Is it still worth reading? I've read the first book, but heard elsewhere also that the sequel isn't very good.
Do the Amish not count?
I'm not sure, exactly. I'm pretty sure that other government programs took out loans from social security.
Fair enough—it's still a slap in the face to everyone who will have to pay in the meantime, though.
Social security's insolvent. There will be automatic cuts in a decade. Expanding lifespans and falling birthrates will make the situation worse. There's no way the program survives long enough for me to get a penny out of it.
Accordingly, your demand that you benefit is actually just saying that you don't want to be the one stuck with the bill—that's for other schmucks. Keep forcing people into the Ponzi, to make sure it's solvent long enough to fulfill the promises it made to you, specifically.
And this despite that it doesn't really promise you any direct reward! There's no accrued payout that's sitting for you on a leger somewhere. That's just the story they tell you to make you think it's reasonable.
It's almost a quarter of our yearly spending.
No. Social security needs to go. At the very least, we should be means-testing. It's unfortunate that there's no political will to touch it.
If I read you rightly, you're still distinguishing between your body and you. I don't understand the lines of that. Why is language your body's (contra an earlier comment), but vision (if I understand your GPU comment) part of you? Though maybe the end of the comment divides less.
I also don't understand why draw the line in your identity at all. Why not have it all be you?
Finally, why do you not consider yourself human?
I think if anyone brings it up, it would have to be Vance, citing specifics. If Trump brings it up, no one takes him seriously.
I'm not sure if it's sufficiently substantive. Do issues like this motivate people at the national level?
I imagine there's a pretty high chance SCOTUS takes this next term?
I wonder what attacks on their campaign are most likely to stick. There is no record for the future, just vibes. Maybe the best attack on that is that she caves to pressure, especially from leftists? This sort of attack seems better to match the amount of agency she is projecting herself as having, and allows you to show why that's bad.
Debates soon would be good. Once they start actually taking positions, then you have positions to attack.
He personally wanted to debate, and it gave more time for any bad impressions to wear off (which, in fact, did not happen, until he was forced out).
Actually, do people still think of Biden as too old now (on a gut level)? Has that lessened since people stopped caring about it?
Debates?
Her prosecutorial record is astonishingly weak and it blows my mind that the Trump campaign hasn't started running huge numbers of ads showing what she did and said during that time. She was just beyond ghoulish in her decisions and I think that the sheen on her image will evaporate once that stuff gets more widely known - at the very least enthusiasm on the left will take a nosedive when they realise they're voting for the cop who wanted to keep innocent black men in jail for prison labour.
Law and order appeals to the median voter, I think. Not sure that would help.
And the optics are decided on by the media, who are a wholly owned subsidiary of the DNC. Game, set, and match.
And social media, which is more of a mixed bag.
It looks like it's 13000 per year for non-Mormons. That's not bad, though there exist other options for similar prices.
as quite willing to compromise on values for tuition money,
Do they? I would have thought they were heavily subsidized.
But that we have wildly differing rationalizations about why.
What is your rationalization? I'm curious.
Uhh… are you asserting that there are multiple identities within you (read "you" expansively here) capable of doing things like "identifying"?
What are the main losses that you'd point to? The Supreme court, sure. Elon buying twitter. What else?
Trump's brought it up several times. But no one believes him. You're right that this could probably be pressed in a more serious manner, but merely having Trump repeat it does not work.
See also Montana's failed referendum to protect those children.
I think it probably would have helped, actually. It's the moderate position. I assume you win more undecided independents by being pro-Israel than you lose far-left by being pro-Palestine.
And Shapiro's the governor in what's currently the most important state.
Which views?
I just realized he decided to leave the site after posting the top post of all time.
Is there any reason they wouldn't amend that provision?
Genesis 9, and all:
More options
Context Copy link