Politics thread (USA Elections 2016) - Page 294

Baal posted a good example last year when the San Fran politicians capped what uber eats, door dash etc could charge for food delivery and then cried when those companies stopped delivering to Treasure Island because it was costing them too much money. Like why do the politicians think they need to get involved in setting prices in a market that has robust competition and already has super small profit margins. Hell a lot of those companies have been operating at a loss while they competed for market share and politicians are still going to decree that their prices are too high? The meme of them putting a stick in the spokes of their bicycle tires is spot on.

On June 22 2021 12:26 Liquid`Drone wrote: Depending on who you are I have the impression that a lot of police interactions has life-changing consequences in the US.

Lol come on.

I don't think a 'tough on crime' approach is how to deal with this - I think a 'spend time money and effort on building communities where people aren't so desperate that they turn to shoplifting' (winona ryder is not your average shoplifter) is the solution, but not wanting a 'tough on crime' approach doesn't mean I want a neglectful towards crime approach, either. Shoplifting isn't a victimless crime either.

Hard agree on this one, the scandinavian penitenciary systems and stats are very solid evidence that punitive systems are less effective than the ones focused on rehabilitation.

There's also an interesting phenomenom at play regarding this, usually societies that experience a lot of crime want hard punishments, I think its because revenge is a natural feeling for humans, thats why the victims shouldn't dispense justice, but in a society the more you feel victimized of a crime the more thirsty for revenge you will be, so if you experience a crime once like being mugged, its easier to take the high road, but if you've been mugged multiple times with violence and its a constant threat and a fear in your life then a humane rehabilitation isn't that appealing. You can see this phenomenon in the comments in videos with brutal vigilantism like robbers being burned alive by the locals, every latinamerican cheers for that, and its hard not to.

On June 23 2021 01:52 blackjacki2 wrote: Baal posted a good example last year when the San Fran politicians capped what uber eats, door dash etc could charge for food delivery and then cried when those companies stopped delivering to Treasure Island because it was costing them too much money. Like why do the politicians think they need to get involved in setting prices in a market that has robust competition and already has super small profit margins. Hell a lot of those companies have been operating at a loss while they competed for market share and politicians are still going to decree that their prices are too high? The meme of them putting a stick in the spokes of their bicycle tires is spot on.

Remember Bernie wanted rent-caps lol.

Also California is currently bailing out for 100 million its state conotrolled legal mariguana businesses, lol only the government could turn a drug monopoly into an unprofitable business.

https://www.latimes.com/california/st...marijuana-industry-cash-grants-budget

The scandi countries still have a high recividism rate, the fact is finland reduced their incarceration rate by a lot, and during the same period, their crime rate stayed the same. It's hard to say if their system reduces recidivism rates over other countries, there are a lot of variables to consider. Maybe since they only punish the worst criminals, it means those kinds of people would naturally have a higher recidivism rate than the average taken from a prison population that includes a lot of people who have done petty street crime.

A small % of people simply have brain damage that removes their ability to make ethical judgements. For those kinds of people It is like saying someone with amnesia can be reformed. Obviously, they cannot, but i'd guess only a small % of prisoners actually have that kind of brain damage.

I personally think that if Trump, Biden or whoever spent a few weeks in Guantanamo every time he committed a crime, I think it would work. The penal populism retribution type rhetoric is specifically meant for street criminals, and ofc white collar crime, corporate crime, war crimes, are excluded. Leftists should be recognizing this nuance and not be blindly saying that we should have restorative justice, a lot of the liberal left is stuck in an ideology that prevents them from seeing the ruling class as criminals. Same goes for the Republicans, who are in fact very soft on this type of crime and clearly do not care about punishing criminals at all, except the ones they don't like.

Critics Warned the Largest Tax Increase in San Francisco History Would Be Ill-Spent. It's Now Funding $60,000 Tents for the Homeless.

https://reason.com/2021/06/25/critics...funding-60000-tents-for-the-homeless/

"Proposition C does not audit the money the City already spends. It does not include a detailed spending plan for the $300M in taxes it seeks to add, nor regular audits of that money, nor adequate public oversight over how it's spent," wrote Breed in a now-deleted Medium post. "Our homelessness spending has increased dramatically in recent years with no discernible improvement in conditions. Before we double the tax bill overnight, San Franciscans deserve accountability for the money they are already paying."

