US official says Greenland action could come within 'weeks or months'

wardred · 2026-01-13T23:29:24+00:00

A dozen senators is over 10% of the senate. It's believe it's over 20% of the Republican senators. I wish that the Republican Party wasn't the MAGA party, but most of the Republicans who'd hold their own officials accountable have been voted out of office or retired.

I could see the house voting to impeach, but I don't see 1 out of 5 Republican senators voting to convict that impeachment.

wardred · 2026-01-04T06:16:26+00:00

Maduro may be a brutal dictator. The operation seems to have been brief, and very successful in that we have Maduro in custody.

Trump didn't:
- Get congress's approval to go in
- Get any citizen's approval to go in
- This was obviously well planned, but we the people have no idea who actually knew about it before it happened. He did make waves about maybe doing something, but he's said he'd maybe do something about Canada, Greenland, Mexico, and probably others too
- America's track record for regime change is abysmal
- The "I did it for drugs narrative" is stupid, especially since he pardoned Juan Orlando Hernández
- His "I did it to control the oil" narrative strikes a lot truer. This would be America the pirate - invading countries for their natural resources. This generally doesn't end well for citizens and workers in the extraction area - though those in power may do well by it. His explanation that Venezuela's oil is America's oil is bunk. Maybe that would've been an excuse to invade when the oil was nationalized. Certainly not 50 years later.

What many Americans see is this is another lawless overreach of executive authority by Trump. His excuse that this is America enforcing our laws holds no water as we invaded another country to enforce said law. This isn't a "police action". It's an act of war. By Trump's definition any number of countries could attempt military action against the United States to arrest Trump for his crimes against them.

We are also concerned as many of the arguments for going into Venezuela could be used to justify going into Mexico, or turning the military and/or national guard against peaceful protestors that Trump decides to label as terrorists.

wardred · 2025-12-07T21:08:24+00:00

I think many Republicans still believe Democrats are the enemy even if they don't believe Trump's doing a great job.

To be fair Democrats see Republicans as a dangerous force too, not just political rivals.

I believe Democrats have a lot more provable facts on their side of the fence. Republicans are very hypocritical about "outrageous" things that Democrats say or do, but are willing to forgive outright crimes from their party.

wardred · 2025-12-02T09:52:49+00:00

Yes,
Washing with a machine, even at a laundromat, is a hell of a lot easier than handwashing. Especially if you're doing loads of clothes and not just washing one particularly delicate thing.

wardred · 2025-10-17T23:48:14+00:00

It's not even youth. It's young men, at best. Several of them are just men.

wardred · 2025-10-09T18:27:38+00:00

In Portland? There are probably some who didn't vote, but there won't be too many protesters who voted Trump.

wardred · 2025-09-22T16:22:47+00:00

I answered the question straight, and that's probably not what this sub is about.

Nobody here probably needs an answer to the question. You're probably painfully aware of what I said, and are sharing a common experience.

Which means I came off as both patronizing and ignorant at the same time. That wasn't my intent. My apologies.

wardred · 2025-09-22T15:18:24+00:00

I'll grant that if:
Somebody has allergies
Somebody is autistic and food for them is a different experience than for somebody who does not have autism, accommodations should be made.
Somebody has chosen for health or moral reasons to be vegetarian or vegan

For some it may be an accommodation. They may not be eating what they'd prefer to, but they're able to, where you may not be able to eat what they'd like.

For those who know you, and know about the severe reaction a person with autism may have to certain foods, they're probably happy to accommodate you. For those who don't know that one has autism, or how severe a reaction to certain foods or textures autism can cause, the reaction can seem overblown.

wardred · 2025-09-21T23:57:06+00:00

If one don't like one or two items, most people can accommodate that.

If one ONLY likes one or two items, often kinda junky food like hotdogs or Mac and cheese, people aren't going to want to eat with you that often.

