I think I have a realistic view. Usually terminally online men don’t understand how alimony even works or how rare it is in the first place. I suppose they just get off on these kinds of justice porn theoretical outrage scenarios.

If someone has this strong of a concern about potentially having to pay alimony in the future and their partner is this bothered by practical attempts to alleviate that fear by preventing an issue, then maybe they’re just not right for each other and shouldn’t get married.

Alimony laws also vary enormously by jurisdiction, and people could also just e.g. not marry someone who doesn’t work or isn’t planning to. Or only marry someone who gets paid close enough to the same amount that alimony likely wouldn’t come into play regardless.

People who are so concerned about that possibility can just require their prospective spouse to sign a prenup with conditions like that on alimony, as a condition of getting married.

Yes, I like to live dangerously.

Correction, they mentioned 3 types of idiots not 2.

Gerrymandering only affects the house race and some state level races, not the presidential race (except potentially the Nebraska and Maine electors but that wasn’t relevant in this election).

I just watched the first question in that video and the actual correct answer was incredibly obvious within about 2 seconds of seeing the chart, does that mean I’m an idiot?

Not necessarily, he won a majority in Pennsylvania and in states like Wisconsin where he only got a plurality third party voters wouldn’t likely have broken strongly enough against him for him to lose.