He lost the Presidential election and thanks to the patriots and heroes both elected and civil servants this enemy of our republics plans to install his regime under his authority and total control was thwarted... if he would have won I 100% would have respected the result but he did not and will not again and thankfully no amount of confusing you and your fellow enemies of this union and what it stands for will get in the way... losers gonna lose buddy and lies are always exposed if you choose to keep believing its on you and if you get in the way of our families, communities and country you'll wind up in prison paying Trumps price for him.
...audio from Trump advisor, Steve Bannon, surfaced from October 31st, 2020, just a few days before the Presidential election.
Let's listen. [Begin Videotape]
STEVE BANNON: And what Trump's going to do is declare victory, right? He's going to declare victory, but that doesn't mean he's a winner. He's just gonna say he's a winner. The Democrats — more of our people vote early that count. Theirs vote in mail. And so they're going to have a natural disadvantage and Trump's going to take advantage — that's our strategy.
He's gonna declare himself a winner. So when you wake up Wednesday morning, it's going to be a firestorm. Also — also if Trump is — if Trump is losing by 10 or 11:00 at night, it's going to be even crazier. Because he's gonna sit right there and say they stole it. If Biden's wining, Trump is going to do some crazy shit.
He wouldn't even give the Democrats what he had already agreed to give them.
Matt Gaetz is the one who brought chaos. The "Freedom Caucus" that wants nothing other than cruelty and authoritarianism. And Kevin McCarthy himself, for letting himself be taken advantage of by them.
If you're a Republican who wants to see an end to chaos, it's trivially easy to vote for Hakeem Jeffries.
Because right-wingers are EXTREMELY, overwhelmingly, almost unanimously corrupt. They would never punish one of their own, no matter heinous, unethical, or repugnant the crime. They know that if they do not all stick together lock-step no matter what, their illegitimately stolen power will fall apart like used wet toiletpaper.
left wingers are any better? I got one for you, the state is neither, it has both parties in it and only two parties. it is corrupt, rub two brain cells to together to arrive at a conclusion outside of the left/right framework. I know it is hard but work on it.
like why are you even make this left right when most of us are the bottom?
You’ve never heard of social security, Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, housing opportunities, mental health services, food banks, soup kitchens, etc etc etc
Like Jesus Christ with that comment. How fucking stupid are conservatives? Go hit your head with a hammer and see if it helps. Seemingly it couldn’t hurt.
so practically speaking not much of safety net unless you are old, or single poor mother, which i support no doubt but that is [not] a safety net a vast majority of the population.
also, note mental health services, food banks, soup kitchens >>> federal government and states hardly provide these, they are provided by private sector...
even those have been steadily eroded under successive administration since 1980s, which share of taxes paid by working people have been increasing. so working person pays more taxes and gets no safety net for the most part.
You need to get educated instead of vomiting generic talking points, it would help this country if everyone did the same.
You know one of the parties keeps voting to take away the safety nets/keep us from getting them right? I’m all up for getting a third forth and even fifth party but its just not going to happen unless we can fix the current system and the gop is never going to let that happen.
Voting for either party is providing legitimacy to the regime. you are better off voting with your feet and money since that's the last place you still have some agency. political process is captured, voting third party is the only logical decision but none of them are really inspiring any confidence since they shill degeneracy.
If you only care about ideology and not actual people that are suffering every day, then yeah, giving up and letting other people solve the problem is the best thing you can do.
Just look at the amount of people living in poverty in the 40’s and early 50’s, then the democrats started the “war on poverty” and started these programs and 70 years later, the number of people living in poverty has continued to rise
Just look at the number of people living in poverty those stats aren’t hard to find.
More people are living in poverty in the US today than they were 70 years ago
You’d think after 20+ trillion dollars spent, the record on poverty would be much much better
Fact: there are double the number of people in the country after than there were before.
Fact: social status tends to have generational inertia.
Specious: "misleading in appearance, especially misleadingly attractive."
It's absolutely specious, because you're somehow suggesting those policies failed because the absolute number of individuals went up, disregarding the fact that had those policies not been in place, the number would've been double what it is.
And I said at best, because it's far more likely you're just trolling. But, giving you the benefit of the doubt, let's work through this.
If a family in poverty that's 2 people, has 3 children, that's now 5 people.
