Recent Comments by scheherazade subscribe to this feed

Viral How Much Did Your Divorce Cost

scheherazade says...

"What on earth are you talking about?"

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"

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"

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"

"My brother won."

Won by your own definition. Hence I congratulate.

"You assume women take off time to raise the kids"

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. "

Top result from a zero effort google of "men working hours vs women working hours"

" since you admit many women outearn men and the trend reinforces that"

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 "

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?"

Prenups can be negated by these simple words :

"I did not understand what I was signing"
"My lawyer was not present".

Poof. Prenup thrown out.

"their husbands are more likely to break their vows first"

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 :

"Women don't like men that believe wholeheartedly that all women are just lessers, leeches"


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"

False equivalence.

Cohabitation and Partnership are mutually independent.
Meaning both can exist at the same time.


newtboy said:

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. 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.

Viral How Much Did Your Divorce Cost

scheherazade says...

I never framed anything. I never mentioned anyone sucking or faulted anyone.

No definition of marriage was ever mentioned in my post.

My condolences.


oblio70 said:

So much failure at being a human being re-framed as “it’s your fault I suck”.

Thinking marriage is supposed to be a zero-sum game exposes your flawed intellect by defining it in terms of $, status, self-satisfaction...

No surprise you don’t “get it”.

I vent because I just became widowed 1 month ago and I was not even close to prepared to be ripped apart. If you expect to be whole as an individual in marriage, then you deserve to be thoroughly stomped by your former partner. Keep on whining!

Viral How Much Did Your Divorce Cost

scheherazade says...

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.


newtboy said:

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.

Viral How Much Did Your Divorce Cost

scheherazade says...

So weird seeing people disagree with you, and then go off spouting shit about subjective benefits while married.

Objectively, by the numbers, in terms of who benefits if the marriage ends, it's pure win for the woman and pure loss for the man.

It's practically a carrot dangling in front of them daring them to divorce.


Woman wins :
Woman = Here's 30% of his income for 20 years and 50% of assets, and you get to walk away with no obligations.
Man = You get to keep all your financial marriage obligations for the rest of your productive life while she gets her divorce.

Man wins :
Man = Here's $500 for 6 months. You are an able bodied person and you can take care of yourself after that.
Woman = Pay him $500 for 6 months, then you have your divorce.

... and women win practically all the time.

So considering that most women 'marry up (financially)', and most women don't sacrifice personal life for career (to the extent that men do)... they benefit financially from marriage.

Then the divorce is massively skewed for their benefit.

So in the end, they win in marriage, and win in divorce.

And since it's the men paying for those wins, the men are losing and losing.

So yeah, I think your description is totally on point.

Marriage is so screwed up that I wouldn't even consider marrying anyone that has any adverse indicators that suggest they are even slightly disloyal or temptable. Don't care how much I like them otherwise.

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

When the consequence of failure is immediate total financial annihilation, and a heavy financial burden for the rest of your productive life, you better F'ing choose carefully.

Or just don't get married.

(Or change the law so a divorce is actually a divorce for both people. No obligations. Just everyone go their own way.)


bobknight33 said:

Marriage is a win win for the woman.

Lose Lose for the man.

Woman have nothing to lose. Men lose everything.

Doc Rivers

scheherazade says...

Good video.

I would criticize it the same way I would criticize fox news - it's myopic (in regards to the reference videos of protests).

Republicans aren't spewing fear about /those/ protests. They are worried about /these/ protests :
(Btw, I dig this dude's style. He's trying to be funny, but he's got more authentic coverage than most mainstream stuff I've seen.)


Doc Rivers

scheherazade says...

Assault weapon bans. Effectively making illegal the most common rifle in the country (ar15) - even though it's statistically tiny in terms of gun killings.
(~450 people killed per year with all forms of rifle. Only some of that is ar15. That's the ~same amount of people as what die yearly from falling out of bed.)

Suppressor bans. Illegalizing an item that has been statistically as good as nonexistent in firearm crimes.

Banning DIY non-commercial firearms. Illegalizing firearms that have been statistically as good as nonexistent in firearm crimes.

Banning Private Sales (aka gunshow loophole). Effectively banning transfers between family and friends. Even though nearly all illegal arms are acquired by straw purchase at conventional stores by girlfriends.
And commercial sellers at gun shows have to do background checks anyways - this is much ado about old geezers trading collectible wild west / ww2 / antique shit.

