This latest housing crisis has made it abundantly clear that allowing wealthy individuals and corporations to own single family homes is destructive to society as a whole.
The priority should be owner occupied homes. People need housing security. If even the middle class with career jobs can’t afford a modest house in their peak working years, the system is broken.
We can attack this runaway housing inflation by doing the following:
Ban companies (including hedge funds, etc) from owning condos and houses. Apartment complexes are still fair game, because society needs high occupancy buildings which require more capital to build and run.
Limit individual ownership to 3 (as an example, number doesn’t matter) dwellings. This will curb the rampant “buy for short term rental, parlay into next purchase for short term rental” scheme. We still need rental properties, and small local landowners should be the priority.
Heavy penalties for selling in under 2 (as an example) years. This will also curb the short term rentals due to added risk, as well as curbing the flippers relisting at 30%+ (and I’ve seen 100%) markups after 3 months.
Each of these wouldn’t be outright bans which would potentially too big of a disruption. But in phases, using increasing tax penalties as the stick.
We need to stop treating homes as a commodity. They are a basic essential.
I’d argue that better urbanism is part and parcel of real estate reform. It would be much more difficult to entirely fuck up the housing market if we weren’t so utterly dependent on single family homes and there were more apartments being managed by small to mid-size firms.
We still need rental properties, and small local landowners should be the priority.
Landlords aren’t necessary for rentals to exist. We built hundreds of thousands of government owned properties every year(!) the UK’s post-war period. Some of them have bad rep for looking like soviet blocks, but modern social flats look like any other now so that isn’t a valid complaint anymore (I have to point them out to friends, they otherwise wouldn’t have a clue). These can and have been very much used for temporary accommodation, like private rental units.
If you’re more of a market economy fan: we also state-funded housing cooperatives, democratically owned housing. Vienna is the popular example where they even have shared communal swimming pools, but 20% of Norway’s entire population lives in them and they’re still growing steadily despite not having gov. funding for decades. It’s not impossible to come up with a way to use these as rental units while retaining the democratic element (i.e. the renters “own” the flat while they rent it and “sell” it on when they move). In Norway, for example, you’re exempt from property transfer taxes when you sell a coop flat meaning there’s no tax friction if you want to move from one coop flat to another. Since the flat is never technically yours in a coop (only the share giving you the right to reside there) it just goes back to the coop when you move out, and they can handle renting it on to someone else (so you don’t need a slow bartering process to move out). Your rent can also straight up go towards a larger share in the property, so you’re not propping up some landlord, the only thing you’re really paying for is management of the coop like you would with a privately owned block of flats anyway (except the coop probably wouldn’t spend thousand on an Xmas tree).
If we’re going to be thinking about government regulation and law changes anyway, we may as well try more than just small ““ethical”” landlords. They may well be part of it in some limited way but let’s think beyond just that.
I think there is value provided when someone buys a dilapidated house and renovates it into something worthwhile to sell, even if it takes less than 2 years.
Or for me personally, I bought less than 2 years ago but the experience has given me a better idea of what I really want and I’d love to be able to sell to break even on this place and buy a different place that more fits my needs.
High short term capital gains taxes would help with the 2nd case (as I don’t intend to make money from owning this place briefly) but not the first.
I’ll take capital gains tax as a reasonable compromise.
I will say that I don’t think keeping “renovation” flippers intact is a strong motivation. They are infamous for putting in shoddy cosmetic work to hide serious problems. At least if someone needs to occupy a renovated house for 2 years, they may actually be motivated to do things right.
I still don’t understand how this hasn’t been a bigger priority in government. I wouldn’t expect Republicans to care about it at all, but it feels like nobody is giving it any attention at the State or National level. These out-of-control rents and housing prices are insane. I’ve got a relatively ok salary and I’m barely staying on top of things, but I don’t know how the hell anybody else is still holding it together.
These reforms may result in housing prices decreasing or holding steady. Which is a plus for anyone entering or laterally moving to occupy. It’s a negative for people using housing as an investment.
It’s not a stretch to assume that a lot of politicians are in the multiple land ownership territory. And thus, would “hurt” them personally.
Same with WFH endangering commercial real estate. Lobbies and personal interest. Plenty of business owners in politics.
It’s not a stretch to assume that a lot of politicians are in the multiple land ownership territory. And thus, would “hurt” them personally.
More to the point, it will cost them any support among suburban homeowners, which is how we got here in the first place. That’s a massive bloc of voters and very few homeowners don’t see their homes as an investment
There’s also the fact that plummeting property values is really hard to sell to the majority of the voting base. Many homeowners won’t vote for someone who will tank their often largest asset. A lot of the middle class has a lot of their money in mortgages on their primary home.