If this is the only family that exists, 100% of people are in poverty. If one of those children winds up getting out of poverty, you've gone from 2 people in poverty, to 4 people in poverty. However, you've gone from 100% poverty to 80% poverty.
You’re being spacious right now, trying to cover up the fact that there are demonstrably MORE suffering people than there has ever been.
You need to talk about real people, not statistics. What’s 20%? Who gives a shit. More suffering is more suffering, no matter what the percentage is.
The reason these programs were introduced was supposed to lead to less suffering. That’s been a lie
I mean, what is an acceptable number of people living in poverty to you and when are there too many? Is it a percentage? Or is it a real number of real people?
Again: because there's more PEOPLE than there has ever been. Yes, there is more suffering. I have no idea what you expect, the political climate is such that we can't just eradicate their suffering. But to pretend like these policies are a failure is going to cause more suffering. How do you not see that?
That 20% is the number that aren't suffering because of these policies. If you were to remove them, that 20% is the added suffering you are causing.
Is it perfect? Absolutely not.
Have they accomplished everything they set out to? Absolutely not.
Are they failing? Absolutely not.
I mean, what is an acceptable number of people living in poverty to you and when are there too many? Is it a percentage? Or is it a real number of real people?
See, in my world, percentages are real numbers of real people. I know, that's crazy. And I'm not going to pretend like there's some number that's acceptable, or enough, because that's not the point. The point is that the policies we're discussing have reduced the suffering.
You calling them a lie can only lead to more suffering. Hopefully you realize that some day.
You need to talk about real people, not statistics. What’s 20%? Who gives a shit. More suffering is more suffering, no matter what the percentage is.
We track the change in the number of people living in poverty to the total pop via these statistics. For example if last decade we had 20% of people living in poverty and this decade we have 10% of people living in poverty, that tells us relative to the total population there are less people living in poverty. In other words previously if we had randomly sampled 100 people we would have expected to find approx 20 living in poverty vs now we would expect to only find approx 10 if we randomly sample 100 people.
Bringing poverty down from one percentage to a smaller one as described above describes a success in the sense that poverty is more uncommon compared to the total population.
If P is the total number of people living in poverty, T is the total population and R is the ratio of people living in poverty to the total population then we have R=P/T, in other words P=TR.
Your issue is just that the number of people living in poverty P is too large. But if that’s your concern then we either need to decrease T (the total population) or decrease R (the ratio of people living in poverty to total population) or decrease both T and R.
You’re arguing that our efforts to decrease R aren’t working (or aren’t working well enough). So, then what should we do? If we do nothing, R remains fixed (or even increases) and P increases due to the increasing population T, which makes your issue worse. Decreasing the total population T seems tricky too, if that’s a viable solution to you, them how do you suppose we should accomplish it? As far as I can tell the only plausible solution is decreasing R, which is exactly what the person you were replying to was talking about?
Note: I’m also ignoring that the rates of change in T and R matter a lot. If you care to argue that we’re not decreasing R fast enough, then what would you suggest in order for us to decrease R faster?
Have you ever heard the term “lies, damned lies and statistics”?
When I say that 40 million people in the USA live in poverty, is your response going to be “well, that’s only 11%!” And feel good about yourself?
Or are you going to think “shit. That’s more than the entire population of Canada.” And then rethink on these social programs, their cost and their effectiveness?
It’s fairly clear, when you start digging into these numbers that the more money spent to fight poverty doesn’t correspond to less people living in poverty. And if throwing money at the problem doesn’t help, it’s probably pretty scary for you to try to sus out what the alternatives might be.
In all honesty, with the amount of dollars spent over the last 70 years (an entire generation of US citizenry), poverty should be absolutely eradicated.
The interesting question to get to here, is why hasn’t poverty been eradicated? $20 some odd trillion dollars have been spent.
If you spent $20 trillion on 11% of the population, or 40m people …. That’s what? $500,000 spent per person living in poverty?
How do these numbers work out? How do you spend $500k for every person living in poverty right now, spread over a generation? And how is poverty still a thing?
Have you ever heard the term “lies, damned lies and statistics”?
When I say that 40 million people in the USA live in poverty, is your response going to be “well, that’s only 11%!” And feel good about yourself?
