Madison_rogue

Madison_rogue OP , 8 months ago

They rejected their own funding bill. That's leadership at its finest.

This will be great when the credit standing of the U.S. is downgraded yet again.

HipPriest OP , 10 months ago

That's a pretty good analogy, only he would have to specify that he still considers all women to be whores in his bio to be completely accurate.

Honestly though, it's desperate. I don't even want to know what's become of Accidental Renaissance 'Under New Management', I'm glad the original team are here though

gentleman , 10 months ago

@Madison_rogue Yet another classless GOP crank. 100% guarantee that some time in the future we’ll be hearing more from this right wing backbencher

wagesj45 , 11 months ago

He has the Trump crazy, but not the Trump rizz. Trump is undeniably entertaining to watch, even as he burns shit down around him.

HandsHurtLoL OP , 11 months ago

To start, I would like to link this graphic to the community guidelines to illustrate where the cutoff is between heated debate and inappropriate bickering.

Curious_Canid , 11 months ago

“Be Civil” is the core value for me.

I also have a question, rather than an answer. Should all posts require the URL of an external article? Or are people allowed to post “topic for discussion” and personal opinion posts? There needs to be a place for that, I’m just not sure whether this is it. So far I haven’t found a good venue for that.

HandsHurtLoL OP , 11 months ago

This is an excellent question and is really up to us as a community to establish. The thought had occurred to me that there's room in our magazine for:

• politics news that is not US-based
• threads that are discussion only about political events
• responding to something clearly editorial (thinking here if a really cogent YouTuber has a video essay about political matters that isn't rage bait)

It's just a matter of community members saying what kind of content they want here and us establishing Badges (we can do that as mods, kind of like post flair).

HandsHurtLoL , 11 months ago

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.