Questions

People are only faithful to their partner, because they don't have a choice otherwise or feel compelled to by their upbringing. The options are typically "get one person and sleep with them" or "stay single and sexually frustrated". Some people can sleep with whoever they want without needing commitment, but most cannot. Monogamy is a sort of a "necessary evil", not an intrinsically "desirable outcome".

“But it’s good for children”, you might retort, “having parents’ partners go in and out of their lives is bad for their development” and that is the only time, where monogamy becomes relevant. Imagine, if you will, that the population is rendered immortal and/or never ages. Reproduction is now immaterial, because you have an indefinite lifespan. Changes the equation quite a bit, doesn’t it? If there’s no need for children, but the urge to f*ck is still there, why not pursue it completely and relentlessly? Enjoy pure pleasure, as much as possible, without restraint or complication—granted, we’d have to eliminate all STIs, but I digress.

All of which is to say, if every person alive could enjoy an entire population of their choosing, having sex with as many different people as often as they desired, vs settling down with just the one, why would anyone choose the latter over the former? Nobody would limit themselves, if they didn't have to. Monogamy is forced upon people.

Do you agree with this idea? Why or why not?

The white, middle-class family suburban towns are a dying kind. Traditions are dying with them. I would like to see white family towns be preserved to an extent. Home cooked meals, independence (no govt overreach), a good work ethic, and church attendance is always welcomed!

POTUS is an important job that MUST be somewhat insulated from lawfare - you would have to be a naive fool to think otherwise.

That said let's flip it a bit. Is justice TRULY served for any alleged victim just because the accused has "an important job"? Is justice delayed justice denied?

Should POTUSs be temporarily shielded from civil litigation for events that took place BEFORE sitting?

Is there the potential for real people with or without STANDING to depose / harass a POTUS interminably so as to interfere with the job?

Is there the potential for real people WITH standing to be denied justice because of the office of the alleged offender?

IYKYK me & my opinion on some issues, I have to look right just to see Karl Marx (ya like that one fellas? 🤣😂🤣) BUT this "far lefty" ACKNOWLEDGES & AGREES that the greater good MUST skew toward some variant of POTUS being allowed to delay / abey litigation but HOW FAR until the deference becomes a problem for proper administration of justice?

Presidents aren't kings but neither are private citizens... Now what?