To all you who didn't vote because "Harris isn't good either": You chose this. You let this happen.
Definitely. Imagine just being out on the town with your friends, answer a silly question, and BAM now you're know world wide for oral sex. The amount of creepy dudes she has to deal with must be off the charts.
About 6 2 million fewer votes for Trump than last election, which is good, but it doesn't matter since there are 18 14 million fewer votes for Harris than for Biden last election! Wher were those 18 14 million people? It can't be that all of them are in the "I don't vote for genocide" camp. What happened?
It's never been clearer that not voting gives the election to the Republicans.
Edit: Updated the numbers as more votes were counted, but the point stands.
And that "a little but better" isn't worth anything? At least it buys time.
That would be socialism, and the Moderates can't have that, can they?
Jokes aside, more probably the Sweden Democrats demanded this in exhange for something else.
This is a preposterous claim, not believable at all! You mean to tell me that Bill Gates' 5G nanobots play no role in this?
I believe this is the woman in her 30's being referred to in the title.
Why can't we ever get rid of fascists?
I believe this is where the second amendment comes in.
Anti-trans works as an adjective in this sentence, so it is a ban that is anti-trans in nature, not a ban of anti-trans behaviour.
Your commiting a logical falacy believing that a double negative automatically means the same as no negative. "You are not allowed to not run" doesn't mean that you are merely allowed to run, it means you must run.
Buuut again, I assume your logic means the downvotes to your comment acts like a negation to your comment and so I'm not sure what you meant.
It's a pretty standard way to write 60 votes for to 31 votes against, but again, since your comment has negative votes means you actually understood that. Negations, man. How do they work?
Phobia is a noun. Phobic is an adjective. I also guess since your comment has a negative number of votes, that counts as negation to your statement, so you do care and English is straightforward to you.
While I agree that my proof is blunt, yours doesn't prove that .999... is equal to -1. With your assumption, the infinite 9's behave like they're finite, adding the 0 to the end, and you forgot to move the decimal point in the beginning of the number when you multiplied by 10.
x=0.999...999
10x=9.999...990 assuming infinite decimals behave like finite ones.
Now x - 10x = 0.999...999 - 9.999...990
-9x = -9.000...009
x = 1.000...001
Thus, adding or subtracting the infinitesimal makes no difference, meaning it behaves like 0.
Edit: Having written all this I realised that you probably meant the infinitely large number consisting of only 9's, but with infinity you can't really prove anything like this. You can't have one infinite number being 10 times larger than another. It's like assuming division by 0 is well defined.
0a=0b, thus
a=b, meaning of course your ...999 can equal -1.
Edit again: what my proof shows is that even if you assume that .000...001≠0, doing regular algebra makes it behave like 0 anyway. Your proof shows that you can't to regular maths with infinite numbers, which wasn't in question. Infinity exists, the infinitesimal does not.
x=.9999...
10x=9.9999...
Subtract x from both sides
9x=9
x=1
There it is, folks.