Do they not realize that this will only aid people who dont really need it and only drive prices up for everything particularly housing/rental costs?

giga-basement dwelling incel shit, i don't have a fricking clue what any of this means

its choibu

the pixels from screenshots posted to both accounts line up exactly.

the following pics have NOT BEEN SCALED. it just so happens that choibu and my fake alt have the same exact view scaling and font family options. curious

the last pic is some random user (control). note how it has totally different scaling from everything else

top- screenshot from choibu https://rdrama.net/h/transgender/post/302025/deleted-because-they-told-the-truth/7052455#context

middle- screenshot from @starry_aIt - https://rdrama.net/@starry_aIt/comments

bottom- some random user https://rdrama.net/post/303093/rdrama-bimonthly-census-badge-opportunity-lgbt

here is a version with them overlapping (note how "ago" is the EXACT SAME):

@Grue someone ping metashit pls

Today, we’re proud to announce the launch of the Floridian!

This train combines two iconic routes — the Capitol Limited and Silver Star — and will offer traditional dining throughout the full journey. pic.twitter.com/XZbtfUptJq

— Amtrak (@Amtrak) September 23, 2024

!g*mers please sign

Angriest Comments

Angriness: 😡😡😡😡😡

What the frick is this argumentMinority communities are specifically targeted by pro-choice campaigns because fetal tissue + organs are ridiculously valuable to pharmaceutical and cosmetic companies. It's no exaggeration to say that the minority underclass of the United States is being liquidated to prop up US oligarchs. Did you forget that fetuses have rights too?1) Men can't become pregnant, so they can't decide to have an elective abortion. Whatever right to abortion that purportedly exists doesn't apply to them for that reason. Full stop.2) Negative rights are actions that demand non-interference from others in order to function. Abortion, as an action, requires at least two participants. That's why it categorically cannot be classified as a negative right. (1)

An accurate one. Slavery is clearly a violation of bodily autonomy, and we fought a civil war over states who wished to violate that right for a portion of their citizens. I then followed up with an example of a state that is CURRENTLY violating the rights of its citizens by punishing them for actions taken outside of the state. Actions that they are forced to take because of the state's violation of their bodily autonomy.You're missing the forest for the trees here, and it has a whiff a racism as well, but I'm just going to assume that you either haven't fully examined root causes on this topic, or that are just blindly repeating a talking point that you heard but haven't fully thought out.First, the prevalence of clinics in minority communities is primarily due to demand. Minority communities tend to have lower incomes and lower levels of education, both of which are indicators of an increase in unprotected sexual activity. More pregnancies in an area inherently mean more unwanted... (1)

Angriness: 😡😡😡😡😡

To answer your questions: YESConservatives would simply never even think to regulate the freedom of men to be sovereign over their own bodies like this. Their base wouldn't have it.Their resistance to gun control is a good parallel. Guns are the number one cause of death of minors, yet Conservatives refuse to act. Curious how that concern with the life of children ends the moment protecting them no longer involves controlling women.There is zero room to call such hypocrisy "pro life" IMO. (1)

See this is the cartoonish vision of those that dont vote like you do that leads to issues. If someone could own a license to kill a child with a gun do you really think "conservative" voters would ignore that because it involves guns and not women? That's the equivalent here, the issue isn't on banning incisors or bio vacuums which are cowtools with more uses thank abortions, but on the license to kill that those with facilities for abortion have. So this is not a parallel, there still seems far more complicated factors than a arbitrary targeting of women. Killing kids with guns is already illegal. Again this seems so obvious to me that this is a whataboutism. There are big differences in the subjects even if on some very surface level you see "dead child" as a connection point. I mean I don't doubt that people truly are exist in this world and have a thrill of enacting power on those not like them. But your imagining of this nuanced and deep argument as a 95% malice is just going to ... (1)

