Vice-President Kamala Harris
Probably requires her own thread at this moment, lock/delete etc if someone else wins the nom
Isn't San Fran where they tried all that "let's see what happens if we try living as a hippy commune with no cops" dumb****ery? That seemed to have worked well...
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
Yes the rural difference exists which is why i said to compare to other urban areas.
As for prices being higher and so having to pay police officers and so all more (than poorer urban areas), that exists for Zurich as well as for other rich urban places in the world, so that doesn't execuse san fra terrible politicians.
And btw it's fairly normal for public employees in the richest cities of the world to not live in them actually, or to live in the cheapest parts of them. And afaik that's often true for san fra as well.
Isn't San Fran where they tried all that "let's see what happens if we try living as a hippy commune with no cops" dumb****ery? That seemed to have worked well...
No that was Portland oregon i think
Just checked, I was thinking of this nonsense in Seattle:
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?
There is no use in pretending that quality of life has not deteriorated in some respects in cities like San Francisco, Seattle, and Portland. I know some people in those cities with very progressive politics who feel that the decriminalization of opioids, in particular, has had a detrimental effect.
I don't think you can pin those quality of life issues on Kamala simply because she used to live and work in San Francisco. In fact, when Kamala was working in San Francisco in the early 2000s, the city was widely regarded as one of the most desirable places to live in the United States, assuming you could afford to live there. And even now, it is far, far from the hellscape that many would have you believe, which is why it remains such an expensive place to live.
to be fair, everyone i knew in tech who lived in SF hated living in SF
they were there because that's where the jobs were
the jobs were there because back in the day stanford leased out land rent free to tech companies in hopes to attract high paying engineering jobs away from the east coast to have better job prospects for their graduates
san francisco just happened to be where the artificially created silicon valley was - you had to live there but it was worth it because you were going to making money hand over fist while doing it
now with work from home, we're seeing a mass exodus and most startups are discouraged from having a silicon valley base of operations simply because it's no longer necessary and they are thus artificially inflating their costs by doing so
The point is that for every generic policy idea Trump, his advisors, his allies talked about it and did things about it in the past, so you get the plan in detail if you care enough by checking that.
When Biden proposed to forfeit student loans he didn't write in the platform how he intended in detail to use the various legal provisions in a way that allowed for the debt to be forfeited ffs.
He just claimed that he would try his best to forfe
They actually did say exactly what kind of student loan forgiveness they would pursue and what routes they thought it would take to do it. A completely transparent process that whether you support or don’t support canceling student loans, it’s detailed for you!
Providing Borrowers Relief from Crushing Student Debt
Student debt is holding millions of Americans back. The COVID-19 pandemic and President Trump's recession are making it harder for those with student loans to make ends meet right now. Democrats will work to authorize up to $10,000 in student debt relief per borrower to help families weather this crisis.
Beyond that immediate relief, Democrats will also take steps to ease the burden of high monthly student loan payments through legislative and administration relief processes, including creating a simplified repayment process. Democrats will work to pause monthly billing and stop interest from accruing on federal student loans for people earning less than $25,000, and cap payments at no more than five percent of discretionary income for those earning more than $25,000. After 20 years, remaining federal student loan debt should be automatically forgiven without tax liability. For those earning less than $125,000, we support forgiving all undergraduate tuition-related federal student debt from two- and four-year public colleges and universities, and we will also apply this benefit to individuals holding federal student loans for tuition from private HBCUs and MSIs.
Democrats support modernizing and improving the Public Service Loan Forgiveness program, including making the enrollment process automatic for people who work in schools, government agencies, and non-profit organizations. We will also make the program more generous by forgiving up to $10,000 in student debt per year for up to five years, and apply this action to people who have already dedicated 5 years or less of service to working in our schools, government agencies, and non-profit organizations. We reject Republican proposals that, in the name of simplification, would make students pay billions of dollars more on their student loans.
Not only will these measures make it easier for Americans to buy a home or start a small business, student debt forgiveness is key to helping address the racial wealth gap, as students of color are more likely to have to borrow to finance higher education. Democrats will also empower the CFPB to take action against exploitative lenders and will work with Congress to allow student debt to be discharged during bankruptcy.
