

A couple counterexamples doesn’t mean the trend across all elections has changed. And that’s what I’m talking about - the trend across all elections.
A couple counterexamples doesn’t mean the trend across all elections has changed. And that’s what I’m talking about - the trend across all elections.
No, it is necessarily true, according to the data lol. The higher the voter turnout, the more left wing candidates win. I don’t doubt that what you say is true at some level, but it doesn’t happen enough to affect the trend of higher voter turnout = more left wing wins.
It has been continuing. It has been sustained. There has been constant protesting since Trump got back in office, it’s just not being covered by mainstream news outlets. These latest No Kings protests have been the biggest protests so far, but they haven’t been the only protests, not by a long shot.
We are the majority.
🌍🧑🚀🔫🧑🚀 Always have been. That’s why conservatives constantly try to make it harder to vote - the more people vote, the more left wing politicians win. Because the majority of people agree with left wing ideals.
Do you also support gay people on your service by letting them organize and run a gay pride event on your service? Or is having to witness people celebrating gay pride too much for your delicate sensibilities?
Brick and mortar shops aren’t comparable to websites, and I don’t know why you keep trying to compare them. The places that sell alcohol and tobacco aren’t asking me to upload a digital version of my legal identification to some cloud-backed database. They’re just manually checking a date and a picture. Most places I buy from don’t even make me physically hand over my ID, I can just show it to them without it ever leaving my possession.
How about we put some responsibility on parents to keep their kids away from potentially harmful Internet content, instead of relying on the state to do it for us in large swathes, affecting literally anyone who goes to those sites, legally or not? Surely you’re more on board with responsible parenting than everyone having to hand over their legal identification to a fucking porn site.
your stuck in a port town
I said you’re basically limited to coastline and port cities to point out the contrast to other modes of travel that aren’t nearly as restricted. You either missed that point, or you’re being pedantic.
there’s nothing to do out at sea
My point was that without cruise ships, there would be nothing to do out at sea. Cruise ships solve the problem of “there’s nothing to do or at sea”, but in an unnecessary and dumb way, in my opinion. So again, I think you missed the point of what I was trying to say.
Ultimately I don’t really care what anyone’s opinion on cruises are. What I do care about is making sure I’m understood correctly, hopefully this helps.
You’re coming to these conclusions that just aren’t based on reality.
I’m sharing subjective opinions based on my own preferences and lived experiences. Sorry they don’t match up with yours, but we’re having a disagreement about big boats, not a crisis of reality.
Clearly you’ve never experienced what a cruise is like.
Correct, because they don’t interest me, and I’m not convinced enough by the people that like cruises to warrant spending the money on them.
There are thousands of existing “small towns full of entertainment” I’d rather go to than a cruise. I don’t need my resort to be mobile, and if I want to end up in a new location, I’ll book travel to that location. I don’t need to go on a cruise to relax by a pool, or enjoy a spa, or partake in any of the mundane activities offered on board, or gamble in a casino, or eat food and drink drinks. Cruises don’t offer anything unique that I can’t find somewhere else, other than the novelty of being a cruise, and that novelty just doesn’t interest me.
It’s fine, maybe even healthy, to be wary of other men. It’s also important to respect your partner’s autonomy, and to trust that with that autonomy, they will act in a manner that is healthy for the relationship (and for that trust to be reciprocated). It’s great that you are willing to protect your partner, but it’s important that you let your partner inform you when that protection is needed, instead of assuming based on your one-sided view of the person your partner is interacting with. Taking action based on that one-sided view, instead of having a discussion with your partner first, can make you come off as possessive.
I feel like the bit that’s sort of being glossed over/missed is that the bf in the relationship is making his issue (my gf has friends that want to fuck her) into his gf’s issue by introducing the boundary of “you’re not allowed to have friends that want to fuck you”. That should be an unreasonable boundary for anyone (barring edge case scenarios that involve informed consent between adults) because one person is taking their internal issues and externalizing it on someone else (presumably) without consent.
And then the gf flips that wrongheadedness back onto her bf by saying “if I’m not allowed to have friends that want to fuck me, then you’re not allowed to have friends that want to fuck me either”. It’s a humorous response that illustrates the hypocrisy of the first boundary introduced by the bf, and also hints at the slippery slope nature of forbidding relationships based on uncontrollable, external criteria like “does someone want to fuck you”.
There are cruises that go all over the world, so the number and choices of destinations is huge.
Sure, but cruises are limited to basically just coastline and port cities, whereas literally any other mode of transportation can get you to all of those places too, plus all the other 90% of land on the planet. Saying “the number and choices of destinations is huge” is technically correct, but basically meaningless when you compare it with all other modes of transportation.
Really the only places cruises can go that other modes maybe can’t is:
I can kinda see why someone would take a cruise to the first item, but I can’t bring myself to understand the second. Like, cruising around the empty ocean for days/weeks on end sounds so boring that you’d need “12 floors, 100 bars, live entertainment, and a plethora of other things” to make it even bearable. They created their own problem (finding entertainment in the middle of empty ocean) and solved it in the most brute force, environmentally unsustainable, and legally sketchy way possible.
You should try having some empathy.
Nowhere, not necessarily. But you did invalidate another person’s feelings of empathy by telling them to “go to the doctor” for it, which is pretty shitty behavior
That was neither clear nor succinct, but it sounds like you agree that for protesters, police are a bigger problem than the National Guard. Which was the point being made by the comment you originally replied to in this thread.
You have to see them as legal professionals.
Nah, not until they act like it.
Can you do me a favor and restate your point in clear, succinct language? I’m not really following the point you’re trying to make with all this “law professional” stuff
The police system actively rejects people for being too smart, and ousts people that ask too many questions. I don’t know if the “legal experience” police officers receive is the kind of experience we want them to receive.
Police are those who actually study the law.
Funniest thing I’ve read all week
The steam deck has great battery life (better than my original switch by a lot) unless you’re playing something super heavy, and it’s so much more comfortable to hold that the bit of extra weight isn’t that big a deal. I don’t think I’ve touched my switch since I got a deck
If you were in marching band, there’s a good possibility that you had more thorough training in marching than what’s given in basic training, especially if you went to competitions. Marching makes up like half the activity of marching band (it’s in the name). Marching is only one of a plethora of things that are taught during the few months of basic training, and once you’re out of basic, you may never have to march again.
I also think your expectations on how rhythmically-inclined the average person (or soldier) is might be on the high side based on your experience in an activity with a bunch of highly rhythmically-inclined people.