Everybody shamed Joe Manchin (and rightly so for holding up the green new deal), but that MF was one of the reasons the dems had 51.
There are so few progressive states that, if the dems are going to ever win the Senate and be able to confirm judges, they are going to have to hold space for progressive and moderate dems alike.
Now, there is some silver lining this year. There’s an independent in Nebraska who is neck and neck with the GOP incumbent there. This person is pro union but with some socially conservative values. If elected, he will likely vote sometimes with the dems and sometimes with the GOP, essentially being a spoiler for both, but probably to the great advantage of Nebraska.
I think this person should be celebrated and encouraged. We need more people who see country over party in politics.
Serious questions here. The world, by design, has arid zones around the tropics. If we heat up the planet, does that mean deserts pop up in other places? Like, will the Sahara and Cape Town turn green, but Spain and Italy and Argentina turn to desert? And if that’s the case, will hurricanes more often frequent New England, but less frequent Florida? Also, isn’t one of the major reasons we have hurricanes in the first place due to Sahara seeding them? If less desert then…?
There are a whole trump load of Magats that infested that area of Florida in recent years. If we’re relying on Pat as our local weatherman, you would have thought the hurricane would approach further south.
Same thing up in those Western NC mountains. Asheville may be a cesspool of sin, but everything around it is a sea of red.
All schadenfreude aside, this whole hurricane season really really sucks. I hold a lot of sympathy and empathy for those just trying to live their lives. We as a collective community are not doing enough fast enough and we need better leadership in place that will bite the bullet here and make the hard political decisions that need to be made.
I wanted to agree with you at some point here, but I just can’t bring myself to it.
He didn’t just notice her at 14, he kept on pursuing her. He frequented the toy store she worked at with his family. He then frequented the restaurant when she was a server (doesn’t say what age). It paints a pretty clear picture of obsession.
He also had already knocked up one of his office staff outside of his marriage. It doesn’t seem that this person has much regard for women.
Sure gifts, dinners and travel are part of courtship, but the line gets damn hazy when you start introducing drugs (particularly ones you prescribe) into the mix. I think as a society we certainly should frown upon that.
Consider the numbers presented. If you can figure out the math on how to get the 24th ranked countries out of 102 rankings to be below 100, then I’ll reconsider.
The countries who rank higher than 100 only have about 1.5 billion people within them and their average is only slightly higher compared to the countries that have an average significantly lower. For example, India with its 1 billion people is on there at an average of 82.
The math doesn’t add up for an average global human. I think we need to know more about how the scores in the study are calculated.
This is a well written article. I’m not sure how the OP came to their conclusion. The US ranks 24th on average IQ (with an IQ of 98) and is in good company with France, Denmark, Australia also at 98. For those curious, Canada, Finland and Germany were 99.
24th out of 102 should not be considered “dumber than average”. Additionally, as the article clearly states, the average has been going up, approximately 3 points per decade, and this is partly due to an increase in logical thinking.
East Asia is the outlier here, with many countries at 101 or higher (China at 105) though I find it curious that Hong Kong and Macau were singled out separately from China.
I wonder if these higher numbers have something to do with the homogeneity within these cultures, the average age of the county’s population, and/or, as another commenter mentioned, the way in which the higher IQ countries approach education.
I’m hearing a lot of what y’all are saying on this thread and sitting here nodding my head in agreement. I was going to remark something a bit off color as well, but in finding the words to say, I remembered a story on a podcast that I frequently listened to.
I don’t want to give away the story in case anyone wants to listen to it. It was eye opening for me. One of the best that Levar read IMO.
But all that is to say, maybe, just maybe, like the black klansman, it would actually be a good thing to have a Republican Party on the campus of FAMU. I think we need leaders who inspire less polarization of our country, if she is it, then I think she should be celebrated.
For the record, I have walked the campus of FAMU, and it is a lovely place. The trees covered in Spanish moss are wonderfully bucolic to stroll through in such a busy city. And of course, shout out to Loretta.
Everybody shamed Joe Manchin (and rightly so for holding up the green new deal), but that MF was one of the reasons the dems had 51.
There are so few progressive states that, if the dems are going to ever win the Senate and be able to confirm judges, they are going to have to hold space for progressive and moderate dems alike.
Now, there is some silver lining this year. There’s an independent in Nebraska who is neck and neck with the GOP incumbent there. This person is pro union but with some socially conservative values. If elected, he will likely vote sometimes with the dems and sometimes with the GOP, essentially being a spoiler for both, but probably to the great advantage of Nebraska.
I think this person should be celebrated and encouraged. We need more people who see country over party in politics.