Bwaaahahahaha! You fool. An over 35 year old clip of Biden being tough on crime is what you’ve got? Quit now. 😂

At that time Trump was publicly calling for the lynching death of 5 boys who were known to be innocent of all the charges against them, he still is. He had recently paid out millions in fines for racist redlining at his NY properties. Way to remind us of the public lynching supporting racist he is.
For a long time after this, Trump supported the democrats and these same drug policies.

Do you not know your party STILL wants MORE mandatory sentencing and MORE disparity between crack and cocaine….you actually think Don Jr shouldn’t ever be prosecuted for his blatant current full blown cocaine addiction despite it being obvious he was high as a kite as he did government business, but Hunter should get life for recovering from a private crack addiction 5 years ago (past the 3 year statute of limitations). 😂

Biden said jail for Hunter too…if he had been CAUGHT with the crack or if he had refused treatment in 2019…or if he’s convicted of a crime with a prison sentence.

He said all this about mandatory sentencing well over 30 years ago when the pitfalls of mandatory sentencing and underlying racism of considering crack different from cocaine weren’t as obvious.
Yes, his support of mandatory sentencing and different sentences for crack than for cocaine was misguided in hindsight. At the time the Regan CIA’s responsibility for flooding the inner cities with crack and causing the epidemic of crackheads wasn’t understood, but the damage it was doing was.

Dark Brandon has done not one thing to keep Hunter out of jail. Not a word of protest, no interference whatsoever. Rant and cry all you like, no one has presented a single word of evidence indicating he has. Not even the fake whistleblower actors the GOP paid to testify. 😂
You cannot say the same for Trumps or the Trump administration, which pardoned dozens of its own members for committing serious crimes against America and We The People for Trump and then were set free by decree.

Keep whining and crying Bobby boy. Every MAGA tear gives Dark Brandon more power, makes Trump weaker and sadder, and makes your friends see you as weak and someone to be cuckolded. Better keep an eye on your wife and kids, they think you’re a loser and a nutjob, and may be out the door already just like Melania.

Enjoy upcoming indictment 5, 6, and 7!
Enjoy the next 2 years of public trials with discovery exposing more disgusting, abusive, illegal subversion of the government by MAGA, more blatant lies they sold you, more avoidable deaths caused by divisive policies, and always more and worse debauchery. 😂 😂 😂

Fake news….your evidence? Retracted tweets!?!

Posted at your request, dumbshit. Do you think you just pulled a fast one or something? Did you really just ask me to post a video just so you could parrot “fake news” because you read something different on twitter? Yes … yes you did.

My evidence….His Facebook, twitter, and truth social accounts, blogs, likely others. His voice heard by 911 operators, police, emts, etc. Also the weapon and zip ties he brought to the home invasion. Did you not listen to the video? Was it not OAN so no fact could penetrate your anal shield to your ears?

Funny, it’s the police saying all these things. Not reporters, police spokesmen. Are you saying they make up stories about innocent people so regularly that they would do it in this public of a case? Evidence? Of course not. Just more baseless denial of reality.

Glass breaks in and out when you break it. It also breaks out during struggles inside, or when you rip a glass door open violently. Are you seriously suggesting this is staged, some false flag attack, and Pelosi’s husband is so committed to this lie he smashed his own skull in?
It’s clear from photos and videos that the vast majority of broken glass, and the wood/vinyl cross member are inside the house.

Um….now onto baseless silly gay slurs and accusations because you have no information, no way to contradict the FACT that he’s a MAGgot moron that believes every conspiracy theory you do and worships the same ochre ogre.

I never knew you were into eating men’s asses, but if you say so, you must be.
I never knew that’s what MEGA meant, no wonder you sissies changed it but wouldn’t explain!
Be careful, lots of diseases you can get from eating shit, but it’s clear that’s what you’re into, you’ve been doing it here for over a decade, you probably know all the pitfalls well by now. Then again, your mantra is


Edit: thinking about it, this is your last question until you can answer just one. You never can, you just ignore them every time.
Since I know you’re incapable of answering questions, that means you’re done asking me any. Until then, the answer to any question you pose is “Ashley Babbitt”….it should be “what charges came down for Clinton”, another claim you refused to back up. I haven’t forgotten many questions you dodged.