That $13 million was needed for the city to be "good neighbors and good stewards," said Whitley, telling Safai that 24-hour staffing was "necessary so that someone doesn't leave the site and go into the neighborhood and maybe establish their tent there."

$13 million doesn't go to helping the homeless, $13 million goes to hiring staff to make sure the homeless "don't leave the site and go into the neighborhoods." Use my tax dollars to keep these people away from me and out of sight. Anytime there is a proposal to build affordable housing the whole neighborhood comes out with signs "Right Idea, Wrong Place." Help the poor, just don't help them in my backyard. I guess that's what passes for progressivism here.

Of course Loco and others will tell you that with just a little more tax dollars from the wealthy all of the world's problems will be solved, despite the fact that the liberal mayor of San Francisco is literally saying that there has been no improvement in conditions for the homeless despite dramatically increasing homelessness spending.

That has never been my position. I've always advocated primarily for systemic change, not band-aid political propositions. Only if I am forced to choose between two worlds that are far from being ideal -- because they are the only ones that people can imagine nowadays -- where there is the one that the greedy libertarians at Reason.com want, and the one where there is a bigger safety net like in Scandi countries -- and the biggest tax burden isn't put on those who can afford it the least -- will I choose the latter (if I'm not indulging in accelerationist sentimentality).

Probably very few policies would show great improvements in living conditions for the working class/underclass at this point in time in places where there is huge economic inequality. That does not mean that the ones that show the least improvement should be assumed to be as good as it gets, with a "this is what happens when you put money in the evil government's hands" mentality. This black and white thinking is appalling. And homelessness right now is particularly complex to look at with the covid situation which was not prepared against and was mishandled by Trump (don't say that if you're writing for Reason though or they'll fire you.)

I don't have a lot of time to look into the specifics of this issue, but I found from a quick search that there was apparently some benefit unlike the mayor supposedly said, which of course the free market fundamentalists won't highlight:

"The city's latest point-in-time homeless tally counted 7,499 people on San Francisco's street in 2017 — a 0.5 percent drop from 2015. There were positive signs in the 2017 count, however. The city saw a 40 percent decline in homeless youth, meaning people under age 24, which some officials have attributed to an increase in housing that specifically supported homeless youth.

“But what we can see from this is that there are areas where, when we invest wisely, we see reductions,” Jeff Kositsky, director of the city Department of Homelessness and Supportive Housing, told the San Francisco Chronicle at the time."

I think it was no doubt necessary to spend a good amount on the tent set-up they made under the circumstances, but of course it looks ridiculous in terms of spending and it should not be made into a permanent thing with this kind of policing going on. But again, the elephant in the room are the systemic issues. For starters, I read from wiki that In San Francisco, a minimum wage worker would have to work approximately 4.7 full-time jobs to be able to rent a two-bedroom apartment. Does this make sense? How does that not necessarily lead to dystopia? Is this all the government's fault too? How do you think libertarian capitalism would solve this issue?

Also, from reading your post I got the sense that you were being financially exploited and somehow this Prop C would make things worse, but just to highlight this for others: Prop C is not about exploiting blackjacki, it would be achieved by "raising the gross receipts tax by an average of 0.5 percent for businesses in the city that earn more than $50 million a year." I think you have to live in a special world in order to be outraged by this. You also make it sound like it's an either/or issue, but no, you can invest more into fighting homelessness and at the same time fight for accountability/transparency, but yes, I do believe it will always be a losing battle if it does not involve systemic change and putting power into the hands of the people in those communities directly.

On June 28 2021 03:52 Loco wrote: "The city's latest point-in-time homeless tally counted 7,499 people on San Francisco's street in 2017 — a 0.5 percent drop from 2015. There were positive signs in the 2017 count, however. The city saw a 40 percent decline in homeless youth, meaning people under age 24, which some officials have attributed to an increase in housing that specifically supported homeless youth. “But what we can see from this is that there are areas where, when we invest wisely, we see reductions,” Jeff Kositsky, director of the city Department of Homelessness and Supportive Housing, told the San Francisco Chronicle at the time."

It's interesting that you're citing the 2017 point-in-time homeless tally to show a 0.5 percent drop in homelessness. The point-in-time tally is done every 2 years and the most recent one is the 2019 which showed a double-digit % increase in homelessness in San Francisco despite the dramatic increase in homelessness spending that Mayor London Breed referenced. Is there any reason you decided not to use the most recent data available? I'm guessing that double-digit % increase in homelessness wasn't helpful when you googled "show me some statistics I can cherry pick to prove I'm right."

