comment
stringlengths 1
9.9k
| context
listlengths 0
835
|
|---|---|
>
The bill could go unpaid though?
Within that 50% a fair number of people couldn't pay that bill under any circumstances. Many of that 50% would be taking on a debt (through credit card or worse), and you would get the full range of what being unable to afford that expense meant within that 50%.
So it isn't clear you misinterpreted it so much as you didn't see all the possible ways that could play out. 50% of the US population is a rather large number of humans. Larger in number than the population of most (not all) other countries.
|
[
"The key phrase is \"in cash.\" Putting something on credit or selling something to come up with the cash are the same as not having the immediate cash to pay a $1000 bill. I don't believe it's misleading when they mean the same thing.",
">\n\nIt's misleading because, while technically true, it leads people to believe something that isn't. Saying that people don't have the cash to pay for something leads the reader to believe that those people can't afford it, which isn't true, hence the misleading.",
">\n\nI mean, if you have to sell your stuff or take on debt to pay for something I think that fits the definition of \"can't afford it\"",
">\n\nIf you buy something with the money you made from a garage sale, does that mean you couldn't afford it?\nIf you pay for something with a credit card, does that mean you couldn't afford it?",
">\n\n\nIf you pay for something with a credit card, does that mean you couldn't afford it?\n\nIf you can't pay it off right away, yes. \n\nIf you buy something with the money you made from a garage sale, does that mean you couldn't afford it?\n\nDid you have the garage sale because you needed money, or because the garage is too full of junk? Did you sell things you wanted to keep, or just sold unwanted items? There's a difference.",
">\n\n\nIf you can't pay it off right away, yes.\n\nOk, so then anyone who gets a mortgage or a car loan can't afford their house or car, right?\n\nDid you have the garage sale because you needed money, or because the garage is too full of junk? Did you sell things you wanted to keep, or just sold unwanted items?\n\nThis is not relevant. \"If you sell something you don't want, then you can afford something else, but if you sell something you want, then you can't,\" isn't logic.",
">\n\nThe statement is clear and your view is confused. \nThe suggestions you've offered in refute of the claim are actually backing up the claim itself. \n\nput on a credit card\n\nThis means you can't afford to pay it now, so you're paying it later (30-45 days later, unless you're willing to pay interest - in which case, you still don't have the money to pay it off). \n\nsell something of value\n\nThis means you can't afford to pay it now, as you don't have the $1,000 now. So you need to give up things you already spent $1,000s on to recoup the $1,000 you need.\n\nget money from friends/family\n\nThis means you can't afford to pay it now; so, you're going to get a loan or a gift from someone else that does have $1,000. \n\n\"50% of Americans have less than $1,000 in their bank accounts\" or \"50% of Americans would have to pay an unexpected $1,000 expense with their credit card\"\n\nThese phrases mean the same thing. Credit card isn't money, it's a high-interest loan. Basically, it's legal loan-sharking. Using a credit card to get by is a temporary solution to the problem \"50% of Americans have less than $1,000 in their bank accounts\"",
">\n\n\nYou could have $10,000 in credit lines. Which means you could spend another $9000 if you really needed to.\n\nA line of credit isn't your money, you'd be using someone else's money to cover the expense until you can get the money yourself. Being able to spend money on credit is not the same as having money in a savings account for an emergency.\n\nThey literally just asked \"how would you pay it\".\n\nYou're right, I agree- they worded the question in a way that gave misleading answers so they could write a click-bait headline.\nIf someone asked me to pay a $1000 bill right now, I'd put it on my credit card, even though I have 10k in the bank. So, the \"researcher\" (if you can even call them that) would have gotten a 'false-positive' on their analysis as they would mistakenly assume that I didn't have an emergency savings. But, I'm just cheap and want the credit card point, so I'll put it on the card and pay it off next month.\nBut, we can't deny that there are many in this \"study\" that actually are barely making ends meet and live paycheck to paycheck due to the job market, inflation, and overall economic conditions.",
">\n\nIt's not misleading at all. It says 50% of Americans don't have a cash reserve that could pay for a $1k unexpected expense.\nNo where does it say or imply that the person can't or won't borrow to pay the bill. Credit card debt is incredibly commonplace.\nThis is an issue of reading comprehension, not an issue of a misleading statement.",
">\n\nMost of the friends and family i have asked about how they interpret that statement, and myself initially, interpreted it to mean that the bill will simply go unpaid. It is only after a discussion and pointing out that is doesn't include credit is the true meaning understood."
] |
>
The Statement "50% of Americans cant afford to pay an unexpected $1,000 bill in cash" is misleading. I believe that a lot of people, perhaps even most, will interpret this statement to mean that those 50% Will simply have to deal with the fallout of having a $1,000 unpaid bill, when in fact that bill could be put on a credit card, or people could sell something of value, get money from friends/family, etc.
How is that misleading? Putting it on a cc is not paying it in cash, having to borrow it means they can't afford it.
|
[
"The key phrase is \"in cash.\" Putting something on credit or selling something to come up with the cash are the same as not having the immediate cash to pay a $1000 bill. I don't believe it's misleading when they mean the same thing.",
">\n\nIt's misleading because, while technically true, it leads people to believe something that isn't. Saying that people don't have the cash to pay for something leads the reader to believe that those people can't afford it, which isn't true, hence the misleading.",
">\n\nI mean, if you have to sell your stuff or take on debt to pay for something I think that fits the definition of \"can't afford it\"",
">\n\nIf you buy something with the money you made from a garage sale, does that mean you couldn't afford it?\nIf you pay for something with a credit card, does that mean you couldn't afford it?",
">\n\n\nIf you pay for something with a credit card, does that mean you couldn't afford it?\n\nIf you can't pay it off right away, yes. \n\nIf you buy something with the money you made from a garage sale, does that mean you couldn't afford it?\n\nDid you have the garage sale because you needed money, or because the garage is too full of junk? Did you sell things you wanted to keep, or just sold unwanted items? There's a difference.",
">\n\n\nIf you can't pay it off right away, yes.\n\nOk, so then anyone who gets a mortgage or a car loan can't afford their house or car, right?\n\nDid you have the garage sale because you needed money, or because the garage is too full of junk? Did you sell things you wanted to keep, or just sold unwanted items?\n\nThis is not relevant. \"If you sell something you don't want, then you can afford something else, but if you sell something you want, then you can't,\" isn't logic.",
">\n\nThe statement is clear and your view is confused. \nThe suggestions you've offered in refute of the claim are actually backing up the claim itself. \n\nput on a credit card\n\nThis means you can't afford to pay it now, so you're paying it later (30-45 days later, unless you're willing to pay interest - in which case, you still don't have the money to pay it off). \n\nsell something of value\n\nThis means you can't afford to pay it now, as you don't have the $1,000 now. So you need to give up things you already spent $1,000s on to recoup the $1,000 you need.\n\nget money from friends/family\n\nThis means you can't afford to pay it now; so, you're going to get a loan or a gift from someone else that does have $1,000. \n\n\"50% of Americans have less than $1,000 in their bank accounts\" or \"50% of Americans would have to pay an unexpected $1,000 expense with their credit card\"\n\nThese phrases mean the same thing. Credit card isn't money, it's a high-interest loan. Basically, it's legal loan-sharking. Using a credit card to get by is a temporary solution to the problem \"50% of Americans have less than $1,000 in their bank accounts\"",
">\n\n\nYou could have $10,000 in credit lines. Which means you could spend another $9000 if you really needed to.\n\nA line of credit isn't your money, you'd be using someone else's money to cover the expense until you can get the money yourself. Being able to spend money on credit is not the same as having money in a savings account for an emergency.\n\nThey literally just asked \"how would you pay it\".\n\nYou're right, I agree- they worded the question in a way that gave misleading answers so they could write a click-bait headline.\nIf someone asked me to pay a $1000 bill right now, I'd put it on my credit card, even though I have 10k in the bank. So, the \"researcher\" (if you can even call them that) would have gotten a 'false-positive' on their analysis as they would mistakenly assume that I didn't have an emergency savings. But, I'm just cheap and want the credit card point, so I'll put it on the card and pay it off next month.\nBut, we can't deny that there are many in this \"study\" that actually are barely making ends meet and live paycheck to paycheck due to the job market, inflation, and overall economic conditions.",
">\n\nIt's not misleading at all. It says 50% of Americans don't have a cash reserve that could pay for a $1k unexpected expense.\nNo where does it say or imply that the person can't or won't borrow to pay the bill. Credit card debt is incredibly commonplace.\nThis is an issue of reading comprehension, not an issue of a misleading statement.",
">\n\nMost of the friends and family i have asked about how they interpret that statement, and myself initially, interpreted it to mean that the bill will simply go unpaid. It is only after a discussion and pointing out that is doesn't include credit is the true meaning understood.",
">\n\nThe bill could go unpaid though?\nWithin that 50% a fair number of people couldn't pay that bill under any circumstances. Many of that 50% would be taking on a debt (through credit card or worse), and you would get the full range of what being unable to afford that expense meant within that 50%.\nSo it isn't clear you misinterpreted it so much as you didn't see all the possible ways that could play out. 50% of the US population is a rather large number of humans. Larger in number than the population of most (not all) other countries."
] |
>
First of all, you've changed the actual phrasing of the statement. There's no reference to "cash" in any of the versions of this statistic that I've seen.
Know why?
Because it's not relevant. The question isn't whether or not someone could lay their hands on $1000 in cash immediately. The question is whether they could get that much money together at all.
And your proposed "less misleading" alternatives aren't as synonymous as you claim.
"50% of Americans have less than $1,000 in their bank accounts"
The original statistic doesn't refer to how much a person might have. The issue isn't whether someone has less or slightly more than $1000 in their accounts. The issue is that an unexpected $1000 expense would leave a person financially ruined. They might have $1020 in their accounts. The loss of $1000 would still be pretty damaging.
"50% of Americans would have to pay an unexpected $1,000 expense with their credit card"
Show me the average person who can't handle an unexpected $1000 expense but who has a credit card with a $1000 limit.
The point of the original statistic is to point out that most Americans are in pretty poor financial shape, and that with a percentage of the population that high-- and a number ($1000) that low-- it's more of a problem with what our society isn't doing for most of its people, rather than that a bunch of people are bad with money.
|
[
"The key phrase is \"in cash.\" Putting something on credit or selling something to come up with the cash are the same as not having the immediate cash to pay a $1000 bill. I don't believe it's misleading when they mean the same thing.",
">\n\nIt's misleading because, while technically true, it leads people to believe something that isn't. Saying that people don't have the cash to pay for something leads the reader to believe that those people can't afford it, which isn't true, hence the misleading.",
">\n\nI mean, if you have to sell your stuff or take on debt to pay for something I think that fits the definition of \"can't afford it\"",
">\n\nIf you buy something with the money you made from a garage sale, does that mean you couldn't afford it?\nIf you pay for something with a credit card, does that mean you couldn't afford it?",
">\n\n\nIf you pay for something with a credit card, does that mean you couldn't afford it?\n\nIf you can't pay it off right away, yes. \n\nIf you buy something with the money you made from a garage sale, does that mean you couldn't afford it?\n\nDid you have the garage sale because you needed money, or because the garage is too full of junk? Did you sell things you wanted to keep, or just sold unwanted items? There's a difference.",
">\n\n\nIf you can't pay it off right away, yes.\n\nOk, so then anyone who gets a mortgage or a car loan can't afford their house or car, right?\n\nDid you have the garage sale because you needed money, or because the garage is too full of junk? Did you sell things you wanted to keep, or just sold unwanted items?\n\nThis is not relevant. \"If you sell something you don't want, then you can afford something else, but if you sell something you want, then you can't,\" isn't logic.",
">\n\nThe statement is clear and your view is confused. \nThe suggestions you've offered in refute of the claim are actually backing up the claim itself. \n\nput on a credit card\n\nThis means you can't afford to pay it now, so you're paying it later (30-45 days later, unless you're willing to pay interest - in which case, you still don't have the money to pay it off). \n\nsell something of value\n\nThis means you can't afford to pay it now, as you don't have the $1,000 now. So you need to give up things you already spent $1,000s on to recoup the $1,000 you need.\n\nget money from friends/family\n\nThis means you can't afford to pay it now; so, you're going to get a loan or a gift from someone else that does have $1,000. \n\n\"50% of Americans have less than $1,000 in their bank accounts\" or \"50% of Americans would have to pay an unexpected $1,000 expense with their credit card\"\n\nThese phrases mean the same thing. Credit card isn't money, it's a high-interest loan. Basically, it's legal loan-sharking. Using a credit card to get by is a temporary solution to the problem \"50% of Americans have less than $1,000 in their bank accounts\"",
">\n\n\nYou could have $10,000 in credit lines. Which means you could spend another $9000 if you really needed to.\n\nA line of credit isn't your money, you'd be using someone else's money to cover the expense until you can get the money yourself. Being able to spend money on credit is not the same as having money in a savings account for an emergency.\n\nThey literally just asked \"how would you pay it\".\n\nYou're right, I agree- they worded the question in a way that gave misleading answers so they could write a click-bait headline.\nIf someone asked me to pay a $1000 bill right now, I'd put it on my credit card, even though I have 10k in the bank. So, the \"researcher\" (if you can even call them that) would have gotten a 'false-positive' on their analysis as they would mistakenly assume that I didn't have an emergency savings. But, I'm just cheap and want the credit card point, so I'll put it on the card and pay it off next month.\nBut, we can't deny that there are many in this \"study\" that actually are barely making ends meet and live paycheck to paycheck due to the job market, inflation, and overall economic conditions.",
">\n\nIt's not misleading at all. It says 50% of Americans don't have a cash reserve that could pay for a $1k unexpected expense.\nNo where does it say or imply that the person can't or won't borrow to pay the bill. Credit card debt is incredibly commonplace.\nThis is an issue of reading comprehension, not an issue of a misleading statement.",
">\n\nMost of the friends and family i have asked about how they interpret that statement, and myself initially, interpreted it to mean that the bill will simply go unpaid. It is only after a discussion and pointing out that is doesn't include credit is the true meaning understood.",
">\n\nThe bill could go unpaid though?\nWithin that 50% a fair number of people couldn't pay that bill under any circumstances. Many of that 50% would be taking on a debt (through credit card or worse), and you would get the full range of what being unable to afford that expense meant within that 50%.\nSo it isn't clear you misinterpreted it so much as you didn't see all the possible ways that could play out. 50% of the US population is a rather large number of humans. Larger in number than the population of most (not all) other countries.",
">\n\n\nThe Statement \"50% of Americans cant afford to pay an unexpected $1,000 bill in cash\" is misleading. I believe that a lot of people, perhaps even most, will interpret this statement to mean that those 50% Will simply have to deal with the fallout of having a $1,000 unpaid bill, when in fact that bill could be put on a credit card, or people could sell something of value, get money from friends/family, etc.\n\nHow is that misleading? Putting it on a cc is not paying it in cash, having to borrow it means they can't afford it."
] |
>
Show me the average person who can't handle an unexpected $1000 expense but who has a credit card with a $1000 limit.
It's not even the limit, but the amount available to withdraw without hitting the limit, and even that assumes the expense can be put on a credit card. If someone had to do a cash advance, the fees would be even higher.
|
[
"The key phrase is \"in cash.\" Putting something on credit or selling something to come up with the cash are the same as not having the immediate cash to pay a $1000 bill. I don't believe it's misleading when they mean the same thing.",
">\n\nIt's misleading because, while technically true, it leads people to believe something that isn't. Saying that people don't have the cash to pay for something leads the reader to believe that those people can't afford it, which isn't true, hence the misleading.",
">\n\nI mean, if you have to sell your stuff or take on debt to pay for something I think that fits the definition of \"can't afford it\"",
">\n\nIf you buy something with the money you made from a garage sale, does that mean you couldn't afford it?\nIf you pay for something with a credit card, does that mean you couldn't afford it?",
">\n\n\nIf you pay for something with a credit card, does that mean you couldn't afford it?\n\nIf you can't pay it off right away, yes. \n\nIf you buy something with the money you made from a garage sale, does that mean you couldn't afford it?\n\nDid you have the garage sale because you needed money, or because the garage is too full of junk? Did you sell things you wanted to keep, or just sold unwanted items? There's a difference.",
">\n\n\nIf you can't pay it off right away, yes.\n\nOk, so then anyone who gets a mortgage or a car loan can't afford their house or car, right?\n\nDid you have the garage sale because you needed money, or because the garage is too full of junk? Did you sell things you wanted to keep, or just sold unwanted items?\n\nThis is not relevant. \"If you sell something you don't want, then you can afford something else, but if you sell something you want, then you can't,\" isn't logic.",
">\n\nThe statement is clear and your view is confused. \nThe suggestions you've offered in refute of the claim are actually backing up the claim itself. \n\nput on a credit card\n\nThis means you can't afford to pay it now, so you're paying it later (30-45 days later, unless you're willing to pay interest - in which case, you still don't have the money to pay it off). \n\nsell something of value\n\nThis means you can't afford to pay it now, as you don't have the $1,000 now. So you need to give up things you already spent $1,000s on to recoup the $1,000 you need.\n\nget money from friends/family\n\nThis means you can't afford to pay it now; so, you're going to get a loan or a gift from someone else that does have $1,000. \n\n\"50% of Americans have less than $1,000 in their bank accounts\" or \"50% of Americans would have to pay an unexpected $1,000 expense with their credit card\"\n\nThese phrases mean the same thing. Credit card isn't money, it's a high-interest loan. Basically, it's legal loan-sharking. Using a credit card to get by is a temporary solution to the problem \"50% of Americans have less than $1,000 in their bank accounts\"",
">\n\n\nYou could have $10,000 in credit lines. Which means you could spend another $9000 if you really needed to.\n\nA line of credit isn't your money, you'd be using someone else's money to cover the expense until you can get the money yourself. Being able to spend money on credit is not the same as having money in a savings account for an emergency.\n\nThey literally just asked \"how would you pay it\".\n\nYou're right, I agree- they worded the question in a way that gave misleading answers so they could write a click-bait headline.\nIf someone asked me to pay a $1000 bill right now, I'd put it on my credit card, even though I have 10k in the bank. So, the \"researcher\" (if you can even call them that) would have gotten a 'false-positive' on their analysis as they would mistakenly assume that I didn't have an emergency savings. But, I'm just cheap and want the credit card point, so I'll put it on the card and pay it off next month.\nBut, we can't deny that there are many in this \"study\" that actually are barely making ends meet and live paycheck to paycheck due to the job market, inflation, and overall economic conditions.",
">\n\nIt's not misleading at all. It says 50% of Americans don't have a cash reserve that could pay for a $1k unexpected expense.\nNo where does it say or imply that the person can't or won't borrow to pay the bill. Credit card debt is incredibly commonplace.\nThis is an issue of reading comprehension, not an issue of a misleading statement.",
">\n\nMost of the friends and family i have asked about how they interpret that statement, and myself initially, interpreted it to mean that the bill will simply go unpaid. It is only after a discussion and pointing out that is doesn't include credit is the true meaning understood.",
">\n\nThe bill could go unpaid though?\nWithin that 50% a fair number of people couldn't pay that bill under any circumstances. Many of that 50% would be taking on a debt (through credit card or worse), and you would get the full range of what being unable to afford that expense meant within that 50%.\nSo it isn't clear you misinterpreted it so much as you didn't see all the possible ways that could play out. 50% of the US population is a rather large number of humans. Larger in number than the population of most (not all) other countries.",
">\n\n\nThe Statement \"50% of Americans cant afford to pay an unexpected $1,000 bill in cash\" is misleading. I believe that a lot of people, perhaps even most, will interpret this statement to mean that those 50% Will simply have to deal with the fallout of having a $1,000 unpaid bill, when in fact that bill could be put on a credit card, or people could sell something of value, get money from friends/family, etc.\n\nHow is that misleading? Putting it on a cc is not paying it in cash, having to borrow it means they can't afford it.",
">\n\nFirst of all, you've changed the actual phrasing of the statement. There's no reference to \"cash\" in any of the versions of this statistic that I've seen.\nKnow why?\nBecause it's not relevant. The question isn't whether or not someone could lay their hands on $1000 in cash immediately. The question is whether they could get that much money together at all.\nAnd your proposed \"less misleading\" alternatives aren't as synonymous as you claim.\n\n\"50% of Americans have less than $1,000 in their bank accounts\"\n\nThe original statistic doesn't refer to how much a person might have. The issue isn't whether someone has less or slightly more than $1000 in their accounts. The issue is that an unexpected $1000 expense would leave a person financially ruined. They might have $1020 in their accounts. The loss of $1000 would still be pretty damaging.\n\n\"50% of Americans would have to pay an unexpected $1,000 expense with their credit card\"\n\nShow me the average person who can't handle an unexpected $1000 expense but who has a credit card with a $1000 limit.\nThe point of the original statistic is to point out that most Americans are in pretty poor financial shape, and that with a percentage of the population that high-- and a number ($1000) that low-- it's more of a problem with what our society isn't doing for most of its people, rather than that a bunch of people are bad with money."
] |
>
simply have to deal with the fallout of having a $1,000 unpaid bill, when in fact that bill could be put on a credit card, or people could sell something of value, get money from friends/family, etc.
I don’t think that’s relevant to the point being made. The point being people don’t have savings, the majority are already in debt. Being able to go further into debt or having to liquidate assets is generally undesirable and shows the point that most people are not financially healthy
|
[
"The key phrase is \"in cash.\" Putting something on credit or selling something to come up with the cash are the same as not having the immediate cash to pay a $1000 bill. I don't believe it's misleading when they mean the same thing.",
">\n\nIt's misleading because, while technically true, it leads people to believe something that isn't. Saying that people don't have the cash to pay for something leads the reader to believe that those people can't afford it, which isn't true, hence the misleading.",
">\n\nI mean, if you have to sell your stuff or take on debt to pay for something I think that fits the definition of \"can't afford it\"",
">\n\nIf you buy something with the money you made from a garage sale, does that mean you couldn't afford it?\nIf you pay for something with a credit card, does that mean you couldn't afford it?",
">\n\n\nIf you pay for something with a credit card, does that mean you couldn't afford it?\n\nIf you can't pay it off right away, yes. \n\nIf you buy something with the money you made from a garage sale, does that mean you couldn't afford it?\n\nDid you have the garage sale because you needed money, or because the garage is too full of junk? Did you sell things you wanted to keep, or just sold unwanted items? There's a difference.",
">\n\n\nIf you can't pay it off right away, yes.\n\nOk, so then anyone who gets a mortgage or a car loan can't afford their house or car, right?\n\nDid you have the garage sale because you needed money, or because the garage is too full of junk? Did you sell things you wanted to keep, or just sold unwanted items?\n\nThis is not relevant. \"If you sell something you don't want, then you can afford something else, but if you sell something you want, then you can't,\" isn't logic.",
">\n\nThe statement is clear and your view is confused. \nThe suggestions you've offered in refute of the claim are actually backing up the claim itself. \n\nput on a credit card\n\nThis means you can't afford to pay it now, so you're paying it later (30-45 days later, unless you're willing to pay interest - in which case, you still don't have the money to pay it off). \n\nsell something of value\n\nThis means you can't afford to pay it now, as you don't have the $1,000 now. So you need to give up things you already spent $1,000s on to recoup the $1,000 you need.\n\nget money from friends/family\n\nThis means you can't afford to pay it now; so, you're going to get a loan or a gift from someone else that does have $1,000. \n\n\"50% of Americans have less than $1,000 in their bank accounts\" or \"50% of Americans would have to pay an unexpected $1,000 expense with their credit card\"\n\nThese phrases mean the same thing. Credit card isn't money, it's a high-interest loan. Basically, it's legal loan-sharking. Using a credit card to get by is a temporary solution to the problem \"50% of Americans have less than $1,000 in their bank accounts\"",
">\n\n\nYou could have $10,000 in credit lines. Which means you could spend another $9000 if you really needed to.\n\nA line of credit isn't your money, you'd be using someone else's money to cover the expense until you can get the money yourself. Being able to spend money on credit is not the same as having money in a savings account for an emergency.\n\nThey literally just asked \"how would you pay it\".\n\nYou're right, I agree- they worded the question in a way that gave misleading answers so they could write a click-bait headline.\nIf someone asked me to pay a $1000 bill right now, I'd put it on my credit card, even though I have 10k in the bank. So, the \"researcher\" (if you can even call them that) would have gotten a 'false-positive' on their analysis as they would mistakenly assume that I didn't have an emergency savings. But, I'm just cheap and want the credit card point, so I'll put it on the card and pay it off next month.\nBut, we can't deny that there are many in this \"study\" that actually are barely making ends meet and live paycheck to paycheck due to the job market, inflation, and overall economic conditions.",
">\n\nIt's not misleading at all. It says 50% of Americans don't have a cash reserve that could pay for a $1k unexpected expense.\nNo where does it say or imply that the person can't or won't borrow to pay the bill. Credit card debt is incredibly commonplace.\nThis is an issue of reading comprehension, not an issue of a misleading statement.",
">\n\nMost of the friends and family i have asked about how they interpret that statement, and myself initially, interpreted it to mean that the bill will simply go unpaid. It is only after a discussion and pointing out that is doesn't include credit is the true meaning understood.",
">\n\nThe bill could go unpaid though?\nWithin that 50% a fair number of people couldn't pay that bill under any circumstances. Many of that 50% would be taking on a debt (through credit card or worse), and you would get the full range of what being unable to afford that expense meant within that 50%.\nSo it isn't clear you misinterpreted it so much as you didn't see all the possible ways that could play out. 50% of the US population is a rather large number of humans. Larger in number than the population of most (not all) other countries.",
">\n\n\nThe Statement \"50% of Americans cant afford to pay an unexpected $1,000 bill in cash\" is misleading. I believe that a lot of people, perhaps even most, will interpret this statement to mean that those 50% Will simply have to deal with the fallout of having a $1,000 unpaid bill, when in fact that bill could be put on a credit card, or people could sell something of value, get money from friends/family, etc.\n\nHow is that misleading? Putting it on a cc is not paying it in cash, having to borrow it means they can't afford it.",
">\n\nFirst of all, you've changed the actual phrasing of the statement. There's no reference to \"cash\" in any of the versions of this statistic that I've seen.\nKnow why?\nBecause it's not relevant. The question isn't whether or not someone could lay their hands on $1000 in cash immediately. The question is whether they could get that much money together at all.\nAnd your proposed \"less misleading\" alternatives aren't as synonymous as you claim.\n\n\"50% of Americans have less than $1,000 in their bank accounts\"\n\nThe original statistic doesn't refer to how much a person might have. The issue isn't whether someone has less or slightly more than $1000 in their accounts. The issue is that an unexpected $1000 expense would leave a person financially ruined. They might have $1020 in their accounts. The loss of $1000 would still be pretty damaging.\n\n\"50% of Americans would have to pay an unexpected $1,000 expense with their credit card\"\n\nShow me the average person who can't handle an unexpected $1000 expense but who has a credit card with a $1000 limit.\nThe point of the original statistic is to point out that most Americans are in pretty poor financial shape, and that with a percentage of the population that high-- and a number ($1000) that low-- it's more of a problem with what our society isn't doing for most of its people, rather than that a bunch of people are bad with money.",
">\n\n\nShow me the average person who can't handle an unexpected $1000 expense but who has a credit card with a $1000 limit.\n\nIt's not even the limit, but the amount available to withdraw without hitting the limit, and even that assumes the expense can be put on a credit card. If someone had to do a cash advance, the fees would be even higher."
] |
>
I guess I'm just not seeing the functional difference between the statements. You could pick any of them apart but they all fundamentally mean the same thing.