The Dems only real position right now is “not being Republicans.” They’re barely able to maintain the status quo and prevent us from backsliding further, there’s very little chance that any forward progress towards a better future is going to come from them.
Not sure why you’re getting down voted so much. We have no truly leftist or left of center parties in this country. We have fascism-lite and status quo right.
When Nixon won he won by a super large percentage. Almost all the states were red. Look at the electoral map for Nixon’s win, if you can find it, it’s shocking. You know why it looked like that? The DNC ran a progressive candidate. And they’ve not done that again since.
Not saying Dems aren’t better, by far they are, but they aren’t progressive and we can’t expect them to enact progressive changes.
Just gotta keep voting for the lesser of the evils until these dinosaurs either retire from, or die in, office. It’s sad, it’s frustrating, but it is all we can do for now. Keep voting for the party not actively rooting for a dictatorship and we might make it through this.
My mantra is, “change happens everywhere but the general”
General elections need to be reformed before a real progressive candidate has a chance at election, and even then, a progressive president has little chance of enacting real reform once in office.
Those reforms happen and the local, state, and Congress level, and even more often they happen at the union and labor level.
People are bickering over our binary choice for president, but the real focus should be on the lower offices. When you’re shooting to kill, you dont aim for the head and fire once , you aim for center-mass and steady yourself for repeat shots. Or I guess you get real close and use a sawed-off.
This is why I hate the Dems. They aren’t fucking doing anything. Yeah, they aren’t Republicans, but they claim they can’t get anything done because the Republicans won’t let them. Then why are they letting the Republicans get so much evil shit done? How is it that one side can accomplish their agenda and the other side sits and goes "sorry guys, they don’t want to share their power so we won’t be able to accomplish our goals lol better luck next time. " Fucking useless twats.
Landlords have a constant stream of income that they can use to affect politics while that same stream of income negates the occupant’s ability to influence politics. Renters ought to unionize.
As always, citizens united was a disaster for our country. Or at least, it was a disaster before, and citizens united turbo fucked an already terrible problem.
I absolutely agree that we need to focus significant energy on a more stable housing (not homeowner) market.
However
Ban companies (including hedge funds, etc) from owning condos and houses. Apartment complexes are still fair game, because society needs high occupancy buildings which require more capital to build and run.
This just means fewer homes get built, period, adding to the problem. Id support restrictions on these groups purchasing homes specifically on the secondary market instead of an outright ban/strong Pigouvian tax.
Heavy penalties for selling in under 2 (as an example) years. This will also curb the short term rentals due to added risk, as well as curbing the flippers relisting at 30%+ (and I’ve seen 100%) markups after 3 months.
This will straight up just lead to bankruptcy, foreclosure, and then cheap speculation. This would be incredible dangerous, and you’d need to put a lot of protections in for homeowners that wouldn’t somehow be abused by flippers.
I’d also love to see protections baked in for people who purchase prior foreclosure/condemned properties and turn those into marketable/livable homes - that’s an increase in supply and we should encourage it
What we primarily need is to rip our zoning policies out by the root and encourage lots of building, as I’m sure you’d agree, but that’s a local problem. These changes at the federal level, once hammered out, could help a lot.
Ban companies (including hedge funds, etc) from owning condos and houses. Apartment complexes are still fair game, because society needs high occupancy buildings which require more capital to build and run.
This just means fewer homes get built, period, adding to the problem. Id support restrictions on these groups purchasing homes specifically on the secondary market instead of an outright ban/strong Pigouvian tax.
Disagree. How does this discourage builders? Afaik, most don’t build with the intent of renting out individually. The intent is to sell. And at least in my high demand area, units are sold well in advance to actually being ready to live in.
Unless you mean the necessary first step of buying land with an existing home on it. In which case, it’d be easy to add fair exemptions.
Heavy penalties for selling in under 2 (as an example) years. This will also curb the short term rentals due to added risk, as well as curbing the flippers relisting at 30%+ (and I’ve seen 100%) markups after 3 months.
This will straight up just lead to bankruptcy, foreclosure, and then cheap speculation. This would be incredible dangerous, and you’d need to put a lot of protections in for homeowners that wouldn’t somehow be abused by flippers.
How so? Most buyers are entering a 30 year mortgage with their finances thoroughly vetted. If you’re saying the first 2 years is extremely risky, maybe those loan regulations need to be revised.
Besides which, as someone else in the thread mentioned, perhaps a heavy capital gains tax in the first 2 years is more appropriate.
What we primarily need is to rip our zoning policies out by the root and encourage lots of building, as I’m sure you’d agree, but that’s a local problem. These changes at the federal level, once hammered out, could help a lot.
