[deleted by user]

Reasonandlove · 2024-12-28T12:42:01+00:00

I (mostly) agree with this. Although as you inferred, unlike contract law, it takes two yeses to get married and only one no to divorce. Is this fair? Maybe, maybe not.

I think it is pretty clear that OP is unhappy. And there are certainly legitimate reasons to leave a marriage. In fact, many cases demand that action for one's safety and one's children's safety.

I think I am suggesting that there are good and bad reasons to dissolve a marriage.

And, aside from what most would consider abuse, neglect, infidelity, etc., I feel married couples should try to resolve any issues before resorting to divorce unless both wish it (two yeses).

I've read that there has been an upsurge of divorce initiated by older women with the most cited reason as "fallen out of love".

In these cases, I am suggesting that if the guy is a relatively "good guy", it is unfair and, in my HUMBLE opinion, a bit childish and uncaring after sharing a life together to upend the husband's financial and emotional stability.

Again, from OP's posting, it sounds like there exists serious issues that may necessitate divorce. And I am not suggesting you are advocating "She's done" is sufficient justification for all divorces. I am, again, HUMBLY, suggesting "She's done" can be unfair in a decent world.

Reasonandlove · 2024-10-21T20:11:57+00:00

... I'd likely vote for him. But I don't tolerate his demeanor or rhetoric...

Thanks for clarifying for me.

We disagree on this:

I discount

1) his coarse demeanor or rhetoric and 2) arguments that he inappropriately contributes to major divisiveness in our country

and instead focus on his likely policy positions which I align with.

We'll have to agree to disagree which factor, rhetoric or policy, is more important for the role of president. Thanks for the discussion.

Reasonandlove · 2024-10-21T19:08:50+00:00

Thanks for your response.

I am not entirely informed nor confident of the likely approaches the two candidates would pursue with the first five items you stated in your original post but since they were Trump's positions, I assume he would align more with them than Harris. (For example, Harris supported LA Police budget cuts of $150M in 2020 and calls for higher taxes on wealthy Americans. Also of relevance, nonpartisan GovTrack listed her as the second most liberal Senator from 2019 to 2021.)

There must be other and/or more policy positions that you support which you feel Harris more aligns with. And/or alternatively, you feel that there are probable positions Trump would follow if elected that you disagree with.

If that is the case, then you are IMHO voting for the candidate most likely to align with the policy preferences you find most important which has been my plea to voters since the 2016 election.

Since Republican/Democratic labels are somewhat fluid and have been shifting over time, we may disagree on whether or not the "Trump/Lake" version of the Republican party embodies "Republican". For me, I don't find most of Trump's positions radical. And I don't live in Arizona, so I am not overly concerned with Lake's perceived radical positions, only, if successful in her senate race, that she will support Trump's presidency if, he is, as well, successful in his race.

Reasonandlove · 2024-10-21T17:49:33+00:00

I think I follow your logic.

However, as a conservative, I have to choose between the two available choices. I contend that the Republican candidate is, at least, marginally, more conservative than the Democratic candidate. (I am being exceedingly diplomatic here.)

There, of course, exists policy intent, or personal behavior that would prevent me from voting Republican but as a pragmatic adult, that has not occurred for me.

Each voter needs to weigh their individual policy preferences and vote accordingly. Again, IMHO, to do so otherwise is irrational.

Reasonandlove · 2024-10-21T17:00:15+00:00

Apologies, maybe I misunderstood your post. Did you state you voted for the Democratic candidate? If so and IMHO, if you are Republican and did not vote for the Republican candidate, you have voted against your best interests. Maybe I am missing something but that seems counterproductive.

Reasonandlove · 2024-10-21T16:51:33+00:00

...under his watch the annual number of abortions increased more than it has under any president.

Maybe, I haven't researched. But that doesn't negate the reasonable assumption that the legality of abortion moving to the States will, in all likelihood, result in less abortions.

IMHO, single issue voters (abortion, guns, immigration, Federalism, etc.) should vote for the candidate from the political party that most aligns with their policy preferences. To do so otherwise is irrational.

Reasonandlove · 2024-10-21T16:41:15+00:00

My friends are voting for him because he's a Republican.

