charonn0

My problem is with Brendan Eich.

I refuse to use the Brave browser, and I was prepared to abandon Firefox, over then-CEO Brendan Eich's $1000 donation in support of California's proposition 8 (banning same-sex marriage). I will never forgive the supporters of that proposition. I will not knowingly support their businesses.

I've lost all respect for Scott Adams (of the Dilbert comic strip) and Kelsey Grammar (Frasier actor). Their continued support for Donald Trump is damning.

• The right to make medical decisions on behalf of the other
• The right to visit the other in the hospital
• The right to make funeral arrangements for the other
• The right to survivor's benefits (veteran's benefits, Social Security, private pension, etc.)
• Income tax breaks and credits
• Tax breaks on inheritance and estate taxes
• Tax breaks on money and property transfers between spouses
• Immigration and naturalization rights
• Can't be forced to testify against the other (usually)
• Communications between married partners are privileged from discovery in civil and criminal cases (usually)
• Joint adoption rights
• Bereavement leave
• Joint bankruptcy protection
• Automatic recognition of the relationship by every state, nation, etc.

Etc. There's something like 1,000 rights, privileges, and responsibilities that attach through marriage only.

Phew!

I'll just leave this here: https://www.patreon.com/treksite

I just thought "pirate-friendly" was concise.

tl;dr: The users' comments say that a certain ISP is pirate-friendly. Studios want to use the comments against the ISP (not the users).

That is not a distinction actually made by section 3. Oath breakers are disqualified, not rebels per se.

There are probably good arguments why qualification for a federal office isn’t properly decided by a state judge or official.

State elections officials already do that for things like age, residency requirements, etc. It's part of federalism that the state governments administer federal elections.

OK.

Federalize the National Guard, use them to arrest state troopers who refuse their lawful orders to disperse.

No. And that's quite my point.

all citizens are legally entitled to the same rights

It's worth pointing out that, in general and throughout history, citizenship is something that separates the privileged from the unprivileged. The in-group from the outsider. The masters and the slaves.

Touting the rights of citizens, therefore, does not necessarily rebut the parent comment's criticism.

to test whether cash payments can protect children from the toxic stress of poverty

The answer is yes. Obviously.

I keep seeing these pilot programs and small experiments in UBI, and they all prove that people prosper and thrive more when they have more money. Nobody is surprised. Was that ever even in question?

I want to see UBI experiments, plans, etc. that tackle large-scale implementation. We've proven "BI"; that was never the hard part. We need to focus on the "U".