@squareallworthy

Mildly annoyed but former presidents don’t die that often so it’s fine.

It's fucking stupid is what it is. Former presidents aren't royalty. They're just people who used to have a certain job.

It’s funny how there’s people online trying to stir up hysteria about “looters” during a wildfire. That is like, the type of disaster that is most adverse to “looting” like shit is on fire

damn I hope the looting doesn't affect property values

You know that they give evacuation orders before the fire gets there, right? And that just because there's been an evacuation order, that doesn't guarantee that the fire will come, right? And that even if an area gets burned, it's often very hit or miss with burned houses right next to untouched ones, right? You guys know this and you're just being deliberately obtuse for the bit, right?

If you left the stuff there to burn to a melted plastic heap, it would have burned to a melted plastic heap if someone else didn't take it. You literally abandoned the stuff and decided it was not worth it. To someone else, it was worth it.

I would like all the people in this thread going "lol there aren't any looters because DUH there's a FIRE" and all the people going "lol if you obeyed an evacuation order and looters stole your stuff you DESERVED IT" to fight each other.

Which is the better song?

Any kind. And if you feel like it put in thr tags your favorite kind/ why you dont.

lov potat

There is something that is really infuriating about the current moment, where "We should lower student loan payments for low income debtors" is discussed as an insane presidential overreach, and "We should declare war on Denmark in order to reclaim Greenland" is a sober, sensible policy proposal.

Or, if not that, at least we shouldn't care because, come on, everybody knows that politicians exaggerate!

There's a lot of you who spent the Biden years explaining to me that "Defund the police" was so crazy that it discredited the President even as he actively disagreed with it, who said it was important even if nobody actually defunded the police because gosh it just shows the priorities of the left, who are pretty fucking quiet about the upcoming President talking about going to war with fucking Denmark.

This shit where only the left wing is responsible for what it says and the right can't be held responsible for what it says is getting pretty fucking old.

I vacillate between "he's just talking about possibly invading Greenland and Panama in order to distract from the truly awful stuff he's already doing, such as his cabinet picks" and "no he really is that crazy."

It’s funny how there’s people online trying to stir up hysteria about “looters” during a wildfire. That is like, the type of disaster that is most adverse to “looting” like shit is on fire

damn I hope the looting doesn't affect property values

You know that they give evacuation orders before the fire gets there, right? And that just because there's been an evacuation order, that doesn't guarantee that the fire will come, right? And that even if an area gets burned, it's often very hit or miss with burned houses right next to untouched ones, right? You guys know this and you're just being deliberately obtuse for the bit, right?

politics in heaven in complicated because everyone is immortal and you can't kill them, and you can't get any new angels born, so when you take power in a rebellion you have to look through the dungeons and find the angels you trust the most, despite all of them at some point in eternity being in a rebellion against you before.

"Yeah, it's really hard to know who you can trust, because for every possible coalition of angels, there is a single angel who prefers that coalition above all others."

"But a coalition is just any set of angels, so that would give you more coalitions than angles."

"Right, that's why they're arranged in hierarchies. You've got your, you know, just plain angels, then arch-angels for every coalition of those angels, then arch-arch-angels for every coalition of angels and arch-angels, and so on."

"Where does it end, then?"

"It never ends. There is no coalition of all angels. They form a proper class."

"That's practically diabolical. Are you sure that this is heaven and not hell?"

"Doesn't really matter. The cases are isomorphic."

Reblog and put in the tags if you can remember where you got the shirt you’re currently wearing.

there is a trend in modern avant garde music to explore like dissonance and grating noises and that whole area of sonic texture which is normally avoided because it is almost fundamentally un-musical in nature, and i think it would be a great gag to open a restaurant that did the same thing for fine dining. separate the people who want a nice meal from the people who appreciate real art

the 60s were cooler than the 90s, and the 90s were cooler than now. its not monotonic on that range though, and it doesnt go back farther, the 60s were cooler than the 30s. maybe we need another Big War

@torschlusspanikattack said: why were 90s cooler than now?

uhhh computers were still fun and new. the heroin. grunge (remember new music genres? is today's new music genre ...hyperpop? i like hyperpop but it doesnt really have mass appeal). the fashion. uh. they were a very "self-aware" time, self-examining, which we kind of are now, but it seems like it was more uhhh idk productive? genuinely reflective and less insecure

The 90s were not cool. I was there. They were lame as hell!

I was there too and it was awesome. You must have missed all the cool stuff, sorry.

The Trump Mandate

Donald Trump has claimed that the election gave him an "unprecedented and powerful mandate." It didn't, of course. Nevada and Arizona have still not been called, but assuming he picks up both of them (as seems likely), that will give him 312 electoral votes. That would put him ahead of Biden's 2020 result and his own 2016 result, but well behind Obama and Clinton. Among the 20 elections since 1948, Trump's 312 votes would rank 12th.

And assuming he holds his popular vote majority of 50.6% to 47.9% (as does not seem likely, since there are still a lot of California votes to count), that gives him a 2.7% popular vote margin. That doesn't beat Biden in 2020, and again it's well below Obama and Clinton. Among the 20 elections since 1948, Trump's 2.7% popular vote margin would rank 14th.

So not only is that not unprecedented or powerful, it's actually sub-par for elections since World War II. Every president always claims a mandate, and sure, Trump has one in the sense that any successful candidate gets the mandate "be president, administer the executive branch," but not much more than that.

If there is a mandate for anything, it's "keep inflation low," because apparently Americans hate inflation so much that they will vote for just about anybody rather than an incumbent during a time of inflation, even if wages have been going up along with prices. So, whether that makes sense or not, the American people are clear on this: don't cause any inflation.

The thing is, though, one of his big campaign promises is to impose tariffs on all imports, which will drive up prices, and another one is to deport millions of workers, which will also drive up prices. This is exactly contrary to the "no inflation" mandate. I don't see any way he can keep his promises and also avoid inflation. In fact the mandate that voters appear to have given Trump is "don't be Biden, but don't be Trump either." And I think he's going to have a hard time pulling that off.

I didn't think I would have to say this, but simultaneously starting wars with Canada, Mexico, Panama, and Denmark was also not part of Trump's mandate.

His popular vote margin is now down to only 1.5%, by the way, so it now ranks 16th among the 20 most recent elections.

Not even remotely what I'm looking for but thanks anyway Google.

That's only six, so presumably the seventh one is