I thought they accidentally got rid of Black Friday with their anti-DEI measures?

Wow, people are really pulling the last bit out of context and assuming the worst implications. His “stand by you” and “knocking on doors” thing is him acknowledging his white male privilege to feel safe doing things like going door to door in most neighborhoods, and being happy to extend that safety to others by standing beside them while they do it.

I get the concern about having a Nazi tattoo for over a decade, and concern that everything he is doing is performative based on his past. But what he said was pretty unequivically that he will support LGBTQ+ people, including in action. Whether anyone believes him or not is up to them. But what he said was not mealy-mouthed, it was direct.

Isn’t that the bad guy’s rationale in Collateral?

I’m not pleased they’re being deployed, but these guys aren’t choosing to go to these places. They signed up for national defense (and not the kind that blows up schools in a desert on the other side of the world) and often helping with major disasters.

The Texas National Guard absolutely did not sign up for policing cities in Illinois or Oregon, and I’d bet vast majority are not pleased to be there.

Am I out of the loop? Why the fuck would we be invading Venezuela?

deleted by creator

I’m pretty burnt out on bubbles. The message is… not exactly something I agree with, but is an interesting take I find worth consideration (good to challenge your biases, right?).

But the memes are such low-quality it’s like I’m viewing “The Right Can’t Meme” but from the Tankie side. They aren’t funny. They aren’t thought-provoking. They’re just cringe-inducing. And I’m not really into that vicarious embarassment type of comedy.

I think Jon would have the intelligence and humility to have very qualified, intelligent people to advise and challenge him.

My only concern for him is he would take it very seriously, and not be able to let anything go. He would burn himself out hard in 4 years.

Guys, this is nonsense ragebait. Move on.

a lot of older people downsize when their kids move out,

And we plan to, when both kids move out. But just one kid, with one five years behind the other? But anyway, isn’t moving the guest space to the main house section and renting out the apartment essentially “downsizing” to a three-bedroom anyway? Either way, the house remains a two-unit house. If somebody wants a temporary living situation by themselves or with one partner, what is wrong with them renting an apartment from me?

Look, I get it, the system is set up to screw people over to get big corpos big money. If somebody is living in apartment for a decade, that is a fucked up situation. But where I live there are military single young’uns wanting to get out of barracks for a year or two before their tour is done and they transfer, or regularly traveling nurses or others who come seasonally for work who aren’t in a position to buy a house and wouldn’t want to.

This whole “no good landlords” reeks of the same mentality as “no good lawyers.” Yes, there are a lot of greedy, unscrupulous (or overly adversarial) lawyers, but there are situations where having a lawyer is really important and there are plenty of good ones for those situations. The problem is a system that allows and encourages the profession to be abused.

First, that doesn’t solve the problem because then somebody else has two units in one building.

Second, downsize… from a four bed to a three bed? Not sure what sense that makes. Our needs won’t have changed dramatically.

Another piece that I didn’t mention is that I’m in the military, in a place with 3-year tours (so fairly temporary), and the young single people who arrive usually don’t wany anything too permanent, and are not in a position to buy. But I do know what their allowance for housing it, so I would be able to charge less than their allowance for housing, meaning they would get money out of the deal (and stuff is expensive here, so I’m not sure how they live anyway), and I get a respectful, reliable tenant (and we could offer home-cooked meals to whoever stays).

I know it’s a unique circumstance, and an exception hardly disproves the rule, but I don’t think “there’s no such thing as a good landlord” is a true blanket statement.

there is no such thing as a good landlord.

Okay, I’ll bite. I just bought a 4-bed/3-bath (actually 4 bathrooms, but bathroom math made it “3-bath”) because we are a family of four in an expensive tourist spot and wanted a guest bedroom for family and visitors. It just so happened one bed and a 3/4 bathroom is in an attached 1-bedroom apartment with its own kitchen and living room.

So when I retire, and my oldest is out of the house to college, we are thinking we could rent that particular part (at a very reasonable rate to people we know). It is part of the house, so I can’t sell it separately. So the choice is be a landlord, or don’t offer housing (I suppose I could make it an AirBnB and make even more money, but this area is already fucked for housing for that reason).

So if there is no such thing as a good landlord, what would you recommend in a situation like this? Let someone live there for free? Then they’d be costing me money. Don’t rent it out? AirBnB?

Yeah, that’s dumber than magic underwear. That might be the dumbest religious thing (with the exception of, you know, wars) that I’ve seen. Calling all of Manhattan your (and specifically your) domicile doesn’t stretch the meaning of domicile, it completely ignores it.

I’m on Voyager. How do I do that?

deleted by creator

“Manhandling”?! That’s not man-handling, that’s assault. The Senator was assaulted. Chuck Schumer is such a spineless lick-spittle, even when it concerns the physical assault of those in his own Party.

The first eviction is the worst.

The most burned-out generation yet.

As a party, the Dems suck. Absolutely. And in the long-term, as an opposition party, they are not great.

That being said, are the non-voters and protest non-voters children? The nonsense I’m reading about non-voters not being “inspired” or not being “captured” by Democrats to convince them to vote against fascism sounds like a description of a salesman trying to sell products, not the either-or choice being given to every adult American, which is, as a citizen, their own goddamn responsibility to be party to.

A non-vote is still a vote. You don’t absolve yourself of the outcome by choosing not to participate, because if you can vote, you’re already participating.

There were three real options this past election: MAGA, Dems, and I-don’t-care-they’re-equally-bad. So yes, not voting when fascists win means you supported fascism.

Obviously that does not mean non-voters are solely to blame. Republicans accepted fascists, those that voted R chose fascists, Dems suck as a party, and non-voters sat back and allowed fascists to take power. On the list, non-voters are the least bad, certainly, but they still bear responsibility.

It doesn’t look like this was an “attack on random civilians.” Out of all the people they could have killed, they killed people who work for the Israeli Embassy. They worked for the government doing the genocide.

Now did they support it? Who knows, but this shooter was not shooting up a movie theater. It was no more random than the United Healthcare CEO.