Can't help but notice... if I didn't know who that was, I'd guess that badonka-donk belonged to a 25 year old.

When you arrived to vote, were you told you'd already voted?

Some dubious advice, in 2020, from Dear Prudence. (School custodian was stealing snacks meant for poor kids - and likely other things - and, BESIDES his being caught on camera, the teacher who had PAID for the snacks reported him, he got fired, and now her co-workers hate her, for some reason, and Prudie just assumed that the custodian must be terribly poor and deserved more sympathy! Geez.)

https://slate.com/human-interest/2020/12/ratted-out-custodian-stealing-food-coworkers-hate-me-dear-prudence-advice.html

From elsewhere:

Bell_flower:

"Prudie must have zero life experience and she's truly lost her mind.

"I've worked minimum wage jobs and I've worked a job where I made six figures and I have news for Prudie: theft knows no income level."

Cambion:

"My guess is this guy was already on thin ice from bad behavior at work and this may have been the last straw because termination for snack theft seems a little harsh."

Kman:

"In a lot of school systems, custodial staff get paid very well, and often they're union. With seniority they could earn more than many teachers. So stealing teachers' food for students is especially inexcusable.

"I think more than one person has been "Prudie" over the years. It's been obvious that the quality of the advice has gotten worse. This response to the teacher is one example. Her advice was lousy."

Freya:

"The administrative assistant is an ------- and a gossip. The other teachers who "hate" this teacher are also -------- and might be scared of the admin assistant. The teacher isn't responsible for the firing of the janitor, he was caught stealing by a camera and for all these gossipers know there could be cameras in numerous classrooms and locations. The new teacher didn't know about the camera.

"My guess is the new teacher is likely young, attractive and unencumbered. I would venture the administrative assistant is likely encumbered and not as attractive or young as the new teacher. She is very likely...in an unhappy marriage or is single and has probably been in her position long enough to think she is the most important employee in the school. These are much more likely the reasons the administrative assistant has started a smear campaign against this teacher. And to the gossip collective this situation is none of their business in the first place. And someone in management needs to put the administrative assistant in her place, pronto and put an end to this ridiculous gossip and smear campaign."

Twocents:

"most of the modern day undereducated ----- that graduate so called kawledge seem to have this mindset. I made the comment on a youtube where a well dressed teenage bimbo who got caught stealing a package off a porch. I just made the comment that she was probably a spoiled rich kid. Enter the ------- -------- creating 'oh she's a poooor disadvantaged little gurrrl.' ...morons. A lot of these thieves are this type. silver spoon fed bastards. but the kawledge kids have been taught they are all disadvanted noble victims."

Cfuter:

"You're absolutely right about this. Going to trial as a lawyer is a difficult task these days as the younger adult educated jurors are a bit warped now. Before, I actually could read people pretty easily just by looking at them and hearing them talk a bit. (and people can claim this is some kind of profiling but you know, we're not all that special after all, and we end up thinking a lot alike by the influence of our enviroments). Well, after awhile I was getting NO reading on these young adults. And, for sure, it was dangerous to use other typical 'stereotypes' becuz they were becoming the opposites. I honestly think these jurors would believe anything a supposed injuried person would say becuz "why would they lie", or "anything's possible" (there's jury instructions on 'guessing' and objections to "possibilities", so they are not suppose to go with "anything's possible").they are also supposed to not make a decision on feeling sorry for the person. "Sympathy stops at the door of this room" Of course, a plaintiff attorney works the sympathy angle all the time.

"Now, here's the kicker. My friend had a trial and he also added a "jury question" which will just ask straight out "is the defendant guilty of ______________ that caused plaintiff's injuries?" Answer from jury:NO

"Verdict:$ 300,000 in favor of plaintiff and against defendant.

"When asked later why they did this (remember it is 12 ppl making this dillweed decision) they said becuz they wanted to give plaintiff enough money "to pay his mortgage". WHAT?!?!?!? So, someone whose not guilty of anything should pay his mortgage? Then the plaintiff atty was talking in the hall to them saying defense lawyer is moving to strike verdict becuz of honest answer to the jury question. They all got mad, like we wouldn't have put that if they weren't gonna give the plaintiff his $300,000 of free money. In other words, they idolized the plaintiff becuz he SAID hurt, a victim, and they wanted to give him a present. Even if they think an insurance company can pay this, it is still all it's customers' monies put into that, and it is ripping them off also."

Answer from jury:NO

"Verdict:$ 300,000 in favor of plaintiff and against defendant.

This is hardly new, "Stick it to the Man" and make the evil corp pay ( even just insurance for plaintiff). They have infinite pockets is nothing new. It's why so many Drs and Hospitals settle out of court malpractice cases where nothing was done wrong.

That's the reason Streisand was snotty.