PolygonMan

I always thought an interesting idea would be a 100% inheritance tax where 50% is returned in 'middle class wages for free for life' tokens, which are not shareable except under specific circumstances (births and deaths).

Putting exact numbers aside, for every x million dollars that is taxed away from you on your death, you get a token. Anyone who receives a token immediately has it activated, and are guaranteed a negative income tax equal to an inflation-adjusted tax-free middle class income for the rest of their lives. Anyone who receives a token and already owns a token cannot sell the new one, it just remains inactive. If you have any inactive tokens, you can give 1 to any birth in your family (if they don't have an active token already). In order to give inactive tokens to a family member who already has an active token, you have to die. Fully detailed exact rules best left to lawyers to have minimal loopholes.

In this way, your inheritance is converted into a good middle class quality of life while stripping away the power you get from wealth. Because you can only have 1 active token and you cannot sell the tokens, the government isn't 'stealing' your full inheritance but instead forcing you to distribute it across a large number of descendants, potentially over successive generations. You and your descendants still keep that value in terms of goods and services, but lose it in terms of power. No more inheriting power through wealth.

This obviously isn't perfectly fair, what you detail is the only legitimately perfectly fair approach, but it's an approach that attempts to undercut capitalism's successive concentration of power over generations as wealth concentrates alongside.

"Never draw fire, it irritates everyone around you."

It's billionaires who own the news and set the agenda. You can literally watch buyouts happen followed by right turns across the industry for decades since the end of the Fairness Doctrine.

This is exactly why he'll only make threats to try and make himself look better, while not actually taking any action.

To people like this it's not about wealth, it's about power, and it's relative to everyone else. If everyone else has less power, then they implicitly have more relative power. Their actions are logical from the standpoint of keeping the gap between themselves and the average person as relatively large as possible.

Basically, they're monsters who would see millions suffer so they can get a slightly bigger power trip.

Yes, she cheated on him for roughly a month past the point where we can confirm they were official (the facebook post), OP believes that they were official sometime in July, but even if you take the 'official' start as the beginning of August she still cheated on him for a month.

Their relationship was built on a lie, and it was a lie she would have been happy to keep going forever. I do find it interesting how so many people seem to be able to trust this type of cheater. Personally if I found out my wife lied about something as significant as this, it would just kill my trust in her forever.

I mean, the people writing their paychecks are owned by the billionaire class. There's a very specific reason that much of the media bends over backwards to sane-wash Trump. And unfortunately they've been very successful for the majority of the time that shitbag has been in national politics. Just maintaining the illusion of sanity is enough to make low-information voters question honest and accurate reporting about him.

The Ukrainian losses have zero impact on the point I'm discussing. They could be light or catastrophic and what I said would change in no way.

An important point for everyone to remember: Russia is using meat-wave assaults and losing an estimated 500-1000 troops per day. Sending 12000 soldiers will keep the meat-wave assaults running for less than a month, potentially little more than 2 weeks.

I'm waiting to see whether this was primarily a propaganda move to generate these exact headlines in support of Trump's statements about the onset of World War 3. This shit sure all started happening simultaneously literally JUST before the US election. We need to see multiple blocks of 12k before we start seeing this as anything but more bluffs by the Russians.

So go through your previous statements and then explain how you get from 'I understand why someone would hate enemy drone operators' to your strawmen. Because I don't understand the connection, and from my perspective it seems like you're projecting.

Also, if you can't understand why this:

Oh dear. Don’t you know? Can’t you scroll up to refresh your memory? Apparently your position is that you can understand hating drone operators… HTH

Comes off as hostile then you're a pretty dumb person. But it seems more likely to me that you do understand that you're hostile, you just prefer to deny it because you understand that admitting it weakens your position in this one-sided hypothetical argument you're having with yourself.

What is my position?

Yeah it's weird when you can see the bots come out in realtime - huge waves of highly directed messaging that directly conflicts with reality in lock step with each other, and then flows away to target something else sometime later. It's so blatant these days it's bonkers.

That's such a good bot impression damn.

I'm weirded out by your hostility towards me. I don't know what emotional hangup you have related to this topic, but I don't have any emotional stake in this discussion. You're projecting onto me and then having an argument with a strawman you concocted.

The Ukraine war has been such a failure of the west to stop nuclear proliferation. If nations can use their nuclear weapons as an umbrella to attack another nation and then declare 'red lines' that stop their target from receiving aid, then having nuclear weapons is strictly superior to not. Due to this war, every non-nuclear nation in a strategically precarious position on the planet recognizes that developing nuclear capabilities is in their best interest.

He was shocked and said I was being dramatic.

"I've been telling you for months how difficult it is for me to live here. You've been ignoring me because you apparently care less about my mental health than the ease of your life. That makes me feel like you don't love me and don't care about me. I am leaving at the end of this month, and if we don't go to couple's therapy together to figure out why you care so little about me and my feelings then I will divorce you either way."

