Res

He's called sexist because he has a long history of assault allegations, his ex-wife testified in court that he raped her (she may have later retracted it, but she also received a large sum of money, so...) and he is recorded on tape of saying several sexist things including the infamous 'grab 'em by the pussy' speech. To call him sexist is neither a stretch nor is it untrue. He's called racist for many reasons including the whole 'very fine people on both sides' tweet. Thirdly every source I have read today talked extensively about Papadopolous too, so I'm not seeing all this focus on Manafort. Edit: You continue to talk as if people here are Democrats who love Hillary and CNN when you're pretty much the sole person in this thread to ever mention Hillary and CNN.

I don't see how it's a class-S conspiracy theory to suggest that a) Mueller isn't done and b) further charges are likely coming and will attempt to link to Trump, which is all that Twitter thread is really saying. Here's The Guardian on how further charges are likely coming and may be aimed at trying to link to Trump. Here's the WaPo on what could possibly happen next: "It is possible that the Manafort indictment is meant to serve as leverage in Mueller’s broader investigation. There is no mention in the indictment of Trump. In 2006, Manafort bought a condominium in Trump Tower. Other New York real estate Manafort purchased in 2012 is listed in the indictment because the money used to buy the properties wasn’t included in his tax returns. More charges could be filed against Manafort in the future." Here's The NY Times on Mueller's next steps: "The indictment, though undoubtedly significant, also raises the question of what Mr. Mueller’s next step will be. But it is widely believed that Mr. Mueller is hoping to pressure Mr. Manafort into flipping and becoming a cooperating witness, providing information about the central subject of his investigation: the relationship between the Trump campaign and Russia."

What's the source for the investigation concluding soon? Every article I've read has expressed surprised at how quickly Mueller is working and notes that the investigation is set to last for many months more. This Twitter thread explains why it's also not a surprise that the charges don't currently relate to Trump and what the political ramifications are.

From what I understand the most likely outcome is that people surrounding/formerly employed by Trump are charged and imprisoned; Trump's approval ratings drop even lower and his chance of a 2020 reelection bid are scuppered. It is possible, but extremely unlikely that Trump is a) impeached (but this would require the Republican-majority congress to make a move, which they almost certainly won't) or b) criminal charges are brought against Trump himself (which I gather is completely unprecedented and will almost certainly not happen).

Hahahahahahaha nope. Even with my husband (not that he 'mistreats' me as such, but obviously we have disagreements and sometimes I feel aggrieved) I struggle to form the words in person, so I go away for an hour or two, then we sort things out over text.

Yes they do.

Right now not many people in their 30s and 40s have much influence, either. We've the oldest government we've ever had and we've been ruled by the baby boomers for more than a generation now.

Harking back to Lushen's claim that his friend worked harder than Lord Raven, I wanted to say: Apart from being a really condescending thing to say, I find the whole hard-working-competition U.S. culture has going on to be really frustrating. Because we don't need to work that hard and in many ways we shouldn't have to. There are only so many hours we are capable of really working effectively and beyond that we're mostly just logging hours at the expense of something else - usually our health. I didn't work the first year of college; I worked part-time thereafter, and since I was in class 35 hrs a week and worked 24-30 hrs a week, that put me at 75-80 hrs a week before I even had a chance to do the ~20 or so hrs of homework expected of us. My grades dropped and I was definitely depressed in my final year. Likewise working 3 jobs until I was 40 weeks pregnant (to pay off medical debt that I wouldn't have incurred in other countries) and returning to work just 12 weeks later almost definitely contributed to my Hashimoto's flare-up and I made so many mistakes that first year back at work, when I was getting 3-4 hrs sleep a night; luckily they were minor mistakes, mostly in things like filing, and I managed to spot them and rectify them months later, but the point was they were silly mistakes I definitely would not have made when I was less stressed and getting more sleep. Many countries in Europe have a standard 35-37.5 hr working week; they have 4-5 weeks vacation a year and they manage to give certain benefits (like parental leave, or for example, my brother qualifies for a paid sabbatical every 10 years), their economies aren't suffering and they have longer life expectancies and rate higher on the happiness index than the U.S. That's not to say that there's no value to working hard; and there are always going to be jobs where hard work and long shifts are unavoidable. But I definitely see a culture here where people are actively discouraged from taking vacation; they're discouraged from staying home when sick; they're discouraged from taking lunch breaks; they're discouraged from never not working. And I see it taking a toll on all my friends (and my!) mental and physical health.

