Political Discussion

Nationally in 2019 the number of homeless went up by 2.7%. California leads the country for the largest increase in the homeless population by 16.8%.

Skyrocketing costs of housing and stagnant wages are attributed. Area's with higher housing costs / seeing faster increases in cost have a strong correlation to the areas where the rates of homelessness are increasing faster.

I have been taking the commuter rail to work for years now, and one thing I noticed this winter is more tents than ever set up long the railroad tracks. I'm also seeing homeless people sleeping at the parking garage at the Salem Commuter Rail station this year which you never saw before.
 
RenegadeMonster said:
Nationally in 2019 the number of homeless went up by 2.7%. California leads the country for the largest increase in the homeless population by 16.8%.

Skyrocketing costs of housing and stagnant wages are attributed. Area's with higher housing costs / seeing faster increases in cost have a strong correlation to the areas where the rates of homelessness are increasing faster.

I have been taking the commuter rail to work for years now, and one thing I noticed this winter is more tents than ever set up long the railroad tracks. I'm also seeing homeless people sleeping at the parking garage at the Salem Commuter Rail station this year which you never saw before.
Click to expand...

I’ve seen the homeless in Los Angeles get displaced and pushed further and further out over the last 10 years, as “skid row” and downtown areas get gentrified and turned into luxury condos and shopping centers.
 
swamp jazz box set said:
I’ve seen the homeless in Los Angeles get displaced and pushed further and further out over the last 10 years, as “skid row” and downtown areas get gentrified and turned into luxury condos and shopping centers.
Click to expand...

On my occasional trips back into the city I have noticed a lot more homeless. There was never as much homeless in East Hollywood when I lived there as there is now. Its strange because when I moved into that area (Western and Hollywood) is was beginning to be rejuvenated, but now it seems to be going downhill.
 
Dtknuckles said:
On my occasional trips back into the city I have noticed a lot more homeless. There was never as much homeless in East Hollywood when I lived there as there is now. Its strange because when I moved into that area (Western and Hollywood) is was beginning to be rejuvenated, but now it seems to be going downhill.
Click to expand...

My wife lived in Chinatown for several years. There were people who were homeless but, soon after she moved out, 6-7 years ago, a ton of streets became lined with tents belonging to folks that had been pushed up/down the gold line by the development of luxury condos and upscale retail spaces. I live higher up the gold line, north of downtown, in a more suburban area and there would be more visible people who are homeless if our city didn't aggressively tear down their tents and throw out their belongings upon first sight.
 
When someone like Jeff Bezos hears that he could put all homeless people in homes or he could pay off the student debt of a great portion of the nation, what does he feel?

I mean, I'd hear that and be like, "YES TAKE MY MONEY because I have so much, I'll still be living large".

How are these billionaires just so blind to it all? How do they not help in some huge and meaningful way?
 
Last edited:
swamp jazz box set said:
My wife lived in Chinatown for several years. There were people who were homeless but, soon after she moved out, 6-7 years ago, a ton of streets became lined with tents belonging to folks that had been pushed up/down the gold line by the development of luxury condos and upscale retail spaces. I live higher up the gold line, north of downtown, in a more suburban area and there would be more visible people who are homeless if our city didn't aggressively tear down their tents and throw out their belongings upon first sight.
Click to expand...

That's another issue in it self. Homeless people in many cases are violating the law where ever they decide to sleep or set up tent in most areas. And any place that is being developed by luxury condos or upscale retail place will be extremely aggressive with pushing the homeless out at first site.

Also, the usual places you find homeless around Boston have been cracking down. Such as the subways. The transit police in Boston have really been cracking down on homeless people sleeping at subway access points by chasing them off / arresting them if they come back / repeatedly be told to leave.

There is no good solution. There are not enough beds in shelters.

I saw on the news today that over in the UK a homeless man was seriously injured when his tent was by some kind of sweeping device that has an arm that can lift things up and drop them in dumpster. They claw lifted his tend and put it in a dumpster without ever checking to see if someone was in side it. They were aggressively cleaning up / removing tents and litter that popped up when homeless moved in along side a river.
 
Indymisanthrope said:
I’ve been turning this over in my head all day, and I keep coming to the conclusion that this feels like a double standard, to me.

I
So Bernie told Liz in 2018 either that a) he didn’t think a woman could beat Trump in 2020, or that b) Trump was going to use a candidate’s gender against her in gross ways that would present unique challenges to that candidate (ergo making it more difficult for her to win than a male nominee).

II
Some talking points for Bernie canvassers get leaked that say essentially that Warren has electability issues.

