|
DaveWoo posted:It's honestly bizarre that the birther thing hasn't been more of an issue for Trump. I mean, the guy publicly championed an insane tinfoil-hat conspiracy theory only four years ago. It'd be like if the Dems had nominated a 9/11 Truther for president back in 2004. Also the bit where Trump released his own birth certificate to prove that he was not the son of an orangutan.
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2016 06:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 18:55 |
|
|
Just thinking about the Johnson gaffe. Yeah it was dumb, but doesn't really change my voting preference. 1. Hillary Clinton 2. Gary Johnson 3. Egg McMuffin 4. Ed McMullen 5. Donald Trump 6. Harambe 7. Jill Stein I think this is the sensible and correct order of preference.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2016 06:29
|
|
|
greatn posted:Just thinking about the Johnson gaffe. Yeah it was dumb, but doesn't really change my voting preference. Really? You'd put Donald Trump over a dead monkey?
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2016 06:30
|
|
|
Well depends on the dead monkey. Harambe knows what he did
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2016 06:37
|
|
|
Harambe would depend on who his running mate is, since effectively that's who you'd be voting for.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2016 06:41
|
|
|
So Pence compares Trump favorably to Reagan today, and then Gulliani actually mistakenly uses Ronald Reagan to refer to Trump in the Hardball interview today. Has the Trump campaign decided that is the way to turn this around?
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2016 06:43
|
|
|
stone cold posted:Her message is fine only when she shuts up about sexism! That makes me uncomfortable!! This is insane - what the hell happened to you all to be so wary of outsiders? I said nothing about shutting up about sexism - I think it's a poor strategy in the case of answering claims that she's a poor speaker (never talked about other cases as some of you extrapolated) and that I think that monologue sends a lovely message. The public agrees inasmuch as they think she'll win the debates by a healthy margin (53-43 I think) - that she is a bad speaker is a media and right wing talking point and not majority opinion. Even those that don't like her acknowledge that she will win the debate given that she has such high unlikeability numbers. So even the sexists think she can talk - how am I wrong saying that sexism isn't holding her speaking ability back by any real measurement (she's one of the highest paid speakers, she has been in careers that require effective speaking her whole life and thrived, and polling shows a belief in her speaking)? The only answer is Truthiness. Her arguments have pretty much always held sway in the end and the sexist attacks don't land (they exist as I've said, they just don't have much real effect - given the debate polling, even Trump supporters think she'll win). There are sexist and non-sexist reasons for thinking she is a poor speaker - none of them rise above personal opinion given the evidence that she's a fine speaker. Today in response to the "no smiles" tweet, Hillary behaved pretty closely as to how I said she should about "unlikeable speaking." She basically said it's "interesting" that he would say that and others will probably be looking into it, but she's here to talk about serious issues... going into her ideas on Syria. So she made a slight passing reference, nothing explicit, and moved on to show her knowledge on a topic. Boxcar fucked around with this message at 07:19 on Sep 9, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2016 06:45
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:Really? You'd put Donald Trump over a dead monkey? The Librarian just gave a very angry "ook?"
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2016 06:45
|
|
|
Wraith of J.O.I. posted:Video of this is even better; god drat he is such a ferret. Funny you mentioned furrets. Rudy has a problem with ferrets.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2016 06:56
|
|
|
Eugene V. Dabs posted:http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-jerry-brown-signs-climate-laws-20160908-snap-story.html loving good Raise my taxes Jerry Brown
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2016 06:59
|
|
|
Lemming posted:loving good Agreed, repeal prop 13
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2016 07:01
|
|
|
Boxcar posted:This is insane - what the hell happened to you all to be so wary of outsiders? I said nothing about shutting up about sexism - I think it's a poor strategy in the case of answering claims that she's a poor speaker (never talked about other cases as some of you extrapolated) and that I think that monologue sends a lovely message. I don't know why you keep saying outsiders like most of us know or even care who all posts in this thread. Everyone's responding to you with mocking bafflement because what you're saying is weird and you're using a lot of words while failing to make it less weird or confusing. I'm assuming you're not always insane but this and positioning yourself as an "outsider" are strange. Stop being so strange and laugh at the insane poo poo that's happening with us
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2016 07:17
|
|
|
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/09/07/the-origin-of-julian-assange-and-wikileaks-war-on-hillary-clinton.html What are the chances Assange actually has some damaging material he's just sitting on until October?
