Avaleigh

Unfortunately, people who opposed the rent control proposition spent millions of dollars to confuse voters into thinking that a no vote would somehow be harmful to them personally. The proponents didn't have as much money to spend bombarding people with ads. They also manipulated people's concerns about the homeless crisis to get them to believe that a yes vote would result in the housing crisis being made worse. It was such BS and was hard to watch happen in real time. Even people in blue states will vote against their best interests if there are enough rich people around to convince them.

I 100% agree with you that they are going to complain either way. It's what they do. My concern isn't about whether or not these guys are getting their feelings hurt over DEI hires. My concern is when people in power say that they plan on appointing/nominating the first [insert minority] for whichever position in such a way where the inference is that people from other groups, including other minority candidates, aren't also in consideration. It's especially concerning from a DEI perspective because it comes across like people from other groups will just have to wait their turn until someone in power thinks it's finally time to focus on their group. Everyone who is qualified should be up for consideration, and their years of hard work shouldn't take them out of the race because they don't happen to be apart of the group whose turn it is to get a first. It's a little concerning to me that this sort of basic level of fairness is considered a hot take from a lot of the people who support DEI. Everyone who is qualified should have a fair shot at getting these sorts of positions. If you make an announcement that you're only looking at candidates from one group then you aren't being fair to the candidates from other marginalized groups.

Kevin Sorbo and Kelsey Grammer are hurt that you forgot about them.

Yeah, "most qualified" arguments don't seem to come into the conversation from right wing supporters when it's people like Trump, Cavanagh, Hegseth, etc. I wonder why? Regarding your first point, from a basic fairness perspective, it seems like it's a mistake to make a declaration that you want to appoint/nominate the first [fill in the blank minority] candidate for whichever position. If you acknowledge that you aren't even going to consider other candidates, including other minorities, then there's no way of knowing whether or not you'll choose the "most qualified" candidate. You'll get a qualified candidate, yes, but to get the "most qualified" you will only know if the search is open to every qualified candidate. It's better to acknowledge that you'll consider everyone who could do the job and then consider the diversity part. At the end of the day, there are so many marginalized groups that it won't be difficult to meet DEI goals without having to declare that other marginalized groups aren't even in the race because the decider feels for whatever reason that it wants to focus on one particular group. You can be fair and still make history. JMO.

Yeah, the comments really are that bad. I am someone who has defended him in the past, but I just can't this time. I've always felt that his love for skating is genuine and, as the sport has dwindled in popularity over the years, I've always appreciated his enthusiasm even if I haven't always agreed with what he says. It's a bummer, but there are consequences for being an asshole. He's already making it seem like he's a victim by saying his comments were taken out of context. I admit, I'm curious to see if he'll still end up attending worlds considering they're being held in Boston.

It depends on the hotel. Two places I worked, if you had the breakfast package, then that meant a 20% gratuity was already included. All the person had to do was sign it to the room and the front desk would take care of the rest. The server would include the 20% and the front desk would make sure the guest wasn't charged anything additional because they'd already paid to have the breakfast included. Also, some places like a luxury hotel in downtown LA that I'll refrain from mentioning by name, they put an autogratuity on. Where they're kind of scummy/rude is that they'll include the 20% but the receipts still print with the place where an additional gratuity is optional. Some people don't look carefully at their bill and they might unknowingly leave a double tip. Most servers will let their guests know the deal, but some are greedy assholes who are hoping they can sucker one or two people a shift. In places where it's a very basic buffet there's no need to leave a tip. That being said, sometimes there's a person making omelets and stuff--I'll leave them a tip. Sometimes they'll even have tip jars. Finally, when in doubt, since different places have different set ups, it doesn't hurt to ask. Servers always appreciate it when someone cares enough to check.