You actually have to be somewhat decent at managing money if you're on a low income, because every cent is generally valuable and accounted for. You also can't afford late fees or fines or overdraft fees. The issue is generally not having income to begin with, not mismanaging money. And, of course, the danger is that a single accident or piece of misfortune disrupts your careful budget, then the fees snowball, but again, that's not as a result of mismanaging money. Rich people can also afford accountants to manage their money for them.

And to build upon your comparison; I've been pregnant, twice, and I still can't speak for other pregnant people because my pregnancy has been nothing like theirs (sometimes that's good, sometimes that's bad, like when my mother-in-law kept suggesting I was doing/eating something wrong because I was vomiting daily and to quote her, "I was never sick and my friends were never sick!")

The U.S. border control is actually pretty strict; the strictest I've encountered amongst all the countries I've traveled to.

How does the bolded part answer my question about why other countries suck? I mean, I have direct experience of living both in the U.K. and U.S., a couple of the other posters here have also either had experience of living in more than one country or have parents who are immigrants, so maintain close ties to other countries. And you're simplifying the left's (not far left, which has already been addressed multiple times here) arguments hugely. For example, the argument about guns is not about disarming the entire population but acknowledging that the 2nd amendment was written in a time when firearms operated very differently, and that there should probably be provisions against certain types of firearms, as well as better record-keeping of sales. The rest of what you're saying has been answered by people like @Shoblongoo.

Fake and awkward, I laugh rarely so I learned to fake it and now I can't make it sound not-fake, help.

I'd wager you're an unusual case, though. Certainly most people under the poverty line aren't going to be owning a home (and renting is usually more expensive than a mortgage for a comparative place). Additionally cost of living varies wildly; despite minimum wage being higher than the national average in my city, it's still not enough to rent a studio, where assisted living rent prices begin at $1,100. It's a little bit rich for you to talk about the value of anecdotes when your own posts have been full of vague anecdotes... Most people are not going to be able to fund their college through part-time work. A lot of full-time jobs will barely pay for college in the U.S. Here're some facts: For our parents' generation, college was far more affordable. For my parents' generation in the U.K., it was virtually free - people received grants from the government instead of loans, which meant they had no debt to repay at the end of college. The education requirements were stricter and fewer people overall went to college (which I am in favor of, providing that jobs don't demand college degrees - which many do, now). Success is usually dependent upon hard work, yes, but also opportunities, access and luck. It all goes hand-in-hand (Malcolm Gladwell's book Outliers is an excellent study of this). My father worked extremely hard. He worked part-time through college. As a veterinarian and sole proprietor in his 20s and 30s he was on call 24/7 for most of the year. He retired before the age of 60 with a great portfolio. However, he: - graduated with 0 debt (government grants). - was given an interest-free loan by his boss to buy his first house. - was able to sell his first house in the housing boom of the 90s, selling for double what he had paid and enabling him to buy a much bigger house. These are all opportunities that were specific to his generation. Currently, we have tuition fees that have far surpassed inflation. We have a minimum wage however that has not maintained pace with inflation. We have property explosions in many parts of the country that mean housing is overall far more expensive for the current generation. Evidence for these countries sucking? All of the non-U.S. people on this forum seem to be pretty content with where they live and are pretty aghast at many aspects of the U.S. Additionally, immigration is expensive and difficult, especially to/from the U.S. People can't just up and leave and move wherever. Besides, why should anyone move away from family and friends? People have a right to want to improve where they live.

