|
Unsurprisingly, Portland probably isn't going to do anything to Uber.
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2014 04:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 04:43 |
|
|
anthonypants posted:Unsurprisingly, Portland probably isn't going to do anything to Uber. All the while the couve joins the rest of the burbs in rolling out the red carpet (maybe, at least, not really familiar enough with their city politics to know if deregulation is likely). http://www.columbian.com/news/2014/nov/17/vancouver-city-council-divided-on-taxi-deregulatio/ Uber can go gently caress themselves. Regulations are why you can get a pick-up in NoPo at four am on a Tuesday and make it to where you're going for a reasonable rate. That, and rating riders. Sure, most drivers don't give bad tippers a one star rating, but enough do that you can blackball yourself from the system if you're too stingy, or disagree with somebody, or whatever.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2014 05:56
|
|
|
Its not a constitutional convention, its a call for a limited convention under Article V. I am not trusting Tim with anything. I am simply asking him to Sponser/CoSponser the memorial. The dude claims on his webpage "My commitment in politics is very clear… it’s YOU. I have always believed that the values and concerns of my district should be held above my own, and I will always hold that belief. No matter what the issue is, I follow your lead." hence I don't give a poo poo how much money he has spent or who he Caucasus with, but simply desire to find more people living in his district, and either convince him that this is the will of the people, and or that he is completely full of poo poo. And for those of you who are curious, here are Memorials that have already passed in CA, IL, and Vermont. Vermont Bill http://www.leg.state.vt.us/docs/2014/resolutn/Senate/JRS027.pdf IL Bill http://ilga.gov/legislation/fulltex...ion=&print=true California Bill http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140AJR1
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2014 08:03
|
|
|
DBlanK posted:Its not a constitutional convention, its a call for a limited convention under Article V. That's what I'm talking about. There are many experts in constitutional law that say a limited convention would be unconstitutional and beyond the powers of the states; that any convention called by the states is automatically a full constitutional convention, as Article V only says that states may call conventions "for proposing amendments". There's enough debate that it's just not worth the risk. Idran fucked around with this message at 08:12 on Dec 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2014 08:10
|
|
|
So, even assuming thats correct, we are restricting federal employees past and present from participating as delegates. So yes, there is a chance that we will elect/select delegates, and some of them will turn out to be fuctards and try to derail the process with guns and who knows what the poo poo, but the assumption is that the people on the state level are much less corrupt then people on the federal level, and so there is a much better chance they will do what we sent them there to do, which is still assuming that some fuckwad scholar proves that the will of the states as specifically stated in the call can be ignored because gently caress them we want to change everything and screw things even more because thats what the founding fathers intended. WA State House version can be found here. https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B7rteQKwumiQd0JydVRNS1VFQVRDdkhHX2lWd25vU18yaFJR/edit
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2014 08:19
|
|
|
DBlanK posted:the assumption is that the people on the state level are much less corrupt then people on the federal level Lmao you have no idea about reality.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2014 08:27
|
|
|
And to be honest I would prefer that the delegation process was something that restricted officers of the state level, appointed or elected. However, how the gently caress can we ask the states legislators to call a convention that we specifically restrict them from. Its basically a slap in the face. Instead we must inspire them to WAKE THE gently caress UP. In all of past history though I believe it has simply ended in Congress doing something about it, in which case all this discussion is whatever the gently caress.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2014 08:40
|
|
|
DBlanK posted:So, even assuming thats correct, we are restricting federal employees past and present from participating as delegates. So you're excluding vets? That's some good PR right there.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2014 12:12
|
|
|
The specific wording is as follows: All individuals elected or appointed to federal office, now or in the past, be prohibited from serving as delegates to the Convention. So no, I don't think it excludes vets. But if it did, I assume they would understand the notion of collateral damage ya?
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2014 17:13
|
|
|
I had no idea seattle's stupid unneeded tunnel is such an absolute gently caress up holy poo poo. http://grist.org/cities/seattles-unbelievable-transportation-megaproject-fustercluck/ Just demo the highway and replace it with transit and a normal road like every other successful highway removal project in the world you idiots. Imagine if those billions had gone into transit.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2014 17:39
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:
WAR ON CARS!!!
