So… it looks like I’m working for the poor man.

That’s honest work. Well done.

If communism worked, we’d be doing it.

Oh you sweet summer child.

Respectfully I am not willing to get into this debate.

And this is why you believe that. Head, meet sand.

Props for being polite about it though.

I found her plastic surgeon.

The dude will want for nothing.

We’re hoping he won’t get to bugger children any longer.

That makes sense. I’m not an American but lived in the country for a number of years, so I understand some but not much of the culture.

I now understand and agree completely!

Let me show you an example. Let’s use easy ratios for easy numbers, so let’s say people vote Democrat to Republican 3:2.

If you have 100 people vote, you’ll end up with 60 democratic votes, 40 Republican.

If you have 200 people vote, you’ll have 120 Democrat votes, 80 Republican.

Increasing the number of total voters in this scenario will never change the outcome. 400 people? 240 to 160.

The only way getting more votes by mail will help Democrats win an election is if the ratio of Democrat to Republican voters is higher in mail-in voters compared to other population groups.

Or are you suggesting Democrats are less reliable voters, so getting them to vote increases the relative percentage of Democrat voters?

This explanation doesn’t make sense mathematically, though. If the ratio of Democrat to Republican voters is fairly consistent amongst groups, increasing the number of people in any given group that votes will result in that same ratio, just with greater numbers. Saying otherwise is like saying you can add 2% milk to 2% milk to eventually get back to whole milk

The only way voting by mail helps Democrats is if the vote by mail crowd has a heavier democratic skew.

If he did, at least we know he’s not a cop. They don’t do anything involving school shootings.

Rotenone, nicotine, copper sulfate, and pyrethrin/pyrethrum (broad spectrum insecticide that harms beneficial insects) come immediately to mind. Copper sulfate’s big issue is it breaks down quickly and needs to be frequently reapplied, leading to copper accumulation in the soil.

And organics have residues of the “natural” pesticides they use, which are often just as bad if not worse.

My thought process in response: only 2005? That means she couldn’t be older than… Oh. Oh no.

Not a single emdash or any sort of dash in that response, mate. A numbered list does not a bot make.

I still question if that chilling effect was actually the movement or the fascist/conservative spin put on it to radicalize young men. It’s practically identical to the anti-feminist propaganda that conservative political groups have been using for decades.

One could also downvote this because they disagree with your characterization of the movement. Even if the movement did result in what you claimed, it was never the intent nor the primary result, so it’s a pretty obvious mischaracterization.

Your comment seems akin to “DEI exists to disenfranchise whites”. Have DEI policies led to a more qualified white person being passed over for a job? Absolutely, but that’s not the intent, so it’s not indicative of DEI policies, but instead their misapplication.

The same logic applies to #MeToo. If people misinterpreted or misused the movement, that’s not the fault of the movement itself but instead those people.

They just don’t care. They know the administration is going to back them, so they say anything that isn’t totally self-incriminating. I expect they’ll eventually stop caring about that too.

They just cycled a key figure out of public view. This is PR strategy - when criticism against a particular organization or any of its key figure(s) reaches a certain point, replace some key figures.

Tr;dr: the frogs in the pot all cheer as the cook is replaced and their replacement turns down the hob a touch.

People tend to see key figures as representative of entire organizations, e.g., there are so many people who see removing Trump as being a solution despite him being a clear symptom of the problem. Letting some take a fall is a PR win grab bag: many people interpret the “punishment” of a few people as being applied to the whole organization and it suggests reform and atonement without actually changing anything substantial. Then the new figures start and optionally say they’re changing strategies for future improvement - “it’ll work but it takes time, just trust me bro.”

As long as this round of musical chairs tells a story that enough critics want to hear, enough mounting critical pressure is reduced for the cycle to continue a bit longer.

I really hope you’re high as fuck right now.

though Russia is still worse

Barely.

I’m certain Stephen Miller has already assumed other wifely duties for Trump, so this wouldn’t be a stretch.