If I were to defend the original statement, I would probably lean on the "can't afford to" "in cash" part of the statement. Borrowing money, putting it on credit, or selling your car arguably means you can't "afford" it.
|
[
"The key phrase is \"in cash.\" Putting something on credit or selling something to come up with the cash are the same as not having the immediate cash to pay a $1000 bill. I don't believe it's misleading when they mean the same thing.",
">\n\nIt's misleading because, while technically true, it leads people to believe something that isn't. Saying that people don't have the cash to pay for something leads the reader to believe that those people can't afford it, which isn't true, hence the misleading.",
">\n\nI mean, if you have to sell your stuff or take on debt to pay for something I think that fits the definition of \"can't afford it\"",
">\n\nIf you buy something with the money you made from a garage sale, does that mean you couldn't afford it?\nIf you pay for something with a credit card, does that mean you couldn't afford it?",
">\n\n\nIf you pay for something with a credit card, does that mean you couldn't afford it?\n\nIf you can't pay it off right away, yes. \n\nIf you buy something with the money you made from a garage sale, does that mean you couldn't afford it?\n\nDid you have the garage sale because you needed money, or because the garage is too full of junk? Did you sell things you wanted to keep, or just sold unwanted items? There's a difference.",
">\n\n\nIf you can't pay it off right away, yes.\n\nOk, so then anyone who gets a mortgage or a car loan can't afford their house or car, right?\n\nDid you have the garage sale because you needed money, or because the garage is too full of junk? Did you sell things you wanted to keep, or just sold unwanted items?\n\nThis is not relevant. \"If you sell something you don't want, then you can afford something else, but if you sell something you want, then you can't,\" isn't logic.",
">\n\nThe statement is clear and your view is confused. \nThe suggestions you've offered in refute of the claim are actually backing up the claim itself. \n\nput on a credit card\n\nThis means you can't afford to pay it now, so you're paying it later (30-45 days later, unless you're willing to pay interest - in which case, you still don't have the money to pay it off). \n\nsell something of value\n\nThis means you can't afford to pay it now, as you don't have the $1,000 now. So you need to give up things you already spent $1,000s on to recoup the $1,000 you need.\n\nget money from friends/family\n\nThis means you can't afford to pay it now; so, you're going to get a loan or a gift from someone else that does have $1,000. \n\n\"50% of Americans have less than $1,000 in their bank accounts\" or \"50% of Americans would have to pay an unexpected $1,000 expense with their credit card\"\n\nThese phrases mean the same thing. Credit card isn't money, it's a high-interest loan. Basically, it's legal loan-sharking. Using a credit card to get by is a temporary solution to the problem \"50% of Americans have less than $1,000 in their bank accounts\"",
">\n\n\nYou could have $10,000 in credit lines. Which means you could spend another $9000 if you really needed to.\n\nA line of credit isn't your money, you'd be using someone else's money to cover the expense until you can get the money yourself. Being able to spend money on credit is not the same as having money in a savings account for an emergency.\n\nThey literally just asked \"how would you pay it\".\n\nYou're right, I agree- they worded the question in a way that gave misleading answers so they could write a click-bait headline.\nIf someone asked me to pay a $1000 bill right now, I'd put it on my credit card, even though I have 10k in the bank. So, the \"researcher\" (if you can even call them that) would have gotten a 'false-positive' on their analysis as they would mistakenly assume that I didn't have an emergency savings. But, I'm just cheap and want the credit card point, so I'll put it on the card and pay it off next month.\nBut, we can't deny that there are many in this \"study\" that actually are barely making ends meet and live paycheck to paycheck due to the job market, inflation, and overall economic conditions.",
">\n\nIt's not misleading at all. It says 50% of Americans don't have a cash reserve that could pay for a $1k unexpected expense.\nNo where does it say or imply that the person can't or won't borrow to pay the bill. Credit card debt is incredibly commonplace.\nThis is an issue of reading comprehension, not an issue of a misleading statement.",
">\n\nMost of the friends and family i have asked about how they interpret that statement, and myself initially, interpreted it to mean that the bill will simply go unpaid. It is only after a discussion and pointing out that is doesn't include credit is the true meaning understood.",
">\n\nThe bill could go unpaid though?\nWithin that 50% a fair number of people couldn't pay that bill under any circumstances. Many of that 50% would be taking on a debt (through credit card or worse), and you would get the full range of what being unable to afford that expense meant within that 50%.\nSo it isn't clear you misinterpreted it so much as you didn't see all the possible ways that could play out. 50% of the US population is a rather large number of humans. Larger in number than the population of most (not all) other countries.",
">\n\n\nThe Statement \"50% of Americans cant afford to pay an unexpected $1,000 bill in cash\" is misleading. I believe that a lot of people, perhaps even most, will interpret this statement to mean that those 50% Will simply have to deal with the fallout of having a $1,000 unpaid bill, when in fact that bill could be put on a credit card, or people could sell something of value, get money from friends/family, etc.\n\nHow is that misleading? Putting it on a cc is not paying it in cash, having to borrow it means they can't afford it.",
">\n\nFirst of all, you've changed the actual phrasing of the statement. There's no reference to \"cash\" in any of the versions of this statistic that I've seen.\nKnow why?\nBecause it's not relevant. The question isn't whether or not someone could lay their hands on $1000 in cash immediately. The question is whether they could get that much money together at all.\nAnd your proposed \"less misleading\" alternatives aren't as synonymous as you claim.\n\n\"50% of Americans have less than $1,000 in their bank accounts\"\n\nThe original statistic doesn't refer to how much a person might have. The issue isn't whether someone has less or slightly more than $1000 in their accounts. The issue is that an unexpected $1000 expense would leave a person financially ruined. They might have $1020 in their accounts. The loss of $1000 would still be pretty damaging.\n\n\"50% of Americans would have to pay an unexpected $1,000 expense with their credit card\"\n\nShow me the average person who can't handle an unexpected $1000 expense but who has a credit card with a $1000 limit.\nThe point of the original statistic is to point out that most Americans are in pretty poor financial shape, and that with a percentage of the population that high-- and a number ($1000) that low-- it's more of a problem with what our society isn't doing for most of its people, rather than that a bunch of people are bad with money.",
">\n\n\nShow me the average person who can't handle an unexpected $1000 expense but who has a credit card with a $1000 limit.\n\nIt's not even the limit, but the amount available to withdraw without hitting the limit, and even that assumes the expense can be put on a credit card. If someone had to do a cash advance, the fees would be even higher.",
">\n\n\nsimply have to deal with the fallout of having a $1,000 unpaid bill, when in fact that bill could be put on a credit card, or people could sell something of value, get money from friends/family, etc.\n\nI don’t think that’s relevant to the point being made. The point being people don’t have savings, the majority are already in debt. Being able to go further into debt or having to liquidate assets is generally undesirable and shows the point that most people are not financially healthy"
] |
>
Credit cards often have outrageous interest rates, so it's wise to never use them for anything other than what you can afford at that time. Otherwise, that $1,000 purchase becomes way more than $1,000 by the time you've paid it off.
So no, if you have to put it on a credit card, you can't afford it, practically and responsibly speaking. If you have to go into debt to acquire it, you can't afford it.
|
[
"The key phrase is \"in cash.\" Putting something on credit or selling something to come up with the cash are the same as not having the immediate cash to pay a $1000 bill. I don't believe it's misleading when they mean the same thing.",
">\n\nIt's misleading because, while technically true, it leads people to believe something that isn't. Saying that people don't have the cash to pay for something leads the reader to believe that those people can't afford it, which isn't true, hence the misleading.",
">\n\nI mean, if you have to sell your stuff or take on debt to pay for something I think that fits the definition of \"can't afford it\"",
">\n\nIf you buy something with the money you made from a garage sale, does that mean you couldn't afford it?\nIf you pay for something with a credit card, does that mean you couldn't afford it?",
">\n\n\nIf you pay for something with a credit card, does that mean you couldn't afford it?\n\nIf you can't pay it off right away, yes. \n\nIf you buy something with the money you made from a garage sale, does that mean you couldn't afford it?\n\nDid you have the garage sale because you needed money, or because the garage is too full of junk? Did you sell things you wanted to keep, or just sold unwanted items? There's a difference.",
">\n\n\nIf you can't pay it off right away, yes.\n\nOk, so then anyone who gets a mortgage or a car loan can't afford their house or car, right?\n\nDid you have the garage sale because you needed money, or because the garage is too full of junk? Did you sell things you wanted to keep, or just sold unwanted items?\n\nThis is not relevant. \"If you sell something you don't want, then you can afford something else, but if you sell something you want, then you can't,\" isn't logic.",
">\n\nThe statement is clear and your view is confused. \nThe suggestions you've offered in refute of the claim are actually backing up the claim itself. \n\nput on a credit card\n\nThis means you can't afford to pay it now, so you're paying it later (30-45 days later, unless you're willing to pay interest - in which case, you still don't have the money to pay it off). \n\nsell something of value\n\nThis means you can't afford to pay it now, as you don't have the $1,000 now. So you need to give up things you already spent $1,000s on to recoup the $1,000 you need.\n\nget money from friends/family\n\nThis means you can't afford to pay it now; so, you're going to get a loan or a gift from someone else that does have $1,000. \n\n\"50% of Americans have less than $1,000 in their bank accounts\" or \"50% of Americans would have to pay an unexpected $1,000 expense with their credit card\"\n\nThese phrases mean the same thing. Credit card isn't money, it's a high-interest loan. Basically, it's legal loan-sharking. Using a credit card to get by is a temporary solution to the problem \"50% of Americans have less than $1,000 in their bank accounts\"",
">\n\n\nYou could have $10,000 in credit lines. Which means you could spend another $9000 if you really needed to.\n\nA line of credit isn't your money, you'd be using someone else's money to cover the expense until you can get the money yourself. Being able to spend money on credit is not the same as having money in a savings account for an emergency.\n\nThey literally just asked \"how would you pay it\".\n\nYou're right, I agree- they worded the question in a way that gave misleading answers so they could write a click-bait headline.\nIf someone asked me to pay a $1000 bill right now, I'd put it on my credit card, even though I have 10k in the bank. So, the \"researcher\" (if you can even call them that) would have gotten a 'false-positive' on their analysis as they would mistakenly assume that I didn't have an emergency savings. But, I'm just cheap and want the credit card point, so I'll put it on the card and pay it off next month.\nBut, we can't deny that there are many in this \"study\" that actually are barely making ends meet and live paycheck to paycheck due to the job market, inflation, and overall economic conditions.",
">\n\nIt's not misleading at all. It says 50% of Americans don't have a cash reserve that could pay for a $1k unexpected expense.\nNo where does it say or imply that the person can't or won't borrow to pay the bill. Credit card debt is incredibly commonplace.\nThis is an issue of reading comprehension, not an issue of a misleading statement.",
">\n\nMost of the friends and family i have asked about how they interpret that statement, and myself initially, interpreted it to mean that the bill will simply go unpaid. It is only after a discussion and pointing out that is doesn't include credit is the true meaning understood.",
">\n\nThe bill could go unpaid though?\nWithin that 50% a fair number of people couldn't pay that bill under any circumstances. Many of that 50% would be taking on a debt (through credit card or worse), and you would get the full range of what being unable to afford that expense meant within that 50%.\nSo it isn't clear you misinterpreted it so much as you didn't see all the possible ways that could play out. 50% of the US population is a rather large number of humans. Larger in number than the population of most (not all) other countries.",
">\n\n\nThe Statement \"50% of Americans cant afford to pay an unexpected $1,000 bill in cash\" is misleading. I believe that a lot of people, perhaps even most, will interpret this statement to mean that those 50% Will simply have to deal with the fallout of having a $1,000 unpaid bill, when in fact that bill could be put on a credit card, or people could sell something of value, get money from friends/family, etc.\n\nHow is that misleading? Putting it on a cc is not paying it in cash, having to borrow it means they can't afford it.",
">\n\nFirst of all, you've changed the actual phrasing of the statement. There's no reference to \"cash\" in any of the versions of this statistic that I've seen.\nKnow why?\nBecause it's not relevant. The question isn't whether or not someone could lay their hands on $1000 in cash immediately. The question is whether they could get that much money together at all.\nAnd your proposed \"less misleading\" alternatives aren't as synonymous as you claim.\n\n\"50% of Americans have less than $1,000 in their bank accounts\"\n\nThe original statistic doesn't refer to how much a person might have. The issue isn't whether someone has less or slightly more than $1000 in their accounts. The issue is that an unexpected $1000 expense would leave a person financially ruined. They might have $1020 in their accounts. The loss of $1000 would still be pretty damaging.\n\n\"50% of Americans would have to pay an unexpected $1,000 expense with their credit card\"\n\nShow me the average person who can't handle an unexpected $1000 expense but who has a credit card with a $1000 limit.\nThe point of the original statistic is to point out that most Americans are in pretty poor financial shape, and that with a percentage of the population that high-- and a number ($1000) that low-- it's more of a problem with what our society isn't doing for most of its people, rather than that a bunch of people are bad with money.",
">\n\n\nShow me the average person who can't handle an unexpected $1000 expense but who has a credit card with a $1000 limit.\n\nIt's not even the limit, but the amount available to withdraw without hitting the limit, and even that assumes the expense can be put on a credit card. If someone had to do a cash advance, the fees would be even higher.",
">\n\n\nsimply have to deal with the fallout of having a $1,000 unpaid bill, when in fact that bill could be put on a credit card, or people could sell something of value, get money from friends/family, etc.\n\nI don’t think that’s relevant to the point being made. The point being people don’t have savings, the majority are already in debt. Being able to go further into debt or having to liquidate assets is generally undesirable and shows the point that most people are not financially healthy",
">\n\nI guess I'm just not seeing the functional difference between the statements. You could pick any of them apart but they all fundamentally mean the same thing. \nIf I were to defend the original statement, I would probably lean on the \"can't afford to\" \"in cash\" part of the statement. Borrowing money, putting it on credit, or selling your car arguably means you can't \"afford\" it."
] |
>
Rather than being misleading, I think the statement is mostly just making a couple of assumptions about the process of coming up with that money.
Someone might be able to max out their card and sell their TV to come up with $1000, sure, but 1. that isn't money they have, it's money they can obtain, and 2. by that logic anyone can cover $1000 or even $10000 easy as long as they are willing to rob a bank or sell some organs or take out a short term high interest loan from some mobsters.
The hypothetical is almost certainly based on the implicit premise that getting those $1000 doesn't either endanger you or put you at greater long term financial risk.
In terms of just being able to resolve a problem, no extra steps or future desperation involved, I would say the statement probably holds true.
|
[
"The key phrase is \"in cash.\" Putting something on credit or selling something to come up with the cash are the same as not having the immediate cash to pay a $1000 bill. I don't believe it's misleading when they mean the same thing.",
">\n\nIt's misleading because, while technically true, it leads people to believe something that isn't. Saying that people don't have the cash to pay for something leads the reader to believe that those people can't afford it, which isn't true, hence the misleading.",
">\n\nI mean, if you have to sell your stuff or take on debt to pay for something I think that fits the definition of \"can't afford it\"",
">\n\nIf you buy something with the money you made from a garage sale, does that mean you couldn't afford it?\nIf you pay for something with a credit card, does that mean you couldn't afford it?",
">\n\n\nIf you pay for something with a credit card, does that mean you couldn't afford it?\n\nIf you can't pay it off right away, yes. \n\nIf you buy something with the money you made from a garage sale, does that mean you couldn't afford it?\n\nDid you have the garage sale because you needed money, or because the garage is too full of junk? Did you sell things you wanted to keep, or just sold unwanted items? There's a difference.",
">\n\n\nIf you can't pay it off right away, yes.\n\nOk, so then anyone who gets a mortgage or a car loan can't afford their house or car, right?\n\nDid you have the garage sale because you needed money, or because the garage is too full of junk? Did you sell things you wanted to keep, or just sold unwanted items?\n\nThis is not relevant. \"If you sell something you don't want, then you can afford something else, but if you sell something you want, then you can't,\" isn't logic.",
">\n\nThe statement is clear and your view is confused. \nThe suggestions you've offered in refute of the claim are actually backing up the claim itself. \n\nput on a credit card\n\nThis means you can't afford to pay it now, so you're paying it later (30-45 days later, unless you're willing to pay interest - in which case, you still don't have the money to pay it off). \n\nsell something of value\n\nThis means you can't afford to pay it now, as you don't have the $1,000 now. So you need to give up things you already spent $1,000s on to recoup the $1,000 you need.\n\nget money from friends/family\n\nThis means you can't afford to pay it now; so, you're going to get a loan or a gift from someone else that does have $1,000. \n\n\"50% of Americans have less than $1,000 in their bank accounts\" or \"50% of Americans would have to pay an unexpected $1,000 expense with their credit card\"\n\nThese phrases mean the same thing. Credit card isn't money, it's a high-interest loan. Basically, it's legal loan-sharking. Using a credit card to get by is a temporary solution to the problem \"50% of Americans have less than $1,000 in their bank accounts\"",
">\n\n\nYou could have $10,000 in credit lines. Which means you could spend another $9000 if you really needed to.\n\nA line of credit isn't your money, you'd be using someone else's money to cover the expense until you can get the money yourself. Being able to spend money on credit is not the same as having money in a savings account for an emergency.\n\nThey literally just asked \"how would you pay it\".\n\nYou're right, I agree- they worded the question in a way that gave misleading answers so they could write a click-bait headline.\nIf someone asked me to pay a $1000 bill right now, I'd put it on my credit card, even though I have 10k in the bank. So, the \"researcher\" (if you can even call them that) would have gotten a 'false-positive' on their analysis as they would mistakenly assume that I didn't have an emergency savings. But, I'm just cheap and want the credit card point, so I'll put it on the card and pay it off next month.\nBut, we can't deny that there are many in this \"study\" that actually are barely making ends meet and live paycheck to paycheck due to the job market, inflation, and overall economic conditions.",
">\n\nIt's not misleading at all. It says 50% of Americans don't have a cash reserve that could pay for a $1k unexpected expense.\nNo where does it say or imply that the person can't or won't borrow to pay the bill. Credit card debt is incredibly commonplace.\nThis is an issue of reading comprehension, not an issue of a misleading statement.",
">\n\nMost of the friends and family i have asked about how they interpret that statement, and myself initially, interpreted it to mean that the bill will simply go unpaid. It is only after a discussion and pointing out that is doesn't include credit is the true meaning understood.",
">\n\nThe bill could go unpaid though?\nWithin that 50% a fair number of people couldn't pay that bill under any circumstances. Many of that 50% would be taking on a debt (through credit card or worse), and you would get the full range of what being unable to afford that expense meant within that 50%.\nSo it isn't clear you misinterpreted it so much as you didn't see all the possible ways that could play out. 50% of the US population is a rather large number of humans. Larger in number than the population of most (not all) other countries.",
">\n\n\nThe Statement \"50% of Americans cant afford to pay an unexpected $1,000 bill in cash\" is misleading. I believe that a lot of people, perhaps even most, will interpret this statement to mean that those 50% Will simply have to deal with the fallout of having a $1,000 unpaid bill, when in fact that bill could be put on a credit card, or people could sell something of value, get money from friends/family, etc.\n\nHow is that misleading? Putting it on a cc is not paying it in cash, having to borrow it means they can't afford it.",
">\n\nFirst of all, you've changed the actual phrasing of the statement. There's no reference to \"cash\" in any of the versions of this statistic that I've seen.\nKnow why?\nBecause it's not relevant. The question isn't whether or not someone could lay their hands on $1000 in cash immediately. The question is whether they could get that much money together at all.\nAnd your proposed \"less misleading\" alternatives aren't as synonymous as you claim.\n\n\"50% of Americans have less than $1,000 in their bank accounts\"\n\nThe original statistic doesn't refer to how much a person might have. The issue isn't whether someone has less or slightly more than $1000 in their accounts. The issue is that an unexpected $1000 expense would leave a person financially ruined. They might have $1020 in their accounts. The loss of $1000 would still be pretty damaging.\n\n\"50% of Americans would have to pay an unexpected $1,000 expense with their credit card\"\n\nShow me the average person who can't handle an unexpected $1000 expense but who has a credit card with a $1000 limit.\nThe point of the original statistic is to point out that most Americans are in pretty poor financial shape, and that with a percentage of the population that high-- and a number ($1000) that low-- it's more of a problem with what our society isn't doing for most of its people, rather than that a bunch of people are bad with money.",
">\n\n\nShow me the average person who can't handle an unexpected $1000 expense but who has a credit card with a $1000 limit.\n\nIt's not even the limit, but the amount available to withdraw without hitting the limit, and even that assumes the expense can be put on a credit card. If someone had to do a cash advance, the fees would be even higher.",
">\n\n\nsimply have to deal with the fallout of having a $1,000 unpaid bill, when in fact that bill could be put on a credit card, or people could sell something of value, get money from friends/family, etc.\n\nI don’t think that’s relevant to the point being made. The point being people don’t have savings, the majority are already in debt. Being able to go further into debt or having to liquidate assets is generally undesirable and shows the point that most people are not financially healthy",
">\n\nI guess I'm just not seeing the functional difference between the statements. You could pick any of them apart but they all fundamentally mean the same thing. \nIf I were to defend the original statement, I would probably lean on the \"can't afford to\" \"in cash\" part of the statement. Borrowing money, putting it on credit, or selling your car arguably means you can't \"afford\" it.",
">\n\nCredit cards often have outrageous interest rates, so it's wise to never use them for anything other than what you can afford at that time. Otherwise, that $1,000 purchase becomes way more than $1,000 by the time you've paid it off.\nSo no, if you have to put it on a credit card, you can't afford it, practically and responsibly speaking. If you have to go into debt to acquire it, you can't afford it."
] |
>
One of the very first principles of financial planning (if you crack open a Certified Financial Planner text) is that one should have an adequate emergency fund of 3-12 months in expenses.
For the vast majority of Americans, $1k is nowhere near 3 months of expenses. Therefore, if a majority of Americans do not have that, the majority of Americans haven't taken (or cannot take) one of the first fundamental steps in appropriate financial planning.
|
[
"The key phrase is \"in cash.\" Putting something on credit or selling something to come up with the cash are the same as not having the immediate cash to pay a $1000 bill. I don't believe it's misleading when they mean the same thing.",
">\n\nIt's misleading because, while technically true, it leads people to believe something that isn't. Saying that people don't have the cash to pay for something leads the reader to believe that those people can't afford it, which isn't true, hence the misleading.",
">\n\nI mean, if you have to sell your stuff or take on debt to pay for something I think that fits the definition of \"can't afford it\"",
">\n\nIf you buy something with the money you made from a garage sale, does that mean you couldn't afford it?\nIf you pay for something with a credit card, does that mean you couldn't afford it?",
">\n\n\nIf you pay for something with a credit card, does that mean you couldn't afford it?\n\nIf you can't pay it off right away, yes. \n\nIf you buy something with the money you made from a garage sale, does that mean you couldn't afford it?\n\nDid you have the garage sale because you needed money, or because the garage is too full of junk? Did you sell things you wanted to keep, or just sold unwanted items? There's a difference.",
">\n\n\nIf you can't pay it off right away, yes.\n\nOk, so then anyone who gets a mortgage or a car loan can't afford their house or car, right?\n\nDid you have the garage sale because you needed money, or because the garage is too full of junk? Did you sell things you wanted to keep, or just sold unwanted items?\n\nThis is not relevant. \"If you sell something you don't want, then you can afford something else, but if you sell something you want, then you can't,\" isn't logic.",
">\n\nThe statement is clear and your view is confused. \nThe suggestions you've offered in refute of the claim are actually backing up the claim itself. \n\nput on a credit card\n\nThis means you can't afford to pay it now, so you're paying it later (30-45 days later, unless you're willing to pay interest - in which case, you still don't have the money to pay it off). \n\nsell something of value\n\nThis means you can't afford to pay it now, as you don't have the $1,000 now. So you need to give up things you already spent $1,000s on to recoup the $1,000 you need.\n\nget money from friends/family\n\nThis means you can't afford to pay it now; so, you're going to get a loan or a gift from someone else that does have $1,000. \n\n\"50% of Americans have less than $1,000 in their bank accounts\" or \"50% of Americans would have to pay an unexpected $1,000 expense with their credit card\"\n\nThese phrases mean the same thing. Credit card isn't money, it's a high-interest loan. Basically, it's legal loan-sharking. Using a credit card to get by is a temporary solution to the problem \"50% of Americans have less than $1,000 in their bank accounts\"",
">\n\n\nYou could have $10,000 in credit lines. Which means you could spend another $9000 if you really needed to.\n\nA line of credit isn't your money, you'd be using someone else's money to cover the expense until you can get the money yourself. Being able to spend money on credit is not the same as having money in a savings account for an emergency.\n\nThey literally just asked \"how would you pay it\".\n\nYou're right, I agree- they worded the question in a way that gave misleading answers so they could write a click-bait headline.\nIf someone asked me to pay a $1000 bill right now, I'd put it on my credit card, even though I have 10k in the bank. So, the \"researcher\" (if you can even call them that) would have gotten a 'false-positive' on their analysis as they would mistakenly assume that I didn't have an emergency savings. But, I'm just cheap and want the credit card point, so I'll put it on the card and pay it off next month.\nBut, we can't deny that there are many in this \"study\" that actually are barely making ends meet and live paycheck to paycheck due to the job market, inflation, and overall economic conditions.",
">\n\nIt's not misleading at all. It says 50% of Americans don't have a cash reserve that could pay for a $1k unexpected expense.\nNo where does it say or imply that the person can't or won't borrow to pay the bill. Credit card debt is incredibly commonplace.\nThis is an issue of reading comprehension, not an issue of a misleading statement.",
">\n\nMost of the friends and family i have asked about how they interpret that statement, and myself initially, interpreted it to mean that the bill will simply go unpaid. It is only after a discussion and pointing out that is doesn't include credit is the true meaning understood.",
">\n\nThe bill could go unpaid though?\nWithin that 50% a fair number of people couldn't pay that bill under any circumstances. Many of that 50% would be taking on a debt (through credit card or worse), and you would get the full range of what being unable to afford that expense meant within that 50%.\nSo it isn't clear you misinterpreted it so much as you didn't see all the possible ways that could play out. 50% of the US population is a rather large number of humans. Larger in number than the population of most (not all) other countries.",
">\n\n\nThe Statement \"50% of Americans cant afford to pay an unexpected $1,000 bill in cash\" is misleading. I believe that a lot of people, perhaps even most, will interpret this statement to mean that those 50% Will simply have to deal with the fallout of having a $1,000 unpaid bill, when in fact that bill could be put on a credit card, or people could sell something of value, get money from friends/family, etc.\n\nHow is that misleading? Putting it on a cc is not paying it in cash, having to borrow it means they can't afford it.",
">\n\nFirst of all, you've changed the actual phrasing of the statement. There's no reference to \"cash\" in any of the versions of this statistic that I've seen.\nKnow why?\nBecause it's not relevant. The question isn't whether or not someone could lay their hands on $1000 in cash immediately. The question is whether they could get that much money together at all.\nAnd your proposed \"less misleading\" alternatives aren't as synonymous as you claim.\n\n\"50% of Americans have less than $1,000 in their bank accounts\"\n\nThe original statistic doesn't refer to how much a person might have. The issue isn't whether someone has less or slightly more than $1000 in their accounts. The issue is that an unexpected $1000 expense would leave a person financially ruined. They might have $1020 in their accounts. The loss of $1000 would still be pretty damaging.\n\n\"50% of Americans would have to pay an unexpected $1,000 expense with their credit card\"\n\nShow me the average person who can't handle an unexpected $1000 expense but who has a credit card with a $1000 limit.\nThe point of the original statistic is to point out that most Americans are in pretty poor financial shape, and that with a percentage of the population that high-- and a number ($1000) that low-- it's more of a problem with what our society isn't doing for most of its people, rather than that a bunch of people are bad with money.",
">\n\n\nShow me the average person who can't handle an unexpected $1000 expense but who has a credit card with a $1000 limit.\n\nIt's not even the limit, but the amount available to withdraw without hitting the limit, and even that assumes the expense can be put on a credit card. If someone had to do a cash advance, the fees would be even higher.",
">\n\n\nsimply have to deal with the fallout of having a $1,000 unpaid bill, when in fact that bill could be put on a credit card, or people could sell something of value, get money from friends/family, etc.\n\nI don’t think that’s relevant to the point being made. The point being people don’t have savings, the majority are already in debt. Being able to go further into debt or having to liquidate assets is generally undesirable and shows the point that most people are not financially healthy",
">\n\nI guess I'm just not seeing the functional difference between the statements. You could pick any of them apart but they all fundamentally mean the same thing. \nIf I were to defend the original statement, I would probably lean on the \"can't afford to\" \"in cash\" part of the statement. Borrowing money, putting it on credit, or selling your car arguably means you can't \"afford\" it.",
">\n\nCredit cards often have outrageous interest rates, so it's wise to never use them for anything other than what you can afford at that time. Otherwise, that $1,000 purchase becomes way more than $1,000 by the time you've paid it off.\nSo no, if you have to put it on a credit card, you can't afford it, practically and responsibly speaking. If you have to go into debt to acquire it, you can't afford it.",
">\n\nRather than being misleading, I think the statement is mostly just making a couple of assumptions about the process of coming up with that money.\nSomeone might be able to max out their card and sell their TV to come up with $1000, sure, but 1. that isn't money they have, it's money they can obtain, and 2. by that logic anyone can cover $1000 or even $10000 easy as long as they are willing to rob a bank or sell some organs or take out a short term high interest loan from some mobsters. \nThe hypothetical is almost certainly based on the implicit premise that getting those $1000 doesn't either endanger you or put you at greater long term financial risk. \nIn terms of just being able to resolve a problem, no extra steps or future desperation involved, I would say the statement probably holds true."
] |
>
The Statement "50% of Americans cant afford
that bill could be put on a credit card, or people could sell something of value, get money from friends/family
When I say, "I can't afford a house", this doesn't mean that I couldn't spend all my savings and put a 20% down payment on a house. It means that my finances can't support the expenditure, because bottoming my savings and going into debt will bankrupt me.
When I say, "I can't afford to eat out every night", this doesn't mean that I couldn't spend all my money on food. It means that my finances can't support the expenditure, because I don't have enough expendable income to justify the cost on top of other expenses.
When people say, "I can't afford an unexpected 1000$ expense", it means their finances can't support the expenditure. It means they don't have 1000$ on hand. It means they have to beg someone else for money, or choose which bills not to pay, or work extra overtime, or choose not to eat.
