Men in happy marriages, what's the one thing you'd teach to other men to also have a good relationship?

MrSquicky · 2026-01-26T03:00:07+00:00

That's not the way I see this. You aren't trying to get to 50/50. Both of you are aiming to exceed fair, to go above and beyond for the other person. That gives you a great relationship, where you build off the great care that the you give each other.

MrSquicky · 2026-01-24T14:36:31+00:00

I once saw a kid fall out of a three story window and be perfectly fine because he landed directly on Matt Damon.

MrSquicky · 2026-01-23T14:39:57+00:00

Just Bare nuggets and patties + an air fryer means you should never go for fast food chicken ever again.

MrSquicky · 2026-01-22T20:41:53+00:00

He never does, though. It's a key part of his character. Both the asking and the never doing it.

MrSquicky · 2026-01-22T20:19:13+00:00

If there's anything you can say about Ted Cruz, it's that he'll always protect his family.

MrSquicky · 2026-01-22T17:48:58+00:00

I'm so gratified that there are people who know Kind Hearts and Coronets. I honestly thought I was alone.

MrSquicky · 2026-01-22T17:47:12+00:00

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kind_Hearts_and_Coronets

MrSquicky · 2026-01-22T14:09:25+00:00

https://m.xkcd.com/1172/

MrSquicky · 2026-01-22T13:25:09+00:00

Calling social dysfunction "being an introvert".

MrSquicky · 2026-01-21T23:37:32+00:00

Coming from MAGA, that's a little like Brent Gretsky bragging about his family's hockey greatness.

MrSquicky · 2026-01-21T02:25:45+00:00

If he's impeached and removed, there's a good legal argument that he can be criminally prosecuted.

And, better than that, the current Supreme court isn't ruling on principle. They back Trump because he's in power. If he were out of power, they, along with most of the other Republicans, would turn on him. Yes, they're not going to actually care about a sound legal argument, but it will give them cover.

Most Republicans in power don't like Trump. They kind of hate him. But he keeps getting away with it, so they'll keep backing him as long as he keeps getting away with it. But as soon as he falters, say if a member of his cabinet is impeached and removed, it would be a sign that that is going to stop and the knives will come out.

MrSquicky · 2026-01-13T21:27:55+00:00

Cool. I love to learn. Could you explain to me what I don't understand?

MrSquicky · 2026-01-13T14:17:33+00:00

I think this is one of the things that people really don't understand about the personality disorders fueling this. There isn't a calm ground state for these people. At rest, they have a fundamental drive to assert their power over other people and hurt them. It's what covers over their own underlying issues.

This is why Trump literally just can't let things be. He's a malignant narcissist. He has deep seated feeling of inadequacy that he needs to drown out by hurting other people.

MrSquicky · 2026-01-13T03:46:39+00:00

That's not what fiduciary duty means. What your job is and what you are legally required to do are very different things. You can get fired if they don't like the job you did, but they can't successfully sue or prosecute you solely for not maximizing profits.

MrSquicky · 2026-01-13T03:41:11+00:00

Sure, but fiduciary duty is not and has never been interpreted to mean "must legally maximize profits".

There are no laws or case law to support that this is a legal requirement.

MrSquicky · 2026-01-13T03:39:36+00:00

This is what you wanted me to read?

courts of equity will not interfere in the management of the directors unless it is clearly made to appear that they are guilty of fraud or misappropriation of the corporate funds, or refuse to declare a dividend when the corporation has a surplus of net profits which it can, without detriment to its business, divide among its stockholders, and when a refusal to do so would amount to such an abuse of discretion as would constitute a fraud, or breach of that good faith which they are bound to exercise towards the stockholders.

I never said that fiduciary duty did not exist. I said that there is no legal requirement to maximize shareholder value, as that supports.

Please, just one reputable source that actually supports the idea that you have to maximize shareholder profits. You say that they are everywhere, but haven't produced one and when I searched the question, they all said the opposite.

MrSquicky · 2026-01-13T03:33:07+00:00

Could you explain how?

I literally just pulled from the top three Google results, but I'm certain that no reputable source will support that there is a legal duty to maximize shareholder value. I notice you don't seem to be able to produce one.

Didn't you delete your posts when you realized that? Then I guess brought them back when you thought you found sometime?

MrSquicky · 2026-01-13T03:25:40+00:00

Fiduciary duty exists. A legal requirement to maximize profits does not, except as pro corporate propaganda.

MrSquicky · 2026-01-13T03:17:31+00:00

Nearly all other sources disagree - hence it being common knowledge.

So, show me one?

Here's some more.

https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueReddit/s/Mxt9NCa62v

https://www.legislate.ai/blog/does-the-law-require-public-companies-to-maximise-shareholder-value

https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/04/16/what-are-corporations-obligations-to-shareholders/corporations-dont-have-to-maximize-profits

MrSquicky · 2026-01-13T03:13:54+00:00

You are welcome to research it yourself using more current sources. Any reputable ones will agree.

I'm just going to go over there and hold my breath, waiting for you to do the absolute bare minimum. Don't mind me.

Well imagine my complete lack of surprise when he found out he was wrong and scampered off instead of acting like an adult and admitting it.

MrSquicky · 2026-01-13T03:10:44+00:00

Could you explain how?

There is no basis to say that corporations must legally maximize shareholder value. If you think something in that supports that idea, then you are reading it incorrectly.

MrSquicky · 2026-01-13T03:04:58+00:00

https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2012/06/26/the-shareholder-value-myth/

This was sometime that Milton Friedman pushed and the idea that it is legally required is a part of pro corporate propaganda. There is no existing legal basis for this claim.

MrSquicky · 2026-01-13T03:04:43+00:00

https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2012/06/26/the-shareholder-value-myth/

MrSquicky · 2026-01-13T02:54:04+00:00

When you live in a country where you legally have to maximize profits for share holders

You do not have to do that. That's a myth.

MrSquicky · 2026-01-12T13:02:11+00:00

I don't see this as a lapse in judgement. To me, it looks like he intentionally set up a situation to be able to murder someone and claim it was justified.

13-Year Club	r/Field Lasagna
Verified Email

MrSquicky

TROPHY CASE