I think it was no doubt necessary to spend a good amount on the tent set-up they made under the circumstances, but of course it looks ridiculous in terms of spending and it should not be made into a permanent thing with this kind of policing going on. But again, the elephant in the room are the systemic issues. For starters, I read from wiki that In San Francisco, a minimum wage worker would have to work approximately 4.7 full-time jobs to be able to rent a two-bedroom apartment. Does this make sense? How does that not necessarily lead to dystopia? Is this all the government's fault too? How do you think libertarian capitalism would solve this issue?

Yeah that's mostly the government's fault too. I'm sure the free market would increase the supply of housing when there is so much $ to be made selling housing at Bay Area prices. I mentioned the reason they aren't made several times on just the last couple pages of this thread but a lot of it is racism/NIMBYism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco_housing_shortage#cite_note-:3-9

"Strict zoning regulations are a primary cause behind the housing shortage in San Francisco. Historically, zoning regulations were implemented to restrict housing construction in wealthy neighborhoods, as well as prevent people of color from moving into white neighborhoods. When explicit racial discrimination was prohibited with the 1968 Fair Housing Act, white neighborhoods began instituting zoning regulations that heavily prioritized single-family housing and prohibited construction of the kinds of housing that that poor minorities could afford."

The city of Berkeley is considered one of the most liberal in the entire country. I lived there for 6 months from 2019-2020. It is segregated as fuck. The Berkeley city council just denounced the racist history of their city's housing zoning and said they will work to change it.

https://www.berkeleyside.org/2021/02/...2-year-process-to-change-general-plan

Also, from reading your post I got the sense that you were being financially exploited and somehow this Prop C would make things worse, but just to highlight this for others: Prop C is not about exploiting blackjacki, it would be achieved by "raising the gross receipts tax by an average of 0.5 percent for businesses in the city that earn more than $50 million a year." I think you have to live in a special world in order to be outraged by this. You also make it sound like it's an either/or issue, but no, you can invest more into fighting homelessness and at the same time fight for accountability/transparency, but yes, I do believe it will always be a losing battle if it does not involve systemic change and putting power into the hands of the people in those communities directly.

0.5% is actually a pretty big tax hike when it is done on gross receipts and not just profit. San Francisco already has pretty high taxes. Of course the politicians think they can just keep raising taxes indefinitely and businesses will just tolerate it. Why do you think the Mayor opposed this proposition? Do you think she doesn't want to have a bigger budget? Data recently showed net exits out of San Francisco were up 649% last year. There is an exodus out of San Francisco right now. The people leaving are the ones that can afford to leave and they are buying homes in neighboring counties or in Las Vegas or Reno. The poor can't afford to leave. The middle class is fleeing and leaving behind a city that will have epic levels of income inequality.

On June 28 2021 03:52 Loco wrote: For starters, I read from wiki that In San Francisco, a minimum wage worker would have to work approximately 4.7 full-time jobs to be able to rent a two-bedroom apartment. Does this make sense? How does that not necessarily lead to dystopia? Is this all the government's fault too? How do you think libertarian capitalism would solve this issue?

lol how ironic... YES, San Francisco is the poster child for any anti-regulation advoacy group, apparently you are oblivious to this but SF has the most tightly regulated real state in the US., you need a fucking permit to change a window in the downtown area, its so bad you need to hire a permit-expediting agency to get your stuff through the bureocratic hell unless you want to spend over a year.

How would libertarian capitalism solve it? lol, by simply removing the government's hands out of the market and let housing being built, there is a massive undersupply in real state in SF, so it would be very lucrative to buld housing, as more housing is built, the prices drop to their normal level and the market would behave like in every other fucking city in the world.

On June 28 2021 06:00 blackjacki2 wrote: Yeah that's mostly the government's fault too. I'm sure the free market would increase the supply of housing when there is so much $ to be made selling housing at Bay Area prices.

Yep.

How is supply and demand such a foreign concept to you Loco? You think you are floating above the intellectual dominions of men improving upon marxist theory but actually your ideas are no different than the edgy astrologist witch socialist teen.

