No, I'm pointing out that your argument is specious at best.
HeinousTugboat
joined 2 years ago
And yet the percentage of the population that lives in poverty has dropped by more than half.
Funny how that works.
I bought a set of these and they're good, but they're way more liquid than Huy Fong's which makes them more annoying to use for me. The Carolina Gold they sell is absolutely amazing though.
This, definitely. Reddit's always had an "Other Discussions" button in posts, and I've actually found a lot of good small subs over time from clicking through and reading comments in other subreddits.
The MX Ergo has two bluetooth profiles stored on it, so you can switch seamlessly between any two devices. I use one of mine with both a Windows desktop and an MBP.
Wait, what book is this an adaptation of? This isn't from either Charlie and the Chocolate Factory or The Great Glass Elevator as far as I'm aware.
it's one of the biggest places on kbin.
I mean, it's got the 20th most subscribers. But it's only a third of /m/tech and half of /m/news.
I attended a programming bootcamp. Almost tripled my income in 6 months.
One of Dubya's biggest selling points was that he was "someone you could have a beer with".
So no, the people that vote for those kinds of people don't want someone smarter than themselves. They want someone like themselves.
That was actually a part of Hilary's trouble too: people just didn't like her on a personality level, so they didn't vote for her.
Yeah, that's about right. They're wickedly expensive. Definitely worth it though. You can often find them second hand or refurbished for a lot less.
Yes, they can be nice but overly expensive.
Hah. I was debating a Secret Lab chair. I wound up spending 3x as much and getting a Steelcase Gesture and it has changed me forever.
Fact: there are double the number of people in the country after than there were before.
Fact: social status tends to have generational inertia.
Specious: "misleading in appearance, especially misleadingly attractive."
It's absolutely specious, because you're somehow suggesting those policies failed because the absolute number of individuals went up, disregarding the fact that had those policies not been in place, the number would've been double what it is.
And I said at best, because it's far more likely you're just trolling. But, giving you the benefit of the doubt, let's work through this.
If a family in poverty that's 2 people, has 3 children, that's now 5 people.
If this is the only family that exists, 100% of people are in poverty. If one of those children winds up getting out of poverty, you've gone from 2 people in poverty, to 4 people in poverty. However, you've gone from 100% poverty to 80% poverty.
And you're saying that's a failure.