Women can’t be president in America. We have a shitty culture that prevents that from happening. We keep trying, we keep failing.

Tried twice with two exceptionally shitty candidates. Blaming Hillary and Harris's losses on their sex is a massive cop-out. Trump should have been destroyed in every election he ran in, but the only time he lost was with the weight of a worldwide pandemic working against him, and then, he wasn't exactly blown out of the water.

A woman can definitely be president in America. But as long as people like you blame the losses on that, the actual reasons these candidates are losing will never be fixed.

It's time to take some accountability.

That's not relevant.

Whether you don't pay your debts by choice or not, the fact remains that not paying them demonstrates that you are risky to lend to. It makes perfect sense for people to not want to lend you more money if you didn't pay back what you borrowed before.

Downvote all you like, but that's the fact of the matter. Getting rid of credit scores will change nothing for people who don't repay their debts, but it will harm those who do, because good borrowers won't be able to prove that they have a history of repaying their debts, and will therefore be treated as greater risks than they actually are.

Credit scores are objectively beneficial for everyone except people who don't pay their debts.

Downvoting doesn't make it not true.

You said something stupid, and it was identified as such. That's not being offended.

Though the fact that you had to assume several things about me personally to rationalize the way you behave, as your ego is apparently just too fragile to conceive of the possibility that YTA, says a lot, and makes me wonder if you're available in IMAX.

What’s your source on that? Your arse?

Good luck finding a single source in any country that has females being on the receiving end of violence more often than males per capita, overall.

I think you’re an incel who hates women and doesn’t care about violence against them.

That's because you're enough of a fool to think caring about male suffering is misogynistic. All I did was point out your deliberate blindness to the suffering of half of humanity, by describing the half that is assaulted and killed less, as the half with the 'epidemic' of violence against them.

It's like when the reaction to 11% of journalists killed the year before being women is to say "stop targeting female journalists". You're so deeply sexist that the 89% who are male don't even land on your radar.

Men don’t deserve empathy.

You're sexist scum.

I have a feeling that if you saw this sentence written by someone else with any other country substituted, you'd realize immediately that it's bigoted horse shit.

Well, guess what? Your question isn't an exception.

You know what else is an epidemic? Violence against women and girls

Men and boys are victims of violence at an order of magnitude greater frequency, you just don't care because you hate males, so only female suffering bothers you.

Misandry isn't a problem compared to misogyny, and likely wouldn't exist if there was no misogyny

This is what peak anti-male sexism looks like.

"Who cares?" Yeah, not your pathetic, empathy-free ass, you've made that abundantly clear.

For shame.

need a large gender affirming car

???

This is a projection of your own brainrot sexism, nothing more.

Don't try to make it sound like you ever mocked a woman for having a large car, either, you're not fooling anyone with "people", lol.

What do you think the cost of a house is, just with the cost of the materials and labor to build it, with zero markup?

The reason most renters are renters and not owners is not because there aren't any houses available to purchase.

This would just make countless people homeless as they lose the option to rent, because they can't afford to buy/maintain an entire house.

It would be a crisis for anyone who wants to rent, because they won't be able to anymore.

No one's going to rent out an apartment if they'd have to do it at a huge loss. So as soon as this went into effect, all rentals would vanish and everyone who can't afford to buy a house would be homeless.

If women’s compliments towards men were the same as men’s compliments towards women, I think men would also dislike it.

Nah.

Every time I've ever heard of an experiment where indignant women do/say to men the exact same things that they hate getting from men, they're always astonished to see the men's reactions as practically universally positive:

If the goal of the experiment was to make men feel the weird combination of creeped-out and ashamed that comes with everyday objectification, then the experiment failed. Instead, these fellas look flattered and expectant. You can practically see them plotting the nearest route to the cheapest hotel.

There's literally nothing wrong with credit scores--they reward good borrowers, and for bad borrowers, a bad credit score is equivalent for them to there being no scores.

Without credit scores, all borrowers get treated like the ones who don't repay their debts, instead of only the ones who actually don't.

Credit scores are only not a positive thing for people who don't pay their debts. It's 100% upside for people who do, and in the US at least, it's trivially easy to have a top-tier credit score without paying a cent of interest, provided you actually do pay back what you borrow.

Yeah, pretty massive fundamental difference, lol.

It's more known as a right-wing thing these days because of Covid, but the OG antivaxxer stereotype was the hippy mom who didn't want to put "chemicals" in their children because 'big pharma' is evil, and don't you know vaccines cause autism?

Regardless of what's being defended, this is a "poisoning the well" fallacy, and should be avoided as a rhetorical tactic. This particular example serves no purpose than the stroke the ego and sense of moral superiority of those on one side, and alienate those on the other, and create a divisive binary where there isn't one, and shouldn't be one.

Suppose someone argues that the solution is making sure no historical figures are diminished due to their race, not just during a certain month, but always, and therefore doesn't believe that focusing on a single race for an arbitrary amount of time is productive. Well, OP would dump them squarely into the 'enslavers and segregationists' camp, where they obviously do not belong.

I'm reminded of my gay friends who hate many modern pride events because they feel they do the opposite of normalizing homosexuality in focusing on garish oversexualized public displays. They'd be called homophobes by the equivalent of the OP--isn't that a bit ridiculous?