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2016 07:25
|
|
|
Ramrod Hotshot posted:http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/09/07/the-origin-of-julian-assange-and-wikileaks-war-on-hillary-clinton.html Nonexistent.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2016 07:27
|
|
|
Ramrod Hotshot posted:http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/09/07/the-origin-of-julian-assange-and-wikileaks-war-on-hillary-clinton.html I hope he waits until significantly into the early voting due to an outdated model of US voter trends
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2016 07:27
|
|
|
Ramrod Hotshot posted:http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/09/07/the-origin-of-julian-assange-and-wikileaks-war-on-hillary-clinton.html What are the odds of the 49ers winning 9 games this year? poo poo make that 7.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2016 07:33
|
|
|
Ramrod Hotshot posted:http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/09/07/the-origin-of-julian-assange-and-wikileaks-war-on-hillary-clinton.html Assange is trying to do whatever he can right now because he knows he's hosed once Correa isn't protecting his rear end next year so he's latched his cart to Putin who really loving hates Hillary.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2016 07:36
|
|
|
Aesop Poprock posted:I don't know why you keep saying outsiders like most of us know or even care who all posts in this thread. Everyone's responding to you with mocking bafflement because what you're saying is weird and you're using a lot of words while failing to make it less weird or confusing. Some people were wondering who the hell I was, whatever. Huff... Guess crazies like me gotta go for Gary Johnson or Jill Stein - so guess I'll go sit with those kids even if they eat their own boogers for diametrically opposed political reasons. Still think I'm right about Hillary being a poor speaker is a right wing creation and not reality, but us third party voters get to cling to things unreasonably. How hosed is the coverage of Stein in that the headline/tease mention her getting arrested/cited, but only those paying attention will hear the reasons? Some of the worst coverage in a day of poo poo journalism. She's got no chance anyway. Wonder if the Aleppo gaffe will send some Libertarian voters back to Trump since they've ceded the "candidate knows stuff" ground?
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2016 07:37
|
|
|
Eugene V. Dabs posted:http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-jerry-brown-signs-climate-laws-20160908-snap-story.html Vox recently had a breakdown of what this might require, including:
This is not going to be an easy task, and will probably make California an even more expensive place to live (as if it wasn't already). Brown's demand that developers be made effectively immune to resident opposition will probably be necessary in urban areas.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2016 07:48
|
|
|
greatn posted:Well depends on the dead monkey. Harambe knows what he did  Harambe is constitutionally ineligible anyway. However, a silverback over 35 could probably run. Whether or not this would be accepted by the courts depends entirely on if the gorilla was a Republican or not.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2016 07:49
|
|
|
Most "resident opposition" is rent seekers who want to protect their racket. gently caress them.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2016 07:51
|
|
|
Lemming posted:Most "resident opposition" is rent seekers who want to protect their racket. gently caress them. Anti-gentrification groups are resident opposition and developers come in many flavors of evil and idiocy (see 2016 presidential race). Getting things built in Cali requires deep pockets & those pockets usually like being filled as quickly as possible, consequences be damned. Strong residents is why San Francisco still looks like San Francisco and LA looks like poo poo. If keeping that "feel" of SF is worth it is debatable.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2016 08:06
|
|
|
There is nowhere to live. This drives up rent. If more places to live were built, it wouldn't be so expensive to live in those areas, and poorer people wouldn't be forced out. The people who are against building more affordable housing are rent seekers and deserve the guillotine.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2016 08:14
|
|
|
Lemming posted:There is nowhere to live. This drives up rent. If more places to live were built, it wouldn't be so expensive to live in those areas, and poorer people wouldn't be forced out. The people who are against building more affordable housing are rent seekers and deserve the guillotine. Depends where in California you are - in some areas, developers come in and build housing that causes supply to rise and maybe prices to lower (San Francisco keeps having prices go up even though they are building housing because the amount of people who want to live there increases and demand can't meet it -- also, the housing is built for the wealthy by developers who would rather sell fewer, bigger apartments for greater profit). In some areas, developers come into poorer areas and build housing/retail that leads to renters raising the prices on long term residents (classic gentrification, also going on in SF, there is more overall housing created by destroying the housing for the poor). Developers are forced to build low/middle income housing in these areas, so don't think giving them free hand would be all that great. They are necessary, but when you think of a developer, you aren't that off if you imagine Trump. Boxcar fucked around with this message at 08:36 on Sep 9, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2016 08:22
|
|
|
You reason like a five year old. If rent keeps increasing the only way to mitigate it at all without building new places for people to live is to firebomb the neighborhood. Nobody is suggesting there shouldn't be any oversight or regulation on developers. The government should keep them in line. What shouldn't happen is bullshit ordinances that stop all new development which only benefits people who already own property, and it allows them to draw rent. "Free hand" gently caress off. The alternative to "build literally 0 new places to live" is not "let the dystopian mega corps grind the bones of the poor to build new skyscrapers."
