I’ve told bosses before they can have either my early hours or my best hours, but not both. There’s so much waste in our work lives trying to fit to some picture of productivity that isn’t actually real. We just play the parts we’re required to while getting nothing done.

Plus the fundamental insanity of saying efficiency is a single monolithic thing that can only be effectively worked on by a single person. The only reason you have that is because the type of coder these people want to abuse is the same type of person who’s bad at designing code. They just keep stumbling on subsuming additional features into the monolith because encapsulation and code design is uninteresting to their reward centers. That’s why multiple people can’t work on it, not because there’s some fundamental inability to effectively partition work during the production of innovative software.

Plurality.

None of these people voted at all. They literally couldn’t vote against this.

The alarms are not going off for women, they’re going off for pregnant women, but all these “whatabout men” comments are ignoring that non-pregnant women are also in the ignored group and just making it about men’s welfare being discredited. Gives MRA vibes.

No they didn’t. You just posted a made up a number and did it in the service of dehumanizing a minority population. And the people getting deported (at least now) didn’t vote for anyone, they aren’t citizens.

This comment is sus as hell. Exactly something a right winger would post to cause mistrust in opposition groups. And even if it isn’t, you need to learn some media literacy if you’re just parroting an obviously fake percentage like that.

The problem in your logic here is that immigrant children aren’t people in their eyes, so fetus or not they can’t be murdered.

He’s got a particular sort of experience that only recently became valuable in a president. The Supreme Court says that during official duties the president is legally immune for all crimes. Give that man immunity and let’s see where things end up.

So we should run only run black men since your shitty understanding of statistics dictates they have a 100% chance to win.

Luigi, allegedly, doesn’t let the rules get in the way of doing what’s right.

Sure, if you’re trying to win as a Republican, being female is pretty hard. Luckily Democrats don’t win elections by seeking far right votes.

Overall, 150 women are set to serve in the 119th Congress starting next year, down just slightly from the current record of 152 (which represents 28 percent of all members). As has long been the case though, there are sharp partisan imbalances here: 42 percent of incoming Democratic members and just 15 percent of incoming Republican members are women. And based on this year’s results, that imbalance doesn’t appear to be narrowing, particularly as female candidates within the Republican Party face persistent structural and cultural barriers to running and winning.

I wonder if you read this exact article and just cherry picked the number to justify your stance.

Uh, there are lots of Christian denominations who allow women to lead churches. And majority Catholic nations who have happily elected women (like the Latino countries who you people like to also say are too dedicated to machismo to vote for women).

Don’t justify your bigotry by an appeal to tradition of the people who already won’t vote for Democrats. This isn’t a well thought through argument, it’s just a reactionary justification.

Then why did you add an “a” in front of an adjective? It’s either “I’m Democratic” (adjective) or “I’m a Democrat” (noun). This isn’t dictating language, they’re two different parts of speech. The name of the party is “the Democratic Party” and its members are “Democrats”. They’re proper nouns, not linguistic styling. There is no “Democrat Party”.

The people who try to rename the party aren’t doing a whoopsie, it’s a conscious effort by conservatives to say the thing in a dumb way for extremely dumb political purposes. It takes effort to do that.

I really assumed Murkowski would be in opposition and Collins would vote a concerned yes. Murkowski just recently expressed potential openness to supporting Democratic control, FFS.

It very much does not. I think it’s designed to make the nominee look like a runaway victor rather than to fairly gauge the opinion of the primary voters. They want the primary to come to a decisive end as soon as possible and the consequence is voters not really understanding whether it’s ok to vote for your favorite or to immediately start voting strategically (the answer depends on how well you think they’ll do). If it was straight proportional we could just vote how we wanted and if they didn’t win their delegates could still influence who did.

The ticker is very relevant. ICE is now a world-ranked military force. They’re building concentration camps. Even if it were actually just for immigrants, eventually they’ll be deported and you have a bulked up secret police and empty gulags just sitting there waiting to be used.

They all just took a year off with Obama apparently. The dedicated bigots already have their party. They’re not needed for Democrats to win.

The primaries for president are run differently. They’re proportional, but not evenly. There’s minimum amounts to get any delegates and then some confusing weighting that gives more delegates than simple division to those who get more votes. And then at the convention, those delegates can then vote for anyone if their candidate isn’t going to win.

So there’s a spoiler effect, but not nearly so prominent as FPTP. And the way primaries work, poorly performing candidates will generally just drop out. Not to mention “young people” aren’t really Buttigieg’s constituency. He basically tied with Bernie in Iowa.

Do you know the difference between adjectives and nouns?

Credentials are not what make a good candidate.