That list is a good start. Universal healthcare is essential, I feel; a sick society is unproductive and it's one of the biggest financial concerns for my age group. And yes, I believe people have a right to healthcare. Going too far is kind of laughable - I've seen medical debt alone crippling friends who earn firmly middle-class salaries. Technically you can't collect unemployment if you're fired due to your own incompetency. So either a) the company failed to fire your friend following the proper procedure, and lost their claim or b) he wasn't actually fired for incompetency. I've definitely seen a) happen, but in those cases it was the company's fault and not that of the unemployment system. Honestly nine years of working in corporate U.S. culture has revealed just how very, very many stupid people are the managers and board members of companies here. It's hard to praise the merit of hard work or education when familial connections and confidence (which is often a learned trait with a wealthy unbringing) win out. Also, as a last note, the poor often need cellphones the most! A phone number is essential for a lot of jobs and a cellphone can double up as a computer and calendar and all for a single monthly payment. My dad did veterinary work in Nepal a couple of years ago and he stayed in a village with no running water and where most of the villagers didn't even own shoes, yet the the village had a cell tower and they all had cellphones and that enabled them to both have contact with the outside world and to work jobs online; it was most people's number one priority. There's this strong cultural myth about the 'undeserving poor' - that poor people must be at least modest about their predicament; they must justify where every penny goes, and aren't entitled to luxuries. This despite the fact that most poor people do work; that people 'scamming' welfare are in the extreme minority. Do rich people work several hundred times harder than the poor? Of course they don't - it's impossible to - but their salaries and spending habits generally aren't questioned. I'm not fond of charities and charity work because while they're generally touted as this great thing, they're often rife with corruption and many times the work they do comes with stipulations; I'd rather pay into a system that everyone could draw from and benefit from were they in need. This excerpt from a book on how the smallest thing can have devastating effects if you're poor is a pretty good read.

They will save $100.00 in taxes (maybe) but lose far more in terms of benefits/welfare/medical care. And no, lower taxes don't lead to expansion and creation of businesses and jobs. The only people who usually end up benefiting from lowered corporate taxes are the CEOs and shareholders. There's a couple of thoughtful analyses of what happens here (using the UK and Ireland as examples) and here.

Haha I love it, you look awesome!

Firstly, the bottom 20% may see their taxes decrease by an estimated $100 or so but $100 isn't going to cover the difference in the loss of assistance in terms of welfare and medicare that they'll likely be seeing very soon. The next 40% again, may see their taxes decrease by an estimated $500-1,000, but amongst these two groups single parents and parents with multiple children are expected to actually have their taxes increase; in other words, the demographic that needs tax cuts most will probably end up paying more. Me, personally, last time I used the Trump tax calculator I was expected to benefit to the tune of $1,000 (although that's pretty negligible with regards to rising healthcare costs). Still, if my gains are going to be at the expense of the poor, single parents and large families (plus the national debt), that's nothing to be cheering about. The middle class is still considerably well off. And the 1% may only be 1% of the population but their wealth is so vast that the tax cuts they'll see will have more effect on the budget than anything else.

There's already a large exemption in place which drastically reduces the taxes on most estates; the estates that will be affected by the new budget are really the top 1%. The government currently does not 'take it all'.

Hurrah for increasing the national debt and decreasing welfare! And to wealth inheritance and rich families.

I only included the 4 games I've played to completion so: Top 10 (top 3 are accurate?) (Saber didn't pop up much...) Lukas Takumi Python Lon'qu Sakura Leo Genny Saber Hisame Robin Bottom 10? (Who knows?) Fargus Brendan Limstella Renault Jedah Zephiel Nergal Sumia Silas Peri

Not as often as I could. I fall asleep really easily almost anywhere, so I try to actively to prevent it from happening. I don't sit down at home until all the chores are done. I don't put the kids to bed any more (because I just fall asleep with them). I do all the driving, etc. I'd say it probably happens about 4-5 times a month right now.

My top 3 would probably be Final Elites, Thorn In You and Echoes Opening.

Sadly there probably would be more outrage. I feel like in general that it's becoming less acceptable to joke about such things, thankfully. I do feel like society is becoming more aware and sensitive to such issues. Incidentally I looked up the case and the woman did receive a life sentence, so that's good!

I'm really sorry I triggered you, it was a bad tangent for me to go off on. The one thing I really hope I can do is to bring up my kids to a) treat others as equally as possible and b) not be abusers/manipulators of any kind!