Yeah, that’s someone who has so much money he doesn’t understand it.
If a $4 latte a day is a significant financial burden for you, you will never own a home. If you can own a home, that $4 latte will have no effect on that.
And the avacado toast? The health effects alone are likely to pay for itself in the medium-term.
You jest but there’s literally a hipster coffee shop in SF that famously sells a $10 toast…as of 2014 when I first heard about it from my roommate who worked there so it’s probably $15 by now.
Man I wish I could buy a $4 latte. Prices for everything are just insane these days. I feel like a basic bitch coffee and croissant at any random place is gonna be $10 now. They’re trying to tell us it’s monetary inflation and/or supply chains but that’s all bullshit. I’m in Northern Europe right now and even in pricey chic downtown areas it’ll be like €5 tops.
I get asking for mercy for family or a close friend, even when they’ve committed crimes, heinous or otherwise. I’ll chalk that up to human emotions.
But ffs, read the room a bit.
His dedication to leading a drug-free life and the genuine care he extends to others make him an outstanding role model and friend.
One of the most remarkable aspects of Danny’s character is his unwavering commitment to discouraging the use of drugs.
His dedication to avoiding all substances has inspired not only me but also countless others in our circle. Danny’s steadfastness in promoting a drug-free lifestyle has been a guiding light in my journey through the entertainment world and has helped me prioritize my well-being and focus on make responsible choices.
Saying stuff like that when he’s convicted of drugging victims before taping them is just nuts. Even by some sense of stupidity you think you’re just trying to highlight that he’s not a habitual drug user, you’re essentially just highlighting how calculated his actions were by drugging his victims.
I commented elsewhere that I wondered if they believe he’s innocent. If they truly believe this is a miscarriage of justice could these letters be written with his appeal in mind? There’s no physical evidence as I understand, maybe they’re going for the “this guy is so sober he wouldn’t even know how to get drugs” angle? I’m just talking out of my arse now but I’m so confused by the level of support for him I can’t help but clutch at straws to try to explain it.
He drugged the women so it’s relevant in that sense. Implying that he wouldn’t know how to obtain the substances needed to do that is an argument for his innocence.
It’s a pathetic argument to make, but it’s not illogical.
Having worked in the entertainment industry- if a drug exists and you want it, you can get it. So everyone knows how to get drugs. That part isn’t all that hard to believe.
I’m just talking out of my arse now but I’m so confused by the level of support for him I can’t help but clutch at straws to try to explain it.
manipulators be manipulating.
Rapists and other abusers are known to very often charm everyone around them. It isn't only a way to lure in their victims, but it's also a great defence against suspicion ("he's such a nice guy, he could never") which has proven to work over and over and over again (and those are just the most famous cases off the top of my head, but the pattern repeats often at all levels of wealth and fame/anonymity).
It’s not a defense, it’s just a character statement to be taken into account in sentencing. I too think Kutcher shouldn’t have written it, but it’s not any kind of defense of the charges
People who preach often about not doing the minor vices, are usually engaged in some heinous shit; the preaching bit is a cover both lying to others and most importantly themselves
I didn’t read the rest of the letter, the paragraphs expressing nondrug use sounded exactly like it needed this to be pointed out. What a silly bar anyway, did you use drugs or not. Then to hear he used them on his victims…these letters are just clueless.
so let me get this straight, danny would get drugs and instead of using it himself, he used it on unsuspecting victims and then taped himself raping them. and this has been a “a guiding light in (ashtons) journey”… “of making responsible choices”…? what.the.fuck?!
At this point it's basically telling on yourself (if it isn't skeletons in his own closet, at bare minimum it's saying he's a piece of shit who openly supports a rapist. A convicted one at that).
Probably a bit of, "I can't believe my friend would do these bad things." People close to someone are harder to convince without seeing things first hand or hearing from other people they are close to.
Yea not cheering on attacks on civilians are such shilling lol edit admin removed my previous comment as uncivil. I guess there is a big difference of being uncivil depending on the nationality of the victims. Fuckin libs
He’s a total looser. He lost the election, he lost the “legal” challenged and the recounts and the “legal” challenges of the recounts and the recounts of the recounts…., he lost the coup attempt … he just keeps loosing.