The Trump Administration has let for-profit colleges and universities once again prey upon students with impunity by repealing important protections. Democrats will crack down on predatory for-profit higher education programs, including by issuing requirements that these programs be able to demonstrate their value and effectiveness before becoming eligible for federal student loans. We will call upon the Secretary of Education to forgive debt carried by students who were ripped off by predatory schools, including by programs that defrauded students or that misrepresented program offerings or program outcomes, as well as debt held by people who are permanently disabled. And we will protect veterans and servicemembers from being steered into low-performing for-profit higher education and professional programs.
Point to me anywhere in Trump’s proposals where he goes into as much detail there.
By the way, hilarious that you would call these actions unconstitutional. They were reviewed by the CONSERVATIVE supreme court and allowed to proceed. Furthermore you guys are the ones voting for the party of unitary executive theory, something that would have made the founding fathers barf in disgust.
The more I talk to republicans the more I realize you guys just want a king. That’s the appeal of Trump, is that he makes big promises and it makes you feel all warm inside. You don’t care about the details at all.
So you're not a believer in basic economics then? As someone who lives in the real world I understand that the high prices are because of high demand.
Maybe there's even some truth to the city being a bit worse than at some point in the past but calling it "unlivable" when the demand for housing caused by people wanting to live there far outstrips the supply remains laughable.
I don't know about Portland and all the other cities that are being simplistically lumped in, but SF has taken a massive step back in the last 10-12 years and another step back after 2020. The residents there, collectively, showed a large amount of frustration with certain things. But I will give credit that in the last year or two, there have been some positive changes, but it did take a rather large cohort of folks and complaints from local residents for this to happen.
Many businesses that had the opportunity to leave, did so. Many others don't have that luxury even in a city like SF. That also alludes to the point about demand and housing. A lot of people don't just pack up and completely change their life when their city starts to get a little worse, while many have, people tend to fight for their city a little. A lot is involved in moving when family and places of work is involved. I think if interest rates were to drop back to what they were for almost a decade, and SF still has to battle with a lot of the issues going on now, you'll start to see a quicker exodus.
But right now, SF is pretty much the exact shithole that right wingers watching Fox News from florida are saying.
[...]you guys are the ones voting for the party of unitary executive theory, something that would have made the founding fathers barf in disgust[...]
On the other hand, if it comes to pass it would mean the US fought off the tyranny of monarchy so it could ultimately grant its head of state even more power.
Which while not cool, is at least interesting.
Checkraise must be the most bad faithed account in this forum, and the competition is incredible.
SCOTUS determined the Biden admin widely overstepped it's authority with the debt relief nonsense
https://www.scotusblog.com/2023/06/supre...
And he is here claiming SCOTUS allowed to proceed lol, because a few small parts of the largely unconstitutional attempt were found to be technically legal.
As I wrote, largely illegal, as per SCOTUS decisions.
Unitary executive theory, whether you agree with it or not, has 0 to do with the most basic of the constitutional violations that democrats attempt all the times abusing executive powers: they try to do stuff that isn't an enumerated power of the executive, and they try to spend money that hasn't been appropriated by Congress, and they try to invent delegations from congress that never happened.
Founding fathers would be up on arms (quite literally) against an executive that tries to spend hundreds of billions never appropriated by Congress.
It's such a violation of governing norms , such an autocratic, violent, anti democratic choice, that's incredible the public response from the opposition hasn't been much stronger.
everyone's real complaints about cities just boil down to massive amounts of capitalism happening in densely populated areas. lol.
but yet it's from all the same people that bootlick free market stuff all day every day.
everyone's real complaints about cities just boil down to massive amounts of capitalism happening in densely populated areas. lol.
but yet it's from all the same people that bootlick free market stuff all day every day.
People complain about criminals not being arrested and removed from some ultra leftist cities because the radical socialists refuse to do so, answer from the Marxist is "you are complaining about capitalism"
People complain about criminals not being arrested and removed from some ultra leftist cities because the radical socialists refuse to do so, answer from the Marxist is "you are complaining about capitalism"
the "criminals" that are there are socioeconomic victims of SF being one of the most expensive and desirable place to live in the whole country.
you know those people that cant just up and move their lives like the techbros that are trying to replace them.
everyone's real complaints about cities just boil down to massive amounts of capitalism happening in densely populated areas. lol.
but yet it's from all the same people that bootlick free market stuff all day every day.
complaints about cities mostly boil down to dullards brain-poisoning themselves by mainlining right-wing media. it's so funny when they're from kansas, or west virginia, or italy, or where ever and they spend all day being mad about what is supposedly going on in san francisco, portland, etc. legitimately get a life
the "criminals" that are there are socioeconomic victims of SF being one of the most expensive and desirable place to live in the whole country.
you know those people that cant just up and move their lives like the techbros that are trying to replace them.
