[the broken]

Whaddaya know, putting quotes back in context makes them make sense.

[Whisperzzzzzzz]

the broken, on 17 June 2026 - 07:27 PM, said:

Whaddaya know, putting quotes back in context makes them make sense.

Doesn't really make them any better...

[Cause]

Whisperzzzzzzz, on 17 June 2026 - 07:44 PM, said:

the broken, on 17 June 2026 - 07:27 PM, said:

Whaddaya know, putting quotes back in context makes them make sense.

Doesn't really make them any better...

There's a huge difference between reading lord of the rings and somehow misunderstanding that Mordor is the good guys and whatever the hell this is. It went from mental illness to bizarre

[the broken]

The Last RIngbearer is real, it's the Soviet knockoff of LOTR where Mordor are the good team. So it's not misunderstanding LOTR, it's describing another work entirely... and saying it's ok to challenge mainstream views...or something?

[QuickTidal]

Yeah cause and broken let’s all ignore that thiel is a fucking lizard in a group chat with a bunch of other billionaires CEO’s and politicians and focus on nitpicking the LOTR thing I posted.

Jeezus…

This post has been edited by QuickTidal: 17 June 2026 - 09:47 PM

[Azath Vitr (D'ivers]

QuickTidal, on 17 June 2026 - 11:59 AM, said:

So billionaire Wormtongue Peter Thiel has a secretive "Dialog Society" group chat...

Notable people on the Thiel's List pulled from the Bluesky post:

Chamath Palihapitiya

Neal Mohan, CEO of YouTube

Charlie Songhurst, board director at Meta

Peter Brown, CEO, Renaissance Technologies

[...]

Quote

It's a big club, and you ain't in it" ~ George Carlin

Reminds me of the show Thiel's Founders Fund launched this month with the intention of "humanizing" billionaires:

Quote

The hottest party game in Silicon Valley started with a casual rallying cry: "Let's go kill some people." [...] The game pits a secret minority known as the "mafia" against a group of "townspeople." Through deception and debate, the townspeople try to expose the mafia before the mafia kills them one by one.

The show could help humanize tech titans, even those known for revolutionizing artificial intelligence and defense tech, said Mike Solana, Founders Fund’s Chief Marketing Officer

The Wall Street Journal - Facebook

... by having billionaires play Mafia. Based on the description this seems like an obviously terrible idea in context. Then again, a bunch of you have organized games on here in the past, so maybe not? IDK.

This post has been edited by Azath Vitr (D'ivers: 17 June 2026 - 10:07 PM

[the broken]

Disagreement isn't dislike, this is a fantasy book forum so of course we have zeroed in on the books.

[Macros]

Hes Peter Theil
He knows about the anti christ
Hes Peter Theil
He knows about the anti christ....

[QuickTidal]

the broken, on 17 June 2026 - 11:28 PM, said:

Disagreement isn't dislike, this is a fantasy book forum so of course we have zeroed in on the books.

That's fair, and I feel like I got my hackles up with both you and Cause and I should not have. So, sorry guys. I'll aim to not do that. It's a discussion forum so I should know better.

[Macros]

And fuck the right wing toadying shit wanks that comprise the British media, if you read (for god knows what reason) the telegraph or times in the last week you would be convinced that if Burham becomes prime minister he is going to take your job, your pension, y9ur car you house and probably your slw8fe and dog.

Fuck me get a grip and report something at least resembling the truth

[Cause]

I guess outsiders never understand a cult. The GOP finally passed a bill that they could actually campaign on, lowering housing prices. Trump says he won’t sign it until they pass the voting bill he wants. Which would require 60 votes in the senate to beat the filibuster anyway which isn’t possible. So this bill is dead until he backs down or he’ll freezes over. So the GOP just got screwed by its leader and they are pretending they are enjoying it.

This post has been edited by Cause: 25 June 2026 - 09:20 PM

[Azath Vitr (D'ivers]

Cause, on 25 June 2026 - 09:20 PM, said:

I guess outsiders never understand a cult. The GOP finally passed a bill that they could actually campaign on, lowering housing prices. Trump says he won't sign it until they pass the voting bill he wants. Which would require 60 votes in the senate to beat the filibuster anyway which isn't possible. So this bill is dead until he backs down or he'll freezes over. So the GOP just got screwed by its leader and they are pretending they are enjoying it.

It passed by an overwhelming majority in both houses so they might be able to override a presidential veto (provided enough Republicans are willing to actively go against the president...).

Constitutionally if the president doesn't sign or veto a bill within 10 days it's supposed to automatically pass into law.

But there's a loophole: the 10 day count starts from when congress formally presents the bill to the president. And the constitution doesn't specify when that has to be. The Speaker of the House decides:

Quote

This vagueness has been used as a temporary loophole at least twice in US history, in 1888 and 1991.

Another such delay is seen as a possible outcome this time around because the ultimate authority on when the bill will be sent to Trump is House Speaker Mike Johnson, a close ally of the president who has shown a willingness to use House rules to avoid confrontation with the commander in chief.

Last year, Johnson kept the House out of session from July until November in a maneuver that delayed a vote on releasing the Jeffrey Epstein files.

Johnson was vague about his plans on Wednesday.

"We're delaying this," he said during a press conference, adding that Trump "has a window of time before he has to sign a bill, and he's going to use a little more of that."

This constitutional quirk could leave the bipartisan housing affordability bill in limbo for days or longer - Yahoo Finance

Seems like it goes directly against the spirit of the constitution but the Supreme Court has apparently never ruled on it.

