Well I hope there was some catharsis to your comment! That sucks you’re being subjected to it. Good for grandma having your back!

Oh interesting. That’s unfortunate.

💯

Ah, thanks.

Fair. I also would have thought, though, that Sweden would have had stronger labor protection laws to protect people who are getting help from retaliatory firing.

The study focused on heterosexual Swedish couples of working age who married in 2001 and whose individual incomes measured at just above or just below the equal earnings threshold.

I wouldn’t have thought mental health care was inaccessible due to cost in a country like Sweden.

It’s possible that the woman became the higher earner because of the man’s existing substance abuse problem, and/or that the woman becoming a higher earner allowed the man to seek help for the problem.

It’s also possible that the substance abuse problem developed after the woman became the higher earner, though I’m not sure why that would happen.

I think those are two fair bits of speculation that warrant further study and/or reporting.

Society needs to normalize households women being successful.

Remember when he said he would end the war in 24 hours as president?

On a scale of 1 to balls.

😅 glad you’re ok!

Did anyone check this comment for CMD before deleting?

right?

Yeah, have been in the room with a comatose person. Some people are good at just dumping out a one-sided conversation, but not me. The inclusion of the percentage of people who were clearly responsive but whose brain scans didn’t indicate the expected activity is really important to take note of though. Really does need more study to refine our understanding.

Yeah, brains are weird. I’m glad they included this flip side of the study.

Eggar?

Generally no. It’s just a straw man the right wing trans phones have cooked up to rage-bait voters. Just like post-birth abortion.

Here’s the whole section you’re selectively quoting

How does party affiliation work in Texas? In Texas, there are several main ways for a voter to affiliate with a party: by being accepted to vote in a party’s primary election, by taking the required oath at a party precinct convention, or by taking a party oath of affiliation generally (§§162.003, 162.006, 162.007). A voter’s affiliation with a party automatically expires at the end of each calendar year, which is December 31. (§162.010). A voter who has affiliated themselves with a party is ineligible to participate in the party affairs of another party during the same calendar year. (§§162.012, 162.013)

Emphasis added to show that there is no persistent, year-over-year affiliation (I emphasize this word because there is no party registration in Texas)

And the only way you can vote in a primary is to register with them

I have never registered with a party. There is no field for party affiliation in the online voter registration form

https://vrapp.sos.state.tx.us/index.asp

And the registration certificate doesn’t include a party affiliation

https://www.votetexas.gov/register-to-vote/voter-registration-certificate.html

And a Non-potato quality picture

https://disabilityrightstx.org/en/handout/understanding-your-texas-voter-registration-certificate/

you can do it on the spot if you want, but once you do it, that’s it

Every primary election I’ve participated in the official who checks you in just asked which primary you want to vote in. And since voter registration in Texas does not track party affiliation you’re going to have a rough time convincing me this counts as registering with the party.

The spam you’re getting is simply because it’s public record whether you voted in any election, including which primary you voted in. But it’s not the same as other states recording your party affiliation as part of your voter registration, which Texas flat out does not do.

Texas doesn’t have party affiliation on your voter registration and we have open primaries.

https://www.sos.state.tx.us/elections/laws/advisory2020-05.shtml

Fuck yeah.