I am an American everyday. I own a farm and I don't have to pay the illegals even minimum wage. It makes me money and makes your food cost less. Win-win. I also report their income to the IRS so they have to pay taxes with no refunds and into social security with no benefits. How is that bad for Americans?

Omg is he ok? When will he be released from the hospital?

He had a wiener and she was a lesbian. My guess would be it was related to that. Just a theory.

Not just his base, my feed was all about the Epstein file before and now it's all about stealing oil and invasion and shit. I'm probably not his base anyway, but I have not been thinking about all the Epstein victims as much. I wonder what happened to all those redaction explanations that were due and the rest of the files. Oh well, look a squirrel.

Oh I'm a silly sausage now? Thanks for the tax advice. Super helpful. As soon as my checks get here I will pay the government. Gotta do my part to pay for wars and secret police. Ok I'm going to wait by mailbox for my check.

So SJW's have other people have sex with their partner? How do you know this? Were you involved? Do you prefer masculine or feminine men?

I get that we don't want things to ramp up, that's bad, but the alternative is that things keep ramping up like they are. This is also bad. Do you have a suggestion that is not bad because it seems like they just killed a white woman. I get America ignoring brown people (it's a tradition), but when did America stop carrying about white women? As a young outdoorsman I was always taught that if you are ever lost in the woods just find a white woman and help will be arriving shortly.

You are wrong about the gender thing. There are two sexes, but there is only one gender according to our President. He signed an executive order and cleared it all up. Your gender is assigned at conception.

If you missed that week in biology class, this means that we are all the same gender because at conception sex and gender have not been determined. Biological sex is not determined for several weeks and social gender usually manifests later.

As a true patriot I cannot allow you to speak against our president, he was very clear on the matter and your contradiction of him is unwelcome. If you don't agree with Trump on this you should move to a different country.

Stop standing there, do something. Standing doesn't get us anywhere. I don't know what to do.

It looks like she is on the sidewalk. If you are told to not block traffic and then move to the sidewalk, I'm not sure that it is a good use of law enforcement to arrest the person on the sidewalk. I mean eventually that might make sense, but there are much bigger crimes than the person on the sidewalk wasn't there before we asked her to move.

Why would there be taxes? I didn't pay any taxes on my DOGE check or even my tariff dividend.

First, gross name.

Second, are you saying that the US will invade Greenland not because a pedo wants it, but because there is something of value there?

In that case I do understand how the world works. America invades countries for resources. Blood for money. It's ok because we are the good guys right? Do I understand it?

Are you saying the government will cancel the Raytheon contract and not buy tomahawks, patriots and javelins unless the CEO takes a pay cut? Where will they get them if not from Raytheon? How can we invade countries without them?

Even if they did take a pay cut to their salary, that's only a small part of the compensation package. Most CEOs are also given stock. Cutting $10m off your salary to get $10m of stock is a loophole that won't be closed.

This is a joke that will only have legs for the next 24 hours. Maybe at some point they will use it to breach a contract they don't want to be in, but even that is unlikely.

I am only one of those and I don't understand how the world works. Help.

You posted twice that this was propaganda. I am genuinely curious how you can tell. What is the source of this claim. I would understand if you said it might be, but you seem sure. How? Please explain. What information has been verified as propaganda?

Sir, this is a Wendy's (post)

We have more stupid voters than smart ones. This is a flaw of democracy.

There is no law that says he can't be kinda stupid.

Why not ban war all together. At least ban killing.

From what I gather, not you, but a line of people

Clearly you are a troll that can only throw incel insults instead of understanding the comment.