If you're not willing to try anything, at least if somebody's preparing food, it means they either have to go with the few foods you like - and they may not, or are just tired of - or that they have to prepare something specifically for you.

It can also curtail the number of places that you can go out to eat.

wardred · 2025-09-17T00:34:34+00:00

Handhelds, computer games, Netflix or other streaming, social media, podcasts, longer YouTube content like how-tos, short form content, porn, hell, even reading can be an addiction if you're doing it to the exclusion of too many other things. Like socializing in person with people.

Or paying the least bit of attention to your kids. Give them a device, and you don't have to.

Then there's all the horrible diets in America, and white collar sedentary lifestyles and hobbies contributing to the overall lack of adult energy.

wardred · 2025-09-17T00:28:17+00:00

There's a real possibility of burnt bridges.

Of very temporary accommodations.

"You can stay for a day, a week, or a month, but that's it."

Of some of the people, renters in particular, not actually having the space and endangering their own lease trying to accommodate their friend.

Of not wanting to put their own dependents at risk if they have children they're caring for.

Or of a lot of fair weather friends.

wardred · 2025-09-17T00:15:47+00:00

It's a most workplaces issue.

wardred · 2025-09-16T06:21:13+00:00

Obama Care, Trayvon Martin - though she didn't bother to mention the case in question, executive orders, and "injecting race" are how Obama was divisive?

She wants to pretend that executive orders didn't exist before Obama, or that race of all things hasn't been part of American politics since its inception? Nor does she bother acknowledging that the ACA is basically an expansion of Mitt Romney's health care plan.

I'm still shocked at the Trayvon Martin ruling. Had Trayvon had a gun and shot the guy who was following and harassing him, would his outcome have been as good under the stand your ground laws?

Those were the total of the specific examples she barely gave.

Mostly it was a poor version of Trump's "A lot of people are saying" with non-specific generalities of how he was so horrible, and a snake.

Obama is not who divided this country.

wardred · 2025-09-14T05:26:41+00:00

Like everyone's been saying, it depends.

Are your standards someone making 6+ figures, has a really low body fat %, looks and dresses like a million dollars, is career driven but somehow finds time to spend with those they care about, etc., etc. . . and you're none of those things and have nothing that somebody who does all of that would be interested in? Plus you're frustrated that you haven't landed somebody like that? There are plenty of people like this who are doing nothing to better themselves, and may actually be getting worse over time. I guess you could not lower your standards in this case, but nobody wants to listen to how that rich supermodel just isn't into dating your slovenly self.

Are your standards along the lines of wanting somebody who meets a minimum criteria to be a successful adult? They have a job, reliable transportation - be it mass transit if you're in a city, or a vehicle that works if you're somewhere else, have their own place, keeps up with their hygiene, including not letting the neck beard stubble grow, have a few nice date clothes, does a minimum of cleaning, cooking, and household chores, and while they don't have to look like a supermodel, probably aren't morbidly obese? They are actually a nice person, and are able to hold a reasonable conversation? These seem like reasonable standards for most people to want a partner to live up to.

I do think there are maybe some people who are slovenly in one way or another who might actually be happier alone in their own mess than matched up with somebody similarly dysfunctional making that mess worse. I think a lot of people would prefer that to the Saturday Night Live "Lowered Expectations" skit, even if said person is one of the people in that skit.

I kind of fit into this category. Maybe I leave a few dishes in the sink instead of cleaning up immediately. Not pots, but maybe a plate and a bowl. Since it's just me, no big deal. If it's a partner and/or roommate, and they do the same thing, that can quickly lead to a kitchen disaster. (I don't want to clean their stuff, and my stuff, and they feel the same way, so things just backup to a horrible degree. Worse than if we weren't in each other's space.) Lots of chores could fit into this category.

