It’s funny to me all the times that I’ve been considered not manly enough, whether it’s wearing my hot pink vans or a pink shirt or tie, allowing my gf or now my daughters to paint my nails, and tons of other examples I’ve been called gay for too. It made me think, what really makes a man. And going by their own definition, isn’t it one sign of a man to not be swayed by the opinion of someone who seeks only to denigrate? So why would I care about their opinion?

She likes it, who cares? Enjoy what you want, and let others enjoy what they want. I don’t like tabasco on pizza but I’m not going to get bent out of shape over someone doing that. If you are trying to MAKE something and you want that something to be as authentic as possible then sure, tabasco shouldn’t be put on pizza. But you are eating. Eating is for enjoyment or sustenance . Not rules.

But not at odds with running a corporate environment.

I mean to really change whether third parties work in the US we need systemic changes and regulations to the voting structure because getting a populist movement stateside is nigh impossible. The only reason to vote for someone that doesn’t represent you halfway is to hopefully prevent the person who doesn’t represent you at all from getting in.

We would really need changes to how voting is done on a regulation level to see the viability of federal 3rd parties. Some States do ranked choice which has really boosted 3rd party viability. I’d like to see that or something similar to it on a federal level.

It’s less a vote for Trump and more a lack of a vote for the party that can realistically defeat him. I wish 3rd parties were a viable federal election option. But they aren’t yet to a point where they can realistically win in the US.

So the sentiment that not voting, or voting for a guaranteed loss is a vote for the worse of the two parties with a chance to win isn’t entirely without merit, it’s just poorly phrased. It means that if you fail to vote for the person that can win over the worse candidate, you have given the worse candidate a better opportunity to win.

Maturity plays a much more important role than age. Some people are never fit to marry, some have what it takes by the time they are 16/17. It’s not often that it plays out well for the youngest ones, and since each year brings new experiences and understandings each year moves along the bell curve of “marriage readiness”. So is it more likely that a 24 year old is more ready for marriage than a 18 year old. Yes. Is it guaranteed? No. I know some 50/60 year olds that still aren’t ready for marriage. They just never learned the skills it takes to have a healthy marriage. Giving an age as a hard cutoff is too arbitrary a measure. Age doesn’t guarantee shit.