He’s winning at losing. I wonder if he’s getting tired of winning at losing to all this legal shit. Most indictments, most insurrections, most impeachments, most sexual assault suits…
There are two kinds of people that work for Trump. One kind understands the phrase “cash up front”, the others are the true believers. One group may get paid. The others won’t and may even end up in jail when they inevitably break the law.
EM: So the backstory that we haven't told, because we don't wanna get in trouble, is that we've been investigating the police chief [Gideon Cody]. When he was named Chief just two months ago, we got an outpouring of calls from his former co-workers making a wide array of allegations against him saying that he was about to be demoted at his previous job and that he retired to avoid demotion and punishment over sexual misconduct charges and other things.
We had half a dozen or more different anonymous sources calling in about that. Well, we never ran that because we never could get any of them to go on the record, and we never could get his personnel file. But the allegations—including the identities of who made the allegations—were on one of the computers that got seized. I may be paranoid that this has anything to do with it, but when people come and seize your computer, you tend to be a little paranoid.
It certainly explains why the cops were so willing to go along with an illegal search warrant. Heck, maybe it wasn't even that the restaurant owner went to the cops to complain after the city hall meeting; maybe the police chief saw this as an opportunity to raid the newspaper and take the names and he approached the restaurant owner.
Edit: another story here has the police chief posting on the department's Facebook page:
The Act requires criminal investigators to get a subpoena instead of a search warrant when seeking “work product materials” and “documentary materials” from the press, except in circumstances, including: (1) when there is reason to believe the journalist is taking part in the underlying wrongdoing.
Which is bull. The newspaper was emailed information which they did not publish and which they reported to the police. They were not 'taking part in the underlying wrongdoing'. 1312, especially the Marion County police chief.
According to Meyer, a retired University of Illinois journalism professor, the raid came after a confidential source leaked sensitive documents to the newspaper about local restaurateur Kari Newell. The source, Meyer said, provided evidence that Newell had been convicted of DUI and was driving without a license—a fact that could spell trouble for her liquor license and catering business.
Meyer, however, said he ultimately did not decide to publish the story about Newell after questioning the motivations of the source. Instead, he said, he just alerted the police of the information.
“We thought we were being set up,” Meyer said about the confidential information.
The raid immediately sparked outrage online, calling into question why an entire police force was involved in a raid that could have violated federal law and could escalate the ongoing anti-press rhetoric that is dangerous for journalists simply doing their jobs.
This is why LGBTQ rights is so important. Imagine being a foster kids because of the US failed social safety net, only to be re homed in a religious bigoted house?! That’s what the GOP wants for kids.
“This is why protecting traditional families is so important. Imagine being a foster kids because of the US failed social safety net, only to be re homed in a LGBT groomer house?! That’s what the GOP wants for kids.”
I literally just changed two things and it went 180 degrees on the other extremist side of the spectrum. Do with that info as you wish
You can say anything, that doesn't make it correct. And it's funny how people call themselves out, because I only call people exhibiting bigotry bigots.
If you're being called a bigot, maybe examine your beliefs and actions. After all, if it smells like shit everywhere you go, it's probably you.
If thinking having two halves of a country willing to kill each other to be insane makes people call you a bigot, maybe I’m not the one that stinks after all
I'm telling you to post proof of you being called a bigot because of not wanting Americans to kill each other or whatever your argument is. I want to see what you're saying that makes people think you're a bigot.
Lol, in other words, that never happened. If it did, you'd be showing me just how wrong I am, rather than constantly making empty claims about it.
So again, post your proof if you're not just lying on the Internet about being called a bigot for no reason. Otherwise, I'm probably right to assume you're being called a bigot for entirely warranted reasons.
You mean put it into proper context, look at the stats, and acknowledge you're full of shit? Sure thing! But you won't let facts get in the way of your feelings amirite?
