The thing is, a 50-year mortgage isn't _inherently_ bad IFF the total cost (mortgage, taxes, insurance, maintenance) is less than rent for the area (as long as one doesn't fall into _negative_ equity if they need to sell). That makes it a _cost of living_ calculation (because rent has zero equity).

Equity doesn't _really_ matter in this instance as it becomes a _cost of living_ calculation. (The one caveat being that one needs to be able to avoid _negative_ equity and be able to sell the property for any balance owed.)

The one way it could make financial sense is if the rate is low enough that the mortgage payment _including_ taxes and insurance works out to be significantly cheaper than rent for the area. (And assuming there isn't some significant economic change along the way that changes that equation.)

Loads of democrats _are_ doing this, but you won't know unless you look for it because it's not "exciting enough" to make the headlines.

Loads of democrats _are_ doing this, but you won't know unless you _look_ for it because it's not "exciting enough" to make it onto the news for the day.

Except it's the other way around - the "metric cup" is an unofficial (bastardized) approximation of the U.S. cup meant to make recipe interpretation easier while fitting into the metric system. (Not that the metric system isn't superior in most ways, but you can't blame the U.S. for this one.)

Note that the GM need not have _planned_ that number of red herrings, but only that they logically would be present, and the player/character is rewarded in some way (getting a reasonable jump on the opposition).

Any roll is still bounded by what is _possible_ within the context, and it matters more that the _player_ feels rewarded, so: "You now know that of these ten initial clues, eight of them are useless and these two are the best paths to pursue." (Granting some advantage over the opposition.)

But none of what you are saying is remotely effective _messaging_ to that complacent majority (however much I might agree with it). You're just offering ammunition to the right-wing opposition - "Dr, Manhattan hates our veterans!" We're in triage mode - the priority needs to be to stop the bleeding.

Facts on the ground - that complacent majority _values_ veterans (or at least the _idea_ of such) - thus, that _messaging_ calling out his _veteran_ status is powerful. (And any potential wedge between ICE and the actual military should be emphasized and utilized as much as possible).

Sorry, but "they did a bad thing to a _disabled veteran citizen_" is exactly the messaging we _need_ to wake up the complacent majority. "Everyone deserves respect and dignity" doesn't get you there, however true it should be.

Because "disabled veteran citizen" is the sort of messaging that might actually break through to the complacent majority, whereas "farm worker" is something they can comfortably ignore.