Your video, When you are finally comfortable in a relationship, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

He is being a bit of a dick to them, but Cops should be held to at least the standard of a middling-quality restaurant staff.

Cops are the ones who need to show respect. They don't like getting shot? Guess what? If you act politely and take each relationship as it comes rather than starting with an adversarial approach you don't anger people and it's that combination of anger and helplessness that leads to many cops getting shot.

So, Cops need retraining badly. If someone swears a blue streak at them it should be, "Yes sir. You have a good day too, sir. You're under arrest sir, please step this way and give me your hands so I can put these shiny bracelets on you."

If Cops REALLY were concerned about the dangers of the job they'd act like it instead of turning every single interaction with the public into a conflict that could end in a life or death situation.

I'm not sure what amazes me more...

Real people actually believe these crazy things or she seems to have reasonable relationships in spite of the crazy beliefs which seems to consume her time.

Such nonsense.
Biden did not approve, nor is he helping build this pipeline. He chose to not sanction one Swiss company helping build the last 90 miles, but is still sanctioning Russian companies involved, and is likely to block it's certification and insurance (by banning any insurer from using international or US banking) without guarantees the Ukrainian pipeline won't be abandoned.
He decided not making Germany go dark was a better plan, not alienating a long term ally and strategic partner that we are trying to repair our severely damaged relationship with.
He also decided putting Russia in bed with the Chinese, their other option for selling their gas, was not a smart move.
He is clear, he is against this pipeline and is still sanctioning many Russian companies involved in it's construction.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/05/18/politics/us-nord-stream-decision/index.html

Those grapes must be really sour today @bobknight33, they've got your yummy tears flowing like a firehose....keep em coming. So yummy, you guys.

Edit: I'm curious why America SHOULD hold veto power over international projects approved by all involved countries on other continents. Should we stop pipelines because Putin says so? He could stop hacking them and just tell us to quit. It seems ridiculous that we are telling Germany they can't have more natural gas, and telling Russia they can't sell it.
For clarification, I'm against it for ecological reasons, yes gas produces less CO2 than coal and oil, but produces way more methane which is >25 times more destructive per molecule in the short term. 11 billion could have built any number of wave/tidal generation facilities that run 24/7 without a new source of greenhouse gases.

Shut up about the money already. TLDR frankly. Having kids is the biggest investment and responsibility a pair makes. Promising to help take care of them is about the only reason marriage is really useful. Besides some legal technicalities like access to medical information in a crisis, taxes etc. Obviously every time you start only thinking about the money the relationship will go downhill fast.

Two solutions: a) have a business agreement instead of a marriage, or b) stop bitching about the money.

"What on earth are you talking about?"
-newt

The rules for property and income when one or both parties decide they no longer want to be in the relationship.




"not having a marriage means you almost certainly will pay for them for 18+ years but won't have many rights to be in their lives"
-newt

Incorrect. If you are on birth certificate, you have the same rights and obligations.
The only pitfalls are that :
- Child support is calculated from the income of the parent with less custody (rather than from the true cost of raising a child).
- Women almost always get custody if the choice is between two parents (like when they live far apart and child can only be at one or the other).



"and may lose your rights to any assets if she grabs first"
-newt

Negative. Co-parenting does not conflate property.

Shared assets when not married are divided either by percentage of purchase price contribution, or by percentage stated in a contract.




"My brother paid well over a hundred thousand dollars for his divorce in Texas"
-newt

"My brother won."
-newt

Won by your own definition. Hence I congratulate.




"You assume women take off time to raise the kids"
-newt

No assumptions. Although afaik they still do it more often.




"You start from a false position that men work both harder and better, but you have no data to back that up. "
-newt

Top result from a zero effort google of "men working hours vs women working hours"

https://towardsdatascience.com/is-the-difference-in-work-hours-the-real-reason-for-the-gender-wage-gap-interactive-infographic-6051dff3a041




"Um...so since you admit many women outearn men and the trend reinforces that"
-newt

I admit that women [as a group] under 35 out earn men under 35 because of preferential admittance (such as to higher education) and preferential hiring (such as to managerial positions).