The straightforward interpretation of "Americans can't afford an unexpected 1000$ expense" is perfectly in-line with the way we commonly use that phrase.
|
[
"The key phrase is \"in cash.\" Putting something on credit or selling something to come up with the cash are the same as not having the immediate cash to pay a $1000 bill. I don't believe it's misleading when they mean the same thing.",
">\n\nIt's misleading because, while technically true, it leads people to believe something that isn't. Saying that people don't have the cash to pay for something leads the reader to believe that those people can't afford it, which isn't true, hence the misleading.",
">\n\nI mean, if you have to sell your stuff or take on debt to pay for something I think that fits the definition of \"can't afford it\"",
">\n\nIf you buy something with the money you made from a garage sale, does that mean you couldn't afford it?\nIf you pay for something with a credit card, does that mean you couldn't afford it?",
">\n\n\nIf you pay for something with a credit card, does that mean you couldn't afford it?\n\nIf you can't pay it off right away, yes. \n\nIf you buy something with the money you made from a garage sale, does that mean you couldn't afford it?\n\nDid you have the garage sale because you needed money, or because the garage is too full of junk? Did you sell things you wanted to keep, or just sold unwanted items? There's a difference.",
">\n\n\nIf you can't pay it off right away, yes.\n\nOk, so then anyone who gets a mortgage or a car loan can't afford their house or car, right?\n\nDid you have the garage sale because you needed money, or because the garage is too full of junk? Did you sell things you wanted to keep, or just sold unwanted items?\n\nThis is not relevant. \"If you sell something you don't want, then you can afford something else, but if you sell something you want, then you can't,\" isn't logic.",
">\n\nThe statement is clear and your view is confused. \nThe suggestions you've offered in refute of the claim are actually backing up the claim itself. \n\nput on a credit card\n\nThis means you can't afford to pay it now, so you're paying it later (30-45 days later, unless you're willing to pay interest - in which case, you still don't have the money to pay it off). \n\nsell something of value\n\nThis means you can't afford to pay it now, as you don't have the $1,000 now. So you need to give up things you already spent $1,000s on to recoup the $1,000 you need.\n\nget money from friends/family\n\nThis means you can't afford to pay it now; so, you're going to get a loan or a gift from someone else that does have $1,000. \n\n\"50% of Americans have less than $1,000 in their bank accounts\" or \"50% of Americans would have to pay an unexpected $1,000 expense with their credit card\"\n\nThese phrases mean the same thing. Credit card isn't money, it's a high-interest loan. Basically, it's legal loan-sharking. Using a credit card to get by is a temporary solution to the problem \"50% of Americans have less than $1,000 in their bank accounts\"",
">\n\n\nYou could have $10,000 in credit lines. Which means you could spend another $9000 if you really needed to.\n\nA line of credit isn't your money, you'd be using someone else's money to cover the expense until you can get the money yourself. Being able to spend money on credit is not the same as having money in a savings account for an emergency.\n\nThey literally just asked \"how would you pay it\".\n\nYou're right, I agree- they worded the question in a way that gave misleading answers so they could write a click-bait headline.\nIf someone asked me to pay a $1000 bill right now, I'd put it on my credit card, even though I have 10k in the bank. So, the \"researcher\" (if you can even call them that) would have gotten a 'false-positive' on their analysis as they would mistakenly assume that I didn't have an emergency savings. But, I'm just cheap and want the credit card point, so I'll put it on the card and pay it off next month.\nBut, we can't deny that there are many in this \"study\" that actually are barely making ends meet and live paycheck to paycheck due to the job market, inflation, and overall economic conditions.",
">\n\nIt's not misleading at all. It says 50% of Americans don't have a cash reserve that could pay for a $1k unexpected expense.\nNo where does it say or imply that the person can't or won't borrow to pay the bill. Credit card debt is incredibly commonplace.\nThis is an issue of reading comprehension, not an issue of a misleading statement.",
">\n\nMost of the friends and family i have asked about how they interpret that statement, and myself initially, interpreted it to mean that the bill will simply go unpaid. It is only after a discussion and pointing out that is doesn't include credit is the true meaning understood.",
">\n\nThe bill could go unpaid though?\nWithin that 50% a fair number of people couldn't pay that bill under any circumstances. Many of that 50% would be taking on a debt (through credit card or worse), and you would get the full range of what being unable to afford that expense meant within that 50%.\nSo it isn't clear you misinterpreted it so much as you didn't see all the possible ways that could play out. 50% of the US population is a rather large number of humans. Larger in number than the population of most (not all) other countries.",
">\n\n\nThe Statement \"50% of Americans cant afford to pay an unexpected $1,000 bill in cash\" is misleading. I believe that a lot of people, perhaps even most, will interpret this statement to mean that those 50% Will simply have to deal with the fallout of having a $1,000 unpaid bill, when in fact that bill could be put on a credit card, or people could sell something of value, get money from friends/family, etc.\n\nHow is that misleading? Putting it on a cc is not paying it in cash, having to borrow it means they can't afford it.",
">\n\nFirst of all, you've changed the actual phrasing of the statement. There's no reference to \"cash\" in any of the versions of this statistic that I've seen.\nKnow why?\nBecause it's not relevant. The question isn't whether or not someone could lay their hands on $1000 in cash immediately. The question is whether they could get that much money together at all.\nAnd your proposed \"less misleading\" alternatives aren't as synonymous as you claim.\n\n\"50% of Americans have less than $1,000 in their bank accounts\"\n\nThe original statistic doesn't refer to how much a person might have. The issue isn't whether someone has less or slightly more than $1000 in their accounts. The issue is that an unexpected $1000 expense would leave a person financially ruined. They might have $1020 in their accounts. The loss of $1000 would still be pretty damaging.\n\n\"50% of Americans would have to pay an unexpected $1,000 expense with their credit card\"\n\nShow me the average person who can't handle an unexpected $1000 expense but who has a credit card with a $1000 limit.\nThe point of the original statistic is to point out that most Americans are in pretty poor financial shape, and that with a percentage of the population that high-- and a number ($1000) that low-- it's more of a problem with what our society isn't doing for most of its people, rather than that a bunch of people are bad with money.",
">\n\n\nShow me the average person who can't handle an unexpected $1000 expense but who has a credit card with a $1000 limit.\n\nIt's not even the limit, but the amount available to withdraw without hitting the limit, and even that assumes the expense can be put on a credit card. If someone had to do a cash advance, the fees would be even higher.",
">\n\n\nsimply have to deal with the fallout of having a $1,000 unpaid bill, when in fact that bill could be put on a credit card, or people could sell something of value, get money from friends/family, etc.\n\nI don’t think that’s relevant to the point being made. The point being people don’t have savings, the majority are already in debt. Being able to go further into debt or having to liquidate assets is generally undesirable and shows the point that most people are not financially healthy",
">\n\nI guess I'm just not seeing the functional difference between the statements. You could pick any of them apart but they all fundamentally mean the same thing. \nIf I were to defend the original statement, I would probably lean on the \"can't afford to\" \"in cash\" part of the statement. Borrowing money, putting it on credit, or selling your car arguably means you can't \"afford\" it.",
">\n\nCredit cards often have outrageous interest rates, so it's wise to never use them for anything other than what you can afford at that time. Otherwise, that $1,000 purchase becomes way more than $1,000 by the time you've paid it off.\nSo no, if you have to put it on a credit card, you can't afford it, practically and responsibly speaking. If you have to go into debt to acquire it, you can't afford it.",
">\n\nRather than being misleading, I think the statement is mostly just making a couple of assumptions about the process of coming up with that money.\nSomeone might be able to max out their card and sell their TV to come up with $1000, sure, but 1. that isn't money they have, it's money they can obtain, and 2. by that logic anyone can cover $1000 or even $10000 easy as long as they are willing to rob a bank or sell some organs or take out a short term high interest loan from some mobsters. \nThe hypothetical is almost certainly based on the implicit premise that getting those $1000 doesn't either endanger you or put you at greater long term financial risk. \nIn terms of just being able to resolve a problem, no extra steps or future desperation involved, I would say the statement probably holds true.",
">\n\nOne of the very first principles of financial planning (if you crack open a Certified Financial Planner text) is that one should have an adequate emergency fund of 3-12 months in expenses.\nFor the vast majority of Americans, $1k is nowhere near 3 months of expenses. Therefore, if a majority of Americans do not have that, the majority of Americans haven't taken (or cannot take) one of the first fundamental steps in appropriate financial planning."
] |
>
The fact that you'd have to use a credit card or sell something proves the point, though. It seems to communicate exactly what it means.
|
[
"The key phrase is \"in cash.\" Putting something on credit or selling something to come up with the cash are the same as not having the immediate cash to pay a $1000 bill. I don't believe it's misleading when they mean the same thing.",
">\n\nIt's misleading because, while technically true, it leads people to believe something that isn't. Saying that people don't have the cash to pay for something leads the reader to believe that those people can't afford it, which isn't true, hence the misleading.",
">\n\nI mean, if you have to sell your stuff or take on debt to pay for something I think that fits the definition of \"can't afford it\"",
">\n\nIf you buy something with the money you made from a garage sale, does that mean you couldn't afford it?\nIf you pay for something with a credit card, does that mean you couldn't afford it?",
">\n\n\nIf you pay for something with a credit card, does that mean you couldn't afford it?\n\nIf you can't pay it off right away, yes. \n\nIf you buy something with the money you made from a garage sale, does that mean you couldn't afford it?\n\nDid you have the garage sale because you needed money, or because the garage is too full of junk? Did you sell things you wanted to keep, or just sold unwanted items? There's a difference.",
">\n\n\nIf you can't pay it off right away, yes.\n\nOk, so then anyone who gets a mortgage or a car loan can't afford their house or car, right?\n\nDid you have the garage sale because you needed money, or because the garage is too full of junk? Did you sell things you wanted to keep, or just sold unwanted items?\n\nThis is not relevant. \"If you sell something you don't want, then you can afford something else, but if you sell something you want, then you can't,\" isn't logic.",
">\n\nThe statement is clear and your view is confused. \nThe suggestions you've offered in refute of the claim are actually backing up the claim itself. \n\nput on a credit card\n\nThis means you can't afford to pay it now, so you're paying it later (30-45 days later, unless you're willing to pay interest - in which case, you still don't have the money to pay it off). \n\nsell something of value\n\nThis means you can't afford to pay it now, as you don't have the $1,000 now. So you need to give up things you already spent $1,000s on to recoup the $1,000 you need.\n\nget money from friends/family\n\nThis means you can't afford to pay it now; so, you're going to get a loan or a gift from someone else that does have $1,000. \n\n\"50% of Americans have less than $1,000 in their bank accounts\" or \"50% of Americans would have to pay an unexpected $1,000 expense with their credit card\"\n\nThese phrases mean the same thing. Credit card isn't money, it's a high-interest loan. Basically, it's legal loan-sharking. Using a credit card to get by is a temporary solution to the problem \"50% of Americans have less than $1,000 in their bank accounts\"",
">\n\n\nYou could have $10,000 in credit lines. Which means you could spend another $9000 if you really needed to.\n\nA line of credit isn't your money, you'd be using someone else's money to cover the expense until you can get the money yourself. Being able to spend money on credit is not the same as having money in a savings account for an emergency.\n\nThey literally just asked \"how would you pay it\".\n\nYou're right, I agree- they worded the question in a way that gave misleading answers so they could write a click-bait headline.\nIf someone asked me to pay a $1000 bill right now, I'd put it on my credit card, even though I have 10k in the bank. So, the \"researcher\" (if you can even call them that) would have gotten a 'false-positive' on their analysis as they would mistakenly assume that I didn't have an emergency savings. But, I'm just cheap and want the credit card point, so I'll put it on the card and pay it off next month.\nBut, we can't deny that there are many in this \"study\" that actually are barely making ends meet and live paycheck to paycheck due to the job market, inflation, and overall economic conditions.",
">\n\nIt's not misleading at all. It says 50% of Americans don't have a cash reserve that could pay for a $1k unexpected expense.\nNo where does it say or imply that the person can't or won't borrow to pay the bill. Credit card debt is incredibly commonplace.\nThis is an issue of reading comprehension, not an issue of a misleading statement.",
">\n\nMost of the friends and family i have asked about how they interpret that statement, and myself initially, interpreted it to mean that the bill will simply go unpaid. It is only after a discussion and pointing out that is doesn't include credit is the true meaning understood.",
">\n\nThe bill could go unpaid though?\nWithin that 50% a fair number of people couldn't pay that bill under any circumstances. Many of that 50% would be taking on a debt (through credit card or worse), and you would get the full range of what being unable to afford that expense meant within that 50%.\nSo it isn't clear you misinterpreted it so much as you didn't see all the possible ways that could play out. 50% of the US population is a rather large number of humans. Larger in number than the population of most (not all) other countries.",
">\n\n\nThe Statement \"50% of Americans cant afford to pay an unexpected $1,000 bill in cash\" is misleading. I believe that a lot of people, perhaps even most, will interpret this statement to mean that those 50% Will simply have to deal with the fallout of having a $1,000 unpaid bill, when in fact that bill could be put on a credit card, or people could sell something of value, get money from friends/family, etc.\n\nHow is that misleading? Putting it on a cc is not paying it in cash, having to borrow it means they can't afford it.",
">\n\nFirst of all, you've changed the actual phrasing of the statement. There's no reference to \"cash\" in any of the versions of this statistic that I've seen.\nKnow why?\nBecause it's not relevant. The question isn't whether or not someone could lay their hands on $1000 in cash immediately. The question is whether they could get that much money together at all.\nAnd your proposed \"less misleading\" alternatives aren't as synonymous as you claim.\n\n\"50% of Americans have less than $1,000 in their bank accounts\"\n\nThe original statistic doesn't refer to how much a person might have. The issue isn't whether someone has less or slightly more than $1000 in their accounts. The issue is that an unexpected $1000 expense would leave a person financially ruined. They might have $1020 in their accounts. The loss of $1000 would still be pretty damaging.\n\n\"50% of Americans would have to pay an unexpected $1,000 expense with their credit card\"\n\nShow me the average person who can't handle an unexpected $1000 expense but who has a credit card with a $1000 limit.\nThe point of the original statistic is to point out that most Americans are in pretty poor financial shape, and that with a percentage of the population that high-- and a number ($1000) that low-- it's more of a problem with what our society isn't doing for most of its people, rather than that a bunch of people are bad with money.",
">\n\n\nShow me the average person who can't handle an unexpected $1000 expense but who has a credit card with a $1000 limit.\n\nIt's not even the limit, but the amount available to withdraw without hitting the limit, and even that assumes the expense can be put on a credit card. If someone had to do a cash advance, the fees would be even higher.",
">\n\n\nsimply have to deal with the fallout of having a $1,000 unpaid bill, when in fact that bill could be put on a credit card, or people could sell something of value, get money from friends/family, etc.\n\nI don’t think that’s relevant to the point being made. The point being people don’t have savings, the majority are already in debt. Being able to go further into debt or having to liquidate assets is generally undesirable and shows the point that most people are not financially healthy",
">\n\nI guess I'm just not seeing the functional difference between the statements. You could pick any of them apart but they all fundamentally mean the same thing. \nIf I were to defend the original statement, I would probably lean on the \"can't afford to\" \"in cash\" part of the statement. Borrowing money, putting it on credit, or selling your car arguably means you can't \"afford\" it.",
">\n\nCredit cards often have outrageous interest rates, so it's wise to never use them for anything other than what you can afford at that time. Otherwise, that $1,000 purchase becomes way more than $1,000 by the time you've paid it off.\nSo no, if you have to put it on a credit card, you can't afford it, practically and responsibly speaking. If you have to go into debt to acquire it, you can't afford it.",
">\n\nRather than being misleading, I think the statement is mostly just making a couple of assumptions about the process of coming up with that money.\nSomeone might be able to max out their card and sell their TV to come up with $1000, sure, but 1. that isn't money they have, it's money they can obtain, and 2. by that logic anyone can cover $1000 or even $10000 easy as long as they are willing to rob a bank or sell some organs or take out a short term high interest loan from some mobsters. \nThe hypothetical is almost certainly based on the implicit premise that getting those $1000 doesn't either endanger you or put you at greater long term financial risk. \nIn terms of just being able to resolve a problem, no extra steps or future desperation involved, I would say the statement probably holds true.",
">\n\nOne of the very first principles of financial planning (if you crack open a Certified Financial Planner text) is that one should have an adequate emergency fund of 3-12 months in expenses.\nFor the vast majority of Americans, $1k is nowhere near 3 months of expenses. Therefore, if a majority of Americans do not have that, the majority of Americans haven't taken (or cannot take) one of the first fundamental steps in appropriate financial planning.",
">\n\n\nThe Statement \"50% of Americans cant afford \nthat bill could be put on a credit card, or people could sell something of value, get money from friends/family\n\nWhen I say, \"I can't afford a house\", this doesn't mean that I couldn't spend all my savings and put a 20% down payment on a house. It means that my finances can't support the expenditure, because bottoming my savings and going into debt will bankrupt me.\nWhen I say, \"I can't afford to eat out every night\", this doesn't mean that I couldn't spend all my money on food. It means that my finances can't support the expenditure, because I don't have enough expendable income to justify the cost on top of other expenses.\nWhen people say, \"I can't afford an unexpected 1000$ expense\", it means their finances can't support the expenditure. It means they don't have 1000$ on hand. It means they have to beg someone else for money, or choose which bills not to pay, or work extra overtime, or choose not to eat.\nThe straightforward interpretation of \"Americans can't afford an unexpected 1000$ expense\" is perfectly in-line with the way we commonly use that phrase."
] |
>
|
[
"The key phrase is \"in cash.\" Putting something on credit or selling something to come up with the cash are the same as not having the immediate cash to pay a $1000 bill. I don't believe it's misleading when they mean the same thing.",
">\n\nIt's misleading because, while technically true, it leads people to believe something that isn't. Saying that people don't have the cash to pay for something leads the reader to believe that those people can't afford it, which isn't true, hence the misleading.",
">\n\nI mean, if you have to sell your stuff or take on debt to pay for something I think that fits the definition of \"can't afford it\"",
">\n\nIf you buy something with the money you made from a garage sale, does that mean you couldn't afford it?\nIf you pay for something with a credit card, does that mean you couldn't afford it?",
">\n\n\nIf you pay for something with a credit card, does that mean you couldn't afford it?\n\nIf you can't pay it off right away, yes. \n\nIf you buy something with the money you made from a garage sale, does that mean you couldn't afford it?\n\nDid you have the garage sale because you needed money, or because the garage is too full of junk? Did you sell things you wanted to keep, or just sold unwanted items? There's a difference.",
">\n\n\nIf you can't pay it off right away, yes.\n\nOk, so then anyone who gets a mortgage or a car loan can't afford their house or car, right?\n\nDid you have the garage sale because you needed money, or because the garage is too full of junk? Did you sell things you wanted to keep, or just sold unwanted items?\n\nThis is not relevant. \"If you sell something you don't want, then you can afford something else, but if you sell something you want, then you can't,\" isn't logic.",
">\n\nThe statement is clear and your view is confused. \nThe suggestions you've offered in refute of the claim are actually backing up the claim itself. \n\nput on a credit card\n\nThis means you can't afford to pay it now, so you're paying it later (30-45 days later, unless you're willing to pay interest - in which case, you still don't have the money to pay it off). \n\nsell something of value\n\nThis means you can't afford to pay it now, as you don't have the $1,000 now. So you need to give up things you already spent $1,000s on to recoup the $1,000 you need.\n\nget money from friends/family\n\nThis means you can't afford to pay it now; so, you're going to get a loan or a gift from someone else that does have $1,000. \n\n\"50% of Americans have less than $1,000 in their bank accounts\" or \"50% of Americans would have to pay an unexpected $1,000 expense with their credit card\"\n\nThese phrases mean the same thing. Credit card isn't money, it's a high-interest loan. Basically, it's legal loan-sharking. Using a credit card to get by is a temporary solution to the problem \"50% of Americans have less than $1,000 in their bank accounts\"",
">\n\n\nYou could have $10,000 in credit lines. Which means you could spend another $9000 if you really needed to.\n\nA line of credit isn't your money, you'd be using someone else's money to cover the expense until you can get the money yourself. Being able to spend money on credit is not the same as having money in a savings account for an emergency.\n\nThey literally just asked \"how would you pay it\".\n\nYou're right, I agree- they worded the question in a way that gave misleading answers so they could write a click-bait headline.\nIf someone asked me to pay a $1000 bill right now, I'd put it on my credit card, even though I have 10k in the bank. So, the \"researcher\" (if you can even call them that) would have gotten a 'false-positive' on their analysis as they would mistakenly assume that I didn't have an emergency savings. But, I'm just cheap and want the credit card point, so I'll put it on the card and pay it off next month.\nBut, we can't deny that there are many in this \"study\" that actually are barely making ends meet and live paycheck to paycheck due to the job market, inflation, and overall economic conditions.",
">\n\nIt's not misleading at all. It says 50% of Americans don't have a cash reserve that could pay for a $1k unexpected expense.\nNo where does it say or imply that the person can't or won't borrow to pay the bill. Credit card debt is incredibly commonplace.\nThis is an issue of reading comprehension, not an issue of a misleading statement.",
">\n\nMost of the friends and family i have asked about how they interpret that statement, and myself initially, interpreted it to mean that the bill will simply go unpaid. It is only after a discussion and pointing out that is doesn't include credit is the true meaning understood.",
">\n\nThe bill could go unpaid though?\nWithin that 50% a fair number of people couldn't pay that bill under any circumstances. Many of that 50% would be taking on a debt (through credit card or worse), and you would get the full range of what being unable to afford that expense meant within that 50%.\nSo it isn't clear you misinterpreted it so much as you didn't see all the possible ways that could play out. 50% of the US population is a rather large number of humans. Larger in number than the population of most (not all) other countries.",
">\n\n\nThe Statement \"50% of Americans cant afford to pay an unexpected $1,000 bill in cash\" is misleading. I believe that a lot of people, perhaps even most, will interpret this statement to mean that those 50% Will simply have to deal with the fallout of having a $1,000 unpaid bill, when in fact that bill could be put on a credit card, or people could sell something of value, get money from friends/family, etc.\n\nHow is that misleading? Putting it on a cc is not paying it in cash, having to borrow it means they can't afford it.",
">\n\nFirst of all, you've changed the actual phrasing of the statement. There's no reference to \"cash\" in any of the versions of this statistic that I've seen.\nKnow why?\nBecause it's not relevant. The question isn't whether or not someone could lay their hands on $1000 in cash immediately. The question is whether they could get that much money together at all.\nAnd your proposed \"less misleading\" alternatives aren't as synonymous as you claim.\n\n\"50% of Americans have less than $1,000 in their bank accounts\"\n\nThe original statistic doesn't refer to how much a person might have. The issue isn't whether someone has less or slightly more than $1000 in their accounts. The issue is that an unexpected $1000 expense would leave a person financially ruined. They might have $1020 in their accounts. The loss of $1000 would still be pretty damaging.\n\n\"50% of Americans would have to pay an unexpected $1,000 expense with their credit card\"\n\nShow me the average person who can't handle an unexpected $1000 expense but who has a credit card with a $1000 limit.\nThe point of the original statistic is to point out that most Americans are in pretty poor financial shape, and that with a percentage of the population that high-- and a number ($1000) that low-- it's more of a problem with what our society isn't doing for most of its people, rather than that a bunch of people are bad with money.",
">\n\n\nShow me the average person who can't handle an unexpected $1000 expense but who has a credit card with a $1000 limit.\n\nIt's not even the limit, but the amount available to withdraw without hitting the limit, and even that assumes the expense can be put on a credit card. If someone had to do a cash advance, the fees would be even higher.",
">\n\n\nsimply have to deal with the fallout of having a $1,000 unpaid bill, when in fact that bill could be put on a credit card, or people could sell something of value, get money from friends/family, etc.\n\nI don’t think that’s relevant to the point being made. The point being people don’t have savings, the majority are already in debt. Being able to go further into debt or having to liquidate assets is generally undesirable and shows the point that most people are not financially healthy",
">\n\nI guess I'm just not seeing the functional difference between the statements. You could pick any of them apart but they all fundamentally mean the same thing. \nIf I were to defend the original statement, I would probably lean on the \"can't afford to\" \"in cash\" part of the statement. Borrowing money, putting it on credit, or selling your car arguably means you can't \"afford\" it.",
">\n\nCredit cards often have outrageous interest rates, so it's wise to never use them for anything other than what you can afford at that time. Otherwise, that $1,000 purchase becomes way more than $1,000 by the time you've paid it off.\nSo no, if you have to put it on a credit card, you can't afford it, practically and responsibly speaking. If you have to go into debt to acquire it, you can't afford it.",
">\n\nRather than being misleading, I think the statement is mostly just making a couple of assumptions about the process of coming up with that money.\nSomeone might be able to max out their card and sell their TV to come up with $1000, sure, but 1. that isn't money they have, it's money they can obtain, and 2. by that logic anyone can cover $1000 or even $10000 easy as long as they are willing to rob a bank or sell some organs or take out a short term high interest loan from some mobsters. \nThe hypothetical is almost certainly based on the implicit premise that getting those $1000 doesn't either endanger you or put you at greater long term financial risk. \nIn terms of just being able to resolve a problem, no extra steps or future desperation involved, I would say the statement probably holds true.",
">\n\nOne of the very first principles of financial planning (if you crack open a Certified Financial Planner text) is that one should have an adequate emergency fund of 3-12 months in expenses.\nFor the vast majority of Americans, $1k is nowhere near 3 months of expenses. Therefore, if a majority of Americans do not have that, the majority of Americans haven't taken (or cannot take) one of the first fundamental steps in appropriate financial planning.",
">\n\n\nThe Statement \"50% of Americans cant afford \nthat bill could be put on a credit card, or people could sell something of value, get money from friends/family\n\nWhen I say, \"I can't afford a house\", this doesn't mean that I couldn't spend all my savings and put a 20% down payment on a house. It means that my finances can't support the expenditure, because bottoming my savings and going into debt will bankrupt me.\nWhen I say, \"I can't afford to eat out every night\", this doesn't mean that I couldn't spend all my money on food. It means that my finances can't support the expenditure, because I don't have enough expendable income to justify the cost on top of other expenses.\nWhen people say, \"I can't afford an unexpected 1000$ expense\", it means their finances can't support the expenditure. It means they don't have 1000$ on hand. It means they have to beg someone else for money, or choose which bills not to pay, or work extra overtime, or choose not to eat.\nThe straightforward interpretation of \"Americans can't afford an unexpected 1000$ expense\" is perfectly in-line with the way we commonly use that phrase.",
">\n\nThe fact that you'd have to use a credit card or sell something proves the point, though. It seems to communicate exactly what it means."
] |
He was spending other people's money they invested with him. That's not legal and the money should be returned, not given to charities. The people who invested sort of deserve it back, despite it being such a stupid investment to trust somebody with. Buy your own bitcoin if you want it, don't trust a broker or online bitcoin bank.
Every one of the bitcoin storage "banks" gets "hacked" or somehow loses all your money and the guy who runs it disappears into riches.
|
[] |
>
I could see asking politicians to give this to a fund to pay FTX victims, but if it were me, I would not let FTX or SBF ever get close enough to that money to touch it.
|
[
"He was spending other people's money they invested with him. That's not legal and the money should be returned, not given to charities. The people who invested sort of deserve it back, despite it being such a stupid investment to trust somebody with. Buy your own bitcoin if you want it, don't trust a broker or online bitcoin bank.\nEvery one of the bitcoin storage \"banks\" gets \"hacked\" or somehow loses all your money and the guy who runs it disappears into riches."
] |
>
We need to see the list of who got $$, and who gives $$ back.
|
[
"He was spending other people's money they invested with him. That's not legal and the money should be returned, not given to charities. The people who invested sort of deserve it back, despite it being such a stupid investment to trust somebody with. Buy your own bitcoin if you want it, don't trust a broker or online bitcoin bank.\nEvery one of the bitcoin storage \"banks\" gets \"hacked\" or somehow loses all your money and the guy who runs it disappears into riches.",
">\n\nI could see asking politicians to give this to a fund to pay FTX victims, but if it were me, I would not let FTX or SBF ever get close enough to that money to touch it."
] |
>
My in laws are heavily invested in CFX which I'm assuming is the same scam?
|
[
"He was spending other people's money they invested with him. That's not legal and the money should be returned, not given to charities. The people who invested sort of deserve it back, despite it being such a stupid investment to trust somebody with. Buy your own bitcoin if you want it, don't trust a broker or online bitcoin bank.\nEvery one of the bitcoin storage \"banks\" gets \"hacked\" or somehow loses all your money and the guy who runs it disappears into riches.",
">\n\nI could see asking politicians to give this to a fund to pay FTX victims, but if it were me, I would not let FTX or SBF ever get close enough to that money to touch it.",
">\n\nWe need to see the list of who got $$, and who gives $$ back."
] |
>
anything other than hard work..... is a scam. If you need me to say it again buddy - there is literally 1,000 episodes of the Simpsons where Homer tries to make quick money, it never works. (Unless you got in early on bitcoin, dogecoin, gamestop and AMC) lol.
|
[
"He was spending other people's money they invested with him. That's not legal and the money should be returned, not given to charities. The people who invested sort of deserve it back, despite it being such a stupid investment to trust somebody with. Buy your own bitcoin if you want it, don't trust a broker or online bitcoin bank.\nEvery one of the bitcoin storage \"banks\" gets \"hacked\" or somehow loses all your money and the guy who runs it disappears into riches.",
">\n\nI could see asking politicians to give this to a fund to pay FTX victims, but if it were me, I would not let FTX or SBF ever get close enough to that money to touch it.",
">\n\nWe need to see the list of who got $$, and who gives $$ back.",
">\n\nMy in laws are heavily invested in CFX which I'm assuming is the same scam?"
] |
>
Don't get me wrong I tell them it's a scam every time they offer to pay to sign me up. (Cause that's a massive obvious pyramid scheme red flag in it's self lol)
|
[
"He was spending other people's money they invested with him. That's not legal and the money should be returned, not given to charities. The people who invested sort of deserve it back, despite it being such a stupid investment to trust somebody with. Buy your own bitcoin if you want it, don't trust a broker or online bitcoin bank.\nEvery one of the bitcoin storage \"banks\" gets \"hacked\" or somehow loses all your money and the guy who runs it disappears into riches.",
">\n\nI could see asking politicians to give this to a fund to pay FTX victims, but if it were me, I would not let FTX or SBF ever get close enough to that money to touch it.",
">\n\nWe need to see the list of who got $$, and who gives $$ back.",
">\n\nMy in laws are heavily invested in CFX which I'm assuming is the same scam?",
">\n\nanything other than hard work..... is a scam. If you need me to say it again buddy - there is literally 1,000 episodes of the Simpsons where Homer tries to make quick money, it never works. (Unless you got in early on bitcoin, dogecoin, gamestop and AMC) lol."
] |
>
Yeah, good luck with that.
|
[
"He was spending other people's money they invested with him. That's not legal and the money should be returned, not given to charities. The people who invested sort of deserve it back, despite it being such a stupid investment to trust somebody with. Buy your own bitcoin if you want it, don't trust a broker or online bitcoin bank.\nEvery one of the bitcoin storage \"banks\" gets \"hacked\" or somehow loses all your money and the guy who runs it disappears into riches.",
">\n\nI could see asking politicians to give this to a fund to pay FTX victims, but if it were me, I would not let FTX or SBF ever get close enough to that money to touch it.",
">\n\nWe need to see the list of who got $$, and who gives $$ back.",
">\n\nMy in laws are heavily invested in CFX which I'm assuming is the same scam?",
">\n\nanything other than hard work..... is a scam. If you need me to say it again buddy - there is literally 1,000 episodes of the Simpsons where Homer tries to make quick money, it never works. (Unless you got in early on bitcoin, dogecoin, gamestop and AMC) lol.",
">\n\nDon't get me wrong I tell them it's a scam every time they offer to pay to sign me up. (Cause that's a massive obvious pyramid scheme red flag in it's self lol)"
] |
>
what would happen if they just didnt?
|
[
"He was spending other people's money they invested with him. That's not legal and the money should be returned, not given to charities. The people who invested sort of deserve it back, despite it being such a stupid investment to trust somebody with. Buy your own bitcoin if you want it, don't trust a broker or online bitcoin bank.\nEvery one of the bitcoin storage \"banks\" gets \"hacked\" or somehow loses all your money and the guy who runs it disappears into riches.",
">\n\nI could see asking politicians to give this to a fund to pay FTX victims, but if it were me, I would not let FTX or SBF ever get close enough to that money to touch it.",
">\n\nWe need to see the list of who got $$, and who gives $$ back.",
">\n\nMy in laws are heavily invested in CFX which I'm assuming is the same scam?",
">\n\nanything other than hard work..... is a scam. If you need me to say it again buddy - there is literally 1,000 episodes of the Simpsons where Homer tries to make quick money, it never works. (Unless you got in early on bitcoin, dogecoin, gamestop and AMC) lol.",
">\n\nDon't get me wrong I tell them it's a scam every time they offer to pay to sign me up. (Cause that's a massive obvious pyramid scheme red flag in it's self lol)",
">\n\nYeah, good luck with that."