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2014 18:08
|
|
|
Money in politics is the issue that effects all issues. Sure there are other big solutions out there to build a Sustainable, Just, and Happy society, but they will all get shut down if it counters the desire of big money. quote:So, an unholy alliance — downtown business groups, large companies like Boeing (whose interest in Seattle transportation begins and ends with getting commuters through it quickly), the antediluvian WSDOT, craven Seattle City Council members, craven state legislators like Ed Murray (who sponsored the tunnel bill and is now mayor), and head cheerleader Gregoire — bullied the tunnel back onto the agenda, and Seattle voters, sick to f’ing death of arguing about it, finally voted in 2011 to allow it to go forward.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2014 18:14
|
|
|
The voter fatigue on the tunnel was insane. Years of talking, 3? Votes. I remember voting for mcginn with the sole intention of killing the tunnel. I barely even looked at the rest of his platform. Worst case of single issue voter I ever had. I'm still furious that the suspension bridge plan was never taken seriously . There were some models out there of how it would change the skyline and it was for the better imo.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2014 18:19
|
|
|
DBlanK posted:Money in politics is the issue that effects all issues. Nobody will argue your goal, but you are absolutely insane. Tim Sheldon is a conservative stooge who has never put his constituents interests above business interests or the party line. Calling a constitutional convention at a time when parties are willing to shut down the entire government to further their interests is loving insane. We've got a supreme court that has made one had ruling after another, you think they'll stop a convention from exceeding any limitations? We've got rampant voter supression throughout the country and non-stop examples of business interests being put above the will of the people. With our current political situation a constitutional convention would be a disaster for the people and the country in general.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2014 18:49
|
|
|
Tigntink posted:The voter fatigue on the tunnel was insane. Years of talking, 3? Votes. I remember voting for mcginn with the sole intention of killing the tunnel. I barely even looked at the rest of his platform. Worst case of single issue voter I ever had. I'm still furious that the suspension bridge plan was never taken seriously . There were some models out there of how it would change the skyline and it was for the better imo. Everybody hates on McGinn, but he did literally everything he could to fight that tunnel. And who the gently caress else were you going to vote for? Nickels? Mallahan? They may as well have their party listed as "DSA." I'm not saying he was perfect, but even seeing how things went, I would have voted him over the alternatives. And that includes in 2013.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2014 18:53
|
|
|
Speaking of the tunnel... the Seattle Weekly did a profile on Ed Murray's first year this week, which was basically a sloppy blowjob. Bruce Harrell was quoted in the article as saying “Ed can be very humble, and McGinn, well, he walked in like he was the smartest person in the room...” So, one of the guys who voted to override McGinn's veto of the tunnel funding is verbally sucking off the architect of the Senate campaign to secure funding for it by complaining that the guy who did the most to stop it acted like he was the smartest guy in the room... Harrell should consider that there may be a good reason McGinn acted like he was the smartest guy in the room when dealing with a City Council that overrode his veto 8-1. My big disappointment with the new district City Council elections is that I won't be able to vote against all seven of the fucksticks still on the council who voted to override that veto (Sawant already took down former Council President Richard Conlin), and will likely have to restrict myself to just two (O'Brien, the sole dissenting vote, will probably be running for an at-large seat, and EVERYONE SHOULD loving VOTE FOR HIM, because Mike O'Brien is awesome). Thankfully, Allison Holcomb has decided not to run against Kshama Sawant, which means no one has yet stepped up to pull the Downtown Seattle Association campaign funding sword from the stone yet.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2014 19:13
|
|
|
Thanatosian posted:And who the gently caress else were you going to vote for? Nickels? Mallahan? They may as well have their party listed as "DSA." I'd love to be able to vote for DSA candidates.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2014 19:53
|
|
|
oxbrain posted:I'd love to be able to vote for DSA candidates. The other DSA, the one that actually has influence.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2014 20:11
|
|
|
