This is a lame excuse. More likely, he’s just scared of debating her.
This is a lame excuse. More likely, he’s just scared of debating her.
Such a disingenuous title. He never said voters were ready for a gay VP, his quotes were in response to a question if he thought voters were ready for a black woman. But I guess nobody reads the article and just throws in their 2 cents on what they think of Pete as a VP.
How do you explain the inverse correlation between income and the total fertility rate within and between nations?
To me it seems counterintuitive that having more money, or like you said about ability to secure a roof over ones head, would mean less chance of having kids but that seems to be a clear trend. Have you actually looked into it or you just making up bullshit?
There was a podcast I listened to a while back that indicated the opposite, the idea was that the better off people are, the less likely they are to have kids. One of the explanations I remember was that the better off people are, kids are just another competing thing that they can do. For example, if you are well off and can go travel for a long period of time, you might be more inclined to do that vs deciding to have kids. Another stat was that birthrates were higher for lower income people.
This is a bad analogy. This isn’t like running a business. Voters don’t have a lot of choice over the product, they just have their vote. We have two choices (effectively) and some will reject a candidate over a single issue when the consequences are much broader.
Again you’re blaming the consumer but totally overlook the employer being cheap and paying shitty wages. You’re playing right into their hand.
Don’t forget that it’s the employer paying the shitty wage that is the one screwing over the worker. This is exactly what those employers want, to be able to pay shitty wages and have the blame shifted to someone else.
You don’t give a fuck, yet you’re here blabbing about it in this thread. Ok, pal.
In Germany it’s typical to do so just to make the change easier, you might catch an angry glance by making them make small change.
Italy will list a coperto or servizio on the menu.
The percentage is non-zero. But if you are really concerned about the percentage, you probably shouldn’t rely on this method. It’s a judgement call.
No idea. But it’s worth considering that there are cases where you might not have the opportunity to power it down.
One second officer, let me just power down my phone real quick.
You’d be better off looking at porn than spending your energy trolling this thread.
Dunno but probably worth it for the amount of transactions they process.
Glad to see someone say this. It’s a total appeal to authority argument. With they would’ve explained why they think it’s bad and let us come to our own conclusion.
Do you think it’s a waste of resources to even give him a trial? Death penalty trials are long and expensive and often cost more than lifelong incarceration. You might be okay with a low bar for having the government remove someone from society but I think the bar should be high, and the decision shouldn’t be done lightly. However, keeping that bar high also takes more resources so the issue isn’t as easy as you make it out to be.
It’s not about going against a candidate that has better chances or trying to prevent a backfire. It’s about following the rule of law and upholding the constitution. DJT is not eligible because he swore and oath and later engaged in insurrection, full stop.
A human is not just a computer with a camera.