And by city. Ya, there are some cities where it’s over 10. I’m just saying that’s not nearly the average.

Not disputing most of you point, but the sales tax in California does not average 10%. I live here, and don’t think I’ve ever paid more that 9. Most of the time, it’s lower than 8.

Sorta like how the Ford Mustang isn’t named for the horse, it’s named for the P-51 Mustang airplane (which in turn is named for the horse.)

Extremely reasonable concerns, I agree. I wish Biden would have passed the baton early on like he said he was going to. I honestly think that cost the Democrats the election.

But given the choice between a declining Biden surrounded by competent people or Trump surrounded by sycophants, I would choose the former.

See above reply. I should not have, mistakenly, implied democrats earnestly concerned about Bidens age are silent now. My point was to illustrate Republican hypocrisy.

I perhaps should have clarified that I meant Republicans who said they opposed Biden because of his age, who are suddenly okay with someone in his 80s running.

I certainly did not mean Democrats earnestly voicing concern of Bidens age.

Not surprisingly, the constitutionalists and “Biden is too old” crowd Republicans are silent.

I guess my confusion comes from why you are so adamantly against specifically providing the social security card, when providing proof of employment eligibility is a legal requirement. Clearly, you have no problem providing employment eligibility, why do you have such strong feelings about providing the social security card specifically?

And while agree, the fact that other documents can be provided to prove employment eligibility means that technically providing the SS card isn’t required, I’d caution you against saying “never” in our current political environment.

We’re splitting hairs here. It is a legal requirement to provide work elibility. If you provide a passport, or if you provide an ID and birth certificate, that sufficies. But many people choose ID and social security card. And yes, employers keep copies of work eligibility on file.

So I guess my question is, is your objection really to the act of asking for a lightweight cardboard card?

Editing comment for clarity.

All employers in the US need proof of two things: proof of identity, and proof of employment eligibility. A passport takes care of both.

But most people in my experience provide a state ID/driver’s license (identity), and either a social security card or birth certificate (employement.)

So, you can be on your high horse all you want, but you’re gonna provide the documents above if you want to work legally.

Can’t really really refute painterly proof.

I’ll grant you that good champagne is better than great domestic sparkling.

But “no matter how good it is?” I don’t care what something is called; there is good domestic sparkling, and there is bad champagne. I’d rather drink the “good “” without the label.

Interesting aside. Because the senate never recognized the article in The Treaty of Versailles that prohibited use of Champagne, there are producers on the US grandfathered into being able to, technically, use the term.

Totally agree, although I think it’s likely the police are already on board.

I actually think there will be some restrictions on the second amendment in the next four years. It’ll be targeted at “others;” liberals, minorities, immigrants. But it will be an erosion of the second amendment, and the white “come and take it” crowd will cheer.

It’s a pretty outdated view that US wine (primarily from California, Oregon, Washington) is of lesser quality of that of Europe. True, the big flagship wines -the first growth Bordeaux and premier cru Burgundy and Champagne, are rarely matched. But a large majority of American wine is on par with most European wine.

Now, of course I do not support tariffs on US imports of wine. But pushing back on the quality comment.

Handicapped parking spaces should be reserved only for those who require an assistive device that necessities additional room around their vehicle for unloading and loading.

In a hypothetical world in which protected handicap parking didn’t exist, these people would be burdened by needing to always find parking spaces with an additional empty space next to them, and hoping that space remained empty when they return. Too high a burden.

So we rightfully have built into our civic and building codes the requirement that a certain number of protected handicap parking spaces be available. At least in my jurisdiction if you look at protected handicap parking, you’ll see that every space has an additional half space next to it to allow for egress of assistive devices. Without these protective half spaces built into every handicap parking space, people requiring such devices would face the undue burden I mentioned above; these handicap spaces give people equal access.

My controversial take is that only people requiring such devices should be granted access to these spaces. Yes, I know that there are many people that have a more difficult time walking and can benefit from closer proximity to their destination, but in my opinion, these requirements shouldn’t be for the “benefit” of anyone, but only the equal treatment for those facing the aforementioned undue burden.

In my opinion, for every one person needing an assistive device, and every two people who would simply benefit from close proximity, there are numerous people who use handicap parking for convenience. I’ve seen motorcycles with handicapped parking placards for goodness sake.

deleted by creator