This just reminded me of a time I was living in England in the late 90s, and a group of friends and I had found an injured grey squirrel. We called animal control for help, and their response was that if we decide to officially report it, they would have to put it down, because it's considered an invasive species. We ended up just letting the squirrel go, sorry England, for making your map just a tiny bit more grey.
A comment on the YouTube video makes a good point that we already have a better word for the concept of dealing with multiple things at once: multitasking. Using a word that literally means "things happening at the same time" just adds to the confusion, since people already have a difficult time understanding the distinction between multitasking and concurrency.
I just set up Steam Family last night, and it specifically shows my private games under not shared.
I let one of mine expire a few years ago. Finally decided I wanted to try to register it again, but a squatter is now sitting on it asking for something like ~~$10k~~ $3.6k.
Edit: just double-checked, they lowered the price to only $3595!
If Democrats are ever lucky enough to get 2/3rds of the Senate (and 51% of the House), at that point the Supreme Court might start to think twice about their decisions.
Edit: unfortunately unlikely, though
The UN would likely consider it a violation of their human rights if a country knowingly allowed a citizen to become stateless. I would hope that at least all member states would not allow it, but I don't know for certain.
moral improves
Not sure if that was intentional, but I suppose it's technically correct.
You can be popular without being intelligent.
Maybe impartial information more than disinformation. It's still likely the responses from late Saturday and Sunday would have impacted the percentage by at least 1 or 2 points. The fact it stayed the same hopefully means that at best it simply prevented Biden from taking the lead.
The outside plastic at least
You seem to be under the misunderstanding that dems want to increase abortions. They want increased access to abortion, but that's not the same thing.
This really hurts Republicans more than Dems. Let's say you have a goal of reducing "x", so you pass a law banning it, but that causes a noticeable increase in the behavior. Your law made things objectively worse towards accomplishing your goal.
If you think the increased occurrence is justified as long as people are punished for it, then you don't actually care about reducing abortion, you just want to punish people for it.