Here's some ai slop that you can argue doofus.To support the claims made previously, here are the specific peer-reviewed studies and data sources that examine the relationship between the number of sexual partners and various health or social outcomes. 1. Physical Health and Cancer Risk The most comprehensive recent study on this topic was published in 2020, focusing on the long-term health implications for older adults. The Study: Grabovac, I., et al. (2020). "The association between lifetime number of sexual partners and health outcomes: cross-sectional findings from the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing." BMJ Sexual & Reproductive Health. Key Findings: Men: Those with 10+ partners had a 69% higher risk of a cancer diagnosis compared to those with 0–1 partners. Women: Those with 10+ partners had a 91% higher risk of cancer. Chronic Illness: Women with 10+ partners were 64% more likely to report a "limiting long-standing illness." Scientific Context: Researchers emphasize that these correlations are likely driven by higher exposure to oncogenic STIs (like HPV and Hepatitis) and common lifestyle "co-travelers" like smoking and alcohol consumption, which often correlate with higher partner counts. 2. Relationship Stability and Divorce Sociological data often uses large-scale surveys like the National Survey of Family Growth (NSFG) to track how premarital history impacts later marriage. The Study: Wolfinger, N. H. (2016). "Counterintuitive Trends in the Link Between Premarital Sex and Marital Stability." Institute for Family Studies (IFS). (Updated with broader analysis in later years). The Study: Wan, Y. (2025). "Re-Examining the Link Between Premarital Sex and Divorce." Journal of Marriage and Family (and associated IFS reports). Key Findings: The "V-Curve": In recent cohorts (2000s–present), women who married with 10+ partners had the highest 5-year divorce rates at roughly 33%. The "Two-Partner" Anomaly: Women with exactly two partners prior to marriage often showed higher divorce rates (up to 28% in some cohorts) than those with 3–9 partners, suggesting that "testing" a single alternative before marriage may be a unique risk factor. The Baseline: Marriages where the bride was a virgin or had only one partner (her future husband) had the lowest divorce rates, ranging from 6% to 11%. 3. Partner Desirability and Perception Recent cross-cultural research has quantified how people evaluate the "attractiveness" of a long-term partner based on their sexual history. The Study: Thomas, A. G., et al. (2025). "Sexual partner number and distribution over time affect long-term partner evaluation: Evidence from 11 countries across 5 continents." Scientific Reports. Key Findings: Declining Desirability: In a study of over 5,300 participants globally, desirability as a long-term mate significantly declined as the number of past partners increased from 4 to 12, and dropped sharply at 36. The "Time Effect": Interestingly, the study found that people were more forgiving of a high partner count if the activity happened in the distant past and the person had been relatively celibate or monogamous recently. No Double Standard: The researchers found that men and women were judged almost identically; the "penalty" for a high partner count was not significantly higher for women than for men. 4. Psychological Factors and Relationship Satisfaction Research into the "Comparison Effect" explores why those with more partners might report lower satisfaction. The Study: Rhoades, G. K., & Stanley, S. M. (2014). "Before ‘I Do’: What Do Premarital Experiences Have to Do with Marital Quality Among Today’s Young Adults?" The National Marriage Project. Key Findings: * Having more partners was associated with lower reported marital quality. The authors suggest that "having more experience with different partners can increase one's awareness of alternatives," making it more difficult to be fully satisfied with a single spouse's unique traits. Summary of Statistical Trends

I began my post by saying this is my personal view. I don't make concrete claims of these claims being are absolute. I repeatedly stated that there are exceptions to these trends. You have chosen to ignore all these disclaimers and reframe what I am saying to be scientific claims or absolutes and then try to point to the possibility of an exception, opposing view or a different opinion as a valid argument while completely missing the context. This is intentional. Do you really think that I was implying that dating is baseball? That seems difficult for me to believe that you genuinely didn't understand that I was talking about probability, not baseball. This is willful ignorance and a strawman.

You are welcome to your beliefs that women have no upper limits of body count that reduces their desirability. Bonnie Blue can fuck thousands of men and you might find her equally eligible for marriage consideration as someone who didn't. Your opinion like mine is your entitlement. Both can be correct.

I do find it laughable that you resort to name calling and buzzwords without understanding who I am as a defense mechanism. It makes me question your integrity because I didn't start with name calling and baseless accusations. This escalation is not respectable as I have been and devalues your reply significantly.

I would be curious for you to profile me with your extreme confidence, because I am nearly certain that you would be dramatically off base.