I did not say that women earn more in the same position for the same hours worked. Young men are simply getting shut out of opportunities, so their incomes are lower. As by design.

It does however highlight how affirmative action is being poorly controlled.
The target statistic is based on overall population at all ages.
The adjustment is skewed to younger ages (school admission is typically for younger people).
So the system is trying to balance out incomes of older men by trimming up incomes of younger women, with no accounting for the effects on younger men or consequences of older men retiring.
The situation is doomed to overshoot with time.

A natural result is the popularity of people like Jordan Peterson, with messages like : "Young men, nobody will help you, stop waiting for someone to help you, stop lamenting your situation, you gotta pull yourself up by your boot straps. Start by cleaning your room, then go make something of yourself".






"Bullshit. You said you would immediately dismiss any woman who has...
"Long dating history? Too much risk[etc]" -scheherazade "
-newt

Straw man argument.

You know I stated that those marriageability criteria exist specifically due to risk of consequences of divorce.

I never stated that I have personal issues with those attributes.
I have dated women on that list. I didn't /marry/ them.

My only criteria for a relationship that I am happy being in is :
- We are mutually attracted
- We like each other
- We are nice to each other
I don't care what your religion is, your politics, your family status, whatever. It's all just noise to me.





" And again, prenuptial. Do you not know what they are?"
-newt

Prenups can be negated by these simple words :

"I did not understand what I was signing"
or
"My lawyer was not present".

Poof. Prenup thrown out.




"their husbands are more likely to break their vows first"
-newt

A woman to cheat needs a willing man (easy)
A man to cheat needs a willing woman (hard)

Times have changed. Online dating made chatting someone up in person and make an impression uncommon, and even considered creepy/unusual. Now people are picked on their online profile based on looks/height/social-media-game.

Dating apps and sites publish their statistics. Nowadays, around 20% of men match with around 80% of women.
Most men aren't having sex. Most men can't find a match to cheat with if they wanted to.

The tall cute photogenic guys are cleaning up.
The 20% of men that match the bulk of women are going through women like a mill. They will smash whatever bored housewife crosses their path.

A 2 second google result :
https://usustatesman.com/economics-of-dating-2-the-brutal-reality-of-dating-apps/




"Women don't like men that believe wholeheartedly that all women are just lessers, leeches"
-newt

Agreed.

Fortunately, I never say that about women.






" you can't grasp that a codified, delineated, agreed to partnership is almost always better, more fulfilling, and has many benefits cohabitation lacks"
-newt

False equivalence.

Cohabitation and Partnership are mutually independent.
Meaning both can exist at the same time.


-scheherazade

What on earth are you talking about?
Do you believe the government dictates your vows? What "rules"? You just cannot grasp the concept of no fault divorce or prenuptial, can you?

I guess you never planned on kids or shared assets. If you do, not having a marriage means you almost certainly will pay for them for 18+ years but won't have many rights to be in their lives, and may lose your rights to any assets if she grabs first. Uncle Sam is in your relationship, married or not....without a marriage contract, he makes ALL the rules and you have no say.

My brother paid well over a hundred thousand dollars for his divorce in Texas that in my state would have cost under $10K and you congratulate him? You are one strange person.

Again, your perception, not based in fact since the 60's. You assume women take off time to raise the kids and take care of parents and assume fathers don't take paternity leave or have obligations outside work. How 50's. You start from a false position that men work both harder and better, but you have no data to back that up. It certainly hasn't been my experience, I've seen women in the workplace working harder and longer for less pay, sacrificing just like their male counterparts if not more, putting off having families until it's too late while men can have kids long after normal retirement age, putting themselves in dangerous situations where those with power over them have opportunities to abuse that power and abuse those women in ways that rarely happen to men. These aren't exceptions, they're the norm.

Um...so since you admit many women outearn men and the trend reinforces that, meaning soon women in most catagories will out earn men and have more to lose, you admit you're wrong in your position now, right? Of course not, I expect you will still start from a point that hasn't been correct since the era and sexual revolution, early 70's at latest.