Nearly all people are killed by pistols. Nobody is calling for a pistol ban. It makes things like an AWB look like a disingenuous effort - because you can pass all sorts of non-pistol-banning gun control laws and there will be no effect on gun death stats. Meaning you can just make more and more stuff illegal forever so long as you save what really matters (pistols) for last.

Between city, county, state, federal, existing gun laws are fat like an encyclopedia. Most people, unless they are 'gun folk', don't even realize the ways you can go to jail. Put a vertical grip in a pistol and posted it to instagram? Enjoy your time with the ATF. 10 years and $100k, assuming you're lax enough to not hire a lawyer to knock it down a bit. Literally volumes of ways to go to jail for shit you wouldn't even imagine would matter.

Many things people complain about aren't even a thing. Like complaining about buying guns online (you can't, not without an FFL involved), or crazy people buying guns (they can't, unless they've yet to be caught doing crazy shit).

Too many laws as it is. Erase a bunch first.


newtboy said:

What anti gun legislation do you mean? All I know of is closing a few loopholes that allow people legally banned from gun ownership to obtain them anyway without background checks. I disagree that that is anti gun legislation, and across the board background checks are something a vast majority think is proper.

There's plenty of misinformation on this topic floating about. Is there other actual legislation in the works, or just rumors of other legislation the left will enact....and only according to the right?

Naval Assault Suit Trials

scheherazade says...

Technically, assasult is movement in preparation for combat, not the combat itself. The name is appropriate. Although the lay person doesn't necessarily think of assault in that manner.


Tesla China - Shanghai Gigafactory production line

scheherazade says...

As a 'car guy', the biggest draw to a Tesla [for me] is the acceleration ... and since the model 3, handling is 'good nuff for a stock car'. A model 3 even won scca solo b street.

Eventually they can get their electronics switching fast nuff to maintain torque above 100 (or add a gear), and it will probably be a pretty good track car too.

I never cared for the self driving and whatever else. I just care about the basics. Tesla basics are pretty good.

The down side of tesla is that you can't fix it yourself. Their parts are coded to each other, and even if you replace a bad part with a good one, it won't work till the ECM is coded to it. Pretty much a repair monopoly.

You can replace some control boards/software to help with that, but Tesla detects it and punishes you with a quick charge lockout.

Don't really feel comfortable owning a car I am not allowed to fix.

For someone like me, Tesla has only 1 vulnerability : Other manufacturers can choose to make fast EVs, too.
That's all it would take [for someone like me] to change Tesla from 'the only game in town' to 'just one of many'.


Mark 38 Machine Gun Hits Small Boat Targets

scheherazade says...

Lot of worry about a 17 year old trying to fend off looters and arsonists. And seemingly no worry about the looters and arsonists. Strange times we live in.


TheFreak said:

Except, this time the armed public seems to be joining the tyrannical government as it turns away from the constitution.

So now any 17 year old with patriot fantasies and enough allowance money to buy a weapon becomes a constitutional scholar who can decide what's best for the country? I'd rather rely on our constitutional checks and balances. Even though current events are revealing flaws that can be exploited by a determined political faction, it's better than an angry, propagandized, armed mob.

RNC 2020 & Kenosha: Last Week Tonight with John Oliver (HBO)

scheherazade says...

I'm not OK with armed kids shooting up any neighborhood.

If you're presenting Rittenhouse as such a kid, that's a bad faith argument. There is no evidence that 'shooting up the neighborhood' was in any way his motivation when he positioned himself in that neighborhood.

All public information points to him being there to discourage destructive elements (such as armed looters) from taking action in that neighborhood.

The ostensibly guilty parties being a hard target doesn't transform innocent easy targets into valid targets.

Most damage is done to private businesses and of vehicles (with the odd unfortunate being beaten to a pulp on the street).
Minneapolis had homes and churches damaged. I can't speak to homes in other locations because I haven't read up on them.

Property wise:
Property takes money to acquire.
Money takes time to acquire.
Time requires life.

(Not all insurance covers 'angry mob')

If it takes you 3 months to work to purchase something, and someone destroys it, they are taking 3 months of working life away from you. Unless they can refund you that life time, that's life time lost forever.

