I had the same question. I’m hoping the line shows total votes and the bars will increase as in person votes are added to the total

‘Kamala didn’t rebuke genocide strongly enough, so I’ll support the candidate that unabashedly supports and encourages genocide!’

That is my understanding of your view based on the last two comments. Good luck with stopping the murder spree that way

Edit: I’m all for better options. It’s just quite disingenuous to say you won’t vote for the only candidate that’s rebuffed Israel over the genocide when the competition is actively supporting it.

I’m curious, what do you think of Trumps approach to Israel’s genocide? Is their plan better?

That’s fair. Maybe more reasonable than it first appeared.

Oof, 15 to 30 years seems a bit much.

Davis’s family asserts Kruger and Davis were in a years-long relationship involving sex and drugs that started when Davis was 15 years old, and Kruger was an adult.

You’ve claimed several points that conflict and when asked directly what your point is you talk around it.

My point was Bernie got cheated out of that primary election

Your point was that the primary was above board and there was no reason to question it

Then you later agreed that there was good reason to question it

And now your point is that your point is clear?

Eh, fair enough. Undermined, cheated, manipulated, schemed, swindled, deceived, duped, defrauded, etc might have been a better description.

Your initial statement was clear but your subsequent comments across threads have not been.

It went from the primary was clear and upstanding, to there’s good reason to doubt the results, to it having no real effect other than some nasty words spoken, to it costing Hilary the election.

Which one is your actual point?

So you’re saying the DNC’s actions undermining the primary election had real consequences? Or are those consequences not concrete enough?

Or are you saying we should accept their schemes, offer no consequences or criticism and just blindly follow?

Cause I certainly agree that we likely wouldn’t be in the current situation if the DNC had been above board and true to their role.

And that there is good reason to believe it was stolen from him

Have you read your other replies? Thats not the understanding I got from them.

Projection at its finest.

Convenient you skip over the undermine his campaign portion of my previous comment. But the fact that the Chair of the DNC resigned over it shows it was more than just saying “nasty things about him in private”.

It should also be noted that their actions “caused significant harm to the Clinton campaign, and have been cited as a potential contributing factor to her loss in the general election”. It is not as inconsequential as you present it.

The DNC heavily undermined and consistently sabotaged Bernie’s campaign the point that the DNC chair stepped down and the DNC then apologized “for the inexcusable remarks made over email” that did not reflect the DNC’s “steadfast commitment to neutrality during the nominating process.” (From the wikipedia link below).

From the 2016 Democratic National Committee email leak: In the emails, DNC staffers derided the Sanders campaign. The Washington Post reported: “Many of the most damaging emails suggest the committee was actively trying to undermine Bernie Sanders’s presidential campaign.”

Bernie was absolutely robbed of a fair primary election.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Democratic_National_Committee_email_leak

It’d also be nice if they couldn’t just override the primary election results because it’s not a “real election”

Yes, I’m still a bit bitter about how the DNC treated Bernie in the 2016 election

Summary:

When the sport of artistic swimming, formerly synchronized swimming, announced it would allow men to compete in the Paris Games, Bill May saw his chance. But the U.S. team chose only women.

I only communicate with internal employees, so we’re all in the same network with company issues laptops. I even tried the app on my phone for a while and that wasn’t any better so I ditched it

I’m honestly surprised anyone has had a good experience with Teams

I use it 5 days a week for work and don’t have connectivity problems.

These issues are company wide and are not unique to me. I would switch isp providers if that would solve the issue. It’s bad enough that if you want a new computer you just talk to tech support about the issues and they’ll send you a new one since they can’t fix it (not that the new laptops work any better with teams)

Works well? In relation to what? Carrier pigeons? Did you forget the /S ?

The only thing I’ve seen it do well is share recorded videos almost immediately.

It doesn’t even send messages as you’d expect. It’ll show sent on your side but the other person never gets it

Someone calls and it rings, but the answer button has a 50% chance of not being there so you can’t actually join unless it’s a group call and then you can after it rings for 30 seconds and you don’t even know who called unless they ping you saying they’re calling

Sharing your screen takes a few tries occasionally and sometimes requires you to rejoin the call

Notifications? What notifications. They work so rarely it’s become a habit to manually check every few minutes

And it opens docs in teams!? Who wants that hot garbage

And the freezing! It regularly freezes for 20 seconds when doing anything in it

I’d gladly take Skype over the garbage that teams is

And if that wasn’t bad enough, it’s apparently such trash that it triggers me when someone has anything nice to say about teams. Sorry 😅

What a misleading title. It makes it sound like the GOP passed it.

Two Republicans, TJ Shopes and Shawnna LM Bolick, joined all 14 Democrats to pass the measure, sending it to Democratic Gov. Katie Hobbs’ desk

I see what you’re saying but they are specifically worried about anal sex. You’re welcome to switch up partners as much as you want as long as anal sex isn’t involved, which is much more likely and much easier for the heterosexual community.

Same goes with prep. I’m sure that there are circumstances that would have individuals taking it that are not related to their sexual orientation.

I’m just pointing out that despite the major improvement it still excludes gay men quite thoroughly from donating blood.