Did you read my actual post? My point is about how actual accurate statistics work and the logical conclusions that must follow from them. Not about whatever particular statistics you’ve read and chosen to disagree with today. My points still hold regardless of whether we’re talking about statistics you agree with or not.
Or are you going to think “shit. That’s more than the entire population of Canada.” And then rethink on these social programs, their cost and their effectiveness?
If you read what I actually said you’ll notice part of what I was asking you was what is your suggestion for what to do in place of these programs you’re claiming are failures? You disliking a particular statistic doesn’t address that question.
It’s fairly clear, when you start digging into these numbers that the more money spent to fight poverty doesn’t correspond to less people living in poverty. And if throwing money at the problem doesn’t help, it’s probably pretty scary for you to try to sus out what the alternatives might be.
Yes, basic familiarity with ratios and the fact that the population is increasing also leads us to this conclusion i.e. basic elementary school math also tells us this. I addressed this in my previous post to you actually.
Why even bother to respond if you’re going to address none of my points, answer none of the questions I’ve asked you and instead whine and moan about statistics that are entirely irrelevant to my point? If you would read what I said you’ll notice that my points and questions don’t change whether the population is 10 people or 10 million people, or whether the ratio of people living in poverty to the total pop is 100% or 1%.
You are just wrong. Absolute numbers are not relevant when discussing trends because, guess what, the population of the whole world has increased in the last 70 years. Shocking news!
Povery rates are approximately half of what it was in 1958, when the Census bureau began tracking data. The rate bottomed out in 2019 but then went back up in 2020 (bet you can guess why), and is now trending down again.
Fascist gonna fascism. In the face of a right wing court overturning people's human rights. Talking about a culture war while the world burns due to something they refuse to even believe, and suddenly best of friends with Putin, while trump talks about getting a dictatorship in place, while CPAC runs a statement "we are all domestic terrorists".
You guys have to be the most ignorant, and least empathetic humans ever born.
You don’t at all question how unlikely it is that a community named ‘politics’ can have such a homogenous point of view as this one without some kind of bullshit being involved?
Every post is from a liberal-positive perspective, every comment even slightly right is downvoted to oblivion and shouted down immediately. This isn’t natural.
By the amount of downvotes my posts here receive, it would basically need to be that every single person online decided to downvote my comment.
You think that’s just natural? You think it’s because you’re sooooooooo right and I’m sooooooo wrong?
You think it’s odd that the overwhelming majority of folks support things that help others? Doesn’t say much about the community but definitely says a lot about you.
A little presumptive there, when you realize that everyone pretty much wants to helps others and the disagreements come in about what the right way to do that is.
Do you think conservatives are hatful little Devil’s just trying to hurt people? That’s what too much Twitter will do to you
I think you’re projecting a bit here, I don’t use Twitter. I live in a place where republicans are actively stripping social safety nets and rights. I get to see it first hand while reading comments about how it’s not happening and that it’s just Twitter drama 🤔
the disagreements come in about what the right way to do that is.
I mean, when one side says "these things that help people are failures because they don't help enough people" and the other side says "but they're helping people", that's not about the right way.
At no point have you offered an alternative, you're simply saying "the other side is wrong" while using specious arguments to back it up.
Do you think conservatives are hatful little Devil’s just trying to hurt people?
Calling objectively successful policies failures is either extremely ignorant or actively trying to hurt people.
The implication is that these things are actively hurting people by keeping them in poverty and creating new poverty situations.
I guess it also really depends on what you define ‘helping’ as. If all you’re looking for is to collect a small cheque and that’s ‘helping’, I guess these programs look great to you.
But for someone like me, who thinks helping people become self sufficient and get off of programs like welfare, the numbers don’t look like that’s what’s happening at all.
Someone collecting welfare is in a poverty state already, and most people who collect welfare do not actually have a great chance to ever get off of welfare.
So instead of helping people, it ends up doing the ex’s T opposite. Keeping people perpetually dependent on social welfare programs.
But for someone like me, who thinks helping people become self sufficient and get off of programs like welfare, the numbers don’t look like that’s what’s happening at all.
This has been proven not to actually help. You know what has? Giving cash to people. Just straight up giving them money. It's too bad conservatives refuse to believe that and insist on means testing everything and reducing benefits wherever possible.