] |
>
Hey, since I’m busted now, can I have my bribe back?
|
[
"He was spending other people's money they invested with him. That's not legal and the money should be returned, not given to charities. The people who invested sort of deserve it back, despite it being such a stupid investment to trust somebody with. Buy your own bitcoin if you want it, don't trust a broker or online bitcoin bank.\nEvery one of the bitcoin storage \"banks\" gets \"hacked\" or somehow loses all your money and the guy who runs it disappears into riches.",
">\n\nI could see asking politicians to give this to a fund to pay FTX victims, but if it were me, I would not let FTX or SBF ever get close enough to that money to touch it.",
">\n\nWe need to see the list of who got $$, and who gives $$ back.",
">\n\nMy in laws are heavily invested in CFX which I'm assuming is the same scam?",
">\n\nanything other than hard work..... is a scam. If you need me to say it again buddy - there is literally 1,000 episodes of the Simpsons where Homer tries to make quick money, it never works. (Unless you got in early on bitcoin, dogecoin, gamestop and AMC) lol.",
">\n\nDon't get me wrong I tell them it's a scam every time they offer to pay to sign me up. (Cause that's a massive obvious pyramid scheme red flag in it's self lol)",
">\n\nYeah, good luck with that.",
">\n\nwhat would happen if they just didnt?"
] |
>
“Sure, I’ll undo the last reason I’ve been covering for you.”
|
[
"He was spending other people's money they invested with him. That's not legal and the money should be returned, not given to charities. The people who invested sort of deserve it back, despite it being such a stupid investment to trust somebody with. Buy your own bitcoin if you want it, don't trust a broker or online bitcoin bank.\nEvery one of the bitcoin storage \"banks\" gets \"hacked\" or somehow loses all your money and the guy who runs it disappears into riches.",
">\n\nI could see asking politicians to give this to a fund to pay FTX victims, but if it were me, I would not let FTX or SBF ever get close enough to that money to touch it.",
">\n\nWe need to see the list of who got $$, and who gives $$ back.",
">\n\nMy in laws are heavily invested in CFX which I'm assuming is the same scam?",
">\n\nanything other than hard work..... is a scam. If you need me to say it again buddy - there is literally 1,000 episodes of the Simpsons where Homer tries to make quick money, it never works. (Unless you got in early on bitcoin, dogecoin, gamestop and AMC) lol.",
">\n\nDon't get me wrong I tell them it's a scam every time they offer to pay to sign me up. (Cause that's a massive obvious pyramid scheme red flag in it's self lol)",
">\n\nYeah, good luck with that.",
">\n\nwhat would happen if they just didnt?",
">\n\nHey, since I’m busted now, can I have my bribe back?"
] |
>
|
[
"He was spending other people's money they invested with him. That's not legal and the money should be returned, not given to charities. The people who invested sort of deserve it back, despite it being such a stupid investment to trust somebody with. Buy your own bitcoin if you want it, don't trust a broker or online bitcoin bank.\nEvery one of the bitcoin storage \"banks\" gets \"hacked\" or somehow loses all your money and the guy who runs it disappears into riches.",
">\n\nI could see asking politicians to give this to a fund to pay FTX victims, but if it were me, I would not let FTX or SBF ever get close enough to that money to touch it.",
">\n\nWe need to see the list of who got $$, and who gives $$ back.",
">\n\nMy in laws are heavily invested in CFX which I'm assuming is the same scam?",
">\n\nanything other than hard work..... is a scam. If you need me to say it again buddy - there is literally 1,000 episodes of the Simpsons where Homer tries to make quick money, it never works. (Unless you got in early on bitcoin, dogecoin, gamestop and AMC) lol.",
">\n\nDon't get me wrong I tell them it's a scam every time they offer to pay to sign me up. (Cause that's a massive obvious pyramid scheme red flag in it's self lol)",
">\n\nYeah, good luck with that.",
">\n\nwhat would happen if they just didnt?",
">\n\nHey, since I’m busted now, can I have my bribe back?",
">\n\n“Sure, I’ll undo the last reason I’ve been covering for you.”"
] |
that deskmat is so fancy!!!
|
[] |
>
I'll second that!
|
[
"that deskmat is so fancy!!!"
] |
>
Mason 60 marbled nude case
Minila 60% PCB
Oil king switches
GMK Birch keycaps
Norbauer Palm Desert 1968 deskmat
More pics on my IG
|
[
"that deskmat is so fancy!!!",
">\n\nI'll second that!"
] |
>
Wonder if you can pair this set with Zslane's Rocketeer to complete the retro look. Love the yesteryear vibe - makes me yearn for the past that never existed - haha.
|
[
"that deskmat is so fancy!!!",
">\n\nI'll second that!",
">\n\n\nMason 60 marbled nude case\nMinila 60% PCB\nOil king switches\nGMK Birch keycaps\nNorbauer Palm Desert 1968 deskmat\n\nMore pics on my IG"
] |
>
The Rocketeer green was really disappointing. The build quality was also awful.
Probably the single most disappointing keyboard purchase I've ever made.
|
[
"that deskmat is so fancy!!!",
">\n\nI'll second that!",
">\n\n\nMason 60 marbled nude case\nMinila 60% PCB\nOil king switches\nGMK Birch keycaps\nNorbauer Palm Desert 1968 deskmat\n\nMore pics on my IG",
">\n\nWonder if you can pair this set with Zslane's Rocketeer to complete the retro look. Love the yesteryear vibe - makes me yearn for the past that never existed - haha."
] |
>
I love this look - minimalistic yet really stylized! Great work \^_\^ !
|
[
"that deskmat is so fancy!!!",
">\n\nI'll second that!",
">\n\n\nMason 60 marbled nude case\nMinila 60% PCB\nOil king switches\nGMK Birch keycaps\nNorbauer Palm Desert 1968 deskmat\n\nMore pics on my IG",
">\n\nWonder if you can pair this set with Zslane's Rocketeer to complete the retro look. Love the yesteryear vibe - makes me yearn for the past that never existed - haha.",
">\n\nThe Rocketeer green was really disappointing. The build quality was also awful.\nProbably the single most disappointing keyboard purchase I've ever made."
] |
>
Thank you!
|
[
"that deskmat is so fancy!!!",
">\n\nI'll second that!",
">\n\n\nMason 60 marbled nude case\nMinila 60% PCB\nOil king switches\nGMK Birch keycaps\nNorbauer Palm Desert 1968 deskmat\n\nMore pics on my IG",
">\n\nWonder if you can pair this set with Zslane's Rocketeer to complete the retro look. Love the yesteryear vibe - makes me yearn for the past that never existed - haha.",
">\n\nThe Rocketeer green was really disappointing. The build quality was also awful.\nProbably the single most disappointing keyboard purchase I've ever made.",
">\n\nI love this look - minimalistic yet really stylized! Great work \\^_\\^ !"
] |
>
Looks awesome. How’s the mason60? I have one en route.
|
[
"that deskmat is so fancy!!!",
">\n\nI'll second that!",
">\n\n\nMason 60 marbled nude case\nMinila 60% PCB\nOil king switches\nGMK Birch keycaps\nNorbauer Palm Desert 1968 deskmat\n\nMore pics on my IG",
">\n\nWonder if you can pair this set with Zslane's Rocketeer to complete the retro look. Love the yesteryear vibe - makes me yearn for the past that never existed - haha.",
">\n\nThe Rocketeer green was really disappointing. The build quality was also awful.\nProbably the single most disappointing keyboard purchase I've ever made.",
">\n\nI love this look - minimalistic yet really stylized! Great work \\^_\\^ !",
">\n\nThank you!"
] |
>
I absolute love this case. The material that's used gives it a unique feel, and ends up making it quite heavy as well. Brazen Studio's always releasing cool new styles, so it's hard to not throw money at them :)
|
[
"that deskmat is so fancy!!!",
">\n\nI'll second that!",
">\n\n\nMason 60 marbled nude case\nMinila 60% PCB\nOil king switches\nGMK Birch keycaps\nNorbauer Palm Desert 1968 deskmat\n\nMore pics on my IG",
">\n\nWonder if you can pair this set with Zslane's Rocketeer to complete the retro look. Love the yesteryear vibe - makes me yearn for the past that never existed - haha.",
">\n\nThe Rocketeer green was really disappointing. The build quality was also awful.\nProbably the single most disappointing keyboard purchase I've ever made.",
">\n\nI love this look - minimalistic yet really stylized! Great work \\^_\\^ !",
">\n\nThank you!",
">\n\nLooks awesome. How’s the mason60? I have one en route."
] |
>
Thoughts on the Mason case and how does this guy sound? Looks great!
|
[
"that deskmat is so fancy!!!",
">\n\nI'll second that!",
">\n\n\nMason 60 marbled nude case\nMinila 60% PCB\nOil king switches\nGMK Birch keycaps\nNorbauer Palm Desert 1968 deskmat\n\nMore pics on my IG",
">\n\nWonder if you can pair this set with Zslane's Rocketeer to complete the retro look. Love the yesteryear vibe - makes me yearn for the past that never existed - haha.",
">\n\nThe Rocketeer green was really disappointing. The build quality was also awful.\nProbably the single most disappointing keyboard purchase I've ever made.",
">\n\nI love this look - minimalistic yet really stylized! Great work \\^_\\^ !",
">\n\nThank you!",
">\n\nLooks awesome. How’s the mason60? I have one en route.",
">\n\nI absolute love this case. The material that's used gives it a unique feel, and ends up making it quite heavy as well. Brazen Studio's always releasing cool new styles, so it's hard to not throw money at them :)"
] |
>
I own 2 of them (this one, and one from the Zen series), so I definitely recommend them. There are some sound tests on their YouTube channel, but from personal experience, I think the board sounds wonderful.
|
[
"that deskmat is so fancy!!!",
">\n\nI'll second that!",
">\n\n\nMason 60 marbled nude case\nMinila 60% PCB\nOil king switches\nGMK Birch keycaps\nNorbauer Palm Desert 1968 deskmat\n\nMore pics on my IG",
">\n\nWonder if you can pair this set with Zslane's Rocketeer to complete the retro look. Love the yesteryear vibe - makes me yearn for the past that never existed - haha.",
">\n\nThe Rocketeer green was really disappointing. The build quality was also awful.\nProbably the single most disappointing keyboard purchase I've ever made.",
">\n\nI love this look - minimalistic yet really stylized! Great work \\^_\\^ !",
">\n\nThank you!",
">\n\nLooks awesome. How’s the mason60? I have one en route.",
">\n\nI absolute love this case. The material that's used gives it a unique feel, and ends up making it quite heavy as well. Brazen Studio's always releasing cool new styles, so it's hard to not throw money at them :)",
">\n\nThoughts on the Mason case and how does this guy sound? Looks great!"
] |
>
|
[
"that deskmat is so fancy!!!",
">\n\nI'll second that!",
">\n\n\nMason 60 marbled nude case\nMinila 60% PCB\nOil king switches\nGMK Birch keycaps\nNorbauer Palm Desert 1968 deskmat\n\nMore pics on my IG",
">\n\nWonder if you can pair this set with Zslane's Rocketeer to complete the retro look. Love the yesteryear vibe - makes me yearn for the past that never existed - haha.",
">\n\nThe Rocketeer green was really disappointing. The build quality was also awful.\nProbably the single most disappointing keyboard purchase I've ever made.",
">\n\nI love this look - minimalistic yet really stylized! Great work \\^_\\^ !",
">\n\nThank you!",
">\n\nLooks awesome. How’s the mason60? I have one en route.",
">\n\nI absolute love this case. The material that's used gives it a unique feel, and ends up making it quite heavy as well. Brazen Studio's always releasing cool new styles, so it's hard to not throw money at them :)",
">\n\nThoughts on the Mason case and how does this guy sound? Looks great!",
">\n\nI own 2 of them (this one, and one from the Zen series), so I definitely recommend them. There are some sound tests on their YouTube channel, but from personal experience, I think the board sounds wonderful."
] |
"Hi, girls"
*cue laughing tracks*
|
[] |
>
I agree. My husband strongly agrees. However I saw this film called “the watchers “ iin which she actually acted. I can’t say that she was far off from the character she always plays ( herself) but she had a character.
|
[
"\"Hi, girls\"\n*cue laughing tracks*"
] |
>
You mean the show, not film, called “The Watcher”, not “The Watchers”
|
[
"\"Hi, girls\"\n*cue laughing tracks*",
">\n\nI agree. My husband strongly agrees. However I saw this film called “the watchers “ iin which she actually acted. I can’t say that she was far off from the character she always plays ( herself) but she had a character."
] |
>
Plastic wine monster
|
[
"\"Hi, girls\"\n*cue laughing tracks*",
">\n\nI agree. My husband strongly agrees. However I saw this film called “the watchers “ iin which she actually acted. I can’t say that she was far off from the character she always plays ( herself) but she had a character.",
">\n\nYou mean the show, not film, called “The Watcher”, not “The Watchers”"
] |
>
Lmao yesss
|
[
"\"Hi, girls\"\n*cue laughing tracks*",
">\n\nI agree. My husband strongly agrees. However I saw this film called “the watchers “ iin which she actually acted. I can’t say that she was far off from the character she always plays ( herself) but she had a character.",
">\n\nYou mean the show, not film, called “The Watcher”, not “The Watchers”",
">\n\nPlastic wine monster"
] |
>
100% yes
|
[
"\"Hi, girls\"\n*cue laughing tracks*",
">\n\nI agree. My husband strongly agrees. However I saw this film called “the watchers “ iin which she actually acted. I can’t say that she was far off from the character she always plays ( herself) but she had a character.",
">\n\nYou mean the show, not film, called “The Watcher”, not “The Watchers”",
">\n\nPlastic wine monster",
">\n\nLmao yesss"
] |
>
I think as a woman her roles are actually very nuanced and she goes between them seamlessly. There is a big difference between “the dumb blonde” (legally blonde) “the bored housewife” (american pie) and the “the grieving heiress” (white lotus). Women tend to be lumped together as all the same, and Jennifer Coolidge’s acting makes all of these vastly different roles seem so natural.
|
[
"\"Hi, girls\"\n*cue laughing tracks*",
">\n\nI agree. My husband strongly agrees. However I saw this film called “the watchers “ iin which she actually acted. I can’t say that she was far off from the character she always plays ( herself) but she had a character.",
">\n\nYou mean the show, not film, called “The Watcher”, not “The Watchers”",
">\n\nPlastic wine monster",
">\n\nLmao yesss",
">\n\n100% yes"
] |
>
I cant tell if this post is a joke or not lol
|
[
"\"Hi, girls\"\n*cue laughing tracks*",
">\n\nI agree. My husband strongly agrees. However I saw this film called “the watchers “ iin which she actually acted. I can’t say that she was far off from the character she always plays ( herself) but she had a character.",
">\n\nYou mean the show, not film, called “The Watcher”, not “The Watchers”",
">\n\nPlastic wine monster",
">\n\nLmao yesss",
">\n\n100% yes",
">\n\nI think as a woman her roles are actually very nuanced and she goes between them seamlessly. There is a big difference between “the dumb blonde” (legally blonde) “the bored housewife” (american pie) and the “the grieving heiress” (white lotus). Women tend to be lumped together as all the same, and Jennifer Coolidge’s acting makes all of these vastly different roles seem so natural."
] |
>
Nope. just someone respectfully disagreeing with you.
|
[
"\"Hi, girls\"\n*cue laughing tracks*",
">\n\nI agree. My husband strongly agrees. However I saw this film called “the watchers “ iin which she actually acted. I can’t say that she was far off from the character she always plays ( herself) but she had a character.",
">\n\nYou mean the show, not film, called “The Watcher”, not “The Watchers”",
">\n\nPlastic wine monster",
">\n\nLmao yesss",
">\n\n100% yes",
">\n\nI think as a woman her roles are actually very nuanced and she goes between them seamlessly. There is a big difference between “the dumb blonde” (legally blonde) “the bored housewife” (american pie) and the “the grieving heiress” (white lotus). Women tend to be lumped together as all the same, and Jennifer Coolidge’s acting makes all of these vastly different roles seem so natural.",
">\n\nI cant tell if this post is a joke or not lol"
] |
>
Makes me want a hot dog reaaaaaallll bad 😫😫😫
|
[
"\"Hi, girls\"\n*cue laughing tracks*",
">\n\nI agree. My husband strongly agrees. However I saw this film called “the watchers “ iin which she actually acted. I can’t say that she was far off from the character she always plays ( herself) but she had a character.",
">\n\nYou mean the show, not film, called “The Watcher”, not “The Watchers”",
">\n\nPlastic wine monster",
">\n\nLmao yesss",
">\n\n100% yes",
">\n\nI think as a woman her roles are actually very nuanced and she goes between them seamlessly. There is a big difference between “the dumb blonde” (legally blonde) “the bored housewife” (american pie) and the “the grieving heiress” (white lotus). Women tend to be lumped together as all the same, and Jennifer Coolidge’s acting makes all of these vastly different roles seem so natural.",
">\n\nI cant tell if this post is a joke or not lol",
">\n\nNope. just someone respectfully disagreeing with you."
] |
>
At first I thought, who?
Then I remembered who she was, and I totally agree!
|
[
"\"Hi, girls\"\n*cue laughing tracks*",
">\n\nI agree. My husband strongly agrees. However I saw this film called “the watchers “ iin which she actually acted. I can’t say that she was far off from the character she always plays ( herself) but she had a character.",
">\n\nYou mean the show, not film, called “The Watcher”, not “The Watchers”",
">\n\nPlastic wine monster",
">\n\nLmao yesss",
">\n\n100% yes",
">\n\nI think as a woman her roles are actually very nuanced and she goes between them seamlessly. There is a big difference between “the dumb blonde” (legally blonde) “the bored housewife” (american pie) and the “the grieving heiress” (white lotus). Women tend to be lumped together as all the same, and Jennifer Coolidge’s acting makes all of these vastly different roles seem so natural.",
">\n\nI cant tell if this post is a joke or not lol",
">\n\nNope. just someone respectfully disagreeing with you.",
">\n\nMakes me want a hot dog reaaaaaallll bad 😫😫😫"
] |
>
Yeah she's a bit of a one trick pony, but if we're going to be honest here most actors tends to be and that's rarely a problem. She's alright. She'll always be Stiffler's mom in my heart.
|
[
"\"Hi, girls\"\n*cue laughing tracks*",
">\n\nI agree. My husband strongly agrees. However I saw this film called “the watchers “ iin which she actually acted. I can’t say that she was far off from the character she always plays ( herself) but she had a character.",
">\n\nYou mean the show, not film, called “The Watcher”, not “The Watchers”",
">\n\nPlastic wine monster",
">\n\nLmao yesss",
">\n\n100% yes",
">\n\nI think as a woman her roles are actually very nuanced and she goes between them seamlessly. There is a big difference between “the dumb blonde” (legally blonde) “the bored housewife” (american pie) and the “the grieving heiress” (white lotus). Women tend to be lumped together as all the same, and Jennifer Coolidge’s acting makes all of these vastly different roles seem so natural.",
">\n\nI cant tell if this post is a joke or not lol",
">\n\nNope. just someone respectfully disagreeing with you.",
">\n\nMakes me want a hot dog reaaaaaallll bad 😫😫😫",
">\n\nAt first I thought, who?\nThen I remembered who she was, and I totally agree!"
] |
>
Just so we’re clear, by “huge acting renaissance” you’re referring to her one successful thing she’s be apart of in like 20 years?
|
[
"\"Hi, girls\"\n*cue laughing tracks*",
">\n\nI agree. My husband strongly agrees. However I saw this film called “the watchers “ iin which she actually acted. I can’t say that she was far off from the character she always plays ( herself) but she had a character.",
">\n\nYou mean the show, not film, called “The Watcher”, not “The Watchers”",
">\n\nPlastic wine monster",
">\n\nLmao yesss",
">\n\n100% yes",
">\n\nI think as a woman her roles are actually very nuanced and she goes between them seamlessly. There is a big difference between “the dumb blonde” (legally blonde) “the bored housewife” (american pie) and the “the grieving heiress” (white lotus). Women tend to be lumped together as all the same, and Jennifer Coolidge’s acting makes all of these vastly different roles seem so natural.",
">\n\nI cant tell if this post is a joke or not lol",
">\n\nNope. just someone respectfully disagreeing with you.",
">\n\nMakes me want a hot dog reaaaaaallll bad 😫😫😫",
">\n\nAt first I thought, who?\nThen I remembered who she was, and I totally agree!",
">\n\nYeah she's a bit of a one trick pony, but if we're going to be honest here most actors tends to be and that's rarely a problem. She's alright. She'll always be Stiffler's mom in my heart."
] |
>
I do keep seeing her in TV ads lately tbf, twice in one ad break just now.
|
[
"\"Hi, girls\"\n*cue laughing tracks*",
">\n\nI agree. My husband strongly agrees. However I saw this film called “the watchers “ iin which she actually acted. I can’t say that she was far off from the character she always plays ( herself) but she had a character.",
">\n\nYou mean the show, not film, called “The Watcher”, not “The Watchers”",
">\n\nPlastic wine monster",
">\n\nLmao yesss",
">\n\n100% yes",
">\n\nI think as a woman her roles are actually very nuanced and she goes between them seamlessly. There is a big difference between “the dumb blonde” (legally blonde) “the bored housewife” (american pie) and the “the grieving heiress” (white lotus). Women tend to be lumped together as all the same, and Jennifer Coolidge’s acting makes all of these vastly different roles seem so natural.",
">\n\nI cant tell if this post is a joke or not lol",
">\n\nNope. just someone respectfully disagreeing with you.",
">\n\nMakes me want a hot dog reaaaaaallll bad 😫😫😫",
">\n\nAt first I thought, who?\nThen I remembered who she was, and I totally agree!",
">\n\nYeah she's a bit of a one trick pony, but if we're going to be honest here most actors tends to be and that's rarely a problem. She's alright. She'll always be Stiffler's mom in my heart.",
">\n\nJust so we’re clear, by “huge acting renaissance” you’re referring to her one successful thing she’s be apart of in like 20 years?"
] |
>
She is niche and I think she’s awesome, you have my upvote
|
[
"\"Hi, girls\"\n*cue laughing tracks*",
">\n\nI agree. My husband strongly agrees. However I saw this film called “the watchers “ iin which she actually acted. I can’t say that she was far off from the character she always plays ( herself) but she had a character.",
">\n\nYou mean the show, not film, called “The Watcher”, not “The Watchers”",
">\n\nPlastic wine monster",
">\n\nLmao yesss",
">\n\n100% yes",
">\n\nI think as a woman her roles are actually very nuanced and she goes between them seamlessly. There is a big difference between “the dumb blonde” (legally blonde) “the bored housewife” (american pie) and the “the grieving heiress” (white lotus). Women tend to be lumped together as all the same, and Jennifer Coolidge’s acting makes all of these vastly different roles seem so natural.",
">\n\nI cant tell if this post is a joke or not lol",
">\n\nNope. just someone respectfully disagreeing with you.",
">\n\nMakes me want a hot dog reaaaaaallll bad 😫😫😫",
">\n\nAt first I thought, who?\nThen I remembered who she was, and I totally agree!",
">\n\nYeah she's a bit of a one trick pony, but if we're going to be honest here most actors tends to be and that's rarely a problem. She's alright. She'll always be Stiffler's mom in my heart.",
">\n\nJust so we’re clear, by “huge acting renaissance” you’re referring to her one successful thing she’s be apart of in like 20 years?",
">\n\nI do keep seeing her in TV ads lately tbf, twice in one ad break just now."
] |
>
Had to Google her... Oh Stifler's Mom, got it. I haven't seen her in much. I suppose what I have though, yeah it has all been the same.
To cut some slack, you can say the same about a few dozen actors at the top of the ladder as well.
Like, any action star... I used to love action flicks, now they are just so damn one dimensional. You took/killed my daughter/dog/wife/friend/car/money prepare to get f*ked... You and everyone you know! ...and all of there brothers ...and cousins ...and uncles ...and guy friends ...and seriously how many friggen dudes do you know, I have murdered like 100 of them by now. Why the hell are they so willing to die for you? But we still aren't even until I punch you out of a building/car/plane ...something high or fast. Hell maybe I will just blow you up.
Like every genera of movie has a basic AF recipe. It is like McDonalds, the same slop, but we still eat it consistently. Funny enough when someone breaks the mold we react confused, as if we were biting into a McSloppy, but got a hamburger instead. "Oh shit, I don't know if I liked that or not." 🤔 Then the Hamburger gets mixed reviews and less people have the stones to cook real food. Why play it risky when the recipe is proven safe?
|
[
"\"Hi, girls\"\n*cue laughing tracks*",
">\n\nI agree. My husband strongly agrees. However I saw this film called “the watchers “ iin which she actually acted. I can’t say that she was far off from the character she always plays ( herself) but she had a character.",
">\n\nYou mean the show, not film, called “The Watcher”, not “The Watchers”",
">\n\nPlastic wine monster",
">\n\nLmao yesss",
">\n\n100% yes",
">\n\nI think as a woman her roles are actually very nuanced and she goes between them seamlessly. There is a big difference between “the dumb blonde” (legally blonde) “the bored housewife” (american pie) and the “the grieving heiress” (white lotus). Women tend to be lumped together as all the same, and Jennifer Coolidge’s acting makes all of these vastly different roles seem so natural.",
">\n\nI cant tell if this post is a joke or not lol",
">\n\nNope. just someone respectfully disagreeing with you.",
">\n\nMakes me want a hot dog reaaaaaallll bad 😫😫😫",
">\n\nAt first I thought, who?\nThen I remembered who she was, and I totally agree!",
">\n\nYeah she's a bit of a one trick pony, but if we're going to be honest here most actors tends to be and that's rarely a problem. She's alright. She'll always be Stiffler's mom in my heart.",
">\n\nJust so we’re clear, by “huge acting renaissance” you’re referring to her one successful thing she’s be apart of in like 20 years?",
">\n\nI do keep seeing her in TV ads lately tbf, twice in one ad break just now.",
">\n\nShe is niche and I think she’s awesome, you have my upvote"
] |
>
I think the difference is that many characters are written poorly, so it reflects back on the actor. Coolidge just literally plays any decent character the same way and its so stupid.
|
[
"\"Hi, girls\"\n*cue laughing tracks*",
">\n\nI agree. My husband strongly agrees. However I saw this film called “the watchers “ iin which she actually acted. I can’t say that she was far off from the character she always plays ( herself) but she had a character.",
">\n\nYou mean the show, not film, called “The Watcher”, not “The Watchers”",
">\n\nPlastic wine monster",
">\n\nLmao yesss",
">\n\n100% yes",
">\n\nI think as a woman her roles are actually very nuanced and she goes between them seamlessly. There is a big difference between “the dumb blonde” (legally blonde) “the bored housewife” (american pie) and the “the grieving heiress” (white lotus). Women tend to be lumped together as all the same, and Jennifer Coolidge’s acting makes all of these vastly different roles seem so natural.",
">\n\nI cant tell if this post is a joke or not lol",
">\n\nNope. just someone respectfully disagreeing with you.",
">\n\nMakes me want a hot dog reaaaaaallll bad 😫😫😫",
">\n\nAt first I thought, who?\nThen I remembered who she was, and I totally agree!",
">\n\nYeah she's a bit of a one trick pony, but if we're going to be honest here most actors tends to be and that's rarely a problem. She's alright. She'll always be Stiffler's mom in my heart.",
">\n\nJust so we’re clear, by “huge acting renaissance” you’re referring to her one successful thing she’s be apart of in like 20 years?",
">\n\nI do keep seeing her in TV ads lately tbf, twice in one ad break just now.",
">\n\nShe is niche and I think she’s awesome, you have my upvote",
">\n\nHad to Google her... Oh Stifler's Mom, got it. I haven't seen her in much. I suppose what I have though, yeah it has all been the same.\nTo cut some slack, you can say the same about a few dozen actors at the top of the ladder as well.\nLike, any action star... I used to love action flicks, now they are just so damn one dimensional. You took/killed my daughter/dog/wife/friend/car/money prepare to get f*ked... You and everyone you know! ...and all of there brothers ...and cousins ...and uncles ...and guy friends ...and seriously how many friggen dudes do you know, I have murdered like 100 of them by now. Why the hell are they so willing to die for you? But we still aren't even until I punch you out of a building/car/plane ...something high or fast. Hell maybe I will just blow you up.\nLike every genera of movie has a basic AF recipe. It is like McDonalds, the same slop, but we still eat it consistently. Funny enough when someone breaks the mold we react confused, as if we were biting into a McSloppy, but got a hamburger instead. \"Oh shit, I don't know if I liked that or not.\" 🤔 Then the Hamburger gets mixed reviews and less people have the stones to cook real food. Why play it risky when the recipe is proven safe?"
] |
>
Haha, maybe true, but the devil's advocate in me says that it is kind of the job of the actor to bring the character to life and push beyond the dimensions (or lack there of) what is written. That is basically what is happening with Coolidge, she is only bringing forth her tried and true recipe, not any other dimensions. The down side to this, is that it may actually lose some of the character (as written) because it doesn't fit her recipe. Only when the plot is banging and the character portrayal flops, can we actually tell it was bad acting and not bad writing.
I think this is why so many writers and director write with an actor in mind. Thier recipe will fit this character and plot.
