addressing the 🦜 🦜 comments;

how does a 'drug slogan' or being 'unthankfully deaf' solve anything? sanctimonious slobber.

-do they believe the GOP really gives a squirt? it's been long known, admitted, and used to get the base riled.
-did the orange menace use a condom when he was raw dogging a porn star?
-did gaetz when he ganged a 17 y.o.?

they have to know the answer. 💯 but will even admit to 51%?

it's like the joke of 'um' gow' wah'. Republican senator visits a foreign land. he gives a stirring speech and it's interpreted for the non-English speaking crowd. as he thunders his speech, rife w/conservative 'ideals', he stops at every 'pause for applause' section, in turn, the crowd erupts with "UM-GOW-WAH!" the senator leaves the stage, pleased that even the rabble of third-world-ers can appreciate the values of conservatism.

as he crosses to depart on a waiting helicopter, he has to walk through the natives' pastureland (the only space larger enough for the aircraft) the local ambassadors urge him to "be careful! don't step in the um' cow' wah'!

'live w/your decision' and 'advocating for murder'?

UM-GOW-WAH!

honestly. with big daddy and father allears, what's the point? gomers on a high horse, but they're riding it backward. both blind to what they are leaving on the trail.

Yes Bob, learn. I know, you hate the idea.

Like father like son and grandson, and I now see your family has multiple generations of barely passing 8th grade. Now the outrageous ignorance makes sense.

Dad was a failure, eh? Took the welcher's way out and left others to pay his bills like a welfare queen. That happens a lot when you're only as educated as Jethro Clampet but without the rich uncle. In case your confused, that's socialism your family is built on, buddy.

(Btw, I started working at 13, editing teacher's editions of math text books....but I didn't drop out, it was just a summer job)

Covfeffe. Let's look at the oranges of that.

You are such a ridiculous idiot. Biden's brain is exponentially better than yours. He speaks FAR more clearly and without flubs despite a diagnosed severe speech impediment than you can even write.

Compared to Trump's drug addled sub par dementia riddled brain, Biden is an Einstein in his prime. Trump couldn't even speak in complete sentences, much less drive a golf cart, Biden safely hot rods million dollar prototypes while making jokes that are actually funny, not just nasty ignorant personal attacks beneath children while sitting in the truck seat pretending to drive like a two year old on the ride in front of the grocery store.

Funny, when he speaks publicly you've been forced to admit he spoke well, intelligently, intelligibly, and was totally rational while Trump fumbled, complained, stumbled over simple words, stumbled over simple concepts, and wasn't honest... then within days forget what you said and revert back to "Trump smart, Biden has dementia".

What you cannot grasp is America saw them both non stop for 6 months then chose and, despite numerous Republican voter frauds, serious postal interference, and a purported billion dollar war chest, trump lost in a MASSIVE landslide in the most secure election ever according to Trump's election anti fraud department....and you decided to listen to his little tantrums instead of the millions of professionals his administration hired to safeguard the election, or the dozens of Republican judges who heard the "evidence" and tossed the cases, or every single republican governor, or his own people who eventually admitted there really was no fraud, it was all pure hyperbole, and you had to be a braying moron to believe it.

I say, based on what's been said and claimed, your brain is gone, was gone well over 5 years ago.

It had to be mush to support a clinically narcissistic repeatedly convicted con man, fraud, and self described rapist, incestuous father, tax cheat, mob tied, hard core long time certified racist, white nationalist, and pedophile as the best Republicans have to offer. Seeing what you idiots have elected since him, you may have been right, he might be YOUR best, he certainly is one of America's worst citizens.

So sad and delusional you are, little Bobby. Cry us some more delicious tears over your messaih's MASSIVE failures across the board....then send Broke Donny more money, he needs it for criminal defense attorneys.

LMFAHS!!!!!

Where you start greatly impacts where you end up.

One party wants to offer 4 more years of public education, and your party is dead set against it.

Yes, there are plenty of poor white people, but far more poor blacks per capita by race.

