Well, the short answer is he lives at his parents’ home when he’s not staying in expensive hotel rooms paid for by his businesses.

I’d invent a suicide booth just to kill myself convince the douche that it was serving free ice cream to avoid driving around such a douche if I had no choice.

I’d invent a suicide booth just to kill myself to avoid driving around such a douche if I had no choice.

I just had to know the answer to this, so I read his blog post “Why I Chose to Become a Homeless Entrepreneur”.

Man, this IS eye-opening.

I have a few friends who have moved into the city and sold their cars. I don’t get it. Every time I ask them to hang out it’s “Sure, come pick me up.” No. just because you made a shitty choice to become one of the nonmobiles doesn’t mean I have to spend an extra 3 hours driving in bumper to bumper traffic just to pay…

I assume he lives in a homeless shelter.

I don’t own a home. [...] I don’t have any major recurring expenses.

It happens all the time on Delta.

Hillary would have played ball with the system AND personally profit from it. Trump just doesn’t give a shit and will profit all the more for it. To suggest that the Clintons would have been free of personal interest is to ignore what lead to their defeat this last election.

False equivalence? Usually, yes, but not one this one topic. I voted against Trump, and wish he’d lost, but the problems with both Clintons have *always* been based in conflicts of interest and corruption. It has been an issue for them since he was governor FFS. Even staunch Clinton defenders admit there’s a “rules…

I see it multiple times every time I fly. But that could be because I’m always on a fully booked flight.

It is neither a false equivalency, nor is it moot. Hillary had significant ethical shortcomings that, while not as severe as Trump’s (i.e., not “equivalent”), still failed to meet any reasonable standard of “purity,” much less the “highest burden” thereof. And a failure to acknowledge that she failed to meet this…

The logical fallacy isn’t to observe that both candidates had disqualifying ethical shortcomings; the fallacy is to pretend that just because Clinton’s ethical shortcomings weren’t as bad as Trump’s, it means they somehow weren’t shortcomings at all.

Here is a required disclaimer to ensure my point is taken seriously and not dismissed as the ravings of some misguided Trump supporter: I voted for Hillary. I was not and am not terribly fond of her, but she was the objectively more qualified candidate and a demonstrably better human being. I don’t vote for…

This is so dumb. We have an electoral college, so candidates campaign around that. If it was a popular vote the campaign trail would look dramatically different. So, we have no idea who would have won a popular vote, if that’s what mattered.

The nation’s highest job should carry the highest burden of purity.

I bet you’re not invited to dinner often.

Josh’s best friend needs to excuse himself, and RUN LIKE HELL!

Josh, don’t you fucking dare shave that beard.