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.

Um...are those front facing exhaust valves? Masks with those defeat the entire purpose of wearing a mask.

Um, did she have big tiddies? If so, can you describe said tiddies? Please be as accurate and lurid as possible.

"Everybody wants to see bazooms!"
-- Surf Punks

Um.....so Trump is a Republican In Name Only, you know, that big red R before his name, but in every meaningful way he's his own party not a republican....but he's no RINO.
Yeah. You should start a youtube channel called "dumber every day"

Um, hello? 'scuse me, yeah, over here? Ok, I have a question:
So, like, there's this thing in a nuke called a nuke. It kinda blows up and shit and it's made out of stuff that you really don't want to breathe in when it's in micro-fine dust. Let's say that this "nuke" thing got hit by a "go-ey fast" thing and got a bit of an ouchie. What would actually happen to that plutonium core? I know it wouldn't blow up, but wouldn't the fallout be worse than an explosion?

Don't you remember, you said lying to the public is fine, even the right thing if the truth might hurt your cause. You even said directly that it's the smart thing to do under oath if the truth is harmful to you personally (of course, you said it about Trump). Now you have a problem? Um.......

No other Howard Stern guest ever talked about lusting after their teenage daughters, or violating young teenagers by forcing their way into their dressing rooms and leering at them undressing, or publicly catcalled 10 year olds on camera, or bragged about grabbing any random woman or girl by the pussy, or trying to buy sex from their friends wives while they were both married by buying them new furniture like the bitch Trump knows he is. What's your point? That incestuous pedophilia is OK if confessed to a shock jockey? Um....
Btw, it wasn't just on Howard Stern either, it was nearly everywhere he was interviewed....he couldn't even stop lusting after his daughters on the View.

Trump allowed Epstein access to maralago and his home for over a decade after Epstein pleaded guilty to pedophilia. He only banned him when Trump's employee's threatened to sue Trump for setting them up to be raped.

The last time they were together, except all those times they partied at Epstien's island, or other homes, or in public, or friends private orgies, or....well, I could go on all day. They never broke ties. Trump just had to ban him from Trump's properties for liability reasons.

Clinton and Epstein never met in person from all reports....unlike Trump who was his best friend for decades, including well after it became public knowledge Epstein was a serial pedophile rapist.

Daughter raping low T is floundering, Bobski. So is your disinformation campaign. Sad you can't come up with better.....but expected.

🤦‍♂️

Um...he asked YOU what YOU think.
I guess the answer is "I don't, and can't give you a single specific thing I liked and want more of, but here's a link to someone else's opinions I may or may not agree with".

🤦‍♂️

If there are only 8 Biden supporters 1) what are you so afraid of and 2) you understand that mathematically that means there are only 5 Trump supporters, right?

(Side note, I noticed you conceded the elderly, historically one of the largest republican voting blocks, but you don't understand that means you just admitted you've already lost. Oopsie.)

No cities and few elderly in Humboldt, we'll probably be 85% Biden. So much for your theory that discounts most Americans. Oh...by "inner city people" you mean black people, they all have low IQs now. So 50's clan of you.

Um....do you now believe IQ is a measure of republican control? Lol...then why hasn't yours improved? Fyi, it's not a measure of your school district either.

Um, you DO realize they track unemployment numbers, don't you?

It happened, it was halted, it's happening again. As long as lower education is so disparate between mostly white and mostly black schools, it's proper. Revamp the education system so all high school graduates have the same educational opportunities, I would support removing it again, but we are moving the opposite direction. No link required, I explained....but from the link you provided....
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/01/18/upshot/some-colleges-have-more-students-from-the-top-1-percent-than-the-bottom-60.html

Did you read the link you provided about the one place supporting a day of absence? Evergreen? Their "day of absence" was 100% voluntary, not enforceable and not enforced, contrary to your claim.

The reporter chased out wasn't chased out, he was confronted, and he had left the media area to interrupt the event by "interviewing" people who didn't want to be interviewed in the middle of the event. Trump's campaign has adopted this tactic and added violence, and often physically assaulted reporters even when they comply and stay in the media area. This particular event was akin to a reporter jumping on stage and insisting the speaker let him interview him then and there, disrupting the sanctioned event.

