What does a TRUMP presidency look like?

[crazy canuck]

When I see this, I have hope for the US.

https://www.instagram.com/reel/DPh43twjM13/?igsh=cHMwdzBxdXRwandu

[The Brain]

When I see this, I have hope for the US.

https://www.instagram.com/reel/DPh43twjM13/?igsh=cHMwdzBxdXRwandu

That's the destruction of the White House scene from Independence Day.

[mongers]

Can't the government house the hopeless cases?

Already do, see resident of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

[DGuller]

Can't the government house the hopeless cases?

Yeah, probably, but I would argue that the convergence of exclusion criteria by landlords is a case of boycott, even if unwitting.  Boycott, coercion, or intimidation are generally illegal, precisely because they are impeding the functioning of free markets.  The government should ideally be regulating away boycotts rather than cleaning up the mess because of it.

[Tamas]

This is absolutely dystopian shit:
https://www.reddit.com/r/CringeTikToks/s/PNokJGs7RN

A bunch of armed and masked men with no convincing identification thst they are police, put a child into an unmarked civilian car.

Like, the fuck?!

Edit: maybe it's an adult not a child but it only makes marginally less terrifying.

[Admiral Yi]

Yeah, probably, but I would argue that the convergence of exclusion criteria by landlords is a case of boycott, even if unwitting.  Boycott, coercion, or intimidation are generally illegal, precisely because they are impeding the functioning of free markets.  The government should ideally be regulating away boycotts rather than cleaning up the mess because of it.

I don't understand your reasoning.  If I make a bet with someone and he or she welches, and I decline to bet with them in the future, that's not coercion or intimidation.  I suppose it is boycotting, but why should I not boycott that person?

[HVC]

Where that falls apart is someone doesn't need to bet, but they do need to live somewhere.

*edit* not that I have an answer myself.

[Grey Fox]

This is absolutely dystopian shit:
https://www.reddit.com/r/CringeTikToks/s/PNokJGs7RN

A bunch of armed and masked men with no convincing identification thst they are police, put a child into an unmarked civilian car.

Like, the fuck?!

Edit: maybe it's an adult not a child but it only makes marginally less terrifying.

Yes, all over social media there are videos where it seems that ICE can just kidnap and shoot people without any consequences or oversight. The brown shirts have been identified.

[DGuller]

I don't understand your reasoning.  If I make a bet with someone and he or she welches, and I decline to bet with them in the future, that's not coercion or intimidation.  I suppose it is boycotting, but why should I not boycott that person?

No, you alone deciding not to deal with the person is not a boycott, a boycott is a coordinated refusal to deal.  A boycott is everyone getting together and creating a blacklist of people not to bet with (maybe for good reasons, maybe for not so good reasons, but the persons excluded don't get a due process, not that it makes a difference).

Now, here the case is somewhat complicated in that the boycott is not explicitly organized as such, but is rather an unintended consequence of every landlord using the same or similar tools to screen applicants.  However, the effect in practice is the same, and so the law should catch up to treating it as the same.  The law is already starting to catch up to the fact that the software used by landlords to suggest rents is implicitly creating a cartel, they should likewise catch up to other things that commonly used vendor solutions are doing.

[Admiral Yi]

Where that falls apart is someone doesn't need to bet, but they do need to live somewhere.

*edit* not that I have an answer myself.

Yes, I understand the argument.  My issue is not with providing housing to the unhouseable, but who picks up the tab. 

[Admiral Yi]

No, you alone deciding not to deal with the person is not a boycott, a boycott is a coordinated refusal to deal.  A boycott is everyone getting together and creating a blacklist of people not to bet with (maybe for good reasons, maybe for not so good reasons, but the persons excluded don't get a due process, not that it makes a difference).

If I tell a third party "hey, that guy welches, don't bet with him" the principle is exactly the same.

[DGuller]

No, you alone deciding not to deal with the person is not a boycott, a boycott is a coordinated refusal to deal.  A boycott is everyone getting together and creating a blacklist of people not to bet with (maybe for good reasons, maybe for not so good reasons, but the persons excluded don't get a due process, not that it makes a difference).

If I tell a third party "hey, that guy welches, don't bet with him" the principle is exactly the same.

The principle is exactly the same, and that's why at some point it becomes problematic.  That's why employers will very rarely talk about their former employees to other prospective employers:  a bad reference, justified or not, can be viewed as blackballing.

[Admiral Yi]

The principle is exactly the same, and that's why at some point it becomes problematic.  That's why employers will very rarely talk about their former employees to other prospective employers:  a bad reference, justified or not, can be viewed as blackballing.

And do you believe in this case the absence of bad references is just and fair?

[DGuller]

The principle is exactly the same, and that's why at some point it becomes problematic.  That's why employers will very rarely talk about their former employees to other prospective employers:  a bad reference, justified or not, can be viewed as blackballing.

And do you believe in this case the absence of bad references is just and fair?

It's much more fair than the alternative, considering the relative power of the parties.  An employer hiring a fuckup is of course bad for them, and unlike many these days, I do believe that employers have a right to not get fucked. 

However, the alternative situation could lead to an employee being frozen out of their industry by their vindictive former employer, and that former employer may be vindictive as part of a strategy to keep their non-yet-former employees more pliable.

[Admiral Yi]

It's much more fair than the alternative, considering the relative power of the parties.  An employer hiring a fuckup is of course bad for them, and unlike many these days, I do believe that employers have a right to not get fucked. 

However, the alternative situation could lead to an employee being frozen out of their industry by their vindictive former employer, and that former employer may be vindictive as part of a strategy to keep their non-yet-former employees more pliable.

But this rental price app you're criticizing has not been shown to be vindictive.  It is presumably impersonal.