This is also where we fall into type casting. Again if the recipe is good enough we will keep coming back... even if it is the same ol rinse and repeat.
|
[
"\"Hi, girls\"\n*cue laughing tracks*",
">\n\nI agree. My husband strongly agrees. However I saw this film called “the watchers “ iin which she actually acted. I can’t say that she was far off from the character she always plays ( herself) but she had a character.",
">\n\nYou mean the show, not film, called “The Watcher”, not “The Watchers”",
">\n\nPlastic wine monster",
">\n\nLmao yesss",
">\n\n100% yes",
">\n\nI think as a woman her roles are actually very nuanced and she goes between them seamlessly. There is a big difference between “the dumb blonde” (legally blonde) “the bored housewife” (american pie) and the “the grieving heiress” (white lotus). Women tend to be lumped together as all the same, and Jennifer Coolidge’s acting makes all of these vastly different roles seem so natural.",
">\n\nI cant tell if this post is a joke or not lol",
">\n\nNope. just someone respectfully disagreeing with you.",
">\n\nMakes me want a hot dog reaaaaaallll bad 😫😫😫",
">\n\nAt first I thought, who?\nThen I remembered who she was, and I totally agree!",
">\n\nYeah she's a bit of a one trick pony, but if we're going to be honest here most actors tends to be and that's rarely a problem. She's alright. She'll always be Stiffler's mom in my heart.",
">\n\nJust so we’re clear, by “huge acting renaissance” you’re referring to her one successful thing she’s be apart of in like 20 years?",
">\n\nI do keep seeing her in TV ads lately tbf, twice in one ad break just now.",
">\n\nShe is niche and I think she’s awesome, you have my upvote",
">\n\nHad to Google her... Oh Stifler's Mom, got it. I haven't seen her in much. I suppose what I have though, yeah it has all been the same.\nTo cut some slack, you can say the same about a few dozen actors at the top of the ladder as well.\nLike, any action star... I used to love action flicks, now they are just so damn one dimensional. You took/killed my daughter/dog/wife/friend/car/money prepare to get f*ked... You and everyone you know! ...and all of there brothers ...and cousins ...and uncles ...and guy friends ...and seriously how many friggen dudes do you know, I have murdered like 100 of them by now. Why the hell are they so willing to die for you? But we still aren't even until I punch you out of a building/car/plane ...something high or fast. Hell maybe I will just blow you up.\nLike every genera of movie has a basic AF recipe. It is like McDonalds, the same slop, but we still eat it consistently. Funny enough when someone breaks the mold we react confused, as if we were biting into a McSloppy, but got a hamburger instead. \"Oh shit, I don't know if I liked that or not.\" 🤔 Then the Hamburger gets mixed reviews and less people have the stones to cook real food. Why play it risky when the recipe is proven safe?",
">\n\nI think the difference is that many characters are written poorly, so it reflects back on the actor. Coolidge just literally plays any decent character the same way and its so stupid."
] |
>
Renaissance? She's been popular for decades now
|
[
"\"Hi, girls\"\n*cue laughing tracks*",
">\n\nI agree. My husband strongly agrees. However I saw this film called “the watchers “ iin which she actually acted. I can’t say that she was far off from the character she always plays ( herself) but she had a character.",
">\n\nYou mean the show, not film, called “The Watcher”, not “The Watchers”",
">\n\nPlastic wine monster",
">\n\nLmao yesss",
">\n\n100% yes",
">\n\nI think as a woman her roles are actually very nuanced and she goes between them seamlessly. There is a big difference between “the dumb blonde” (legally blonde) “the bored housewife” (american pie) and the “the grieving heiress” (white lotus). Women tend to be lumped together as all the same, and Jennifer Coolidge’s acting makes all of these vastly different roles seem so natural.",
">\n\nI cant tell if this post is a joke or not lol",
">\n\nNope. just someone respectfully disagreeing with you.",
">\n\nMakes me want a hot dog reaaaaaallll bad 😫😫😫",
">\n\nAt first I thought, who?\nThen I remembered who she was, and I totally agree!",
">\n\nYeah she's a bit of a one trick pony, but if we're going to be honest here most actors tends to be and that's rarely a problem. She's alright. She'll always be Stiffler's mom in my heart.",
">\n\nJust so we’re clear, by “huge acting renaissance” you’re referring to her one successful thing she’s be apart of in like 20 years?",
">\n\nI do keep seeing her in TV ads lately tbf, twice in one ad break just now.",
">\n\nShe is niche and I think she’s awesome, you have my upvote",
">\n\nHad to Google her... Oh Stifler's Mom, got it. I haven't seen her in much. I suppose what I have though, yeah it has all been the same.\nTo cut some slack, you can say the same about a few dozen actors at the top of the ladder as well.\nLike, any action star... I used to love action flicks, now they are just so damn one dimensional. You took/killed my daughter/dog/wife/friend/car/money prepare to get f*ked... You and everyone you know! ...and all of there brothers ...and cousins ...and uncles ...and guy friends ...and seriously how many friggen dudes do you know, I have murdered like 100 of them by now. Why the hell are they so willing to die for you? But we still aren't even until I punch you out of a building/car/plane ...something high or fast. Hell maybe I will just blow you up.\nLike every genera of movie has a basic AF recipe. It is like McDonalds, the same slop, but we still eat it consistently. Funny enough when someone breaks the mold we react confused, as if we were biting into a McSloppy, but got a hamburger instead. \"Oh shit, I don't know if I liked that or not.\" 🤔 Then the Hamburger gets mixed reviews and less people have the stones to cook real food. Why play it risky when the recipe is proven safe?",
">\n\nI think the difference is that many characters are written poorly, so it reflects back on the actor. Coolidge just literally plays any decent character the same way and its so stupid.",
">\n\nHaha, maybe true, but the devil's advocate in me says that it is kind of the job of the actor to bring the character to life and push beyond the dimensions (or lack there of) what is written. That is basically what is happening with Coolidge, she is only bringing forth her tried and true recipe, not any other dimensions. The down side to this, is that it may actually lose some of the character (as written) because it doesn't fit her recipe. Only when the plot is banging and the character portrayal flops, can we actually tell it was bad acting and not bad writing.\nI think this is why so many writers and director write with an actor in mind. Thier recipe will fit this character and plot.\nThis is also where we fall into type casting. Again if the recipe is good enough we will keep coming back... even if it is the same ol rinse and repeat."
] |
>
But she's sooo funny .... /s
|
[
"\"Hi, girls\"\n*cue laughing tracks*",
">\n\nI agree. My husband strongly agrees. However I saw this film called “the watchers “ iin which she actually acted. I can’t say that she was far off from the character she always plays ( herself) but she had a character.",
">\n\nYou mean the show, not film, called “The Watcher”, not “The Watchers”",
">\n\nPlastic wine monster",
">\n\nLmao yesss",
">\n\n100% yes",
">\n\nI think as a woman her roles are actually very nuanced and she goes between them seamlessly. There is a big difference between “the dumb blonde” (legally blonde) “the bored housewife” (american pie) and the “the grieving heiress” (white lotus). Women tend to be lumped together as all the same, and Jennifer Coolidge’s acting makes all of these vastly different roles seem so natural.",
">\n\nI cant tell if this post is a joke or not lol",
">\n\nNope. just someone respectfully disagreeing with you.",
">\n\nMakes me want a hot dog reaaaaaallll bad 😫😫😫",
">\n\nAt first I thought, who?\nThen I remembered who she was, and I totally agree!",
">\n\nYeah she's a bit of a one trick pony, but if we're going to be honest here most actors tends to be and that's rarely a problem. She's alright. She'll always be Stiffler's mom in my heart.",
">\n\nJust so we’re clear, by “huge acting renaissance” you’re referring to her one successful thing she’s be apart of in like 20 years?",
">\n\nI do keep seeing her in TV ads lately tbf, twice in one ad break just now.",
">\n\nShe is niche and I think she’s awesome, you have my upvote",
">\n\nHad to Google her... Oh Stifler's Mom, got it. I haven't seen her in much. I suppose what I have though, yeah it has all been the same.\nTo cut some slack, you can say the same about a few dozen actors at the top of the ladder as well.\nLike, any action star... I used to love action flicks, now they are just so damn one dimensional. You took/killed my daughter/dog/wife/friend/car/money prepare to get f*ked... You and everyone you know! ...and all of there brothers ...and cousins ...and uncles ...and guy friends ...and seriously how many friggen dudes do you know, I have murdered like 100 of them by now. Why the hell are they so willing to die for you? But we still aren't even until I punch you out of a building/car/plane ...something high or fast. Hell maybe I will just blow you up.\nLike every genera of movie has a basic AF recipe. It is like McDonalds, the same slop, but we still eat it consistently. Funny enough when someone breaks the mold we react confused, as if we were biting into a McSloppy, but got a hamburger instead. \"Oh shit, I don't know if I liked that or not.\" 🤔 Then the Hamburger gets mixed reviews and less people have the stones to cook real food. Why play it risky when the recipe is proven safe?",
">\n\nI think the difference is that many characters are written poorly, so it reflects back on the actor. Coolidge just literally plays any decent character the same way and its so stupid.",
">\n\nHaha, maybe true, but the devil's advocate in me says that it is kind of the job of the actor to bring the character to life and push beyond the dimensions (or lack there of) what is written. That is basically what is happening with Coolidge, she is only bringing forth her tried and true recipe, not any other dimensions. The down side to this, is that it may actually lose some of the character (as written) because it doesn't fit her recipe. Only when the plot is banging and the character portrayal flops, can we actually tell it was bad acting and not bad writing.\nI think this is why so many writers and director write with an actor in mind. Thier recipe will fit this character and plot.\nThis is also where we fall into type casting. Again if the recipe is good enough we will keep coming back... even if it is the same ol rinse and repeat.",
">\n\nRenaissance? She's been popular for decades now"
] |
>
Her jokes are so crass. Ugh, last I heard her shes talking about about banging 200 dudes like its an accomplishment
|
[
"\"Hi, girls\"\n*cue laughing tracks*",
">\n\nI agree. My husband strongly agrees. However I saw this film called “the watchers “ iin which she actually acted. I can’t say that she was far off from the character she always plays ( herself) but she had a character.",
">\n\nYou mean the show, not film, called “The Watcher”, not “The Watchers”",
">\n\nPlastic wine monster",
">\n\nLmao yesss",
">\n\n100% yes",
">\n\nI think as a woman her roles are actually very nuanced and she goes between them seamlessly. There is a big difference between “the dumb blonde” (legally blonde) “the bored housewife” (american pie) and the “the grieving heiress” (white lotus). Women tend to be lumped together as all the same, and Jennifer Coolidge’s acting makes all of these vastly different roles seem so natural.",
">\n\nI cant tell if this post is a joke or not lol",
">\n\nNope. just someone respectfully disagreeing with you.",
">\n\nMakes me want a hot dog reaaaaaallll bad 😫😫😫",
">\n\nAt first I thought, who?\nThen I remembered who she was, and I totally agree!",
">\n\nYeah she's a bit of a one trick pony, but if we're going to be honest here most actors tends to be and that's rarely a problem. She's alright. She'll always be Stiffler's mom in my heart.",
">\n\nJust so we’re clear, by “huge acting renaissance” you’re referring to her one successful thing she’s be apart of in like 20 years?",
">\n\nI do keep seeing her in TV ads lately tbf, twice in one ad break just now.",
">\n\nShe is niche and I think she’s awesome, you have my upvote",
">\n\nHad to Google her... Oh Stifler's Mom, got it. I haven't seen her in much. I suppose what I have though, yeah it has all been the same.\nTo cut some slack, you can say the same about a few dozen actors at the top of the ladder as well.\nLike, any action star... I used to love action flicks, now they are just so damn one dimensional. You took/killed my daughter/dog/wife/friend/car/money prepare to get f*ked... You and everyone you know! ...and all of there brothers ...and cousins ...and uncles ...and guy friends ...and seriously how many friggen dudes do you know, I have murdered like 100 of them by now. Why the hell are they so willing to die for you? But we still aren't even until I punch you out of a building/car/plane ...something high or fast. Hell maybe I will just blow you up.\nLike every genera of movie has a basic AF recipe. It is like McDonalds, the same slop, but we still eat it consistently. Funny enough when someone breaks the mold we react confused, as if we were biting into a McSloppy, but got a hamburger instead. \"Oh shit, I don't know if I liked that or not.\" 🤔 Then the Hamburger gets mixed reviews and less people have the stones to cook real food. Why play it risky when the recipe is proven safe?",
">\n\nI think the difference is that many characters are written poorly, so it reflects back on the actor. Coolidge just literally plays any decent character the same way and its so stupid.",
">\n\nHaha, maybe true, but the devil's advocate in me says that it is kind of the job of the actor to bring the character to life and push beyond the dimensions (or lack there of) what is written. That is basically what is happening with Coolidge, she is only bringing forth her tried and true recipe, not any other dimensions. The down side to this, is that it may actually lose some of the character (as written) because it doesn't fit her recipe. Only when the plot is banging and the character portrayal flops, can we actually tell it was bad acting and not bad writing.\nI think this is why so many writers and director write with an actor in mind. Thier recipe will fit this character and plot.\nThis is also where we fall into type casting. Again if the recipe is good enough we will keep coming back... even if it is the same ol rinse and repeat.",
">\n\nRenaissance? She's been popular for decades now",
">\n\nBut she's sooo funny .... /s"
] |
>
I always thought her humor was to shock everyone. "Ooh, i am doing something unexpected. Isn't it shocking?!"
|
[
"\"Hi, girls\"\n*cue laughing tracks*",
">\n\nI agree. My husband strongly agrees. However I saw this film called “the watchers “ iin which she actually acted. I can’t say that she was far off from the character she always plays ( herself) but she had a character.",
">\n\nYou mean the show, not film, called “The Watcher”, not “The Watchers”",
">\n\nPlastic wine monster",
">\n\nLmao yesss",
">\n\n100% yes",
">\n\nI think as a woman her roles are actually very nuanced and she goes between them seamlessly. There is a big difference between “the dumb blonde” (legally blonde) “the bored housewife” (american pie) and the “the grieving heiress” (white lotus). Women tend to be lumped together as all the same, and Jennifer Coolidge’s acting makes all of these vastly different roles seem so natural.",
">\n\nI cant tell if this post is a joke or not lol",
">\n\nNope. just someone respectfully disagreeing with you.",
">\n\nMakes me want a hot dog reaaaaaallll bad 😫😫😫",
">\n\nAt first I thought, who?\nThen I remembered who she was, and I totally agree!",
">\n\nYeah she's a bit of a one trick pony, but if we're going to be honest here most actors tends to be and that's rarely a problem. She's alright. She'll always be Stiffler's mom in my heart.",
">\n\nJust so we’re clear, by “huge acting renaissance” you’re referring to her one successful thing she’s be apart of in like 20 years?",
">\n\nI do keep seeing her in TV ads lately tbf, twice in one ad break just now.",
">\n\nShe is niche and I think she’s awesome, you have my upvote",
">\n\nHad to Google her... Oh Stifler's Mom, got it. I haven't seen her in much. I suppose what I have though, yeah it has all been the same.\nTo cut some slack, you can say the same about a few dozen actors at the top of the ladder as well.\nLike, any action star... I used to love action flicks, now they are just so damn one dimensional. You took/killed my daughter/dog/wife/friend/car/money prepare to get f*ked... You and everyone you know! ...and all of there brothers ...and cousins ...and uncles ...and guy friends ...and seriously how many friggen dudes do you know, I have murdered like 100 of them by now. Why the hell are they so willing to die for you? But we still aren't even until I punch you out of a building/car/plane ...something high or fast. Hell maybe I will just blow you up.\nLike every genera of movie has a basic AF recipe. It is like McDonalds, the same slop, but we still eat it consistently. Funny enough when someone breaks the mold we react confused, as if we were biting into a McSloppy, but got a hamburger instead. \"Oh shit, I don't know if I liked that or not.\" 🤔 Then the Hamburger gets mixed reviews and less people have the stones to cook real food. Why play it risky when the recipe is proven safe?",
">\n\nI think the difference is that many characters are written poorly, so it reflects back on the actor. Coolidge just literally plays any decent character the same way and its so stupid.",
">\n\nHaha, maybe true, but the devil's advocate in me says that it is kind of the job of the actor to bring the character to life and push beyond the dimensions (or lack there of) what is written. That is basically what is happening with Coolidge, she is only bringing forth her tried and true recipe, not any other dimensions. The down side to this, is that it may actually lose some of the character (as written) because it doesn't fit her recipe. Only when the plot is banging and the character portrayal flops, can we actually tell it was bad acting and not bad writing.\nI think this is why so many writers and director write with an actor in mind. Thier recipe will fit this character and plot.\nThis is also where we fall into type casting. Again if the recipe is good enough we will keep coming back... even if it is the same ol rinse and repeat.",
">\n\nRenaissance? She's been popular for decades now",
">\n\nBut she's sooo funny .... /s",
">\n\nHer jokes are so crass. Ugh, last I heard her shes talking about about banging 200 dudes like its an accomplishment"
] |
>
She's the reason why I stopped at the pilot episode of White Lotus.
|
[
"\"Hi, girls\"\n*cue laughing tracks*",
">\n\nI agree. My husband strongly agrees. However I saw this film called “the watchers “ iin which she actually acted. I can’t say that she was far off from the character she always plays ( herself) but she had a character.",
">\n\nYou mean the show, not film, called “The Watcher”, not “The Watchers”",
">\n\nPlastic wine monster",
">\n\nLmao yesss",
">\n\n100% yes",
">\n\nI think as a woman her roles are actually very nuanced and she goes between them seamlessly. There is a big difference between “the dumb blonde” (legally blonde) “the bored housewife” (american pie) and the “the grieving heiress” (white lotus). Women tend to be lumped together as all the same, and Jennifer Coolidge’s acting makes all of these vastly different roles seem so natural.",
">\n\nI cant tell if this post is a joke or not lol",
">\n\nNope. just someone respectfully disagreeing with you.",
">\n\nMakes me want a hot dog reaaaaaallll bad 😫😫😫",
">\n\nAt first I thought, who?\nThen I remembered who she was, and I totally agree!",
">\n\nYeah she's a bit of a one trick pony, but if we're going to be honest here most actors tends to be and that's rarely a problem. She's alright. She'll always be Stiffler's mom in my heart.",
">\n\nJust so we’re clear, by “huge acting renaissance” you’re referring to her one successful thing she’s be apart of in like 20 years?",
">\n\nI do keep seeing her in TV ads lately tbf, twice in one ad break just now.",
">\n\nShe is niche and I think she’s awesome, you have my upvote",
">\n\nHad to Google her... Oh Stifler's Mom, got it. I haven't seen her in much. I suppose what I have though, yeah it has all been the same.\nTo cut some slack, you can say the same about a few dozen actors at the top of the ladder as well.\nLike, any action star... I used to love action flicks, now they are just so damn one dimensional. You took/killed my daughter/dog/wife/friend/car/money prepare to get f*ked... You and everyone you know! ...and all of there brothers ...and cousins ...and uncles ...and guy friends ...and seriously how many friggen dudes do you know, I have murdered like 100 of them by now. Why the hell are they so willing to die for you? But we still aren't even until I punch you out of a building/car/plane ...something high or fast. Hell maybe I will just blow you up.\nLike every genera of movie has a basic AF recipe. It is like McDonalds, the same slop, but we still eat it consistently. Funny enough when someone breaks the mold we react confused, as if we were biting into a McSloppy, but got a hamburger instead. \"Oh shit, I don't know if I liked that or not.\" 🤔 Then the Hamburger gets mixed reviews and less people have the stones to cook real food. Why play it risky when the recipe is proven safe?",
">\n\nI think the difference is that many characters are written poorly, so it reflects back on the actor. Coolidge just literally plays any decent character the same way and its so stupid.",
">\n\nHaha, maybe true, but the devil's advocate in me says that it is kind of the job of the actor to bring the character to life and push beyond the dimensions (or lack there of) what is written. That is basically what is happening with Coolidge, she is only bringing forth her tried and true recipe, not any other dimensions. The down side to this, is that it may actually lose some of the character (as written) because it doesn't fit her recipe. Only when the plot is banging and the character portrayal flops, can we actually tell it was bad acting and not bad writing.\nI think this is why so many writers and director write with an actor in mind. Thier recipe will fit this character and plot.\nThis is also where we fall into type casting. Again if the recipe is good enough we will keep coming back... even if it is the same ol rinse and repeat.",
">\n\nRenaissance? She's been popular for decades now",
">\n\nBut she's sooo funny .... /s",
">\n\nHer jokes are so crass. Ugh, last I heard her shes talking about about banging 200 dudes like its an accomplishment",
">\n\nI always thought her humor was to shock everyone. \"Ooh, i am doing something unexpected. Isn't it shocking?!\""
] |
>
Well maybe you shouldn’t have, you’re missing out significantly
|
[
"\"Hi, girls\"\n*cue laughing tracks*",
">\n\nI agree. My husband strongly agrees. However I saw this film called “the watchers “ iin which she actually acted. I can’t say that she was far off from the character she always plays ( herself) but she had a character.",
">\n\nYou mean the show, not film, called “The Watcher”, not “The Watchers”",
">\n\nPlastic wine monster",
">\n\nLmao yesss",
">\n\n100% yes",
">\n\nI think as a woman her roles are actually very nuanced and she goes between them seamlessly. There is a big difference between “the dumb blonde” (legally blonde) “the bored housewife” (american pie) and the “the grieving heiress” (white lotus). Women tend to be lumped together as all the same, and Jennifer Coolidge’s acting makes all of these vastly different roles seem so natural.",
">\n\nI cant tell if this post is a joke or not lol",
">\n\nNope. just someone respectfully disagreeing with you.",
">\n\nMakes me want a hot dog reaaaaaallll bad 😫😫😫",
">\n\nAt first I thought, who?\nThen I remembered who she was, and I totally agree!",
">\n\nYeah she's a bit of a one trick pony, but if we're going to be honest here most actors tends to be and that's rarely a problem. She's alright. She'll always be Stiffler's mom in my heart.",
">\n\nJust so we’re clear, by “huge acting renaissance” you’re referring to her one successful thing she’s be apart of in like 20 years?",
">\n\nI do keep seeing her in TV ads lately tbf, twice in one ad break just now.",
">\n\nShe is niche and I think she’s awesome, you have my upvote",
">\n\nHad to Google her... Oh Stifler's Mom, got it. I haven't seen her in much. I suppose what I have though, yeah it has all been the same.\nTo cut some slack, you can say the same about a few dozen actors at the top of the ladder as well.\nLike, any action star... I used to love action flicks, now they are just so damn one dimensional. You took/killed my daughter/dog/wife/friend/car/money prepare to get f*ked... You and everyone you know! ...and all of there brothers ...and cousins ...and uncles ...and guy friends ...and seriously how many friggen dudes do you know, I have murdered like 100 of them by now. Why the hell are they so willing to die for you? But we still aren't even until I punch you out of a building/car/plane ...something high or fast. Hell maybe I will just blow you up.\nLike every genera of movie has a basic AF recipe. It is like McDonalds, the same slop, but we still eat it consistently. Funny enough when someone breaks the mold we react confused, as if we were biting into a McSloppy, but got a hamburger instead. \"Oh shit, I don't know if I liked that or not.\" 🤔 Then the Hamburger gets mixed reviews and less people have the stones to cook real food. Why play it risky when the recipe is proven safe?",
">\n\nI think the difference is that many characters are written poorly, so it reflects back on the actor. Coolidge just literally plays any decent character the same way and its so stupid.",
">\n\nHaha, maybe true, but the devil's advocate in me says that it is kind of the job of the actor to bring the character to life and push beyond the dimensions (or lack there of) what is written. That is basically what is happening with Coolidge, she is only bringing forth her tried and true recipe, not any other dimensions. The down side to this, is that it may actually lose some of the character (as written) because it doesn't fit her recipe. Only when the plot is banging and the character portrayal flops, can we actually tell it was bad acting and not bad writing.\nI think this is why so many writers and director write with an actor in mind. Thier recipe will fit this character and plot.\nThis is also where we fall into type casting. Again if the recipe is good enough we will keep coming back... even if it is the same ol rinse and repeat.",
">\n\nRenaissance? She's been popular for decades now",
">\n\nBut she's sooo funny .... /s",
">\n\nHer jokes are so crass. Ugh, last I heard her shes talking about about banging 200 dudes like its an accomplishment",
">\n\nI always thought her humor was to shock everyone. \"Ooh, i am doing something unexpected. Isn't it shocking?!\"",
">\n\nShe's the reason why I stopped at the pilot episode of White Lotus."
] |
>
This triggered my fight or flight. I love her and always will.
|
[
"\"Hi, girls\"\n*cue laughing tracks*",
">\n\nI agree. My husband strongly agrees. However I saw this film called “the watchers “ iin which she actually acted. I can’t say that she was far off from the character she always plays ( herself) but she had a character.",
">\n\nYou mean the show, not film, called “The Watcher”, not “The Watchers”",
">\n\nPlastic wine monster",
">\n\nLmao yesss",
">\n\n100% yes",
">\n\nI think as a woman her roles are actually very nuanced and she goes between them seamlessly. There is a big difference between “the dumb blonde” (legally blonde) “the bored housewife” (american pie) and the “the grieving heiress” (white lotus). Women tend to be lumped together as all the same, and Jennifer Coolidge’s acting makes all of these vastly different roles seem so natural.",
">\n\nI cant tell if this post is a joke or not lol",
">\n\nNope. just someone respectfully disagreeing with you.",
">\n\nMakes me want a hot dog reaaaaaallll bad 😫😫😫",
">\n\nAt first I thought, who?\nThen I remembered who she was, and I totally agree!",
">\n\nYeah she's a bit of a one trick pony, but if we're going to be honest here most actors tends to be and that's rarely a problem. She's alright. She'll always be Stiffler's mom in my heart.",
">\n\nJust so we’re clear, by “huge acting renaissance” you’re referring to her one successful thing she’s be apart of in like 20 years?",
">\n\nI do keep seeing her in TV ads lately tbf, twice in one ad break just now.",
">\n\nShe is niche and I think she’s awesome, you have my upvote",
">\n\nHad to Google her... Oh Stifler's Mom, got it. I haven't seen her in much. I suppose what I have though, yeah it has all been the same.\nTo cut some slack, you can say the same about a few dozen actors at the top of the ladder as well.\nLike, any action star... I used to love action flicks, now they are just so damn one dimensional. You took/killed my daughter/dog/wife/friend/car/money prepare to get f*ked... You and everyone you know! ...and all of there brothers ...and cousins ...and uncles ...and guy friends ...and seriously how many friggen dudes do you know, I have murdered like 100 of them by now. Why the hell are they so willing to die for you? But we still aren't even until I punch you out of a building/car/plane ...something high or fast. Hell maybe I will just blow you up.\nLike every genera of movie has a basic AF recipe. It is like McDonalds, the same slop, but we still eat it consistently. Funny enough when someone breaks the mold we react confused, as if we were biting into a McSloppy, but got a hamburger instead. \"Oh shit, I don't know if I liked that or not.\" 🤔 Then the Hamburger gets mixed reviews and less people have the stones to cook real food. Why play it risky when the recipe is proven safe?",
">\n\nI think the difference is that many characters are written poorly, so it reflects back on the actor. Coolidge just literally plays any decent character the same way and its so stupid.",
">\n\nHaha, maybe true, but the devil's advocate in me says that it is kind of the job of the actor to bring the character to life and push beyond the dimensions (or lack there of) what is written. That is basically what is happening with Coolidge, she is only bringing forth her tried and true recipe, not any other dimensions. The down side to this, is that it may actually lose some of the character (as written) because it doesn't fit her recipe. Only when the plot is banging and the character portrayal flops, can we actually tell it was bad acting and not bad writing.\nI think this is why so many writers and director write with an actor in mind. Thier recipe will fit this character and plot.\nThis is also where we fall into type casting. Again if the recipe is good enough we will keep coming back... even if it is the same ol rinse and repeat.",
">\n\nRenaissance? She's been popular for decades now",
">\n\nBut she's sooo funny .... /s",
">\n\nHer jokes are so crass. Ugh, last I heard her shes talking about about banging 200 dudes like its an accomplishment",
">\n\nI always thought her humor was to shock everyone. \"Ooh, i am doing something unexpected. Isn't it shocking?!\"",
">\n\nShe's the reason why I stopped at the pilot episode of White Lotus.",
">\n\nWell maybe you shouldn’t have, you’re missing out significantly"
] |
>
I enjoy her. She's not a great actress, but I think she's interesting
|
[
"\"Hi, girls\"\n*cue laughing tracks*",
">\n\nI agree. My husband strongly agrees. However I saw this film called “the watchers “ iin which she actually acted. I can’t say that she was far off from the character she always plays ( herself) but she had a character.",
">\n\nYou mean the show, not film, called “The Watcher”, not “The Watchers”",
">\n\nPlastic wine monster",
">\n\nLmao yesss",
">\n\n100% yes",
">\n\nI think as a woman her roles are actually very nuanced and she goes between them seamlessly. There is a big difference between “the dumb blonde” (legally blonde) “the bored housewife” (american pie) and the “the grieving heiress” (white lotus). Women tend to be lumped together as all the same, and Jennifer Coolidge’s acting makes all of these vastly different roles seem so natural.",
">\n\nI cant tell if this post is a joke or not lol",
">\n\nNope. just someone respectfully disagreeing with you.",
">\n\nMakes me want a hot dog reaaaaaallll bad 😫😫😫",
">\n\nAt first I thought, who?\nThen I remembered who she was, and I totally agree!",
">\n\nYeah she's a bit of a one trick pony, but if we're going to be honest here most actors tends to be and that's rarely a problem. She's alright. She'll always be Stiffler's mom in my heart.",
">\n\nJust so we’re clear, by “huge acting renaissance” you’re referring to her one successful thing she’s be apart of in like 20 years?",
">\n\nI do keep seeing her in TV ads lately tbf, twice in one ad break just now.",
">\n\nShe is niche and I think she’s awesome, you have my upvote",
">\n\nHad to Google her... Oh Stifler's Mom, got it. I haven't seen her in much. I suppose what I have though, yeah it has all been the same.\nTo cut some slack, you can say the same about a few dozen actors at the top of the ladder as well.\nLike, any action star... I used to love action flicks, now they are just so damn one dimensional. You took/killed my daughter/dog/wife/friend/car/money prepare to get f*ked... You and everyone you know! ...and all of there brothers ...and cousins ...and uncles ...and guy friends ...and seriously how many friggen dudes do you know, I have murdered like 100 of them by now. Why the hell are they so willing to die for you? But we still aren't even until I punch you out of a building/car/plane ...something high or fast. Hell maybe I will just blow you up.\nLike every genera of movie has a basic AF recipe. It is like McDonalds, the same slop, but we still eat it consistently. Funny enough when someone breaks the mold we react confused, as if we were biting into a McSloppy, but got a hamburger instead. \"Oh shit, I don't know if I liked that or not.\" 🤔 Then the Hamburger gets mixed reviews and less people have the stones to cook real food. Why play it risky when the recipe is proven safe?",
">\n\nI think the difference is that many characters are written poorly, so it reflects back on the actor. Coolidge just literally plays any decent character the same way and its so stupid.",
">\n\nHaha, maybe true, but the devil's advocate in me says that it is kind of the job of the actor to bring the character to life and push beyond the dimensions (or lack there of) what is written. That is basically what is happening with Coolidge, she is only bringing forth her tried and true recipe, not any other dimensions. The down side to this, is that it may actually lose some of the character (as written) because it doesn't fit her recipe. Only when the plot is banging and the character portrayal flops, can we actually tell it was bad acting and not bad writing.\nI think this is why so many writers and director write with an actor in mind. Thier recipe will fit this character and plot.\nThis is also where we fall into type casting. Again if the recipe is good enough we will keep coming back... even if it is the same ol rinse and repeat.",
">\n\nRenaissance? She's been popular for decades now",
">\n\nBut she's sooo funny .... /s",
">\n\nHer jokes are so crass. Ugh, last I heard her shes talking about about banging 200 dudes like its an accomplishment",
">\n\nI always thought her humor was to shock everyone. \"Ooh, i am doing something unexpected. Isn't it shocking?!\"",
">\n\nShe's the reason why I stopped at the pilot episode of White Lotus.",
">\n\nWell maybe you shouldn’t have, you’re missing out significantly",
">\n\nThis triggered my fight or flight. I love her and always will."