Of course, building is a necessary component. But it’s touted as the only solution. Realistically, building high density living won’t make a dent in housing prices, because new high density living in high demand areas will always be built as “luxury” condos that demand a high price. Builders are not motivated to flood the marked to lower their own returns. They will time their projects to trickle out to keep demand high and returns maximized.
Besides which, as someone else in the thread mentioned, perhaps a heavy capital gains tax in the first 2 years is more appropriate.
I didn’t see this, but I would definitely agree with this. Really simple lever to pull, something that can be offset if need be, and will definitely have the impact we’re looking for.
Realistically, building high density living won’t make a dent in housing prices, because new high density living in high demand areas will always be built as “luxury” condos that demand a high price
This frees up housing downstream, and the builders make money by building, not by the eventual value of the home.
This ties in with point 1 above and why I think it will cut production. Right now there is essentially 0 risk in serving as capital to build housing, and we should be piling on that to build as much as possible.
HOAs should be banned too. They’re nominally constitutional under the first amendment but the restrictions they impose are not worth the price you pay in dues and they only serve to restrict the actual property owner from pursuing happiness. Everything the HOA could do is a function of local government, there’s no sane reason to pay both property taxes and HOA fees.
I don’t think they should be banned, but their power should be severely restricted.
My HOA is actually useful because they’ve banned short term rentals, put a cap on long term rentals, and cover the insurance. Granted, this is a place where walls are shared.
I also don’t see my local government ever taking care of these things under any realistic scenario.
Exorbitantly high residential property tax rates, with even higher owner-occupancy credits.
Landlords will stop renting, and start issuing land contracts or private mortgages. “Tenants” will hold the deed to the property, and be earning equity. “Landlords” will have a major incentive to get their investment properties under contract and out of their name, lest they face a huge tax bill.
I loved him telling advertisers to fuck off and all the people listening just laughing at him like the moron that he is. He thinks his edgy, middle aged man schtick is cool, but everyone’s laughing at how pathetic he is
What he doesn’t realise (which most middle aged men don’t realise, myself included) is how far the culture has moved since 2001. The values, the mores, the basic morality has shifted. It isn’t tight jeans past 40 that make you look old, it’s your outmoded relationship with the world that does that.
I don’t care about right jeans making me look old because I just can’t wait until baggy pants become more acceptable to wear again. Much more comfortable!
I have heard uncool middle aged guy with the “not a bigot though” upgrade package is a great overall build. You would think, not that sexy right? However, surprisingly being a nice person gives you lots of buffs on your sexy skill check so even though it is low on paper, in reality you can rack up a lot of points quickly. Best part you don’t even need expensive gear to buff your stats like a cool car or nice clothes.
I have heard uncool middle aged guy with the “not a bigot though” upgrade package is a great overall build.
How sad is it that there are so many middle aged white bigots that it's something I could list like "over six feet tall" and "has a stable job" if ever I'd find myself single again. (Not that I'd really be looking for love at this point I think.) Crazy world we are living in.
Regardless, I will walk a little straighter having read your kind words. 😁
Seriously, if you do the math out you get sexy bonuses that easily outstrip other strategies like buying a stupid sports car or impractical big truck, for essentially zero dollars, minimal effort AND as an added bonus the people you increase your sexiness stat with the most also happen to be the kind of person that is the best to sex with (a genuinely kind person who cares about your pleasure as much as theirs, not someone who just starfishes and calls it a day).
You basically get a free asshole filter thrown in, no extra cost. Crazy deal, and you can drive around an old beat up corolla that costs nothing to maintain, wear shit clothes and still be absolutely demolishing the competition.
I honestly think skinny jeans are more comfortable than the material that they’re making baggy jeans out of. My skinny jeans stretch so much that I can sprint in them.
Imagine being literally the richest person in the world. You can afford anything, you can go anywhere, you can do anything. But you spend most of your free time begging for attention from absolute strangers. What a pathetic little bitch.
Enough money helps you have the time, energy, and nutrition to craft happiness. You can pay someone to do the lawn, clean the house, and handle some day to day tasks. You can sleep without worrying if you’ll afford food and a roof tomorrow. You can get healthcare.
After that it’s up to you. If you put the money in charge you’ll be miserable. If you spend all that extra time going down conspiracy rabbit holes you’ll be miserable and try to make everyone else miserable. If you craft some hobbies that you enjoy, get in shape, maybe learn to play an instrument, go rock climbing, travel to see the sights, and generally don’t worry about what loud people on the Internet do or think of you then you’ll have a pretty good shot at happiness.
Money can’t buy happiness, but it can give you the opportunity to find it.
