Sadly, the felony eluding charge born out by the video and charged by the officer has already been dropped without explanation.
More preferential treatment for a criminaly abusive roid raging cop.

I really would agree….but only if that goes for everyone. No need to ever do a high speed chase or felony stop if you have the license and a photo of the driver….but that’s not how they operate.

Guaranteed if that wasn’t a cop, gun would be drawn, hands would go on, cuffs would go on, and in most cases feet would go into belly too for disrespecting their authority and trying to run. In no world would they be as calm and non confrontational with the public. I got all but the foot in the belly because a cop read my license plate wrong once, couldn’t tell a “5” from an “S”, then threatened me with unspecified retaliation if I complained…he said remember he had my address now if I cause him any trouble over this.

My point is the “good cop” gave the bad criminal cop treatment he never would give a citizen…if he did he would lose his job. It’s the preferential treatment I’m upset about. Criminal cops should be treated like the worst, most violent and vile criminal, because they are. Instead, they’re treated with kid gloves, given every benefit of a doubt and then some, and are given free vacation time on those few occasions they have anything at all happen for violating the law and the public trust. It’s an incredibly rare thing when the entire department doesn’t stand behind, and in front of shielding blatantly abusive criminal cops and attacking/harassing any accusers, which is chilling for any that might want to be “good cops”.

Why wouldn’t it be the right thing to do to let a violent aggressive and reckless speeder (in this case he was guilty of reckless evading, a felony) who is armed just scream at the cop and drive away? Because that’s shirking their duty to enforce the law. Have you ever heard of them doing any such thing (when it wasn’t one of their own)?

Since birth. Trump feels threatened constantly, every single day, by every person he meets. It’s obvious. (Insecurity is linked to mental health conditions such as narcissism, anxiety, paranoia, and addictive or dependent personalities….sound familiar?)

His personality is one of pure insecurity.

Seriously, when has Trump NOT felt threatened by anyone?

That’s why he demands total compliance, fawning, adulation, and 100% public agreement or you’re his next target.….he can’t stand it if anyone disagrees with him about anything, or doesn’t give him preferential treatment, or isn’t puckered enough to kiss his unwiped ass.

The fact that he expects everyone else to compromise for him, but can’t fathom the reverse also indicates clinical insecurity.

That’s why he insisted people only get to know what he claims about himself….no tax disclosures, no financial disclosures, no putting his holdings into a blind trust, no registering as an agent for multiple hostile foreign powers (like Russia, N Korea, Saudi Arabia, and China, all of which helped “fund his presidency” (by which I mean bribed his family to the tune of multiple billions in return for classified information, preferential treatment, and ignoring treaties (like our obligation by treaty to give a strong, even nuclear military response to aggressive expansion in Ukraine.))). He’s terrified people will hate him if they know him.

That’s how people who feel constantly threatened act, not strong, secure people, but weak insecure people act that way, buddy. That you guy. That you pick. A cowardly baby conman who is anti constitution, anti democracy, and anti American….just like his cultists.
Your cowardly silence since the election is just more evidence. Where’s your red tsunami I was pissing into? Where’s the bravado and certitude? Where’s the unearned vitriol and threats? All evaporated in a puff of reality.

Apparently their deal with federal prosecutors to plead guilty and admit they murdered Ahmaud Arbery as a hate crime, only killing him because of his skin color is being temporarily rejected by the judge.

Somehow federal prosecutors thought it was acceptable to offer them their choice of their preferred prisons, including the most cushy “club fed” prisons, for the first 30 years of their life sentences as reverse punishment for the hate crime enhancement…lying to the judge and claiming the family agreed to this gift to the murderers. When the family found out and strongly objected, the plea deal was rejected by the judge at the last second.

WTF is this outrageousness!? A federal prosecutor offered not only no extra time, but a massive gift of unheard of preferential treatment for 30 years specifically because these racists murdered a man over his skin color….and almost got away with it even on a highly public case like this one….and the right still denies systemic racism.

I’m not hopeful for any repercussions whatsoever for the prosecutor that tried to help these racist murderers out….but there should be. WTEverlovingF?

Oh shit! The congressional house oversight and reform committee has found that Trump committed massive bank frauds during his presidency, before, and after.

He hid his massive debts when bidding on the lease for the old post office and getting loans to buy it….preferential loans from foreign banks based on blatantly fraudulent claims about his net worth. That’s bank fraud.
He reported profits of $150 million (publicly he claimed more), but in reality had losses of $75 million. He reported one huge value for his properties on loan applications and another, exponentially smaller, likely sometimes negative value on tax forms. That’s bank and tax fraud.
He took in over $3.7 million from foreign governments for rooms that were rarely if ever occupied. That’s a flagrant violation of the Emoluments clause, Article I, Section 9, Clause 8 of the United States Constitution.

No charges filed by congress yet, but expect all this information and accompanying documentation to make it to the prosecutors in New York who ARE charging him with bank fraud, tax fraud, charity fraud, embezzlement, and who knows what else.

Not a good time to be a Trump.

Just a little PS: In a deposition that took place in August, Rudy Giuliani admitted that the "evidence" he based his voter fraud conspiracy on actually came from posts on Facebook. Believe it or not, this man used to be considered a brilliant legal mind, but now he's been reduced to filing lawsuits based off idiotic conspiracy theories he saw while scrolling through social media.…and you listened to him.
🤦‍♂️

Edit: ruh roe, sounds like there are multiple takes of Trump’s message to the rioters where he praised them but refused to tell them to stop the attack or leave the capitol. Part of the lengthy delay in his statement was because he had to re-record it repeatedly before they finally got him to tell his people to leave. Of course, seeing the takes where he just praised the attacking terrorist mob won’t change your mind, but they will inform future history about when America had a super villain as president.

