You’re right. I updated the comment

You’re right. I updated the comment

Edit: I’m mixing up a at will employment with right to work. Sorry for the confusion. See updated comment below:

Right to work: Joining a union and paying union dues can no longer be a requirement of employment. This slowly degrades the power of the union and ultimately reduces wages and benefits of the workers

Right to work At will employment is: A right to be fired at any point for any reason or no reason at all

The goal is to get around any union protections that require things like a legitimate reason to be fired from a job.

It also has the added bonus of drastically reducing the benefits of unions and making them much easier to prevent.

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

This video is another critique of democrats vs republicans and how democrats offer a lot of lip service for being inclusive, fair, liberal, etc but have very lackluster results and end up being a lighter version of their republican counterparts instead of pushing liberal agendas that they ran on.

You’re getting played if you don’t use one. All those rewards are not from the people racking up credit card debt, it’s from swipe fees.

If you don’t use a credit card you pay the same price as the ones paying with a card, except the ones with a card get rewards. The ones without pay extra since stores charge extra to cover the fee

They even lobbied successfully to prevent merchants from passing this on to credit card customers. Which means they pass it on to all customers instead.

The fees are currently capped at 2.5% but that’s just for the swiped. There are other fees as well that end up costing the merchant more.

I am pointing out that dealing with animals falls under animal control. Not police officers. The exception being an in progress attack and even then a gun probably isn’t the best choice considering the animal would be next to/on the person it’s attacking.

The article points out that the reason is unclear. Based on what we know about how police offers act, how police departments respond, what punishments they face, and how they update their procedures/trainings, it draws a clear conclusion.

The reasons for the high number of pet killings by law enforcement are not clear. Some factors include mistaken identity, warrantless searches, lack of training, and legal protections for police officers when using force, including against animals[1].

How many dogs are roaming around biting everything that moves? That’s about the only time they should be publicly executed.

Obviously animals can be dangerous and all that but there is a clear lack of oversight on police officers actions and an almost non existent repercussion for wrong doings.

Dogs with regular violence issues are dealt with by animal control and a vet. They aren’t taken care of by a police officer emptying their gun into the animal in someone’s yard/home.

Not really. It sounds like the report was made to copa, not the police, and “Copa announced that officials had not identified any asylum seekers claiming to be victims of sexual misconduct by police officers.”

Add that to the officers not being identified and we have a cover up.

And that is the problem with the 2 party system. No one votes that way because not enough people do. Instead everyone voted for less bad option between the 2 major parties. Which happen to be the choices the political committee chose, not the people.

The problem is that this isn’t the will of the people. Preliminaries don’t count as an election so your vote for which candidate that appears on the actual ballot is just a suggestion.

The party committees gets final say on who’s on the ballot for that party to vote for.

Which leads to the problem of the 2 party system where we vote for the least worst candidate