Eatspancakes84

If men only date women below 30 (or 27 apparently??) for their youthful appearance, what incentive do those women have to take dating seriously? Those men won’t stay anyway. This is the main contradiction in incel rhetoric. If you don’t like to look at women past 30, women shouldn’t date you “seriously “ while in their 20s.

I never really get why those types of subsidies should go through the corporate tax. Want to subsidise domestic production? Provide a wage subsidy to companies that employ American workers. The corporate tax code should be as clean and simple as possible.

It is much worse. Business language is fluffy and lacks substance, but doesn’t go into tangents every two sentences.

I applaud you for reading that far down.

So much wrong with this post. First, the US does not have a VAT. Second, why would you ascribe an employees wages to the employer? Isn’t it the employees skills that earns them a wage? Third, what do you even mean with “undocumented “ migrants taking out of the system? They are undocumented and thus don’t have access to social security/medicaid etc.

That’s a very interesting poll because in the end HRC got 48 percent of the vote, or 2 percentage points more than in this poll, while DT got 46 percent, 11 percent more than in the poll. One explanation could be that undecided, Johnson and Stein voters changed their minds and (mostly) voted for Trump.

I don’t believe that, even in the face of a full coup, (gun) violence will solve any issues. There’s just no way that a majority of people support a violent militia taking over power of the government, no matter how illegitimate some think that government is.

As examples, look at the recent coup attempt in Turkey, or the Wagner uprising in Russia. In both cases the violent uprisings were used by the dictator to cement his power. Guns will not help you.

Why?? Every time someone uses political violence the would be dictator becomes more popular and he can make the state more repressive. Even right now, there will be idiot undecided voters that will change their vote to him because some idiot tried to kill him. There are really no upsides to attempting to remove tyrants with guns.

So a commission makes a mistake and this should lead to voter disenfranchisement? Why do you think that’s fine? Completely reasonable to request a small extension of 1 hour when the commission screws up (which inevitably means will happen sometimes independent of party affiliation).

Of course such committees take joint responsibility rather than pointing the finger at one person. These people are essentially volunteers and you will need people to volunteer in the future.

But then with how partisan judges are now, you would get completely random rulings. Better than what we have now I guess, but in theory you could have two landmark cases against, for example, Roe v Wade, and the SC might handle these challenges completely differently depending on composition.

The issue with (the most important parts of the) voting rights act was that it only applied to states with a history of racism. Expand it to cover all states and in theory the argument of the SC breaks down. Of course, they may well come up with a different line of reasoning, but a Democratic congress should at least try.

People don’t realize just how close presidential elections are. In CA during the last election 35 percent voted Trump. Clearly that’s a landslide win for Biden, but it still implies that even in the most liberal state in the US 6 million people voted for a facist.