Uhhhh what? One, “traditional families” aren’t anti LGBTQ by default. Second, LGBTQ parents aren’t groomers. (can LGBTQ individuals be terrible humans just like everyone else? Yes!) Third, asking a foster family if they hate LGBTQ people is critical for the safety of foster children because mathematically 10% will be LGBTQ. And since there’s no “Gaydar” to tell you can’t risk putting any child with them!
You didn’t prove anything except how ignorant you are. Do with that info as you wish
See the difference is that being tolerant and accepting of other people’s life choices that don’t impact my life is objectively not monster-esque, whereas imposing your beliefs and codifying hate and fear into laws that control what others can do with their lives is actually behaving like a monster.
Any examples of “imposing beliefs and codifying hate”?
I could definitely say that the constitution is nothing but a bunch of former British upper-class men who owned slaves and just wanted to evade taxes imposing their beliefs upon America and codifying it in a document
Pendantic though it may be… 30 percent is more accurate for children in foster care to be LGBTQIA+. Many lose their homes of origin and support BECAUSE they are LGBTQIA+ so the instance is way higher.
Kind of a no brainer to have homo/transphobic foster parents struck from the rolls. It’s enough to be traumatized once by having your authentic self rejected by a supposed safe haven. Twice is unconscionable.
These boneheads seem to mix up up supportive with grooming. I had a conversation at a bar the other day with some dipshit that said if you support your child coming out as gay or trans, you’re effectively grooming them to be a sexual deviant. They fail to realize that grooming is an active nudge or conditioning in the direction of a desired behavior, whereas being supportive is unconditional love regardless of identity. My buddy’s kid is identifying as a girl atm, and while he and I both think it’s a phase (he’s 15 and just an awkward kid in general), we are supportive of his/her choice.
On the other hand, there are parents out there that actively nudge their kids into being some brand of queer from a young age (not just in providing an open minded atmosphere, but almost to discerning them gay from a stupid young age) that, to me, begins to cross a line. In my mind, let be kids be kids that become teenagers and then adults, and just support them in their choices while guiding them to be the best person they can be.
You changed two things and into something imaginary. There is no such thing as an “LGBT groomer house.” You can’t force a child to be gay or trans no matter how much you want to.
You might as well say “only to be rehomed in a dragon’s den.” It would make about the same amount of sense.
That’s exactly what happened to me as a kid. As a bonus, these religious nutjobs sexually abused their actual kid, and because I was just a foster kid, I wasn’t believed. Thank god my mom was able to get me out of that hell hole, but the trauma it caused me was so deep I didn’t even recognize how deep it was for almost 20 years.
Nah don’t be sorry, just be angry at a system that allows such things, and at a religion that shields such people. I came out okay in the end, because I have a family that loves me and helps support me through my traumas, but I don’t know what happened to their kid, or if they were ever stopped. That’s the part that bothers me. Knowing that those sickos could still be out there presenting themselves as righteous Christians while doing such things.
I rode a Honda Shadow, fun little cruiser until an old lady took me out. The false ego and grand standing from the Harley guys was fuckin obnoxious, nearly as bad as the coal roller bros.
I, too, rode a Honda shadow. I quickly grew tired of that upright sitting position on classic cruisers. Longer rides made my spine feel every fucking bump.
On a separate note…
Fuck all of those Harley bitches that bought into the lifestyle riding around without helmets on the weekend.
Nope, no new bike either though. Between being out of work for 6 months for physical recuperation and the mental toll it took on me it’s taking a long time to bounce back financially. Doubly so with rent sucking my soul out on top of it.
Without disputing that there were a lot of fuckups, this feels like a kind of pointless article given the uncle called 10 minutes after the shooter was shot by police, not sure there was much he could have done at that point.
Useless? Yes. Lazy and scared? Also yes. But cruel and malicious? No, I just don’t see the evidence of that. Even if these weren’t members of their own small community, more bloodshed means more paperwork. Let’s give the Uvalde Police the respect they deserve: the absolute minimum.
