[Woeful Countenance again, anonymous to preserve moderations.]

That's such as obviously ignorant question that you can't possibly mean it, so I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Viz: In the American Colonies, homosexual behavior was often a capital crime: "In 1636, the Plymouth Colony wrote a simple list of 'Capitall offenses lyable (sic) to death' that included sodomy, treason, witchcraft, arson, rape, murder, bestiality, and adultery. In 1641, the Massachusetts Bay Colony adopted the Body of Laws and Liberties, which established twelve capital offenses including sodomy."

"At the turn of the 20th century, legislatures made more explicit attempts to criminalize homosexuality. Several sodomy laws were expanded to include oral sex. In the 1950s, state and nationwide ‘witch hunts’ of homosexual men ensued, and hate-based rhetoric equated consensual adult sex with child molestation." [As it still does.]

It remained illegal under state laws until recently: "In 1955, the American Law Institute voted to decriminalize consensual acts of sodomy and removed sodomy as a crime from its Moden Penal Code (MPC). ... In the 1980s, Pennsylvania and New Yorks’ highest courts struck down state sodomy laws, partially relying on the U.S. Constitution in their decisions." For those who don't know, "sodomy" refers to certain sexual acts, whether homosexual or heterosexual, but the laws were applied almost exclusively to gays.

"In 2003, the United States Supreme Court agreed to hear the case of Lawrence v. Texas. Police arrested Mr. Lawrence and Mr. Garner and both men were later convicted of violating a Texas statute forbidding two people of the same sex from engaging in certain sexual behaviors. In a 6-3 opinion authored by Justice Anthony Kennedy, the Court held that Texas' statute was unconstitutional. "

Gays were not allowed to serve in the US military, the CIA, or the FBI, and were prohibited from being teachers.

So that's when gays did not have equal rights.

[Woeful Countenance, anonymous because I've modded MacMann UP in some other discussions.]

Some examples would help, if you have any. President Truman oversaw an undeclared war in Korea. Kennedy and Johnson in Vietnam. Nixon's secret bombing of Cambodia. George W Bush started wars in Afghanistan and Iraq without a declaration of war, just a wishy-washy "Authorization for Use Of Force" from Congress. Obama killed an American citizen with a drone strike, violating the Fifth and Sixth Amendments (and arguably the Eighth). Obama destroyed Libya.

Trump hasn't started any serious wars yet, so things could be worse, but he's been far more blatant than any other recent president in enriching himself, replacing competent government functionaries with cronies and sycophants, and destroying institutions he just doesn't like, from gutting the EPA to firing the board of the Kennedy Center.

Biden ... what did Biden do? Tried to relieve millions of people of their college debt. Despicable! Pure Evil! What else? Do you have a list?

And he just ignores them.

It's already illegal. The President can only impose tariffs with the approval of Congress OR in cases of national emergency. So he just claims there's a national emergency. This is exactly the action of a tyrant: arrogating to himself the right to redefine laws.

Frankly, I'm having trouble taking you seriously at this point. Trump can campaign against senators in the primary elections. You can't possibly not know this. And impeachment has been tried, but due to fear of the masses and rank partisanship, it failed.

Is there? Can you cite any examples? The so-called "Big Beautiful Bill" passed -- where was the opposition from the Republicans? Is there anything Trump has wanted to do that he's been prevented from doing?

Lisa Simpson: "Dad, as intelligence goes up, happiness often goes down. In fact I made a graph... I make a lot of graphs."

In principle, a solar-power satellite could be put into orbit around the moon, using microwaves to beam power to the surface. Ideally, more than one. This idea has been proposed for use on Earth, but deemed "not economically feasible". (Some Wikipedia editor has a sense of humour: "Since wires extending from Earth's surface to an orbiting satellite are not feasible with current technology ....")

No need to be deceptive. Radiation shielding is made from depleted uranium, which has had the fissile U-235 removed, so it's irrelevant to this topic. A reactor would use some form of enriched uranium or plutonium or thorium with higher than natural levels of fissile material.

Heinlein also wrote a book with Nazis on the moon, Rocket Ship Galileo , which also warned about danger from nuclear weapons.

You said a lot of stuff there. Point 1: "Eliminating the income tax will put rocket engines on the economy"

Top marginal income-tax rates in the US:
1932-1935: 63%
1936-1963: 79% to 91%
1964: 77%
1965-1981: 70%
1982-1986: 50%
Seems like the economy somehow managed to struggle by, despite high income-tax rates.