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2016 08:35
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:Really? You'd put Donald Trump over a dead monkey? um actually I think you will find that Harambe is an ape but still a more qualified and serious candidate than Jill Stein, Donald Trump, and probably Gary Johnson
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2016 08:43
|
|
|
ComradeCosmobot posted:Vox recently had a breakdown of what this might require, including: This sounds absolutely horrible. It's going to cause a lot of people to leave California and make things a lot more expensive for the lower and middle classes in the state.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2016 08:45
|
|
|
Lemming posted:You reason like a five year old. If rent keeps increasing the only way to mitigate it at all without building new places for people to live is to firebomb the neighborhood. Nobody is suggesting there shouldn't be any oversight or regulation on developers. The government should keep them in line. What shouldn't happen is bullshit ordinances that stop all new development which only benefits people who already own property, and it allows them to draw rent. You don't get it - resident opposition and government opposition is what makes sure developers build this affordable housing. In San Francisco, no developer would build affordable housing, because they can sell to the rich and make more money. God knows how long it would take to satiate that market - so far every increase in SF housing stock for awhile has led to no decrease in price (last dip was 1998 I believe). So for you to want to give the developers free rein against resident opposition won't make housing cheaper - it will allow them to build places for the rich. Developers care about doing the least work, for the most money and in the current market, they can sell whatever housing they can develop in the small geographic area of SF to the well off. They won't build cheap housing unless things like resident opposition force their hand. Cheap housing is a thing of the past in SF until there's a major correction (meaning people all over will probably have less money) - it's just too small an area with too much demand. So the answer isn't to do nothing, it's to require affordable housing to be built with each developer project (developers fight having to do that tooth and nail). There's not many other alternatives for SF. For other areas where the market isn't so hot, an increase in housing can definitely lower prices. Boxcar fucked around with this message at 08:58 on Sep 9, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2016 08:46
|
|
|
Also, I have professional seismologist friends who confirm the North Korea earthquake was a nuke test which probably surprises no one. (it produced extremely strong P-waves for an earthquake of its magnitude)
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2016 08:48
|
|
|
Boxcar posted:I said multiple times that people attacked her with sexist attacks. The fact that you think this is a thing unmasks you as the worst kind of rear end in a top hat
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2016 08:49
|
|
|
neoliberal posted:This sounds absolutely horrible. It actually sounds pretty cool, good and necessary to me, as long as they manage the impact on the poorest citizens.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2016 08:50
|
|
|
Lemming posted:loving good Why am I just now learning California's governor is Jerry Brown, like the Dead Kennedy's song? 
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2016 08:52
|
|
|
Bad Moon posted:Why am I just now learning California's governor is Jerry Brown, like the Dead Kennedy's song? Because you just woke up from a 10 year coma?
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2016 08:56
|
|
|
Gort posted:It actually sounds pretty cool, good and necessary to me, as long as they manage the impact on the poorest citizens. You, I and everyone in this thread knows that is never going to loving happen. Look how utterly insane these guys are getting
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2016 08:57
|
|
|
 Kim Jong Un flexin Any bets on Trump calling Kim a "strong leader" following his Putin fellating?
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2016 08:58
|
|
|
William F Cuckley posted:Because you just woke up from a 10 year coma? I'm super stoked for that young senator from Illinois to do cool things.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2016 09:01
|
|
|
Bad Moon posted:Why am I just now learning California's governor is Jerry Brown, like the Dead Kennedy's song? *From* The Dead Kennedys song.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2016 09:04
|
|
|
William F Cuckley posted:Because you just woke up from a 10 year coma? More like 30 years
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2016 09:04
|
|
|
Luigi Thirty posted:https://twitter.com/imraansiddiqi/status/773970915210108928 I don't think enough of you have been horrified by this yet.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2016 09:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 18:55 |
|
|
Boxcar posted:You don't get it - resident opposition and government opposition is what makes sure developers build this affordable housing. In San Francisco, no developer would build affordable housing, because they can sell to the rich and make more money. God knows how long it would take to satiate that market - so far every increase in SF housing stock for awhile has led to no decrease in price (last dip was 1998 I believe). So for you to want to give the developers free rein against resident opposition won't make housing cheaper - it will allow them to build places for the rich. Developers care about doing the least work, for the most money and in the current market, they can sell whatever housing they can develop in the small geographic area of SF to the well off. They won't build cheap housing unless things like resident opposition force their hand. Cheap housing is a thing of the past in SF until there's a major correction (meaning people all over will probably have less money) - it's just too small an area with too much demand. No, "resident opposition" is largely well off busy bodies who have enough time and money to worm their way into local government and stop anything at all from getting built. There should absolutely be provisions for affordable housing with all new developments, but the point is that those developments are all getting blocked because they hurt the value of currently existing property. My entire point from the start is those specific people should take a long walk off a short pier. You're just trying to find a moral high ground on some random issue to distract from the other very dumb things you've said in this thread regarding how you think because Hillary is rich she doesn't really face sexism.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2016 09:15
|
|