Are you happy with the state/province/country you live in?

[Max Rockatansky]

we also know how to handle snow unlike the I-20 corridor (roughly the line of "we still get snow but have no idea how to deal with it").

I-20?  More like I-70, perhaps dipping to I-40 via I-44 as you head west. Snow is exceedingly rare south of I-20; people are actually justified in not knowing how to handle snow there unlike areas further north.

Don't worry about too much.  Few south of I-20 can handle driving in the rain either. 

[Roadgeekteen]

The notion that the person who decides whether the President affects your life or not is you, and not the President, is devastatingly naive.

I'd say the vast majority of people let who is President affect their lives way more than the President actually affects their lives.  That is to say, the fuss that most people make about the President far outweighs the amount of influence the President actually has on their lives otherwise.

The President certainly has at least some impact on your life, but generally state leaders have far more impact.

[vdeane]

The notion that the person who decides whether the President affects your life or not is you, and not the President, is devastatingly naive.

I'd say the vast majority of people let who is President affect their lives way more than the President actually affects their lives.  That is to say, the fuss that most people make about the President far outweighs the amount of influence the President actually has on their lives otherwise.

I think anyone who's interacted with ICE lately would disagree.  As would anyone affected by recent federal cuts.  And any trans person who had their documents reverted and/or can't get HRT any more.  Quite possibly to soon be a lot more people given some of the recent rhetoric.

[Max Rockatansky]

The notion that the person who decides whether the President affects your life or not is you, and not the President, is devastatingly naive.

I'd say the vast majority of people let who is President affect their lives way more than the President actually affects their lives.  That is to say, the fuss that most people make about the President far outweighs the amount of influence the President actually has on their lives otherwise.

I think anyone who's interacted with ICE lately would disagree.  As would anyone affected by recent federal cuts.  And any trans person who had their documents reverted and/or can't get HRT any more.  Quite possibly to soon be a lot more people given some of the recent rhetoric.

I was amused at the sudden epiphany earlier this by several my own immediate family members that I am a long term Federal employee. 

[kphoger]

I'd say the vast majority of people let who is President affect their lives way more than the President actually affects their lives.  That is to say, the fuss that most people make about the President far outweighs the amount of influence the President actually has on their lives otherwise.

I think anyone who's interacted with ICE lately would disagree.  As would anyone affected by recent federal cuts.  And any trans person who had their documents reverted and/or can't get HRT any more.

That would be a minority, right, not a majority?  I didn't say "no one".  I said "the vast majority".

To be clear, I know there are people whose lives are directly affected by who's holding the office of President.  I'm just saying that, for most people, the effect is much smaller than the amount of worry they spend over who's holding the office.

Osama bin Laden was a racist ass clown.

So was Charlie Kirk.

By the way, believing the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was a mistake does not automatically make a person a racist.  For example, Barry Goldwater was against the same act, and yet he had supported the acts of Civil Rights Act of 1957 and of 1960, pushed for the desegregation of the military and of Phoenix public schools, and was a founding member of the NAACP chapter in Arizona.

[Molandfreak]

I'd say the vast majority of people let who is President affect their lives way more than the President actually affects their lives.  That is to say, the fuss that most people make about the President far outweighs the amount of influence the President actually has on their lives otherwise.

I think anyone who's interacted with ICE lately would disagree.  As would anyone affected by recent federal cuts.  And any trans person who had their documents reverted and/or can't get HRT any more.

That would be a minority, right, not a majority?  I didn't say "no one".  I said "the vast majority".

To be clear, I know there are people whose lives are directly affected by who's holding the office of President.  I'm just saying that, for most people, the effect is much smaller than the amount of worry they spend over who's holding the office.

Osama bin Laden was a racist ass clown.

So was Charlie Kirk.

By the way, believing the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was a mistake does not automatically make a person a racist.  For example, Barry Goldwater was against the same act, and yet he had supported the acts of Civil Rights Act of 1957 and of 1960, pushed for the desegregation of the military and of Phoenix public schools, and was a founding member of the NAACP chapter in Arizona.

Naturally, however, if you are going to make a case against the specific legislation without clarifying that the act of desegregation itself was good, it is going to raise some suspicion from critics in the 2020s, and probably embolden more dishonest actors within your fanbase to repeat the same rhetoric.

[kphoger]

Naturally, however, if you are going to make a case against the specific legislation without clarifying that the act of desegregation itself was good, it is going to raise some suspicion from critics in the 2020s, and probably embolden more dishonest actors within your fanbase to repeat the same rhetoric.