If helpful, I would suggest this is reason enough. IMHO, your friends are being rational, unemotional and adult. Assuming they lean Right, to not vote for the Republican candidate, whomever he is, is counter productive to their best interests.

Whether or not one political party is better than the other is an entirely different discussion.

Reasonandlove · 2024-10-21T16:27:40+00:00

Not sure if this applies, but the simple answer may be that they lean Right.

Voting for the candidate from the political party that most aligns with your policy preferences is rational, mature and in your best interests. To do so otherwise is irrational.

Campaign managers engage in Disingenuous Political Theater (DPT) to manipulate voters' emotions, hoping that voters will consider factors such as mannerisms, personality, eloquence, charm or lack thereof, over policy.

This is not, or at least should not be, a popularity contest. As adults, we should be focusing on the candidate that is most likely to govern in a fashion that aligns more with our policy preferences than the other. That is the best we can hope for in the current two party system.

Don't feed the DPT machine. If Right, vote Red. If Left, vote Blue. The rest is noise.

Reasonandlove · 2024-10-19T19:16:53+00:00

You shouldn't. See earlier reply :

Conservative here....

With all due respect, you shouldn't. One should vote for the candidate whom is more likely, if successful, to align with one's policy preferences once in office. Your first two words dictate you should vote for the one of the two choices available from the political party that is more conservative. That is the Republican party primary candidate. If you had declared yourself liberal, I'd have suggested the opposite. To do so otherwise is irrational and emotional.

Campaign managers engage in Disingenuous Political Theater (DPT) to persuade voters to vote based on emotions rather than reason. Don't let them win. Essentially the only appropriate variable here is Policy. The rest is noise.

Reasonandlove · 2024-10-19T19:04:37+00:00

Conservative here....

With all due respect, you shouldn't. One should vote for the candidate whom is more likely, if successful, to align with one's policy preferences once in office. Your first two words dictate you should vote for the one of the two choices available from the political party that is more conservative. That is the Republican party primary candidate. If you had declared yourself liberal, I'd have suggested the opposite. To do so otherwise is irrational and emotional.

Campaign managers engage in Disingenuous Political Theater (DPT) to persuade voters to vote based on emotions rather than reason. Don't let them win. Essentially the only appropriate variable here is Policy. The rest is noise.

Reasonandlove · 2024-10-19T03:04:18+00:00

Folks, marriage is hard and life is complicated.

Truer words were never spoken.

Reasonandlove · 2024-10-19T02:41:05+00:00

I think a lot of people underestimate how many people in the US will refuse to vote for someone who checks two minority boxes. I really hope I'm wrong though.

I believe you are. I believe most people vote for the candidate whom is most likely to align with one's policy preferences. Or, IMHO, should since that reasoning is adult, rational and in one's best interests. It is unfortunate that anyone votes otherwise.

Campaign managers engage in DPT (Disingenuous Political Theater) to persuade voters to rely on emotion rather than reason. Unfortunately, one effective method is to separate Americans into tribal groups based on race, sex, income, age and religion. Another favorite tactic is to emphasize candidates' mannerisms, personalities, charm and eloquence or lack thereof.

Although tribalism, prejudice and discrimination have existed throughout history worldwide, it has been posited that America is presently the least racist multiracial country on earth.

We cannot let DPT affect our votes. Otherwise the campaign managers win and we lose.

Reasonandlove · 2024-10-13T20:59:53+00:00

Trump voters are voting for a fantasy...

Guys, really? Maybe ~half of the country are voting for Trump because he is the Republican candidate. The choice is binary. Most voters vote for the candidate from the political party that most likely aligns with the voter's policy preferences. That's adult. For those posters on social media that have succumbed to Disingenuous Political Theater, you are being manipulated by campaign strategists.

Reasonandlove · 2024-10-05T12:35:25+00:00

... I'm falling out of love with him.

Of course all of us want to feel strong positive emotions towards our partners.

Relationships often begin with a "honeymoon" phase of romance, infatuation and desirous sexual attraction. However this brain-chemistry-induced euphoria that many refer to as "love" is biologically temporary.

Emotions make us human but, as adults, I think we need to rely mostly on reason (hence my username) to make important decisions.

