Vice-President Kamala Harris
Probably requires her own thread at this moment, lock/delete etc if someone else wins the nom
homicides dont get counted apparently , as they just just put them back in the streets with no trial or anyhting.
check out what kam did with the murderers.
Let's say that if you are one of the most expensive cities in the world, it would be reasonable to assume you would have some of the best in the world stats for most things that matter for people quality of life, and san francisco bizarelly doesn't, and is even worst than average for a lot of things.
Like drug overdoses per capita vs Zurich or Montecarlo, get what i mean? it's weird you even have poors at all in the city to begin with
Spoiler
she put them back in the streets
and they did it again
I see. Can you direct me to where I can find a source for murder and robbery being legal in San Fran? TIA.
never said they did for murder and robbery, did i? they de facto legalized (ie refused to prosecute) car theft, car break in, burglary, and other "minor" crimes which makes them increase much more than the data tells you because if you know for a certainty police and prosecutors won't act on it, you stop reporting them
No, I don't get it. What in the actual **** are you talking about?
I am shocked - SHOCKED - there are no murders in the Vatican.
New guy, are you washoe perchance?
d2 tell me where my approach at the topic fails: in a federal country, where localities have significant taxing powers and autonomy in deciding how to implement and use law enforcement, and prosecutions, a locality with dramatically more money at his disposal because of a larger tax base (per capita) should be able to achieve dramatically better results in all measurable axis of urban quality of life, correct?
That with just an average quality local government, because of the disastrouly higher amount of resources available.
So isn't it really weird that san francisco, being in the top 1% of urban counties for per capita income, and better than that for real estate values (which form the bulk of the locality tax basis) should have top 1-5% results in homelessness, street crimes and so on (at least compared to other urban counties) IF THEIR ELECTED POLITICIANS WERE JUST AVERAGE, and it is actually UNDER AVERAGE in many of them?
that's a very clear indictment to the political class of that county, it means they suck horribly harder than most other policians in that country, which means Harris comes from one of the places that has the worst political class, objecitively, as determined and measured by the gap between possibility and actual results, in the whole country.
d2 tell me where my approach at the topic fails: in a federal country, where localities have significant taxing powers and autonomy in deciding how to implement and use law enforcement, and prosecutions, a locality with dramatically more money at his disposal because of a larger tax base (per capita) should be able to achieve dramatically better results in all measurable axis of urban quality of life, correct?
That with just an average quali
I don't know why your directing this at me - I didn't argue otherwise. "Top 1-5%" and "unlivable" are different things though, wouldn't you agree? If you scroll back and re-read my posts, you'll see exactly what I was arguing.
I don't know why your directing this at me - I didn't argue otherwise. "Top 1-5%" and "unlivable" are different things though, wouldn't you agree? If you scroll back and re-read my posts, you'll see exactly what I was arguing.
Well i was trying to argue about the topic of life quality in san francisco in a way that made sense for the thread we are in.
So anyway, do you agree that the political class of san francisco can be objectively defined as one of the worst in the USA? and so we can confidently claim that Harris comes from one of the worst place possible to come from, if we want capable politicians?
Well i was trying to argue about the topic of life quality in san francisco in a way that made sense for the thread we are in.
So anyway, do you agree that the political class of san francisco can be objectively defined as one of the worst in the USA? and so we can confidently claim that Harris comes from one of the worst place possible to come from, if we want capable politicians?
No, we do not agree on this. I do not know enough about the topic to comment on it, am not interested enough to research it, and am certainly not taking your word for it.
No, we do not agree on this. I do not know enough about the topic to comment on it, am not interested enough to research it, and am certainly not taking your word for it.
Which word? the argument is above, san fra is so rich it should be trivially easy for it to be very good in all measurable things related to quality of life, even with very average politicians.
Failure to do that is proof those politicians are incredibly, exceptionally bad at their jobs.
Which word? the argument is above, san fra is so rich it should be trivially easy for it to be very good in all measurable things related to quality of life, even with very average politicians.
Failure to do that is proof those politicians are incredibly, exceptionally bad at their jobs.
You asked "do you agree that the political class of san francisco can be objectively defined as one of the worst in the USA?"
I responded that I do not agree.
Asking me what I disagree with (when it's quite plain from the wording of the question) and then using that as a pretext to restate the claim is not going to cause me to agree with it any more or any less than I did 5 minutes ago.
would love to see your evidence that the betting markets are driven by whatever act blue is
He is mixing up the fact that some evidence of malfeasance by act blue surfaced (people who had 30 or 50k in total donations, small amounts each, made in their name claiming they never did), with the idea those were used to "manipulate betting markets" (first time i read this).
Anyway, over-under of Trump starting to call Harris "Skamala" before the election?
re: san francisco
been there a lot for work
know a bunch of people who lived there
everyone i knew complained about how expensive everything was, how they paid 3k a month to live with 3 other roommates etc etc
but it was the only place in the world they could do what they did and earn and 300k a year salaries
work from home has led to a mass exodus of those who were still renting, but many who had already bought a house are locked in and staying
nowhere in my life have i seen so much poverty right next door to such wealth
you leave the office of a billion dollar company and one block away there is a homeless encampment
i regularly saw people using drugs openly in the street
the entire city smells like stale urine because there's so many homeless people
d2 tell me where my approach at the topic fails: in a federal country, where localities have significant taxing powers and autonomy in deciding how to implement and use law enforcement, and prosecutions, a locality with dramatically more money at his disposal because of a larger tax base (per capita) should be able to achieve dramatically better results in all measurable axis of urban quality of life, correct?
That with just an average quali
You are leaving out quite a few variables. Cost of living is much higher in cities than in rural areas. That means cities have to pay police officers, firefighters, teachers, garbage collectors, etc., much more than rural areas do. In addition, space is much more limited and thus much more expensive. Cities also have to provide services that rural areas simply don't have to provide. For example, homeless people tend to settle in urban areas for relatively obvious reasons. It is hard to live on the street anywhere, but it is easier to do so in Boston than it is in rural Massachusetts.