The very next line that Kirk said after "I think we made a huge mistake when we passed the Civil Rights Act in the mid-1960s" was this:  "Not because we shouldn't have dealt with Jim Crow — that was evil and immoral".

How much more explicit do you want him to have been that he believed the act of desegregation itself was good?

[Roadgeekteen]

The notion that the person who decides whether the President affects your life or not is you, and not the President, is devastatingly naive.

I'd say the vast majority of people let who is President affect their lives way more than the President actually affects their lives.  That is to say, the fuss that most people make about the President far outweighs the amount of influence the President actually has on their lives otherwise.

I think anyone who's interacted with ICE lately would disagree.  As would anyone affected by recent federal cuts.  And any trans person who had their documents reverted and/or can't get HRT any more.  Quite possibly to soon be a lot more people given some of the recent rhetoric.

Most people don't encounter ICE. I've never encountered ICE (I am a visible minority, Asian). Most people don't work for the federal government. And most people aren't transgender. My point still stands, though I don't necessarily disagree with you.

[Molandfreak]

Most people don't work for the federal government.

However, a much more significant portion of the population works in positions that receive grants from the federal government. And the projects completed by local-level governments which commonly receive federal grants are much more visible and affect a significant number of people. Traditionally, presidents haven't had a great impact on the situation surrounding federal grants, but trump put out hundreds of executive orders affecting these grants at the beginning of the year.

[JayhawkCO]

And not to mention people who might now get sick due to vaccine access being shuttered, people who are paying more for all of their goods because of tariffs, etc., etc. I'll stop there.

[Roadgeekteen]

And not to mention people who might now get sick due to vaccine access being shuttered, people who are paying more for all of their goods because of tariffs, etc., etc. I'll stop there.

I will say that the tariffs have completely flipped this over. Normally, the President has less impact on the economy than most think, but these questionable economic decisions have flipped this upside down.

[JayhawkCO]

And not to mention people who might now get sick due to vaccine access being shuttered, people who are paying more for all of their goods because of tariffs, etc., etc. I'll stop there.

I will say that the tariffs have completely flipped this over. Normally, the President has less impact on the economy than most think, but these questionable economic decisions have flipped this upside down.

Agreed. Typically the president get too much credit for good economies and too much blame for bad. This is a case where the president is directly affecting it.

[kphoger]

I'd still argue that the increase in the price of retail consumer goods is far less than people's obsession with presidential politics would suggest.  Anecdotally, I'm not sure I could point to a single way that tariffs have affected me personally.  I guess maybe the price of imported produce at the grocery store has gone up a little bit?  But I couldn't tell you that that's had a noticeable effect on our household's food budget.

[Roadgeekteen]

I'd still argue that the increase in the price of retail consumer goods is far less than people's obsession with presidential politics would suggest.  Anecdotally, I'm not sure I could point to a single way that tariffs have affected me personally.  I guess maybe the price of imported produce at the grocery store has gone up a little bit?  But I couldn't tell you that that's had a noticeable effect on our household's food budget.

The tarriff price increases will take time to kick in.

[JayhawkCO]

I'd still argue that the increase in the price of retail consumer goods is far less than people's obsession with presidential politics would suggest.  Anecdotally, I'm not sure I could point to a single way that tariffs have affected me personally.  I guess maybe the price of imported produce at the grocery store has gone up a little bit?  But I couldn't tell you that that's had a noticeable effect on our household's food budget.

I have ordered some things from overseas and directly paid a tariff fee.

[thspfc]

ctrl+f

"Kirk"

 

The notion that the person who decides whether the President affects your life or not is you, and not the President, is devastatingly naive.

I'd say the vast majority of people let who is President affect their lives way more than the President actually affects their lives.  That is to say, the fuss that most people make about the President far outweighs the amount of influence the President actually has on their lives otherwise.

I think anyone who's interacted with ICE lately would disagree.  As would anyone affected by recent federal cuts.  And any trans person who had their documents reverted and/or can't get HRT any more.  Quite possibly to soon be a lot more people given some of the recent rhetoric.

I'd still argue that the increase in the price of retail consumer goods is far less than people's obsession with presidential politics would suggest.  Anecdotally, I'm not sure I could point to a single way that tariffs have affected me personally.  I guess maybe the price of imported produce at the grocery store has gone up a little bit?  But I couldn't tell you that that's had a noticeable effect on our household's food budget.

I have ordered some things from overseas and directly paid a tariff fee.

While I don't doubt the impacts of tariffs on prices (as per what economists and even the white house itself has said), there's less than nothing stopping a company from using "tariff fee" as a socially acceptable, perhaps even socially beneficial excuse to raise prices.