On June 28 2021 20:48 Baalim wrote: Show nested quote + On June 28 2021 03:52 Loco wrote: For starters, I read from wiki that In San Francisco, a minimum wage worker would have to work approximately 4.7 full-time jobs to be able to rent a two-bedroom apartment. Does this make sense? How does that not necessarily lead to dystopia? Is this all the government's fault too? How do you think libertarian capitalism would solve this issue? lol how ironic... YES, San Francisco is the poster child for any anti-regulation advoacy group, apparently you are oblivious to this but SF has the most tightly regulated real state in the US., you need a fucking permit to change a window in the downtown area, its so bad you need to hire a permit-expediting agency to get your stuff through the bureocratic hell unless you want to spend over a year. How would libertarian capitalism solve it? lol, by simply removing the government's hands out of the market and let housing being built, there is a massive undersupply in real state in SF, so it would be very lucrative to buld housing, as more housing is built, the prices drop to their normal level and the market would behave like in every other fucking city in the world.

Yep. The most famous example probably being the guy that tried to sell the land his laundromat was on so it could be turned into an 8-story housing building. The city denied the project for years with all kind of nonsense, including requiring the man to spend $23,000 to study the "historical significance" of his laundromat.

https://missionlocal.org/2018/06/the-...lanning-and-development-in-this-town/

First things first; here it is. Here’s the 137-page historical study of a laundromat, underwritten to the tune of $23,000 by Robert Tillman, who hopes to build an eight-story, 75-unit tower atop where the washers and dryers now churn at Mission and 25th. And it turns out that, decades ago, several groups whose actions have helped shape the Mission did meet here, organize here, paint murals here — but the building was subsequently revamped and converted into a laundromat. So this structure is not historic. It’s a laundromat.

This kind of stuff could be a South Park episode

https://www.sfchronicle.com/local/hea...ul-sees-dreams-melted-by-16116082.php

Here's another one from a couple months ago - Man spends $200,000 and 18 months trying to an ice cream shop in San Francisco and wasn't even close to being ready to open so he abandoned the project.

Yu submitted plans to the Department of Building Inspection in November 2019. Then the Planning Department required him to notify neighbors within 150 feet, allowing any one of them to object. And one of them did — a competing ice cream shop. That meant Yu had to hire a lawyer and brave a hearing at the Planning Commission. The June 11 hearing featured 64 people — mostly friends of both ice cream shop owners — offering their opinions on the great ice cream face-off. Because apparently everybody in San Francisco has way too much time on their hands.

That's some more South Park shit

hahaha that "check mate libertarians" moment is my favourite in the 294 pages of this thread.


It has that "religious guy attempting to disprove atheism with a banana" energy.

A Seattle Black LGBTQ Pride group organized an event that was free for people of color but charged a $10-$50 "reparations fee" for anyone white or "white-passing." Another LGBTQ group complained about this and eventually apologized for the backlash they got for even questioning a racist policy. Some of the backlash included the Seattle City Council President and Mayoral candidate canceling an event with them because she could not associate herself with anyone that was trying to interfere without how black LGBTQ people chose to celebrate pride.

https://www.q13fox.com/news/seattle-p...charging-white-people-reparations-fee

So kind of goes back to the debate we were having about whether "only white people can be racist" is a fringe idea on the left or a mainstream one. Here we have another powerful person - the city council President of Seattle - supporting something overtly racist against white people as if it's not big deal.

On June 29 2021 18:30 blackjacki2 wrote: A Seattle Black LGBTQ Pride group organized an event that was free for people of color but charged a $10-$50 "reparations fee" for anyone white or "white-passing." Another LGBTQ group complained about this and eventually apologized for the backlash they got for even questioning a racist policy. Some of the backlash included the Seattle City Council President and Mayoral candidate canceling an event with them because she could not associate herself with anyone that was trying to interfere without how black LGBTQ people chose to celebrate pride. https://www.q13fox.com/news/seattle-p...charging-white-people-reparations-fee So kind of goes back to the debate we were having about whether "only white people can be racist" is a fringe idea on the left or a mainstream one. Here we have another powerful person - the city council President of Seattle - supporting something overtly racist against white people as if it's not big deal.

Loco: This is fine, but ideally we need full communism.

Drone: My friends dont think that, ergo its an unpopular position on the left

Stroggoz: Yeah, but what about wage theft?

Rik: poison Jeff Bezos

Lol Baal

lol

although I think I have moved on to the idea of dosing the totalitarian rulers with shrooms, lsd, dmt rather than poisoning them. If that does not work than maybe we start to think about poisoning them.

