I guess I’m not entirely convinced that states need to be represented at all.

If we compare a voter in California to a voter in Wyoming, the person in Wyoming has a much stronger influence in the Senate and the judicial branch given that justices are confirmed soely by the Senate. Why should one voter have more power than another? Seems arbitrary to me.

I don’t think this dumb bitch knows that amending something can rewrite parts of it.

Conversely, with a Senate the least populous states drag everyone else around by having a disproportionate amount of voting power in the Senate, just because of the state they happen to be in.

It’s strange but also on brand for him.

A human is not just a computer with a camera.

I’m doing my part.

She didn’t actually do the scene.

“I turned up and was told what I would be filming would be a graphic rape scene,” she said. "This act could be watched for as long or as little time as the player wanted through a window, and then a player would be able to shoot this character in the head. “It was just purely gratuitous in my opinion.” She refused to act out the “disgusting” scene - which was made worse as she was the only female on set.

There are different apps you can install on it. Jellyfin for watching my local media but mainly use it for the GeForce now app to play games.

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.

But that’s on the employer, right? Shitty employers want you think it’s your responsibility as a customer to ensure a fair wage.

The employer that is paying the shitty wage wants you to feel this way.

It looks like they just took the bike rack with them.

Don’t deliver for a service that doesn’t pay you a fair wage.

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.

Fuck you, you hateful shits.

Only one sounding hateful here is you.

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.

Maybe they were referring to themselves.