Kanye has really gone off the rails but still one of the lyrics he got most right…“Having money’s not everything, not having it is.” If you’ve got money, it doesn’t make you happy. But not having money is crippling and debilitating.
This is the line of thinking that gets me to listen to the “no such thing as an ethical/moral/good billionaire” types. These are people who had $50 million, $100 million, $500 million, and decided they had to keep working, acquiring, and exploiting.
After awhile, it becomes competitive. Like achieving a high score on a leaderboard. Most of the billionaires are now over 70 hence the race to squeeze everything before they die so that they can “win”.
Right? If I was that rich I’d get attention by… actually doing helpful things with the money.
Shit commission a giant statue of yourself that urinates Coca-Cola into a public fountain, free coke for everyone, just go to the PP Statue! That’s what I’d do…
Course I’m female so my statue would have to be squating, that may make it unwieldy…
If you’re squatting, it comes straight down instead of in an arc where the wind can blow it around. Easier to fill your cup that way. I endorse this plan!
He really does need a hobby. Maybe he can take up sailing or adventuring. Then we don’t have to hear about him at all until some fawning obituary lauding his contributions to humanity and recognizing the pioneering spirit that led to his tragic and early demise.
or at the absolute bare fucking minimum be opt-in only, instead of “opt out by sending us a handwritten letter through snail mail within 45 minutes of this notice.” the shit offers less than zero benefit to the consumer and basically lets corporations get away with murder
Opt in with customers isn’t a thing. If you don’t opt in, you don’t get housing, or Internet, or phone service. The list goes on. Opt in is libertarian propaganda. No different than at will employment.
If nothing else, they should always be mutual. Have Disney take their copyright claims to arbitration rather than using the other legal channels available to them.
I’m just about to move to Quebec, which is based on the French Napoleonic code rather than English Common Law. I’m not an expert, but I understand that the French system does not rely on precedent in making judicial decisions, but everything has to be codified in the law.
Anyway, another one of the legal differences between Quebec and other provinces in Canada is that mandatory arbitration clauses are illegal.
The medical system may be imploding even faster than the rest of Canada, and my rights as an English speaker may be stripped from me by the time I move, but they do have some protections for individuals.
Yes agreed. It should be illegal to compel someone to give up their fucking rights (to their detriment and to the benefit of the person making them agree especially, especially when the person benefitting is an authority figure). This includes police encouraging the people they arrest to talk without a lawyer.
We also need to figure out what Trump broke in the Secret Service and fix it, because this shit is pure incompetence.
It’s extremely obvious that Trump values loyalty over competence. I seem to remember that he gave key posts in White House security to the people who had been in his private security detail beforehand. People like Keith Schiller.
It would also not surprise me if he got to hand-pick his Secret Service detail to be people who he could get along with (i.e. people he felt were loyal). We may find out in a few years that Trump deliberately picked the most loyal ones, who also happened to be the most incompetent, and is partly responsible for their lapses. That is, if we’re allowed to. If Trump wins, he’s gonna take his Sharpie to all this and we’ll never find out how it all really went down.
Yeah. It shows his lack of intelligence too. Would you rather be protected by a yes man. Or… someone trained to fucking protect you that cares nothing about you and only about protecting their package. I’ll take option B 1000000% of the time. Thanks.
Diaper tyrant didn’t break anything that wasn’t already decades in the making of its decay by the very same fucknuts currently steering his slobbering ass around.
“Softening,” my ass! They simply mean it literally.
By the way, the banner said “we are all domestic terrorists.” No exceptions: every single CPAC attendee is literally a member of a terrorist organization.
I think calling them weirdos at that point does a disservice to weirdos. Someone setting up pipe bombs during an insurrection is a terrorist. Anyone supporting them is a terrorist as well… That makes MAGA a terrorist organization.
Also, here’s what Trump broke… It should be noted that Murray was involved in the investigation of the Jan 6th texts and emails that were deleted shortly before his retirement…
My personal opinion… Someone said “Walk away or this will get really messy for you.”
I think calling them weirdos at that point does a disservice to weirdos.
Yeah, but (as a weirdo myself) I think we should take one for the team, since – weirdly, unlike “terrorist” – it actually manages to stick and piss them off.
You’d think that being called a terrorist would be worse. However, I have read a lot that child-like insults actually hurt more than mature ones. We established them when we were children, so they’ve been with us longer and carry more emotional weight. So it’s technically more effective to call someone buttface instead of shithead.
Just look at their commander-in-cheetodust and his tendency to call his opponents names like “Sleepy Joe,” “Crazy Nancy,” or “Lying Kamala.”
During slavery and Jim Crow, violence was acceptable the way it was done. So these people continuing that thinking really shouldn’t surprise us.
