konnichiwa said:

I learned today that affordable housing basically not exist in some areas (not really news) but I came accross this picture.

By some considered as a poor house in the bay, it is not really for the poor but for people who can't buy a house or rent app/house in the bay area.

How much does it cost for a bed and stay for a month?  1200$ a month.  Expectations are that the price can go up to 2.000$/month in five years yikes.

Whoever owns that place is really making a killing. 1200 Dollar just for such a bedspace? Even prices for simple bedrooms in Luxembourg are not that high



Around the Network
Bofferbrauer2 said:
konnichiwa said:

I learned today that affordable housing basically not exist in some areas (not really news) but I came accross this picture.

By some considered as a poor house in the bay, it is not really for the poor but for people who can't buy a house or rent app/house in the bay area.

How much does it cost for a bed and stay for a month?  1200$ a month.  Expectations are that the price can go up to 2.000$/month in five years yikes.

Whoever owns that place is really making a killing. 1200 Dollar just for such a bedspace? Even prices for simple bedrooms in Luxembourg are not that high

It's pretty insane.  $1200 would probably get me a 4 bedroom apartment here.  



the-pi-guy said:
Bofferbrauer2 said:

Whoever owns that place is really making a killing. 1200 Dollar just for such a bedspace? Even prices for simple bedrooms in Luxembourg are not that high

It's pretty insane.  $1200 would probably get me a 4 bedroom apartment here.  

where I live you can easily have a 4 bedroom home for that amount a month.  Anyway my dad had a house in the bay area so that price doesn't surprise me.  He was living in a very small house and it costed about 350K and that was 7 years ago so I am sure the property value is much higher now.



EricHiggin said:
sundin13 said:

Yes, humans get to choose when they criticize something. Like, what?

By all means, feel free to rebut criticism whenever you feel like it, but it seems like most of your defenses have been just awful. Like, comparing Trump's comments to a restaurant review. That is bad. That is real bad. 

That is the problem with most defenses of Trump. They are often real bad. Like, you brought up the whole Russia Report not too long ago. You know, the report which outlined numerous examples of Obstruction of Justice and said a lot of things that look reaaal bad for the president. Defenses seem to either be "Obstruction of Justice is totally cool, guys", "Yeah, but what about something else" or "TOTALLY EXONERATED. WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO."

You can feel free to come to whatever opinion you desire, but it isn't some sort of conspiracy when other look at those bad arguments and go "Oh. That right there is a bad argument. Huh.". If your stupid-o-meter isn't going off from this shit almost every day than you should probably get that checked out because either it is busted, or you are part of the stupid problems.

You mean like Dave Ruben? His "stupid-o-meter" went off years ago and now he finds himself siding with Trump or conservatives quite often, oddly enough. Is the meter malfunctioning? Has it been calibrated lately? Why are so many subscribing to his show?

Yes.

Dave Rubin is an idiot.

I'm not really sure why you thought that was a good argument.

Why does he have so many subscribers? I mean, asking that question at all is a bit of a logical fallacy by way of "Appeal to Popularity", but I'll briefly try to answer it. People like being told what they want to hear. That's all Dave Rubin's show is. It is not a "Battle of Ideas", it is him repeatedly spoon-feeding you the same empty, regurgitated talking points over and over again, often from the mouth of some other bottom feeding urchin like Stefan Molyneux.

Here's the first video in a three hour long video series on why The Rubin Report is terrible if you feel like killing an afternoon:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u3TPxQao3m0



EricHiggin said:
SpokenTruth said:
Oh, I forgot to give you a key highlight from the Mueller testimony before Congress.

Rep. Ken Buck, a Republican, asked: “Could you charge the president with a crime after he left office?”
Mueller answered, “Yes.”

1). Mueller said a lot of things, some that contradicted his report that were pointed out in his final hearing that he used the same excuses over and over to ignore it, if he even remembered it.

2). After he's left office? After? What he did before he even took office was so bad, that they have to wait until 2024 possibly to get him? It's not like he's gone underground. One day I'll be a star.

1). He didn't contradict anything in his report at the testimony.  Unless you can expressly identify it, I'm calling you out.

2). You might want to read the Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel 1973 memo titled "Amenability of the President, Vice President, and other Civil Officers to Federal Criminal Prosecution while in Office" or the 2000 memo titled "“A Sitting President’s Amenability to Indictment and Criminal Prosecution”.  But since I already know you won't look it up, I'll conveniently post a few quotes from the 2000 memo below for you to ignore.

"In 1973, the Department concluded that the indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would impermissibly undermine the capacity of the executive
branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions. We have been asked to summarize and review the analysis provided in support of that conclusion, and
to consider whether any subsequent developments in the law lead us today to reconsider and modify or disavow that determination.1 We believe that the conclusion reached by the Department in 1973 still represents the best interpretation of the Constitution."

"In 1973, this Department concluded that a grand jury should not be permitted to indict a sitting President even if all subsequent proceedings were postponed
until after the President left office."

"[W]e believe the better view is the one advanced by the Department in 1973: a sitting President is immune from indictment as well as from further criminal process."

"In 1973, the Department of Justice concluded tat the indictment and criminal prosecution of a sitting President would unduly interfere with the ability of the
executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned duties, and would thus violate the constitutional separation of powers. No court has addressed this question directly, but the judicial precedents that bear on the continuing validity of our constitutional analysis are consistent with both the analytic approach taken and the conclusions reached. Our view remains that a sitting President is constitutionally immune from indictment and criminal prosecution.


RANDOLPH D. MOSS
Assistant Attorney General
Office of Legal Counsel"

Last edited by SpokenTruth - on 12 September 2019

Massimus - "Trump already has democrat support."

Around the Network

"If you went 5 years ago that sky was brown and now if you go that sky is blue" -Kamala Harris.



Biden might have the best education plan.



I leave this thread for 5 days and I come back to 200+ posts of Sharpiegate until the mods try to direct conversation from that and the conversation continues for the rest of the thread under the more general topic of "Does Donald Trump Lie?" And it's all liberals presenting evidence straight from Trump's mouth and two people engaging in bad faith with that evidence. For 5 fucking days worth of posts. God bless the-pi-guy for taking on the job of managing this thread, and for trying to change the subject to the minimum wage, for however long that worked. This thread has a serious chronic problem that won't get better until the bad faith actors are dealt with.



jason1637 said:
"If you went 5 years ago that sky was brown and now if you go that sky is blue" -Kamala Harris.

I thought she said 15 or 20 years ago.  I missed it if she said 5 years ago.  None of my live updates are referencing it either.



Massimus - "Trump already has democrat support."

SpokenTruth said:
jason1637 said:
"If you went 5 years ago that sky was brown and now if you go that sky is blue" -Kamala Harris.

I thought she said 15 or 20 years ago.  I missed it if she said 5 years ago.  None of my live updates are referencing it either.

She said "Twenty".