Reality is : Property is only 'just property' when it's not your own property.
If you can't defend property with force, then people are simply free to show up and take everything you have, and you just have to accept it. I don't know anyone who is ok with that (I doubt you are ok with it happening to you, but maybe I'm wrong).

Generally, I empathize with innocent people. So I lean towards the property owners in these cases.


newtboy said:

So, you're ok with armed kids traveling to come shoot up your neighborhood? Ok. Interesting position, but I bet it would change the nanosecond a bullet enters your house.

They have attacked police stations in some cases, but now police deploy heavily at their stations knowing they're a target so it's harder to get close.

Have you seen homes looted? I haven't.

RNC 2020 & Kenosha: Last Week Tonight with John Oliver (HBO)

scheherazade says...

Perspectives on Rittenhouse seem to track perspectives on where one imagines one would be found in that situation.

Do you imagine being a looter or rioter?
Rittenhouse is bad.

Do you imagine being a resident of the street in question?
Rittenhouse is good.

The protest angle is moot, since Rittenhouse didn't go there to interact with protesters.

I personally wouldn't go attack property that doesn't belong to any of the people that ostensibly inspired the protest (the police officers responsible for the shooting). So I am more likely to imagine myself being a simple resident.

If it were the homes of the police officers being looted, then at least the looting would have some logical reason behind it.
I'm actually surprised, that after all these protests, and all the looting, and all the destruction, that nobody has bothered to actually target the people that are responsible. Brings into question sincerity.

Side note, I actually think that police were way in the wrong to shoot, or even bother, Jacob Blake. The man only stopped to break up a fight. Cops (responding to a call, ostensibly about that very fight) just showed up and went after him, without taking any time to assess what was going on. Absolutely reckless cowboy behavior with little regard for the state.


The Walk.

scheherazade says...

The constitution puts purse authority strictly in the hands of congress. Congress can pass any budget it pleases.
Reviewing any budget submitted by the president is a courtesy, not a requirement.

Actually, congress can pass laws that require (or forbid) the president to do things.

I am not discussing veto. I only mention it as one of the few presidential powers - and that I'm glad he has it, as it means less laws on average.

edit, According to this timeline, Hunter was working there since April 2014, in time for all the investigations.


newtboy said:

Lol. If you honestly think that, you need serious help.

The president submits his budget to congress, they rubber stamp it mostly, then send it back for presidential approval. The president controls it more than congress, start to finish, they only make changes the president must approve.
The president has enormous discretionary spending abilities too.
I guess you forgot what Ukraine was about...the president withholding congressionally approved funds. It works the other way too, where they spend funds not approved....constantly.

The president can make presidential orders, emergency declarations, reappropriation, and other ploys to get around congressional approval for spending. Remember that wall Mexico was paying did it eventually get funded, (hint, not through the congressionally approved budget. He reappropriated funds for active duty family housing)

Um...the "veto" we're discussing is actually technically called a "congressional override"'s when congress overrides a presidential veto, creating the law, not repealing it. Are you confused because I called it congress vetoing the president?

He withheld congressionally approved funds from an ally, costing them lives and loss of bargaining power in an attempt to blackmail their president into STARTING an investigation into a crime that clearly was impossible if you know the timeline. That harmed American interests both in the region and internationally, cost lives, and gave aid and comfort to our enemy, Russia...that covers treason pretty thoroughly. There was NEVER an investigation into Hunter Biden to drop. Fuck, you people are gullible and ignorant, and just refuse to check facts. The Burisma investigation was shelved long before Hunter worked for Burisma, and shelving investigations for bribes was what the prosecutor had been doing his entire tenure, and why EVERYONE wanted him gone besides Russia. There was no explanation because there was never any investigation. Duh.
Can you explain why you stopped doing something you never did in the first place? Why won't you explain why you stopped having sex with infants? Knowing why is a good thing.

Yeah, you probably repeat the nonsense about him getting what was it, $2 billion from China, or was it Trillion? He would have more money than Trump if either figure were true, but they're just not. Look into it.

Oh no, sir. They have repeatedly said, alone and as a group, that they won't publicly oppose him on anything significant or usually even anything minor because they fear he will not support them, will "primary" them, and without his cultists they stand zero chance of being reelected.

