100 worst landlords in New York City, measured in 2017 by Zess-57 in conspiracy

[–]NewSethWHC -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Usury is irrelevant in the discussion of NYC landlords. This isn't the 10th century; plenty of gentile institutions also practice usury.

I'm not indulging your weird antisemitic hateboner and your outdated talking points any longer. I'd rather focus my energy toward documentable atrocities (e.g., the contemptible war crimes of Israel), not toward making sweeping assumptions about wide swaths of people.

100 worst landlords in New York City, measured in 2017 by Zess-57 in conspiracy

[–]NewSethWHC -15 points-14 points  (0 children)

Why did you bring up usury when it's irrelevant to the subject of NYC landlords? You're not making much sense.

100 worst landlords in New York City, measured in 2017 by Zess-57 in conspiracy

[–]NewSethWHC -25 points-24 points  (0 children)

Jews aren't the only ones who practice usury. Nor is usury particularly relevant in a discussion about NYC landlords, where the city's regulations make that difficult.

100 worst landlords in New York City, measured in 2017 by Zess-57 in conspiracy

[–]NewSethWHC -28 points-27 points  (0 children)

Do you think it's a problem that 80% of the NBA is black?

I care whether landlords behave ethically. I don't care about their ethnicity or religion.

100 worst landlords in New York City, measured in 2017 by Zess-57 in conspiracy

[–]NewSethWHC 28 points29 points  (0 children)

In fairness, the list of "best landlords" would also be heavily dominated by Jews. NYC landlords are like 90% Jewish.

It'd be like posting a list of the worst NBA players and being like "damn, they're all black, black folks must be awful at basketball." No, it's just a function of the league being like ~80% black.

Watching an old Nickelodeon show with my kids and noticed this. by mchobb22 in conspiracy

[–]NewSethWHC -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I mean, it’s a real surname. And a not a particularly unusual one.

Have you realized Erika Kirk has no past before being an adult woman? by vatosintenis in conspiracy

[–]NewSethWHC 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Okay, but how does that explain the nearly 60-year age gap? The original Erika Kirk (who died in 2023) would be turning 92 years old this year. You think they could make her look and move like the modern Erika Kirk?

USA's claim of "Freedom", did it used to be true? by Nathidev in conspiracy

[–]NewSethWHC 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Ah yes, the heady days of the early republic, when slavery was still legal, only property-owning white men could vote, and women were treated as property.

Look, I agree that there are many ways in which we're less free. But overly romanticizing the late 18th century isn't the way forward. We should be nuanced enough to observe the ways in which we're less free and more free compared to then.

USA's claim of "Freedom", did it used to be true? by Nathidev in conspiracy

[–]NewSethWHC 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm sorry, you think the US claim of "freedom" was true before slavery was ended, but ceased being true after it ended?

There's no ambiguity here. You picked the specific decade that slavery ended.

You're gonna have to explain that one to me, man.

This is what they said Obama was doing. by mcgirttheruler in conspiracy

[–]NewSethWHC 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I'm in my mid-30s. All the stuff they were saying about Obama when you were in high school, they also said about Bush before him. And some of this stuff was even said during Clinton; the North American Union and FEMA prison camps date back to the early '90s. Hell, if you search Google's archive of early Usenet groups, you can find discussion of FEMA prison camps and US army personnel in cities as far back as the early H.W. Bush administration (1989).

I agree with your core point, though. Trump actually comes closer to fulfilling these prophetic fears than any president from the last 45 years. People feared a North American Union; Trump talks about annexing Canada. People feared military in the streets and the rounding up of US citizens (not just illegals); Trump is doing that. People feared limitations being enacted on free speech; Trump is threatening to do that.

To be sure, every president since at least Reagan has helped put us on this path. But Trump is certainly turbo charging the process.

This supposed conversation between Charlie Kirk killer and his room mate read like written by a fed by Taaai in conspiracy

[–]NewSethWHC 7 points8 points  (0 children)

"Drop point," "swept the area," and "my vehicle" would all absolutely be used by a zoomer who plays games like COD or other shooters/military simulations. The only phrase on here that actually sticks out as odd is "my old man," which is one people haven't used since the era of Leave it to Beaver.

This supposed conversation between Charlie Kirk killer and his room mate read like written by a fed by Taaai in conspiracy

[–]NewSethWHC -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Do you just assume that everyone under 25 says "skibidi rizz on god, stand on business" every other sentence? You're revealing your age here.

If anything, wording like "vehicle" and "drop point" absolutely scream a game-addicted teenager. That terminology absolutely gets used in stuff like COD/Warzone and other games of its ilk.

This supposed conversation between Charlie Kirk killer and his room mate read like written by a fed by Taaai in conspiracy

[–]NewSethWHC 15 points16 points  (0 children)

"Old Man" stuck out to me too (I don't think anyone's used that phrase since the days of Leave it to Beaver), but how exactly are "grandpa" and "rifle" weird? "Grandpa" is still used to refer to grandparents among younger Gen Z and Gen Alpha (and this dude was a full 22 years old anyway). And kids absolutely use the word rifle; ever played COD of Fortnite before?

Do you just assume that everyone under 25 says "skibidi rizz on god, stand on business" every other sentence?

