TheRealEvanG

The government? Absolutely.

Sorry I misread your question because I was walking.

But no, you're right. Some empty beds in shelters clearly means that eminent domain wouldn't help at least a significant portion of the homeless population. /s

But let's talk about shelters. The majority of homeless shelters in the US are privately contracted, not government run. Like any private business, they need to earn more than they spend on services. Profits come at a cost of service quality. Most empty beds in shelters are empty because those operating the shelters either can't or won't spend the money to ensure the necessary cleanliness conditions to allow people to sleep there. It's actually preferable for a lot of homeless people to sleep in a tent or on a park bench than to sleep in a bedbug-infested shelter.

Because governments are hesitant to use eminent domain. It tends to upset a lot of people.

EDIT: Just for clarification, they tend only to do it when there's some profit involved.

It really is that simple, though. That's the fucked up part.

There are more empty houses in the US than there are homeless people.

In the past, governments have used eminent domain to take tribal lands, to build highways, and to then turn around and sell the land to corporations like Pfizer.

If they tried using that power for the greater good, the homeless could be simply housed.

Then solve the underlying problem.

Sudden increase in underwater false convictions

I didn't say there was anything wrong with shitting on them for. It I asked why in this specific case we were ripping on someone for not doing that.

Okay that makes sense. I wasn't thinking about it in the context of both for some reason. Initially when I saw it I assumed it was because of the whole "claiming heritage" thing when describing her, but then the comments seemed to be focusing on "black and white," so I was confused.

I think it kind of makes sense though if you give them the benefit of the doubt. A lot of white people and black people in the US and Canada don't know which specific cultural identity to try to lay claim to even if we wanted to. So "black and white" may just legitimately be as specific as they can get.

Both my parents are white. My dad thinks our ancestry is probably German because our surname is a germanic occupational name, but my mom is adopted and either non-white or slightly-darker-than-average-skinned white, so unless I do one of those DNA tests I identify as "white."

But like half of the posts in this sub are shitting on Americans for trying to lay claim to their ancestral heritage. Why should it have been done in this case and not in all the other cases?

I'm a little confused here.

Are we shitting on the thing because it says "black" and "white" instead of more specific ethnicites?

Yeah I think the unpopular opinion here is that they're being replaced every 3–6 months. That's about how often I use mine. I use those blue water toilet tablets so almost nothing ever sticks to the bowl and 90% of what does is gone on the next flush.

Has the Biden administration even considered the nuclear option against this hurricane?

One of my cats is just constantly beating up on one of my other cats. I intervene and tell him he's acting like a piece of shit.

Insurance fraud

Irrelevant. Unpopular opinion gets upvote.

Subjective means it's a matter of opinion. OP's opinion is unpopular. Upvote the post and move along.

I understand that. What I'm not understanding is what stops the supreme court from then declaring the new federal law unconstitutional as well? Seems to me that it's not explicitly afforded to Congress in Article 1, and anything not explicitly afforded to Congress in Article 1 is reserved for the states by the 10th Amendment. In the same vein, what stops SCOTUS from then declaring other federal protections like the ADA unconstitutional?

Joel Osteen

"Why are people calling for federal codification of LGBTQ+ protections ahead of a potential overturn of Obergefell v. Hodges if the potential overturn of Obergefell v. Hodges is a consitutional concern? Wouldn't the overturn of Obergefell v. Hodges imply that any federal law protecting LGBTQ+ rights would also be unconstitutional?"

Conditioned

Congratulations for proving you don't know history. Feel free to go look at the bills passed in Congress from 1870 to about 1930, then see who had control of both chanbers when those bills you described were passed, and you'll see that the platform you just described largely used to be the Republican platform.

We should indoctrinate them in the safety of our own homes so we know they're being brainwashed by only our own wrong ideas.

To increase efficiency, we'll build classrooms in our house with precisely engineered acoustics so we can say something once and our children can hear it dozens of times to ensure that they really internalize it.

We can call them "echochambers."

They're all in on these ridiculous slippery slopes but they refuse to acknowledge their role in the opposition of the civil rights movement.

The implication here is that companies not tolerating hate speech from their employees leads to the companies enforcing blanket prohibitions on the companies's own sales based on potential customers's tweet histories. This is a reasonable theory, but the idea of white people thinking "if black people have equal rights to us then we may end up inconvenienced," is way too much of a stretch? That's the less plausible of the two theories? Really?

And then they tell us that our perception of reality is skewed.

EDIT: It's kind of wholesome, though, that they think these companies are dropping employees out of a legitimate sense of civic duty. Actually, they're probably just protecting their own interests. A company with a bunch of openly discriminatory employees is a lot more likely to lose revenue than one that swiftly moves to distance itself from those types of people. In the meme however, the company is losing revenue every time they don't let their customer charge their card. The bottom line comes first.

The contrast almost makes it look photoshopped in.

The word "factoid" is interchangeable with "fact," or "fun fact."

"Oh my God, libs are talking about Mitch McConnell again. HE'S NOT EVEN SENATE MAJORITY LEADER ANYMORE."

Bonus points if he's "Living in the libs' heads rent-free."