buuuuuut today Uber decided they'll be suspending service in Portland for three months anyway
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2014 03:47
|
|
|
anthonypants posted:buuuuuut today Uber decided they'll be suspending service in Portland for three months anyway I want to see Uber go down in glorious and humiliating flames. I was really dismayed when I noticed that my cell provider is offering a deal with Uber, and plans to start preinstalling the loving app on new phones: http://www.whistleout.com/CellPhones/News/sprint-gives-customers-a-free-first-ride-with-uber
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2014 10:03
|
|
|
I am back in Washington for college winter break from the far off lands of Portland, (I am from Federal Way) was wondering if I could get a recap of some of the poo poo thats been going on in our state.. I feel bad because I got distracted during the elections/voting and forgot to mail my ballot. I know alot of crap has been going on ,but I've been pretty aloof.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2014 10:47
|
|
|
Jack2142 posted:I am back in Washington for college winter break from the far off lands of Portland, (I am from Federal Way) was wondering if I could get a recap of some of the poo poo thats been going on in our state.. I feel bad because I got distracted during the elections/voting and forgot to mail my ballot. I know alot of crap has been going on ,but I've been pretty aloof. 594 passed, adding a little gun legislation. Idiots reacted by swapping guns temporarily on the Capitol lawn. Law enforcement said "that's legal still and we won't do anything." It was cold. Boeing is shipping away more jobs. What crap are you interested in knowing about?
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2014 10:58
|
|
|
Business week put up an article today about the portland-vancouver bridge thing. http://www.businessweek.com/news/2014-12-19/bridge-of-1917-remains-deathtrap-as-infrastructure-decays
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2014 14:49
|
|
|
oxbrain posted:Business week put up an article today about the portland-vancouver bridge thing. Man, gently caress that bridge. If Vantuckians want it built, they can loving pay for it themselves. We'll see how they feel about tolling when the bridge ends up condemned, and they have to start maintaining a second residence in Portland because it's a five-hour commute.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2014 17:55
|
|
|
Enjoy the collapse of your industrial base.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2014 17:59
|
|
|
oxbrain posted:Enjoy the collapse of your industrial base. Vancouver, WA exists to avoid income taxes from Oregon and sales taxes from Washington. It is a big ol' leech crammed in Cascadia's nether region. Why would it get help from tax money.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2014 18:50
|
|
|
Ditocoaf posted:Vancouver, WA exists to avoid income taxes from Oregon and sales taxes from Washington. It is a big ol' leech crammed in Cascadia's nether region. Why would it get help from tax money.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2014 18:55
|
|
|
oxbrain posted:Enjoy the collapse of your industrial base. Not that Portland would be particularly impacted anyway, but Vancouver's industrial base collapsed decades ago.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2014 19:15
|
|
|
What are you talking about, Portland has plenty of industry. Just see: http://vimeo.com/36293215
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2014 21:11
|
|
|
Pyroxene Stigma posted:594 passed, adding a little gun legislation. Idiots reacted by swapping guns and a loving broadsword temporarily on the Capitol lawn. Law enforcement said "that's legal still and we won't do anything." You forgot the most important part.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2014 21:15
|
|
|
mod sassinator posted:What are you talking about, Portland has plenty of industry. Just see: http://vimeo.com/36293215 Yeah...Portland does actually have a pretty significant industrial base, there are several big steel mills and manufacturing facilities in the Portland itself not to mention the metro area. Portland also has one of the largest ports on the West coast and is second largest large wheat terminal in the US (third in the world). That is always the sad divide between fantasy and history, Portland is at its core in many ways is still a blue collar town but the pretended image is completely and solely of that of Portlandia. Several few people (especially outside of Oregon) have put those pieces together and probably never will. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 23:13 on Dec 19, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2014 23:11
|
|
|
Losing i5 over the river will drive shipping away, which tends to drive away businesses that rely on it. It's something that has to happen and that bridge was the best deal we were likely to get. If it goes down and has to be replaced in a hurry you'll get a worse bridge without the public transit and for way more cost.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2014 00:26