I mean it was surprising to me, until I put it in the context of history. The US right wing has always relied on violence and they pass that mentality down. Seems outrageous to the rest of us, but to them it’s just a tool and the way to do things. Which is why they project of course.
The fact that its Carter doesnt mean a whole lot, hes already one of the nicest guys to come out of America. It would be more of an endorsement of someone like Bush were to be disavowing Trump
My friend with severe PCOS and who would never be able to be pregnant had the hardest time already trying to get a hysterectomy at 28. Even asked about her future husband being ok with this decision.
To be fair, men also get asked if they’re really sure by some doctors when going in for a vasectomy. Even when closing in on 50 and with three kids at home. But as long as they perform the procedure I don’t care.
I had mine at 42 and I don’t think there was much asking if this is what I really wanted. It was an explanation of the procedure and how long I’ll be out.
Day of, it was snip snip, have a good day. No need for the frozen peas on your nuts.
Oh, the procedure was fine. 40 minutes after I was called out of the waiting room I walked out and had zero issues. And also zero swimmers since. All good there.
But when I had the first appointment, he asked me if I was really sure and if my wife knew and was also fine with it. But I know that it depends on the doctor.
I can understand making absolutely sure that this is what the woman wants, but don’t bring in an imaginary person into the decision. That is for her and the person she starts seeing down the line and whether she wants to tell him on the first date.
That’s why I hauled ass to the doctor and got a bisalp scheduled asap. I ended up getting them to agree to a hysterectomy this year, which is what I really wanted, but I wasn’t willing to take a chance on that not happening. I’m no longer in the young category, but I was only 38 and potentially still fertile (and way more likely to have complications from being “geriatric”).
It's exceptionally difficult already for a woman to get sterilized. The decider may be whether sterilization has the same stigma/religious fervor around it that abortion has in that people will willingly waste their weekends off protesting against it.
I'm optimistic, but America likes to disappoint me.
We all know you’re full of shit, but just in case you’re a useful idiot to conservatism instead of cynical grifter…
If you want fewer abortions, the answer has been obvious for decades — sex ed and birth control made available to everyone that wants it, which results in fewer unwanted pregnancies, which results in fewer abortions.
Your moron political group and its insistence on overturning Roe resulted in an increase in abortions. 2023 had the highest number and rate in literally decades. So if you’re dumb enough to think that’s “murdering babies,” then congrats. The people you vote for increased the body count.
If I were pregnant (and presumably had a uterus) I would probably be more likely to seek an abortion knowing that there is now a greater chance I would die giving birth then before.
Before: ok every pregnancy is risky as well as birth there is a small but possible chance things could go badly for me but medical science will do what is required for me to survive including ending the pregnancy even at the last second.
Now: if I need an abortion later I won’t be able to get one and will die. I better go to a state where it is legal and get it done now.
If you're going to speak for all conservatives, you're also going to take responsibility for all of their beliefs and decision-making, like the desire to outlaw contraceptives. If you don't want that, don't speak for others.
Honestly it’s so difficult to get done as it is that they don’t even need to outlaw. It’s virtually unobtainable for most women unless they already have “enough” kids, whatever that means to a specific doctor, or they travel to find a willing doctor.
It took me 8 years to get it done because I’ve never reproduced (childfree by choice). And I’m one of the easier stories. I got it done at 27, in 2015, and while some doctors are more willing now, most aren’t. Especially in conservative areas.
All they have to do is keep making doctors scared to offer proper reproductive care, make it risky and they stop going into that field. You don’t need to make it illegal, just impossible. Rich white people will still be able to choose, so they don’t care.
I had to deal with a whole bunch of people asking me hypothetical questions. What if you regret it? (what if I regret having them?), what about your future partner? (If they are right for me they also don’t want kids, and I don’t plan to get married anyway). What if you change your mind? (I will adopt if that happens. I don’t believe sharing my junk genetics is important, and the chances of issues are high anyway since I’m also broken, and there are plenty of not-infant kids who need homes if I get maternal, but kids under 5 aren’t my jam and probably never will be, and I’m probably too negligent to raise them right anyway). Ultimately they couldn’t argue with my logic but it took years of finding the right doctors getting the right consultations, etc.
I am going with a while. They just don’t change their minds quickly and get distracted easily. It took them almost half a century to get abortion banned in a few states, only 2 of which have any real population size.
Sure eventually they will grok on that abortion was the last resort option out of many tools but not overnight. Then even when they do they have to come up with good arguments to hide their goals. Which again will take time.
It’s already super hard. I was lucky and found a doctor who understood, but I’m not young. People in their 20s face a whole bunch of bullshit, enough to get in the way and prevent them having the procedure. It’s fucked.