It depends on the restaurant. Not all places have the same rules. I've been everything from a host to a manager among other F&B positions over the years. A mom and pop restaurant isn't necessarily going to have the same rules as a chain, restaurants that serve alcohol and have a lot of bar action are different than family style restaurants, and restaurants that are in hotels and are unionized will have different challenges than other fine dining f&b outlets. In the hotels where I've worked (each four or five star), in most situations, a server would not be expected to pay a busser or a bartender or host on a table that stiffed them. Where I've seen things get tricky are situations involving the bar. Say a server manages to upsell their table and they get their guests to buy a four figure bottle of wine? If the person who buys the expensive bottle doesn't leave an adequate tip, I've seen a couple of situations where the server did indeed end up owing the bartender money. Also, keep in mind, in these cases, all the bartender did was open up the bottle and that little action made them entitled to a portion of the tip even though the server did the bulk of the work including pouring the wine. Also, in two properties where I worked, what the server would pay out a busser or server was often up to the discretion of the server, but was generally expected to be in the neighborhood of 10% of what the server made that shift. Some places can afford to employ multiple bussers. In that case, generally, a busser would be assigned to assisting one or two servers, so the server would only have to tip out one busser. In some places, an employer might only opt to employ one or two bussers and the server might be expected to tip out both bussers plus bartender and possibly even a barista and/or host. As challenging as the tipping can be for a server, it can sometimes be even worse for a busser. Imagine busting your ass and being responsible for keeping the entire restaurant clean, with maybe one other guy helping you, if you're lucky, only for a server to tell you 'hey I got stiffed a couple of times, so this is all you get even though you did a lot of the heavy lifting this shift.' Stiffing people is not the right thing to do if you're unhappy about tipping culture. (The tablets though that were described in this episode like with the froyo--obviously all of that is ridiculous.) This is one of those situations where it will be impossible to please everyone. I've worked in two different states, I've seen a union property in CA, a union property in NY, and several non union restaurants in both states. Now, maybe it's because all of my experience has been working in places where people have a lot of money to spend. Whatever the reason for it, anytime you ask servers and bartenders if they would prefer to be tipped employees vs employees who are paid a fair wage, they choose tips everytime. Unanimously. I've yet to meet the server or bartender in LA or NYC who didn't prefer getting tips. The money is better than some people might expect. Just as an example (and if I hadn't seen it for myself, I wouldn't have believed it) there are some in room dining servers (room service) who are cracking six figures due to autogratuities. I've seen bartenders who make around $90,000. It depends on where a person works. I've seen breakfast crew servers make an average of $400 a day. They know they aren't going to make that without tips even if their hourly gets bumped up. In the hotel where I work, the servers make $15 or $16 an hour in addition to their tips. They also get to automatically include a 20% gratuity for parties of 6 or more, so there's no fear that they'll get stiffed when it comes to large parties. The union also protects them from having to go outside of their job description in addition to ensuring that the employer has a certain amount of staff on the floor. Non union places can sometimes be guilty of running skeleton crews in order to save money. They overwork a small amount of employees, and the guests are left with average to below average service because the employer wants to pinch pennies wherever they can. Of course people are going to resent tipping in those situations. If employers start paying employees a fair wage, not only are the menu prices going to go up, but they aren't going to have as many employees on the floor. Also, when the servers were given their raises in our hotel, the prices of numerous menu items and hotel amenities (like valet parking, minibar items, spa treatments, etc) increased. Employers will do whatever they can to pass on the cost to the consumer. I don't know what the right answer is to the tipping issue, but it is absolutely complex and I generally make sure to tip even when the service isn't great because I always suspect that there are other issues at play that are out of the control of the servers and other waitstaff.

Agreed. Adding to this, I find it absurd that the supposed party of law and order has no issues with Trump pardoning rioters who assaulted police officers. That's completely inconsistent with their ideas of "backing the blue" and being proponents of law and order, and personal responsibility. Nazis around the world are excited about Trump, Musk, and their administration. This should be incredibly alarming to anyone who wants to live in a just and decent society.

I agree with both of these points. He 100% loves winding people up. He does and says things specifically to upset people on the left. When he says stuff like "Am I allowed to run [for a third term]?" He says it with a sly kind of smirk like he's delighted that he's going to get millions of people angry, worried, afraid, and, most importantly, posting about him on Xitter, Bsky, and wherever else. He firmly believes that there is no such thing as bad publicity. At the same time, he's so clearly testing the waters to see if he'll be able to find a way to serve a third term. Everyone should be concerned about this whether they are on the left or right especially when these queries are coming from a guy who so obviously admires the world's dictators. He wants to be some sort of dictator king hybrid, and we're lucky that he isn't a younger, healthier man because I think he'd be harder to stop. As it is, I don't think he'd have the support to follow through with his apparent desire to be a dictator for life. At least, I hope he wouldn't.

Pairs are a problem too. Cipres, Coughlin, Oppegard, etc. I'm just guessing/speculating/theorizing here, but I wonder if the scarcity of male partners contributes to some of these issues? There are so few male partners in comparison to female partners that maybe this indirectly leads certain men to feeling like they're a little untouchable and can get away with whatever behavior once they're on a solid team. If nothing else, it seems like women feel more pressure than men when it comes to both disciplines because if things do go south with a partnership, they know that it'll be easier for the guy to find a new partner than it will be for them.

I was thinking about all the Republicans who still worship at the altar of Reagan. How can they be okay with Trump getting us into an unnecessary trade war with countries that are supposed to be our allies? Reagan is on record saying that getting into a trade war with allies is a road to weakening our economy.

