If you talk to some democrats they believe we should ban third parties.
I have never seen this argument from any democrat before.
Questioned their legitimacy in participating as a candidate in a presidential election? Yes.
But banning third parties? Absolute hogwash, I've never once seen that.
I think you should look at those numbers again. Stein took enough votes to make up the difference.
The person who said that is part of Stein's campaign, their goal is for Harris to lose and give Trump a win.
As much as I hate what Israel is doing, that's completely unrelated to what the Jill Stein and the Green Party are trying to do.
There is nothing native (though a few options have been played with, AFAIK never completed because...), but there are a ton of integrations. You can use webhooks to teams, there are python wrappers for the API, even a google docs integration.
Probably the lowest code option would be to find someone else's tool for snipe-it (sorry I've never looked), or do something like snipe it to google sheets to be imported as a CSV or something.
Or take a peek at some others in the same territory, or maybe ticketing systems with simple asset management.
But i think something like snipe-it, if not exactly, is going to be the right territory of what you're looking for
Yes.
Its nowhere near the risk that was claimed.
Dude, I'm not interested in the internet pissing match where you try and "gotcha". I've repeatedly explained my position, why I believe that, and why the context is important.
As I said. Enjoy your day, we are done.
Not the words I used actually.
And as mentioned, already answered repeatedly. Enjoy your day.
You can certainly make that call for yourself. I disagree.
Because it's "obviously" the first thing he notices every time.
So gross.
The easy answer is the person he was already in a relationship with before becoming President.
We aren't talking about just any citizen though, she was literally working for him. This is no different than a CEO and a secretary. The power imbalance is... Blatant.
She says it was consensual. So I go with that, because even decades later it's her view on the situation. That said, any President (just like any CEO, etc) having any sort of sexual relations with people they literally employ is a sexual predator. So yes, Bill Clinton is a sexual predator. I won't go so far as to say she was sexually assaulted though, because she doesn't consider it to be so.
That's the debatable part. Given the absolutely massive power imbalance, can it be consensual?
From my perspective, I think it's important to take Ms. Lewinsky's opinion and consider it to not be sexual assault, she's had about 30 years of reflection on it and where she landed is consensual.
But I can understand, given the power imbalance and how that has been used historically to force others into a sexual relationship, how it can be viewed as sexual assault.
OK, so claims of randos on the internet.
NOT any single elected democrat.
Got it.