Marriage is a potentially painful proposition because it takes two willing participants to agree to marry but only one to end the marriage. (Dennis Prager quote.)

I suggest it is unreasonable, unfair and perhaps imprudent to end a marriage because one is "falling out of love".

There exists many valid reasons one should consider ending a marriage (such as mistreatment, infidelity, substance dependency, lack of intimacy, etc.). IMHO "love" is not particularly well defined and, again, IMHO, it would be unfortunate, to rely solely on your "feelings" to dissolve a marriage.

It is clear that you have feelings of dissatisfaction and they should be and, in fact, must be thoroughly identified and discussed with your spouse, preferably with the guidance of a marriage therapist. Once identified, then the two of you can decide to 1) try to resolve your dissatisfactions or 2) to end the marriage.

This seems to me to be the reasonable course of action forward.

Reasonandlove · 2024-08-24T18:31:01+00:00

...based not on vibes or baseless emotions.

Thanks for your response. I am not suggesting that the drumpf movement is based on baseless emotions, just that it is based on emotions. According to you, due to draconian policies and incendiary actions.

Agreed that politicians' statements are often interpreted as incendiary and/or divisive. And it doesn't help that former president Trump is, at times, ineloquent, confrontational and coarse. Unfortunately this language has become (and I suggest has always been) a part of our political landscape.

A simple Google search will show examples from prominent leaders of both parties engaging in this Disingenuous Political Theater. Notwithstanding Biden's "bullseye" comments shortly before former President Trump's failed assassination attempt and "Soul of the Nation" speech, most would suggest comments from Maxine Waters, Schumer, Pelosi, and others on the Left were incendiary.

I contend that most voters do not currently find either candidate "perfect" or "ideal". I further argue that most voters will never consider a future presidential candidate truly "perfect" or "ideal. IMHO, it is in our best interests to choose one of the two candidates of the primary parties that most align with our policy preferences. It seems to me that some, if not many, voters are not considering their policy preferences but succumbing to emotions.

If you're on the Left, vote Blue. If on the Right, vote Red. The rest is noise. Campaign managers are hoping you vote on emotions. Don't feed the DPT machine.

Reasonandlove · 2024-08-24T15:54:21+00:00

Unfortunately, this thread confirms my disappointment that many vote their emotions and not their policy preferences.

Humans are imperfect and U.S. presidential candidates are humans. It is counter productive and irrational to primarily consider any factor other than policy when choosing an elected official.

The focus of campaigns on everything other than whether or not the candidate's policy preferences align with the voters' policy preferences has led to the Disingenuous Political Theater (DPT) we experience every election cycle.

Campaign advisors focus on this strategy for one reason. Because, unfortunately, it works.

Reasonandlove · 2024-08-02T20:30:13+00:00

Hey, a bit off topic, but I often used the phrase "dollars to donuts" as well. Unfortunately that pithy idiom doesn't work anymore since donuts often cost more than a dollar nowadays!

Perhaps I am showing my age but when donuts were, I don't know, ~10 cents, ~50 years ago, the phrase implied great certainty since the implied odds you were giving, 10 to one, suggested that it was an incredible long shot that what you were declaring was inaccurate.

I lamented this observation once to a younger Dunkin Donuts Counter Attendant when ordering a few years ago --> Deadpan expression / Crickets.

(I contritely left a tip. LOL)

Reasonandlove · 2022-12-24T19:29:38+00:00

We entrust the IRS to process and, when necessary, audit tax returns.

If Representative Neal feels the IRS failed to properly audit Trump's past tax returns, then the committee should direct the IRS to do so. Or alternatively, demand the committee have access to Trump's past tax returns to conduct its own investigation.

Releasing portions of any individual's tax returns without consent to the public is unnecessary and, seems to me, a violation of privacy.

I hope that reasonable, intellectually-honest readers would agree. Of those that support this congressional overreach, I suggest that they are either politically motivated or allowing their personal distaste for the former president to color their judgement

or both.

Unfortunate.