The fix is multi fold with many unknowns, but an equal justice system where black defendants aren't 10 times more likely to go to prison based on the same evidence and circumstances would be a great start. Many fathers are MIA because they're in prison for minor drug offences while white defendants of similar charges usually get probation.

Pay better attention, the issue now is people don't want those low paying jobs and companies can't fill them, not a lack of them.

Lack of roads and bridges and electricity and an educated work force kill jobs and GDP. There are more than enough infrastructure jobs to do to jot only keep the entire construction industry busy for decades, there are constantly more as infrastructure ages. They may be part time projects, they are full time permanent jobs.

Look at GDP last year, fool. Under those tax cuts we had the largest drop in GDP ever. Holy fuck! The total rise in GDP under Trump is barely 1% in 4 years, disastrous, not flourishing.

Your dad didn't go to prison for fitting the description.

Just like not all those white kids had all those head starts, not all black kids have none. They needed to work harder and overcome more in almost all cases to be successful, and had to defend their right to success repeatedly, just ask one. Sports superstars are under what, 2000 people, not all of which make millions. Exceptions often prove the rule.....Remember his question about going to school on a non athletic scholarship? Relegating people to one or two professions they are allowed to be successful in based on race is definitely racist.

Edit: Studies show professional whites make about 1/3 more than blacks and even more compared to Hispanics even as lawyers, and whites make up over 85% of lawyers and 60% of the population while blacks are about 5% of lawyers and over 18% of population.
https://www.abajournal.com/news/article/a_law_degree_provides_a_larger_earnings_boost_to_whites_than_minorities_res
https://www.mycase.com/blog/aba-2019-report-lawyer-demographics-earnings-tech-choices-and-more/
The head starts never end.

The people working minimum wage hated it enough that they aren't going back and businesses can't find low wage employees....so.....

Wow, we agree on your last point. Your party, and definitely Trump absolutely disagree 100%. Their agenda is to ensure that is never the case but instead (successfully) argue that affluenza should excuse even murder and should definitely shield them from any lesser charge.

Its not where you start in life its where you end up.

White privilege is a false statement. Its really middle class privilege. Its about education not skin color. There are plenty of poor whites as much as there are poor blacks.


Those in the back mostly without fathers.
All knowing Newt, What is the fix?

Economic hardship of those kids would be lesson if both parents were present.


Finally JOBS or lack of them are mostly due to government policies ( Fair trade / Free Trade) have decimated job opportunities for All Americans, especially low wage and entry jobs.


Make policies that bring jobs back to America. Passing bills that take tax dollars and make roads or such only create short term jobs.

Trump was right Lower business tax rates to compete on world stage stimulated economy and America started to flourish.

Sadly Biden/ Democrats want to move tax rate up which will slow down growth, if passed.


Learn???
My dad started working at 14, His dad never got passed 8th grade.
My dad went bankrupt, had a chronically ill wife ( died in early 40s due to it) and 4 kids.

He never left. He worked his ass off.

Also he broke his back in 3 places and crushed his right hand. He left the hospital to sign a house mortgage, knowing he might never work again.
With a healing back and crippled hand he drove 50 miles each way in a stick shift car for 3 years like this just to keep a roof over our heads.

I paid my own way through college, Same for my sister.

My dad says If you want it bad enough you will find a way.

So don't tell be about white privilege bull shit.

What about Black lawyers, Drs, and ball players?
They make way more coin than most white people. Do they have white privilege?

The person making minimum wage likes it enough to stay, else he will find a better paying job.


Should fines, penalties be smaller for poor people , yes.

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

These stats show the problem must be testosterone. Men.

If 45% of children are born to unwed mothers then there must be 45% of unwed fathers. Unless the father is married to a different woman of course. Then he will probably have a high alimony bill.

So yes, strong and independent.

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.

