Interesting, if that’s what it means in this context it would be a big relief. But that isn’t what any of the reporting from either side is indicating.
Interesting, if that’s what it means in this context it would be a big relief. But that isn’t what any of the reporting from either side is indicating.
To be clear, I know what we’re told the amendment is meant to do. I’m concerned about an unwanted gap in the choice of language it created.
If the new wording was appended to the statement instead of replacing it, I would agree with you.
But the word “every” is a guaranteed inclusion (while not explicitly excluding anyone), while “only” is a guaranteed exclusion (while not explicitly including anyone).
For a dumb example, my chili recipe says “every type of bean may be used”, I can put black beans and pinto beans in it, and no one can tell me otherwise. But if I change it to “only beans may be used”, that is more open to further restrictions by later stipulations.
“Do not use pinto beans” is in direct contradiction with “every type of bean may be used”.
“Do not use pinto beans” is actually not a contradiction with “only beans may be used”.
What I’m seeing with the new language is that a new law saying something like “Students who continue to live with their parents are not permitted to participate in elections” is actually permissible and not in contradiction with the statement "Only a United States citizen age 18 or older who is a resident of an election district in this state is a qualified elector of that district.”
At least according to the constitution. Prior to Nov 5, it would be unconstitutional in WI to pass such a law, that’s no longer the case.
The way I read it, yes they did choose to restrict the vote to themselves, but at the same time they removed the guarantee of the vote to themselves.
The guarantee they enjoyed is no longer expressed in the constitution. Or am I missing something?
I heard Travi are fun guys.
I’m glad to hear you’re turning that page, and I hope he chooses to as well. Congrats, and eventually congrats to him.
First I want to apologize somehow I didn’t register “ex”, and parts of my comment therefore made no sense.
Do you feel physically unsafe to confront him? If not, I think you’re within your right to flat out say “you don’t live here anymore and you need to pack now and then leave”.
He’s your ex. Nobody owes (or is owed) any interpersonal relationship from anyone else, nor any favors or support.
You already know all this though.
If you do feel threatened by him, I am always skeptical about involving police, but you have the best angle for that judgement call, maybe you should get on it. I hope there’s space for you to give him a chance not to need that though. Involving the police only due to being timid I think would be an irresponsible play.
Do you have a trusting relationship with any mutual friends that can help you mediate and navigate this?
No matter what you do, it’s going to have to happen, I don’t see any sense in waiting. You need to be able to take care of yourself and move your life forward. There are only so many years you’re alive… Don’t give him another 2.
Nice. I tore out my weird rotten cabinets last spring…my plan is to try my hand at building custom cabinets here. I know it will probably cost me more in time and frustration and possibly even materials and tools than ordering some, but it’s something I want to try.
I do need to get better at meeting people in my locality.
Your dad loves you and wants you to do well… Honor that by letting him help you out.
Regarding your nephew, it sounds highly likely that your house is not his final stop in life. If you don’t have the capacity to take him in there’s no sense in letting his one homelessness become two homelessnesses. You can support him in other ways, maybe as a role model and a mentor, but if he needs a parent you might not be it. Parents grow into that role alongside their infants.
Do you have any interest in doing something other than Uber, or doing Uber just on the side?
Oh…
I answered you from my inbox rather than the thread, so I didn’t notice you weren’t the same person I was responding to. I figured Eliza was a character in their novel 🤦.
I guess now I wish I didn’t sound like a chat bot.
Did you do it?
That sounds delicious, was there a certain recipe you used?
That is really stressful and sad. Try to be there for her but also keep in mind what is and is not inside your (and her) sphere of influence. But you can’t give yourself away for her. I hope she pulls through soon.
Do you have someone you can practice interviewing with? This is just an idea, but maybe you and a friend can slowly warm up to a challenging interview by working on one bit at a time, taking it slow. And I mean slow. Like maybe this weekend you can do an “interview” for a maximum of 5 minutes, and only practice introducing yourself. Then do it again next weekend. If you get comfortable, make it 6 minutes the third week and start talking about your past work. Then 7 minutes and include what you’re seeking out of your future job. Then 8 minutes and have them start to ask challenging questions. Also, this might be horrible advice because I don’t know you and I also hate interviewing! I will say, when you interview, be your authentic self because if they hire you as your inauthentic self, it might not end up being a great fit.
I think I’m missing a puzzle piece on that one 🫠.
I guess I was more wondering what you like about the characters, and what makes you want to be around them. Can you learn things from them and apply them to your life? If you do, then you will be around them when you’re around yourself!
Crap!
Don’t forget to load in tons of water. Be patient with yourself today. Only do what you have to until you’re feeling better.
I hope tomorrow is a fresh start for you!
That’s so kind and awesome of you.
Is it looking like a long term situation?
I hope that when you’re feeling better you can use that time to find a way to get more support. But more than all, I hope you’re feeling better. Lean on your friends, they love you.
https://casetext.com/statute/wisconsin-statutes/elections/chapter-6-the-electors/subchapter-iv-voting-absentee/section-685-absent-elector-definition
In the context of these definitions, I think “qualified elector” just means a voter.