There's another fun thing. One half of the people in this conversation actually listen to experts. The other half considers all experts suspect and presumes they're all politically motivated (to make them look bad, no doubt.)
And I like how you shared an article talking about how people in poverty have the highest marginal tax rate. Considering conservatives are constantly cutting tax rates, that's a delightful irony in your argument. Maybe if we quit giving ten times as much money to rich people and started using that money to support poor people, we could help them better.
Taxes are certainly an issue, but just giving people money is not the answer to poverty.
There's a lot of evidence that the solution to "people not having enough money to live" is, in fact, "giving people enough money to live".
It is the perpetual poverty machine keeping people impoverished
AKA Capitalism, sure. With how much you whine about leftists, I'd assume you were all for that. A pretty major plank of conservative platforms is "hurt people more efficiently".
It’s like I said, we both want to help people, we just disagree about what’s actually helpful.
You know that lottery winners are more likely to go broke too, right? Did you ever wonder why that might be?
I’ll give you a hint, giving people money doesn’t solve anyone’s inability to manage money. You can throw hundreds, thousands, even hundreds of thousands at people and if they don’t know how to manage their wealth, they’ll just be back asking for more money.
That’s the perpetuality of it, it’s documented and really unarguable.
People on welfare get trapped by welfare. It’s just the reality of the programs. They aren’t effective at doing what you want them to do.
You’re actually hurting more people but thinking that you’re helping. It doesn’t make you a bad person, you’re just misguided and lied to
Yep. By the experts. That do things like "research". Much better to listen to these other lies, that people that have a vested interest in the outcome want to tell me.
You know that lottery winners are more likely to go broke too, right? Did you ever wonder why that might be?
You are truly masterful at specious arguments. I wish some day I could attain your level of expertise at that. (And, for the record, that's specious with an e. Last time you tried to use it you said spacious, which doesn't make a lick of sense.)
I don't know how else to make you understand this. If you give enough money to survive to people in poverty, they stop being people in poverty. There's evidence of this all over the world, not just in the US. If people on welfare get "trapped by welfare", why does the poverty rate decline in every country that has welfare? Wouldn't it increase? How do you explain all the research that show things like UBI causes dramatic improvements in quality of life in many places?
Yes, giving a lifetime's worth of cash to someone that's been in poverty their whole life is a great way of completely destroying their life. I completely agree. It doesn't make sense to try and apply that to giving those same people a reasonable amount to survive on, though.
You’re actually hurting more people but thinking that you’re helping.
Again. Experts, research and reality all agree with me.
The fact that you believe lottery winners are more likely to go broke makes me think you don’t care much for reality at all, and put a lot more trust and energy into what makes you feel good and correct.
Centrist Democratic Politician: we want to exploit labor and centralize weath and power, but we want people to like us so we’ll do some incrementally good things things to keep folks satisfied
Centrist Republican Politician: we want to exploit labor and centralize weath and power, and fuck you. If you don’t support us rapist minorities are going to rape you to death, or you might have to see people who aren’t like you in public.
Centrist Democratic Politician: we want to exploit labor and centralize weath and power,
Then how come 100% of them voted against Convicted Sex Offender Treason Trump and the GOP's gigantic tax cuts for billionaires in 2017? Vague claims mean nothing. Only real things matter.
So first let’s be clear. I’m not "both sides"ing. My point is clearly that the overton window for centrists is so far right, that the parties would essentially meet in the center if the republican party hadn’t fully embraced the culture war insanity.
Voting against Trump (a member of the opposing party) is like, the least they could do. They should hardly get back pats for that.
Remember when Al Franken resigned because someone said they were bother by his actions decades ago? Remember how there were bipartisan investigations into Benghazi and Hillary emails? Or when Bill Clinton let an independent special prosecutor attempt to find evidence of corruption?
How about how Lindsey Graham said that he would never support confirming a supreme court justice before a presidential election and then did that? Or how many of Trump’s administration have went to jail?
This “both sides are just as bad” number doesn’t work when one side is activity lieing, curtailing freedoms and attempting literal coups, while the other side has obeyed due process and law the overwhelming majority of the time.
it is corrupt, rub two brain cells to together to arrive at a conclusion outside of the left/right framework.
