checks user name

Ummmm, maybe?

Kinda have to, since none of the "leftist" ideologies has any chance of hell of being bought into action without revolution.

Since revolution requires some degree of violence, and established states have access to not just man portable firearms, but bigger guns as well, then attempting to use violence to change said state without access to firearms is what you might call dumb. You might call it suicidal. You might call it a form of Darwinism whereby the truly stupid leftists get killed off by whatever government they're going at so that the non-stupid leftists that are left breed smarter babies that will then realize that without equal access to arms, no populace can revolt.

I guess you don't have to like guns. It is possible to dislike something immensely and still use it as a tool. Like toothpaste. It tastes weird, it's not fun to use, but without it, you have no teeth eventually. Guns are like toothpaste, your squeeze them and weird things come out, but at least your teeth are clean.

I would heap written abuse upon you, but it's true

It is such a cool thing what a fairly simple chemical can do.

I agree with you, mostly.

And I've seen the opinion expressed a lot. Which means I can't really call it unpopular, though it also isn't a majority opinion either.

Where I would disagree is that his performance wasn't his best overall, despite it being his best movie. A good bit of the work involved came from direction, editing, and the rest of the cast as well. He didn't, however, do great delivering his lines.

Where I agree is that he didn't have a lot of lines. Most of what made the character shine was physical and facial. That's where he was great. He still is superb at that; he plays for the back rows, and it works.

For sure though, it's still his best movie overall

I dunno, I'm an ex smoker. If I'm near a cigarette, that crap messes with me.

But vapers? I've had to tell a few off for not watching where they blow, but it is absolutely not the same as smoke. It doesn't trigger the same responses, it doesn't speed up my heart, clog my sinuses, our send me into a sneezing bout. I'd defer to any coherent data on its effects, but in terms of being intrusive, it just isn't the same.

29?

I've seen bigger age gaps work out long term, but dang, not when the younger was still a kid in most ways. It comes down to there needing to be a certain degree of development of self before you can make a relationship be a meeting of equals where both people can move forward together rather than it being one leading the other (intentionally or not).

There's really nothing you can do about it, though. Like you said, he's a grown ass man and has to reap the crop he sows. If she's legal there, and the parents aren't objecting, there's nothing that you can the that's useful. You just hang back and see how it goes.

Treat it like you would if you didn't like his choice in dating because she was stupid, or ugly. If he asks, don't lie about your opinion, but don't bother them with it either. Trying to force them apart is likely to backfire and at the very least could make them stick together longer than they otherwise would if it isn't going to work out on its own.

People are allowed to make bad choices as adults. When it comes to family, there's a limit to what kind and degree of interference is acceptable, no matter what the family member is doing.

You've had the unfortunate discovery that your son is likely an idiot about at least this matter. Could be worse.