hitmyspot

I'm many countries, yes, in many ots controversial. In others the political class is against the genocide, including Western countries.

I suppose it will depend on how the law is worded, however, when someone is being impersonated, that would be a pretty clear case.

Be aware that the original devs get nothing.

While that's true, as much as I don't care when somebody loses their virginity, if someone has not lost their virginity by a reasonable age, I start to assume they are either overly religious, or socially stunted in some way.

It's not so much the virginity as not having had an opportunity nor wanting to. There are obviously exceptions, like ace people or those with a history of abuse etc. Like other posters said, it's more high schoolm thing to care about the age in years. I'm more thinking in decades.

Those 2 small states are where most of the people live though.

And within those states, most live in the main city. Even more if you count the commuter cities.

Also points for both snow and heat in different parts.

But they'll have some AI machines instead, so the shareholders will be happy. The shareholders of a different company, but still...

Wear and tear is specifically not allowed to be charged for home rentals in Australia. Damage that is not wear and tear can be I would assume it would also apply for car rentals but I haven't checked.

He already has, up to this point. In fact, big parts of the party tried to support his competition. They failed. He's another in AOC mould. He may be good or great but there is an increasing trickle of progressive candidates.

The more that win by being good the more that can win without being so good. He may not be the Dems saviour but he's a step in the right direction and a worrying sign for Republicans and establishment politicians.

No, I'm pointing out, again, about the reduction of votes they got. They are the only party with the potential for seats to support ending genocide. They had less votes and lost seats.

I'm not saying it was their only issue but it clearly wasn't an important issue for Australians based on that.

If it was important to Australians, more would have voted for the greens. Australians either didn't care or supported genocide instead.

It's not like the USA where it was a hold your nose situation. We have preferential voting. If people cared about other issues, they could still preference the greens for their genocide stance, of they deemed it important. they did not.

Yes, based on many. However, that implies that people don't care about the genocide, which is what ive repeatedly said.

If you want to be more precise, they cared about everything else more, which is a different way of saying they don't care about it.

They rejected the other candidates and now have nobody, so they are back at square one. It’s no worse for them as it would be for a person, but they have systematised it and are used to the upper hand. In the case of rejection, they lose their system and the upper hand.

No, I’m saying that as the only party to be anti genocide, if Australians cared about it as an issue, their votes would have increased, not decreased.