I live in LA. Today I paid $4.29 a gallon for gas and that's at the cheap station. Elsewhere it's in the $4.59-$4.79 range. The prices have gone up every week since Trump has taken over. Eggs at Ralphs are $7.99. $8.99 if you want a dozen organic. A couple of specials where you can get 18 for $10-$13.99 depending on the brand. $7.49 for our usual whole grain bread. We're cutting out our cold brew plus my once a week Starbucks that I have while I wait for my daughter to finish a therapy session. We're really going to have to commit to doing the bulk of our shopping at Costco even though it's pain in the ass for us for several reasons. Also, getting gas at Costco is the only thing that makes sense at this point. Ralphs (Kroger) is just completely outrageous. Trader Joe's is somewhat affordable depending on what you're buying, but it's not a good place to do a big shopping trip if you're trying to be conservative with spending. At least I can rest easy knowing that the Gulf of Mexico is listed as the Gulf of America on Google Maps. /s It's going to be a long four years. When I asked my mom why Trump hasn't been able to make groceries more affordable she said 'Give him time. The Democrats are doing everything they can to make sure he doesn't succeed.' *sigh* I held my tongue and didn't point out that he said prices would go down immediately just by him being in office. I also didn't bother to ask what it is she thinks the Democrats are doing to prevent him from keeping his promise about lowering the price of groceries. It's just become impossible to have a sensible conversation about anything political, so I mostly refrain but sometimes it's really, really hard to accept that she believes this stuff. It's like she's a different person than the one who raised me. It make me so sad, it's hard to put into words.

Agreed that men aren't necessarily going to beat women in every sport or in every match up. It depends on a variety of factors. There are records in skiing, gymnastics, and in swimming, just to name a few examples, where women have outperformed men. That being said, at the end of the day, there's a reason why men and women compete separately in sports. It gives more opportunities for women to succeed, and this is, of course, important for women and girls for a variety of reasons. If you look at something like the LA or NYC Marathons, there has yet to be a woman who has beaten the men's record. Even when it comes to something like the "gender challenge" in the marathon, the women are given a head start in order to make it fair. For sports like the long jump or the high jump, the world records have been set by men. In figure skating, there are dozens of men who can do quadruple jumps. It's become common for men to perform multiple quads in a program. There's even a man who is consistently doing a quad axel. Meanwhile, it's still relatively uncommon to see a woman do a triple axel. Currently, there are only three women this season who can do it and only one who's nailing it consistently. (I'm excluding the Russians who aren't competing this season. Also, the Russians may or may not be guilty of using PEDs. Kamila Valieva is likely just one example.) I don't think it's sexist to say that men sometimes/often have an advantage over women when it comes to a variety of sports. Regarding high school sports, I think it's important for there to be separate categories for men and women because of the scholarship opportunities that are offered. I wouldn't want to see sports become unisex because I think this would lead to fewer opportunities for women. As for trans athletes, I haven't seen any evidence that allowing trans athletes to compete will necessarily lead to unfairness for female athletes. Regarding the Olympics, I don't understand why there's resistance to having a trans division. I actually think it would go a long way to bringing positive exposure for trans athletes and the trans community in general. There would be more medal opportunities, and it would give the world a chance to get to know and root for various trans athletes. There would also be the added benefit of not having transphobic people attempting to tarnish an athlete's win with accusations of unfairness.

I'm pretty sure he thinks empathy is for "losers." He seems to think that stuff like the golden rule is only for suckers and weaklings. Anything he does that falls under the kindness category, e.g. calling the family of someone who was killed, is purely about self interest and whether or not it'll make him look good to his base.

I don't really see how it would help to have a right leaning thread here unless the idea would be for it to only be for comments that support right wing ideology and even then, I wouldn't be in favor of it because I think that any poster here has the right to post in any thread on any forum. So at the end of the day people would still be permitted to respond if they, say, want to add proper context to a claim they know is inaccurate, want to post a link that goes against an argument being made, or just want to weigh in on misinformation. It wouldn't be inclusive to ban left wing posters from a particular thread, just as it wouldn't be inclusive to ban right wing posters here who want to add to the conversation. Ultimately, people are going to say what they have to say whether it's in this thread or another. The stakes are too high for people to not comment when their lives are being so disrupted, and that's putting it mildly. There are real worries and concerns that people have particularly regarding healthcare. There are several steps that could have been taken rather than deleting the entire Royals forum. Just one example of many would be to have permanently locked the thread that certain posters found problematic. As far as the Royals forum, that was definitely a case of punishing the majority because of the views of a minority of posters who felt that a certain thread should be tailor made for them. There were several posters who could have moved on and chose not to even though it was clear that they were in a thread that was making them unhappy. There were several posters who were out of line on both sides of the argument there, but they were absolutely the minority. Most people who posted there posted respectfully, as they do here.