[JayhawkCO]

While I don't doubt the impacts of tariffs on prices (as per what economists and even the white house itself has said), there's less than nothing stopping a company from using "tariff fee" as a socially acceptable, perhaps even socially beneficial excuse to raise prices.

These were bills directly from the shipping company to pay the tariffs, so not from the exporter.

[bing101]

In my own subjective opinion based upon living for 41 years in Sacramento, CA verses living for the past six and a half years in North Dallas, Texas, yes, I love living here in North Dallas. Granted, I moved to North Dallas and purchased my home just before prices spiked and I was able to get a very low mortgage rate.

What I noticed in this thread is the lack of "Why?". My whys for liking the Dallas-Fort Worth Metropolex over Sacramento include better opportunities for career, entertainment, and travel. In Sacramento, there were shows that only played in the bay area which meant approximately two hours travel to attend a show in San Jose or San Francisco, while DFW is a destination for shows. DFW is the headquarters for both American Airlines and Southwest Airlines, thus more non-stop flights, verses Sacramento International which had you flying through a hub airport. I also see the difference in the price I pay at the fuel pump, the price of yearly registration, and yes, the price of electricity. Anyone who is expecting me to say "No state income tax in Texas" should also know that is offset by the higher property taxes, but then again, what I pay in property taxes is still lower than what I was paying in California income taxes. Even my yearly car insurance is lower in Texas than it was in California, but I'm also not driving as much. I also love having gigabit Internet in both uploads and downloads, and the rarity of snow.

Do I miss the Sierra Nevadas or the California coast? Yes, a little bit. But only a little bit.

Mind you, I live near Interstate 35 which is a major North-South interstate in Texas. Most of the major population centers are either on Interstate 35 (Dallas, Fort Worth, Austin, San Antonio) or are east of this Interstate (Houston). Once you go west on Interstate 35, the population density of Texas goes downward, and I wouldn't be as happy.

Hello I am in Sacramento today! I seen some new stuff in the downtown areas in the past decade such as new stadium and some jobs moving in the area. Also this if one is complaining why Sacramento is becoming expensive some of it that there are Bay Area residents who cannot afford to leave the Golden State move to Sacramento for job and housing reasons. Yes Solano and Sacramento counties are getting some of the people from other parts of California who cannot leave the state for various reasons.

https://www.sfgate.com/travel/article/bay-area-interstate-80-traffic-explainer-17786974.php

https://www.sfgate.com/local/article/increased-migration-bay-area-to-sacramento-18262928.php

[Road Hog]

I'm OK with where I live. It's a good community that's transforming by the day and my biggest commuting worry is if a damn freight train is parked across the tracks again.

I bought early enough where my equity quickly grew to where I could sell for $450K now, so when all is said and done I would break even after interest, insurance, taxes, maintenance etc. but would still have that extra $395K in equity if I sold today.

My biggest worry is if I somehow get into bad health and have to sell before I'm ready. My mom had quite a nest egg saved up and had to piss it all away on memory care for five years, leaving us kids nothing.

[Scott5114]

I'd say the vast majority of people let who is President affect their lives way more than the President actually affects their lives.  That is to say, the fuss that most people make about the President far outweighs the amount of influence the President actually has on their lives otherwise.

I think anyone who's interacted with ICE lately would disagree.  As would anyone affected by recent federal cuts.  And any trans person who had their documents reverted and/or can't get HRT any more.

That would be a minority, right, not a majority?  I didn't say "no one".  I said "the vast majority".

To be clear, I know there are people whose lives are directly affected by who's holding the office of President.  I'm just saying that, for most people, the effect is much smaller than the amount of worry they spend over who's holding the office.

This misses the point I was making. If the President is not affecting your life, it is because he is choosing not to do so. The President has a lot of ways he could affect your life, but he does not do so because he thinks it would be a bad idea, or he sees no reason to, or it hasn't occurred to him, or he doesn't know he can do that.

Case in point—the President has the authority to nuke Beijing or Moscow pretty much whenever. That would affect everyone's life pretty much immediately. We only have the luxury of saying "the President doesn't affect my life!" because, so far, every President has chosen not to do that.

[ZLoth]

Hello I am in Sacramento today! I seen some new stuff in the downtown areas in the past decade such as new stadium and some jobs moving in the area. Also this if one is complaining why Sacramento is becoming expensive some of it that there are Bay Area residents who cannot afford to leave the Golden State move to Sacramento for job and housing reasons. Yes Solano and Sacramento counties are getting some of the people from other parts of California who cannot leave the state for various reasons.

