So, in a nutshell, legalised bribery. For which the answer should be higher wages, I suppose…

It’s a bit of doublespeak.

100*

You’re delicious

“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 around, 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.

Is there then no food with which you actually could do that?

Denials in the first place shouldn’t be a thing. Healthcare should be free from the shackles of capitalism, marketing, profit, and these other inhumane abuses.

I will repeat: the guy is a hero for standing up for democracy and the reduction of greed.

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

So true, sometimes you do have to take a side.

I , of course, choose the side of strapping the guy who says it’s nuanced, at the place of the guy who was strapped.

If you are not willing to hear the marginalised —
Then nuance kills;
Taking a side saves lives.

Isn’t that the Odyssey?

Exactly. Good housing can be done.

Shortages are an issue, and desirable only by capitalism – because it drives up prices.

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.

Based

What are you on about? Most aren’t tankies or fascists here, and certainly don’t worship dictatorships. You might wanna change your feed.

A good tip is to not interact with trolls, but to report and ignore instead.

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.