|
Who do you wish to win the Democratic primaries? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| Joe Biden, the Inappropriate Toucher |
|
18 | 1.46% |
| Bernie Sanders, the Hand Flailer |
|
665 | 54.11% |
| Elizabeth Warren, the Plan Maker |
|
319 | 25.96% |
| Kamala Harris, the Cop Lord |
|
26 | 2.12% |
| Cory Booker, the Super Hero Wannabe |
|
5 | 0.41% |
| Julian Castro, the Twin |
|
5 | 0.41% |
| Kirsten Gillibrand, the Franken Killer |
|
5 | 0.41% |
| Pete Buttigieg, the Troop Sociopath |
|
17 | 1.38% |
| Robert Francis O'Rourke, the Fake Latino |
|
3 | 0.24% |
| Jay Inslee, the Climate Alarmist |
|
8 | 0.65% |
| Marianne Williamson, the Crystal Queen |
|
86 | 7.00% |
| Tulsi Gabbard, the Muslim Hater |
|
23 | 1.87% |
| Andrew Yang, the $1000 Fool |
|
32 | 2.60% |
| Eric Swalwell, the Insurance Wife Guy |
|
2 | 0.16% |
| Amy Klobuchar, the Comb Enthusiast |
|
1 | 0.08% |
| Bill de Blasio, the NYPD Most Hated |
|
4 | 0.33% |
| Tim Ryan, the Dope Face |
|
3 | 0.24% |
| John Hickenlooper, the Also Ran |
|
7 | 0.57% |
| Total: | 1229 votes | ||
|
10% over 10 years lmao Warren needs to stop wasting everyone's goddamn time already
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2019 06:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 18:12 |
|
|
Son of Thunderbeast posted:10% over 10 years lmao no no you see its okay because also we'll be making more which rent will definitely not have caught up with like it always does
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2019 06:51
|
|
|
Son of Thunderbeast posted:10% over 10 years lmao The more she reveals how establishment she is, the better. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2019 06:51
|
|
|
Just to clarify: the 10% isn't a reduction over current rents. It is a reduction over what it would have been without the policy. The estimate is that rents will go up an average of 4% without her proposal, 3% with it. I.e., it is a growth rate that is 1% lower over 10 years.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2019 07:06
|
|
|
Harm reduction as policy: the Democratic Party story. Tax cuts and cost reductions in 2019. This country is so hosed
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2019 07:17
|
|
|
Unoriginal Name posted:Harm reduction as policy: the Democratic Party story. They won’t even get on Yang’s lovely UBI lol
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2019 07:25
|
|
|
joepinetree posted:Just to clarify: the 10% isn't a reduction over current rents. It is a reduction over what it would have been without the policy. The estimate is that rents will go up an average of 4% without her proposal, 3% with it. I.e., it is a growth rate that is 1% lower over 10 years. Lmbo it's even more loving useless than I thought
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2019 07:33
|
|
|
This plan is bad and now I'm voting for Marianne, who will open up the void and let us all sleep in the endless clouds of the shared mindspace.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2019 07:39
|
|
|
Grapplejack posted:This plan is bad and now I'm voting for Marianne, who will open up the void and let us all sleep in the endless clouds of the shared mindspace. Reducing rents via crystal magic is praxis.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2019 07:47
|
|
|
You don't have to pay rent when your astral soul lives inside the sacred Orb.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2019 07:51
|
|
|
At worst, Williamson is slightly less out of touch with reality than the rest of the establishment Democrats.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2019 08:41
|
|
|
Let's talk about what a good housing plan would be: 1) completely freeze rent increases. 2) law that protects tenants in multiple ways, i.e. you can only get evicted after 3 years, you get minimal 6 months advance warning and the landlord has to compensate with 2 month rent if certain conditions are met. 3) greatly increase tax on rental income, hopefully increasing the amount of houses that are for sale and decreasing house prices. 4) government should build houses themselves.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2019 10:37
|
|
|
1) Abolish private property. There is no step 2
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2019 10:42
|
|
|
i have something to add to the OP regarding john delaney: he has a tiny mouth
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2019 12:13
|
|
|
Nail Rat posted:Fuuuuuuuuuuuck Joe Biden. Joe Biden's response: "Thanks for your vote!"