On this note. It has happened to me, I still tell people to take it. Just not astrazenica one (I have a support group and it seems to be 90% Astrazenica) Take pfizer pls. My case is extremely extremity rare, and I was paid out by the government for it so it could be worse.
Sure! I got the Astrazenica jab in my mid 20’s. Even though I had previously been infected with covid; this is because I was a care worker at the time so I wanted to keep the community safe.
I started getting issues over the next week with my eyes and legs, I was having a weird pain in my eye when I moved it to the side and my legs where also painful. My GP recommended to get some blood tests done.
Before I was able to complete the blood tests I woke up one morning and was unable to pee. I spoke to my GP and they told me to go to the hospital, I was admitted and cathaterised. Over the next week and a half my condition got worse and doctors couldn’t figure out what was wrong with me.
I was losing my ability to move the lower half of my body and eventually lost all feeling in it during this time, my eyesight also started going blurry.
Finally they moved me to a neurology hospital in the centre of London and figured out my condition, it was called nuromeyeltis optica. This condition is where my immune system attacked my nerves in my spinal cord and also my optic nerve.
They put me on a huge dose of steroids to stop my immune system, and used a plasma transfusion to try and flush my system of the anti bodies.
It took me months to learn to walk again, as I spent a total of 2 months in hospital and then rehabilitation.
I’m mostly normal now, you wouldn’t know I was different if you saw me, other than I still have to use Cathaters to pee, suppositories to poop and my nerves still cause me great pain. So I’m really very uncomfortable tbh.
Fortunetly my eyes fixed themselves very fast, but I have a very small blind spot that honestly I don’t notice.
The government paid me out via the Vaccine Damage Scheme after 2 years worth £120,000, in which they sent me a 50 page report. Stating that it was due to the vaccine and what % of disability they thought I had. It was actually between 50-80% as they weighted in mental strain very highly and my age was considered young (although a dinusour on the Internet I’m sure lmao)
Anyway that’s what happened to me. It still so weird to think it’s such a rare case, I’m one out of I believe 100-200 people that had a successful vaccine damage payment scheme in the UK.
They really need to STFU with this “Millennials” crap. The entire population aside from the rich are being affected by the now destroyed economy. Nobody is getting a house outside of unusual circumstances.
No, but the Boomers, and GenX like me have had our shot during the good years. Millennials and Zs have been screwed before they even entered adulthood.
the sector most at risk of homelessness are older women who for what ever reason are continually ignored.
You’re referring to a completely different topic that is being discussed here. We’re not talking about homelessness, but instead people that can make a rent payment but do not have the ability to buy a house.
Feel free to find a news article talking about homelessness and raise your point there.
I can’t tell if you’re trolling or you don’t understand that not every thread is about every problem facing people. Is homelessness a problem? Absolutely. However, so is climate change and we’re not talking about that here either.
When you try to broaden the topic as far as you are there is no meaningful discussion about anything.
Being born in 1977, I’m right at the cusp between Gen X and Millennial. Most of my friends my around my age and older own houses. Most of my younger friends do not. That seems like a pretty stark difference to me.
Also stop treating millennials as teenagers. We’re pushing 40 my guy, not our fault yall killed the idea of retirement and are still hoarding what good jobs aren’t killed off in your late 70s.
Wait, we are millenials? I thought that’s folks born after 2000. What are those then? I’m totally out of touch apparently. Thought with my 39 years I’m in boomer territory.
It’s perfectly reasonable to not be sure, nobody really cares except boomers who want to blame “the youth” and they just call anyone younger than them “millennials.” I believe we’re millennials because we were around for the millennium.
There’s no hard and fast rule to it, but ya got boomers, Gen x, millennials, Gen z, and now Gen alpha - but if you ask boomers we all millennials 😂 There’s no definitive agreement but from some quick clicking around a couple sites mostly agreed to
Boomers - 1946-1964 (~60-80) Gen X - 1965-1980 (~44-60) Millennials - 81-96 (~28-43) Gen Z - 97-2010 (~14-27) Gen Alpha - 2010-now (~13 and below)
My brother was born in 1965. He’s just barely not a Boomer. I was born in 1977 (yes, I was planned). I’m just barely not a Millennial. We’re both Gen X. That’s weird. I mean I already knew we both were, but seeing it on a chart like this…
Gen Z here, basically the same shit as millenials except I don’t even remember there being anything else; not sure if that’s a blessing or a curse. Kinda worried if this keeps going on more and more generations will have experienced nothing else and come to see it as normal.