Lol if you can't afford to live there you move, it's not a justification to become a criminal. It's incredible you think it is.
And if you don't move you still have no justification to become a criminal.
And yes they can move like people with nothing did many times in US history when it was impossibly harder to do. They moved when planes didn't exist and you kept in touch with people you are leaving behind with snail mail.
How ****ed up can it be to claim they can't move.
complaints about cities mostly boil down to dullards brain-poisoning themselves by mainlining right-wing media. it's so funny when they're from kansas, or west virginia, or italy, or where ever and they spend all day being mad about what is supposedly going on in san francisco, portland, etc. legitimately get a life
The part of my family that is in the USA lives in silicon valley.
Except she’s not popular at all.
If it seems odd, because it is.
Donors forced biden out after his embarrassing debate and then astroturfed 500 million in online advertising, along with the media annointing her in lockstep.
The polls oversample white woman drastically and undersample hispanics drastically and trump is still ahead in swing state polling
Betting markets are being pushed by act blue accounts that pop up out of nowhere and bet i
Happy to give you action on Trump, except you being a troll account and all.
Checkraise must be the most bad faithed account in this forum, and the competition is incredible.
SCOTUS determined the Biden admin widely overstepped it's authority with the debt relief nonsense
https://www.scotusblog.com/2023/06/supre...
And he is here claiming SCOTUS allowed to proceed lol, because a few small parts of the largely unconstitutional attempt were found to be technically
Ok awesome, so now we’re moving past the idea that Biden in his 2020 platform was just as vague and lacking detail as any of Trump’s proposals. Now we’re on the point of “I disagree with the policy” or “it’s unconstitutional”. But the point about Biden being just as vague as Trump in the way he describes his platform is now being acknowledged as completely wrong, correct? Or are you going to continue to lie to people and say that Trump saying he’s going to “end inflation” or enact “massive deregulation” or enact the “largest mass deportation program” without going into any details whatsoever, that this is not normal at all.
But I will say fair point on a bulk of the student debt being overturned. Biden has still cancelled more student debt than any other 4 year stretch, and he has used roughly the avenues that he proposed to use during his campaign. So it has all been very transparent. The supreme court struck down his largest proposal, but still he has used those other avenues to enact over 120 billion in student debt cancellation. Made a promise, kept a promise, it was all transparent.
Now are you going to hold Trump to the same standard that you just held Joe Biden to? Are you going to want to see his plan for massive deportation? Or his plan for rooting out “leftists” from the military? Or his plan to deport so-called Hamas sympathizers?
Lastly I think it’s hilarious that you complain about anti-democratic norms while the guy you cape for still doesn’t think he lost the 2020 election, and tried to overturn it in schemes that have seen dozens of convictions of his associates. It’s absolutely hilarious the double standard you hold him to. Also a guy who tried to build a border wall without ever getting authorization from congress. Will he also be put in his place by the supreme court when he tries to build his idiotic iron dome? Or will there be some insanely specific carve out they find to let him do whatever he wants?
You didn't link the source of the details, I can't verify it wasn't written after the 2020 election.
Googling a paragraph of the text brought me here
https://democrats.org/where-we-stand/par...
Which isn't Biden 2020 campaign platform rather the democratic party 2020 platform.
The RNC does have an equivalent platform that goes beyond bullet points.
So Biden made a largely unconstitutional promise (which was called that even at the time, by critics who ended up being right as usual), and he could only act on a small portion of it because the rest was autocratic, antidemocratic, and fully against the spirit and the letter of what keeps the country existing as a civilized society, and it's all good for you. Promise kept. What matters is the end result no matter how much you attempt to destroy the rule of law.
As for the wall, as you (maybe?) are aware there were several tortuous legal passages regarding the funding, but it's blatantly false to say congress didn't authorize it at all.
Border security was funded every year of trump admin , and the legal quarrels happened over additional funds that trump diverted from anti drug initiatives and military initiatives. Because the wall helped against drugs and helped secure the country.