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2019 12:23
|
|
|
joepinetree posted:Just to clarify: the 10% isn't a reduction over current rents. It is a reduction over what it would have been without the policy. The estimate is that rents will go up an average of 4% without her proposal, 3% with it. I.e., it is a growth rate that is 1% lower over 10 years. "What if instead of being forced to move every 2 to 3 years because your landlord jacked your rates by 200 to 300 dollars it was 195 to 290?" - President Numbers Fuckstein
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2019 13:06
|
|
|
joepinetree posted:Just to clarify: the 10% isn't a reduction over current rents. It is a reduction over what it would have been without the policy. The estimate is that rents will go up an average of 4% without her proposal, 3% with it. I.e., it is a growth rate that is 1% lower over 10 years. The saddest thing is there's no press on how bad this plan is. Everything about warren and housing paints her as some kind of revolutionary socialist. Only broken people who follow politics like us care. America's getting Trump again.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2019 13:12
|
|
|
Martha Stewart Undying posted:The saddest thing is there's no press on how bad this plan is. Everything about warren and housing paints her as some kind of revolutionary socialist. If you believe that better things aren’t possible, somebody proposing to make things 1% better IS revolutionary.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2019 13:13
|
|
|
MSDOS KAPITAL posted:Well good to know that if all her proposals that's she's definitely going to weasel out of after the primary are enacted in total and to the letter then we will mitigate some of the damage inflicted on the working class over the last forty years. Not reverse it, I mean we're not doing speeches about democratic socialism over here that would be laughable - just stop it right where it is now and preserve the status quo which totally doesn't suck rear end for 99% of the country. Maybe you should read the posts where i actually said what I think about the policy rather than acting like I'm over here with my liberal loving pom poms out calling it the best white paper I've ever seen. Maybe you should talk about the actual (inadequate) content of the proposal, like Main Paineframe, instead of going into a god drat Smug Soliloquy where you explain the whole world to my poor, misguided capitalist naif self. If someone just takes the most absurd Full Communism Now position and makes useless posts about how rent should be like, one hundred pecerent lower, maaaan! it's not worthy of your brilliant, beneficent offerings, but if I say "this proposal from my second-preference candidate doesn't really do much of anything except give money to developers," but decline to use it as a launching pad to rant about how Warren and liberalism are terrible in every sense, I'm subject to this ridiculous condescension. Please.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2019 15:46
|
|
|
Failed Imagineer posted:1) Abolish private property. Thank, candidate street corner prophet, for your answer to the housing crisis.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2019 16:03
|
|
|
Mellow Seas posted:Maybe you should read the posts where i actually said what I think about the policy rather than acting like I'm over here with my liberal loving pom poms out calling it the best white paper I've ever seen. Maybe you should talk about the actual (inadequate) content of the proposal, like Main Paineframe, instead of going into a god drat Smug Soliloquy where you explain the whole world to my poor, misguided capitalist naif self. You were one of the ones handwringing about how I wasn't being fair to Warren and I was just so unreasonable last night you rear end in a top hat (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2019 16:11
|
|
|
Mellow Seas posted:Geez it was really foolish of Warren to just have this one policy. I mean, come on, Liz, ever heard of minimim wage? Why not do something with that? These candidates, boy I tell ya. No guys I definitely hate it that's why I'm being such an unmitigated rear end in a top hat and acting like complaints about it aren't valid, and then turning around and going "well actually I don't like it either" Twelve hours ago, you gently caress (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2019 16:13
|
|
|
If you were going back 12 hours you could've also gone back to the posts where I said I was unimpressed by the policy, instead of just picking out a particular post where I mock you. I stand by my previously stated positions on the plan, and I also stand by my posts mocking you. I thought the policy was legitimately promising when interpreted as "rents 10 years from now will be 10% lower than they are now", yes. And I thought it was silly for you to complain that it was insufficient when making $7.25 an hour when it is Mrs. Warren's explicitly stated preference that not you nor anyone make $7.25 an hour. And it's not terribly surprising to me that that a true 10% reduction is not what the plan actually aims for. Not to keep bringing up Main Paineframe, but as he still as a working brain and the ability to discuss issues with people, he posted some very helpful information on the guts of the plan, and it's definitely somewhere on a scale between "meh" and "sucks". You see, I'm willing to change positions in the face of evidence, but yelling "LIBERAL!" at me over and over again isn't going to do much except keep this thread's infinite hate-cycle spinning. Mellow Seas fucked around with this message at 16:22 on Jul 6, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2019 16:20
|
|
|
Lol okay guy, nobody buys your bullshit
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2019 16:23
|
|
|
It's just oddly specific without meaning anything at all. What's inflation going to look like in 10 years from now? What will wages be? Is this Nationwide or will major metro areas with regressive rent inflating laws be targeted? It's wonky and poses as a tangible solution but is ultimately meaningless. That's Warren criticism in a nutshell
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2019 16:44
|
|
|
I’d vote for Yang over Warren at this point.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2019 16:45
|
|
|
Mellow Seas posted:I thought the policy was legitimately promising when interpreted as "rents 10 years from now will be 10% lower than they are now", yes. And I thought it was silly for you to complain that it was insufficient when making $7.25 an hour when it is Mrs. Warren's explicitly stated preference that not you nor anyone make $7.25 an hour. twodot fucked around with this message at 17:05 on Jul 6, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2019 16:59
|
|
|
Mellow Seas strikes me not as a liberal but apparently representative of the general public more than the typical left leaning poster here. Which is troubling in its own way but not some sort of apostasy. Theyre going to skim the Warren plan and come to the same conclusions. ...and then wonder loudly wtf why are we never satisfied.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2019 17:14
|
|
|
The plan is a disaster and it makes me want to vomit, but its far superior to no plan (which is what Bernie has).