The Walk.

scheherazade says...

Here's the link.

Ford's first hand witnesses, who she says were in the room, said they remember nothing happening between Ford and Kavanaugh.


newtboy said:

For a 9 month employment, getting the start year and end year wrong by one year each, and not mentioning the true start date was late December, that's a pretty big lie to start with.

I've heard nothing of this alleged Larry King No recording, or any details that don't match her first iteration of this constantly morphing story? ...don't bother mentioning it or it just sounds like desperation.

Um....1) Ford had written contemporaneous notes about her attack.
2) Ford's FIRST HAND WITNESSES, not people she told a story years later, were mostly NOT HEARD, AND WEREN'T GOOD ENOUGH.

Yes, the double standard is quite conspicuous....but it's the Right's blatant double standard.

One likely attack with a credible professional accuser, multiple first hand witnesses unheard and contemporary evidence is ignored and denied even a full hearing, and one changing accusation of a totally unbelievable public attack in the halls of congress made by a non credible accuser with no witnesses, no evidence, and who never brought up her attack before even though her attacker has had constant elections for high office including VP twice...even when she was part of a group making other public accusations against the same man, her accusations are to be believed?!

You really have some nerve implying the double standard comes from the Left here. Such bullshit.

MAYBE she exaggerates?!? There's no MAYBE about it. Everything about her claims scream political lie from a proven liar. I can't fathom why anyone ever listened to her unbelievable story except out of desperation, needing so badly to have a Biden abuse story to counter Trump's decades long history of real abuses, both on tape and bragged about in multiple interviews like forcing his way into dressing rooms at his beauty pageants to ogle underage girls as they dress, trying hard to Fuck his friend's wives while he's married, forcibly finger banging any woman he finds attractive, all the way to multiple rape cases in court now.

The Walk.

scheherazade says...

Congress controls the purse strings. The president has no control over budget or taxation or whatever.

Veto is a good thing. We have too many laws (~10'000 roughly wherever you set foot), and we get more every year. Start repealing.

Correct. I will not be complaining about Biden, I will be complaining about congress. President can't sign a law that isn't handed to him by congress.

The treason accusations are subjective. It's not like he sold out defense secrets to an enemy state. He *may* have pressured Ukraine to divulge why the investigation into Hunter Biden was dropped without explanation.

Knowing why is a good thing. I also think it's fishy that a politically connected American who doesn't speak Ukrainian and is not 'an energy man' is sitting on the board of a foreign energy company in a country we helped commit a coup in and getting paid a few million+ 50k/month.

It's not that Republicans don't dare to cross him - they infight with him all the time. They also have no alternative to him right now that doesn't involve giving up power entirely.


newtboy said:

The president controls the purse strings among other powers you ignored. This one has wasted untold trillions, and maybe quadrupled the deficit.
That alone is one hell of a lot more than any mascot.

When is the last time Republicans and Democrats came together to have the votes to veto the president, because it was the last time. They couldn't agree to veto him on anything, Republicans wouldn't dare cross this president, even when he commits treason in public. In practice, this president controlled two branches of government for two years (now 1 1/2) and has both of his tiny hands on the scales of the third, filling the judiciary with "activist judges" that believe the president is above the least this president....I'm sure their tune will change when it's Biden.

I guess we won't hear a peep of complaint about what Biden gets done from you then, since he has no real power and is just a figurehead?

I agree, local government is where governing hits the ground, so get rid of any trumptards that weaseled their way into it in well as the higher offices. Any left will be "shallow state operatives" (they aren't deep), only interested in delaying and muddling any legislation meant to repair the nation.

The Walk.

scheherazade says...

Are you referring to the President?

President is the leader of the executive branch of government. The chief executive (I.e. Chief law enforcer).

He has direct command of the military, so you can call him the 'leader' of the military.

In practice, the President just has two powers : limited military command, and veto. Both of which can be legislatively overridden.

He's little more than a mascot, and in terms of national politics he's close to inconsequential. (Hence why TDS is much ado about nothing)

Your local country leadership does more to lead your life than the president.


harlequinn said:


FYI, he's the leader of all Americans.


Send this Article to a Friend

Separate multiple emails with a comma (,); limit 5 recipients

Your email has been sent successfully!

Manage this Video in Your Playlists

Beggar's Canyon