I think her appeal will be pretty wide. I was a Sanders guy in 2016 and even with this Native American BS she'd still be a top pick for me, especially since I've moved away from Sanders on a lot of issues.
It's hardly news that Google will set their values aside for the sake of profit. Considering how much Google already collaborates with our national intelligence agencies, this seems par for the course.
These were peer-reviewed. And in some cases the reviewer's suggestions pretty clearly indicated they understood it.
Was he asking for a recount, though? Seems like circlejerking when you're pointing out that fact that he can't ask for a recount if he wasn't anyways. The idea that you can't ask for a recount when you're far enough apart in votes seems reasonable, but the question is where that threshold would be. According to the stats I just googled with minimal effort, Trump's win was by a large fraction of a percent. While it's not a huge win, it is large enough to where a recount wouldn't change anything, unless you've got outright election fraud going on.
The author spends 2/3rds of the "article" citing Trump's behavior as a reason to "Vote against all Republicans. Every single one." Much of the other third of the article is still Trump related, but in a way that tries to indict Senate and House republicans. I wish we had a real reason to vote for democrats other than the anti-Trump angle, but we don't.
We can build new power plants, and you're talking about the types of water usage that are going to be cut last. Agriculture actually takes up the vast majority of water usage, and there are lots of types of farming that use more water than others. This is also ignoring the fact that in many areas there will be increased precipitation and a larger number of growing days per year, meaning more potential food can be grown. Climate change will cause major problems, but I just don't see your scenario happening.
It's a combination of high pricing and mortgage interest rates finally climbing. When you're talking about houses in the several hundred thousand dollar range, a 1% interest spike means several hundred a month in interest
That DNA test was an embarrassment. I was a huge Bernie supporter during the 2016 cycle (made hundreds of calls, gave around $300 to his campaign), and it was frustrating to watch Warren sit on the sidelines, especially with how close Bernie ended up coming. I would still be OK with Warren as the Democratic nominee, though. I'm definitely less of a fan that I was 5 years ago, but I have reservations about Bernie's age, and I'm still annoyed that he gave my contact info to some part of the democratic machine; I still get texts asking me to volunteer for random candidates I don't give a shit about. Him as the president, Giffords as his running mate, but I would be OK with Warren instead
What's the destination?
I guess I ate the onion.
It's pretty easy to check someone's retweets. This article is a fluff piece
The comparison to cults is due the degree of conformity expressed, not particular positions. As to the "fake" problem, I was thinking about the people that try to compare Trump supporters to Nazis, but it was vague and worded poorly
No, you can blame the fact that both parties are corrupt, and there's not much incentive to get out and vote for some shitty uninspiring democrat that wants you to vote for them on the basis that they're less shitty than that republican over there.But millennials have one glaring, society-crushing character problem, and it has nothing to do with sandwich preference: They truly don’t vote. Too many have checked out of the whole citizen-power thing. You can blame the lack of civics education during their formative years, when not enough of them studied the owner’s manual of democracy.
The other issue is that retarded itself became the clinical term of choice after everyone started using imbecile in a derogatory way. Phrases "mental retardation", "mentally retarded", and "retarded" are subject to the euphemism treadmill: initially used in a medical manner, they gradually took on derogatory connotation, just as did earlier synonyms (for example, moron, imbecile, cretin, dolt and idiot, formerly used as scientific terms in the early 20th century), leading to a search for connotatively neutral replacements Eventually some other word would replace retard anyways.However, the term imbecile quickly passed into vernacular usage as a derogatory term, and fell out of professional use in the 20th century[11] in favor of mental retardation.
That isn't packing the court, that's just them playing obstructionist politics
I have a hard time getting behind this. How would the author like it if the GOP used this same tactic to stuff it with enough hardcore conservatives to overturn Roe v. Wade?
Awesome. Thanks to whoever!
I started trying to use the site again recently and was annoyed to find out I've lost my posting privileges. I understand they're trying to reduce the issues with spam, but there were a couple links I wanted to share but couldn't because of these issues. What does a guy need to do to get posting privileges again?