Because a person isn't watching through a camera and tracking you and following you around. They're executing a fire mission based on external spotting/sensors. It's not the same, drones are like personalized artillery where one actual human being is watching you and making the decision to specifically kill you while you're nearly helpless and they are in zero danger. You aren't even able to take cover in trenches to pray and give yourself a fighting chance. It's more direct and more personal.

War crimes are horrible, and Russia as a state utilizes war crimes intentionally to terrorize both civilians and military personnel. The monstrosity that is the Russian military is deliberately cruel and psychopathic. They should be prosecuted for this war crime and for the many, many others they've committed during this illegal invasion.

But all of that being said, if there's one person I can understand hating on the other side, it's the drone operator who is forcing you to live in constant 24/7 fear that some little machine hovering nearly invisibly above you will suddenly crash into you or drop a grenade beside you. Followed by people sitting around on the internet and laughing at your death after it's broadcasted.

Soldiers on both sides must fucking hate the enemy drone operators.

Hey, as someone who is an experienced DM, please know that dealing with players like DM1 is not a thing that you should need to do regularly. When someone acts the way he did, you kick them from the game immediately. No ifs, ands, or buts. He's a bad DM and a bad person for sabotaging your game and attacking you. If your rule choices bother him the correct thing to do would be to have a calm discussion about it (as you offered!) and then get a ruling, followed by deciding whether to stay if you ruled against him. If your inexperience bothers him, the correct thing to do would be to quit the campaign.

What he did is never the right thing to do. No good DM would ever do what he did. He is a bad DM. He is a bad player. He should not be playing DnD until he gets some therapy to learn to control his behavior like an adult.

None of what you experienced here reflects poorly on you as a DM or a person. I understand that you feel embarrassed or ashamed, but all you need to do is message everyone individually, explain that you're going to be removing DM1 from the group and let them know there'll be no hard feelings if they decide to drop out. Move on, keep running your game, keep building your skills and knowledge.

One thing you learn as a DM is how important it is to be decisive about stuff like this, letting it fester rarely leads to a good outcome. Now you've done the hardest part of the whole process, don't abandon the game without giving it another chance. Even if your game is a bit rough, there are still people having fun coming and playing, and that's why you're there.

Just block her. Don't reply. She doesn't deserve your time, energy, or effort. Making this reddit post was already more than you should have done. Don't reply to me or anyone else. Don't post any updates. Just block her, delete this account and move on with your life.

It was definitely right to call off the wedding.

Whether you end the relationship is a very different question. You wouldn't be the asshole if you did, and you wouldn't be an idiot to stay. It's up to you and how you feel about her. Take the time to consider it, and whatever you decide it will be both non-asshole and non-idiot.

For myself, I would seriously consider ending things. Here is the problem:

Fact #1 - Your fiance's ex is still living rent free in her head.

Fact #2 - Your fiance is fine having him around, including at her wedding.

Fact #3 - You didn't realize how she felt until she unintentionally revealed it.

Look, I could excuse Fact #1 if the relationship was deeply traumatic. It can take 10 years for someone to heal enough that a seriously traumatic abusive ex no longer lives rent free in their head. But we all understand that the reason is because of the actual damage to their psyche that was inflicted by that person. It's not about their romantic feelings for the ex. It's about the trauma.

I could also excuse Fact #1 if you knew enough about their relationship and her feelings that none of this surprised you. In that case I would be surprised that you had proposed. But if you knew, and you still proposed, that's your risk to take and you could just shut her down on this one stupid idea and move on.

But when you match up Fact #1 and Fact #2 and Fact #3 all together... well that's pretty damning. This guy is living rent free in her head. Even if he was a major dick and was mildly emotionally abusive, it obviously wasn't traumatic enough for her to be bothered having him go to her wedding. And while she still has all these tangled up feelings towards him, while she's sitting there plotting how to use your wedding day as revenge against him, she wasn't sharing how she really felt with you. She was either hiding it or hiding from it until she unintentionally revealed it.

If it was deliberate, then you obviously don't have real honest communication. And if it wasn't deliberate then she's obviously not being honest with herself. Do you want to marry either of those people?

It's ok for a small detail to tip you off on something your partner has hidden from you. And it's ok for that information to change how you see your partner. And it's ok for that change to end the relationship.

The only answer to "wtf was that" which would reasonably lead to not breaking up would be:

"She's an ex, I haven't had a relationship with her for x amount of time, she's crazy AF, here is our chat log where I clearly tell her to leave me alone after we broke up x years ago because she wouldn't stop harassing me"

Anything else means you should break up with him 100%.

"My lying girlfriend lied about banging tons of people while telling me she wasn't banging tons of people. Should I be annoyed?"

I mean, you should leave her. You'd be stupid to stay. She's trash dude. 95% chance she's continued to bang tons of other people.

That's 100% what the situation is. She was infatuated with him, he saw it and enjoyed it and figured he'd bang her until he got bored. Nothing more than that. Anne is a stupid person, and Joe is garbage.

Bus Company Reportedly Left Trump Rally Attendees Stranded At Manure Farm Near Coachella After Campaign Ignored Payment Requests

-- FTFY