It’s a bit of doublespeak.

100*

“You’ve exited the dating pool but aren’t in old adult territory yet”, someone I’ve heard describe it once.

None. I just ask locals and walk aroundc, go by vibes and prices.

A restaurant with a fuckton of options? Probably bad, as the cook(s) can’t make them all. So it’s either low quality or prepared instead of freshly made.

A restaurant with a handful or less than dozen of options for each course? Seems good.

If it’s expensive as fuck, and in a busy area, skip. Probably a tourist trap.

The decor isn’t necessarily important, but if it’s a place that is very noisy, it doesn’t have good acoustics. So that’s a skip. Ideally you want a restaurant where you do have some people but it’s not so loud, so you can eat in peace.

Depending on your preferences, look also if they have allergy/diet options and accessibility features. Those that do may be a little more expensive, but not by much hopefully.

No idea about decor.

There’s not exactly nuance when you’re dealing with a world that is growing far right, and has only hatred to show.

Maybe the radical is the Nazi, not the need to stamp out Nazism?

The creed everyone should have is: the only good Nazi is a dead Nazi. Humanity has fought against fascism 85 years ago, and some people are thinking the same things as fascists now.

Comrade. Do not deny, defend, or depose the past.

The same is happening now as in the quote, just add queers and Muslims to it. I see your perspective, but what you are saying effectively comes over as, “oh no! a poor Nazi getting threatened!”, when the better action would be to stop and think:

Is it better that tolerance is intolerant against intolerance? Or should tolerance mean allowing hatred to destroy that very tolerance?

It might just be me, but I think getting another cat is a bit hard when you’ve ended it all

Isn’t that the Odyssey?

ACAB, eh?

Plenty of choice. In my view, most presidents were rambling reeking right wingers in some way or other, save for FDR and Teddy Roosevelt, who were the two presidents I’d actually call capable and outspoken on civil rights (rather than just pragmatical like Lincoln). They did have their blemishes, but less than e.g. Andrew Jackson.

So many presidents were terrible for one people or another.

Andrew Jackson? Held hundreds of slaves and quite literally led an ethnic expulsion against Native Americans (the Trail of Tears).

Lincoln? Mostly good, but did not forbid slavery in the form of penal labour. If one were to abolish slavery, why not go the full mile?

Wilson? Rabid antisemite, pretty much.

Hoover? Might’ve tried to tackle the Great Depression – but did so by allying with large coorporations, effectively being corrupt and choosing bribery.

Truman? Dropped nukes and set the stage for “we support any government that hates people being remotely leftist”.

Nixon - corrupt and wanted to sidestep the rule of law, all for his own profit: to stay in power. Other than thaf, decent, but that’s a big “other than that”.

Reagan - enough said. Ultracapitalist, misleading, made the US economy far worse by accruing debt like there’s no tomorrow, and shoving it onto the poor – typical oligarch behaviour! Militaristic, power-hungry. And no, he did not end the Cold War: Gorbachov did.

JFK: socially pretty good, actually. But economically, the cutting of the top rates made the richest keep more money. At least it wasn’t down below 50%, but still. Had that happened, I think the tax rates would’ve allowed wealth accumulation.

And so on.

So, in my view, it’s hard to focus on who is the worse, and better to rather focus on what is the best. Ted would be my candidate. Not only social progress, but also economical, and in a way that favour the worker – and he also was environmentally aware. That is a good president.

Same, it was big news here.

The FDP sucks, I’m glad the SDP and Grünen stayed their ground.

When multiple great powers on each of the sides are directly* in conflict, with multiple continents being theatres of war.

* as opposed to proxy wars.

It is bad. Companies could just have some fucking standards.

The issue is profit-motivated companies existing in the first place.

Rather, they should be self-led, and motivated towards the best labour environment as according to their workers. That means their workers feeling accepted, heard and listened to, being able to not only live but also thrive. And all that, while still making the organisation more efficient.

while China is the second biggest country in terms of population, India has the biggest population. For the majority of the world (>4 billion) to live somewhere, you’d have to take a circle with a diameter from roughly Ulaanbatar to Makassar, and draw it.

What if the feedback stops, but the playrate remains high? (ie., indifference but high voter turnout)

Reuters, BBC are fine, AP as well. Al Jazeera is good too. Always be aware of the media biases, nevertheless. Look how they frame and write.

Do they say:

[ethnic thing] arrested and stopped by Police…
or do they say:
Police murders person…

and;
Trump victim of woke witchhunt / Harris loyal to Israel
or:
“The elections have started.”

The fact that the Electoral College was determined to be more important than the people’s votes was shameful.

Al Gore and Hillary should have won.

Hugs, hope you are in a safer place now! I hope that that Putin hits the dust soon.

Ooh, that’s a handy graph, should be shared with more people who might not necessarily lean Pro-Harris but do care about the economy.

I can see that, yeah

Removed by mod