No, many of the studies I've seen compared people in the same exact positions in the same industries, even same companies, and women consistently get paid less for the exact same job and hours, and women rarely work less today, and just as often out work their male counterparts knowing they are often token hires not valued by the bosses so have less job security. If I recall correctly, 80% of job losses due to Covid were women, and the men are getting rehired faster. I think you are thinking of some studies from the 80's that made those assumptions and accusations. Comparing apples to apples, women still get shortchanged and as often as not overworked.

Bullshit. You said you would immediately dismiss any woman who has...
"Long dating history? Too much risk
Tends to have short relationships? Too much risk
Likes attention? Too much risk
Single mother (non-widow)? Too much risk
Any mental issues (depression, bipolar, narcissist, anxiety, etc)? Too much risk
Older (why you still single...)? Too much risk
Likes to party? Too much risk
Drinks? Too much risk"

And again, prenuptial. Do you not know what they are? Specify what you expect and agree, and you walk with exactly what you agreed to, no government rules or split involved. Geez. You speak as if you had never heard of them.

Most divorces may be initiated by the woman (if that's true, I expect it's just another assumption) because their husbands are more likely to break their vows first, but are not willing to pay to end the marriage, including penalties for breaking the marriage contract, and we're too dumb to get a prenuptial (or got one that spells out harsh penalties for cheating). Yes, I am assuming men cheat on their spouses more often than the reverse, because men are wired that way.

You are not more likely than not to face a divorce, because it's unlikely any woman meeting your criteria would give you a second thought, and you need to get married to get divorced.

I bet if you show your significant other this thread your 20 year relationship will be in big trouble, or at best enter a long dry dark spell. Women don't like men that believe wholeheartedly that all women are just lessers, leeches that take more than they deserve or even could give back and destroy you whenever they think it serves them. It's probably a good thing you aren't married.

Laws and family court aren't as you describe. Maybe when you enter the 21st century you'll recognize that. The rules of your marriage can be whatever you agree to, including the specifics of the split if it ends.

It's a sad thing you can't grasp that a codified, delineated, agreed to partnership is almost always better, more fulfilling, and has many benefits cohabitation lacks.....almost always unless one or both of you are total douchebags.

You are projecting.

Marriage takes the honesty away from a relationship.
It's no longer me and you.
It's me and you and uncle sam.
I want *consensual* relations where me and my partner set our rules, not some 3rd party, and not when the rules are stacked against me.

Congratulations to your brother. Lucky him.

I never said women don't work.

I said that men make more personal sacrifices for their work - a true statement about men as a group. Exceptions don't alter the rule.

Yes, women under 35 out earn men now. And as legacy earners retire, we will be facing a situation where women out earn men at any age. Preferential admittance and hiring tend to have that effect. It's by design.

And women don't get paid less for the same work - the studies saying that don't account for hours worked and don't provide any breakdown of job title. E.g. Women doctors get paid less - because the type of doctor they choose to be is more likely to be a pediatrician than a heart surgeon or anesthesiologist. But within each category of doctor, per hour worked, and per year experience, their income is essentially identical.

And you don't need to be a home maker to get paid in a divorce. Just make less than your partner.
Historically the divorce rewards scale higher for women given mirror situations.

Why would I want to deal with a 50/50 split when I brought 90% of the assets into the marriage? A 50/50 split would set me back decades. I just want to keep my stuff, I did pay for it after all, which cost me money, which cost me time, which cost me life.

And why should /anyone/ have their life supported by anyone else?
(*context=spouses. Not interested in some bad faith out of context argument bringing up children or retirees supported by taxes, etc)
Are you able bodied? Then get working.
Is it tough? Too bad.
It's harder for both people supporting themselves alone, you aren't special. You were in this situation before you got married, you can go back to it.

In any case, the homemaker job argument is senseless. There are benefits (time with kids), and there are pitfalls (hole in your resume). You make your choice, and you deal with the consequences.
You are paid by the home over your head and the money you're given while you are a home maker. What other job do you get to leave and still be paid. People act as if the working partner was just chilling this whole time. Where are the working partner's continuing post divorce benefits?


I have no mindset about women. More projection.
I couldn't care less if I marry a stripper with 2 kids - so long as in the event of a divorce we go our separate ways with ZERO obligations to one another.