] |
>
She's the one that looks like bruce Jenner right?
|
[
"\"Hi, girls\"\n*cue laughing tracks*",
">\n\nI agree. My husband strongly agrees. However I saw this film called “the watchers “ iin which she actually acted. I can’t say that she was far off from the character she always plays ( herself) but she had a character.",
">\n\nYou mean the show, not film, called “The Watcher”, not “The Watchers”",
">\n\nPlastic wine monster",
">\n\nLmao yesss",
">\n\n100% yes",
">\n\nI think as a woman her roles are actually very nuanced and she goes between them seamlessly. There is a big difference between “the dumb blonde” (legally blonde) “the bored housewife” (american pie) and the “the grieving heiress” (white lotus). Women tend to be lumped together as all the same, and Jennifer Coolidge’s acting makes all of these vastly different roles seem so natural.",
">\n\nI cant tell if this post is a joke or not lol",
">\n\nNope. just someone respectfully disagreeing with you.",
">\n\nMakes me want a hot dog reaaaaaallll bad 😫😫😫",
">\n\nAt first I thought, who?\nThen I remembered who she was, and I totally agree!",
">\n\nYeah she's a bit of a one trick pony, but if we're going to be honest here most actors tends to be and that's rarely a problem. She's alright. She'll always be Stiffler's mom in my heart.",
">\n\nJust so we’re clear, by “huge acting renaissance” you’re referring to her one successful thing she’s be apart of in like 20 years?",
">\n\nI do keep seeing her in TV ads lately tbf, twice in one ad break just now.",
">\n\nShe is niche and I think she’s awesome, you have my upvote",
">\n\nHad to Google her... Oh Stifler's Mom, got it. I haven't seen her in much. I suppose what I have though, yeah it has all been the same.\nTo cut some slack, you can say the same about a few dozen actors at the top of the ladder as well.\nLike, any action star... I used to love action flicks, now they are just so damn one dimensional. You took/killed my daughter/dog/wife/friend/car/money prepare to get f*ked... You and everyone you know! ...and all of there brothers ...and cousins ...and uncles ...and guy friends ...and seriously how many friggen dudes do you know, I have murdered like 100 of them by now. Why the hell are they so willing to die for you? But we still aren't even until I punch you out of a building/car/plane ...something high or fast. Hell maybe I will just blow you up.\nLike every genera of movie has a basic AF recipe. It is like McDonalds, the same slop, but we still eat it consistently. Funny enough when someone breaks the mold we react confused, as if we were biting into a McSloppy, but got a hamburger instead. \"Oh shit, I don't know if I liked that or not.\" 🤔 Then the Hamburger gets mixed reviews and less people have the stones to cook real food. Why play it risky when the recipe is proven safe?",
">\n\nI think the difference is that many characters are written poorly, so it reflects back on the actor. Coolidge just literally plays any decent character the same way and its so stupid.",
">\n\nHaha, maybe true, but the devil's advocate in me says that it is kind of the job of the actor to bring the character to life and push beyond the dimensions (or lack there of) what is written. That is basically what is happening with Coolidge, she is only bringing forth her tried and true recipe, not any other dimensions. The down side to this, is that it may actually lose some of the character (as written) because it doesn't fit her recipe. Only when the plot is banging and the character portrayal flops, can we actually tell it was bad acting and not bad writing.\nI think this is why so many writers and director write with an actor in mind. Thier recipe will fit this character and plot.\nThis is also where we fall into type casting. Again if the recipe is good enough we will keep coming back... even if it is the same ol rinse and repeat.",
">\n\nRenaissance? She's been popular for decades now",
">\n\nBut she's sooo funny .... /s",
">\n\nHer jokes are so crass. Ugh, last I heard her shes talking about about banging 200 dudes like its an accomplishment",
">\n\nI always thought her humor was to shock everyone. \"Ooh, i am doing something unexpected. Isn't it shocking?!\"",
">\n\nShe's the reason why I stopped at the pilot episode of White Lotus.",
">\n\nWell maybe you shouldn’t have, you’re missing out significantly",
">\n\nThis triggered my fight or flight. I love her and always will.",
">\n\nI enjoy her. She's not a great actress, but I think she's interesting"
] |
>
Who tf is this person
|
[
"\"Hi, girls\"\n*cue laughing tracks*",
">\n\nI agree. My husband strongly agrees. However I saw this film called “the watchers “ iin which she actually acted. I can’t say that she was far off from the character she always plays ( herself) but she had a character.",
">\n\nYou mean the show, not film, called “The Watcher”, not “The Watchers”",
">\n\nPlastic wine monster",
">\n\nLmao yesss",
">\n\n100% yes",
">\n\nI think as a woman her roles are actually very nuanced and she goes between them seamlessly. There is a big difference between “the dumb blonde” (legally blonde) “the bored housewife” (american pie) and the “the grieving heiress” (white lotus). Women tend to be lumped together as all the same, and Jennifer Coolidge’s acting makes all of these vastly different roles seem so natural.",
">\n\nI cant tell if this post is a joke or not lol",
">\n\nNope. just someone respectfully disagreeing with you.",
">\n\nMakes me want a hot dog reaaaaaallll bad 😫😫😫",
">\n\nAt first I thought, who?\nThen I remembered who she was, and I totally agree!",
">\n\nYeah she's a bit of a one trick pony, but if we're going to be honest here most actors tends to be and that's rarely a problem. She's alright. She'll always be Stiffler's mom in my heart.",
">\n\nJust so we’re clear, by “huge acting renaissance” you’re referring to her one successful thing she’s be apart of in like 20 years?",
">\n\nI do keep seeing her in TV ads lately tbf, twice in one ad break just now.",
">\n\nShe is niche and I think she’s awesome, you have my upvote",
">\n\nHad to Google her... Oh Stifler's Mom, got it. I haven't seen her in much. I suppose what I have though, yeah it has all been the same.\nTo cut some slack, you can say the same about a few dozen actors at the top of the ladder as well.\nLike, any action star... I used to love action flicks, now they are just so damn one dimensional. You took/killed my daughter/dog/wife/friend/car/money prepare to get f*ked... You and everyone you know! ...and all of there brothers ...and cousins ...and uncles ...and guy friends ...and seriously how many friggen dudes do you know, I have murdered like 100 of them by now. Why the hell are they so willing to die for you? But we still aren't even until I punch you out of a building/car/plane ...something high or fast. Hell maybe I will just blow you up.\nLike every genera of movie has a basic AF recipe. It is like McDonalds, the same slop, but we still eat it consistently. Funny enough when someone breaks the mold we react confused, as if we were biting into a McSloppy, but got a hamburger instead. \"Oh shit, I don't know if I liked that or not.\" 🤔 Then the Hamburger gets mixed reviews and less people have the stones to cook real food. Why play it risky when the recipe is proven safe?",
">\n\nI think the difference is that many characters are written poorly, so it reflects back on the actor. Coolidge just literally plays any decent character the same way and its so stupid.",
">\n\nHaha, maybe true, but the devil's advocate in me says that it is kind of the job of the actor to bring the character to life and push beyond the dimensions (or lack there of) what is written. That is basically what is happening with Coolidge, she is only bringing forth her tried and true recipe, not any other dimensions. The down side to this, is that it may actually lose some of the character (as written) because it doesn't fit her recipe. Only when the plot is banging and the character portrayal flops, can we actually tell it was bad acting and not bad writing.\nI think this is why so many writers and director write with an actor in mind. Thier recipe will fit this character and plot.\nThis is also where we fall into type casting. Again if the recipe is good enough we will keep coming back... even if it is the same ol rinse and repeat.",
">\n\nRenaissance? She's been popular for decades now",
">\n\nBut she's sooo funny .... /s",
">\n\nHer jokes are so crass. Ugh, last I heard her shes talking about about banging 200 dudes like its an accomplishment",
">\n\nI always thought her humor was to shock everyone. \"Ooh, i am doing something unexpected. Isn't it shocking?!\"",
">\n\nShe's the reason why I stopped at the pilot episode of White Lotus.",
">\n\nWell maybe you shouldn’t have, you’re missing out significantly",
">\n\nThis triggered my fight or flight. I love her and always will.",
">\n\nI enjoy her. She's not a great actress, but I think she's interesting",
">\n\nShe's the one that looks like bruce Jenner right?"
] |
>
remember that jennifer coolidge is a comedian, and comedians tend to play "characters". typecasting is also a thing in hollywood.
|
[
"\"Hi, girls\"\n*cue laughing tracks*",
">\n\nI agree. My husband strongly agrees. However I saw this film called “the watchers “ iin which she actually acted. I can’t say that she was far off from the character she always plays ( herself) but she had a character.",
">\n\nYou mean the show, not film, called “The Watcher”, not “The Watchers”",
">\n\nPlastic wine monster",
">\n\nLmao yesss",
">\n\n100% yes",
">\n\nI think as a woman her roles are actually very nuanced and she goes between them seamlessly. There is a big difference between “the dumb blonde” (legally blonde) “the bored housewife” (american pie) and the “the grieving heiress” (white lotus). Women tend to be lumped together as all the same, and Jennifer Coolidge’s acting makes all of these vastly different roles seem so natural.",
">\n\nI cant tell if this post is a joke or not lol",
">\n\nNope. just someone respectfully disagreeing with you.",
">\n\nMakes me want a hot dog reaaaaaallll bad 😫😫😫",
">\n\nAt first I thought, who?\nThen I remembered who she was, and I totally agree!",
">\n\nYeah she's a bit of a one trick pony, but if we're going to be honest here most actors tends to be and that's rarely a problem. She's alright. She'll always be Stiffler's mom in my heart.",
">\n\nJust so we’re clear, by “huge acting renaissance” you’re referring to her one successful thing she’s be apart of in like 20 years?",
">\n\nI do keep seeing her in TV ads lately tbf, twice in one ad break just now.",
">\n\nShe is niche and I think she’s awesome, you have my upvote",
">\n\nHad to Google her... Oh Stifler's Mom, got it. I haven't seen her in much. I suppose what I have though, yeah it has all been the same.\nTo cut some slack, you can say the same about a few dozen actors at the top of the ladder as well.\nLike, any action star... I used to love action flicks, now they are just so damn one dimensional. You took/killed my daughter/dog/wife/friend/car/money prepare to get f*ked... You and everyone you know! ...and all of there brothers ...and cousins ...and uncles ...and guy friends ...and seriously how many friggen dudes do you know, I have murdered like 100 of them by now. Why the hell are they so willing to die for you? But we still aren't even until I punch you out of a building/car/plane ...something high or fast. Hell maybe I will just blow you up.\nLike every genera of movie has a basic AF recipe. It is like McDonalds, the same slop, but we still eat it consistently. Funny enough when someone breaks the mold we react confused, as if we were biting into a McSloppy, but got a hamburger instead. \"Oh shit, I don't know if I liked that or not.\" 🤔 Then the Hamburger gets mixed reviews and less people have the stones to cook real food. Why play it risky when the recipe is proven safe?",
">\n\nI think the difference is that many characters are written poorly, so it reflects back on the actor. Coolidge just literally plays any decent character the same way and its so stupid.",
">\n\nHaha, maybe true, but the devil's advocate in me says that it is kind of the job of the actor to bring the character to life and push beyond the dimensions (or lack there of) what is written. That is basically what is happening with Coolidge, she is only bringing forth her tried and true recipe, not any other dimensions. The down side to this, is that it may actually lose some of the character (as written) because it doesn't fit her recipe. Only when the plot is banging and the character portrayal flops, can we actually tell it was bad acting and not bad writing.\nI think this is why so many writers and director write with an actor in mind. Thier recipe will fit this character and plot.\nThis is also where we fall into type casting. Again if the recipe is good enough we will keep coming back... even if it is the same ol rinse and repeat.",
">\n\nRenaissance? She's been popular for decades now",
">\n\nBut she's sooo funny .... /s",
">\n\nHer jokes are so crass. Ugh, last I heard her shes talking about about banging 200 dudes like its an accomplishment",
">\n\nI always thought her humor was to shock everyone. \"Ooh, i am doing something unexpected. Isn't it shocking?!\"",
">\n\nShe's the reason why I stopped at the pilot episode of White Lotus.",
">\n\nWell maybe you shouldn’t have, you’re missing out significantly",
">\n\nThis triggered my fight or flight. I love her and always will.",
">\n\nI enjoy her. She's not a great actress, but I think she's interesting",
">\n\nShe's the one that looks like bruce Jenner right?",
">\n\nWho tf is this person"
] |
>
Really? I was talking with her and she thinks you're great.
|
[
"\"Hi, girls\"\n*cue laughing tracks*",
">\n\nI agree. My husband strongly agrees. However I saw this film called “the watchers “ iin which she actually acted. I can’t say that she was far off from the character she always plays ( herself) but she had a character.",
">\n\nYou mean the show, not film, called “The Watcher”, not “The Watchers”",
">\n\nPlastic wine monster",
">\n\nLmao yesss",
">\n\n100% yes",
">\n\nI think as a woman her roles are actually very nuanced and she goes between them seamlessly. There is a big difference between “the dumb blonde” (legally blonde) “the bored housewife” (american pie) and the “the grieving heiress” (white lotus). Women tend to be lumped together as all the same, and Jennifer Coolidge’s acting makes all of these vastly different roles seem so natural.",
">\n\nI cant tell if this post is a joke or not lol",
">\n\nNope. just someone respectfully disagreeing with you.",
">\n\nMakes me want a hot dog reaaaaaallll bad 😫😫😫",
">\n\nAt first I thought, who?\nThen I remembered who she was, and I totally agree!",
">\n\nYeah she's a bit of a one trick pony, but if we're going to be honest here most actors tends to be and that's rarely a problem. She's alright. She'll always be Stiffler's mom in my heart.",
">\n\nJust so we’re clear, by “huge acting renaissance” you’re referring to her one successful thing she’s be apart of in like 20 years?",
">\n\nI do keep seeing her in TV ads lately tbf, twice in one ad break just now.",
">\n\nShe is niche and I think she’s awesome, you have my upvote",
">\n\nHad to Google her... Oh Stifler's Mom, got it. I haven't seen her in much. I suppose what I have though, yeah it has all been the same.\nTo cut some slack, you can say the same about a few dozen actors at the top of the ladder as well.\nLike, any action star... I used to love action flicks, now they are just so damn one dimensional. You took/killed my daughter/dog/wife/friend/car/money prepare to get f*ked... You and everyone you know! ...and all of there brothers ...and cousins ...and uncles ...and guy friends ...and seriously how many friggen dudes do you know, I have murdered like 100 of them by now. Why the hell are they so willing to die for you? But we still aren't even until I punch you out of a building/car/plane ...something high or fast. Hell maybe I will just blow you up.\nLike every genera of movie has a basic AF recipe. It is like McDonalds, the same slop, but we still eat it consistently. Funny enough when someone breaks the mold we react confused, as if we were biting into a McSloppy, but got a hamburger instead. \"Oh shit, I don't know if I liked that or not.\" 🤔 Then the Hamburger gets mixed reviews and less people have the stones to cook real food. Why play it risky when the recipe is proven safe?",
">\n\nI think the difference is that many characters are written poorly, so it reflects back on the actor. Coolidge just literally plays any decent character the same way and its so stupid.",
">\n\nHaha, maybe true, but the devil's advocate in me says that it is kind of the job of the actor to bring the character to life and push beyond the dimensions (or lack there of) what is written. That is basically what is happening with Coolidge, she is only bringing forth her tried and true recipe, not any other dimensions. The down side to this, is that it may actually lose some of the character (as written) because it doesn't fit her recipe. Only when the plot is banging and the character portrayal flops, can we actually tell it was bad acting and not bad writing.\nI think this is why so many writers and director write with an actor in mind. Thier recipe will fit this character and plot.\nThis is also where we fall into type casting. Again if the recipe is good enough we will keep coming back... even if it is the same ol rinse and repeat.",
">\n\nRenaissance? She's been popular for decades now",
">\n\nBut she's sooo funny .... /s",
">\n\nHer jokes are so crass. Ugh, last I heard her shes talking about about banging 200 dudes like its an accomplishment",
">\n\nI always thought her humor was to shock everyone. \"Ooh, i am doing something unexpected. Isn't it shocking?!\"",
">\n\nShe's the reason why I stopped at the pilot episode of White Lotus.",
">\n\nWell maybe you shouldn’t have, you’re missing out significantly",
">\n\nThis triggered my fight or flight. I love her and always will.",
">\n\nI enjoy her. She's not a great actress, but I think she's interesting",
">\n\nShe's the one that looks like bruce Jenner right?",
">\n\nWho tf is this person",
">\n\nremember that jennifer coolidge is a comedian, and comedians tend to play \"characters\". typecasting is also a thing in hollywood."
] |
>
|
[
"\"Hi, girls\"\n*cue laughing tracks*",
">\n\nI agree. My husband strongly agrees. However I saw this film called “the watchers “ iin which she actually acted. I can’t say that she was far off from the character she always plays ( herself) but she had a character.",
">\n\nYou mean the show, not film, called “The Watcher”, not “The Watchers”",
">\n\nPlastic wine monster",
">\n\nLmao yesss",
">\n\n100% yes",
">\n\nI think as a woman her roles are actually very nuanced and she goes between them seamlessly. There is a big difference between “the dumb blonde” (legally blonde) “the bored housewife” (american pie) and the “the grieving heiress” (white lotus). Women tend to be lumped together as all the same, and Jennifer Coolidge’s acting makes all of these vastly different roles seem so natural.",
">\n\nI cant tell if this post is a joke or not lol",
">\n\nNope. just someone respectfully disagreeing with you.",
">\n\nMakes me want a hot dog reaaaaaallll bad 😫😫😫",
">\n\nAt first I thought, who?\nThen I remembered who she was, and I totally agree!",
">\n\nYeah she's a bit of a one trick pony, but if we're going to be honest here most actors tends to be and that's rarely a problem. She's alright. She'll always be Stiffler's mom in my heart.",
">\n\nJust so we’re clear, by “huge acting renaissance” you’re referring to her one successful thing she’s be apart of in like 20 years?",
">\n\nI do keep seeing her in TV ads lately tbf, twice in one ad break just now.",
">\n\nShe is niche and I think she’s awesome, you have my upvote",
">\n\nHad to Google her... Oh Stifler's Mom, got it. I haven't seen her in much. I suppose what I have though, yeah it has all been the same.\nTo cut some slack, you can say the same about a few dozen actors at the top of the ladder as well.\nLike, any action star... I used to love action flicks, now they are just so damn one dimensional. You took/killed my daughter/dog/wife/friend/car/money prepare to get f*ked... You and everyone you know! ...and all of there brothers ...and cousins ...and uncles ...and guy friends ...and seriously how many friggen dudes do you know, I have murdered like 100 of them by now. Why the hell are they so willing to die for you? But we still aren't even until I punch you out of a building/car/plane ...something high or fast. Hell maybe I will just blow you up.\nLike every genera of movie has a basic AF recipe. It is like McDonalds, the same slop, but we still eat it consistently. Funny enough when someone breaks the mold we react confused, as if we were biting into a McSloppy, but got a hamburger instead. \"Oh shit, I don't know if I liked that or not.\" 🤔 Then the Hamburger gets mixed reviews and less people have the stones to cook real food. Why play it risky when the recipe is proven safe?",
">\n\nI think the difference is that many characters are written poorly, so it reflects back on the actor. Coolidge just literally plays any decent character the same way and its so stupid.",
">\n\nHaha, maybe true, but the devil's advocate in me says that it is kind of the job of the actor to bring the character to life and push beyond the dimensions (or lack there of) what is written. That is basically what is happening with Coolidge, she is only bringing forth her tried and true recipe, not any other dimensions. The down side to this, is that it may actually lose some of the character (as written) because it doesn't fit her recipe. Only when the plot is banging and the character portrayal flops, can we actually tell it was bad acting and not bad writing.\nI think this is why so many writers and director write with an actor in mind. Thier recipe will fit this character and plot.\nThis is also where we fall into type casting. Again if the recipe is good enough we will keep coming back... even if it is the same ol rinse and repeat.",
">\n\nRenaissance? She's been popular for decades now",
">\n\nBut she's sooo funny .... /s",
">\n\nHer jokes are so crass. Ugh, last I heard her shes talking about about banging 200 dudes like its an accomplishment",
">\n\nI always thought her humor was to shock everyone. \"Ooh, i am doing something unexpected. Isn't it shocking?!\"",
">\n\nShe's the reason why I stopped at the pilot episode of White Lotus.",
">\n\nWell maybe you shouldn’t have, you’re missing out significantly",
">\n\nThis triggered my fight or flight. I love her and always will.",
">\n\nI enjoy her. She's not a great actress, but I think she's interesting",
">\n\nShe's the one that looks like bruce Jenner right?",
">\n\nWho tf is this person",
">\n\nremember that jennifer coolidge is a comedian, and comedians tend to play \"characters\". typecasting is also a thing in hollywood.",
">\n\nReally? I was talking with her and she thinks you're great."
] |
Who didn’t see that coming? “When people tell you who they are, believe them.”
|
[] |
>
The GQP has no ability or interest in governing.
|
[
"Who didn’t see that coming? “When people tell you who they are, believe them.”"
] |
>
They are especially good about thinking about the women and children... Just in a more traditional way
|
[
"Who didn’t see that coming? “When people tell you who they are, believe them.”",
">\n\nThe GQP has no ability or interest in governing."
] |
>
You cant have an abortion/ you cant see people who dont abide by gender norms/thoughts and prayers/youre anti-american/tax cuts for the rich and business/poors deserve to get homelessness for not working.
That about sums it up, right?
|
[
"Who didn’t see that coming? “When people tell you who they are, believe them.”",
">\n\nThe GQP has no ability or interest in governing.",
">\n\nThey are especially good about thinking about the women and children... Just in a more traditional way"
] |
>
Too real. Don't forget being God fearing in there too
|
[
"Who didn’t see that coming? “When people tell you who they are, believe them.”",
">\n\nThe GQP has no ability or interest in governing.",
">\n\nThey are especially good about thinking about the women and children... Just in a more traditional way",
">\n\nYou cant have an abortion/ you cant see people who dont abide by gender norms/thoughts and prayers/youre anti-american/tax cuts for the rich and business/poors deserve to get homelessness for not working.\nThat about sums it up, right?"
] |
>
Haha all implied. Separation, amirite?
Edit oh wait
|
[
"Who didn’t see that coming? “When people tell you who they are, believe them.”",
">\n\nThe GQP has no ability or interest in governing.",
">\n\nThey are especially good about thinking about the women and children... Just in a more traditional way",
">\n\nYou cant have an abortion/ you cant see people who dont abide by gender norms/thoughts and prayers/youre anti-american/tax cuts for the rich and business/poors deserve to get homelessness for not working.\nThat about sums it up, right?",
">\n\nToo real. Don't forget being God fearing in there too"
] |
>
"Government doesn't work! Elect us and we'll prove it! "
GOP probably.
|
[
"Who didn’t see that coming? “When people tell you who they are, believe them.”",
">\n\nThe GQP has no ability or interest in governing.",
">\n\nThey are especially good about thinking about the women and children... Just in a more traditional way",
">\n\nYou cant have an abortion/ you cant see people who dont abide by gender norms/thoughts and prayers/youre anti-american/tax cuts for the rich and business/poors deserve to get homelessness for not working.\nThat about sums it up, right?",
">\n\nToo real. Don't forget being God fearing in there too",
">\n\nHaha all implied. Separation, amirite?\nEdit oh wait"
] |
>
Of course it won't get better. The House is a republican-filled circus and most of their platform was crafted on a whim for the optics. They want to muddy the water so that the actions of the Trump administration and the republican party that stood by him somehow seem less egregious. Most of their so-called platform are non-starters for democrats, so what you are left with is gridlock and optics votes, and that's what the next 2 years are going to be.
|
[
"Who didn’t see that coming? “When people tell you who they are, believe them.”",
">\n\nThe GQP has no ability or interest in governing.",
">\n\nThey are especially good about thinking about the women and children... Just in a more traditional way",
">\n\nYou cant have an abortion/ you cant see people who dont abide by gender norms/thoughts and prayers/youre anti-american/tax cuts for the rich and business/poors deserve to get homelessness for not working.\nThat about sums it up, right?",
">\n\nToo real. Don't forget being God fearing in there too",
">\n\nHaha all implied. Separation, amirite?\nEdit oh wait",
">\n\n\"Government doesn't work! Elect us and we'll prove it! \"\nGOP probably."
] |
>
Big on chaos. Short on everything else.
|
[
"Who didn’t see that coming? “When people tell you who they are, believe them.”",
">\n\nThe GQP has no ability or interest in governing.",
">\n\nThey are especially good about thinking about the women and children... Just in a more traditional way",
">\n\nYou cant have an abortion/ you cant see people who dont abide by gender norms/thoughts and prayers/youre anti-american/tax cuts for the rich and business/poors deserve to get homelessness for not working.\nThat about sums it up, right?",
">\n\nToo real. Don't forget being God fearing in there too",
">\n\nHaha all implied. Separation, amirite?\nEdit oh wait",
">\n\n\"Government doesn't work! Elect us and we'll prove it! \"\nGOP probably.",
">\n\nOf course it won't get better. The House is a republican-filled circus and most of their platform was crafted on a whim for the optics. They want to muddy the water so that the actions of the Trump administration and the republican party that stood by him somehow seem less egregious. Most of their so-called platform are non-starters for democrats, so what you are left with is gridlock and optics votes, and that's what the next 2 years are going to be."
] |
>
Chaos is a ladder... down to their base.
|
[
"Who didn’t see that coming? “When people tell you who they are, believe them.”",
">\n\nThe GQP has no ability or interest in governing.",
">\n\nThey are especially good about thinking about the women and children... Just in a more traditional way",
">\n\nYou cant have an abortion/ you cant see people who dont abide by gender norms/thoughts and prayers/youre anti-american/tax cuts for the rich and business/poors deserve to get homelessness for not working.\nThat about sums it up, right?",
">\n\nToo real. Don't forget being God fearing in there too",
">\n\nHaha all implied. Separation, amirite?\nEdit oh wait",
">\n\n\"Government doesn't work! Elect us and we'll prove it! \"\nGOP probably.",
">\n\nOf course it won't get better. The House is a republican-filled circus and most of their platform was crafted on a whim for the optics. They want to muddy the water so that the actions of the Trump administration and the republican party that stood by him somehow seem less egregious. Most of their so-called platform are non-starters for democrats, so what you are left with is gridlock and optics votes, and that's what the next 2 years are going to be.",
">\n\nBig on chaos. Short on everything else."
] |
>
Is anyone really that surprised that the do nothing Republicans are doing nothing?
|
[
"Who didn’t see that coming? “When people tell you who they are, believe them.”",
">\n\nThe GQP has no ability or interest in governing.",
">\n\nThey are especially good about thinking about the women and children... Just in a more traditional way",
">\n\nYou cant have an abortion/ you cant see people who dont abide by gender norms/thoughts and prayers/youre anti-american/tax cuts for the rich and business/poors deserve to get homelessness for not working.\nThat about sums it up, right?",
">\n\nToo real. Don't forget being God fearing in there too",
">\n\nHaha all implied. Separation, amirite?\nEdit oh wait",
">\n\n\"Government doesn't work! Elect us and we'll prove it! \"\nGOP probably.",
">\n\nOf course it won't get better. The House is a republican-filled circus and most of their platform was crafted on a whim for the optics. They want to muddy the water so that the actions of the Trump administration and the republican party that stood by him somehow seem less egregious. Most of their so-called platform are non-starters for democrats, so what you are left with is gridlock and optics votes, and that's what the next 2 years are going to be.",
">\n\nBig on chaos. Short on everything else.",
">\n\nChaos is a ladder... down to their base."
] |
>
I mean they had a debate on whether to say the Pledge of Allegiance before committee hearings and whether members can carry guns in congress. Hour long debates.
I mean you couldn't write something this bizarre. Comedy gold.
|
[
"Who didn’t see that coming? “When people tell you who they are, believe them.”",
">\n\nThe GQP has no ability or interest in governing.",
">\n\nThey are especially good about thinking about the women and children... Just in a more traditional way",
">\n\nYou cant have an abortion/ you cant see people who dont abide by gender norms/thoughts and prayers/youre anti-american/tax cuts for the rich and business/poors deserve to get homelessness for not working.\nThat about sums it up, right?",
">\n\nToo real. Don't forget being God fearing in there too",
">\n\nHaha all implied. Separation, amirite?\nEdit oh wait",
">\n\n\"Government doesn't work! Elect us and we'll prove it! \"\nGOP probably.",
">\n\nOf course it won't get better. The House is a republican-filled circus and most of their platform was crafted on a whim for the optics. They want to muddy the water so that the actions of the Trump administration and the republican party that stood by him somehow seem less egregious. Most of their so-called platform are non-starters for democrats, so what you are left with is gridlock and optics votes, and that's what the next 2 years are going to be.",
">\n\nBig on chaos. Short on everything else.",
">\n\nChaos is a ladder... down to their base.",
">\n\nIs anyone really that surprised that the do nothing Republicans are doing nothing?"