Such an idiotic, ignorant, and just dumb response. Teaching kids about options is the opposite of harm, especially when you teach them the pitfalls of their choices. Just like “just say no” was an utter failure and led to a massive drug epidemic, hiding the facts about homosexuality and transgender people can only lead to the same kind of abject failure. Keeping people ignorant, stupid, scared, and angry over things and people they don’t understand is what the right calls good, and it’s just dumb and evil. Your poor children.

Republicans directly killed >1 million Americans in 2020 and tried to double that by completely ignoring covid….actually said grandma and grandpa want to die to get pops back to work a few weeks earlier…., caused destruction costing $500000000 in one day based on pure obvious lies and nearly destroyed democracy (and are still trying hard to get rid of democracy), and every one is an actual street walking hooker (Bohbert), child molester (Trump, Gaetz, judge Roy), wannabe daughter fucker (Trump), transsexual hating transsexual (Greene), tries to buy their friend’s wives for sex (Trump), are so desperate they pay $130k to raw dog porn stars while their pregnant wife sits at home (Trump), vitriolic anti homosexual homosexual (every single anti homosexual Republican ever), best friend to Epstein (Trump), child trafficker (Gaetz), etc. there’s no end to the death, destruction, or debauchery of your party top to bottom….not one bit of it made up like 100% of your accusations against Democrats are.

Yes, you’ve said it before, and you were just as wrong then as you are now. If one party has a lock on death, destruction, and debauchery it’s absolutely 100% yours. You are such an ignorant fool of a tool, and a huge amazingly gullible sucker.

Now, how about that dead treasonous bitch Ashley Babbitt? Good riddance, eh?

"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

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.

I find the argument that a good apple shouldn't even be in the policing business (i.e. guilt by association) problematic. My argument would be: If I'm a good apple, I'd be all for reforming and fumigating out all the bad apples! Bad apples don't deserve to tarnish my good reputation nor my silence (i.e. as good as complicity), ESPECIALLY since there are -- ahem -- "only 0.01%" of them in the force! Isn't that the logical and moral sentiment?

My concern about focusing the debate on the ratio of "Good apples vs. bad apples" is that it's fraught with pitfalls. Without "big data" (because the System won't ever allows such transparency), that "ratio" is subjective. It's just an excuse for politicians and legislators to wiggle out doing anything.

The argument should be that a fair, just and functioning society should punish each and every bad apples to protect the good apples and its citizens. We shouldn't tolerate any bad apples, no matter the "ratio"... police depts & judges SHOULD be exemplary in their knowledge and adherent to the law, NOT the other way around. How else should a people trust its government?

Besides, if what they say is true -- that the "bad apples are few and far between" -- there shouldn't be much consequence to prosecute them all right? It must be worth reforming to salvage the far-to-damaged reputation right? It would be a moral booster for BOTH the police & community IMO.

Your video, Jack Black 1982 Atari Pitfall Commercial, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

This achievement has earned you your "Pop Star" Level 172 Badge!

Warren could be good. I'm not 100% sold that she can play the political game particularly well -- the "Pocahontas" thing should have been pretty gracefully manageable, but she kinda fumbled there a bit. Still, if the Democrat primary system can avoid being the train wreck it was leading up to 2016, I think she could go through that and prove that she's got what it takes. So, maybe.

I love Sanders, but he's divisive because of the "Socialist" thing, which is still quite a scary word for Cold War-era people. I think that is surmountable by calmly explaining exactly what his brand of Democratic Socialism means, but there's always going to be that easy Fox News narrative against him. So between that, age, and other factors, he's not a slam dunk.

Obama? I'm assuming you mean Michelle? Name recognition yes. Firsthand political experience, not so much. I don't think I've ever heard her say anything about wanting to get into politics directly.

I concur about Avenatti.

I hope the D's don't screw this up. All of these celebrity / political celebrity candidates seem risky and hit or miss to me. Might be better to go with a relative unknown -- somebody who's been through a hairy campaign or two (because we know Trump will attack and try to rattle) and knows how to walk the line between giving those attacks legitimacy by responding to them and seeming too milquetoasty by ignoring them. (Barack) Obama was quite good at having that calm outer demeanor while also having a quick wit and knowing when to get counter-jabs in. Seems like someone with those kinds of skills could really lure Trump into a bunch of pitfalls.

You mentioned SAT scores, no? They clearly DO benefit one group, rich whites.
You said "If one has a color blind computational method of creating a qualification score for candidates, how do we most fairly use that score to choose candidates." I pointed out that we don't have any such method, offered some of the reasons why the SAT is biased, and made suggestions of some things that must be taken into account to create one.