Multiple people wanted to enter but the police collectively detained them. Does that not reek of intent? They stripped other willing cops of guns and sent them off, against one shooter. Basically bouncers preventing any effort to subdue the shooter
He made a post saying that’s the “deal”. In a way it’s a brave brazen way to try and get a venue change. Harris would have to basically insult Fox News and their entire viewership to avoid looking like she’s walking away.
If she can go on Fox News and score a couple points against him it’ll go very well for her though; going into the proverbial lions den and coming out the other side
No (current) Harris voters are watching Fox News right now, she only stands to gain votes if she handles herself.
(The video) claims Harris is a “diversity hire” because she is a woman and a person of color, and it says she doesn’t know “the first thing about running the country.”
I started a new position in my company in February 2020, just weeks before the lock down. Since then I’ve been almost entirely working from home, coming into the office maybe 10 days over the past 4 years.
During that time I’ve been promoted, gotten a separate pay raise to a new band, helped onboard the entire rest of my team (two of whom are completely remote).
I’ve done nothing but prove over and over again that I am excelling at my job remotely.
They are still pushing for me to come back to a “hybrid” 3 day a week schedule. Madness.
still pushing for me to come back to a “hybrid” 3 day a week schedule
Offer to come back on a part-time basis, with them deciding which days you are working from home.
Those - the days you’re working safely from home - will be the days you work for them. But it’s entirely up to them how many days each week they have you as a resource.
There’s literally nothing Donald Trump could do that would make his worshipping voters change their minds about him. They believe anything critical of him is a lie and made up to hurt him politically. I can’t believe how dumb the electorate has become. Must be a general lack of education.
Republican politicians have long used language targeted at a 5th grade level of comprehension. Trump’s big innovation in politics was targeting a 4th grade level.
I often hear conservative family members complain about the public school system and calling for it to be dismantled. To them, the public school system is the reason for every evil the US faces, both on economic issues and social issues. They all listen to a lot of conservative talk radio and happily mix bible quotes and Rush Limbaugh quotes into the same sentence.
Yes, it’s the same family members who refused to do their part by getting vaccinated and were convinced that the rest of us would be dead by now from the “government poison vaccine.”
Very US-centric take. College education should be part of the general public education system like it is in Europe. It should not be connected to a person’s net worth. In Europe, you go to college based on merits, not wealth.
I also think it’s a very questionable conclusion to say that the more educated people are, the more they vote Republican. In fact, it’s the exact opposite. Hence, Republicans have incentive to keep people as dumb as possible.
In Europe the rich also pay for additional education to maximise their offsprings merits. Maybe not to the same degree, but it is there.
Maybe in a few countries like the UK, but expensive private education is not common in continental Europe. The best public universities are tuition free and provide some of the best education in the world. Rich and poor side by side in the auditorium.
The outrage-machine of culture war has become so fervent that it’s the only thing they care about. I watch police bodycam videos because they’re genuinely unscripted (unlike reality tv). The frequency with which arrestees cite their poor living conditions as motivations for their actions always has me wondering how much they attribute their circumstance to oligarchs fucking us all over vs anger that’s turned outward towards groups that don’t affect them at all. Obviously, I’m projecting, but it’s something that drives my curiosity.
Bidens about to go down as one of the worst Democrats in the last century because of his hubris if he doesn’t. His decent domestic agenda will be overshadowed by him ushering in another trump presidency by ignoring all the signs for him to drop out. He didn’t early last year when polls repeatedly showed that people thought he was too old. He didn’t when unnamed democrat was leading him by 10 points. He didn’t when his Gaza policy alienated large chunks of his base. If he doesn’t in the next couple weeks when there will probably be polls coming out showing majority support for him stepping down then he’s gone full head in the sand.
It’s like RBG all over again, if these people could just get it through there heads to quit while there ahead they could preserve a decent legacy, instead of tarnishing it by leading the way to a regressive order that overturns everything they’ve done.
Biden will lose against Trump. Changing candidates this late isn’t ideal but it’s better than guaranteed failure, and it’s better than after the convention if Biden deteroriates from where he’s currently at.
I’m not worried about him “deteriorating”. Anyone who has paid attention to him at all knows that was not reflective of his actual ability to lead. Hell, right after he sounded fine at the after party for anyone still listening.
