sarker
It isn't happening, and if it is, it's a bad thing
No bio...
User ID: 636
That was the primary, not the general, and you'll notice that there are two Republicans splitting the vote.
Thanks for the correction. Clark county was still blue in the 2022 general.
I expect a win by less than two points, but mayhaps I'll eat crow on that expectation.
Perhaps, but that doesn't prove that this was supposed to hurt Kent. I don't have sub-county numbers but I don't see why someone would target this mailbox to hurt the Republican candidate.
I thought we were talking about the one in Clark County, and was unaware of the Portland one.
The OP was about the Portland one.
They're intending to hurt the Republican candidate by setting fire to ballots in urban Portland? Do you think those ballots leaned R or leaned D?
Edit: there are two burnt mailboxes. One in the 1000 block of Southeast Morrison Street, Portland. This is not even in Washington so obviously it has nothing to do with Joe Kent. The other one was in the Fisher's Landing transit center in Vancouver. That is actually in WA-03 but Clark county, which contains Vancouver, has Kent lagging behind majorly, so I really don't see the connection at all.
Plaid requires you to give them your bank password, right? You'll never catch me doing that.
All fats have about nine calories per gram.
Soybean oil: https://fdc.nal.usda.gov/fdc-app.html#/food-details/171411/nutrients
Olive oil: https://fdc.nal.usda.gov/fdc-app.html#/food-details/171413/nutrients
Lard: https://fdc.nal.usda.gov/fdc-app.html#/food-details/171401/nutrients
It's not so much that they're "adjusted" as it is that the lights are higher up to begin with. Thus, unless they're angled much further down than they would be on a normal car (which is impossible if you want to illuminate the same distance simply due to how high off the ground they are), they're going to project a brighter light into any car lower than those headlights.
This is still not adding up.
If the light is higher off the ground and you want it to illuminate as far down the road as a light lower to the ground, it must be angled lower. If you raise the light and keep the angle constant, you will illuminate further down the road.
If the light is adjusted to keep the distance illuminated constant, I suspect that it would only be shining into vehicles at very short distances, and since you are not usually approaching vehicles head on and the lights have limited side spread, this shouldn't even be an issue. There's something else going on here.
So you have a grand total of... six to choose from
How many hatchbacks does a man need?
Yes, that's true. I'm assuming that he doesn't live out in the sticks, but perhaps I'm wrong.
now (where you can't buy a non-lifted hatchback).
Sure you can, it's called a Prius. Or a civic hatchback.
If you're sitting higher up relative to the road, your headlights will be adjusted up (relative to a lower vehicle) so that you can see further out. Thus, if you're in an CUV, your lights are going to be aimed from the factory such that you'll blind anyone in lower vehicles.
This i don't find totally convincing. Why do they need to be adjusted so you can see further out? Obviously you can always aim the headlights higher to see further (and that's what high beams do, partially), but that can't be legal.
At this point I'm a lot more aggressive about not turning my brights off when I see an oncoming car (unless I see the telltale flicker of them turning theirs off, naturally), because if they don't turn them off I'm blind when they pass.
Why are you driving with your brights on?
The thing that drives me up the wall these days is headlights that shine directly into opposing traffic. I don't know what the fuck is going on recently but probably about every tenth car is blinding me at night.
It's OK, AI will surely fix this.
The viable plan to ending birthright citizenship is to reexamine the legal definition of natural born citizen in light of earlier British jurisprudence which
There's no need to have motivated semantic arguments about what is a "natural birth" and what isn't (what about those born via Cesarean section??) because it's totally irrelevant to the constitutional language. The fourteenth amendment is extremely clear and unambiguous:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
I'll take the other end of the imminent musk imprisonment bet.
There's a place where kids undergo strenuous training from a young age. It's South Korea, and it's universally considered a terrible place to grow up, most of all by South Koreans themselves. Thanks but no thanks, let's let kids actually have a childhood.
The Indian immigrants are mostly men and based on the Canadian posts they can't really find any women to marry. So I don't think there's a lot of anchor babying going around.
'Amidst the houses' is the suburb. If there's a zone for housing and a zone for commercial, then the housing bit is the suburb, from the perspective of the residents.
Are you American? This isn't really how Americans conceive of suburbs. The typical American suburb is a small town that's predominantly residential, but it still has a shopping mall or main street. A town that's predominantly a bedroom community with people commuting to work in the big city is a suburb, not just the residential zone of that town.
Edit: even within rio rancho (which is not in Albuquerque, it's its own town) there are commercial areas, such as they are, sandwiched between residential areas:
Suburbs have all those things, the problem is that you can't build any of that stuff amidst houses (except parks and maybe schools).
I doubt it. Greencard wait time for indians is something like fifty years.
The car in front of you as you posted this.
Which time period are you talking about (I don't think you actually mean Old English)? After Shakespeare you've got Donne, Milton, Pope, Burns, and then the Romantics (who I think need no defense). I don't think there's really a time period without a great poet.
I am usually pretty good at going to a bar or party where I know nobody or only a couple of people and talking to a bunch of people.
You are typical-minding if you think this describes everyone. This is basically a nightmare scenario for me, and I am actually overall reasonably well adjusted (no, seriously, guys).
I don't think I've ever met or known anyone who I know to be extroverted by that definition.
I knew a guy who would talk to someone in a foreign country for perhaps five minutes and subsequently say that they "made a friend". On the other hand, I could count my friends on one hand.
It's been known to happen.
Maybe then I can buy a house.
I was recently chatting with Claude to get a better sense of the course of European architecture after the Romans. As early as the 11th century you start to see beauty in buildings again (st Mark's basilica in Venice, Ely cathedral, San Miniato al Monte), but before that it's truly depressing except in Muslim Spain (the great mosque of Cordoba was built in 785 and expanded in the 10th century, the great mosque of kairouan). It's not all bad (the monastery of Santa maria de Ripoll is decent if not masterful) but it really does seem like the 11th century was a turning point. Basically Christendom was building tremendously dreary stuff until the Romanesque style came about.
There is nothing good about the number of men not working going from 5% to 14%.
Conversely, I think we'd be much better off with lower female labor participation. Many women who would prefer to stay home with children feel that they need to work, either for money or for social acceptability reasons.
You've got a just so story for why women staying home is good and men staying home is bad, but it's easy to make up the alternate story as well. It might go something like:
We don't need more women staying home and profligately spending the man's paycheck (recall that women spend most of the household's discretionary income). Let them work to understand the value of a dollar. Conversely, many men who would prefer to stay home to raise children feel that they need to work, either for money or social respectability reasons.
I don't expect you'll be convinced by my argument, but you should recognize that yours is also only convincing to those already convinced.
The last time I was faced with a plaid page, they wanted me to enter my password in a plaid page, rather than my bank's page. Perhaps this has changed, but there's simply no way that I'd trust plaid not to retain my password in some regarded way.
More options
Context Copy link