Um....this was a discussion of why people would vote for Trump, not what's happening in Canada. That said, you can't expect a university to give a platform to a person who would use it to degrade and denigrate the university and it's policies. I wouldn't expect a religious school to host atheistic pro-life lectures, and I wouldn't expect publicly funded universities to host anti inclusion lectures.

Duh...your alleged "whiteness" class was not defining whiteness as inherently negative, it was this....
CSRE 136: White Identity Politics (AFRICAAM 136B, ANTHRO 136B)
Pundits proclaim that the 2016 Presidential election marks the rise of white identity politics in the United States. Drawing from the field of whiteness studies and from contemporary writings that push whiteness studies in new directions, this upper-level seminar asks, does white identity politics exist? How is a concept like white identity to be understood in relation to white nationalism, white supremacy, white privilege, and whiteness? We will survey the field of whiteness studies, scholarship on the intersection of race, class, and geography, and writings on whiteness in the United States by contemporary public thinkers, to critically interrogate the terms used to describe whiteness and white identities. Students will consider the perils and possibilities of different political practices, including abolishing whiteness or coming to terms with white identity. What is the future of whiteness? n*Enrolled students will be contacted regarding the location of the course. And it was cancelled in 2016-17. Don't be dishonest, it will change my responses.

Not sure why you made up this falsely alleged definition of racism that appears nowhere in the definitions or class descriptions you linked, but you did. Calling bullshit....Again.

Critical Race Theory (7016): This course will consider one of the newest intellectual currents within American Legal Theory -- Critical Race Theory. Emerging during the 1980s, critical race scholars made many controversial claims about law and legal education -- among them that race and racial inequality suffused American law and society, that structural racial subordination remained endemic, and that both liberal and critical legal theories marginalized the voices of racial minorities. Course readings will be taken from both classic works of Critical Race Theory and newer interventions in the field, as well as scholarship criticizing or otherwise engaging with Critical Race Theory from outside or at the margins of the field. Meeting dates: The class will meet 7:15PM to 9:15PM on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday (January 7, 8, and 9), and the following Monday and Tuesday (January 13 and 14). Elements used in grading: Class Participation, Written Assignments.

Not anti white/pro minority/white=evil....but an examination of how laws as written and enforced may (or may not) be an example of racial injustice codified in law, whether by accident or intent. Again, you misrepresent the facts to pretend a class that examines the roll of race in law is a racist class teaching whites are bad and blacks are good.

If everyone BUT Asains do poorly because they aren't offered the same opportunities to excell, then yes, we need to step in to UPGRADE the opportunities of everyone else, that doesn't translate into downgrading the opportunities Asains are offered. Derp. This bullshit is the same racist trope the anti equality side has used for years, it's just bullshit. Asians aren't penalized for being competent at math nor for being Asian....neither were whites, which was V 1.0 of that same argument.

Identity politics are on both sides, played hard by the right too, to the detriment of society.

Affirmative action got national pushback from the racist right the day it was described as a plan, and constantly since.

It seems you may be confused by morons who would tell you racism is dead, reverse racism is out of control. When white women start being lynched by black mobs and blacks get a free pass for breaking the law, come back and try again. Until then, you sound like a bully whining about getting a time out for punching a smaller kid because they're a different race and proclaiming the whole system is unfair to white kids because you had a minor consequence forced on you.

Um....no, he isn't correct.
I'm sorry that you believe 2864974 fewer votes is a mandate by the people supporting your team. That is not what the word means. Clinton had the mandate from the people.

Because some deluded Trumpsters voted based on their belief that Trump would turn society back to the 50's based on exaggerated stories they hear about some liberal colleges doesn't make them right, that's not the job of a president, you need a dictatorial tyrant to force societal changes.

I've never even heard of most of your insane claims, like this racial "day of absence" bullshit, that's patently illegal in the U.S., so if it happened at all, it's not here.