Most millennial’s don’t remember anything else either. What we had were parents that still believed in the “American dream” but weren’t living it themselves and a generation before us that saw the writing on the wall, but eventually checked out of the fight. Now Gen Z and A have a generation to look to that is still fighting, but has lost steam because we’re too bogged down with surviving while raising kids or working ourselves to death. We’re exhausted, and on our last leg, so we’re all pretty much counting on the younger generations (who have less to risk/lose) to pickup that torch. Thankfully, younger generations are realizing that voting only gets us so far, and mass civil disobedience is a far more affective strategy for real systemic change.
I’m super impressed with our young people and I’m with y’all 100% of the way!
Hey y’all remember that time Katharine Harris purged 120,000 mostly-black voters from the records just prior to the FL 2000 pesidential election that Al Gore won but got denied by Katharine Harris and a conservative SCOTUS? Member that?
Aw man and then we had 9/11 and Iraq II, the Sanctity of Marriage Act and the financial system collapse?
And she bought the voter list from Texas! Which. Huh.
Remember how a bunch of Republican staffers rioted and tried to intimidate the vote counters in Florida? (The “Brooks Brothers riot”.) Remember when the Supreme Court halted the vote count and declared Bush has won? Remember how the eventual full count of the votes showed Gore won by all metrics?
I mean that by itself wasn’t, but yeah overall the Bush administration and 2000 Republican Party is just as guilty of pulling a coup as Trump. Moreso, even. (Actually a lot moreso.)
The country just turns a blind eye because they don’t want to admit the whole bush presidency was illegitimate.
There’s an absolute moron down the road here from me who, despite it being 2023, has a large sign on his business (a small factory) that says “Trump 2020: For All Workers.”
Dude spent four years turning federal worker protections into a regular horror show. Every couple of weeks, some basic worker protection or another came under attack. I saw it for myself.
I was going to participate in a navy program that would put me through med school. Then Trump decided to ban folks like me from the military.
As an older trans person, things were better for us before he was in office. It’s exhausting hearing one’s existence debated every fucking day, by folks who have zero idea what they’re talking about. It wasn’t illegal for me to piss at work in 2015, it is now.
I’m an adult trans man who has been on testosterone for more than a decade now, and it’s a fight to stay on my medication. I almost want to live in this fantasy world where doctors just hand out hormones and blockers like candy. But most doctors are terrified - all it takes is your hospital ending up on LibsOfTiktok or something and it’s time for the bomb threats. My medical provider is one of the few that hasn’t left my state, and if he leaves I’m fucked.
Man, I’m sorry to hear that. Absolutely fucked that our medical care and career prospects and even just taking a shit can be destroyed because some Evangelical assholes somewhere feel weird in their pants about us or are so piss scared of their kids learning that they have to indoctrinate them
It’s always “just ignore it, words can’t hurt you” until people listen to those words and vote/take action.
No, words matter very much, actually. In fact, I would say words, and language, is the very basis of our civilization. Without language, there would have been nothing.
Marc Tyler Nobleman was supposed to talk to kids about the secret co-creator of Batman, with the aim of inspiring young students in suburban Atlanta’s Forsyth County to research and write.
Then the school district told him he had to cut a key point from his presentation — that the artist he helped rescue from obscurity had a gay son. Rather than acquiesce, he canceled the last of his talks.
You are deflecting from the conversation by “what about”-ing the straights. This conversation isn’t about his son being straight. The straight kids can have a place in this conversation when people start trying to criminalize their very existence.
I’m highlighting how the son’s sexual orientation would likely not be brought up if he was straight, unless it was relevant to the story at hand.
Mentioning someone is gay just because they’re gay is focusing on their sexual orientation for no good reason, just pointing out that they’re ‘different’ and need to be acknowledge as such.
This made the rounds yesterday, but the only source was Jones himself, and nothing appears to have happened. So, yeah, probably just drumming up cash from the rubes.
Think of how many times you can trick a dog that trusts you before it starts to figure things out, and consider that Jones’ audience is more loyal and less intelligent than a typical dog.
Nice. I got contempt of court once and spent the weekend in jail. No ifs ands or buts about it. Judge wouldn’t even let me hand my house keys to my partner. Lol
The judge doesn’t want to give Trump’s team any ammunition for an appeal. I realize it’s absurd, but if he’s thrown in jail without significant warning then they’ll argue it biased the already liberal jury (cause NYC) against him too much.
(I am not a lawyer, that’s just my understanding.)
If it’s such a problem to put Trump in jail, why isn’t it for any random person?
Because he is a former president of the United States who is currently running for re-election. This situation is unique in American history. As much as we may dislike these facts, they are true. The judge is in uncharted waters here, and needs to be careful to avoid anything that can be construed as evidence of bias against the defendant. This trial will be under scrutiny for as long as we have a country.
It’s not fair that most defendants do not have the essentially limitless resources of the entire conservative political machine at their disposal to pay for their legal woes, but it is the reality of the situation.
