The DSM also still considers it a mental disorder (that's what the M in DSM means).

Actually the M stands for "manual." But i wasn't saying it's not a disorder. I was responding to a post asking why gender dysphoria should be "allowed" (i.e. recognized as legitimate). And my response is that it's a recognized disorder (meaning it's not just something people are choosing to pursue) and that therefore society and employers should be more accepting of it (just like people need to accommodate clinical depression and schizophrenia rather than ridicule it).

Yet. Not that it matters in this case

It absolutely matters. The question was what should be "allowed" (i.e. recognized as legitimate) and what shouldn't be. I think that when it comes to things like "what's a legitimate mental disorder" that the DSM, a collaboration among global mental health experts, is the best place to start. Do you have an alternative?

He struck me as a 'career, deep state, longtime taxpayer paid beauracrat'

Other than "deep state" (which is a farce) literally none of those things are bad. You want "career" and "longtime" people working on sensitive matters of international diplomacy rather than some moron who just walked in the door. And yes, most Lieutenant Colonels are "taxpayer paid." When you find a way around that, let me know.

The Electoral College cannot save Republican senators, however.

No, but malapportionment will probably protect their "majority."

#35 Known trolls don't get the benefit of the doubt, but your willingness to extend it to people who don't deserve it is well documented.

I said "is"

No candidate is saying that. And if you base your vote on whether a random person was mean to you online, you probably can't be helped.

since the formula benefits those at the bottom more significantly compared to the guy who pays in the maximum...I think the changes should involve those at the bottom.

At a superficial level, maybe. But think about how a strong retirement system benefits the top by giving them dedicated workers who don't (all) need to go to a second job after work to make sure they're saving enough. There are many indirect but very tangible benefits to a strong SS system for top earners beyond the direct monetary payments.

Cool. Who cares?

The fact that Goatman won't address #18 is proof he's just here to troll.

Now you've just screwed over every Roth IRA owner, who paid income tax up front, only to be hit with a replacement on the back end.

Then make an exemption for Roths. At the end of the day high net worth individuals are the ones who should be salvaging this system rather than increasing the burden on people who need every dollar they earn to survive, so however that needs to be accomplished is what i support.

Democrats better give a ---- because if they don't try to persuade people to vote for them they will lose.

I love how people demand Dems do this, and in the same breath are going to nominate and elect a rapist game show host president who literally makes no effort to bridge the divide in this country whatsoever.

A large portion of your fellow countrymen have been determined to be irredeemable. Some of them might object to that classification.

They can object all they want. I object to them burning down our democracy. If they're bothered by a private citizen's classification of them I couldn't give a ----.

#2 "Urban decay?" NYC is more habitable now than it has ever been in my life, minus the cost which has nothing to do with "decay."

If you believe it to be true what is your plan?

Why should i have a plan to deal with irredeemables, as opposed to them having a plan for seeking out redemption?

And like i said, my plan would be to govern around them. And there are specific plans for that. Do you need to have them read to you?

And really your argument boils down to SS being necessarily regressive because the people at the bottom need it most. But that's not how we fund much anything else in this country that's recognized as a social good. It benefits everyone to have a strong retirement system.

the guy who pays the maximum in to SS (anybody making more than $130K right now) gets the least amount of it back (% wise) when they retire.

Doesn't make the funding mechanism any less regressive, but thanks for not being a 100% jagbag in your response.

If a man is allowed to identify as a woman, should n't a Hispanic be able to identify as a white without prejudice or persecution?

If we're irredeemable, what's the plan?
#15 | POSTED BY VISITOR_

You're the one who needs a plan, idiot.

Unless you're asking what the plan is to govern around your intransigence. In which case, there are many plans.

Raise the FICA cap by $10k.

Why only $10k?

Why should someone who earns $50k/year have 100% of their income subjected to FICA, yet someone who earns $1MM/year have only 13.3% of their income subjected to FICA?

The person earning $50k likely has to spend 100% of their net just to get by. The person earning $1MM doesn't.

And i know the response about SS being a personal retirement program. But let's not pretend we aren't just all paying taxes into the black hole of government and getting whatever government decides to deficit spend to give us. As long as that's the case, the only non-regressive and defensible position is that 100% of everyone's income should be subject to FICA.

#6 If Republicans are indeed "beyond redemption" (which i agree with), then Dems "winning the next election" as you recommend doesn't suddenly make them redeemable.

Is the rightwing argument in this thread really "teachers are liberals, and liberals are stupid?"

Surely you realize longterm education outcomes are far more complex than that...or maybe you don't?

I will defend your right to be an idiot.
#23 | POSTED BY ANDREAMACKRIS

Starting a club?

Explain away or STFU.

So it's the second thing. Got it.

What exactly does Putin gain from a politically divided USA?

Come on man. Are you seriously this uninformed or do you just like making people waste their time explaining obvious ---- to you?

#14 Trump's approval ratings are similar to when he beat Hillary. You vastly overestimate the intelligence and engagement of the average American voter.