I would often use both the title and the person’s nickname, but never just the name. So, for example, “Papa Mike” but not “Mike” or “Michael”. It made more sense for grandparents because I had two of each, but I did it for my parents too.

I refuse to separate out my compost.

In the eyes of anyone who wants to elect pragmatists who don’t tilt at windmills.

I’m not sure why people want him to humiliate Democrats by trying something doomed to failure. Hegseth can’t be impeached successfully unless multiple Republicans support doing so.

So we’re at the “I didn’t do it, but if I did then it isn’t so bad” stage.

My favorite part of this is that the redistricting would have had no problems in court if the Republicans had simply not talked about their race-related motives in public.

With that said, I don’t have high hopes for the Supreme Court here.

In the modern day, mostly because poor people live in undesirable areas and black people are more likely to be poor. Rich black people aren’t living near chemical plants.

(Black people became more likely to be poor because of a long history of racism, but social mobility is sufficiently difficult for everyone that they aren’t necessarily staying poor because of on-going racism. They would be living near to chemical plants disproportionately often for generations to come even if all racism disappeared today.)

deleted by creator

I’m not sure why this is a better argument against a 50 year mortgage than against 15 or 30 year mortgages. The author does say that 50 years gives more opportunities to refinance, but many people who buy homes don’t intend to live there 50, 30, or even 15 years. For these people, the only thing that matters is the monthly payment and the choice of a lower payment but with more of that payment going towards interest can be a rational one.

he has no control over his party

He can’t actually order them to do anything. One might argue that if he was a better leader, he could have persuaded them to stick with the plan longer, but maybe he had already done that weeks ago and this is the longest that anyone could have persuaded them to hold out. It is the longest shutdown ever, after all…

The random sample survey of 604 D.C. residents was taken between August 14 and 17 shortly after Trump signed the executive order. It indicates some 65 percent of residents do not believe the presence of FBI agents and uniformed National Guard troops from an increasing number of states makes the city safer.

Eight of 10 residents surveyed oppose Trump’s executive order to federalize law enforcement in the city. Seven in 10 oppose it “strongly.”

Source.

I’m not sure why they thought a DC jury would ever convict, given that even a DC grand jury (which hears only the prosecutor’s side) didn’t indict.

I think the emphasis of the article was more on people who resent having to spend two more cents in any circumstances than it is on people who can’t round.

I think most people will interpret that as confessing a crush.

Things intended to be temporary often end up permanent, especially when it is in the interest of the party in power to make them permanent (and gerrymandering is always in the interest of the party in power, because that’s the party that does the gerrymandering).

With that said, the intent to revert this gerrymandering is the intent to rebuild the town, but even if the town will be rebuilt someday, it’s still being destroyed now. California Republicans have a right to representation, and the Democrats are deliberately depriving them of that right because of something that totally different people in Texas are doing.

I’ll extend the war metaphor: sometimes military necessity dictates a course of action that will cause civilian casualties, but even then we should still acknowledge that there are civilian casualties and that that’s bad.

I think you’re probably right, in the sense that not doing this would probably be even worse, but we’re destroying the town to save it, as the saying goes. Win or lose, there won’t be much left of a very important norm.

Because disenfranchising people is the solution to disenfranchising people. But who knows - this may be the least bad option.

The article seems to be saying that the VA is no longer classifying breast cancer in men as a “reproductive organ” cancer, and therefore it’s no longer eligible for automatic coverage in some contexts the way that other cancers of the reproductive system are. I’m not sure why this is an issue, because I’ve never heard of any ideological claims about male breasts which the Trump administration might wish to oppose.

He married her and he wants her to convert, but there’s no reason to think that he married her for the purpose of converting her.

So people want him to (1) believe that the Catholic faith is essential for eternal salvation but also (2) not care whether or not his wife is Catholic? That wouldn’t make any sense. Of course any Catholic who cares about his loved ones is going to hope that they convert to Catholicism.

True, but I still think it’s interesting to consider if some of these people wouldn’t have been willing to vote for something with consequences. Or if some people who didn’t vote for this would have been willing to vote for something with consequences.