Angriness: 😡😡😡😡😡

Roe was problematic for several reasons.The first was that it prohibited states from deciding the issue of abortion. Anti-abortion states were forced to accept abortion regardless of the will of the electorate. The second was that it invented a negative right out of whole cloth by asserting that women (and only specifically women) have an inalienable right to abortion based on medical privacy.Ignoring for the moment that all rights are universal and inalienable, SCOTUS asserted that a positive right was essentially a negative right, and that no state could interfere for that reason. (1)

History has shown that there are certain topics to which states can not be trusted to decide for themselves. Slavery, for instance, is an apt comparison because slavery is another violation of bodily autonomy. States are already overreaching in the wake of the Dobbs decision. Texas is trying to violate interstate travel laws by prohibiting people from seeking abortions in other states, all in the name "protecting the sanctity of life." Heck, they even offered bounties for turning in people who even ASSIST in getting someone to another state for an abortion.A couple of points here. First, women wouldn't be the only ones to have a right to an abortion. They would simply be the only ones to exercise that particular right. Second, abortion access isn't exactly one-sided when trying to determine the type of right it is (positive vs. negative). It is a negative right in the sense that the government wouldn't be able to pass laws prohibiting access, and it is a positive right in the sense ... (1)

Biggest Lolcow: /u/OfTheAtom

Score: 🐮🐮🐮🐮🔘

Number of comments: 9

Average angriness: 🔘🔘🔘🔘🔘

Maximum angriness: 😡😡😡😡😡

Minimum angriness: 🔘🔘🔘🔘🔘

NEW: Subscribe to /h/miners to see untapped drama veins, ripe for mining!

autodrama: automating away the jobs of dramneurodivergents. Ping HeyMoon if there are any problems or you have a suggestion

The audiences for Tuah and Tucker are probably similar in intelligence but one is less harmful because they know their limitations. pic.twitter.com/NNC7qdkhbd

— Richard Hanania (@RichardHanania) September 28, 2024

!asians

!goyslopenjoyers

If you can perform a virtual appendectomy in 1988 then why can't you perform a virtual s*x reassignment surgery celebration of castration?

!humans !alligatorfrickhouse !r-slurs

!nonchuds I think this needs to be normalized

https://www.reddit.com/r/CommunalShowers/controversial/

I have been at my mid-size corporate defense firm for 10 months. This is my first position in litigation, new, but I feel like I've been making "reasonable" mistakes and improving. I won two small bench trials that I did solo and have been trying to incorporate the feedback I've received from the partners.

A few background issues - (1) I am newly diagnosed ADHD; got on meds and have been trying to be more detailed-oriented but I still make silly typos or miss things; (2) I have a baby in daycare (my first child) and since I've been at the firm, we've battled numerous daycare illnesses and a hospital stay. We don't have any family support so when my daughter is sick, it messes up my ability to work. The firm has always been super understanding, though; (3) my husband and I are recovering alcoholics but he recently relapsed. Yesterday, I left work a bit early to find my husband passed out in his vomit. I called EMTs and tried to keep my daughter away from the situation. While paramedics were here, I realized I completely spaced a following up on a previous request for extension for a deadline and in my effort to try and rectify the situation, I sent an email asking for an extension, while not realizing the partner and paralegal had already handled the deadline. (EDIT: I had already drafted the document - written discovery resonates- and gave it to the partner the week prior for her changes, we were waiting to hear back from opposing counsel on an extension because our client hadn't produced the responsive documents).

I got a meeting invite from the partner today. She was not happy, saying that my email embarrassed her and the firm because it made it look like I didn't know what was going on (which is true, I was out of the loop because I was dealing with my husband's issue). She asked me if I was mentally unwell because I seemed distracted the past few months. She pointed to a recent draft I sent her recently which had typos in it, and said she's concerned about the "trajectory of my career at the firm." My last review (in June) was great and this was the first time she mentioned that I seemed "distracted". I was so shocked and ashamed at having "embarrassed the firm" that I cried during our meeting. I explained that yesterday my husband had a health emergency and apologized for failing to communicate that. I took full responsibility for my mistakes and I didn't want to get into personal details but I would be making changes to improve my mental clarity at work. She asked me if there was anything that she could do to improve my performance and I said that I would like to take a day to think seriously about how to improve.

