Because reasons.

Bottom line: That entirely depends on what you look like.

And for many, just as importantly, what you want need to look like.

Fuckers. I was about to renew. Fucking fuckers. Fucking fuckety fuck fuck fuckers.

Heaven forbid I have opinions!

Glad I cancelled. If the CEO is this clueless and/or and/or ignorant and/or disingenuous do I really want them responsible for my private data?

“didn’t change anything”

• “that mattered to me personally”

Which is exactly how you know that all the hand-waving over Israel is largely performative. If you are not affected by domestic issues and the Really Bad Shit about to hit the fan then you can afford to be Very Very Concerned about issues that don’t affect you directly and personally.

Not all of us have that luxury.

LOL. Nice headline there. Not biased at all nope.

Harris didn’t “back” Israel’s genocide. She just failed to be sufficiently performative in her condemnation of it and failed to distance herself from her own administrations pro-Israeli policies. If you think that’s not all hand-waving and that somehow Trump will be less supportive of Israel’s genocide I have some gold colored sneakers for sale.

She did condemn it to be sure, but not enough to pass the purity test of those here in the US who felt that that acting against that genocide was far and away more important than preventing Americas rapid descent into a Christo-fascist oligarchy. Which, not incidentally, will happily support Israel’s complete and total erasure of the Palestinian people.

Well done! Good job!

And angry people in denial who STILL feel a need to parade their concern like it’s a fucking medal.

How many voters do you think can find Gaza on a map?

But they sure can see that Harris is a woman.

All part of the plan… er sorry 都是计划的一部分

when Nancy pelosi sets herself up as a defacto leader using insider trading

Dude. You should put down the bong long enough to read up on what was covered in the high school civics class you slept through.

Wow. Can you let us know what you are smoking so we know to avoid it?

Mmmhmm. Ok.

But you assume I’m saying “don’t worry about it”. I’m clearly not. I’m saying don’t use click-bait headlines that are factually inaccurate so that we can worry about the RIGHT things. Ie that there almost certainly will be a list AND that Bondi will lie through her teeth to hide that fact. If we do this then we can better understand how to expose said list AND the lies.

To “descend” you’d have to have not been there in the first place.

WTF?

What’s next a background check for breathing? Because, you know breathing is a clear and obvious pre-cursor to criming of all kinds.

I don’t believe it’s helpful to be hyperbolic about these things or to come to conclusions supported only by speculation and innuendo. Let’s please be clear-eyed in how we handle the coming shit storm.

Noted Trump sycophant Bondi did NOT “admit” there is an enemy list. That’s opinion on the part of TNR and it takes a certain amount of hand waving to get to “there is an enemy list”. She said “There will never be an enemies list within the Department of Justice”.

I’m not saying there isn’t an enemy list - there is in Patel’s book after all - but this headline is at best deceptive.

I see you also have never worked for a “non” profit. (this is a joke ha ha)

Being registered as a nonprofit is about tax consequences. That’s all being a 501* means - you can still make money, you just can’t directly take it out either for yourself or shareholders. It’s just classifying profits differently. Technically, in fact, revenue - expenses = profit regardless of how it’s classified or what you end up doing with the excess money.

So… many nonprofits exist to pay certain special people very high salaries under the guise of “doing good” and “having impact”.

Yes I’m being a little obtuse about the word for sheets and geegles. But it’s to make a simple point: Almost all nonprofits exploit their workers by under-paying them in the name of “the cause”. Being a nonprofit and not paying shareholders or a private owner the excess money resulting from revenue-expenses (ie profit) should not exempt an entity from paying it’s workers fairly.

Damn you for beating me to this.

By using words like “revenue” and “impact” instead of “profit”. It’s magic!

For example: “We expect everyone to accept a paltry, below-market wage to better support our mission so we can pay our executive director a ludicrously high salary and ensure our board gets regular fancy dinners have greater impact”

But a nonprofit does not have a profit incentive to keep wages low.

Well you’ve never worked for a nonprofit I can see.