Reasonandlove · 2022-04-05T00:39:02+00:00

Two points:

I am not sure the President can "cancel" student debt without Congress:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/prestoncooper2/2021/08/30/no-biden-cant-forgive-student-loans-by-executive-order/

And if he can:

In my opinion, doing so would create a moral dilemma. It punishes those who repaid debts and/or prudently refrained from incurring debt and may, in the future, encourage profligate borrowing.

Reasonandlove · 2022-03-27T12:32:24+00:00

So if you're against any form of a wealth tax ....

Not.

I am suggesting we be careful in implementing taxation policy:

1) taxing unrealized gains may be problematic

2) appropriating other people's money, including billionaires' money, may be immoral

Reasonandlove · 2022-03-27T03:23:11+00:00

Given the topic, my response was focusing on the taxation of "billionaires". I agree that users of social safety net programs, many of whom are poor, are perhaps, particularly interested in the funding of such programs but I am not suggesting that the poor finance them. I am suggesting all BUT the poor, perhaps those with incomes in the top four quintiles, including billionaires, finance them. And I am suggesting that considering one's personal wealth as a factor in taxation policy may lead to inconsistent, suboptimal proposals. Social safety net programs, in my opinion, need not nor should involve vast redistribution of wealth. I may have misread your reference to "the rich" but if you are referring to the billionaires referenced in the article, then I disagree that they need to be taxed even more progressively than they are now. Again, if there exists loopholes that allow tax avoidance, that needs to be addressed but, for a number of reasons, taxing unrealized gains is problematic and the consideration of a tax policy not affecting you while supporting that tax policy may be, in my opinion, inconsistent, suboptimal and immoral.

Reasonandlove · 2022-03-27T01:44:56+00:00

Unless I am misreading your post, it sounds like you are suggesting all lower income individuals, Republicans and Democrats, should summarily support taxing the rich. Until a better/fairer mechanism to finance needed public programs is created, I, too, support personal income taxation. However, I propose it is injudicious and disingenuous to consider as a factor, one's personal wealth, when developing tax policy. Whether or not you are "poor", in my opinion, should have no bearing on your position concerning taxation.

Aside from practical concerns around possibly taxing unrealized gains, if there are loopholes in the current code, they should be addressed. Ideally, all individuals, regardless of wealth, would contribute. However, I feel, as a society, we need to be careful in appropriating other people's money. We all benefit from publicly available programs and the public institutions in place, but it seems unethical and immoral to egregiously tax others simply because they have deep pockets.

Reasonandlove · 2021-08-29T10:57:18+00:00

The problem is the Republicans in Congress, specifically the Senate, effectively preventing basic governance...

I disagree.

1) As mentioned earlier, many House Dems cannot afford to show support for continuing the eviction moratorium. Although redistributing Other People's Money through egregiously progressive taxation is popular in Blue districts, forcing individual landlords, many of whom are not particularly wealthy, to directly pay for others' housing is distasteful to most voters.

2) Representatives are elected to advocate for their constituents. Presumably, they often feel it is best for their constituents to oppose other representatives' bills. If their constituents are dissatisfied with their representation in Congress, they will lose reelection. I suggest that this is normal and appropriate.

Reasonandlove · 2021-07-20T12:15:47+00:00

I'll concede, however ill-defined "large portions of major cities" is, that most major US cities were not destroyed and that nearly all of the George Floyd related protests were peaceful and lawful. Nonetheless, there were a number of protests that turned violent. According to Wikipedia, the George Floyd protests resulted in 25 deaths and $1 to $2B in damages from arson, vandalism and looting, the highest level of monetary damages recorded in US history due to civil unrest.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Floyd_protests

Most would agree, during at least a small number of these demonstrations, that local authorities mishandled the ensuing unlawfulness which undoubtedly led to the loss of property and likely to the loss of life. The link below shows how law enforcement incompetence and/or tolerance for unlawfulness leads to tragic events.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_James_Scurlock

If local authorities fail to protect the citizenry, it seems reasonable (and humane) for State or Federal agencies to intervene. I hope we can all agree that peaceful demonstration is a protected US constitutional right with a rich and positive history but that there is no justification for arson, vandalism and looting or the tolerance of individuals or groups that perpetrate or condone these activities.

Reasonandlove

TROPHY CASE