Weird that 1/2 of this framework, the D group, always votes against gigantic tax cuts for the rich, and the R group always votes for the exact opposite. Both sides are the same opposite of each other.
like why are you even make this left right when most of us are the bottom?
Because if you are at the bottom, you would be an extreme fool to vote for the party that consistently gives gigantic tax cuts to billionaires.
Exactly! That alone is why it's very important to vote against the GOP and their gigantic tax cuts for billionaire elites.
What did you get from Democrats having both house and presidency,
Increased minimum corporate tax rate from 0% to 20%.
Increased subsidies for ACA
Tax Cuts for middle class. $2000 per person. Plus $200 per dependent per month.
Reduction in medicare drug costs
Reduction in student loans. Sabotaged by GOP Supreme Court.
Action on climate change.
...And Biden got all that stuff done with just one vote Dem majority in the senate, which included Manshin and Arizona lady who isn't even Dem anymore. If Dems had huge majorities, they could enable a flood of progress just like they did in the 1930's and 1960's.
The cope here is too strong today lol
The "both sides" nonsense is strong today lol. But still easily refuted by reality.
2020: Elected President, defeating Donald Trump in the Electoral College 306 to 232, with a popular vote margin of more than 7 million votes.
2021: Directed USA to rejoin Paris Climate Agreement.
2021: Halted the Keystone XL pipeline.
2021: Repealed Trump’s travel bans.
2021: Repealed Trump’s transgender military ban.
2021: Ordered an additional 200 million doses of COVID-19 vaccine.
2021: Pledged $4 billion to COVAX global vaccine alliance.
2021: Signed $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan into law. It includes:
Small business support. $1,400 per person checks. Increases to the Child Tax Credit, Earned-Income Tax Credit, and Child and Dependent Care Tax Credits. $300 extended unemployment insurance. Lower health insurance premiums for lower- and middle-income families enrolled in health insurance marketplaces.
2021: Canceled $1.5 billion in student debt for victims of for-profit school fraud.
2021: Ended the War in Afghanistan after 20 years.
2021: Negotiated and signed the bipartisan Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act into law. It includes:
$110 billion for roads, bridges, and major projects
$73 billion for power infrastructure
$66 billion for passenger and freight rail
$65 billion for broadband
$55 billion for clean drinking water
$50 billion for water resilience and Western water storage
$39 billion for public transit
$25 billion for airports
$21 billion for removal of pollution from water and soil
$17 billion for port infrastructure
$7.5 billion for electric vehicles
$7.5 billion for zero/low emission busses and ferries
$1 billion for the revitalization of communities
2021: U.S. gross domestic product grew at 5.7 percent for the year, the strongest economic growth in 37 years.
2021: Favorability of the United States improved sharply around the world.
2022: Approved a U.S. special forces mission that killed ISIS leader Ibrahim al-Hashimi al-Qurayshi.
2022: Nominated Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to become the first Black woman in history to sit on the Supreme Court of the United States.
2022: Signed the Reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA).
2022: Led a massive international response to Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine.
2022: Signed the first major gun safety legislation passed by Congress in nearly 30 years.
2022: Ordered the drone strike that killed Ayman al-Zawahiri, mastermind of the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States and the world’s most wanted terrorist.
2022: Unemployment falls to 3.5 percent, matching the lowest rate in 50 years.
2022: Signed the CHIPS and Science Act into law, providing $52.7 billion for chip manufacturing and research and $170 billion for scientific research, innovation, and space exploration.
2022: Signed ratification documents approving NATO membership for Finland and Sweden, strengthening the NATO alliance and reinforcing democracy in the face of Russian brutality against Ukraine.
2022: Signed PACT Act strengthening health care and benefits for America’s veterans and their survivors.
2022: Signed the Inflation Reduction Act into law. It includes $369 billion to provide energy security, fight climate change, and create clean domestic manufacturing jobs. It also lowers healthcare costs by extending Affordable Care Act subsidies for 3 years, expanding vaccine coverage, and reforming prescription drug pricing. The act also raises revenue by establishing a 15% corporate minimum tax on companies with at least $1 billion in profits. Through revenue and savings, the Inflation Reduction Act reduces the deficit by a net $305 billion dollars.
2022: Less than 2 years into his presidency, Biden is already one of the most legislatively successful presidents of the modern era.