And in various phases, what trump did was legal, constitutional.
It was money congress wanted spent for American security, so it's a matter of interpretation of and how much the wall qualifies , nothing even remotely close to forfeiting credits of the federal government which no one allowed the executive to do (other than in some exceptional cases, which is what Biden could forfeit).
See the commander in chief isn't authorized to give taxpayers money to his voters directly (unless otherwise specified by Congress), while he is in charge of making and keeping america safe, with congress giving the money, sometimes directing it for specific purposes, but when the purpose is general enough and it is about security, a whole lot of initiatives related to security can qualify.
Unlike the attempt to unconstitutionally bribe democratic voters by forfeiting their debts and having taxpayers pay for it , cutting congress completely out of the picture for what is possibly the most important power solely attributed to the house: appropriation.
the "criminals" that are there are socioeconomic victims of SF being one of the most expensive and desirable place to live in the whole country.
you know those people that cant just up and move their lives like the techbros that are trying to replace them.
London Breed has been pretty transparent about the issues in her city. 60% of homeless folks there have refused free housing and food and almost half have come there from outside of SF. It was an unfettered drug problem as opposed to pointing and saying that it was some socioeconomic hardship of not having the means of being able to find food and shelter for themselves.
But again, the mayor and help from the community has taken a different approach as of late and San Francisco is getting better.
The source is the democratic national convention of 2020, yes, which is before the election and has historically always been the platform of both the president and the national party. Hence why it is written in such a way that it talks about both presidential action and what legislation the president will seek in congress.
I’m left scratching my head at your response. It seems like there is absolutely no justification to start building a border wall without an appropriation from congress. Where it ended up is the 9th circuit court ruling as such.
https://www.courthousenews.com/trump-sch...
Of course, I’m not sure Trump’s lackeys on the supreme court wouldn’t have overturned it, but as it stands the issue became moot once Trump left office, still never having figured out how he would even go about building the rest of the wall, let alone having Mexico pay for it.
I think I mentioned earlier the hilarious lengths that conservatives will go to in carving out hyper specific justifications for why this or that is constitutional. Like the idea that “oh technically the constitution doesn’t say Mike Pence can’t overturn the election if he wants to, therefore he can do it” despite the fact that nobody had ever before considered the roll anything but ceremonial. This same party that wanted to start a constitutional crisis to overturn an election looks at the Biden administration like some dictator because he tried to use executive action to cancel some student loans and then stopped when the Supreme Court ruled it wasn’t able to do it this way.
I’m pretty sure I know the answer but what exactly is your opinion if Trump tries to use the same logic to fund his insane idea of establishing an iron dome that covers the entire US? Because I doubt he will get anything that stupid passed even with the state of the Republican party. By the way that idea itself should be disqualifying because it’s so idiotic, but I digress…
Not only drug problem, a lot of homelessness is a mental illness problem as well.
But it's not so much the homeless that ransack shops every day, break into cars en masse and so on. Those are other different people that do it because they can.
You don't steal $300 sneakers because "capitalism" lol
I think if trump becomes president and attempts a project the size of Biden loan cancellation (hundreds of billions, the biggest unconstitutional attempt to bribe voters in American history) without congressional approval nor extra appropriation, and goes to divert something like 10,20,30% of the defense budget to it, that gets canned quickly by district, appeal, and SCOTUS federal courts without a doubt.
Because it would be a clear unconstitutional attempt to do something different from what the funds were appropriated for.
I don't even think it would start, in the sense that the Pentagon would refuse and courts would immediately side with that decision
I lived in San Francisco. There was one neighborhood that was awful, the tenderloin. Car break ins all over the city were fairly common too, but I didn't own a car. I never feared for my physical safety despite walking through the tenderloin daily. Did see people shooting up quite frequently.
I love San Francisco, it is a beautiful city with rolling hills, the bay, Golden Gate Park etc. Silicon Valley is boring as ****. I would 100% rather deal with the homeless and the crime to be in a vibrant city than that suburban hellscape. The most danger I was ever in was in Silicon Valley because the walking infrastructure is such **** that I was almost hit by a car.
The biggest problem by far is that housing prices/rent is astronomical. I wish all the whining about it would drive prices down but alas that has never happened.
