US Politics
- Thread starter Nick 0208 Ldn
- Start date
Back to the comfort zone of pre 2016
Frankly some of Biden supporters (not all of them) are a bit Trumpian when it comes to criticism
CNN’s Jake Tapper Smears Rashida Tlaib With Baseless Attack
GOP poised to gerrymander its hold on power as Democrats fall short in nearly every key state
https://www.rawstory.com/2020/11/go...mocrats-fall-short-in-nearly-every-key-state/
https://www.rawstory.com/2020/11/go...mocrats-fall-short-in-nearly-every-key-state/
How the feck is Pelosi still speaker?
It's like people forget that these politicians work for the people. The idea of putting a politicians face on a flag is symptomatic of people forgetting that these people work for us. There should be a debate of ideas and policies (with people crossing party lines) and those debates should be public and passionate. This "our side" vs. "their side" while putting "our person" on a pedestal is nonsense and destructive.
Who would realistically replace her ?
The Dems are not capable of replacing an 80 year old woman?
Her age isn't the issue. Who would replace the gravitas she brings to the table.
This is self-fulfilling in the end - no-one gets promoted because they don't have her experience, and no-one gets the experience because no-one gets promoted. This is why people never stick around in the House.
The Dems don't seem to want any one else because they know she can get things done in terms of dealing with the various factions and the house Rs. There really is no other Dem who has that level of experience and skillset at the moment.
Give it to
She's a great fund-raiser apparently. They should give it to Katie Porter. Someone that understands and will fight for the people rather than what their donors want.
That's not what the speaker is for though. Its to deal with the internal machinations of the house - how to wrangle votes and work with the Senate and President.
The last three republican speakers, a child molester, a crying tobacco lobbyist and a rich dude who ran for the hills as soon as the tax cuts were signed. What you are saying sounds good but it gets the Dems nowhere fast.
Pelosi and her cabal have basically destroyed SF making it unlivable and rampant with homelessness. How anyone in their right frame of mind can make a case for her is beyond me.
The whole Trump cult goes against one of their god's commandments - thou shalt not worship false idols (most common translation).
They were called deaths of despair, they are deaths by the inevitable economic efficiency seen in free markets and should be celebrated.
Supreme Court hearing gets awkward as conservative Alito runs roughshod over chief justice Roberts
https://www.rawstory.com/2020/11/su...chief-justice-roberts/#comments_section_start
https://www.rawstory.com/2020/11/su...chief-justice-roberts/#comments_section_start
They should but don't. What we confuse for incompetence usually is fully intentional.
Good point. They work for the people/companies that fund their campaigns.
The house just passed a bill to decriminalize marijuana. Yet McConnell tuts and asks why is this their priority when people are suffering from the pandemic. What a cheeky prick he is, he did fecking nothing since May except confirm unqualified judges to the bench. I hate that man with every fiber.
more power to aetna
You're a justice boner blocker.
tbf I think it's the SF city government that have made a mess of things up there. Pelosi, while she might have pull, doesn't get to vote in local decisions such as taxes, decisions on homeless matters, etc.
Tech companies have been ruining the city for 20 years now. Not surprising things are so expensive and homelessness is up.
I know he is talking about medical insurance but is car insurance mandatory in US or not?
Is mandatory
Is distraction.
I would have her be speaker of the house today. Its people like her that need to be in leadership instead or Reaganites like Pelosi and Schumer.
This is an aside to the thread, but how can tech companies be ruining the city? Is bringing in a lot of high-earning tech jobs a malady? Or are they (tech companies) in charge instead of the mayor and councillors? Are finance jobs ruining New York, is Hollywood ruining LA?
Bringing in extra jobs and taxes should be seen as a good thing. Plenty of cities would love to have the job creation San Francisco is getting. The lack of city planning to provide affordable housing and a better transport and infrastructure network with all that tax money, lies squarely with the politicians in my view.
Without having any particular love for those companies I think it's a massive political cop-out to lay the blame at companies instead of the people holding the levers of power. And the fact this blaming of tech companies is somewhat normalised, is a major coup for blame-shifting politicians. The mission for tech companies is to innovate and be profitable. For city politicians it is to legislate and plan in order to create and maintain liveable and safe cities. Only one of the two has failed at their mission.
Last edited:
This has been a somewhat unique problem in the Silicon Valley / Bay Area since the dot com boom of the late 90s. When large amounts of venture capital money get dumped into a geographic area, real estate costs skyrocket while wages for a vast majority of people who aren't tech workers (ie. a majority of San Francisco and Oakland) don't budge. This prices normal people out of affordable housing and widens the gap between the haves (a minority) and have nots (the sizeable majority), thereby ruining the value of continuing to live in SF. Boston is the number 3 city for VC money and is also experiencing a similar problem. When housing is too expensive, people obviously can't be happy (or content) living there, which ruins the entire experience of in living in such cities.
Last edited:
Saying "tech companies are ruining the city" is overly simplistic and completely misses the point. What else are tech companies and venture capital funded startups supposed to do?
The problem lies squarely with the cities and the state for inadequately using tax dollars to attempt to compensate and state legislatures for failing to come up with viable plans to accommodate for the obvious gentrification that began in the late 90s with the first tech boom. For instance LA County approved a 1.2 BILLION dollar program to only build 10,000 units. That amounts to $120,000 per homeless person! Not even taking into account all the problems that program has seen, that is a massively inefficient goal that was both too late to begin with and not even remotely efficient.
There are many temporary and permanent measures that could have been taken with a billion dollars to provide some form of shelter + bath facilities for the entire homeless population (for instance using cheap refuge shelters + porta potties + Burning Man-style showers) while building cheap housing to house many more than just 10K.
Then you have other problems. For the past 15 years, many cities and districts have been trying to gentrify rather than use resources to help the homeless. In many areas of LA, the city councils are focused on approving massive new construction of luxury condos and apartments at the request of real estate developers. Look at what the corrupt city councils in Glendale and Burbank have done for instance. Look at how Inglewood has bent over backward to please that cnut Kroenke. And of course, many homeowners support this because, like the lucky in Inglewood, they see a massive increase in home values. NIMBY is a tricky problem and it's hard to blame struggling blue-collar and middle-class homeowners when the city councils have been so developer-friendly and failed to do their elected duty.
You can't just post a "tech companies are ruining the city" comment without looking at the complex economic situation that is going on. The homeless is not the tech companies fault, its the fault of a complex set of politico-economic conditions over the last 20 years. We elect representatives that are supposed to be able to make a living sorting this out, but they have mostly been asleep on the job.
Spending 1.2 billion over 8 years to only build 7-10K in housing? That's a boondoggle right there not honest governance. Really, if you were going to blame anyone, you should say "luxury/wealthy real estate developers are ruining the city".
Tech companies are the problem, but the solutions are up to local governments.
She makes for good soundbytes, but of course would get slaughtered if she ever thought of running for anything above the house level.