wolfriverjoe

Pfffft. They know perfectly well that EVERY reproductive rights referendum that's gone to a vote has passed in favor of women's rights. Even Ohio and Kansas. Ohio tried REALLY hard to change the rules so that the level of majority the polls were showing wouldn't be enough. Didn't work.

That's fucking hilarious, coming from you. Try looking in the mirror when you say that.

One of his minions assaulted a worker who tried to stop them. The little Trumpkins also claimed the worker seemed to be suffering from a mental illness (really). The worker declined to press charges out of fear of retaliation from the MAGA Morons. The level of idiocy & disrespect are insane. The defense of it by the MAGA Morons is pretty awful too.

You mean 'go back to the way we used to do it'? You do realize that the primary process is pretty new, don't you? It used to be caucuses and conventions. Party bosses picking who they thought would win. Source:https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/a-brief-history-of-presidential-primaries

It was still part of the US. Along with Puerto, Guam, the US Virgin Islands and a few other places. Remember when Trumpty Dumpty said that he had 'spoken with the president of the Virgin Islands'? Yeah, he's THAT stupid. https://www.newsweek.com/trump-doesnt-know-hes-president-us-virgin-islands-684308

They are 'top men'.

It's actually a pretty good question. As the Professor pointed out, it was put in place 235 years ago, but a bunch of guys with good intentions but very little practical experience (nobody had any) in setting up a government "of, by and for the people". The six year, overlapping terms guarantee some continuity, some experience in place. While it's possible for some sort of 'populist revolt' to peacefully take over congress in one election (not really going to happen, but theoretically possible), it would take THREE major biennial elections to overturn the Senate. Also, the two houses (and the executive branch) represented 3 different interests. The House represents 'the people'. Originally direct elections, representation based on population. The Senate represents 'the states'. Originally elected by state legislature. Each state has equal representation. The President represents 'the country'. Indirectly elected by the people, then the electoral college. One person. While he (or potentially she) has quite a lot to do domestically, one of the big jobs is to be 'the face' of the country internationally (although the Senate has to ratify any treaties with other countries). All of it is part of the 'checks and balances' the founders tried to put in place. They really wanted to keep one person from taking over. It worked imperfectly, but pretty well, until the Rs decided to cheat.

Well, there were some interesting things said at the DNC last night. One of my favorites: Heather Cox Richardson, Aug 19th. https://www.facebook.com/heathercoxrichardson

Yeah, don't expect any answer. He LOVES to make broad, sweeping statements without EVER providing legitimate reasons.

That's one of those questions that has something of a 'bottomless' answer. How stupid are the MAGA morons? That stupid. Yes, they are believing it. They believe ANYTHING Trumpty Dumpty says.

Fun fact: Santos tried making money on the Cameo website, where people can get various celebrities to create personalized messages for a fee. Jimmy Kimmel started a bit called "Will Santos Say It", where his show paid the $400 for Santos to record some really stupid and silly stuff. Santos sued Kimmel. That suit was dismissed yesterday. https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4834844-santos-kimmel-lawsuit-dismissed/

Shouldn't he get a warning for ignoring the 'on topic' thing?

I'm not seeing that. I'm not seeing 'Maddd Skilzzzz' here, just a student asking a question that he, apparently, isn't close enough to his instructors to ask them. And going from a 265 to a 240 isn't a huge step down. Not when he's going from 0.77:1 to 0.85:1. So, why do you want to downsize? There are good reasons, and 'not so good' reasons. There are good ways to do it, and 'not so good ways'. Many times, students or novices come on here trying to find justification and support for downsizing for the wrong reasons and much, much faster than they should. So the 'default' answer is 'ask your instructors and experienced jumpers who know you and your skills'. You are clearly working with your instructors, not trying to 'go behind their backs'. And you're not trying to go too small too fast, as far as I can tell. But I don't know you. I don't know how well you fly. So any advice I give is VERY generic. And fairly conservative.

FIFY.