This post has been edited by Azath Vitr (D'ivers: 25 June 2026 - 10:04 PM

[amphibian]

The Supreme Court shouldn't be ruling on this. Congress should fix this shit and pull back the powers accorded to it by the Constitution.

[Azath Vitr (D'ivers]

amphibian, on 26 June 2026 - 12:00 AM, said:

The Supreme Court shouldn't be ruling on this. Congress should fix this shit and pull back the powers accorded to it by the Constitution.

The House could remove Johnson as Speaker provided nine Republicans are in favor and the vote gets a simple majority. Then they could quickly appoint a new Speaker just to present the bill to Trump, with the understanding that they would resign (or be removed) immediately afterwards.

And if they don't want to deal with the hassle of electing a new Speaker to continue on after that... they could bring back Johnson. At least so long as he behaves himself.

Is this actually going to happen? It seems very unlikely.

This post has been edited by Azath Vitr (D'ivers: 26 June 2026 - 01:12 AM

[QuickTidal]

Azath Vitr (D, on 26 June 2026 - 01:12 AM, said:

amphibian, on 26 June 2026 - 12:00 AM, said:

The Supreme Court shouldn't be ruling on this. Congress should fix this shit and pull back the powers accorded to it by the Constitution.

The House could remove Johnson as Speaker provided nine Republicans are in favor and the vote gets a simple majority. Then they could quickly appoint a new Speaker just to present the bill to Trump, with the understanding that they would resign (or be removed) immediately afterwards.

And if they don't want to deal with the hassle of electing a new Speaker to continue on after that... they could bring back Johnson. At least so long as he behaves himself.

Is this actually going to happen? It seems very unlikely.

They LIKE Johnson though, he's a Trump Lickspittle who absolutely refuses to rock any boats...he's blocking for them and they just don't want to admit it.

[Azath Vitr (D'ivers]

After meeting with Trump, the Speaker of the House says they're on "exactly the same page" and they're "transmitting the bill to the White House", reportedly on Monday.

Quote

If [Trump] vetoes the bill, [... a] veto override is a strong possibility as the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act was passed by overwhelming margins: 358-32 in the House and 85-5 in the Senate.

[Trump] could also ignore the bill once it reaches his desk, and it would become law automatically after 10 calendar days, excluding Sundays.

[...] Trump's engagement on the topic has wavered. He has said he does not want home prices to decline, hurting current homeowners whose wealth is tied up in their home equity.

After halting a major housing affordability bill, Trump will have 10 days to act once it reaches his desk - Yahoo Finance

... so it wouldn't actually automatically pass into law until eleven days after Monday. Because Trump will be too busy praying on Sunday.

[Macros]

at what stage do they realise home pprices are high because private fucking equity is buying so much of it up and its crippling average Americans?

[amphibian]

 Macros, on 27 June 2026 - 09:37 AM, said:

at what stage do they realise home pprices are high because private fucking equity is buying so much of it up and its crippling average Americans?

It's only fractionally due to that.

The main reasons are involved in the general idea of local zoning control, extremely long/torturous housing court experiences, a healthy dollop of racism, and an unwillingness to give up cars.

Local control of zoning means that people who aren't professionals in this world and frequently want to keep property prices very high (because they own some property already) are setting zoning for places in efforts to preserve a suburban character just outside cities. This creates an effect where they don't pay taxes for the city services/amenities, yet can take advantage of it by driving in, pushes out minorities, de incentivizes multi unit housing development, and makes it so that competition for the scarce housing is fierce. It also means that a housing design that's good in one place isn't necessarily good in the town a few towns over, which means lawyer fees and architect fees go up significantly and there can't be a few designs only adapted to climate/soil/water.

The housing court experiences mean that landlords, even the good ones, spend a year or three in court dealing with something that should not take this long. It also de incentivizes development of multi unit housing because they're spending a ton on lawyers. This pushes developers to make single family housing much more often. And there's also an effect where developers are more often Republicans and under build when there's Democratic local, state, or federal control or when black and brown people want more housing in their areas.

Parking minimums are also crushing projects into things that are not combining well with development of mass transit. It would be a boon to get rid of these in the zoning/city planning, but getting past the initial fury of "giving up my car" is a challenge many politicians do not want.

Add in a bunch of flattening out all housing to the same things by politicians and experts of all kinds and we get things like rent freezes city wide that aren't fully progressive and likely drive out small landlords as private equity can afford to take short term losses more and longer.

[Cause]

 Macros, on 27 June 2026 - 09:37 AM, said:

at what stage do they realise home pprices are high because private fucking equity is buying so much of it up and its crippling average Americans?

I believe one part of the bill is to ban private equity from buying single family starter homes. Not entirely sure what starter home would mean but it does try to address this I believe.

[Azath Vitr (D'ivers]

Cause, on 27 June 2026 - 02:07 PM, said:

Macros, on 27 June 2026 - 09:37 AM, said:

at what stage do they realise home pprices are high because private fucking equity is buying so much of it up and its crippling average Americans?

I believe one part of the bill is to ban private equity from buying single family starter homes. Not entirely sure what starter home would mean but it does try to address this I believe.

Quote

The measure prohibits corporate entities from owning more than 350 existing single-family homes, although it does not require them to sell homes purchased before the measure became law. A stricter proposal that would have required investors to sell single-family homes built explicitly as rentals after seven years was dropped; it had prompted a backlash by home builders and affordable housing advocates, who feared it would discourage new home construction.

Congress Clears Housing Bill, Cementing a Rare Bipartisan Feat - The New York Times