Also: "The tax rate Americans actually pay is much lower than the top tax rate."

Point 2: "rich people will instead invest that money which will result in the construction of more manufacturing in the USA".

Evidence? Maybe that was the case in the 19th century, but I don't believe it's true today.
Total Construction Spending: Manufacturing in the United States over the past 20 years: slow growth until suddenly it tripled between 2022 and 2024. Want to guess what happened there? It wasn't a change in income taxes.

My understanding is that most investment goes into the finance, insurance, and real-estate sector, not manufacturing, because the US is now a "post-industrial service economy". These tables from the US Bureau of Economic Analysis might be relevant:

Table 14. Gross Domestic Product by Industry Group: Level and Change from Preceding Period: Manufacturing, $2.9 trillion; Finance, insurance, real estate, rental, and leasing: $6.19 trillion.

Possibly more relevant to income tax, Table 8: Personal Income and its Distribution:
Goods-producing industries: $1.9 trillion
Services-producing industries: $7.7 trillion

Table 17. Gross Output by Industry Groups
Manufacturing: $7.28 trillion
Finance, insurance, real estate, rental, and leasing: $9.87 trillion
Those are GDP, not investment, but they give an idea of the relatives sizes of those sectors of the economy.

Curious to know where those numbers came from. According to the US Treasury report, "140,803 taxpayers successfully filed returns using Direct File, with users reporting a high degree of user satisfaction. Direct File users claimed more than $90 million in refunds and saved an estimated $5.6 million in tax preparation fees on their federal returns alone. ... Foundational technology and product development costs for the IRS were $10.5 million, and Direct File’s operational costs – including customer service, cloud computing and user authentication – were just $2.4 million. To build and run the pilot, the IRS also engaged the U.S. Digital Service (USDS) and costs associated with their work are not included."

I haven't been able to find anything on the USDS cost.

Before the pilot, the "IRS estimated that Direct File could cost $64-$249 million annually". But then, apparently, it didn't.

The American Coalition for Taxpayer Rights opposed Direct File. And who are they? "a 12-member, voluntary coalition of the nation's leading tax preparation, tax software and financial services settlement companies. Each year, ACTR member companies serve approximately 110 million of the more than 150 million Americans who file federal income tax returns ...." They say that as if they think it's a good thing, while many people think it's not so good.

Where did you get that idea? Where do you think Walmart gets its low prices? And why do you think cheap stuff is cheap? About one-third of Walmart's products are imported, about 60% of them from China. I doubt that all of those are luxury goods.

Not illegal, but disclosing security clearance level is against the Rules:
"You should not:
* disclose your level of security clearance online or on social media profiles"

No, they really aren't. Ways to file for free:
Ways to file for free
(1) Free File - If your adjusted gross income is $84,000 or less.
(2) If higher, you can use Free File Fillable Forms.
* Direct File - Prepare and file your taxes online – for free – directly with the IRS.
Other ways to file
(3) Tax professional - Choose an IRS-approved tax professional.
* Paper forms - You can file with paper forms and mail them to the IRS.
(4) Tax preparation software - Use tax preparation software of your choice to file your taxes electronically or on paper.
So even without Direct File, there are at least four ways to file tax returns other than on paper.

In the presidential elections, because of the Electoral College, for most states, it doesn't matter who you vote for. Your state will reliably and predictably go to the Republican candidate, repeatedly, or the Democratic candidate, repeatedly. So voting for a third party isn't "wasting your vote".

You can have more effect at the local, county, and state levels.

There's also the problem of the infinite loop: nobody votes for third parties because they can't win -- because nobody votes for them.

Premise of "A Very Good Year", short story by Roger Zelazny: guy invents a time machine, uses it to go back in time to the same year, repeatedly, because it was a very good year. (in "Unicorn Variations")

Obviously some people do: "On any given day, over 368,000 children are living in the U.S. foster care system."

Some people are better at planning than others, and it isn't feasible or even desirable to plan for every bad thing that could happen. And "don't get a dog if you can't do that" may mean the dog will just be killed. According to the ASPCA: "Approximately 607,000 animals were euthanized in shelters in 2024"

Good insight -- which was explicitly stated: "you work literally 6, 12 hour shifts in a week while you're trying to build your career. In exchange for that you might get a middle class wage 10 or 15 years down the line."