I’m only worried about people thinking he’s deteriorating. A lot of people have literally only seen that debate from him in the last year and nothing else.
If we stay with Biden, he needs to get really aggressive with his image. Hang out with influencers, go to games, don’t talk about controversial politics while having fun (like with the ice cream).
If we go a different direction it needs to happen now.
I really don’t care which we do. But it’s an important conversation to have. This debate fiasco is 99% on Biden being unprepared. But image is everything for a candidate.
We can change horses if there’s overwhelming pressure to do it and it’s exceptionally well planned.
What we absolutely can’t do is nominate someone else against Biden’s wishes and still have him on the ballot as an independent… that’s how you get folks like Woodrow Wilson.
I, personally, think it’s doubtful that much pressure will materialize, but I’m prepared to be pleasantly surprised.
It depends on how the democrat’s civil war goes in that case. If the replacement gets the lion’s share of the funding then people will abandon Biden. His polling really isn’t great.
Running someone fresh that appeals to this American Idol-esque popularity contest = good.
What if no such person exists?
Then you just lose and Trump becomes President by default. Do you have confidence that Democrats can rally behind an actually named person? And if so, what is the name of that person?
I’m no Democrat. But I wouldn’t consider “replacing Biden by somebody” to be a serious option. You need to say “Replace Biden by SPECIFIC NAME HERE”. Otherwise you’re just throwing away the election before it even begins.
Are you asking that because you believe nobody is lining up wanting to be President, or that there is no candidate who fits that bill? Because I can think of half a dozen who both fit the bill and have obvious political ambitions:
Whitmer
Newsom
Buttigieg
Booker
Abrams
Warnock.
All far more youthful; all far more charismatic. All who have enough national name recognition and would trounce Trump in debates and contrast of age alone.
The question to me isn’t, “who else,” it’s, “Will Biden voluntarily step down and endorse such a person at the convention?”
The polls prove this could work:nobody likes either candidate, people want new faces, and age is a problem. Just give them another choice on the Democratic ticket and it’s game-over for the convicted felon. If I could I’d be money this gives better odds than sticking it out with Biden.
I’m not into Democrats, so I honestly don’t know half the people on that list.
Newsom needs to start resigning today to make the election. I think he’s off on technical grounds. And others have pointed out that he’s lower than Trump on a lot of polls. Buttigieg is homosexual and sad to say it, homophobia is on the rise. After the party’s experimentation with Hillary Clinton / Kamala I’m not sure that its a winning strategy. I know middle-aged white guy WASP is annoying, but its a trope for a reason.
In all cases, Trump will deny the other pick as a “loser” and refuse to debate. You’ll be going into the election without ever getting on National stage. Its a huge set of risks.
I’m not necessarily against it. But I also don’t think Biden’s performance was worse than Trump’s last night. A lot of this seems to be just Democrats getting nervous about themselves and their own choices.
Whitmer
I see she’s getting some press. I wouldn’t be against her, but I also don’t know much about her in general. Can she hold up against the Republican hate machine? We all know that Hillary couldn’t do it, so what makes Whitmer any better or more prepared?
Biden did hold up vs Trump. Better or worse, he did prove himself. I recognize that people are worried about “newer, older Biden”. But there’s severe risks in switching a candidate now, especially as vetting likely hasn’t been completed by either side yet. (Democrats need to vet to figure out how Republicans are going to attack her). Its a complete mystery.
You have to understand that the average American functions off of lizard brain impulses. It would be probably go like this:
Acknowledging age concerns of the electorate = show of weakness.
Running someone fresh that appeals to this American Idol-esque popularity contest = show of weakness.
Running someone Republicans don’t have their talking-points fleshed out on = show of weakness.
America operates on principles of running someone strong who says they will always be strong and that if they ever become weak while in office and they acknowledge this to be replaced, the entire party goes with them like a tug boat latched to a sinking oil tanker. Trump didn’t win because he’s smart or a decent human being. He won because he exudes baseless confidence like a broken nuclear reactor exudes gamma radiation.