Ok, widespread through academia, bullshit. My parents both worked for Stanford for decades, my sister is a teacher, none of what you claim happened there, most didn't happen in any schools in the U.S.. Some happened in Canada, most is bullshit right wing propaganda....like deplatforming, I'm guessing you're talking about some racist right wing agitators being denied a platform for their hate speech after massive protests at places like Berkeley, what you forget is they offered different venues and times for them when and where they could hold their events in safety and they refused, then lied and said they were just flatly denied a place to speak.

Wait, you're saying Trumptards are so delusional they claim Trump did nothing to solve these issues that enrage you and that you claim exist today, so people should vote for him again. So stupid.

You're suggesting voting to decimate America to save it from a few hundred delusional college students with no power. I hope you like the way the Chinese change things, they'll own America in a few years if we continue down this road.

Edit: People need to very seriously wake up and recognize how many of the quiet folks who openly detest Trump, are also going to silently still vote Republican because of their disgust and push back at the above ideals have been suckered, duped into believing this nonsense by liars who only want to increase their ignorance, listening to those without scruples but with agendas misrepresent the problems and never looking for themselves has created a national party incapable of thinking for themselves, incapable of the most basic investigation, incapable of even recognizing that they're being lied to constantly by their sources, even when those sources admit they lied about everything.

Um....yeah.....not really.
He filed late, using every possible delay tactic, then when he filed he paid $750, not the millions in estimated tax liability. His income tax WAS $750. I'm guessing the $5.2 million were those estimated taxes which he didn't pay in the end, or payroll taxes, or other taxes, but not income tax. Exactly what your quote says.
His payments wouldn't roll forwards, they would go to pay for the $75 million refund he improperly claimed for losses at Taj Mahal after he was thrown out. That's what he keep calling an audit, he's being sued to return the fraudulent tax refund he took. His total outstanding debt to the federal government is estimated at $100000000.

Edit: What I think you mean is the tax write off credits/capitol losses from his enormous losses carry over. That's different from him making any "payments".

No, they don't reveal NEW connections to Russia, they do however confirm some of the old connections he's denied.

The whole premise is to allow the public to understand who the man is, they did. He's a fraud who's debts likely outweigh his assets.

Oh you intellectually challenged, lying, ethic and moral free pedophilia supporter. That's absolutely not true.

The FBI and Homeland security say unambiguously that right wing extremists are the fastest growing and most dangerous terrorist organizations in America, not the left, and by far the most active. THEY are the ones starting fires, shooting police, and sending bombs and powders through the mail dozens of times, not lefties. Boogaloo boys alone eclipse all left wing destruction in deaths and damage, and they're only one of dozens.

Try saying something pro democrat at a Trump event, see how much they love free speech then, if you live. You're so infantile, exaggerating any left wing interuption to an attack on the constitution but right wing murders are nothing burgers. You must be morbidly obese eating three to four burgers a day.

Um....is Obama still president, or did he peacefully walk out in Jan 17? Did he ever once even threaten a coup like Trump does daily? Nope, not once.
So moronic, infantile, and self reflective Bob. It's blatant to everyone you're projecting hard.

In part, yes, but not the current class. The old thinking was just never allow fires. We know better now, but still suffer from 70 years of poor management.

Um....what? He is in charge of 57% of forests in California, the ones burning, and has not done a thing to "fix" them, and instead blames governors for his failures on Federal land the governor's don't control. This has nothing to do with cities, and Trump leads ALL American cities, moron. Not just Republican led cities, which are few and small.

Really? Prove it. I see Trump encouraging armed thugs to go out and kill, praising them when they do, and never denouncing the violence on the right, not even the terroristic bombers and arsonists. Conversely, I've seen every Democrat that gets air time denounce rioting, looting, arson, and violence from ANYONE.

He's supposed to be the leader, the man in charge....everything that happens is his fault. If he refuses responsibility, he refuses the ability to do anything about it and abdicated leadership.
This didn't happen under Obama, but the cities were democratic then....so clearly it's not Democratic leadership causing unrest, what has changed? Hmmmm....let me think.

Btw, most killings have been right wingers killing others including police, not liberals with a few exceptions at most.