bostonbananarama

That's completely unfair, you couldn't name ~~one~~ ~~two~~ seven...let's go with seven other examples of that!

/s

I don't think I've read an interview from anyone who has worked with Trump that doesn't say he's one of the dumbest people they've ever interacted with. He's absolutely a con man but he's also stupid.

Legally, you do. You may not like it but that's how it works.

I'm an attorney, you don't know what you're talking about.

My argument isn't about how it should be. People should be decent. They often aren't. My statement is about the legal implications of the decision. Breasts either remain sexual which means all naughty bits are on the table or.... they aren't and are legally no different than any other nonsexual thing.

This isn't how sexual harassment is determined at all. Nothing you've said has any connection to reality.

Can you take someone to court for looking at your legs? Sure. Will it have a good chance of success? No.

YES! If you're in a workplace and that behavior is happening and it consistent, it is a hostile work environment. It would be no different if the unwanted attention was on a leg, an arm, or a breast.

If you legalize it you have acknowledged that a woman's breasts are not sexual. There is no recourse.

No, you literally do not have to do that. You can legalize toplessness and every other aspect of every other law would remain the same.

Your argument essentially means that a person staring at a woman's leg constantly could not constitute harassment, and that simply isn't true.

All you would end up doing is creating a new business for accountants to devalue someone's holdings. I assume that you are saying that the wealth will be the value of the asset less any loan against the property, because that's the only way a first-time home buyer would be taxed nearly nothing. Why wouldn't the wealthy simply take loans against their assets thereby devaluing them for the purposes of a wealth calculation? The same way that they borrow against their stock portfolio.

Dems not catching up to other left parties in other countries isn't Dems moving right. The examples I gave demonstrate a clear, if only moderate, move to the left. Their move is barely perceptible, but certainly not to the right.

But if you tax based on wealth, doesn't that make home ownership less possible? Property taxes aren't going away, but now a wealth tax is going to hit property owners? Sales tax is extremely regressive. Income tax is one of the few ways to do progressive taxing.

Your argument is that the Dems have moved to the right, but I'm struggling to think of any examples of that in the last 30+ years. During Clinton's term they passed DOMA and DADT, and now they're in favor of same sex marriage and trans rights. The ACA, CFPB, attempts at student loan forgiveness, lowering prescription prices, etc. I just don't see how the left has moved to the right, although I agree that the right has moved right.

I never understand people who make comments like this, what were you expecting going into Twisters? Citizen Kane? I watched Twisters today, it was a mindlessly fun little movie, exactly as expected.

The first three are great, the fourth idea is insane. Why shouldn't people pay into their government? If you're poor, like the first $25k, fine let that be tax free, but why not keep the money in the government coffers and provide single payer healthcare, free college tuition, student debt forgiveness, municipal broadband? Our taxes are not high compared to other western nations.

That's not really true though. There were very few SCOTUS precedents on the 2A, really just Cruikshank and Presser until recently. Heller really changed it all in 2008, being the first court to find an individual right. And the 2A didn't get incorporated until 2010 in McDonald.

The issue is that bad precedent is begging to be overturned. I can't imagine Bruen standing for a long time without being overturned or distinguished by a subsequent case.

I agree with the right, but Bruen was a trainwreck of a decision. Historical perspective is an absolutely ridiculous basis for determining the outer limits of the right.