Not relevant. Trump voters don't care about reality, while the rest of us do. If the Democrats want to be the party of sane, responsible voters they'll need to put up a sane, responsible candidate.
Be better than Republicans.
ITT: A bunch of folks who didn't read the article.
The article didn’t say young people were doing worse than before, which it seems like all of you assumed.
The reason the study found for why youth is no longer one of the “happiest times” is because they showed that people only do better and better as they age. So whereas before your youth would be comparatively happier to your 'mid-life crisis', they’re saying that crisis doesn't occur anymore and we just get happier and happier into midlife and old age. So your younger days didn't get worse, they just aren't as great in comparison because the rest of your life gets so much better as time goes on.
Sounds crazy, I know. But that's what the article was actually saying.
I'm linking to peer-reviewed scientific studies over here. If you want to dispute what I'm saying, avoid the genetic fallacy and engage with the substance.
By "lower-status", I meant lower socioeconomic status. Less education and less income. The two things women primarily judge potential mates on.
It is true that women generally want a partner who makes the same or more than them, while men generally find income/career status less important in mate selection. That is a scientific fact before you politicize it. And it's also a fact that as more women receive higher education and fair pay, the pool of men who make the same or more than the average woman will shrink pretty dramatically.
So it is true to say that as women become empowered and more able to care for themselves without the help of a man, the majority of lower-income and males with a lower socioeconomic status will have a much harder time finding a mate. This mostly affects men negatively at a younger age when their earnings are lowest and they sit closest to the bottom of that hierarchy. Conversely, the negative impacts hit women later on when the end of their child-bearing years approaches and they realize that putting a family on hold to focus on their career may have been a more permanent decision than they'd intended now that they've moved up the economic ladder and the small proportion of men at or above their level are either already taken or happy to play the field non-monogamously.
It hits both genders just as hard and it's an issue we need to solve. Our evolutionary psychology and mate selection processes just haven't caught up with modern society. And since males are more prone to isolation and suicide, we see the affects against them more readily. But the affects to women will become more apparent in the next few decades.
I know this is politically charged territory, but it's pretty well established from a sociological and evolutionary psychology perspective.
Edit: Changed "lower-status males" to "males with a lower socioeconomic status" since that seems to be a trigger-word for some folks.
45 minutes outside of Portland, OR in any direction will get you somewhere just as rural as the place you left in SC, only with better weather and sane laws.
Veritasium is YouTube propaganda. It's well documented - Derek takes sponsor money and gets people killed in the process. I blocked Derek on all platforms the day Tom put this documentary video out.
I bought my first house in 2009 - $125,000 on an income of $45,000. I even got a first time homebuyer credit of ~$8,000 to help make the purchase easier.
I make a little over $200,000 today, and I'm completely priced out of the market. I doubt I'll ever own a home again and am currently living in a rundown old sailboat.
I'd take 2008 over this economy any day of the week!
Isn't this a pretty standard practice across the world? If someone has extensive ties to and/or sympathies for a specific regime, they'll be more susceptible to coercion and compromise by that regime. Why purposely put them in the place where they are most likely to be coerced and/or compromised?
You have to weigh the benefit (their familiarity with local perspectives and customs) against the cost (increased risk of counter-intel failures).
There's a reason Starfleet sends Captain Picard far away to the Romulan border when the Borg are attacking Earth. Or am I missing something?
I tried this once. Went to the dog park, chatted up a girl over a period of a month. I finally got the courage to ask her on a date, and she said yes! The date (dinner and a local concert) went great - we ended up back at my place and I can honestly say it was some of the best sex of my life.
Then she ghosted me and we never talked again. That was 2017, and I'm still not over it. Thanks for the advice though.
There are only five sentences of text on that page, with the last one explaining that this sort of marriage was not common at all. Where did you get the idea that the textbook is suggesting that this was the norm?
Nobody is going to vote for Trump because of this. But it WILL cause enough folks to get dejected and not vote at all, and that's all it'll take for Trump to win. Democrats need a candidate people can be excited about voting for, or they WILL lose.
The "but the other guy is worse!" approach won't work this time.
No, by victims we mean the people using a road in the way roads were used for centuries, completely legally. The ones being hit from behind by people in too much of a hurry to use proper caution in area where Amish frequently travel and they are not the only users of the roadway.
If I drive through a neighborhood with a "Children at Play" sign and run over a kid, I can 100% guarantee you that I am not the victim. That is some very cringe logic. The road exists first for pedestrians, secondly for non-motorized vehicles, and lastly.... for automobiles.