I do? I was fact-checking a specific point. I never said that the Democrats were the infallible party of the people, but because I gave more detail about a vague, misleading-at-best statement that means I need to defend everything else?
I like facts and knowledge. You can’t develop a good opinion without it. And when I see misinformation, even from people I generally agree with, I try to set the record straight.
When it comes to minimum wage, as the initial commenter mentioned. Not everything under the sun
Other guy: “Democrats didn’t even raise minimum wage”
Me: “Well, they tried that one thing. Here’s what happened for that particular issue, how it was attempted, and how the Senate’s screwed up rules stopped them”
You: “But they didn’t block the train strike!”
…
Anyway, yes, you got your point across. If only it had anything to do with mine of what happened on a different day
And if you change the subject you can always get your point across. Great job.
I’m talking about minimum wage and nothing else.
Where the cameras went says a lot about who the system is built to watch.
That really doesn’t tell me who, considering there are about 3x that number placed elsewhere. Did they really not have security cameras previously?
I’ll grant that they didn’t even try for a standalone minimum wage increase. I’d be curious to know how that would go too. But it was meant to go into one of the earlier spending bills that had to be passable by a simple majority. Those kinds of bills have certain requirements, or else they’re subject to the fucked up filibuster rules the Senate has.
The Senate parliamentarian ruled that a minimum wage increase was more than a budget change and did not fit those requirements. I thought Democrats’ argument that it affected revenue via resulting taxes and therefore budgeting was a reasonable one, but it didn’t quite fly.
Anyway, to say “the Ds couldn’t even be bothered to increase minimum wage under Biden” is a little disingenuous IMO. They did make one honest effort, at least, and anything else was pretty much doomed.
convicted and not just hearsay mind you
Just because I’m an absolute stickler for stuff like this… He was not, technically. “Convicted” means that he was found guilty in a criminal (government accused you of a crime) trial, beyond a reasonable doubt (that is, if the jury thought a defense could be reasonable, even if not totally likely, they must find the defendant not guilty).
The only sex-related trial Trump has gone through was the E Jean Carroll case. That was a civil case, where the defendant may or may not be found liable based on a preponderance of evidence (that is, jury found something was more likely than not the case and doubts that say otherwise are ok). The jury in that case found that yes, Trump sexually assaulted her and the actions that followed constituted defamation. Worth noting too that the jury found (by that same standard) that what he did was not rape her, although the judge later clarified that the actions constituted rape.
The reason I bring this up is that the jury had a much lower bar here than they would need for a conviction. They could have been 60% sure and that would fly for the trial he was in, but not for a criminal trial.
The US $100 bill was introduced in 1914 and would have been worth over $3,300 in today’s dollars. Even if that’s only about half what $10k SGD is worth, that’s still a hell of a long time to hold that ceiling
Or green card holders, refugees, maybe others on visas…
Friendly reminder that SCOTUS, in an opinion authored by none other than Neil Gorsuch, ruled that discrimination by sexual orientation or gender identity is inherently discrimination by sex. If a set of behaviors is allowed by a cisgender person, but their biological sex does not match their gender, you are discriminating by sex.
Likewise, if Alex’s husband comes to the company Christmas party and that is only acceptable if Alex is short for Alexandra, a woman, your discrimination by sexual orientation is also discrimination by sex.
A surprisingly brilliant ruling that has yet to be Constitutionally Calvinballed.
GOP Reps. Thomas Massie [KY], Brian Fitzpatrick [PA], Tom Barrett [MI] and Warren Davidson [OH] voted in favor with all Democrats.
Since that’s the only thing we really care about beyond the headline
There’s also voice user interfaces! I’m not sure if it goes by another name, but blind people have their own way of using a phone, plus there’s a lot of voice control when driving or using Alexa and the like
Well considering we heard the plan before we gave the villain power, that cliche feels a lot more believable now
Or actively did it?
Certainly not one that has been around for centuries and has seen many different world views over the years!
She may be old but I swear that woman has more energy than me. And I’m in my 30s.
To help quantify, that’s a little under 3 pounds (1.3kg) per person, assuming perfectly equal distribution.
calling the information […] “partisan propaganda”.
Well, thank God we don’t have any more of that under this administration! 🙄
That’s what you’re clinging to at this point? How do I know it wasn’t all a ploy? Dude, excuse me for one adjective mixed in my comment but not everything is the conspiracy you seem to want it to be