] |
>
That pretty much describes the entire Republican caucus since 2007 and the Trump presidency.
|
[
"Who didn’t see that coming? “When people tell you who they are, believe them.”",
">\n\nThe GQP has no ability or interest in governing.",
">\n\nThey are especially good about thinking about the women and children... Just in a more traditional way",
">\n\nYou cant have an abortion/ you cant see people who dont abide by gender norms/thoughts and prayers/youre anti-american/tax cuts for the rich and business/poors deserve to get homelessness for not working.\nThat about sums it up, right?",
">\n\nToo real. Don't forget being God fearing in there too",
">\n\nHaha all implied. Separation, amirite?\nEdit oh wait",
">\n\n\"Government doesn't work! Elect us and we'll prove it! \"\nGOP probably.",
">\n\nOf course it won't get better. The House is a republican-filled circus and most of their platform was crafted on a whim for the optics. They want to muddy the water so that the actions of the Trump administration and the republican party that stood by him somehow seem less egregious. Most of their so-called platform are non-starters for democrats, so what you are left with is gridlock and optics votes, and that's what the next 2 years are going to be.",
">\n\nBig on chaos. Short on everything else.",
">\n\nChaos is a ladder... down to their base.",
">\n\nIs anyone really that surprised that the do nothing Republicans are doing nothing?",
">\n\nI mean they had a debate on whether to say the Pledge of Allegiance before committee hearings and whether members can carry guns in congress. Hour long debates. \nI mean you couldn't write something this bizarre. Comedy gold."
] |
>
Now what would happen if I did my job the same way?
|
[
"Who didn’t see that coming? “When people tell you who they are, believe them.”",
">\n\nThe GQP has no ability or interest in governing.",
">\n\nThey are especially good about thinking about the women and children... Just in a more traditional way",
">\n\nYou cant have an abortion/ you cant see people who dont abide by gender norms/thoughts and prayers/youre anti-american/tax cuts for the rich and business/poors deserve to get homelessness for not working.\nThat about sums it up, right?",
">\n\nToo real. Don't forget being God fearing in there too",
">\n\nHaha all implied. Separation, amirite?\nEdit oh wait",
">\n\n\"Government doesn't work! Elect us and we'll prove it! \"\nGOP probably.",
">\n\nOf course it won't get better. The House is a republican-filled circus and most of their platform was crafted on a whim for the optics. They want to muddy the water so that the actions of the Trump administration and the republican party that stood by him somehow seem less egregious. Most of their so-called platform are non-starters for democrats, so what you are left with is gridlock and optics votes, and that's what the next 2 years are going to be.",
">\n\nBig on chaos. Short on everything else.",
">\n\nChaos is a ladder... down to their base.",
">\n\nIs anyone really that surprised that the do nothing Republicans are doing nothing?",
">\n\nI mean they had a debate on whether to say the Pledge of Allegiance before committee hearings and whether members can carry guns in congress. Hour long debates. \nI mean you couldn't write something this bizarre. Comedy gold.",
">\n\nThat pretty much describes the entire Republican caucus since 2007 and the Trump presidency."
] |
>
I work from home.
My new Roomba would rat me out.
|
[
"Who didn’t see that coming? “When people tell you who they are, believe them.”",
">\n\nThe GQP has no ability or interest in governing.",
">\n\nThey are especially good about thinking about the women and children... Just in a more traditional way",
">\n\nYou cant have an abortion/ you cant see people who dont abide by gender norms/thoughts and prayers/youre anti-american/tax cuts for the rich and business/poors deserve to get homelessness for not working.\nThat about sums it up, right?",
">\n\nToo real. Don't forget being God fearing in there too",
">\n\nHaha all implied. Separation, amirite?\nEdit oh wait",
">\n\n\"Government doesn't work! Elect us and we'll prove it! \"\nGOP probably.",
">\n\nOf course it won't get better. The House is a republican-filled circus and most of their platform was crafted on a whim for the optics. They want to muddy the water so that the actions of the Trump administration and the republican party that stood by him somehow seem less egregious. Most of their so-called platform are non-starters for democrats, so what you are left with is gridlock and optics votes, and that's what the next 2 years are going to be.",
">\n\nBig on chaos. Short on everything else.",
">\n\nChaos is a ladder... down to their base.",
">\n\nIs anyone really that surprised that the do nothing Republicans are doing nothing?",
">\n\nI mean they had a debate on whether to say the Pledge of Allegiance before committee hearings and whether members can carry guns in congress. Hour long debates. \nI mean you couldn't write something this bizarre. Comedy gold.",
">\n\nThat pretty much describes the entire Republican caucus since 2007 and the Trump presidency.",
">\n\nNow what would happen if I did my job the same way?"
] |
>
There was a majority elected to the House on the platform of let’s do nothing. This shouldn’t surprise anyone.
|
[
"Who didn’t see that coming? “When people tell you who they are, believe them.”",
">\n\nThe GQP has no ability or interest in governing.",
">\n\nThey are especially good about thinking about the women and children... Just in a more traditional way",
">\n\nYou cant have an abortion/ you cant see people who dont abide by gender norms/thoughts and prayers/youre anti-american/tax cuts for the rich and business/poors deserve to get homelessness for not working.\nThat about sums it up, right?",
">\n\nToo real. Don't forget being God fearing in there too",
">\n\nHaha all implied. Separation, amirite?\nEdit oh wait",
">\n\n\"Government doesn't work! Elect us and we'll prove it! \"\nGOP probably.",
">\n\nOf course it won't get better. The House is a republican-filled circus and most of their platform was crafted on a whim for the optics. They want to muddy the water so that the actions of the Trump administration and the republican party that stood by him somehow seem less egregious. Most of their so-called platform are non-starters for democrats, so what you are left with is gridlock and optics votes, and that's what the next 2 years are going to be.",
">\n\nBig on chaos. Short on everything else.",
">\n\nChaos is a ladder... down to their base.",
">\n\nIs anyone really that surprised that the do nothing Republicans are doing nothing?",
">\n\nI mean they had a debate on whether to say the Pledge of Allegiance before committee hearings and whether members can carry guns in congress. Hour long debates. \nI mean you couldn't write something this bizarre. Comedy gold.",
">\n\nThat pretty much describes the entire Republican caucus since 2007 and the Trump presidency.",
">\n\nNow what would happen if I did my job the same way?",
">\n\nI work from home. \nMy new Roomba would rat me out."
] |
>
The MAGA GOP is demonstrating why people should not vote for inexperienced white supremacists. They have no idea how to govern responsibly. The live on crazy conspiracy theories, extremist Christianity and white supremacy.
Fortunately just a slim majority in the House with Democrats controlling the Senate and the White House, a bulwark of sanity against the biggest threat to US National Security since WWII, Trumpism.
|
[
"Who didn’t see that coming? “When people tell you who they are, believe them.”",
">\n\nThe GQP has no ability or interest in governing.",
">\n\nThey are especially good about thinking about the women and children... Just in a more traditional way",
">\n\nYou cant have an abortion/ you cant see people who dont abide by gender norms/thoughts and prayers/youre anti-american/tax cuts for the rich and business/poors deserve to get homelessness for not working.\nThat about sums it up, right?",
">\n\nToo real. Don't forget being God fearing in there too",
">\n\nHaha all implied. Separation, amirite?\nEdit oh wait",
">\n\n\"Government doesn't work! Elect us and we'll prove it! \"\nGOP probably.",
">\n\nOf course it won't get better. The House is a republican-filled circus and most of their platform was crafted on a whim for the optics. They want to muddy the water so that the actions of the Trump administration and the republican party that stood by him somehow seem less egregious. Most of their so-called platform are non-starters for democrats, so what you are left with is gridlock and optics votes, and that's what the next 2 years are going to be.",
">\n\nBig on chaos. Short on everything else.",
">\n\nChaos is a ladder... down to their base.",
">\n\nIs anyone really that surprised that the do nothing Republicans are doing nothing?",
">\n\nI mean they had a debate on whether to say the Pledge of Allegiance before committee hearings and whether members can carry guns in congress. Hour long debates. \nI mean you couldn't write something this bizarre. Comedy gold.",
">\n\nThat pretty much describes the entire Republican caucus since 2007 and the Trump presidency.",
">\n\nNow what would happen if I did my job the same way?",
">\n\nI work from home. \nMy new Roomba would rat me out.",
">\n\nThere was a majority elected to the House on the platform of let’s do nothing. This shouldn’t surprise anyone."
] |
>
This is what happens when you elect republicans
|
[
"Who didn’t see that coming? “When people tell you who they are, believe them.”",
">\n\nThe GQP has no ability or interest in governing.",
">\n\nThey are especially good about thinking about the women and children... Just in a more traditional way",
">\n\nYou cant have an abortion/ you cant see people who dont abide by gender norms/thoughts and prayers/youre anti-american/tax cuts for the rich and business/poors deserve to get homelessness for not working.\nThat about sums it up, right?",
">\n\nToo real. Don't forget being God fearing in there too",
">\n\nHaha all implied. Separation, amirite?\nEdit oh wait",
">\n\n\"Government doesn't work! Elect us and we'll prove it! \"\nGOP probably.",
">\n\nOf course it won't get better. The House is a republican-filled circus and most of their platform was crafted on a whim for the optics. They want to muddy the water so that the actions of the Trump administration and the republican party that stood by him somehow seem less egregious. Most of their so-called platform are non-starters for democrats, so what you are left with is gridlock and optics votes, and that's what the next 2 years are going to be.",
">\n\nBig on chaos. Short on everything else.",
">\n\nChaos is a ladder... down to their base.",
">\n\nIs anyone really that surprised that the do nothing Republicans are doing nothing?",
">\n\nI mean they had a debate on whether to say the Pledge of Allegiance before committee hearings and whether members can carry guns in congress. Hour long debates. \nI mean you couldn't write something this bizarre. Comedy gold.",
">\n\nThat pretty much describes the entire Republican caucus since 2007 and the Trump presidency.",
">\n\nNow what would happen if I did my job the same way?",
">\n\nI work from home. \nMy new Roomba would rat me out.",
">\n\nThere was a majority elected to the House on the platform of let’s do nothing. This shouldn’t surprise anyone.",
">\n\nThe MAGA GOP is demonstrating why people should not vote for inexperienced white supremacists. They have no idea how to govern responsibly. The live on crazy conspiracy theories, extremist Christianity and white supremacy. \nFortunately just a slim majority in the House with Democrats controlling the Senate and the White House, a bulwark of sanity against the biggest threat to US National Security since WWII, Trumpism."
] |
>
I don’t understand why this country only votes against self interest.
|
[
"Who didn’t see that coming? “When people tell you who they are, believe them.”",
">\n\nThe GQP has no ability or interest in governing.",
">\n\nThey are especially good about thinking about the women and children... Just in a more traditional way",
">\n\nYou cant have an abortion/ you cant see people who dont abide by gender norms/thoughts and prayers/youre anti-american/tax cuts for the rich and business/poors deserve to get homelessness for not working.\nThat about sums it up, right?",
">\n\nToo real. Don't forget being God fearing in there too",
">\n\nHaha all implied. Separation, amirite?\nEdit oh wait",
">\n\n\"Government doesn't work! Elect us and we'll prove it! \"\nGOP probably.",
">\n\nOf course it won't get better. The House is a republican-filled circus and most of their platform was crafted on a whim for the optics. They want to muddy the water so that the actions of the Trump administration and the republican party that stood by him somehow seem less egregious. Most of their so-called platform are non-starters for democrats, so what you are left with is gridlock and optics votes, and that's what the next 2 years are going to be.",
">\n\nBig on chaos. Short on everything else.",
">\n\nChaos is a ladder... down to their base.",
">\n\nIs anyone really that surprised that the do nothing Republicans are doing nothing?",
">\n\nI mean they had a debate on whether to say the Pledge of Allegiance before committee hearings and whether members can carry guns in congress. Hour long debates. \nI mean you couldn't write something this bizarre. Comedy gold.",
">\n\nThat pretty much describes the entire Republican caucus since 2007 and the Trump presidency.",
">\n\nNow what would happen if I did my job the same way?",
">\n\nI work from home. \nMy new Roomba would rat me out.",
">\n\nThere was a majority elected to the House on the platform of let’s do nothing. This shouldn’t surprise anyone.",
">\n\nThe MAGA GOP is demonstrating why people should not vote for inexperienced white supremacists. They have no idea how to govern responsibly. The live on crazy conspiracy theories, extremist Christianity and white supremacy. \nFortunately just a slim majority in the House with Democrats controlling the Senate and the White House, a bulwark of sanity against the biggest threat to US National Security since WWII, Trumpism.",
">\n\nThis is what happens when you elect republicans"
] |
>
Because there are a lot of wealthy people able to fund misinformation to get people to vote for the interests of the wealthy.
|
[
"Who didn’t see that coming? “When people tell you who they are, believe them.”",
">\n\nThe GQP has no ability or interest in governing.",
">\n\nThey are especially good about thinking about the women and children... Just in a more traditional way",
">\n\nYou cant have an abortion/ you cant see people who dont abide by gender norms/thoughts and prayers/youre anti-american/tax cuts for the rich and business/poors deserve to get homelessness for not working.\nThat about sums it up, right?",
">\n\nToo real. Don't forget being God fearing in there too",
">\n\nHaha all implied. Separation, amirite?\nEdit oh wait",
">\n\n\"Government doesn't work! Elect us and we'll prove it! \"\nGOP probably.",
">\n\nOf course it won't get better. The House is a republican-filled circus and most of their platform was crafted on a whim for the optics. They want to muddy the water so that the actions of the Trump administration and the republican party that stood by him somehow seem less egregious. Most of their so-called platform are non-starters for democrats, so what you are left with is gridlock and optics votes, and that's what the next 2 years are going to be.",
">\n\nBig on chaos. Short on everything else.",
">\n\nChaos is a ladder... down to their base.",
">\n\nIs anyone really that surprised that the do nothing Republicans are doing nothing?",
">\n\nI mean they had a debate on whether to say the Pledge of Allegiance before committee hearings and whether members can carry guns in congress. Hour long debates. \nI mean you couldn't write something this bizarre. Comedy gold.",
">\n\nThat pretty much describes the entire Republican caucus since 2007 and the Trump presidency.",
">\n\nNow what would happen if I did my job the same way?",
">\n\nI work from home. \nMy new Roomba would rat me out.",
">\n\nThere was a majority elected to the House on the platform of let’s do nothing. This shouldn’t surprise anyone.",
">\n\nThe MAGA GOP is demonstrating why people should not vote for inexperienced white supremacists. They have no idea how to govern responsibly. The live on crazy conspiracy theories, extremist Christianity and white supremacy. \nFortunately just a slim majority in the House with Democrats controlling the Senate and the White House, a bulwark of sanity against the biggest threat to US National Security since WWII, Trumpism.",
">\n\nThis is what happens when you elect republicans",
">\n\nI don’t understand why this country only votes against self interest."
] |
>
The slower the better—this is the group that has replaced flag pins with gun pins, subpoena avoidance with subpoena attacks, Ukrainian support with support for Putin, and … the list goes on. Just hope these idiots don’t force the USA to default.
|
[
"Who didn’t see that coming? “When people tell you who they are, believe them.”",
">\n\nThe GQP has no ability or interest in governing.",
">\n\nThey are especially good about thinking about the women and children... Just in a more traditional way",
">\n\nYou cant have an abortion/ you cant see people who dont abide by gender norms/thoughts and prayers/youre anti-american/tax cuts for the rich and business/poors deserve to get homelessness for not working.\nThat about sums it up, right?",
">\n\nToo real. Don't forget being God fearing in there too",
">\n\nHaha all implied. Separation, amirite?\nEdit oh wait",
">\n\n\"Government doesn't work! Elect us and we'll prove it! \"\nGOP probably.",
">\n\nOf course it won't get better. The House is a republican-filled circus and most of their platform was crafted on a whim for the optics. They want to muddy the water so that the actions of the Trump administration and the republican party that stood by him somehow seem less egregious. Most of their so-called platform are non-starters for democrats, so what you are left with is gridlock and optics votes, and that's what the next 2 years are going to be.",
">\n\nBig on chaos. Short on everything else.",
">\n\nChaos is a ladder... down to their base.",
">\n\nIs anyone really that surprised that the do nothing Republicans are doing nothing?",
">\n\nI mean they had a debate on whether to say the Pledge of Allegiance before committee hearings and whether members can carry guns in congress. Hour long debates. \nI mean you couldn't write something this bizarre. Comedy gold.",
">\n\nThat pretty much describes the entire Republican caucus since 2007 and the Trump presidency.",
">\n\nNow what would happen if I did my job the same way?",
">\n\nI work from home. \nMy new Roomba would rat me out.",
">\n\nThere was a majority elected to the House on the platform of let’s do nothing. This shouldn’t surprise anyone.",
">\n\nThe MAGA GOP is demonstrating why people should not vote for inexperienced white supremacists. They have no idea how to govern responsibly. The live on crazy conspiracy theories, extremist Christianity and white supremacy. \nFortunately just a slim majority in the House with Democrats controlling the Senate and the White House, a bulwark of sanity against the biggest threat to US National Security since WWII, Trumpism.",
">\n\nThis is what happens when you elect republicans",
">\n\nI don’t understand why this country only votes against self interest.",
">\n\nBecause there are a lot of wealthy people able to fund misinformation to get people to vote for the interests of the wealthy."
] |
>
The Republicans have no time to do any governing. They are way too busy worrying about what people have in their pants! they also have wage war on pronouns and story hour. Things like international trade, the economy, the war effort and climate change, will just have to wait!
|
[
"Who didn’t see that coming? “When people tell you who they are, believe them.”",
">\n\nThe GQP has no ability or interest in governing.",
">\n\nThey are especially good about thinking about the women and children... Just in a more traditional way",
">\n\nYou cant have an abortion/ you cant see people who dont abide by gender norms/thoughts and prayers/youre anti-american/tax cuts for the rich and business/poors deserve to get homelessness for not working.\nThat about sums it up, right?",
">\n\nToo real. Don't forget being God fearing in there too",
">\n\nHaha all implied. Separation, amirite?\nEdit oh wait",
">\n\n\"Government doesn't work! Elect us and we'll prove it! \"\nGOP probably.",
">\n\nOf course it won't get better. The House is a republican-filled circus and most of their platform was crafted on a whim for the optics. They want to muddy the water so that the actions of the Trump administration and the republican party that stood by him somehow seem less egregious. Most of their so-called platform are non-starters for democrats, so what you are left with is gridlock and optics votes, and that's what the next 2 years are going to be.",
">\n\nBig on chaos. Short on everything else.",
">\n\nChaos is a ladder... down to their base.",
">\n\nIs anyone really that surprised that the do nothing Republicans are doing nothing?",
">\n\nI mean they had a debate on whether to say the Pledge of Allegiance before committee hearings and whether members can carry guns in congress. Hour long debates. \nI mean you couldn't write something this bizarre. Comedy gold.",
">\n\nThat pretty much describes the entire Republican caucus since 2007 and the Trump presidency.",
">\n\nNow what would happen if I did my job the same way?",
">\n\nI work from home. \nMy new Roomba would rat me out.",
">\n\nThere was a majority elected to the House on the platform of let’s do nothing. This shouldn’t surprise anyone.",
">\n\nThe MAGA GOP is demonstrating why people should not vote for inexperienced white supremacists. They have no idea how to govern responsibly. The live on crazy conspiracy theories, extremist Christianity and white supremacy. \nFortunately just a slim majority in the House with Democrats controlling the Senate and the White House, a bulwark of sanity against the biggest threat to US National Security since WWII, Trumpism.",
">\n\nThis is what happens when you elect republicans",
">\n\nI don’t understand why this country only votes against self interest.",
">\n\nBecause there are a lot of wealthy people able to fund misinformation to get people to vote for the interests of the wealthy.",
">\n\nThe slower the better—this is the group that has replaced flag pins with gun pins, subpoena avoidance with subpoena attacks, Ukrainian support with support for Putin, and … the list goes on. Just hope these idiots don’t force the USA to default."
] |
>
Lol “members fear it won’t get better”
That’s “some members”. Some are upset it’s moving so fast.
|
[
"Who didn’t see that coming? “When people tell you who they are, believe them.”",
">\n\nThe GQP has no ability or interest in governing.",
">\n\nThey are especially good about thinking about the women and children... Just in a more traditional way",
">\n\nYou cant have an abortion/ you cant see people who dont abide by gender norms/thoughts and prayers/youre anti-american/tax cuts for the rich and business/poors deserve to get homelessness for not working.\nThat about sums it up, right?",
">\n\nToo real. Don't forget being God fearing in there too",
">\n\nHaha all implied. Separation, amirite?\nEdit oh wait",
">\n\n\"Government doesn't work! Elect us and we'll prove it! \"\nGOP probably.",
">\n\nOf course it won't get better. The House is a republican-filled circus and most of their platform was crafted on a whim for the optics. They want to muddy the water so that the actions of the Trump administration and the republican party that stood by him somehow seem less egregious. Most of their so-called platform are non-starters for democrats, so what you are left with is gridlock and optics votes, and that's what the next 2 years are going to be.",
">\n\nBig on chaos. Short on everything else.",
">\n\nChaos is a ladder... down to their base.",
">\n\nIs anyone really that surprised that the do nothing Republicans are doing nothing?",
">\n\nI mean they had a debate on whether to say the Pledge of Allegiance before committee hearings and whether members can carry guns in congress. Hour long debates. \nI mean you couldn't write something this bizarre. Comedy gold.",
">\n\nThat pretty much describes the entire Republican caucus since 2007 and the Trump presidency.",
">\n\nNow what would happen if I did my job the same way?",
">\n\nI work from home. \nMy new Roomba would rat me out.",
">\n\nThere was a majority elected to the House on the platform of let’s do nothing. This shouldn’t surprise anyone.",
">\n\nThe MAGA GOP is demonstrating why people should not vote for inexperienced white supremacists. They have no idea how to govern responsibly. The live on crazy conspiracy theories, extremist Christianity and white supremacy. \nFortunately just a slim majority in the House with Democrats controlling the Senate and the White House, a bulwark of sanity against the biggest threat to US National Security since WWII, Trumpism.",
">\n\nThis is what happens when you elect republicans",
">\n\nI don’t understand why this country only votes against self interest.",
">\n\nBecause there are a lot of wealthy people able to fund misinformation to get people to vote for the interests of the wealthy.",
">\n\nThe slower the better—this is the group that has replaced flag pins with gun pins, subpoena avoidance with subpoena attacks, Ukrainian support with support for Putin, and … the list goes on. Just hope these idiots don’t force the USA to default.",
">\n\nThe Republicans have no time to do any governing. They are way too busy worrying about what people have in their pants! they also have wage war on pronouns and story hour. Things like international trade, the economy, the war effort and climate change, will just have to wait!"
] |
>
This really isn't surprising, but it is concerning, particularly given the debt ceiling and a looming recession.
|
[
"Who didn’t see that coming? “When people tell you who they are, believe them.”",
">\n\nThe GQP has no ability or interest in governing.",
">\n\nThey are especially good about thinking about the women and children... Just in a more traditional way",
">\n\nYou cant have an abortion/ you cant see people who dont abide by gender norms/thoughts and prayers/youre anti-american/tax cuts for the rich and business/poors deserve to get homelessness for not working.\nThat about sums it up, right?",
">\n\nToo real. Don't forget being God fearing in there too",
">\n\nHaha all implied. Separation, amirite?\nEdit oh wait",
">\n\n\"Government doesn't work! Elect us and we'll prove it! \"\nGOP probably.",
">\n\nOf course it won't get better. The House is a republican-filled circus and most of their platform was crafted on a whim for the optics. They want to muddy the water so that the actions of the Trump administration and the republican party that stood by him somehow seem less egregious. Most of their so-called platform are non-starters for democrats, so what you are left with is gridlock and optics votes, and that's what the next 2 years are going to be.",
">\n\nBig on chaos. Short on everything else.",
">\n\nChaos is a ladder... down to their base.",
">\n\nIs anyone really that surprised that the do nothing Republicans are doing nothing?",
">\n\nI mean they had a debate on whether to say the Pledge of Allegiance before committee hearings and whether members can carry guns in congress. Hour long debates. \nI mean you couldn't write something this bizarre. Comedy gold.",
">\n\nThat pretty much describes the entire Republican caucus since 2007 and the Trump presidency.",
">\n\nNow what would happen if I did my job the same way?",
">\n\nI work from home. \nMy new Roomba would rat me out.",
">\n\nThere was a majority elected to the House on the platform of let’s do nothing. This shouldn’t surprise anyone.",
">\n\nThe MAGA GOP is demonstrating why people should not vote for inexperienced white supremacists. They have no idea how to govern responsibly. The live on crazy conspiracy theories, extremist Christianity and white supremacy. \nFortunately just a slim majority in the House with Democrats controlling the Senate and the White House, a bulwark of sanity against the biggest threat to US National Security since WWII, Trumpism.",
">\n\nThis is what happens when you elect republicans",
">\n\nI don’t understand why this country only votes against self interest.",
">\n\nBecause there are a lot of wealthy people able to fund misinformation to get people to vote for the interests of the wealthy.",
">\n\nThe slower the better—this is the group that has replaced flag pins with gun pins, subpoena avoidance with subpoena attacks, Ukrainian support with support for Putin, and … the list goes on. Just hope these idiots don’t force the USA to default.",
">\n\nThe Republicans have no time to do any governing. They are way too busy worrying about what people have in their pants! they also have wage war on pronouns and story hour. Things like international trade, the economy, the war effort and climate change, will just have to wait!",
">\n\nLol “members fear it won’t get better”\nThat’s “some members”. Some are upset it’s moving so fast."
] |
>
This is what their voters elected the Republicans lawmakers to do. Nothing (besides obstructing).
|
[
"Who didn’t see that coming? “When people tell you who they are, believe them.”",
">\n\nThe GQP has no ability or interest in governing.",
">\n\nThey are especially good about thinking about the women and children... Just in a more traditional way",
">\n\nYou cant have an abortion/ you cant see people who dont abide by gender norms/thoughts and prayers/youre anti-american/tax cuts for the rich and business/poors deserve to get homelessness for not working.\nThat about sums it up, right?",
">\n\nToo real. Don't forget being God fearing in there too",
">\n\nHaha all implied. Separation, amirite?\nEdit oh wait",
">\n\n\"Government doesn't work! Elect us and we'll prove it! \"\nGOP probably.",
">\n\nOf course it won't get better. The House is a republican-filled circus and most of their platform was crafted on a whim for the optics. They want to muddy the water so that the actions of the Trump administration and the republican party that stood by him somehow seem less egregious. Most of their so-called platform are non-starters for democrats, so what you are left with is gridlock and optics votes, and that's what the next 2 years are going to be.",
">\n\nBig on chaos. Short on everything else.",
">\n\nChaos is a ladder... down to their base.",
">\n\nIs anyone really that surprised that the do nothing Republicans are doing nothing?",
">\n\nI mean they had a debate on whether to say the Pledge of Allegiance before committee hearings and whether members can carry guns in congress. Hour long debates. \nI mean you couldn't write something this bizarre. Comedy gold.",
">\n\nThat pretty much describes the entire Republican caucus since 2007 and the Trump presidency.",
">\n\nNow what would happen if I did my job the same way?",
">\n\nI work from home. \nMy new Roomba would rat me out.",
">\n\nThere was a majority elected to the House on the platform of let’s do nothing. This shouldn’t surprise anyone.",
">\n\nThe MAGA GOP is demonstrating why people should not vote for inexperienced white supremacists. They have no idea how to govern responsibly. The live on crazy conspiracy theories, extremist Christianity and white supremacy. \nFortunately just a slim majority in the House with Democrats controlling the Senate and the White House, a bulwark of sanity against the biggest threat to US National Security since WWII, Trumpism.",
">\n\nThis is what happens when you elect republicans",
">\n\nI don’t understand why this country only votes against self interest.",
">\n\nBecause there are a lot of wealthy people able to fund misinformation to get people to vote for the interests of the wealthy.",
">\n\nThe slower the better—this is the group that has replaced flag pins with gun pins, subpoena avoidance with subpoena attacks, Ukrainian support with support for Putin, and … the list goes on. Just hope these idiots don’t force the USA to default.",
">\n\nThe Republicans have no time to do any governing. They are way too busy worrying about what people have in their pants! they also have wage war on pronouns and story hour. Things like international trade, the economy, the war effort and climate change, will just have to wait!",
">\n\nLol “members fear it won’t get better”\nThat’s “some members”. Some are upset it’s moving so fast.",
">\n\nThis really isn't surprising, but it is concerning, particularly given the debt ceiling and a looming recession."
] |
>
Republicans don’t know how to govern. They just know how to be against something. I’ve yet to see them say anything that remotely wouldn’t be considered a criticism — in the last decade.