Lawyers, am I on a one-way track to getting fired? Is being a lawyer just not for me because of my ADHD and lack of attention to detail? How should I approach the partner tomorrow?

Is…is that allowed?

18 U.S. Code § 597 - Expenditures to influence voting

25 P.S. § 3539

If he's just giving them a hundred bucks and saying here you go that's totally fine

Asking a vote for him is what makes it illegal

Nah. That's true of the federal law but the PA law merely requires the intent to influence.

He's a New York billionaire in (what appears to be) a Dollar Tree in Pennsylvania while campaigning for president. What the heck else would he be doing there other than trying to garner votes?

Prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.

A man like himself probably has countless examples of donations over the decades

Oof. Be careful moving the goalposts so quickly. It can be a real strain on your back.

Proof is not my responsibility, nor is it even possible for some random person on the internet to acquire. An actual investigation would require access to the videos clearly being recorded, interviews with those who were present, and other things which I, a layperson, could not reasonably possess.

However, given his history of mental instability, his penchant for committing felonies, and his absolute disregard for the rule of law in pursuit of acquisition or retention of power... I think we can comfortably say that (while we cannot prove it beyond a reasonable doubt) it is reasonable, if not likely, that his intention was to exchange money for votes.

that's not moving the goalpost you r-slur

It literally is. The burden of proof is on the person accusing somebody of a crime. It's innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt

No goal posts are being moved

This is America mother fricker

I can guarantee you it's not his own money.

>politician not using his own money

That's the only way his voters will ever get their donation money back

>i am once again asking for your financial support

sorry i meant

Is buying votes legal?

it's not. but this isn't buying votes.

Holy heck his tiny hands make that dollar bill look big

Redditors when you bodyshame: >:(

Redditors when you bodyshame Trump: :)

Which, I believe, is against the law. Then again, once a felon always a felon.

God forbid a dude gives a dollar out yall are wacko

150 karma after 4 years.

is that supposed to be an insult?

I'd say thax sill voting for Harris

I'd crumple it up and very carefully toss it back to him while holding eye contact. Seeing his response would easily be worth the money for me

The bestselling author of a book about "white fragility" has been accused of plagiarising sections of the work of two Asian-Americans in her doctoral thesis.

!asians

Robin DiAngelo, an anti-racism consultant who argues that racial divisions have been entrenched by "defensive" white people, committed 20 cases of plagiarism, according to a complaint filed with her alma mater, the University of Washington.

!chuds The well educated at it again I see

Someone ping nonchuds

Biden says Harris handled 'everything from foreign policy to domestic policy' under his administration

'Still not convinced he's not purposely trying to tank her,' one user posted on X

President Biden praised his Vice President Kamala Harris for handling "everything from foreign policy to domestic policy" under his administration as her campaign struggles to cast her as a "change" candidate and not an extension of the Biden presidency.

In an interview on "The View" Wednesday, Biden discussed Harris' credentials as his potential successor after "The View" co-host Sunny Hostin asked what advice he gave the vice president to defeat former President Trump in November.

"Be herself. Look, she is smart as heck. Number one, she's tough. She was a first-rate prosecutor…and as vice president, there wasn't a single thing that I did that she couldn't do. And so I was able to delegate [to] her responsibility on everything from foreign policy to domestic policy," he said.

https://old.reddit.com/r/stupidpol/comments/1fqt8s6/biden_says_harris_handled_everything_from_foreign/

!chuds loool

Source: https://old.reddit.com/r/ConservativeMemes/comments/1fn6d7t/white_dudes_for_harris