2022: Thanks to a Biden executive order, hearing aids become available over the counter without a prescription, lowering costs by up to $3,000 per pair for 30 million Americans.
2022: Led the Democratic Party to the best midterm election performance of either party since 1934.
2022: Signed legislation to avoid a potentially catastrophic rail strike after brokering a deal approved by 8 of 12 railway unions, raising workers’ wages by 24%, increasing health care benefits, and preserving two-person crews.
2022: Approved a deal to bring WNBA star Brittney Griner home after 10 months of wrongful detention in Russia.
2022: Signed the Respect for Marriage Act into law, ensuring federal recognition of marriage regardless of sex, race, ethnicity, or national origin, ten years after publicly declaring his support of same-sex marriage on Meet the Press.
2023: Forced congressional Republicans to swear off Medicare and Social Security cuts on live television while delivering his State of the Union Address.
2023: Took a 10-hour train trip, each way, through war-torn Ukraine to meet President Volodymyr Zelenskyy in Kyiv and reconfirm U.S. support for Ukraine’s fight against Russian dictator Vladimir Putin’s criminal aggression.
2023: Signed an executive order greatly expanding access to long-term care and child care.
2023: Mounted a major diplomatic effort that got Turkey to agree to admit Sweden into NATO, making that alliance stronger than it has ever been.
2023: Announced $39 billion in student debt relief for 804,000 borrowers.
I mean, 5% said Democrats and 10% said Biden were responsible.
I wonder if there were coherent arguments for that position, other than either the "they are at fault for everything!" arguments, or "they didn't push HARD enough!"
In this timeline somehow heavily conservative states grow the more they attack progressive platforms and not just with conservatives but with very liberal people too. So anything could happen, there's a gay Republican organization and they support a party that wants to kill them. Nothing makes sense.
This same article was posted on another magazine, so I'm reposting my comments from that thread here in response to comments left by @Retix@cassetti and @amberprince
Please know that the Venn diagram between me and DeSantis is razor thin, and the only thing (I think) we have in common is that we are carbon-based life forms. I also see some common sense items in what was described in the article, but I have my larger misgivings, which I'll explain much further below.
Why alimony is important and necessary
Here's why alimony is important for the rest of an ex-spouse's life. I want to be clear that I believe a spouse of any gender should have access to alimony, but the most traditional situation is a woman who forfeited having a career outside of the home to be a mother and homemaker, while a man furthered his career for - let's just say - a long enough time that once the divorce occurs, it's too late for the woman to reasonably start a career and expect to rise to the same level the man is at in his career at time of divorce. Let's use an arbitrary number like 20 years for my example. Let's assume these two people met and married no later than 25 years old for the sake of my example, as well. Alimony is not relevant for couples married for very short periods (less than 5 years), nor is it relevant if both spouses worked full-time jobs.
So in my example here, both people are about 40-45 years old. Retirement age is going to vary by industry, but roughly let's say 65 years old. By this point, the man has paid into either a 401k, pension, a Roth IRA, or some other retirement financial tool for 20+ years as well as a federal retirement program, usually Social Security. One of the stipulations of paying into these financial tools is that you have to have a job in which you're submitting W-2/I-9 documentation. A stipulation of receiving the money you paid into Social Security in specific, is that you have to make enough dollar-amount SS contributions that amount to a little more than 10 years of working a W-2/I-9 kind of job/career. And to boot, the amount of SS you get paid after retiring is based on your highest earning 35 years of your lifetime of work.
So when a woman has skipped college, not worked outside the home, hasn't gained job skills, etc. etc. for 20 years, she is now coming back to the job market with zero tools and equipment to get into a career (though obviously could enter the workforce through a paycheck-to-paycheck poverty wages kind of job), has no Social Security credits for a retirement that is just about as far away for her as it is for her ex-spouse, and has no savings or other financial resources because she was a homemaker and didn't earn money as her compensation for her labor. She is also now going into new situations at a time in life in which we have all lost neuroplasticity and may find it difficult to learn new things or go back to college. And we should also be realistic about the subtle/legal ways in which older people are discriminated against in the hiring process.
This is why alimony exists. It helps to make up for the opportunity-cost in an adult's older career years and for lack of retirement security. When the members of the First Wives Association and other ex-spouses seek lifetime alimony, it's because they either will never have access to their own Social Security benefits, or will have access to extremely scant benefits whenever they do retire.
