No, and I do not agree with the above poster, but we’re aided in that most of our forms are in both English and Spanish, the two most common native tongues of people who live here.

Again, if the whole district could be marketed to the same exact way, you’d be right.

Someone gets outspent by a factor of 7, and you think the most likely reason is the candidate? I don’t know man, I think you’re not applying Occam’s* Razor appropriately.

No I agree, but he seemed keen to try and bring up facts, wanted to be sure we had receipts just in case.

Look up public television viewership numbers based on income, ask me whether or not the Bronx WATCHED Latimer’s commercials, or even saw them.

Hidayati, N., Kartikowati, S., & Gimin, G. (2021). The influence of income level, financial literature, and social media use on teachers consumption behavior. Journal of Educational Sciences, 5(3), 479-490.

In case you needed a source

I’m saying people in the suburbs seem more adept at picking up garbage takes

But more pointedly, suburban households are more likely to purchase cable television packages or engage in live TV coverage, where a majority of that spending took the form of advertisements.

That’s not how that works, different communities consume different forms of media and at different rates.

I think we’re still missing the mark because it’s tax payer money.

Rip immunity from that fucker and let it come out of his pension (if he’s got one) or garnish his wages like everybody else.

Spending. I think his outreach was unable to beat the advertisements paid for by his opposition, in part due to the absolutely bonkers investment from the AIPAC. So, that’s my answer

For the most part, all anti virus software I’ve found that is pretty “mainstream” are bad or have backdoors built for bad people.

Macafee -absolute Spyware, delete it Kaspersky - Russian ties apparently - but I don’t believe reports from Just the US, and they’ve been pretty integral to the security space for businesses for years. I’m not sold on them being ‘bad’ yet. Norton - not malware, but not good and going the Macafee route

I hear good things about BitDefender, and Windows Defender is mostly good enough for the average person + an adblocker and you’re good to go.

FUCK that got dark. Christ, I gotta go find religion after that one

That analogy goes so far above what’s happening, at least for the average person.

Do you buy jeans or any clothing produced outside of the US? BAM, you’re as bad as the people in the factories abusing local communities and child labor.

Should one attempt to find clothing that is ethical where possible? Then absolutely, and buying a pair of Levi’s doesn’t make you complicit in enabling child endangerment.

Same with most things, I try my best to already only buy from brands that don’t: support genocide through funding or messaging, discriminate based on sex/race/gender, engage in union busting or union restrictive activities, employ under the table for children or for tax/benefit reductions. So many people try to argue from a place of Absolute Moral Supremacy, and the world is just too grey for that.

Reduce the meat you eat, yes, that’s a good plan and it’s good for the budget and it’s good for the planet. But humans HAVE been eating animals for longer than we’ve walked upright, so going entirely non-consumption just isn’t going to happen.

You can make stances as to why it’s a good thing, why it might assist you in the long run, but to conflate it with enabling violence towards spouses? That’s the kind of rhetoric that gets vegans shouted down and laughed at anytime the name is brought up. If you want to make long lasting change, changing hearts and minds will do that, and your tone/style won’t win hearts and minds.

They got your IP Address, which just means they have the number that corresponds to your device when it accesses the internet (for most people in most situations, this number changes often) and it doesn’t really do much besides tell them the general location of the device based on the numbers themselves as they pertain to a location with how they’re assigned. But they’re general enough to be mostly useless. But enough to spook some folks.

But, was the thing about urine in your second to last sentence a mistype or did you mean that?

I mean, we can summarize it in “republican representative pours water on the property of her Democrat colleague from the same district, lies about origin and reason”

The assuredness in your tone fucking sent me into a fit of giggles. My man was put to the TEST for that game and still remembers years later how annoyed he was that it didn’t let you turn off dumb motion controls like all the other platformers on the wii

Man says “hamas aren’t good guys, but they are the only ones bargaining on behalf of Gazans”

And you say “he said hamas are good guys”

If you learned “everything after the But in a sentence is a lie” and still believe it that vehemently without nuance into your adult life, you should reevaluate who you’re taking your life advice from. Things can have nuance, and this war is fucking filled with it. Gazans who haven’t known a life outside of death and destruction of their home voting for people who claim they’ll fight for them (Hamas), radicalized by the violence enacted upon them by Israel. Israel insisting the death tolls are anyway near similar, riling up their citizens and voter bases about Hamas, an organization that, with it’s absolute best opportinity for a ‘surprise’ attack on October 7th, barely scratched the surface of the innocent deaths since this has begun. It was a travesty, a loss of innocent life, and it was met with another travesty, another loss of life, but in greater force than they could have ever attempted.

If you can’t sympathize with a people who have been starved, bombed, displaced, and then blamed for their existence, then history has failed you.

BUT THEN THERE SHE IS, THERE SHE IS AND HE DIDNT KNOW

God that movie got me in the feels

Generally okay with, but are they generally OK with legislation protecting those individuals/recognizing them as protected under the same laws that protect for factors of sex and race?

There’s just never been evidence to suggest (in any meaningful way) a doctor made a decision compromising the life of the organ donor to make use in other patients, that would be medical malpractice and the first people looking to sue you after a loved one dies are the ones signing the papers giving permission.

Calling the opinion moronic may not be nice, but the idea is something I’d say is foolish. Like if you went through life thinking vaccines are some kind of conspiracy for profit, the evidence just isn’t there and there’s enough of it on the contrary that to suggest it would be foolishness.