I have a mindset about the dangers of divorce, and the fact that most marriages end in divorce, and most divorces are initiated by the female partner.
I am on average more likely than not to face a divorce.
Hence the risk reduction by being more 'picky'.


I am in a nearly 20 year happy relationship - unmarried.
She's the boss of the relationship. And I'm fine with that because I *consent* to it. I can always walk away if I decide otherwise.

So long as laws and family court are how they are, I won't even consider marriage.

-scheherazade

So weird seeing people disagree with you, and then go off spouting shit about subjective benefits while married.

Objectively, by the numbers, in terms of who benefits if the marriage ends, it's pure win for the woman and pure loss for the man.

It's practically a carrot dangling in front of them daring them to divorce.

eg.

Woman wins :
Woman = Here's 30% of his income for 20 years and 50% of assets, and you get to walk away with no obligations.
Man = You get to keep all your financial marriage obligations for the rest of your productive life while she gets her divorce.

Man wins :
Man = Here's $500 for 6 months. You are an able bodied person and you can take care of yourself after that.
Woman = Pay him $500 for 6 months, then you have your divorce.

... and women win practically all the time.



So considering that most women 'marry up (financially)', and most women don't sacrifice personal life for career (to the extent that men do)... they benefit financially from marriage.

Then the divorce is massively skewed for their benefit.

So in the end, they win in marriage, and win in divorce.

And since it's the men paying for those wins, the men are losing and losing.

So yeah, I think your description is totally on point.




Marriage is so screwed up that I wouldn't even consider marrying anyone that has any adverse indicators that suggest they are even slightly disloyal or temptable. Don't care how much I like them otherwise.

Long dating history? Too much risk
Tends to have short relationships? Too much risk
Likes attention? Too much risk
Single mother (non-widow)? Too much risk
Any mental issues (depression, bipolar, narcissist, anxiety, etc)? Too much risk
Older (why you still single...)? Too much risk
Likes to party? Too much risk
Drinks? Too much risk

When the consequence of failure is immediate total financial annihilation, and a heavy financial burden for the rest of your productive life, you better F'ing choose carefully.

Or just don't get married.

(Or change the law so a divorce is actually a divorce for both people. No obligations. Just everyone go their own way.)

-scheherazade

I feel like there is no abuse in that relationship at all, no, not at all.

Edit: some of us would prefer the president be up to speed on day one, not as a spectator but as a leader. I get that a leader who's prepared to lead is a new concept, but we need one desperately.

You seem to be under the impression that distribution nation wide doesn't need constant supervision and revision. You are sadly misinformed.
The preparation from the Whitehouse isn't complete, distribution of most vaccines requires deep freeze shipping to facilities with proper sub zero storage, and all the equipment for each shot, and a system in place to offer it to only the most at risk (and to deny the asshole who won't wait), personnel, facilities, policies, and equipment. None of that is completed.

Edit: oddly you seem to think a program set up by the Trump team will be flawless and perfectly functional from day one, unlike every other program they set up. When it turns out they planned to use ice cream trucks for delivery, but they aren't cold enough so 30 million doses spoil on the docks, Biden shouldn't be prepared? When it turns out the vaccine that needs sub zero refrigeration is the only one that really works, he shouldn't have a backup plan ready? Why would you assume it will function adequately totally hands off when nothing works that way, especially the biggest mass vaccine program ever?

If you think the federal government isn't going to be in charge, you're again misinformed badly. Operation warp speed, the distribution policy/agency, is in charge... it's a federal program. It will need constant supervision and retooling. Biden will be directly in charge there and should be informed and prepared, not shooting from the hip.

You left out the federal government and manufacturers and manufacturers of needles etc...The most important players in distribution.


Lol...You act like the white house isn't directly in charge of the distribution, they are.

Biden is just now being told the details of the plan, who's involved, and how it's supposed to work. As the leader of the plan, he should be fully informed before taking charge so he can fix whatever the moron who's sycophants designed it screwed up. Until he knows the plan and where and how we are setting it up and what stage we are at, he cannot possibly make his own plans to improve and facilitate it. Duh, that's the point here. You can't be that dense.