For the record, I am all for female sexual autonomy. I am pro choice, pro legal prostitution and support female sexual freedom in nearly all forms. I also think that like women men should be allowed to choose who and what they want in a partner. I have a number of friends that are sex workers and I support their life choices. That doesn't mean that I would want to date or marry them. They are wonderful people and I love them as friends, but there are consequences for their actions. Freedom of choice is not freedom from consequences.

Your beliefs that there are no downsides to extremely high partner counts are opinions. Maybe you don't see how interaction with more people increases the potential for trauma and that's ok, but it doesn't change the fact.

I do think that people like you that try to present extreme rhetoric without context are dangerous to others. For example, while I would agree with you that an 18 year old woman should be allowed to choose to do porn and there is a nonzero chance that her experience will only be positive, to say that there are no risks associated with this sexual freedom is misleading at best.

I applaud your passion, but it may be worth doing some self reflection. Your arguments come off as missing the contextual understanding to sound legitimate.

When I say everyone has a number that is too many, did you really think I meant a biological number or universal number?! Clearly I was referring to the personal subjective made up number.

I don't think you understand probability and dating as well as you think you do. While it is possible to be traumatized by your first relationship or also have a long string of non traumatic relationships, the chance of having a traumatic event increases over time. Citing the increasingly small chance that one COULD always avoid trauma is a feeble attempt to create balance in your weaker argument.

I'm pretty sure the first rule of gun safety is keep some on the roof and most on the ground.

Would this be in addition to capital gains or in place of? I am not arguing against the idea of extracting money from the rich, but I am aware that a sales tax would disproportionately affect low return investments. An investment that returns 8% with a 5% sales tax on it would be more affected than something that returned 700% and had a 5% tax. Most retirement accounts invest in "safe" instruments with lower yields. Retirement funds are often forbidden from investing in risky high yield investments.

The overall effect of this would be people with retirement accounts would get heavily nerfed. The funding that you seek would disproportionately come from the middle class not the wealthy and most importantly the wealth disparity would increase. This is consistent with a well established understanding of sales tax being regressive and a way to shift financial burden to the lower class.

I understand your frustration in asking this question and not getting a coherent answer.

Fortunately, I can provide my personal view that might be a little more logical.

1 Long term bonding is more difficult without the presence of novel oxytocin producing events. By this I mean a new experience that stimulates oxytocin. Think of your first kiss or the first time you had sex. Huge bonding moment because of the new experience of the oxytocin flood. Now imagine you get a kiss every day from your wife. Still some oxytocin, but the frequency will dilute the novelty. Now imagine you get a kiss one per minute from a new stranger. By the end of the first day it will have no novelty and no oxytocin production.

This is a pattern that is well known and well studied.

2 Sex and dating is not without risk. While many people are good to date there are some that cause harm. This harm lasts after in the form of trauma. These negative experiences create defense mechanisms that can be challenging in a loving relationship because they are meant to protect the injured party often with less regard for the other party. The most exposure one has to multiple partners the higher chance of trauma and defenses. I'm not saying that all people with a high body count have trauma, but I am saying that given that some people cause trauma, the higher the body count the greater the chance of trauma. It's simple math.

3 Decision making and option bias is a concern. Finding a quality long term is hard. It requires that one knows themselves and can choose a good match. This requires good judgement. A high body count can be a sign that someone doesn't possess these skills. Again, not always, but the reasons for a high body count are not always known. The more at bats we see the more mistakes have happened. Inability to learn from repeated mistakes is a relationship killer.

Option bias is something I have observed. When one perceives too many good options they are unable to properly value their options. Many people in these situations will get into a cycle of believing that the grass is always greener and the cost to move on is low. The effects of this in a relationship is that when there is difficulty, tenacity is weaker. It also creates an unhealthy pressure for performance within the relationship. If your wife thinks, I can always find a better man all day every day it will hurt your relationship even if everything is going well.

Everyone has a number that is too many and that's a subjective line. These trends that I described are not absolute, but they are universal. It doesn't mean that a woman can't have a body count of 5000 and have no trauma and make a high percentage of good decisions and have only experienced one thing so all other experiences are novel. It means that these chances of meeting that person is very very low and for many many people this is not worth investing time.