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?"
-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

Bullshit. Maybe if it was some minor story it could be shunted to page two if there are enough paid adds and sites that pay for preferential treatment. A major revelation like that, with evidence not just crackheads claiming it,could never get off page one of a search. It’s not there because it’s utter bullshit made up by professional bullshit artists to excuse their cohorts from treason and murder....or perhaps because there are a dozen professional fact checks that all debunked it and the original claims have been retracted and taken down by their original posters. (That’s what politifact indicates)
They do not “hide” pages, and they aren’t the only game in town.

The one bit of evidence I can find on the subject is the photo of Trumpsters taking selfies with capitol police that some nut job said proves they are ANTIFA agents working with police to frame Trumpsters....too bad those people have actually been identified as long time trumptards. There was also a claim that facial ID software identified many as ANTIFA, but the company itself said it identified white supremacists and other far right extremists, no ANTIFA. That claim is gone because it was retracted when the truth came out.
Just admit you bought the lie and made it up. If that weren’t the case, you absolutely could have proven me wrong by now, instead you are taking this red herring “it’s been hidden by google” lie as far as you can in hopes you won’t get called out again for just making up bold faced lies, again.

It’s a pure bullshit lie. ANTIFA did not instigate the attempted Trump coup, Trumpsters did, and they planned it online, documented and verified, some for months. Every person asked said Trump directed them to go there and “stop the steal” by “fighting hard” and “not allowing Biden to be declared president” and “getting rid of representatives like Cheney and others that are weak”. Not one said some hipster said attack congress so I did. It’s a transparent, baseless, evidence free excuse for treason. No body is buying it, it’s just so stupid a lie to start with. You need an IQ below 75 to think it MIGHT be true.

No Bob. 10 that AREN'T RINOs, or at least 10 that this time put country over party leaders, a long time Republican slogan before Trump. Remember complaining Obama was a cult of personality? You never hear right wingers bring that up lately....wonder why?

This impeachment just shows how fucked in the head Republicans are that they don't think calling for them and their colleges to be murdered and a violent but failed coup warrants repercussion if Trump does it. Turnabout is fair play, Biden gets 400000 dead Americans and two months of fomenting insurrection at the expense of democracy before you get to say "boo". He and his family also have carte Blanche to make as many millions as they can during his tenure, including but not limited to no bid, no show contracts, preferential government loans and bailouts, and gifts from foreign powers. Thanks Trump.

Sounds to me like a commercial for single payer.

Not only does everyone save the 20% off the top insurance takes but that adds nothing but red tape and hoops to try to deny coverage, but we cut the red tape and split the hoops too. Prices would be fairly fixed (with some leeway between say San Francisco and Redding, seriously affluent vs lower middle class, high rent vs low rent) which would drastically lower costs with one group of 350 million to negotiate most favored nation pricing for everything like Trump promised by it didn't deliver, and insurance still available for preferential treatment or private practices like most single payer nations have.

I will agree, what ever the cause, quality of care and access to care are both on a downward spiral, and something needs to change. Fighting over covering everyone or making it a pay to play (read as pay to live) system where many go to drastic lengths to get care, be that crime, 4 jobs, or just a willingness to not pay is not solving the problem, it's creating it.

Then they plopped covid on all of it like epoxy in the lifters. Thanks Trump. ;-)

To be clear, 99% of Americans don't have any problems with socialism as long as they belong to the group getting the handouts.

Case and point, $12 billion in farm welfare to ease the "temporary" (yet to be seen) pain Trump's trade war is causing farmers (so much for free market economics). You won't find any Republican farmers turning that money down just because they hate socialism, but those same people denounce welfare for the un and under employed, the hungry, and the homeless as harmful and unAmerican.

As to affirmative action, keep in mind the specific case mentioned was about reversing sexual discrimination too, not just race and class. How, exactly, they think public institutions can achieve the diversity of genders and races many are required by law to achieve without looking at gender or race is beyond me.

It bears noting, the people claiming to hate socialism (but who love our socialist programs like the military) invariably don't think giving the disenfranchised and those denied opportunity preferential treatment is OK....until that includes them.

Interesting point.
Probably because you have much more diversity and social mobility in Canada, less segregation.
Affirmative action is a strange concept but American society seems to be finding it hard to find other ways to reverse deepening class and race segregation.
Strange that they have such a problem with socialism (essentially giving poor people money, education and health services), while giving minorities preferential treatment is OK.

As I said, I did not mean the only argument. I should have been more clear. At least I can admit it.

Ha!!! Muphry was spot on. Mea culpa.
"Donald J Trump is calling for a complete and total shutdown of Muslims coming to the United States....."
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=viDffWUjcBA

Close enough, or do I need to find a video of him saying the words "Muslim ban"? From what I'm reading, any videos or statements he made with those words have been removed from his websites, so may be hard to find.

As I've said before, not banning ALL Muslims (yet) does not hide the clear intent any better than the targeted banning of Israelis hid the Jewish ban for some other countries.
Trump publicly stated that Christians from the "banned" countries, including Syria, would essentially be exempt and given preferential treatment, another legal indicator the ban is targeted at Muslims, not nationalities. I'll look to see if I can find a link to that.
http://time.com/4652367/donald-trump-refugee-policy-christians/

Obama never halted immigration from them, he implemented stringent vetting, but didn't revoke any visas like Trump, and extreme vetting has been the norm for years, it's not some new Trump idea requiring a travel ban until he figures out what's happening.

Saying he (Jim) didn't make an argument, when his argument is actually one of those offered in court against the ban, defends Trump's position, therefore him, intentionally or not.