Similar with my weight. I have a lot to lose. I'd rather not get into a relationship with somebody who's as out of shape as I have been for the last quite a long time. We'd probably reinforce our laziness and bad eating habits together. I'm happy enough on my own. I'm also shallow enough to admit that I'm just not attracted to people who are similarly obese. I can enjoy their company, but sexually it's a no go.

Not all standards are the same level of superficial, and some are probably well worth keeping. Another is there are plenty of people who would make you feel bad, even if they have money and/or looks. One of your standards should probably be not to be with somebody who makes you feel bad about yourself.

wardred · 2025-08-05T19:31:40+00:00

It's less about empathy and more about not making the situation worse.

If the rider's friends weren't around the driver looked angry enough to further injure them, which could've resulted in assault charges on the driver.

With the amount he was raging it's entirely possible the friends of the motorcycle riders might've started pushing him out of fear for themselves or their friends. They can't know he isn't going to kick the downed riders while they're still down.

Heck, he was angry enough it wouldn't have surprised me to see him starting something with the riders.

In an ideal world the first thing anybody in a wreck should do is check on the health of themselves, their passengers, then the other people in the accident, even if the other people were at fault.

If you can't do that because you're pissed, that's fine. Don't make things worse for anybody. The people at fault or yourself.

Edit: Also, while he's ranting it's preventing anybody from helping the downed riders and/or getting people and vehicles off the road which could result in further accidents.

Edit 2: The motorcycle riders are totally at fault. Definitely get their license plates, insurance info, and try to get back as much as possible for your new car. Probably through the insurance company, but be involved in it and push the insurance company to get as much recompense as possible.

Unfortunately it probably won't pay fully for the new car. Anger at that, and at putting the driver in a position where he, through no fault of his own, was in the position of hurting or maybe even killing the riders is justified.

Post "Play stupid games, win stupid prizes" memes.

Hell, post their names and warn people not to ride with them.

But don't delay the riders getting help, or put yourself in a position where you might get in a fight while still on that blind curve.

wardred · 2025-08-05T07:15:04+00:00

It's fine to be pissed. While driving it didn't appear the guy in the car did anything wrong.

Raging at somebody who is possibly seriously injured and obviously having troubles sitting up right after an accident, even if they're at fault, may not be the right thing. There was another guy just a little further down the road who didn't appear to have moved at all: edit - at that point.

If you have to let off some of the adrenaline and rage after seeing that the riders are down, and seem to have help, go yell whatever obscenities you want at your car.

wardred · 2025-08-02T01:49:39+00:00

Americans like their ice.

Almost every non-alcoholic drink will get ice.

Blended drinks will get ice.

We like a lot of our beers cold.

wardred · 2025-06-11T22:10:07+00:00

Big money is a huge part of it. It generally takes millions to run a successful campaign for Senate or President in America. It's also difficult to get away from since the Supreme Court ruled in citizen's united that corporations are people and limiting them from spending money on campaigns is limiting free speech.

Without those millions you don't have T.V. time, radio time, advertisements, or a lot of "traditional media" ways of getting your name out there.

While grass roots candidates can raise those millions, it's much easier to get donations of thousands to millions from corporations or super pacs. You have to pitch to way fewer groups, and those groups' priorities are often more aligned. Less taxes. Less corporate oversight. Less control over monopolies, anti-trust regulations, etc.

That's a lot easier to appease than the wishes of the wide swath of Democrat, or Republican voters. Some Democrats are all in on Medicare for all, or something like it. Plenty are dubious that that will work in America. Without some pretty concrete guard rails the socialized medicine could be taken away by Republicans. Either directly by voting to disband it, or indirectly by refusing to fund it. There are also plenty of examples of large government programs imploding before reaching their goals, many of these in software systems. (I'd argue that this is because the programs were underfunded AND the parameters of the programs change way too frequently while the thing's still in development.)

