Brandon

That's great news. He was the one I was least worried about and I don't think he adds any value to the ticket. Shapiro would have been a real problem for Trump in terms of appeal to moderates (let alone delivering Pennsylvania for Harris), and although I despise Mark Kelly, I think he also had more broad public appeal for the same reason.

I think Davidson has a good chance of winning the job. He definitely has the talent advantage, it's just a matter of translating that to practices and the preseason games and so far, it sounds as though he's off to a good start.

Good for those Republican senators attempting to get answers any way they can. And how shameful of the Secret Service director to run away and hide from their questions.

They didn't seem to be having any trouble with a sloped roof on the other building. Scroll down a bit... https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-rally-shooting-secret-service-identified-rooftop-security-flaw-rcna161783

I think he's probably in some pain.

By picking Vance, Trump is probably hoping he can help in Pennsylvania and Michigan.

I'm not overly excited about it, but I do think he was clearly the best choice of the names being commonly mentioned.

A few weeks ago, before Biden' debate disaster, I think that might have been a lot more likely. I still think there's an outside chance it might happen, but at this stage, I doubt the campaign wants to take that kind of chance with a big lead in the polls now.

I'm not sure how I'd feel about it, but I wouldn't be totally stunned if it's Tulsi Gabbard.

Yeah, you'd think that would be a clue that they're part of the problem.

Meanwhile, the classified documents case against Trump has just been dismissed.

Even assuming the former classmate is correct, people can change quickly.

20 years old is an adult. At that age, he could have already enlisted in the military and served in a war.

Don't get me wrong, I completely agree with you in the context of the greater argument over gun rights. Its just that in terms of this specific incident, I don't think it matters. Highly illegal.

And the section I quoted clearly indicates that they were expected to provide their own weapon, among other gear.

The whole argument is stupid regardless. This dipstick could have used any run of the mill semiautomatic hunting rifle to the same effect.

Take a look at that link I provided above....

That's interesting, considering that the Militia Act of 1792 instructs members of the militia to supply their own firearm and ammunition when called to serve. That Act was passed about five months after the ratification of the 2nd Amendment. https://www.constitution.org/1-Activism/mil/mil_act_1792.htm

Reagan was also very seriously injured in that incident.

That's completely false. The president is still bound by their authority under the Constitution. The Supreme Court was pretty clear on that, and even in situations where that is unclear and the president initially is presumed to have immunity, the government would still have the opportunity to prove otherwise in a court. Basically, the same as it's always been.

The first half of my statement is still important to the second half. Men are far less likely to seek or receive emotional support for their issues. If they do, they're usually brushed off, ignored or belittled for doing it. That's a major contributing factor for the disparity in the opening post. This is not about men vs women, but rather that there's a problem here that's being ignored.

That's our difference of opinion. I think men are much less likely to seek or receive emotional support from family, friends, coworkers or society in general when they fall on hard times. Instead, they're usually told to man up, suck it up, and quit being such a p***y. And so they bottle it all up inside until they pop. And second, I think most of these guys are likely on the bottom end of society and never had any real advantages to begin with. They're not attractive or smart. They may be socially awkward. They're scraping by working a 9-5 McJob. They have zero relationship prospects or chances at a family of their own and can quite easily be alone their entire lives. They're also consistently losing to the same men that are higher on the socio-economic scale that you're complaining about.

Why do you think men have much higher suicide rates than women, not just in the US, but globally?

I'm saying that society has a strong tendency to be indifferent to a man who is struggling and is occasionally outright hostile. Aside from maybe their parents, men do not have an emotional support structure around them. That's why the suicide rates are higher than for women.

How many men are top executives? Again, that's why I used the word 'average'. Sure, life is great if you're a CEO of a major corporation. Is that the reality of existence for most men, though?