You know I agree with much of what you say here. All I’ll say is that while there’s uncertainty in the outcome of this route, I’m convinced there is certainty at this point that Joe Biden will lose. Why? Because there is all there is to know about Joe Biden. Call it media saturation; diminishing returns… There is fundamentally nothing Joe Biden can do or say that people don’t already know and now their minds are pretty much made up. The desperation-play of even asking for that debate shows the Biden campaign knows how bad of a position they’re in… And it of course backfired tremendously.
So at this point, I view it as uncertainty versus a known loss.
And in that respect, I’m looking at this alternate path as appealing to those lizard-brain American Idol-watching popularity-contest voters. If we could distill election cycles down to a handful of things, chief among them would be “People Vote for the more interesting candidate” and “People vote for the fresher face” – Within the backdrop of age being a huge issue for >70% of American voters when polled, that rings even more truthful now.
I see the down votes, but I took this as a Wag the Dog reference. They’re pointing out just how terrible an idea it is for Biden and the democrats to keep trying to sleepwalk through this election while Trump and the republicans pull out all the rhetorical stops.
It’s not too late now, but it’s absolutely too late in October when Biden needs to appear multiple times per day and across about 5 states. If he can’t do that, then he should step down now.
I don’t blame people for wanting to distance from the topic. The problem with Biden isn’t his ability to lead and govern. It’s his image. Talking about it directly hurts his image. BUT it’s still a discussion that needs to be had.
It would be like Covid if talking about Covid also made it worse.
He was fine. He has never sounded like this before. Just look at the State of the Union for what people were expecting.
This was him being unprepared and trying to remember statistics from 3 and a half years of accomplishments, with a cold, while running a country, while being 81. It reminded me of some bad interviews I’ve been in, honestly.
Bullshit homie, he sounds like this all the time, it’s just progressing faster. They made up a new term to cover it up a few weeks ago and then grampa ran off in his bathrobe and CNN had to call some silver alerts.
For all the people that talked about how horrible cnn has been to Biden, they were cutting him off to help him. Look back on his ‘gaffes’. They’ve been bad for a long time.
But we’re already past the primary period… Are we suggesting having a quick primary anyway? Who should we put in his place? I haven’t heard a single suggestion for who else to elect. Are we saying Harris should step in? Who should she run with?
I even saw someone mention Wes Moore and I was reminded that he’s a pretty good moderate governor of Maryland now instead of “only” a West Point graduate and author.
Well, half of those were people who ran against Biden, so that makes sense.
I remember being impressed with Klobuchar, and incredibly impressed with Buttigieg (though sadly he’d lose a lot of the religious vote, sigh). I wish I liked Booker more… But yeah there are some acceptable options there, that’s a relief.
It’s like RBG all over again, if these people could just get it through there heads to quit while there ahead they could preserve a decent legacy, instead of tarnishing it by leading the way to a regressive order that overturns everything they’ve done.
This is one of the core problems of the Democrats: hubris. When Obama had a majority in the House and Senate, he could have easily pushed through a Supreme Court appointee to replace RBG. But she wouldn’t go. Because in her mind, there was no one qualified to fill her shoes. She was convinced that she was the GOAT and that to voluntarily step down when it was safe to do so would be an insult. This is coupled with the fact that Democrats were absolutely, completely certain that they would win every election for the presidency after Obama without trying and that the “coalition of the ascendant” would easily put Hillary into the White House, and then she could be the first female president in US history and have an easy PR win by replacing an aging female supreme court justice.
I’m willing to bet we have the the same problem here, but in one person: Biden probably thinks the Democrats could never field anyone for president better than him and that his victory is a lock without any real effort to campaign for it again.
Fun fact: the last time anything like this happened it was with Grover Cleveland. Cleveland was the 22nd president of the United States who lost his re-election bid the first time around, and then got re-elected to be the 24th president of the United States. We are officially in the second Gilded Age.
I care because I noticed that all the people defending him won’t talk about what happened afterwards meanwhile they never stop reminding us that the men he murdered had criminal records.
It is inconsistent. If they can bring up the past I can bring up the future.
news
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.