At the same time, this douchebag wants to specifically target kids who are playing pretend to make their miserable lives bearable, just to distract from real issues like trans bills, don’t say gay, and governmental corruption.

If no qualifying religious measure can be used to install a person into office, it stands to reason that religious belief shouldn’t come into play.

I would hope our (the US’) political system would be aware enough that writing private funding into any religious system would be seen as favoritism and the remaining belief systems would be righteously offended at the lack of consideration, or perhaps even the outright rejection of our beliefs.

This nation was built on immigrants (and the blood of natives, but that isn’t what we are discussing) from every walk of life, every religious circle. To disregard others in favor of your own belief SHOULD be political suicide. These elected officials, after all, supposed to be elected to help with the concerns of the WHOLE populous, after all, not just a specific subset.

Playing religious favoritism has a high potential to try to convert the country into a religious state, as funding continues to be funneled into these specific religions, and in turn the churches funnel money back into the candidates as lobbying.

Coming to that point, does anyone who wants to to fund the church with government money which would be better used to take homeless off the streets, feed homeless children, or making people’s lives in general, don’t have the people’s, or even God’s best interests at heart?

Do they tithe their first ten percent, as the Bible says? Surely it would be in their tax records as charitable donations? If not, that would make me even more suspect of their intentions.

All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be Required as a Qualification To any Office or public Trust under the United States.

Specifically, I like this line here, that was present in the third paragraph I quoted from the Constitution:

no religious Test shall ever be Required as a Qualification To any Office or public Trust under the United States.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but doesn’t that mean that we specifically don’t care if God, Allah, Buddha, or whoever says they are supposed to be in power?

Edit: and since we both want to be dickheads, today, why don’t you show me where it says in the Constitution to base our laws around the bible?

If you are going to a private school, it’s kinda implied money isn’t a huge issue anyways. Your parents are paying for you to attend this exclusive school, after all.

But you can’t take Johnson Academy’s uniform to Brentwood. So, if Brentwood isn’t having a sale, what then?

Who purchases the uniforms? You mentioned impoverished kids being made fun of, but the parents have to buy the expensive, overinflated uniforms as well. Wouldn’t that put more strain on less well off families, having to buy specific clothes for their child’s attendance, each year for each child?

I’m so happy this distraction tactic is working and everyone is talking about a goddamn laptop instead of the actual court case.

They wouldn’t be paying one person more based on where they live. They would be paying a fair rate based on a formula using miles of commute and current gas prices. Everyone would be paid the same rate. If someone works less hours, is it unfair that the person that works more gets paid more? No, they are being compensated for time, just as the commuters should be compensated for their time and maintenance on their vehicle.

Is it fair that the people that live farther away should have to pay more to come to work that those who live closer? Its not fair to me who has to pay sooo much more in maintenance and gas!

Previous smartass paragraph aside, paying both more doesn’t solve the problem. This isn’t about who is getting paid more. It’s about giving everyone the same tools to succeed. And if I am paying 100$ more a month, I’m making 100$ less a month.

That’s fair. The majority of the world isn’t Sweden either. Not sure why OP brought country up to begin with, just saying “bring it up to your union” isn’t exactly a universal experience either.

Nor is having the opportunity to be within walking distance of your place of employment. Some people live in more rural areas because the cost of living is lower, and that is what they can afford. I speak from experience. I think a universal “cost of transportation” would be helpful to the populous in general. Who foots that bill? The employer. They need you to make their product after all. You shouldn’t need a second job just to make it to your first job. Your first job should be able to pay for all of your expenses, including transportation to and from the job.

That’s cute that you think America is unionized. Many, many places do not have unions or support for their workers past base things at government level. More often than not, we are shat upon and expected to thank our corporate overlords for the opportunity.

If you are going to chess tournaments, you are past the point of getting your ass kicked in chess club. I said it on another thread, but if people are being demeaning and unsportsmanlike, they can get kicked out just as you would any other game. They do it for MTG, YGO and Pokemon TCG tournaments. Bullshittery about trans people aside, this is more of a systemic issue than anything else.

My apologies. I still don’t understand. Are you suggesting that women are too fragile to deal with men’s posturing, or what? It’s fucking chess. Unless someone is arguing there are blatant skill discrepancies between men an women, it still doesn’t makes sense why there are divided tournaments. Is the argument women are less strategically minded, or what?

Why is that the metric you use, and not the policies they have? Just because plack people are too smart to live in the frigid north doesn’t mean the South is a great place to live