Watching the opening statements today, it seems there are far more than one example of former officials being tried for impeachment after leaving office, including one tried by the founding fathers themselves with unanimous consent, solidifying the notion that their intent was to allow trying former officials constitutionally even though they could not remove them since they were already out of office, but they could bar them from holding any office in the future.
When the people who wrote the constitution interpret it that way, I think that’s game over. No one knows their intent better than they did, and their actions of trying a senator, one who had already been removed from office, in an impeachment trial is unambiguous, more so when you read what they wrote about it.

We shall see if today’s senate cares more about constitutional obligations or blind loyalty to an individual. It’s a forgone conclusion that they won’t convict out of blind loyalty, but exposing the criminality they’re going to excuse still serves a purpose.

Edit: one purpose it serves is setting precedent....if this president can attempt to stop the peaceful (or not peaceful) transfer of power to the president elect by instructing a rabid armed violence prone crowd to “stop the steal” “you can’t let them certify Biden or your country is lost” “fight hard” “I’ll be there with you” without a single repercussion, so can the next one....and now the perpetrators know many of the weak points thanks to this disorganized coup attempt. Republicans should be terrified of that, enough to send a message by convicting. If they don’t, they invite every president that loses an election to attempt a January coup, precedent will protect them, so they would be obligated to try.

I remember watching them on B/W TV on the Ed Sullivan show. I was 9. I thought they were great because my father thought the "long" hair was ridiculous. As a kid I always had a "crew cut" haircut and hated it. When I broke free of parental leadership I let my hair grow and to this day I have long hair.

Thanks Beatles.

as Trump said, Ted Cruz's father is the Zodiac killer

Maybe Granddaddy wants validation from his son MORE than needing to be a granddad! He was like "You're not saying I'm a great father? What!? Does not compute!" LOL

What? Are you replying to another post? What do bad acts not excusing bad acts have to do with court packing? You are arguing that republican court packing isn't a bad act, so what are you talking about?

Republican court packing, the unprecedented denying dozens of a sitting presidents nominees a hearing despite the constitution stating they shall hold one in order to steal court seats was arguably unconstitutional but worked because they had the power and democrats had no recourse to remedy the crime since they didn't have the votes to force them to adhere to the constitution.

Adding seats is not unconstitutional nor is it unprecedented, the founding fathers did it themselves repeatedly. Not holding hearings for a nominee is unconstitutional, congress SHALL, not can or may.

No, they ignored a clear constitutional obligation knowing they couldn't be forced to follow it. Senate rules did not allow that, but a majority allowed the laws and rules to be ignored.

Lol. "Trashing them" by asking them to answer questions and accusations pertinent to the job is the same to you as denying a hearing in your opinion?!? I suppose you feel the same about republicans trashing democratic appointments, even outright denying them hearings required by the constitution....nominees who have NEVER had a problem clearly describing the rights codified in the constitution, which is the job they're nominated for...right...because certainly you aren't just a hypocrite.

🤦‍♂️

So, republicans played hardball by ignoring their constitutional obligation to hear nominees to steal seats, now you're whining that Democrats shouldn't play constitutionally allowed hard ball too by increasing the number of seats?!? Oh shit...you done fucked up.

I refer you to this page to see the list of Obama nominees trashed, refused, stalled, and or filibustered by Republicans....dozens of empty seats stolen by McConnell and handed to Trump to fill.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_judicial_appointment_controversies

Also, turnabout IS fair play. Bad acts by one group do excuse similar bad acts against them.

Edit: I see it this way....Republicans have set the bar for governing at "you can't stop us"...Democrats need at least 4 years in the same position to reverse the damage, probably 8 since they're so wishy washy and don't often play hardball....Biden is still talking about bipartisan committees to figure out how to get back to working civil governance, starting with balancing the supreme court...but what's needed is pure partisanship like Republicans display. Nasty, ruthless, unethical, even illegal partisanship at every turn on every issue.

A few judicial assassinations aren't off the table either. Anything goes is the rule of the day, thanks Trump.

My father used to play his songs when I was young, I still remember "Smut" and "Pollution".