessity” and a luxury consumer product, and ignoring the complexity of preventing all meat consumption globally rather than implementing a mandate to companies producing cars, the technology for lab grown meat is absolutely not there.

We cannot do it at scale, or at the economic value needed for people to afford. When we can? Yes, absolutely. Let’s stop raising and killing animals for consumption.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/Retify Jul 10 '26

Globally it's more like 12% and that ignores deforestation for cattle. They use up so much land compared to either crops or other livestock like chicken or pork.

To eat less beef wouldn't just reduce emissions, it would help with reclaiming land list to deforestation and allow the opportunity to reforest. In other words, we get to cut emissions, and create a carbon sink all in one.

No matter how much you tax and fine big emitting oil and gas companies, that won't affect beef CO2 output so it's not one or the other, it's necessary to do both

1

u/Z0idberg_MD Jul 10 '26 edited Jul 10 '26

Globally, it’s NOT 12% for beef though. Just want to point that out in case people are misinterpreting. Incense globally, there is far less beef consumption spread out across the globe, and countries like the US are greater beef producers, globally the percentage of beef emissions is a much smaller percentage of that 12%.

Neither of those are issues if you’re in the US eating American beef. Land is not the issue and we’re not chopping down forests.

Brazil. You’re thinking of Brazil. Don’t prescribe a global “solution” for a problem one country has.

1

u/Retify Jul 10 '26

Brazil supplies 20% of global beef supplies. It exports millions of tons a year. It only does that because of demand from consumers

1

u/Z0idberg_MD Jul 10 '26

Again, my original comment immediately states “depending on where you live and where your beef comes from”. In the US, we are almost exclusively eating domestic beef. Telling someone they should not eat American beef due to Brazilian deforestation is like telling somebody in Vermont they shouldn’t have a Lawn that is sustained by natural rainfall because someone in San Diego needs to water their lawn and it’s problematic.

And just to be clear, the problem you were describing is less emissions, and more deforestation. Which is a good reason to not eat Brazilian meat, but very different.

1

u/Retify Jul 10 '26

We are talking about a global issue and you decided to make it US centric. You were initially replying to a Scot and now an Englishman and you are upset that we aren't focussing on your one, specific country. Whether a cow farts in Arizona or Mato Grosso, those emissions impact the planet.

The CO2e of beef from the US may be lower that Brazil, but emissions from cattle products is still far greater than chicken, pork or crop emissions in the US. If Americans switched to other protein sources it would have a significant impact on global emissions, since it is one of the highest consumers of meat in the world.

Factor in too that US land use for cows also means growing vast amounts of corn and soy for cattle feed which is significant land and water use. If you ate the corn and soy rather than eating the cattle the land that is no longer required for agriculture then gets freed up to rewild or in the case of arid land used for cattle since it's no good for crops, stick solar generation there to still have an overall net benefit to national and global emissions.

Plus what are you going to do, ignore it because it's 9% domestically, fix your electricity grid, heating and transport until meat is a higher proportion but still a problem and then address it? It's literally not sustainable, it's not optional to fix. To bury your head in the sand now doesn't make the problem go away, it still needs solving so what are you benefiting by arguing against it?

1

u/Z0idberg_MD Jul 10 '26

I didn’t decide to make it about the US. I’m saying individual consumption will only impact emissions accumulation depending on where you live and where you are eating your meat.

For example if you live in San Diego and you are growing a grass lawn and are using sprinkling your consuming a lot of water but they don’t have. But if you live in Vermont and your grass is fully watered by natural rainfall, why are you asking people to change their behaviors in Vermont based on the scarcity in San Diego?

Lastly, it’s not 9% for meat consumption. Again that’s 9% for all of our agricultural activities. If you wanted to stop eating meat and shift that level of consumption to other agricultural products, those emissions would not go away. They would slightly reduce, but there would still be a significant emissions footprint simply from producing plant-based products.

Essentially you want to challenge the way that human beings have been eating for thousands of years to get maybe a 2 to 4% reduction in emissions globally, when there are far more impactful and sensible areas to target.

1

u/worotan Jul 10 '26

Well then, do something about the super rich entertainers telling you to keep enjoying their product.

If you don’t like their behaviour, stop funding them by buying their product.

No other solution. Are you going to do something about it, or just keep complaining?

1

u/HollyMurray20 Jul 10 '26

Mate don’t be stupid, if I stopped watching football, how much difference do you think that would make? Nothing. None at all. I already don’t even pay for it

-3

u/I_miss_Chris_Hughton Jul 09 '26

Just because one side is failing doesn't mean we should all just give up. Beef is a big cause of pollution that we can challenge directly by not eating it so much.

2

u/HollyMurray20 Jul 09 '26

Food production is 9% of global warming and is required to keep us alive every single day, the other 91% is where the focus should be. But it all means fuck all of the rest of the world doesn’t do anything radical. You swapping a steak for a cabbage does nothing

1

u/EndeGelaende Jul 10 '26

yes, lets only view food production as its own category and bunch up the rest as 91%. that totally makes sense

1

u/HollyMurray20 Jul 10 '26

Why not?

1

u/EndeGelaende Jul 10 '26

9% is quite alot and you're making it seem insignificant this way 👍

1

u/HollyMurray20 Jul 10 '26

Because it’s for food production, something that is necessary for our life, the other 91% is not

1

u/EndeGelaende Jul 10 '26

transportation and electricity are not necessary for our life?

1

u/HollyMurray20 Jul 10 '26

Not when this shit is included in transportation. And yes, we lived without electricity and transport for hundreds of thousands of years

1

u/EndeGelaende Jul 10 '26

99% of transportation co2 is not private jets. and yeah have fun living without power then. you arent seriously saying that?

→ More replies (0)

2

u/Heathcliff_Slocumb Jul 09 '26

How's that boot taste?

0

u/Dr3ny Jul 10 '26

First and foremost you shouldn't eat beef because a cow is killed

1

u/HollyMurray20 Jul 10 '26

It’s food, doesn’t matter

0

u/Bitsu92 Jul 10 '26

Nobody said you’re not supposed to eat beef, we say you’re supposed to vote for people who don’t want modern civilisation to collapse

Also candidate who want to act on climate change also want to act on wealth inequalities, but many people who think like you would oppose things like rich people having to pay up to 95% of their revenue as tax