partial_accumen

I like the end result that ISPs are pushing back on this, but don’t mistake this for altruism on their part.

Their businesses make money selling internet service. Were they to support cutting off those accused of piracy, they would be losing paying customers. Further, the business processes and support needed for this to function would be massively expensive and complicated. They’d have to hired teams of people and write whole new software applications for maintaining databases of banned users, customer service staff to address and resolve disputes, and so much more.

Lastly, as soon as all of that process would be in place to ban users for piracy accusations, then the next requests would come in for ban criteria in a classic slippery slope:

• pornography
• discussions of drugs
• discussions of politics the party in power doesn’t like
• speaking out against the state
• communication about assembling
• discussion on how to emigrate

All the machinery would be in place once the very first ban is approved.

Vance said that under Donald Trump’s plan, Americans wouldn’t be put “into the same risk pools.” In other words, healthier young people wouldn’t be in the same risk pool as older people more likely to need medical care, lowering costs for younger Americans.

If this statement is true to their plan there’s a bigger implication that should worry more than 50% of Americans.

Americans wouldn’t be put “into the same risk pools.”

Men wouldn’t be in the same risk pool as women. Guess which group has higher overall health insurance because one group has a much more complicated and functional reproductive system?

For those that don’t remember life before the reforms put in place, men were charged a small fraction of health insurance premiums compared to women. I remember as a young man when I learned this by comparing my pay stub with a woman coworker that was the same age as me at the time. We were both in our early 20s. To reiterate; we were the same age, same employer, same insurance company, same plan, the only difference was gender.

I was paying $23 every two weeks. She was paying $110.

I was shocked and embarrassed. I fully supported the reforms that lead men and women to paying equal rates even though that meant I had to pay much more than I had in the past.

The GOP have been huffing “traditional family values” for so long they thought everyone did too. They make a jab at Harris for not fitting the traditional family values, which they thought would land with the public, but it fell flat because “traditional family values” includes the subjugation of women, abuse of children, and a big helping of toxic masculinity. Naturally those ideas are rejected by the majority of Americans today.

The GOP got high on their on supply.

The first “sorry” is sorry as in “I’m sorry you found that offensive” which isn’t a genuine expression of sorrow, nor is it an apology.

The statement said withhold Medicaid for states banning IVF. Aka if you ban IVF, the bill would punish the state by withholding Medicaid. Seems to be the opposite of what Republicans want with IVF.

I see your confusion: (many) Republicans want to ban IVF.

Look at the title of this post we’re in. “Republicans block Senate Democrats’ IVF bill”. That bill protects IVF, and the republicans shot it down.

You lost the ability to vote against him.

He freezes in shock when someone discovers and destroys one of his Horcruxes.

But that’s not what that statement says.

I read the OP again. I read your statement again. I’m not seeing a different meaning than the one I came away with and commented on originally.

What are you saying the statement says that my comments contradict?

that would withhold Medicaid funding from states that ban IVF, but it was blocked by Democrats.

Withholding Medicaid funding doesn’t seem like a great idea. But on the whole being against banning IVF seems like a good idea. Am I missing something?

Republicans don’t want to secure IVF and don’t want to pay for Medicaid. GOP state’s would happily block IVF to get Medicaid defunded.

This is my new head canon.

Embarrassment suggests he has a sense of shame. He has already conducted a number of shameful acts already (taking gifts) without any sense he’s embarrassed.

There were multiple weddings that day. That was from a prior ceremony for bit players that weren’t important to the story.

Putin is having some money troubles of his own right now. Banks in China are refusing to complete bank transactions with russia.

It’s ugly af. Was that a project requirement or something? It looks like it has a fucking underbite lol.

It is, but its pure function over form. If you want the whole story on this here’s a well done 13 minute youtube video: USPS Oshkosh NGDV Postal Van - Ugly by Design

Short version for the ugly:

• drivers need to stand up at full height inside for ease of use
• drivers, when seated, need to see very close to the ground what is in front of them
• drivers are not all the same torso height. Men are usually taller than women so you need a really tall windshield for very tall seated drivers, and very sharp and short hood for very short drivers.

Its ugly, but is a very VERY functional design. I’d rather mail carriers are comfortable in their ride than feeling stylish.

The rate isn’t too bad actually, but when your household is a larger consumer anyway and you’re charging 2 EVs consumption gets up there. We have also switched to an induction stove, heat pump water heater, added a heat pump dryer, and just recently had our gas furnace ripped out and a cold climate heat pump put in for the HVAC.

With all of that the electricity usage the bill goes up, but we can wipe it out with solar and now we don’t have natural gas bills or gasoline costs for transportation. The up front costs can be high with this approach, but the monthly bills are nearly non-existent.

The rate around here is now down to $0.22/kWh. We were occasionally getting electricity bills around $400/month at worst, but we haven’t had an electrical bill since April of this year with our solar panels on the roof now.

“Please eat a ‘Trump brand verification steak’ to sign into your account”

Yep, for decades. They used to be much larger consuming the space of a large table. Now they are small units like this:

Just search for “surface mount rework” or the nickname “hot air pencil”.

Legally they cannot. Also, domestic violence happens to men too.

I’d like to know how close I was and in what ways I can become a more interesting candidate, but nobody is going to give me a realistic answer.

I can tell you from the employer side there is nothing to gain by answering this question asked by a candidate, and everything to lose which is why you the candidate almost never hear a response.

There are some legally protected reasons you cannot be turned down for a job. Its all the stuff you’d think of: race, religion, marital status, sex, age, etc. The likelihood you were turned down because of one of these illegal reasons is usually very low in the USA. I’m proud to say for the hiring efforts I’ve been a part of, these have never been considered criteria for disqualifying a candidate. Its always been for things like lack of knowledge/education, criminal history (example multi-DUI for a job that requires driving or conviction of embezzling when put in charge of company finances ), etc.

However, any documented reason a prospective employer gives back to a candidate becomes a liability. Will that candidate sue the company claiming that they weren’t hired because they think the position required some not married, which would be a crime of the employer?