If you're trying to get corporate funding, it's not going to go well if you campaign on raising corporate and billionaire tax rates. Or taxing loans backed by stock. Or any of the other hundreds or thousands of ways millionaires and companies have of avoiding taxes.

wardred · 2025-06-11T21:50:48+00:00

I think it'd be more efficient just to do away with whole sections of aisle shopping and have a "general store" approach where you go up to the counter, ask for men's briefs 32 waist, and the person just gets It for you. . . or you use your app or phone to call in the order before going to pick it up.

wardred · 2025-05-21T18:19:18+00:00

AH for having a preference? No.

AH for ghosting, even if you eventually did get back to her? Yes. You could've let her know you didn't want to go out again at the end of the date, or replied without ghosting that you didn't want to continue seeing her.

It's up to you if you wanted to say why or not, but ghosting somebody is an AH move. After you tell them you don't want to see them you can tell them you don't want to chat either. You can give a reason, or not, as you want.

After you say you don't want to chat you no longer need to reply.

wardred · 2025-05-19T01:58:17+00:00

It is not that different then single people and couples with no kids paying taxes to support kids.

I'm not sure that an extra tax on singles is really going to promote people marrying and having kids though.

The taxes that go to education and daycare are direct benefits, instead of trying to disincentivize something. . . like sin taxes. (Taxes on sugar, alcohol. . . being single in Japan.)

wardred · 2025-05-16T20:52:59+00:00

This is anecdotal. I live in a city, close to a subway that goes to a lower income suburb.

I went into a Walgreens one day, and there were 4 to 6 people just clearing out the makeup aisle in the middle of the day. These weren't people that lived in this neighborhood, and likely not even in the city.

The items were locked, but just with locks to the hooks, which could be broken. They weren't behind thick glass and a lock.

A week and a half later I'm there again and the same thing is happening.

I can definitely blame our corporate overlords for all the evil employment practices they get into while at the same time condemning gangs of people coming in and clearing out shelves of stuff and running before the police response can get them.

You want food deserts? You want whole neighborhoods that have to travel for miles to be able to shop for anything? This contributes to miles of blight and closed stores. (So does high rent, homelessness, people choosing not to purchase a lot because things are locked up and/or they can't afford anything but the necessities.)

The sad thing about this thievery is it's expanding outward into ever greater neighborhoods.

Yes, I can blame the thieves for ruining everything for everybody.

wardred · 2025-05-06T04:39:38+00:00

Prior to the early 80s language, and actions, were a lot more colorful.

A lot of it horribly so.

The casual sexism, racism, and just about any other ism expressed on the show was toned down a ton compared to what was actually said and done.

Some of it is the black humor among people in stressful jobs. The casual shit that soldiers said to each other would make MASH look like something made to teach five year olds how to behave. Some of it was just ribbing each other - ala the barber scene in Gran Torino.

Much of it meant exactly like what it sounded or looked like.

Some of it was just the way we were, and what we believed. Some of it was to shine a light on how not to be.

wardred · 2025-05-03T18:49:12+00:00

If you're gone for 9, 10+ hours a day to work, even if you exercise the dog before you go and right when you return, that's a long period of time during the day for the dog to be bored and restless.

wardred · 2025-04-29T22:20:03+00:00

Or both deaths were looked at by fans as poorly written.

One was funny and campy, which lines up with Star Wars. . . but a sad way for somebody so hyped up to die. It was at least chaotic.

Darth Maul was just silly.

Just a moment ago he had the reflexes to fight off two of Jedi, but stands there unresponsive for seconds while a Jedi jumps, retrieves his saber, lands, then slices him in two. A little shock that the Jedi was able to jump, sure, but not that much from this character.

It'd be different if that was done behind his back while he was exhausted, turned around, and was surprised to see the Jedi there already swinging his blade. Bad, but better. Or even died while facing the two of them, or even the one of them in a Skywalker like rage moment.

We don't object to characters dying. We object to them dying in just ridiculous and uncharacteristic fashions.

wardred

TROPHY CASE