I can tell you EXACTLY -- from personal experience -- what could go wrong:

https://m-beebe.livejournal.com/3245.html

I've seen / read some stuff around the "great replacement" concept lately. It's apparently a significant, if not THE significant commonality amongst people who both 1) believe the election was fraudulent and 2) would consider violence in response. The root causes of the worldview seems to stem from personal hardships, and from the perception of others getting advantages they didn't receive themselves. Makes some degree of sense to me, as over the course of one's life it could feel like you were treated unfairly while others were given a leg up.

It doesn't strike me as the sort of thing that can be productively fought against on an individual level. That such a worldview requires far more than just a motivating incident, but more like a life of personal experience, I don't personally see how to successfully shift someone away from it. Too damned ingrained. Our best bet, in my view, is actually having a proper social safety net that lifts everyone up to a viable baseline from which to pursue their life / liberty / happiness.

Sounds like someone had a bad childhood experience. ⛱️

*promote for explaining his accident and sharing the details of his experience. Hats off to his father for being there to save his life.

They aren't afraid, they're sick of indulging idiotic morons at great cost to the state and more degradation to faith in elections here over bullshit accusations that have all been retracted by every person who made them besides Trump, and that have been thoroughly and repeatedly debunked by multiple actual forensic audits....looking for bamboo on ballots to prove the entire election was rigged, this time by China, because we all know bamboo=China and nothing else, now they just need to find it and boom, Trump’s president. So idiotic and delusional.


What's happening in Arizona now is not a forensic audit, it's a purely partisan witch hunt by stop the steal creators with zero election or auditing credentials using uneducated rabid Trumpsters who aren't auditing, they're searching everywhere for anything they can exaggerate into another baseless accusation that the election was stolen by Chavez.

You're spouting more nonsense. Trump was never up 8-1, and because in person votes were counted first they gave a false impression that Trump led at one point, this was purely by design and you know it.
There was never any question that in person voting would favor Trump, Biden's followers knew the virus wasn't a hoax and voted by mail. Again, you know this.
There was also no question that mail in voting would favor Biden, that's why so many republican led states changed their rules to force the mail in count to wait until in person votes were counted in full to start counting mail in ballots....to create that false perception for one point in time early in the count to give dishonest morons like you a false reason to ask these bullshit questions.
No counts happened without witnesses or off camera. It's another lie, Bob.
No counts happened in secret.
No votes were dumped.
No witnesses were removed besides those that ignored the law and became disruptive and those that weren't actual official witnesses but just people who wanted in. Windows were covered for that reason, republicans were taking photos of poll workers faces to attack them, the legitimate republican observers who weren't removed for cause were inside those windows, not blocked by them. You know this.

More long debunked and admitted bullshit lies Bob. What little of these accusations that weren't pure misrepresentations or lies all went to court and was all tossed by usually Republican judges because it wasn't true, there's zero evidence of these made up claims. None. Nada. Zip. Zilch. Nunca. Absolutely squat.
You know all of this, you dishonest liar, you made the same arguments at the time and every single accusation was debunked thoroughly...You just chose to ignore every explanation and exposure of the pure lies you were fed, and now pretend they weren't answered. You're a gullible moron who bought a con man's con....and you're so ridiculous you continue to believe it long after the perpetrators have admitted it was never true or an honest accusation, and only a gullible moron could have believed them when they said it was true.

Since we're asking questions....How come Trump won’t agree to stop raping little girls? How come he’s still is terrified of his taxes, or foreign business dealings, or foreign holdings and secret bank accounts being investigated?
I think we both know why.

Since we’re indulging questions about recounts, why aren’t democratic observers allowed to closely observe this recount? Why are only Trump cultists allowed to participate? Why are ballots being counted multiple times using different criteria using no discernible rules or safeguards, actually destroying or removing some ballots in the process? Why is this happening at all after multiple Republican led recounts in this county came to the exact same results already? Why in the fuck are taxpayers paying for the umpteenth recount, this time by partisan frauds with zero election experience besides creating the big lie in the first place?
Why has it taken three weeks to get through well under 300000 votes when they knew they had three weeks to finish? Why do they now say it will take them until September to do what takes every other recount under three weeks? Why do they plan to take this circus on a national tour, heading to Georgia next to try this nonsense again, planning to keep the big lie alive through 2022?
Answers please, unlike you I want to hear answers. Sadly, I know you don't have a single one.

So it's, The Joe Rogan "Experience"?

It's just his head is covering a number of letters in the title.

Didn't want to mistake it for "Excellence".

(the "Rumble in the Jungle" tee could easily just as been replaced with "Bungle in the Jungle"...It'd all right by me.)

Sort of like a lot of OJT, in my experience.

Seems to be more like jazz in how the musicians on occasion enjoy themselves more than the audience does. I like Radiohead btw.

Also just dont clap. The music is already made as simple as possible to be played at a concert and reducing it to a stomping rhyhm devalues the experience.

It's considered to be a very reliable and long lasting action. The fit and design keep the action "tight" through repeated use and reduces wear on mating surfaces. A larger-than-most extractor claw reduces the possibility of stuck rounds from breaking the claw or slipping out during extraction. A noticeably smoother action when chambering or extracting a round. I don't know that it contributes to the accuracy of the rifle, would say not in my experience, but opinions vary.

Try it. If she takes the kid and bolts, it's legal. Even if you manage to get a court order before she leaves state, chances are you won't get equal custody unless she's a documented certifiable nutjob. I say this because you live in a fault state which are invariably the same states backwards enough to automatically give women custody and force fathers to prove the mother is unstable and dangerous, and even then you'll share with her as primary without documented abuse.