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2019 17:25
|
|
|
And I will never forgive the dirtbags itt forcing me to defend this sickening plan (that I hate) proposed by Warren (who I think is great, my 2nd choice in the primary right now)
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2019 17:26
|
|
|
Heck, the average person is even worse than that. They'll never hear about this policy and just see Warren on TV and think "she seems smart and good."
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2019 17:26
|
|
|
Calibanibal posted:And I will never forgive the dirtbags itt forcing me to defend this sickening plan (that I hate) proposed by Warren (who I think is
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2019 17:29
|
|
|
twodot posted:So your problem here is you fell for a lie, and other people, not falling for the lie, said "Hey this is some bullshit" before the lie was carefully explained to you by another poster? Like that other poster was not doing original research or investigative journalism, they just read the policy and then quoted words other people wrote here. Okay, sure. Here's a post I made before MPF did a dive into the text: Mellow Seas posted:I don’t know what the policy is, and it all depends on that, but that’s a worthwhile goal. I agree that in a campaign context it sounds tiny and unimpressive. “Stop the explosion in the cost of housing” would sound a lot better, even if 10% is technically 10% better. So it's more "I didn't make a direct and damning judgement until I had more information literally 10 minutes later", while also disagreeing with people who stated a 10% drop in rents was useless (actually achieving that would be a pretty big deal, and is also not anything I stated definitely the plan would do). But if you want to call that "falling for a lie", ok, if that makes you feel better. RuanGacho posted:Mellow Seas strikes me not as a liberal but apparently representative of the general public more than the typical left leaning poster here. It's like one part "representative of the general public" and nine parts "aware the general public exists and they think things" but considering this is one of the nicest things anybody's ever said about me here ("not a liberal!") I'll take it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2019 17:32
|
|
|
Mellow Seas posted:So it's more "I didn't make a direct and damning judgement until I had more information literally 10 minutes later", while also disagreeing with people who stated a 10% drop in rents was useless (actually achieving that would be a pretty big deal, and is also not anything I stated definitely the plan would do). But if you want to call that "falling for a lie", ok, if that makes you feel better.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2019 17:34
|
|
|
I'm very much an every(wo)man, the bread and butter of the Democratic Party. Its no surprise they hate me in here.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2019 17:36
|
|
|
twodot posted:Uh, yeah, if you read a headline and your reaction is "I have no idea what it means, but it is good, I will read the substance later", then you have fallen for a lie. They are on purpose exploiting a cognitive bias to create sticky impressions before you get a chance to do a real evaluation, and you have fallen for it. Or maybe it had no effect on my opinion of the candidates, and, again, was completely resolved as a learning process within 10 minutes, but ok, If it makes you feel better. I never even formed a concrete opinion about the proposal so what people are complaining about here is that I didn't have a knee jerk reaction of "Warren did this, so it's bad". Mellow Seas fucked around with this message at 17:39 on Jul 6, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2019 17:37
|
|
|
twodot posted:Uh, yeah, if you read a headline and your reaction is "I have no idea what it means, but it is good, I will read the substance later", then you have fallen for a lie. They are on purpose exploiting a cognitive bias to create sticky impressions before you get a chance to do a real evaluation, and you have fallen for it. This is victim blaming.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2019 17:37
|
|
|
Mellow Seas posted:Or maybe it had no effect on my opinion of the candidates, and, again, was completely resolved as a learning process within 10 minutes, but ok, If it makes you feel better.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2019 17:40
|
|
|
twodot posted:Yet you are still here complaining that other people were correct earlier than you. It had no effect on you whatsoever, you just independently felt compelled to first defend it as a worthwhile goal despite openly acknowledging you know nothing about it, and are now continuing to defend the fact you were wrong during a time when other people were right. No effect at all. Impressions aren't sticky, no sir. Correct about what? A 10% reduction in rents is a worthwhile goal and I stand by that. Warren's plan doesn't accomplish that. I never said it would. One person actually went and read the text and proved that, while others said the same thing they always do ("Warren did it, so it's bad"). I mean, that position is going to be right sometimes, because sometimes Warren's plans are bullshit, and this is one of those times! Hey twodot! gently caress off! (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2019 17:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 18:12 |
|
|
tylersayten posted:I’d vote for Yang over Warren at this point.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2019 17:47
|
|