If you’re not aware, Trump has had a vendetta against Obama since forever. He claimed to have the “real” birth certificate providing Obama was born in Africa, but the dog ate it or something. Trump’s been fixated on Obama forever.
And Obama graduated with prestige from Harvard. And Barron Trump was not admitted to Harvard.
History says this man is driven by vengeance at perceived slights. It’s very plausible to me that Harvard has become the enemy here.
> As long as you are satisfied with the productivity of that employee, what does it really matter if they produce their output in 10 hours or 40?
I have different expectations depending on whether you worked 10 or 40 hours. The _reality_ is that you and your employer need to come to an agreement on expectations.
That agrees with me: "Top 10 Spending by Category and Agency" top 3 are social security, defence, medicare. Then there's an explanation that social security is in the "mandatory" category.
There fundamentally is going to be conflict in any system of checks and balances. Neither the SCOTUS nor POTUS get to unilaterally decide the limits.
Trump hasn't been following convention, but that doesn't mean he's wrong. We also can't just assume he's right. Having the 3 branches hash out a balance is perfectly reasonable and confirms the system is working as intended.
I quoted the specific words GP used and the specific post GP made. I’m not clear how asking GP to elaborate on what was apparently a statement not made in good faith is “changing the topic”.
Aside from the fact that it apparently makes ideological allies sad about having to explain what they really meant. Maybe you can elaborate on that.
If you know what fascism is then you are nearly alone in the world. Read over the Wikipedia definition of fascism and you'll find it starts with a comparison to "nailing jelly to the wall".
Trump isn't literally Mussolini, and he isn't even personally a fascist, just a political opportunist with no principles- but the movement he is part of literally fits the entire first paragraph of the Wikipedia article to a T.
I examined my 2024 November general election ballot carefully. Ever since 2020's election denial, I've had a heightened awareness of election procedure, going so far as to read the Colorado Secretary of State's web pages on risk limiting audits, and making some attempt to understand the math behind them.
My Colorado general election ballot contained nothing I could see that would associate me as a registered voter to the ballot itself. Colorado ballots are hand marked, machine readable, and human readable as has been the best and obvious practice since 2000's "hanging chad" debacle. There are certainly "index marks" on the ballots so that the tallying machines can get squared up, but they don't appear different per ballot. I compared to my wife's ballot, just in case.
Because your comment does nothing against the original "I'm mostly seeing people who voted against this continue to grumble." comment.
People that vote are not always hush hush about who they voted for, and has nothing to do with can you pick their particular ballot out of the pile. If I tell you I voted for A but B won and now I'm grumbling about the things B is doing, there's no need for discussions about ballots at all.
Just like you don't need to find someone's secret ballot when they're wearing a red MAGA hat.
> What of the people whose jobs aren't WFH compatible? "They get what they get?"
What's your proposal here? Should I be forced into the office because it increases the chances I'll buy coffee instead of making it at home?
Macro economic changes are always painful. This is a gross simplification, but cities exist because of an economic network effect based on proximity. Network effects tend to be somewhat stable because they tend to change slowly, but they do change.
I agree with most of what you wrote, but not the implication that NYC value is obvious.
>You really don't see the value of New York beyond its office buildings?
I like to visit NYC a couple times a year, but absolutely don't want to live there. If the number of people who physically work there goes down, so will the reasons it's nice to visit.
I don't think I can properly explain my thought process here, but I do think of big cities as anachronistic and little inhuman. All those nice things in a city depend on a large number of lower income people being forced to live there by economic opportunity. That's not necessarily bad but frequently lower income residents don't get to enjoy the services they provide.
I say anachronistic because as people increase in economic freedom, their desires adjust and they frequently move, e.g. everything else being equal people will choose a 700 sq.ft. apartment over a 180 sq.ft. apartment. If the ratio of high income to low income residents shifts too far in either direction, cities go through a painful re-balancing process that may or may not land on it being good or pleasant (by some subjective standards) place afterwards.