|
|
|
oxbrain posted:It's something that has to happen and that bridge was the best deal we were likely to get. If it goes down and has to be replaced in a hurry you'll get a worse bridge without the public transit and for way more cost. Do you think the ohshit replacement would at least have sufficient loving clearance to not permanently bar existing tall river traffic from passing under it? I still cannot loving believe those idiots didn't even bother to check with the Coast Guard before plowing a couple hundred million into a lovely design.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2014 01:15
|
|
|
oxbrain posted:Losing i5 over the river will drive shipping away, which tends to drive away businesses that rely on it. Ultimately it was Washington state opposition that killed it more than Oregonian opposition though oddly enough, and the bridge is obviously going to be of more benefit to them on a daily basis. That said, the light rail line needed to happen and did make sense, the I-5 corridor is jammed south of the bridge, and the bridge itself wouldn't have relived traffic but a light rail expansion might have helped. However, Washington State killed it because of it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2014 02:58
|
|
|
Realistically there is no "Oh poo poo" replacement. The CRC was the "Oh poo poo" replacement and it got broadly panned by Washington even when Oregon and the Fed were going to pick up most of the tab. They aren't going to suddenly decide to pony up $4-8 billion for a new bridge. The existing crossing will simply get patched over and over until there's an incident and the whole thing falls into the river - or until Oregon's lawyers decide that operating a bridge that every engineer agrees is decrepit is too much of a liability and close it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2014 03:00
|
|
|
Kaal posted:They aren't going to suddenly decide to pony up $4-8 billion for a new bridge. Between Bertha and this: http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2025262308_insleebudgetproposalxml.html http://www.komonews.com/news/local/Gov-Inslee-proposes-new-state-capital-gains-tax-286253161.html quote:In response to what his budget office estimates is a $2.35 billion budget shortfall, the Democratic governor proposed a new capital-gains tax on profits from sales of stocks and bonds affecting 1 percent of Washingtonians.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2014 03:12
|
|
|
Kaal posted:Realistically there is no "Oh poo poo" replacement. The CRC was the "Oh poo poo" replacement and it got broadly panned by Washington even when Oregon and the Fed were going to pick up most of the tab. They aren't going to suddenly decide to pony up $4-8 billion for a new bridge. The existing crossing will simply get patched over and over until there's an incident and the whole thing falls into the river - or until Oregon's lawyers decide that operating a bridge that every engineer agrees is decrepit is too much of a liability and close it. That's what I meant by an "oh poo poo" replacement - an emergency project that occurs after the I-5 bridge is rendered unfixably broken somehow. Although given the Washingtonian attitude to the CRC, I'm not sure I'd bet against at least a few nutjobs in Tacoma sincerely arguing that the I-205 bridge is perfectly adequate and maybe we all just need learn to live with a little less anyway 
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2014 03:21
|
|
|
Farmer Crack-rear end posted:That's what I meant by an "oh poo poo" replacement - an emergency project that occurs after the I-5 bridge is rendered unfixably broken somehow. Although given the Washingtonian attitude to the CRC, I'm not sure I'd bet against at least a few nutjobs in Tacoma sincerely arguing that the I-205 bridge is perfectly adequate and maybe we all just need learn to live with a little less anyway Honestly I'd assume that doing without would be the goto option, in that case. The fed might step in, but the cost of rapidly building a bridge replacement, in face of whatever costs are endured as a result of a sudden closure of the interstate bridge, would be enormous and I find it difficult to imagine that Washington would be truly ready to commit to what would be required. The political climate simply isn't there. If the bridge survives another 10-15 years, maybe we'll take another go at it and be able to open CRC2 in 2035.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2014 03:52
|
|
|
Farmer Crack-rear end posted:That's what I meant by an "oh poo poo" replacement - an emergency project that occurs after the I-5 bridge is rendered unfixably broken somehow.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2014 04:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 04:43 |
|
|
gently caress David Madore so much.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2014 05:01
|
|