True. The actions of Jan 6th were pretty close. Even if he gave significant amounts of serious intelligence to Putler (not proven but suspected and rather likely, IMO) we aren't at war with Russia. So it wouldn't meet the legal standard for "treason".

You aren't wrong, but the Constitutional definition of treason includes 'enemies' and 'making war on the US'. I don't think what Donnie von Schitzenpants can be proven to have done includes those.

No. 'Age of consent' laws cover just that - consensual behavior. Stuff that is a choice. However, gender dysphoria is a psychological condition. Not treating it properly has all sorts of consequences. Suicide is just one of them. To allow a minor to begin to transition, under the supervision of a medical professional, is quite a bit different. You have to remember that this isn't something that people 'just do'. Even for adults, there's a process to ensure that the person is genuinely trans, not being 'just fashionable'. Denying those kids proper care isn't any different than pretending that bipolar, depression or schizophrenia aren't real in kids.

Well, I still really haven't figured out what I want to be 'when I grow up', but there were certain things that I knew at a fairly young age. I discovered that girls were soft, pretty and smelled nice in about 4th grade. This was never a 'decision', it was just what was (for me). There should be a thorough evaluation process (which is well established) before any medical treatment, but to pretend that: 1 - they don't know or understand how they feel 2 - they're doing it 'for attention' or 'because it's fashionable' Is really stupid. Funny how most of the people who maintain those attitudes are (by your own admission) either older and closed minded or blatant bigots. I'd bet you knew a LOT more trans people than that. They just kept it quiet.

Wow. More bigotry. As noted above, when a "6'2" 230 lbs dude" is in the women's room, it's usually a rapist. If a very large, masculine appearing trans woman is in the women's room, it's usually because she has to pee. Typically, however, trans women, especially the masculine looking ones, will either use the individual "family" restroom or just wait until they get home. Because the hysterical bigotry tends to get tiresome.

Not that I've ever seen. I've known of a few trans and/or gay folk that were 'bad actors' and got called out for their behavior, not for their sexual orientation. People get labeled 'a bigot' for.. Being a bigot. You know, like this:

What is a 'troon'? It's rarely all that difficult to recognize trans folks. At most, they're pretty androgynous. Although there are lots and lots of androgynous types out there too.

You think identifying as trans has less social pressures and stigma than being homosexual? Seriously?

Oh please. Those 'types' oppose ANYTHING makes that makes the lives of 'those people' better or easier.

It also puts the Russians in the position of having to decide to keep troops fighting in Ukraine, or trying to get them back to defend Russia. Ukraine has been losing ground slowly, mainly due to supply issues. The Russian puppets in the US Congress & Senate have done a pretty good job of denying Ukraine the munitions it needs. However, for Russia to pull it's troops back to Russia to try to kick Ukraine out, they'd have to actually be able to move them. And if they got them there, they'd need to be able to fight. Right now, the numbers of transport vehicles isn't very large. And the armor they'd need to fight Ukraine isn't either. There's a LOT of reports (and videos) of Russians using motorcycles and ATVs. Those usually don't fare very well, and the operators often die. If the Russians pull troops back to fight Ukraine in Russia, they'll have to abandon the territory they've been fighting for. And they'd have a hell of a time getting there. Ukraine has gotten pretty good at interdicting convoys. The pictures of the Russian convoy (or what's left of it) from Kursk are pretty grim (or great, depending on your viewpoint). I don't know how this is going to go, but I think Ukraine has gained a pretty big advantage with this 'invasion'. I'm not totally convinced that Russia won't withdraw from Ukraine, and will try to fight back with border guards, cops and FSB. Which won't go very well.

True. Can't say I entirely blame them. It was an outright act of war, possibly a violation of both international & US laws. The justification of it was pretty thin, with some of the excuses fabricated after it happened. The 'funny' part is that, given the demonstrated competence of the Secret Service during the recent attempt on Trump, if the Iranians had managed to get an assassin (or team) into the US without detection, they would quite possibly have succeeded.