Here are my concerns about this bill, regardless of some common sense aspects of it
After Roe v Wade was overturned, there were a series of news articles this past year about what the next play for conservatives would be to further erode women's right, now that a woman's autonomy over her own reproductive choices was no longer enshrined. A lot of writers started pointing to quieter movements in states like Texas and Florida to abolish "no fault" divorces.
Remember a few months ago when Steven Crowder was pissing and moaning about how his wife initiated their divorce and the thing that seemed to really miff him the most was how "apparently in the state of Texas, she can do that"? The issue as far as he is articulating it isn't necessarily the stress of a divorce but that he couldn't exert control over the situation or over her - she had the legal right to dissolve their marriage all of her own volition. That is unacceptable to men who will always want control over women. The fact that conservatives want to come after this legal autonomy after already "winning" the war on women's bodily autonomy shouldn't be glossed over.
No-fault divorce is an alternative to fault divorces. For states that permit no-fault divorce, people can still cite a fault. A no-fault divorce means that either party can initiate divorce proceedings without having to cite fault of the other spouse, usually physical abuse, infidelity, or inability to bear children.
However throughout the '50s, '60s, and '70s, if you were a woman being abused or raped by your spouse, it was exceptionally difficult to prove that abuse or to gain sympathy over that abuse in order to follow through with a fault divorce. And if your husband isn't cheating on you and you have children, you can't cite the other typical reasons for divorce. So a lot of women were trapped in domestic violence for hundreds of years in America because of these divorce laws.
Only in the late '60s, when California enacted a no-fault divorce law in 1969, did women's rights around this matter advance. This is why divorce "skyrocketed" in the 1970s. I want to be clear that I believe that no-fault divorce should power all genders of spouses, but relating to the Women's Empowerment movement of the 1970s, this was absolutely key to women starting to rebuild their lives away from being daddy's little girl who was transferred like property to becoming Mrs. John Smith. This is one of a few key moments in American history that allowed women the opportunities to eventually become CEOs, Supreme Court Justices, congresspeople, and homemakers.
Though people tend to focus heavily on divorce rates as a metric of failure of a relationship (or failure of "family values"), the reality is that women in today's era are technically better positioned to willingly enter into marriage knowing there are legal mechanisms in place should that marriage turn sour. If women understood that by entering into a marriage, there would be an almost impossible chance to escape it if something arose, then I think we will see many more educated women never accepting marriage at all for themselves. Educated women were already less likely to marry as young as uneducated women. The most vulnerable population affected are uneducated women who marry young to conservative spouses and are manipulated into (or socialized into valuing) being homemakers.
Hence even though there are common sense elements in this legislation coming out of Florida, there are very real harms that will come out of this 20 years from now that impact conservative women getting married in 2024. I also worry about the larger "give them an inch, and they invade Poland" posture of the Republican party as this alimony law could eventually lead to an erosion of no-fault divorce laws, as well.
Yes. With Ron the fascist DeSantis deliberately alienating Trump supporters I think it’s safe to say that his arm of the party has shifted from a leopards eating faces party to a jaguars eating leopards and faces party.
There’s no latitude for other choices whilst first past the post voting systems remain.
If you want minor parties in the US then your first priority must be establishing ranked choice voting. Any other approach just hands power to your opponents.
Always has been too. Even before the war fought over "states' rights", they were trying to tell northern states they couldn't not return slaves to the south. Their own assertions fall apart at the first attempt at fact checking.
<pre style="background-color:#ffffff;">
<span style="color:#323232;">>The military is no place to experiment with untested technology.
</span>
HAHAHAHAHA. Better tell that to the United States Army Test and Evaluation Command or the Army Futures Command or any of the other branches test and evaluation commands. That Gosar guy is a dipshit.
100%, these right wing creeps are so weird. like when they're SUPER anti gay, you just know many of them are self loathing gay person. I think she's projecting her obsession with Hunter, she wants some of that Biden sausage
Per a Des Moines Register poll published in March, 61 percent of Iowans think abortion should be legal in all or most cases, compared to the 35 percent who think it should be illegal in all or most cases.
No wonder they have to sneakily ram this through. This isn't democracy in the least.
Politics
Top