Government that governs least, governs best; indeed.
|
[
"Who didn’t see that coming? “When people tell you who they are, believe them.”",
">\n\nThe GQP has no ability or interest in governing.",
">\n\nThey are especially good about thinking about the women and children... Just in a more traditional way",
">\n\nYou cant have an abortion/ you cant see people who dont abide by gender norms/thoughts and prayers/youre anti-american/tax cuts for the rich and business/poors deserve to get homelessness for not working.\nThat about sums it up, right?",
">\n\nToo real. Don't forget being God fearing in there too",
">\n\nHaha all implied. Separation, amirite?\nEdit oh wait",
">\n\n\"Government doesn't work! Elect us and we'll prove it! \"\nGOP probably.",
">\n\nOf course it won't get better. The House is a republican-filled circus and most of their platform was crafted on a whim for the optics. They want to muddy the water so that the actions of the Trump administration and the republican party that stood by him somehow seem less egregious. Most of their so-called platform are non-starters for democrats, so what you are left with is gridlock and optics votes, and that's what the next 2 years are going to be.",
">\n\nBig on chaos. Short on everything else.",
">\n\nChaos is a ladder... down to their base.",
">\n\nIs anyone really that surprised that the do nothing Republicans are doing nothing?",
">\n\nI mean they had a debate on whether to say the Pledge of Allegiance before committee hearings and whether members can carry guns in congress. Hour long debates. \nI mean you couldn't write something this bizarre. Comedy gold.",
">\n\nThat pretty much describes the entire Republican caucus since 2007 and the Trump presidency.",
">\n\nNow what would happen if I did my job the same way?",
">\n\nI work from home. \nMy new Roomba would rat me out.",
">\n\nThere was a majority elected to the House on the platform of let’s do nothing. This shouldn’t surprise anyone.",
">\n\nThe MAGA GOP is demonstrating why people should not vote for inexperienced white supremacists. They have no idea how to govern responsibly. The live on crazy conspiracy theories, extremist Christianity and white supremacy. \nFortunately just a slim majority in the House with Democrats controlling the Senate and the White House, a bulwark of sanity against the biggest threat to US National Security since WWII, Trumpism.",
">\n\nThis is what happens when you elect republicans",
">\n\nI don’t understand why this country only votes against self interest.",
">\n\nBecause there are a lot of wealthy people able to fund misinformation to get people to vote for the interests of the wealthy.",
">\n\nThe slower the better—this is the group that has replaced flag pins with gun pins, subpoena avoidance with subpoena attacks, Ukrainian support with support for Putin, and … the list goes on. Just hope these idiots don’t force the USA to default.",
">\n\nThe Republicans have no time to do any governing. They are way too busy worrying about what people have in their pants! they also have wage war on pronouns and story hour. Things like international trade, the economy, the war effort and climate change, will just have to wait!",
">\n\nLol “members fear it won’t get better”\nThat’s “some members”. Some are upset it’s moving so fast.",
">\n\nThis really isn't surprising, but it is concerning, particularly given the debt ceiling and a looming recession.",
">\n\nThis is what their voters elected the Republicans lawmakers to do. Nothing (besides obstructing)."
] |
>
the GOP's only active platform plank is "obstruct", what did you expect?
|
[
"Who didn’t see that coming? “When people tell you who they are, believe them.”",
">\n\nThe GQP has no ability or interest in governing.",
">\n\nThey are especially good about thinking about the women and children... Just in a more traditional way",
">\n\nYou cant have an abortion/ you cant see people who dont abide by gender norms/thoughts and prayers/youre anti-american/tax cuts for the rich and business/poors deserve to get homelessness for not working.\nThat about sums it up, right?",
">\n\nToo real. Don't forget being God fearing in there too",
">\n\nHaha all implied. Separation, amirite?\nEdit oh wait",
">\n\n\"Government doesn't work! Elect us and we'll prove it! \"\nGOP probably.",
">\n\nOf course it won't get better. The House is a republican-filled circus and most of their platform was crafted on a whim for the optics. They want to muddy the water so that the actions of the Trump administration and the republican party that stood by him somehow seem less egregious. Most of their so-called platform are non-starters for democrats, so what you are left with is gridlock and optics votes, and that's what the next 2 years are going to be.",
">\n\nBig on chaos. Short on everything else.",
">\n\nChaos is a ladder... down to their base.",
">\n\nIs anyone really that surprised that the do nothing Republicans are doing nothing?",
">\n\nI mean they had a debate on whether to say the Pledge of Allegiance before committee hearings and whether members can carry guns in congress. Hour long debates. \nI mean you couldn't write something this bizarre. Comedy gold.",
">\n\nThat pretty much describes the entire Republican caucus since 2007 and the Trump presidency.",
">\n\nNow what would happen if I did my job the same way?",
">\n\nI work from home. \nMy new Roomba would rat me out.",
">\n\nThere was a majority elected to the House on the platform of let’s do nothing. This shouldn’t surprise anyone.",
">\n\nThe MAGA GOP is demonstrating why people should not vote for inexperienced white supremacists. They have no idea how to govern responsibly. The live on crazy conspiracy theories, extremist Christianity and white supremacy. \nFortunately just a slim majority in the House with Democrats controlling the Senate and the White House, a bulwark of sanity against the biggest threat to US National Security since WWII, Trumpism.",
">\n\nThis is what happens when you elect republicans",
">\n\nI don’t understand why this country only votes against self interest.",
">\n\nBecause there are a lot of wealthy people able to fund misinformation to get people to vote for the interests of the wealthy.",
">\n\nThe slower the better—this is the group that has replaced flag pins with gun pins, subpoena avoidance with subpoena attacks, Ukrainian support with support for Putin, and … the list goes on. Just hope these idiots don’t force the USA to default.",
">\n\nThe Republicans have no time to do any governing. They are way too busy worrying about what people have in their pants! they also have wage war on pronouns and story hour. Things like international trade, the economy, the war effort and climate change, will just have to wait!",
">\n\nLol “members fear it won’t get better”\nThat’s “some members”. Some are upset it’s moving so fast.",
">\n\nThis really isn't surprising, but it is concerning, particularly given the debt ceiling and a looming recession.",
">\n\nThis is what their voters elected the Republicans lawmakers to do. Nothing (besides obstructing).",
">\n\nRepublicans don’t know how to govern. They just know how to be against something. I’ve yet to see them say anything that remotely wouldn’t be considered a criticism — in the last decade.\nGovernment that governs least, governs best; indeed."
] |
>
Yeah, we all knew this. Did Congress just now realize?
|
[
"Who didn’t see that coming? “When people tell you who they are, believe them.”",
">\n\nThe GQP has no ability or interest in governing.",
">\n\nThey are especially good about thinking about the women and children... Just in a more traditional way",
">\n\nYou cant have an abortion/ you cant see people who dont abide by gender norms/thoughts and prayers/youre anti-american/tax cuts for the rich and business/poors deserve to get homelessness for not working.\nThat about sums it up, right?",
">\n\nToo real. Don't forget being God fearing in there too",
">\n\nHaha all implied. Separation, amirite?\nEdit oh wait",
">\n\n\"Government doesn't work! Elect us and we'll prove it! \"\nGOP probably.",
">\n\nOf course it won't get better. The House is a republican-filled circus and most of their platform was crafted on a whim for the optics. They want to muddy the water so that the actions of the Trump administration and the republican party that stood by him somehow seem less egregious. Most of their so-called platform are non-starters for democrats, so what you are left with is gridlock and optics votes, and that's what the next 2 years are going to be.",
">\n\nBig on chaos. Short on everything else.",
">\n\nChaos is a ladder... down to their base.",
">\n\nIs anyone really that surprised that the do nothing Republicans are doing nothing?",
">\n\nI mean they had a debate on whether to say the Pledge of Allegiance before committee hearings and whether members can carry guns in congress. Hour long debates. \nI mean you couldn't write something this bizarre. Comedy gold.",
">\n\nThat pretty much describes the entire Republican caucus since 2007 and the Trump presidency.",
">\n\nNow what would happen if I did my job the same way?",
">\n\nI work from home. \nMy new Roomba would rat me out.",
">\n\nThere was a majority elected to the House on the platform of let’s do nothing. This shouldn’t surprise anyone.",
">\n\nThe MAGA GOP is demonstrating why people should not vote for inexperienced white supremacists. They have no idea how to govern responsibly. The live on crazy conspiracy theories, extremist Christianity and white supremacy. \nFortunately just a slim majority in the House with Democrats controlling the Senate and the White House, a bulwark of sanity against the biggest threat to US National Security since WWII, Trumpism.",
">\n\nThis is what happens when you elect republicans",
">\n\nI don’t understand why this country only votes against self interest.",
">\n\nBecause there are a lot of wealthy people able to fund misinformation to get people to vote for the interests of the wealthy.",
">\n\nThe slower the better—this is the group that has replaced flag pins with gun pins, subpoena avoidance with subpoena attacks, Ukrainian support with support for Putin, and … the list goes on. Just hope these idiots don’t force the USA to default.",
">\n\nThe Republicans have no time to do any governing. They are way too busy worrying about what people have in their pants! they also have wage war on pronouns and story hour. Things like international trade, the economy, the war effort and climate change, will just have to wait!",
">\n\nLol “members fear it won’t get better”\nThat’s “some members”. Some are upset it’s moving so fast.",
">\n\nThis really isn't surprising, but it is concerning, particularly given the debt ceiling and a looming recession.",
">\n\nThis is what their voters elected the Republicans lawmakers to do. Nothing (besides obstructing).",
">\n\nRepublicans don’t know how to govern. They just know how to be against something. I’ve yet to see them say anything that remotely wouldn’t be considered a criticism — in the last decade.\nGovernment that governs least, governs best; indeed.",
">\n\nthe GOP's only active platform plank is \"obstruct\", what did you expect?"
] |
>
"Good" -- r/Conservative probably
|
[
"Who didn’t see that coming? “When people tell you who they are, believe them.”",
">\n\nThe GQP has no ability or interest in governing.",
">\n\nThey are especially good about thinking about the women and children... Just in a more traditional way",
">\n\nYou cant have an abortion/ you cant see people who dont abide by gender norms/thoughts and prayers/youre anti-american/tax cuts for the rich and business/poors deserve to get homelessness for not working.\nThat about sums it up, right?",
">\n\nToo real. Don't forget being God fearing in there too",
">\n\nHaha all implied. Separation, amirite?\nEdit oh wait",
">\n\n\"Government doesn't work! Elect us and we'll prove it! \"\nGOP probably.",
">\n\nOf course it won't get better. The House is a republican-filled circus and most of their platform was crafted on a whim for the optics. They want to muddy the water so that the actions of the Trump administration and the republican party that stood by him somehow seem less egregious. Most of their so-called platform are non-starters for democrats, so what you are left with is gridlock and optics votes, and that's what the next 2 years are going to be.",
">\n\nBig on chaos. Short on everything else.",
">\n\nChaos is a ladder... down to their base.",
">\n\nIs anyone really that surprised that the do nothing Republicans are doing nothing?",
">\n\nI mean they had a debate on whether to say the Pledge of Allegiance before committee hearings and whether members can carry guns in congress. Hour long debates. \nI mean you couldn't write something this bizarre. Comedy gold.",
">\n\nThat pretty much describes the entire Republican caucus since 2007 and the Trump presidency.",
">\n\nNow what would happen if I did my job the same way?",
">\n\nI work from home. \nMy new Roomba would rat me out.",
">\n\nThere was a majority elected to the House on the platform of let’s do nothing. This shouldn’t surprise anyone.",
">\n\nThe MAGA GOP is demonstrating why people should not vote for inexperienced white supremacists. They have no idea how to govern responsibly. The live on crazy conspiracy theories, extremist Christianity and white supremacy. \nFortunately just a slim majority in the House with Democrats controlling the Senate and the White House, a bulwark of sanity against the biggest threat to US National Security since WWII, Trumpism.",
">\n\nThis is what happens when you elect republicans",
">\n\nI don’t understand why this country only votes against self interest.",
">\n\nBecause there are a lot of wealthy people able to fund misinformation to get people to vote for the interests of the wealthy.",
">\n\nThe slower the better—this is the group that has replaced flag pins with gun pins, subpoena avoidance with subpoena attacks, Ukrainian support with support for Putin, and … the list goes on. Just hope these idiots don’t force the USA to default.",
">\n\nThe Republicans have no time to do any governing. They are way too busy worrying about what people have in their pants! they also have wage war on pronouns and story hour. Things like international trade, the economy, the war effort and climate change, will just have to wait!",
">\n\nLol “members fear it won’t get better”\nThat’s “some members”. Some are upset it’s moving so fast.",
">\n\nThis really isn't surprising, but it is concerning, particularly given the debt ceiling and a looming recession.",
">\n\nThis is what their voters elected the Republicans lawmakers to do. Nothing (besides obstructing).",
">\n\nRepublicans don’t know how to govern. They just know how to be against something. I’ve yet to see them say anything that remotely wouldn’t be considered a criticism — in the last decade.\nGovernment that governs least, governs best; indeed.",
">\n\nthe GOP's only active platform plank is \"obstruct\", what did you expect?",
">\n\nYeah, we all knew this. Did Congress just now realize?"
] |
>
That's one way to stop big gubment interfering in our lives.
|
[
"Who didn’t see that coming? “When people tell you who they are, believe them.”",
">\n\nThe GQP has no ability or interest in governing.",
">\n\nThey are especially good about thinking about the women and children... Just in a more traditional way",
">\n\nYou cant have an abortion/ you cant see people who dont abide by gender norms/thoughts and prayers/youre anti-american/tax cuts for the rich and business/poors deserve to get homelessness for not working.\nThat about sums it up, right?",
">\n\nToo real. Don't forget being God fearing in there too",
">\n\nHaha all implied. Separation, amirite?\nEdit oh wait",
">\n\n\"Government doesn't work! Elect us and we'll prove it! \"\nGOP probably.",
">\n\nOf course it won't get better. The House is a republican-filled circus and most of their platform was crafted on a whim for the optics. They want to muddy the water so that the actions of the Trump administration and the republican party that stood by him somehow seem less egregious. Most of their so-called platform are non-starters for democrats, so what you are left with is gridlock and optics votes, and that's what the next 2 years are going to be.",
">\n\nBig on chaos. Short on everything else.",
">\n\nChaos is a ladder... down to their base.",
">\n\nIs anyone really that surprised that the do nothing Republicans are doing nothing?",
">\n\nI mean they had a debate on whether to say the Pledge of Allegiance before committee hearings and whether members can carry guns in congress. Hour long debates. \nI mean you couldn't write something this bizarre. Comedy gold.",
">\n\nThat pretty much describes the entire Republican caucus since 2007 and the Trump presidency.",
">\n\nNow what would happen if I did my job the same way?",
">\n\nI work from home. \nMy new Roomba would rat me out.",
">\n\nThere was a majority elected to the House on the platform of let’s do nothing. This shouldn’t surprise anyone.",
">\n\nThe MAGA GOP is demonstrating why people should not vote for inexperienced white supremacists. They have no idea how to govern responsibly. The live on crazy conspiracy theories, extremist Christianity and white supremacy. \nFortunately just a slim majority in the House with Democrats controlling the Senate and the White House, a bulwark of sanity against the biggest threat to US National Security since WWII, Trumpism.",
">\n\nThis is what happens when you elect republicans",
">\n\nI don’t understand why this country only votes against self interest.",
">\n\nBecause there are a lot of wealthy people able to fund misinformation to get people to vote for the interests of the wealthy.",
">\n\nThe slower the better—this is the group that has replaced flag pins with gun pins, subpoena avoidance with subpoena attacks, Ukrainian support with support for Putin, and … the list goes on. Just hope these idiots don’t force the USA to default.",
">\n\nThe Republicans have no time to do any governing. They are way too busy worrying about what people have in their pants! they also have wage war on pronouns and story hour. Things like international trade, the economy, the war effort and climate change, will just have to wait!",
">\n\nLol “members fear it won’t get better”\nThat’s “some members”. Some are upset it’s moving so fast.",
">\n\nThis really isn't surprising, but it is concerning, particularly given the debt ceiling and a looming recession.",
">\n\nThis is what their voters elected the Republicans lawmakers to do. Nothing (besides obstructing).",
">\n\nRepublicans don’t know how to govern. They just know how to be against something. I’ve yet to see them say anything that remotely wouldn’t be considered a criticism — in the last decade.\nGovernment that governs least, governs best; indeed.",
">\n\nthe GOP's only active platform plank is \"obstruct\", what did you expect?",
">\n\nYeah, we all knew this. Did Congress just now realize?",
">\n\n\"Good\" -- r/Conservative probably"
] |
>
Sometimes no news is good news
|
[
"Who didn’t see that coming? “When people tell you who they are, believe them.”",
">\n\nThe GQP has no ability or interest in governing.",
">\n\nThey are especially good about thinking about the women and children... Just in a more traditional way",
">\n\nYou cant have an abortion/ you cant see people who dont abide by gender norms/thoughts and prayers/youre anti-american/tax cuts for the rich and business/poors deserve to get homelessness for not working.\nThat about sums it up, right?",
">\n\nToo real. Don't forget being God fearing in there too",
">\n\nHaha all implied. Separation, amirite?\nEdit oh wait",
">\n\n\"Government doesn't work! Elect us and we'll prove it! \"\nGOP probably.",
">\n\nOf course it won't get better. The House is a republican-filled circus and most of their platform was crafted on a whim for the optics. They want to muddy the water so that the actions of the Trump administration and the republican party that stood by him somehow seem less egregious. Most of their so-called platform are non-starters for democrats, so what you are left with is gridlock and optics votes, and that's what the next 2 years are going to be.",
">\n\nBig on chaos. Short on everything else.",
">\n\nChaos is a ladder... down to their base.",
">\n\nIs anyone really that surprised that the do nothing Republicans are doing nothing?",
">\n\nI mean they had a debate on whether to say the Pledge of Allegiance before committee hearings and whether members can carry guns in congress. Hour long debates. \nI mean you couldn't write something this bizarre. Comedy gold.",
">\n\nThat pretty much describes the entire Republican caucus since 2007 and the Trump presidency.",
">\n\nNow what would happen if I did my job the same way?",
">\n\nI work from home. \nMy new Roomba would rat me out.",
">\n\nThere was a majority elected to the House on the platform of let’s do nothing. This shouldn’t surprise anyone.",
">\n\nThe MAGA GOP is demonstrating why people should not vote for inexperienced white supremacists. They have no idea how to govern responsibly. The live on crazy conspiracy theories, extremist Christianity and white supremacy. \nFortunately just a slim majority in the House with Democrats controlling the Senate and the White House, a bulwark of sanity against the biggest threat to US National Security since WWII, Trumpism.",
">\n\nThis is what happens when you elect republicans",
">\n\nI don’t understand why this country only votes against self interest.",
">\n\nBecause there are a lot of wealthy people able to fund misinformation to get people to vote for the interests of the wealthy.",
">\n\nThe slower the better—this is the group that has replaced flag pins with gun pins, subpoena avoidance with subpoena attacks, Ukrainian support with support for Putin, and … the list goes on. Just hope these idiots don’t force the USA to default.",
">\n\nThe Republicans have no time to do any governing. They are way too busy worrying about what people have in their pants! they also have wage war on pronouns and story hour. Things like international trade, the economy, the war effort and climate change, will just have to wait!",
">\n\nLol “members fear it won’t get better”\nThat’s “some members”. Some are upset it’s moving so fast.",
">\n\nThis really isn't surprising, but it is concerning, particularly given the debt ceiling and a looming recession.",
">\n\nThis is what their voters elected the Republicans lawmakers to do. Nothing (besides obstructing).",
">\n\nRepublicans don’t know how to govern. They just know how to be against something. I’ve yet to see them say anything that remotely wouldn’t be considered a criticism — in the last decade.\nGovernment that governs least, governs best; indeed.",
">\n\nthe GOP's only active platform plank is \"obstruct\", what did you expect?",
">\n\nYeah, we all knew this. Did Congress just now realize?",
">\n\n\"Good\" -- r/Conservative probably",
">\n\nThat's one way to stop big gubment interfering in our lives."
] |
>
They won't and it's by design.
Fuck them.
"Look busy while we do absolutely nothing whatsoever"
|
[
"Who didn’t see that coming? “When people tell you who they are, believe them.”",
">\n\nThe GQP has no ability or interest in governing.",
">\n\nThey are especially good about thinking about the women and children... Just in a more traditional way",
">\n\nYou cant have an abortion/ you cant see people who dont abide by gender norms/thoughts and prayers/youre anti-american/tax cuts for the rich and business/poors deserve to get homelessness for not working.\nThat about sums it up, right?",
">\n\nToo real. Don't forget being God fearing in there too",
">\n\nHaha all implied. Separation, amirite?\nEdit oh wait",
">\n\n\"Government doesn't work! Elect us and we'll prove it! \"\nGOP probably.",
">\n\nOf course it won't get better. The House is a republican-filled circus and most of their platform was crafted on a whim for the optics. They want to muddy the water so that the actions of the Trump administration and the republican party that stood by him somehow seem less egregious. Most of their so-called platform are non-starters for democrats, so what you are left with is gridlock and optics votes, and that's what the next 2 years are going to be.",
">\n\nBig on chaos. Short on everything else.",
">\n\nChaos is a ladder... down to their base.",
">\n\nIs anyone really that surprised that the do nothing Republicans are doing nothing?",
">\n\nI mean they had a debate on whether to say the Pledge of Allegiance before committee hearings and whether members can carry guns in congress. Hour long debates. \nI mean you couldn't write something this bizarre. Comedy gold.",
">\n\nThat pretty much describes the entire Republican caucus since 2007 and the Trump presidency.",
">\n\nNow what would happen if I did my job the same way?",
">\n\nI work from home. \nMy new Roomba would rat me out.",
">\n\nThere was a majority elected to the House on the platform of let’s do nothing. This shouldn’t surprise anyone.",
">\n\nThe MAGA GOP is demonstrating why people should not vote for inexperienced white supremacists. They have no idea how to govern responsibly. The live on crazy conspiracy theories, extremist Christianity and white supremacy. \nFortunately just a slim majority in the House with Democrats controlling the Senate and the White House, a bulwark of sanity against the biggest threat to US National Security since WWII, Trumpism.",
">\n\nThis is what happens when you elect republicans",
">\n\nI don’t understand why this country only votes against self interest.",
">\n\nBecause there are a lot of wealthy people able to fund misinformation to get people to vote for the interests of the wealthy.",
">\n\nThe slower the better—this is the group that has replaced flag pins with gun pins, subpoena avoidance with subpoena attacks, Ukrainian support with support for Putin, and … the list goes on. Just hope these idiots don’t force the USA to default.",
">\n\nThe Republicans have no time to do any governing. They are way too busy worrying about what people have in their pants! they also have wage war on pronouns and story hour. Things like international trade, the economy, the war effort and climate change, will just have to wait!",
">\n\nLol “members fear it won’t get better”\nThat’s “some members”. Some are upset it’s moving so fast.",
">\n\nThis really isn't surprising, but it is concerning, particularly given the debt ceiling and a looming recession.",
">\n\nThis is what their voters elected the Republicans lawmakers to do. Nothing (besides obstructing).",
">\n\nRepublicans don’t know how to govern. They just know how to be against something. I’ve yet to see them say anything that remotely wouldn’t be considered a criticism — in the last decade.\nGovernment that governs least, governs best; indeed.",
">\n\nthe GOP's only active platform plank is \"obstruct\", what did you expect?",
">\n\nYeah, we all knew this. Did Congress just now realize?",
">\n\n\"Good\" -- r/Conservative probably",
">\n\nThat's one way to stop big gubment interfering in our lives.",
">\n\nSometimes no news is good news"
] |
>
Who didn’t see that coming? “When people tell you who they are, believe them.”
|
[
"Who didn’t see that coming? “When people tell you who they are, believe them.”",
">\n\nThe GQP has no ability or interest in governing.",
">\n\nThey are especially good about thinking about the women and children... Just in a more traditional way",
">\n\nYou cant have an abortion/ you cant see people who dont abide by gender norms/thoughts and prayers/youre anti-american/tax cuts for the rich and business/poors deserve to get homelessness for not working.\nThat about sums it up, right?",
">\n\nToo real. Don't forget being God fearing in there too",
">\n\nHaha all implied. Separation, amirite?\nEdit oh wait",
">\n\n\"Government doesn't work! Elect us and we'll prove it! \"\nGOP probably.",
">\n\nOf course it won't get better. The House is a republican-filled circus and most of their platform was crafted on a whim for the optics. They want to muddy the water so that the actions of the Trump administration and the republican party that stood by him somehow seem less egregious. Most of their so-called platform are non-starters for democrats, so what you are left with is gridlock and optics votes, and that's what the next 2 years are going to be.",
">\n\nBig on chaos. Short on everything else.",
">\n\nChaos is a ladder... down to their base.",
">\n\nIs anyone really that surprised that the do nothing Republicans are doing nothing?",
">\n\nI mean they had a debate on whether to say the Pledge of Allegiance before committee hearings and whether members can carry guns in congress. Hour long debates. \nI mean you couldn't write something this bizarre. Comedy gold.",
">\n\nThat pretty much describes the entire Republican caucus since 2007 and the Trump presidency.",
">\n\nNow what would happen if I did my job the same way?",
">\n\nI work from home. \nMy new Roomba would rat me out.",
">\n\nThere was a majority elected to the House on the platform of let’s do nothing. This shouldn’t surprise anyone.",
">\n\nThe MAGA GOP is demonstrating why people should not vote for inexperienced white supremacists. They have no idea how to govern responsibly. The live on crazy conspiracy theories, extremist Christianity and white supremacy. \nFortunately just a slim majority in the House with Democrats controlling the Senate and the White House, a bulwark of sanity against the biggest threat to US National Security since WWII, Trumpism.",
">\n\nThis is what happens when you elect republicans",
">\n\nI don’t understand why this country only votes against self interest.",
">\n\nBecause there are a lot of wealthy people able to fund misinformation to get people to vote for the interests of the wealthy.",
">\n\nThe slower the better—this is the group that has replaced flag pins with gun pins, subpoena avoidance with subpoena attacks, Ukrainian support with support for Putin, and … the list goes on. Just hope these idiots don’t force the USA to default.",
">\n\nThe Republicans have no time to do any governing. They are way too busy worrying about what people have in their pants! they also have wage war on pronouns and story hour. Things like international trade, the economy, the war effort and climate change, will just have to wait!",
">\n\nLol “members fear it won’t get better”\nThat’s “some members”. Some are upset it’s moving so fast.",
">\n\nThis really isn't surprising, but it is concerning, particularly given the debt ceiling and a looming recession.",
">\n\nThis is what their voters elected the Republicans lawmakers to do. Nothing (besides obstructing).",
">\n\nRepublicans don’t know how to govern. They just know how to be against something. I’ve yet to see them say anything that remotely wouldn’t be considered a criticism — in the last decade.\nGovernment that governs least, governs best; indeed.",
">\n\nthe GOP's only active platform plank is \"obstruct\", what did you expect?",
">\n\nYeah, we all knew this. Did Congress just now realize?",
">\n\n\"Good\" -- r/Conservative probably",
">\n\nThat's one way to stop big gubment interfering in our lives.",
">\n\nSometimes no news is good news",
">\n\nThey won't and it's by design. \nFuck them.\n\"Look busy while we do absolutely nothing whatsoever\""
] |
>
The GQP has no ability or interest in governing.
|
[
"Who didn’t see that coming? “When people tell you who they are, believe them.”",
">\n\nThe GQP has no ability or interest in governing.",
">\n\nThey are especially good about thinking about the women and children... Just in a more traditional way",
">\n\nYou cant have an abortion/ you cant see people who dont abide by gender norms/thoughts and prayers/youre anti-american/tax cuts for the rich and business/poors deserve to get homelessness for not working.\nThat about sums it up, right?",
">\n\nToo real. Don't forget being God fearing in there too",
">\n\nHaha all implied. Separation, amirite?\nEdit oh wait",
">\n\n\"Government doesn't work! Elect us and we'll prove it! \"\nGOP probably.",
">\n\nOf course it won't get better. The House is a republican-filled circus and most of their platform was crafted on a whim for the optics. They want to muddy the water so that the actions of the Trump administration and the republican party that stood by him somehow seem less egregious. Most of their so-called platform are non-starters for democrats, so what you are left with is gridlock and optics votes, and that's what the next 2 years are going to be.",
">\n\nBig on chaos. Short on everything else.",
">\n\nChaos is a ladder... down to their base.",
">\n\nIs anyone really that surprised that the do nothing Republicans are doing nothing?",
">\n\nI mean they had a debate on whether to say the Pledge of Allegiance before committee hearings and whether members can carry guns in congress. Hour long debates. \nI mean you couldn't write something this bizarre. Comedy gold.",
">\n\nThat pretty much describes the entire Republican caucus since 2007 and the Trump presidency.",
">\n\nNow what would happen if I did my job the same way?",
">\n\nI work from home. \nMy new Roomba would rat me out.",
">\n\nThere was a majority elected to the House on the platform of let’s do nothing. This shouldn’t surprise anyone.",
">\n\nThe MAGA GOP is demonstrating why people should not vote for inexperienced white supremacists. They have no idea how to govern responsibly. The live on crazy conspiracy theories, extremist Christianity and white supremacy. \nFortunately just a slim majority in the House with Democrats controlling the Senate and the White House, a bulwark of sanity against the biggest threat to US National Security since WWII, Trumpism.",
">\n\nThis is what happens when you elect republicans",
">\n\nI don’t understand why this country only votes against self interest.",
">\n\nBecause there are a lot of wealthy people able to fund misinformation to get people to vote for the interests of the wealthy.",
">\n\nThe slower the better—this is the group that has replaced flag pins with gun pins, subpoena avoidance with subpoena attacks, Ukrainian support with support for Putin, and … the list goes on. Just hope these idiots don’t force the USA to default.",
">\n\nThe Republicans have no time to do any governing. They are way too busy worrying about what people have in their pants! they also have wage war on pronouns and story hour. Things like international trade, the economy, the war effort and climate change, will just have to wait!",
">\n\nLol “members fear it won’t get better”\nThat’s “some members”. Some are upset it’s moving so fast.",
">\n\nThis really isn't surprising, but it is concerning, particularly given the debt ceiling and a looming recession.",
">\n\nThis is what their voters elected the Republicans lawmakers to do. Nothing (besides obstructing).",
">\n\nRepublicans don’t know how to govern. They just know how to be against something. I’ve yet to see them say anything that remotely wouldn’t be considered a criticism — in the last decade.\nGovernment that governs least, governs best; indeed.",
">\n\nthe GOP's only active platform plank is \"obstruct\", what did you expect?",
">\n\nYeah, we all knew this. Did Congress just now realize?",
">\n\n\"Good\" -- r/Conservative probably",
">\n\nThat's one way to stop big gubment interfering in our lives.",
">\n\nSometimes no news is good news",
">\n\nThey won't and it's by design. \nFuck them.\n\"Look busy while we do absolutely nothing whatsoever\"",
">\n\nWho didn’t see that coming? “When people tell you who they are, believe them.”"
] |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.