Here’s what I said:
It literally doesn’t matter. She’s still going to lose all the red states. She’s not swaying any Trump voters with that message, they’ve already decided, for the most part, to vote against their own interest.
I’m obviously talking about the general election currently happening with Trump. 2016 Democratic primary is irrelevant. I’m sorry you’re so confused.
Can you not tell the difference between a primary and general election?
It literally doesn’t matter. She’s still going to lose all the red states. She’s not swaying any Trump voters with that message, they’ve already decided, for the most part, to vote against their own interest.
Anyone who says winning should be a breeze is an absolute idiot. You’re dealing with a cult and an electoral college that skews the race toward the Republicans. She’ll win the popular vote, but that’s all that’s certain.
Yes, I’m on one side, with dictionaries, etymology, and the majority of atheists, and you’re on the other side. I would agree with you but then we’d both be wrong.
Google:
noun: atheism. disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.
Gnostic - adjective. relating to knowledge, especially esoteric mystical knowledge.
Me:
Theism is belief in a god, atheism is a lack of belief. Atheism is not necessarily a belief that god does not exist.
Gnostic is about knowledge and not belief
Theism is belief in a god, atheism is a lack of belief. Atheism is not necessarily a belief that god does not exist. Gnostic is about knowledge and not belief, which is why you can have an agnostic theist. Agnostic is not a middle ground between theism and atheism, there is no middle ground. I can correct you, but I can’t make you understand it.
What I said is absolutely correct. If you have a disagreement perhaps you should be more clear and less snarky.
Atheism is the belief that there are no gods and out right rejection in the belief of any gods.
No, not quite. Atheism is not believing in a god, it doesn’t mean you claim there is not a god. A subtle difference, but it is the difference between not believing, and believing not. Also, agnosticism isn’t a middle ground between theism and atheism, there is no middle ground, as it is dichotomous. Agnosticism speaks to knowledge, or what you claim to know. So, a person could be an agnostic atheist, or an agnostic theist.
You see, it’s just a coincidence that he is running against someone who is black and Indian and he just happened to pick the two most racist and stereotypical dishes associated with each.
While I guess areas may be different, the high school I went to, and also the area I now live in, have varsity and JV teams. You had to be good enough to make varsity, but no one got cut from JV. Just belonging on a team is enough for some kids to make it all bearable. Everyone mentions scholarships, but how often is this honestly actually an issue?
What do you need to know? It’s a high school team, not the Olympics. Why wouldn’t the default always be inclusion? High school is a tough time for a lot of kids, and I’d imagine it’s more difficult for most trans kids. If participating in sports makes it 5% easier, then so be it.
There is, it’s the constitution. You can’t be a member of the House without being 25 or a senator without being 30.
Buried lead:
It’s LEDE, not lead.
It took me 40+ years to learn this, just passing it along.
I never understand people who make comments like this, what were you expecting going into Twisters? Citizen Kane? I watched Twisters today, it was a mindlessly fun little movie, exactly as expected.
That’s not really true though. There were very few SCOTUS precedents on the 2A, really just Cruikshank and Presser until recently. Heller really changed it all in 2008, being the first court to find an individual right. And the 2A didn’t get incorporated until 2010 in McDonald.
The issue is that bad precedent is begging to be overturned. I can’t imagine Bruen standing for a long time without being overturned or distinguished by a subsequent case.
I agree with the right, but Bruen was a trainwreck of a decision. Historical perspective is an absolutely ridiculous basis for determining the outer limits of the right.
The main question seems to be why is the birth rate declining. Presumably people not wanting kids have existed during all times. But even if we assume that there are more people per capita who don’t want kids, the question persists, why is that the case, and how much of the decline is attributable to it.
That would be tough, at this point in the calendar the only incumbent presidential candidates with a lower net job approval than Joe Biden were George HW Bush and Jimmy Carter. Both of whom lost the election. Trump was a few points better in 2020, he also lost.
If it makes you feel any better, that house would sell for at least double that price where I live.