The Golden One Arena is considered one of the best, if not the best, NBA arenas. It depends on who you ask.

It has been noted in past years, especially during Covid, that people were leaving Sacramento for other states (including me) for various reasons, while people from the unaffordable Bay Area were purchasing homes and super-commuting to their Bay Area jobs. The super-commuting is nothing now, but it wasn't something I wanted. I wanted out of California since the late-1990s and made myself ready for that opportunity when it came up.

When I visited back in May, 2023, I had some close friends joke and say "Who let this Texan in?", and a minute later, stated "You do not want to move back." And, if you lived in the same area for forty years, maybe you state the same thing also. There are people who are long-time Texas residents who also see the changes, not liking it, and moving elsewhere.

[kphoger]

Case in point—the President has the authority to nuke Beijing or Moscow pretty much whenever. That would affect everyone's life pretty much immediately. We only have the luxury of saying "the President doesn't affect my life!" because, so far, every President has chosen not to do that.

I mean, I'm pretty sure my next-door neighbor owns guns.  He could walk up to the house while I'm sitting on the front porch and shoot me in the face.  The only reason he hasn't is that, so far, he has chosen not to.

Which means something, probably.

[vdeane]

I'd still argue that the increase in the price of retail consumer goods is far less than people's obsession with presidential politics would suggest.  Anecdotally, I'm not sure I could point to a single way that tariffs have affected me personally.  I guess maybe the price of imported produce at the grocery store has gone up a little bit?  But I couldn't tell you that that's had a noticeable effect on our household's food budget.

I have ordered some things from overseas and directly paid a tariff fee.

I don't know if it's resolved yet, but many countries stopped shipments to the US entirely over the removal of the de minimus exemption.

[Rothman]

Naturally, however, if you are going to make a case against the specific legislation without clarifying that the act of desegregation itself was good, it is going to raise some suspicion from critics in the 2020s, and probably embolden more dishonest actors within your fanbase to repeat the same rhetoric.

The very next line that Kirk said after "I think we made a huge mistake when we passed the Civil Rights Act in the mid-1960s" was this:  "Not because we shouldn't have dealt with Jim Crow — that was evil and immoral".

How much more explicit do you want him to have been that he believed the act of desegregation itself was good?

I've found his other expressed sentiments regarding the Act to be quite problematic (e.g., the nonsense about The Civil Rights Act of 1964 being overextended since it is used for legal action regarding inequal "effects" on racial groups (without delving into the reasons behind such effects) and to protecting trans rights) and pretty much be sickening to me.

Took some friends of mine who were Kirk fans up on their challenge to sit down and watch Kirk unedited for a long time the other day -- watched his America Fest 2023 speech, an episode of his show and some clips my friends suggested (which included the one where he said he was against the Civil Rights Act of 1964 due to it being extended to trans rights; have no idea why my friends thought that was a good point -- You see?  He's not racist!  He just has another terrible opinion!).  Kept an open mind and I was sickened to find that his rhetoric and tone made me feel worse than before the experiment.  Couldn't believe it.  Still sort of stunned/dazed about it.

[Roadgeekteen]

Naturally, however, if you are going to make a case against the specific legislation without clarifying that the act of desegregation itself was good, it is going to raise some suspicion from critics in the 2020s, and probably embolden more dishonest actors within your fanbase to repeat the same rhetoric.

The very next line that Kirk said after "I think we made a huge mistake when we passed the Civil Rights Act in the mid-1960s" was this:  "Not because we shouldn't have dealt with Jim Crow — that was evil and immoral".

How much more explicit do you want him to have been that he believed the act of desegregation itself was good?

I've found his other expressed sentiments regarding the Act to be quite problematic (e.g., the nonsense about The Civil Rights Act of 1964 being overextended since it is used for legal action regarding inequal "effects" on racial groups (without delving into the reasons behind such effects) and to protecting trans rights) and pretty much be sickening to me.

Took some friends of mine who were Kirk fans up on their challenge to sit down and watch Kirk unedited for a long time the other day -- watched his America Fest 2023 speech, an episode of his show and some clips my friends suggested (which included the one where he said he was against the Civil Rights Act of 1964 due to it being extended to trans rights; have no idea why my friends thought that was a good point -- You see?  He's not racist!  He just has another terrible opinion!).  Kept an open mind and I was sickened to find that his rhetoric and tone made me feel worse than before the experiment.  Couldn't believe it.  Still sort of stunned/dazed about it.

To be honest, both his fans and haters have cherry-picked his statements to death to only include the positive or negative stuff and leaving out everything else.