Edit: any method that ignores the exceptional efforts required in overcoming the pitfalls of being non white in America in order to be color blind, by definition, cannot be used fairly.

Yeah, that's honest, move to a profession where one single specific type of performance is the entire job, then claim it's possible to rate other jobs the same way. If the job can be boiled down to something as simple as how many times you can score a basket in one hour and NOTHING else matters, that works. There are very few professions like that, and educational opportunities should be nothing like that, especially when there's no unbiased test to determine intelligence, educational ability, and work ethic.

Side note: there have been some who suggested affirmative action in sports, requiring a certain number of white players on teams. Indeed, there were white leagues that fought tooth and nail to not let even the most talented non whites participate. Just sayin....

Race is considered, period. The argument is that being non white should be considered as a positive, an obstacle being overcome, rather than a negative, a biased excuse to deny opportunity.

Forcing intellectual honesty on Bob might not be good for him.

Why doesn't this lady state more clearly what she thinks needs to be done?
Because what she says makes sense overall.

Communities should help kids from poor families get educated and find jobs and housing.

Now get those communities organized, figure out how to achieve results, avoid obvious pitfalls, hire actual people to do the field work and get them funded. Or just, I don't know, talk about the problem in a nicely edited video.

No.
It shows us a pitfall of early voting. Most, the vast majority of votes, were cast before he assaulted the reporter.
He was always expected to win by a landslide both before and after he lost it on tape and blatantly lied about it assuming the Fox reporters would lie with him, but they didn't.
Because of early voting, last minute surprises like this barely matter....unless he gets the maximum sentence, which is appropriate. If ever there was someone the courts should use to set an example with, it's a violent elected official.

That's not to say he would have lost if early voting wasn't the norm there. Republicans have totally sacrificed their morality and rationality on the altar of partisanship. Like Trump said, they could murder people publicly in cold blood and not lose votes. This means they're fine electing people who display this kind of total lack of self control and poor decision making processes along with a proven willingness to bold faced lie to the public to represent us as long as the tie they wear is red.
It's far less about Democrats, the minority there, than it is about a total lack of civility, honesty, or basic self control in Republican leaders and their voters accepting that, even relishing it.

And btw, Democrats ARE Americans....since you're confused again.

I'm with @Chairman_woo . YES, Hillary was the "lesser of two evils" option.

Maher and the rest are upset because they think that "lesser of two evils" is an overly simplistic take on the actual degree to which either of them would have actually been evil. Fair enough, sorta. Piers Morgan is essentially just arguing semantics while the big picture just sails over everyone's heads.

Trump is a buffoon. A bull in a china shop. YES, he's doing blatantly evil/stupid things. Subtlety is not his forte. When he does bad things, we're going to find out about them.

Hillary is a vastly more savvy politician. Machiavellian, one might say. I think there's a very real argument to be made that her track record of (barely) weaseling out of very questionable actions and generally getting away with stuff that has sunk lots of other politicians suggests that it might be reasonable to be quite afraid of what Hillary has done / could do that we wouldn't find out about.


I'm not pleased with either one of them being the President. But honestly, I think that it will likely be easier to overcome and repair the damage done by "big dumb animal" Trump than it would have been to track down and discover all the cunning little traps, pitfalls, and closed-door deals that a President Hillary could have got done.

That's a convenient, but likely baseless claim. Do you have any peer reviewed studies to back it up?
It's the same thing that allows it in every religion. Immoral people assume leadership positions and instruct faithful to act atrociously. Christianity was just as inhumane, the phrase isn't "nobody expects the Muslim inquisition". It's misguided to get myopic about history in order to demonize one religion, they all fall into this pitfall, it's the nature of blind faith that it's easily abused.
A good question might be what is it about religion that it makes normal people act as if they have mental issues, and I think I just answered that.
Looking at the issue honestly, not biased against "them", is essential. It allows you to ask "did my culture find a way to stop this behavior, and if so, how." Since no culture seems 100% free from it, pointing fingers isn't helpful. Since it's true that they aren't the only ones to "be bad", how is it dishonest? What fact does it ignore?
The left is not the factually challenged side of the two. The left believes science, the right doesn't. Issue settled.

At the end of the day, both the unemployment rate (U-3) and the participation rate have pitfalls and you need to subjectively control for other factors to get a true picture of how employment relates to the economy. Naturally, this makes the topic ripe for politicians to pick and choose the statistics that suit their talking points.