"The best way to scare a torie is to read and get rich...
I know nothing I am just sitting here looking at pretty colors...
Mother Fucker"

– IDLES

On June 30 2021 03:14 Baalim wrote: Show nested quote + On June 29 2021 18:30 blackjacki2 wrote: A Seattle Black LGBTQ Pride group organized an event that was free for people of color but charged a $10-$50 "reparations fee" for anyone white or "white-passing." Another LGBTQ group complained about this and eventually apologized for the backlash they got for even questioning a racist policy. Some of the backlash included the Seattle City Council President and Mayoral candidate canceling an event with them because she could not associate herself with anyone that was trying to interfere without how black LGBTQ people chose to celebrate pride. https://www.q13fox.com/news/seattle-p...charging-white-people-reparations-fee So kind of goes back to the debate we were having about whether "only white people can be racist" is a fringe idea on the left or a mainstream one. Here we have another powerful person - the city council President of Seattle - supporting something overtly racist against white people as if it's not big deal. Loco: This is fine, but ideally we need full communism. Drone: My friends dont think that, ergo its an unpopular position on the left Stroggoz: Yeah, but what about wage theft? Rik: poison Jeff Bezos

lmao i don't read the thread much but if this is what sums it up harilous

On June 30 2021 12:33 RiKD wrote: lol although I think I have moved on to the idea of dosing the totalitarian rulers with shrooms, lsd, dmt rather than poisoning them. If that does not work than maybe we start to think about poisoning them. "The best way to scare a torie is to read and get rich... I know nothing I am just sitting here looking at pretty colors... Mother Fucker" – IDLES

I think psychodelics would have way less effect than you'd expect, they can sure be windows of insight and might help but once the ego is built psychodelics can't break it, people who have true life changing experiences with them are already open, there are many cynics "wolf of wallstreet types" that go on hayaguasca trips and it only changes them confined with their mindframe.

It might be a different story if they are tried while young when the self is still being constructed.

anyway Donald Rumsfeld is dead, I think we can all agree that the world wont miss him.

California's governor is facing a recall election. He's doing okay in the polls now so the Dems in the legislature voted to move up the recall date in case the polls change. They had to undo their own law when they voted to slow down a recall for one of their own who had unfavorable polls at the time.

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — Four years ago, California Democrats altered the state’s recall laws in part to slow down the process and try to aid a state senator facing a removal vote over his support for increasing the gas tax. Now, as Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom faces a recall of his own, they’re trying to change the laws again. This time, though, Democrats want the option to speed things up to take advantage of what they see as favorable conditions for Newsom.

Could they be any more blatant about the fact that they are trying to undermine the electoral process in order to win elections for their team? I'm guessing there won't be any woke corporations criticizing this the same way they criticize voter ID laws.

On July 01 2021 03:13 Baalim wrote: Show nested quote + On June 30 2021 12:33 RiKD wrote: lol although I think I have moved on to the idea of dosing the totalitarian rulers with shrooms, lsd, dmt rather than poisoning them. If that does not work than maybe we start to think about poisoning them. "The best way to scare a torie is to read and get rich... I know nothing I am just sitting here looking at pretty colors... Mother Fucker" – IDLES I think psychodelics would have way less effect than you'd expect, they can sure be windows of insight and might help but once the ego is built psychodelics can't break it, people who have true life changing experiences with them are already open, there are many cynics "wolf of wallstreet types" that go on hayaguasca trips and it only changes them confined with their mindframe. It might be a different story if they are tried while young when the self is still being constructed.

This is absolutely the case. The purported benefits of psychedelics for adults are vastly overstated by people who are very naive. Everyone that I know who has done high doses of psychedelics lead a pretty fucked up life and are still struggling with drug addiction. There's no substance that has the power to take someone from their environment, then put them back in it in a state that is radically altered over the medium to long term. That environment has structured and determined the psyche and will keep doing so with very little freedom to be other than what we have been.

Even if people had an ego death experience, it is not something that transforms their life. The next day, they still have to go to work. They have to embody that same previous self, more or less. There's not going to be a major shift in values. Also Westerners don't experience those plant medicines in their traditional context. Ayahuasca wasn't even drunk by people other than the shamans; the shamans used it to go into a trance which they would then carry on into the music they were playing which would entrance the people there. But all Westerners want to drink it. And these rich dudes do it in the context of self-optimization rather than as a spiritual aid.

There really is no shortcut to losing some of your ego/pride. It's long work of introspection and mindfulness meditation that can really help long-term. Same reason why there is no substance that can turn you from a couch potato into a marathon runner overnight.