>no, you misunderstand. What I'm saying is that the bill he's talking about is not the bill he'd be un trouble because of. He'd be in trouble because he's endangering his student's safety and discriminating against them on the basis of gender identity. It's not a "free speech" thing, it's a "endangering the life of a minority" thing. He's endangering his student's safety by refusing to use their preferred pronouns? No, he isn't. No one is being put in danger by being referred to as she when they identify as he. Please explain your logic behind the assertion that someone's life is being endangered when someone else refuses to use their preferred pronouns > And regarding non-passing trans people like Muscato, you just use your best guess first (which if you're not sure of someone's gender, should be "they/them" for simplicity's sake), and then if you're corrected, use the corrected pronoun. Real fucking simple. I brought up Muscato because Muscato, in addition to not passing, believes that some women have penises, and that "If you're bothered by this, you can suck my dick.". I can't link the tweet because apparently I'm supposed to be a "new user" now, but just search "muscato suck my dick" to find the tweet. Do you honestly not see why some people have issues with people like this? If Muscato had taken one of Peterson's classes, do you not see how Peterson, or many other teachers, would have an issue with someone like that wanting to be referred to as "she"? How is Muscato's life being put in danger by someone refusing to refer to him as "she"?
I'm pretty sure that door has already been slammed. Multiple times. It seems like they keep re-opening the door just so they can tell us they're going to slam it again.
I remember when the Creationist Museum had just been built. I was stationed at Wright-Patt, and most of the guys in the office were talking about going down there as a fun office trip so we could laugh at the ridiculousness of it. There were even some Christians in the office, but when they heard that the museum was claiming that humans co-existed with dinosaurs, they were joking about it along with the rest of us.
Some part of me is praying that Q is a really crafty teenager, because this just seems like god-tier trolling at this point.
A one week delay is fair. It would have looked really bad for the GOP if they had gone through with the vote without at least that, though I wouldn't expect any more. This whole thing has been a shitshow. Unless the FBI finds something noteworthy, it's likely Kavanaugh gets voted through at the end of the week. But there likely won't be any findings that prove his innocence or guilt (what could they really find?), so you're going to have a body of people who are sure of his guilt, and another body that is sure of his innocence and how it was some political smear job, which I guess would Brett Kavanaugh the new Clarence Thomas. I wonder if allegations of this nature are going to become more or less common?
If he lied under oath to congress about his behavior, then at the very least he should be ineligible for a Supreme Court position. The question, however is whether or not he actually lied.
Musk originally rejected what was a better version of this same offer (2 years off as chairman instead of 3), but then the next day accepted this worse settlement. My guess is he felt somehow like he didn't do anything wrong and the SEC was being unreasonable, and his lawyers were able to convince him of how utterly wrong he was.
And it's not just the positioning of the panels. Designing solar panels to withstand the abuse of a roadway means they're going to be way more expensive to produce. So even if roadways were somehow as good of a place for solar panels, it's still far less economical. The only way this makes sense is if you have nowhere else to put the panels, but in the areas where the has been tried (USA and Australia), there is an abundance of space for solar installations.
At least they're not claiming it's a chinese hoax. What's frustrating about automobile standards is that they run more with fuel prices than anything else. Hybrids were bought in large numbers when gas was $4/gallon nationally, but now we're seeing 20MPG SUVs being purchased in droves. It really doesn't bode well for the future of the climate
I think American manufacturers are going to be feeling the pain as well. The tariffs on steel and aluminum will be felt in pretty much every industry. It will be interesting to see what the long-term consequences will be. I do feel like we've enabled the rise of a radical authoritarian government, and now this generation has to deal with a powerful and aggressive China that was enabled by the previous generation's "entrepreneurs" trying to make a quick buck from what was almost slave labor.
> No, he's still a hypocrite because you literally cannot use the laws as written to do what he says that you can. >However, if you are in a position of power, such as a teacher, and you refuse to use that person's pronouns after having been corrected by the student How is that not affirming that his objections to the bill were in fact justified? The original objection was how they compelled the use of pronouns that the user did not agree with. He is a teacher (or was; I'm sure he's made enough money by now to where he can probably retire), so for him this was a valid concern. Or would you honestly tell me that you don't see how someone could be concerned with the prospect of being made into a criminal if a Danielle Muscato type of person came into the room and you didn't refer to them as 'she'?
I mean, they are getting married at lower rates compared to previous generations. My guess is that lower marriage rates are due to the same factors.