In late 2020 when my family and I were still in “isolate ourselves from literally everyone else int he world” but were also going stir-crazy, I considered renting one because I was afraid to stay in a hotel/motel. But yeah, other than that extremely hyper-specific use case, I don’t see the appeal at all.
Seems like a better idea to me than buying a boat for a similar cost. RVs probably provide an awesome way to go visit our national parks in comparative luxury to most visitors.
This is fair enough, I can buy that use if someone were actually going to do that. Personally I would still think better to maybe rent for some that made most sense and travel other ways for other destinations. Just in general the flexibility of renting things related to travel just seems to provide so much freedom compared to locking yourself into buying something specific but I guess if you all in on one specific thing makes sense
1 Like
The real question is is Clarence or fucking Ginni actually steering the thing around America, or is it Harlan Crow’s 3rd butler?
It’s prolly sitting in a lot somewhere, it’s just a bog-standard Florida Man status symbol along with a yacht and a Ford F-550. Who needs an RV when your billionaire Nazi friend lets you go on vacation on his super yacht?
I thought Clarence was Harlan’s 3rd butler.
2 Likes
Nice
Why is this in the SCOTUS thread, you ask?
1 Like
Wow, Uncle Clarence.
Fuck yeah, looking forward to hearing the court explain why it’s completely impossible to stop people from owning bump stocks.
https://x.com/washingtonpost/status/1720545674679169414?s=20
The gun cases the court is hearing now (like Rahimi) are so insane that I think they’re looking for an excuse to improve their PR. Like Bruen is straight-up embarrassing for the judges who signed onto it (excusing Thomas and Alito, who are incapable of feeling shame) and are now, entirely predictably, getting flooded with cases like “there’s no history and tradition in this country of preventing people from owning personal nuclear weapons, you said in Bruen these are our rights”. So I think Rahimi will lose and this case will probably lose.
But, you’ll certainly never go broke betting on a 6-3 conservative court to be deplorable pieces of shit!
I kind of think this as well, but god damn you never know with this court.
1 Like
Obligatory
4 Likes
Lolololol voluntary with zero enforcement or penalties fuck off and as always LOL LAW
3 Likes
working hard , thank you!
That is insulting.
Nothing gets by Chuck.
https://x.com/senschumer/status/1724186696667808172?s=46&t=XGja5BtSraUljl_WWUrIUg
1 Like
This just means it will be abided by, and enforced against, only the liberal justices who have a non zero base amount of ethics to begin with. Just another form of asymmetrical warfare the right will use to bludgen the left forever and ever.
1 Like
there’s no mechanism for enforcement, they’re just guidelines they drafted themselves that the guidelines themselves say are just guidelines, there’s nothing saying they have to follow them. The wording even says “should” rather than “shall” on all of it.
I hate that in this country the default is “there is no law that says I can’t do this, therefore, it is OK to do it”
basically cue that louie CK bit where he’s like “oh am I in TROUBLE? oh, WOOPS”