Yeah so let’s treat him the same way as anyone else so he can use that as an excuse to stop the procedure against him, that will sure show him!
Of all the cases where people want the judge to treat the accused the same way they would be treated in order to prove a point, this is probably the worst one.
No, this random commenter on Lemmy is absolutely not enabling Trump’s bullshit. We’re just trying to explain the behavior of the judge, we have nothing to do with it.
It’s (stichadtic) terrorism and you’re just like “but dude! It might not stick!”
Stochastic terrorism is, obviously, what they’re trying to avoid with the gag order. The judge and his family are already victims, and he knows full well that the jury and witnesses are at risk. No offense intended, but I suspect he understands the situation he’s in better than you do.
And in this specific case to be able to prove it wasn’t out of spite they have to be able to prove that Trump was given the opportunity to learn from his mistakes. They could send him to jail right away, all that would lead to is their neutrality being questioned and a high risk of the trial being pushed back to a later date or cancelled altogether and the judge could say “I was being neutral” all they wanted, the end result would be worse than if they just wait until they reach a point where their neutrality cannot be questioned.
So again, I will ask, would you rather see Trump spend a weekend in jail and the trial ending or would you rather see Trump being fined and the trial reaching its conclusion?
These are the choices we’re presented with right now, not the unicorn world you live in where Trump spends the weekend in jail after one offense and the trial then goes on as intended.
There is only one code of law that applies to this case and it states that the judge can either impose a fine of maximum 1k for each count or jail the person, so the judge is doing exactly what the code of law allows them to do.
You’re still not answering the question.
Jail for the weekend at the risk of seeing him go scot-free OR fines and you’re sure the trial reaches its conclusion?
So you’re ok with Trump just going in jail for the weekend, alright.
If you think there’s a risk of witness and jury dying then what the fuck do you think will happen if he spends a weekend held in contempt? You think things will calm down after that and his base will go “Yeah, he deserved that”???
It would allow him to stall everything by opening the door to questioning the judge’s neutrality and missing would move forward before he got elected again.
You guys are wishing to see him held in contempt even if it means he probably won’t see any other jail time after that, I’m close to the point where I’ll start to think you’re on his side and just want to see him win.
I would make a terrible judge, because I don’t see how this is uncharted territory. Sure, it’s unprecedented, but that doesn’t mean we don’t know what to do.
Our entire government is made up of citizens, that was the whole point in fighting a war to get rid of an unjust monarchy, ruling from afar.
Trump is a citizen, if he broke the law he needs to go to jail. If he breaks the law during the trial, he should receive the same punishment as any other citizen would. Doing anything else just means we have a 2 tier justice system.
The fact that he has fucked up 10 times and is still a free man is ridiculous. All the judge has done is show trump that he can do whatever he wants and face no repercussions. If you did something 10 times, and then someone gets mad the 11th, you wouldn’t say “sorry my bad” you’d say “why are you mad, I do this all the time”
The judge doesn’t want to give Trump’s team any ammunition for an appeal.
If you believe this shit, you’re fooling yourself. Guy’s gotten ten warnings when any off-the-street plaintiff would be lucky to get one. Not only will there be ammo for appeal, Merchan is building precedent of untouchability. My man is straight up announcing
The last thing I want to do is put you in jail.
I-fucking-magine this getting said during any other trial. How much more biased can a judge get?
Playing Devil’s Advocate here, but nine of those were all reviewed at the same time, and while the decision to group them all together and issue a final warning was pending, the tenth violation was committed. Technically, and this is a really big fuckin’ technically, he has not committed any violations since being put “on notice” that the monetary punishments are over and the jail time would start. They decided on one today that occurred before that decision, so they’re not holding it to the same standard.
I do believe the next violation will carry jail time, without a doubt. Trump has also mostly shut up since being put on notice as well because he doesn’t want to be put in a cell any more than you or I do.
But it is extremely, maddeningly frustrating that Trump has gotten away with it so far. The Judge’s decision today proves beyond a doubt that the law is not being equally applied in favor of Trump himself.
Honestly, I don’t know if I could be an impartial judge in this case, because knowing Trump I would have warned him the very second he stepped foot in the courtroom that he was already on notice and that he should expect jail time if even a single word escaped his mouth that is in violation of the gag order that was already in place. Maybe Judge Merchan is more magnanimous, more cool-headed, or simply too wary of the blowback from applying the law equally with a megalomaniac like Trump who has an army of idiots at his back. I don’t know. All I know is, I don’t think he’s out of line just yet, but hearing statements like “I don’t want to put you in jail” for a guy who is too rich for fines to have an impact on is not reassuring.
news
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.