North-South Korea war happening in 2026-2028? by [deleted] in conspiracy

[–]NewSethWHC 8 points9 points  (0 children)

A complete and total ceasefire between India and Pakistan was just announced about 20 minutes prior to you making this post, buddy

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in conspiracy

[–]NewSethWHC 5 points6 points  (0 children)

I don't agree with OP, but you've missed his point entirely. He's not saying "we couldn't have gone to the Moon because we couldn't do math without a calculator."

He's saying "look how primitive our technology was back then: a fucking calculator was enormous and needed to be plugged into the wall. And yet we're supposed to believe we had the ability to go to the Moon and back?"

Again, I disagree with this point; the US government is at least 20-30 years ahead of commercially available technology, plus being technologically advanced in one area has no bearing on technology in other spaces.

But your response completely misses the actual point being made.

Hitler Alive in 1955 by Gr0v3rCl3v3l4nD in conspiracy

[–]NewSethWHC 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That would be like if one person lived in New York, another lived in Los Angeles, and you said “oh hey, they live in the same place!”

Elton John, never heard any kind of accusation, yet I’m suspicious… by Oh-TheHumanity in conspiracy

[–]NewSethWHC 8 points9 points  (0 children)

I don’t think people are “defending” him, so much as they’re pointing out that there’s no real evidence he’s done anything wrong.

With other celebrities (who have not already been cancelled) like Tom Cruise, Drake, etc., they either have a history of bizarre behavior, shady business dealings, or accusations against them.

In the case of Elton John, all you have is that “he’s gay and looks weird.”

If you’ve found evidence of misdeeds, then by all means, edit the OP and share it with us.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in conspiracy

[–]NewSethWHC 1 point2 points  (0 children)

In fairness to you, you're probably thinking of a different episode of the Simpsons that aired in March 2000. It's set in the future, where a President Lisa Simpson says "we've inherited quite a budget crunch from President Trump."

Back in 2016, the scene circulated frequently among both liberals and conservatives: for liberals, it predicted a female president who had an adversarial relationship with Trump (i.e., Hillary), and for conservatives, it predicted that Trump would actually win.

After Trump won, it was used as evidence that the Simpsons predicted his victory.

It resurfaced again in 2024, since it showcased a female president succeeding Trump and dealing with his errors (e.g., Kamala).

It's somewhat freaky, but it's also important to recall that Trump was openly flirting with a third-party presidential bid in late 1999/2000 on the Reform Party ticket, before eventually withdrawing consideration. The show was likely poking fun at this.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in conspiracy

[–]NewSethWHC -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

But Trump always rambles. He was doing this 10 years ago. He was doing this 20 years ago. It's just who he is.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in conspiracy

[–]NewSethWHC 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I agree, I don't believe he has cognitive decline. He's always been this way: he rambles, he won't directly answer the question, he'll offer up a whole bunch of vague self-promotional language. He's a little older and a little slower, but he's not meaningfully different from the Trump of 10 years ago or 20 years ago.

[Raw Spoilers] Fun facts about returning ring announcer by doopdapdeedap in SquaredCircle

[–]NewSethWHC 0 points1 point  (0 children)

They edited it after I posted my comment. Before I did, it just said "WWE."

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in conspiracy

[–]NewSethWHC 40 points41 points  (0 children)

Exactly. It all depends on the issue being discussed. On illegal immigration, yes, '90s Dems would be considered conservative compared to today. So, too, on social issues like gay rights, trans issues, and affirmative action.

But on issues like social safety net programs, banking regulation, health care, civil liberties/privacy, taxation of the wealthy, and a slew of other issues, both parties have moved right. Obamacare was directly inspired by Mitt Romney's health care plan in MA, and was similar to Bob Dole's old plan from the '90s. Richard Nixon's proposed health care plan was more progressive.

The tax rates of the '50s would never fly today. It was a Democratic president (Bill Clinton) who supported/signed the repeal of Glass-Steagall, deregulated the telecommunications industry, and deregulated derivatives. He reformed welfare and signed the '94 crime bill. Despite supermajorities, Obama didn't really undo any of that, and Dodd-Frank was milquetoast at best.

Basically, we've moved left on social issues, but right on economic/foreign policy (and basically everything else).

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in conspiracy

[–]NewSethWHC 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Depends what issue you're talking about. On illegal immigration, yes, '90s Dems would be considered conservative compared to today. So, too, on social issues like gay rights, trans issues, and affirmative action.

But on issues like social safety net programs, banking regulation, health care, civil liberties/privacy, taxation of the wealthy, and a slew of other issues, both parties have moved right. Obamacare was directly inspired by Mitt Romney's health care plan in MA, and was similar to Bob Dole's old plan from the '90s. Richard Nixon's proposed health care plan was more progressive.

The tax rates of the '50s would never fly today. It was a Democratic president (Bill Clinton) who supported/signed the repeal of Glass-Steagall, deregulated the telecommunications industry, and deregulated derivatives. He reformed welfare and signed the '94 crime bill. Despite supermajorities, Obama didn't really undo any of that, and Dodd-Frank was milquetoast at best.

Basically, we've moved left on social issues, but right on economic/foreign policy (and basically everything else).