So you've been together 20 years and share nothing. What a way to live.

Shared assets when not married aren't divided by the courts. If you want their help, gotta be married or sign an ownership contract with every purchase.

I can find no instance where I said my brother "won". He got custody, that's different from "winning". Be real. If you're going to quote me, please don't make up the quotes. Spending over $100000 on a two week marriage isn't winning by my definition.

That link is off topic. Find a study of similar jobs with similar hours worked and compare salaries, not a study that says average women work X ammount less so overall earning should be X amount less but instead it's X-1 less, so women are overpaid. That's not what their study showed, they're extrapolating there, and ignoring that the lower hours are usually not their choice, but their superiors orders to avoid paying overtime and full benefits to women. Also, they said Married men managers without kids also earn more for each hour at work: they earn $38.40 per hour while married women without kids earn only $28.70. That means that for each hour spent at their jobs, male married managers without kids earn about 34% more than women. 34% more for each hour. Did you read it? Mic drop.

See, more insulting dismissiveness...those women couldn't possibly be more competent or harder workers, they must be succeeding because of preferential treatment. In case you missed it, that's incredibly misogynistic.

What?! Prove it.....with data not an anecdote.

So....You wouldn't marry a crazy person only because of what divorce would cost. Yeah....right.

" I wouldn't even consider marrying anyone that has any adverse indicators" sounds like personal issues to me, they aren't good enough to marry....because of divorce....Again ignoring the prenup that dictates divorce splits.

Lol. Such utter bullshit. Maybe if they have an impairment and no lawyer, and can prove it in court, not because they say so.

Ashley Maddison.

Wedding rings are aphrodisiacs. It's why I don't wear one, hit on repeatedly wearing it, never once without it. My experience differs from your assumptions and statistics, same with my friends. I'm 5'9", so not tall cute and photogenic....but two out of three ain't bad.

Bob said it, you agreed with him and more.

An uncodified partnership is one of convenience or even imaginary. Nothing to stop either of you walking tomorrow if you meet your new soul mate. That's not a stable partnership. It may be exactly what you want. It seems you made up your mind that marriage=bad for men long ago, in which case you should not partake. I hope your path leads to at least half the happiness mine has.

Newt

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 offering various examples of marriages that contradict your blanket statements and then you go off spouting shit about subjective pitfalls some minority still experience after being married as if those outcomes are the only possible outcomes or even the norm.
What you two mean to say is DIVORCE is win win for the woman and lose lose for the man, still dead wrong but at least it's the point you two are trying to make.

Objectively, by the numbers, in terms of who benefits if the marriage ends, it's neither in no fault states.

It's asinine of you two to assume the man always has more assets, and more earning power. It's maybe true on average but it's trending away from that, and it's absolutely not in every instance.

My brother won. He got full custody and child support. No alimony for either. In Texas, a non no fault state where the woman is assumed to be the primary child raising parent.

Really, you still think most women don't work? Are you still living in the 1960's? My wife works, has since before we met in 92. I retired in early 2000's. If we divorced, I would get alimony.

I've known plenty of women who lost in marriage, not sure where you come up with that, and for over 1/2 the population, divorce is 50/50 split of marital assets, no winner.

It's only men in fault states who caused the dissolution of the marriage or don't fight for custody that get screwed as you describe. Most of us tossed out the system you describe decades ago. Most of us understand that while women still get paid less for the same work, that's no guarantee she makes less than her husband. As for "marrying up".... plenty of men do that too. Even if your significant other is a homemaker, they contribute enormously to the marriage, at one point they determined the jobs a homemaker does would cost over $80 K per year if you hired people.

With your opinion about women and marriage, I doubt you need to worry about the kind of woman who would marry you. The ones who accept the outdated misogynistic patriarchal mindset you show aren't the ones with much to offer, the desperate and insecure who will take whoever accepts them. They might resemble the women in your descriptions. Treat women better and you'll attract better women.

What makes you think you are some prize that only a near perfect woman would be acceptable to? It sure sounds like you're alone now. How is making the perfect the enemy of the great working for you?

Again, many states have changed the law to no fault, 50/50 splits with no prenup. Hard to be more fair. You complain about issues most Americans evolved out of.

Were the house and dog yours before the wedding? Were there any marital assets?

Most people in the U.S. live in no fault divorce states, meaning marital assets are split 50/50 no matter what without a prenup. Your experience is not the norm.

Even my parents, who remained best friends for a decade after divorcing, spent a mint on their amicable divorce in Texas.

I don't agree with you on this one, Bob.

My wife and I have been together since 1995. In that time, we've both dealt with issues in our lives that might have lead to the deaths of either one of us had we not been together. We've been through hell and kept each other on our feet when we felt like we couldn't walk another step. We've been there for each other in the absolute worst moments of our lives.

On the other side, my favorite memories always include her: the first time we saw the Eiffel Tower together; hiking together in Henry Coe State Park; nights in Mendocino and dinners at Brouwer's. A thousand thousand little things where she's brought happiness into my life. How much joy I experience just holding her hand!

Men lose everything? Have someone look at you when you feel like absolute human shit -- like you're the tiniest speck of worthlessness in the universe -- and say "I love you." Someone who doesn't just rescue you from yourself, but lifts you up into the pure light of happiness and joy, is the absolute affirmation of goodness in the human heart.

I say this with all honesty, with no malice and no sense of superiority, just one human being to another: if something happened to you that makes you feel the way you do, if someone hurt you that bad, then I wish it were within my power to lift that from your heart and soul. No one ever deserves to have love turned to hate, least of all you.