Ah, that makes me feel better. I’ve probably heard of it before, and just never looked into it.

The implication of this being that I am behind the times, stuck on outdated tech, and didn’t even know it is uncomfortable.

I’m confused, what Democrat politicians or campaign staff coordinated removing those communities from Reddit? And why would Democrats even need to? Those communities broke sitewide rules egregiously and frequently. Considering how long they were allowed to keep going, it seems more likely (though I’m sure not the actual case) that Donald Trump’s campaign coordinated with Reddit admins to keep The_Donald open.

That’s pretty crazy. Do you have examples of Reddit admins directly working with Democrat campaigns or politicians to remove content? I don’t think Hunter Biden’s dick pics count, as revenge porn is already illegal.

Edit: For anyone confused as to how my reply relates to the above post, the above used to be a claim that Reddit worked with democrats to remove content, but is now edited to say something completely different.

I think you’ll be surprised at how much asbestos is still used worldwide, including in the US. We’re not using it as wall and ceiling insulation anymore, but it’s still used for things like pipes and vinyl floor tiles.

There’s not much to it. They simply believe that as the strife causes conflict over resources the factions will “naturally” align along racial lines. They also believe that people “naturally” cohabitate better within their own race.

This does require ignoring all of human history and the brutal conflicts that have occurred within racially homogenous regions. But I’d never accuse white supremacists of being intelligent or genuine.

It’s populism. You have to see if someone’s policy positions are consistent over time, that they have a specific ideal they are following, vs what they think is the most popular policies.

Granted, it’s a huge pain with new politicians when they don’t have that history, but I think Tulsi had a pretty clear history that showed she wasn’t progressive.

Yea, as a sort of reverse tax credit, it would be interesting. But as a profit driver, it’s nice and dystopian.

It’s called a “faithless elector” and what happens depends on the law of the state the elector is representing. Some states void the vote without penalty, some void it with some penalty, some allow the vote but with penalty, some allow the vote with no penalty, and some have no law at all (which seems like no difference from allowing with no penalty).

It’s entirely conceivable that enough faithless electors from states that do not void the vote could swing an election, though there’s never been enough to do so before.

You’re moving goalposts here. You said millions of Russians would die if Ukraine was given aid and I asked how you determined that number. By the same token, Russia should simply surrender.

Because the millions for Ukraine accounts for civilian casualties, not purely military. For anything similar Ukraine would have to counter invade Russia and launch artillery at residential areas.

Even if we assume the worst of Ukraine’s intent, they wouldn’t have the capability to go beyond securing their borders.

How did you come to the calculation of millions of Russians?

As horrendous as this ruling is, I’m also pissed at the pro-forced birthers that are upset by this ruling. It’s so intellectually dishonest to object to this ruling when it uses the same justifications they use to oppose abortion.

These people pick issues to be passionate on but never actually put in the effort to research. And not just whether their position makes any sense, but what the downstream effects of the position would mean.

The politicians who write these anti-abortion laws are even more lazy. This is literally their job and they should have seen this coming. They could have put in exceptions for IVF from the get-go but they didn’t, because they are more interested in winning points than writing effective legislation.

They reported 9.9 billion in profit for their third quarter last year, so I think 458 minutes of profit from that quarter.

I assumed 90 days in the quarter, or 129,600 minutes.

So dollar or minute wise, that comes out to a 00.35% penalty to that quarter.

Edit: Which isn’t even close to the 36 minutes in that article, so I’d err on me being the wrong one.

Edit 2: I think I see the difference, I was looking at their profit, not their revenue.

If they can’t give a reason that’s internally consistent why should I believe them?

Even allowing for the unproven assertion that souls exist, at no point does that soul obligate giving up bodily autonomy.

You can’t use organs from corpses without permission, you can’t force a drunk driver to provide an organ to a kid they ran over, you can’t force a parent to donate an organ to their own child. All of these things would save “souls” but is hardly part of pro-forced birth platforms.

And if fetuses have souls, that would surely make the Christian god the true murderer as 10 to 20% of all pregnancies end in miscarriages, but the Christian god is held to a lower moral standard than human beings by pro-forced birthers. And the governments that reject welfare programs are also held to lower moral standard for some reason, as well.

Yea, the term is a “straight man” although this is slightly different in that the straight man is usually allowed to acknowledge the antics of the comedic characters, where-as Michael Caine treats the comedy as done straight.

I guess it would be a sub-category of straight man though, not a different thing to itself.

What’s actually news worthy is that TSA managed to catch this. Their success rate is abysmal, so I’m sure this is a big confidence boost for them.