Two months is not enough time to be properly briefed on everything he needs to know, as explained in the 9/11 report.

The army, cia, and other agencies had plans for Osama in spring 2001, but Bush was all but unaware of any issues because he lost a few weeks of briefing time during the transition. This is a MAJOR factor in the success of the attack, as he didn't take any action on a problem he was unaware of.

Same goes here.

I know you disagree, you do little else. Fortunately, people with your mindset won't be running things for long, then we can make progress on this and a multitude of fronts Trump screwed up...is it that you even disagree he screwed up his pandemic response despite America being the worst hit country, and despite Covid not disappearing November 4 like he promised? Edit: do you not think it likely a trump response plan could be improved on?

There's so much to fix, like a looming depression, looming homeless armies about to be evicted, payback of the payroll tax holiday, new war with Iran, revision of our Russian policies, international relationships to mend, internal civil unrest, complete erosion of trust in law enforcement, 4 more years of completely ignoring infrastructure, treaties to rejoin, etc. He needs every second available to be as briefed on everything so he doesn't repeat Trump's ignorance of policy and law leading to more trumpian mistakes of ignorance and bravado, costing more lives.

In reality, there's no other choice since there's zero chance the current president will concede or cooperate with a smooth transition.

Once there's no chance remaining votes uncounted or contested could sway the election, a point we are well past, any challenges are academic and couldn't change results, so there's no reason to refuse to acknowledge that fact, especially when it's spurring right wing terrorists to act and dividing the nation, another point we past days ago. The obstinance is harmful to the nation and our institutions, like Trump is trying to burn the government down on his way out the door. No democrat has ever done this in similar circumstances. There's a theory that he's only doing it to bilk his followers out of more money towards his "legal defense fund" that really goes to pay off campaign debt and directly into his pockets with a small portion paying lawyers like Giuliani to lose cases. He's millions in debt there too, and it becomes his personal debt when he's out of office....with near a billion due next year, he needs every penny he can con them out of.

Normally the clear winner would be being brought up to speed on things like covid response and international relationships even if they weren't declared the official winner yet. (Edit: They would also have access to top secret intelligence all previous presidents (except Trump) use to vet their cabinet, being denied that information severely hampers Biden's ability to properly vet them, holding up his nominations. Thanks to Trump's disastrous covid response, Biden needs to be fully ready to change policies day one, it's life or death for 1000+ Americans every day he's delayed.) This time, with a petulant toddler throwing a tantrum for the next 2+ months, that might not help, because there's no telling what damage he might do before then. Biden is just making his own plans instead, preparing to start work day one no matter what dumpster fires Trump sets. That said, this obstinate denial of the results and sewing division, making up and repeating baseless charges to discredit the election (looking at you) have real world disastrous consequences and weakens the state of the union. It's clear the plan was to rely on the Trump appointed judges to rubber stamp the baseless claims and hand him a win. So far it hasn't worked, but it could. That's why we should care about the dozens of frivolous lawsuits, if his judges decide to be the lackeys he expects them to be, they could actually steal the election in court....but it would spark nationwide unrest if not insurgency.

If people would comply, don't shot at , don't run, don't fight. then maybe just maybe those who do would not be shot at.


99% black on black murder 1% cop on black murder. Fix the 99% and the 1% will fade away.

Cops are not the problem, bad people are.



In 2018, most (77.3 percent) of the 14,123 murder victims for whom supplemental data were received were male.


Of the murder victims for whom race was known, 53.3 percent were Black or African American, 43.8 percent were White, and 2.8 percent were of other races. Race was unknown for 233 victims

More than 49 percent (49.2) of all murders for were single victim/single offender situations.


When the race of the offender was known,
54.9 percent were Black or African American,
42.4 percent were White, and
2.7 percent were of other races. The race was unknown for 4,821 offenders

72% used guns


In 2018, 27.8 percent of homicide victims were killed by someone they knew other than family members (acquaintance, neighbor, friend, boyfriend, etc.),

12.8 percent were slain by family members, and
9.9 percent were killed by strangers.

The relationship between murder victims and offenders was unknown in 49.5 percent of murder and non negligent