III
In a possibly retaliatory move, folks with secondhand knowledge of that 2018 discussion tell the press that Warren told them at the time that Bernie said to her (whew) that a woman can’t win in 2020. She apparently believed then, and believes now, that this is the message he was communicating.

IV
Bernie denies saying this.

V
Warren confirms both via written statement and verbally at the debate that yes, this is the message she got from Bernie but no, she doesn’t want to focus on it and they’re still friends and allies for the progressive cause.

VI
Conclusion: Whatever Bernie said was private, and he was just being honest. But if Warren is likewise honest and confirms—when asked directly if it’s true—that it happened, then she’s petty, vindictive, damaging the party, and making disastrous decisions that reveal her untrustworthy nature?

I think that ultimately the misogyny of this story *isn’t* what Bernie said to Warren, but how she’s being punished for honestly recounting what she believes she heard. But Bernie, well, Bernie’s just an honest guy whose privacy has been violated, and sure he may have voiced an unpopular opinion but gee, look how she’s acting...maybe he was right after all!

Meanwhile (and this is a point I saw on Twitter, not a thought I can take credit for) we see on the debate stage that they can’t even clearly communicate what each other means about election results “in the last 30 years.” So how likely is it that one of them is lying at all, when we see how easily two ostensible friends can misunderstand and talk past each other right in front of us?
Click to expand...

We agree that it was likely a misunderstanding in communication between the two of them and that the truth likely lies somewhere in the middle. I.e. Bernie believes a woman can absolutely win the presidency but when asked in confidence for his opinion- it's that Trump will use gender as a weapon in a general.

But she is being criticized because bringing this up a FULL YEAR after said meeting does nothing but enhance the chances that either Trump or Biden becomes the nominee. The fact that she is reportedly the one who asked the question only makes it worse.

The canvassing talking point in question was verbatim "[Warren's base is made up of] highly-educated, more affluent people who are going to show up and vote Democratic no matter what". All of which is true. Last time I saw stats, an average income of 100k and the most educated of any of the candidates save maybe Pete. It's a completely fair talking point that is backed by data (and was brought up within this thread months ago). More importantly, bringing it up does absolutely NOTHING to impact her chances of winning in a general election against Trump.

Veiled accusations that Bernie is a sexist- despite ample evidence that of Bernie supporting women politicians and encouraging women to run for president (including Warren herself in 2016!)- on the other hand directly impacts both of their chances in a general against Trump while handing he-said, she-said fuel to the CNN's of the world. It's an incredibly disappointing and skeezy move. It also lessens the chances of delegate alignment in the chance of a contested convention- which means it ups the chances we wind up with Biden.

The irony is that the same people who accuse Bernie of causing Hillary's defeat (in spite of his avid campaigning for and endorsement of Clinton, not to mention his refusal to talk about her "damn emails") are the same people defending this move.
 
Last edited:
Indymisanthrope said:
VI
Conclusion: Whatever Bernie said was private, and he was just being honest. But if Warren is likewise honest and confirms—when asked directly if it’s true—that it happened, then she’s petty, vindictive, damaging the party, and making disastrous decisions that reveal her untrustworthy nature?

I think that ultimately the misogyny of this story *isn’t* what Bernie said to Warren, but how she’s being punished for honestly recounting what she believes she heard. But Bernie, well, Bernie’s just an honest guy whose privacy has been violated, and sure he may have voiced an unpopular opinion but gee, look how she’s acting...maybe he was right after all!
Click to expand...

I've only taken passing glances at the news and social platforms, and have not been following this stuff because I don't care. I didn't watch the debate and don't plan on watching any of them, but you are describing what my sense of the response to the incident/s in question has been.

I'm also left wondering if the bernie got screwed in 2016 narrative is really what is ultimately driving much of the entrenched attitudes of the Sanders and Warren encampments about the other. All of it is very short-sighted, narrow-minded fact choosing to me and left me feeling somehow even more apathetic about the most progressive candidates in my lifetime. Both of whom I should give a shit about - but don't.

The blind zeal that (I feel) has been demonstrated by the various encampments has been nothing but a turn off. Instead of using the precious limited time there is left to motivate people to vote progressively both of these gangs have been busy convincing themselves that they'll "win" if the other is eliminated. If anyone thinks that motivation won't be necessary in Oct. - Nov. 2020 they're probably fooling themselves.

Confirmation bias is a dangerous habit.
 
jaycee said:
I've only taken passing glances at the news and social platforms, and have not been following this stuff because I don't care. I didn't watch the debate and don't plan on watching any of them, but you are describing what my sense of the response to the incident/s in question has been.

I'm also left wondering if the bernie got screwed in 2016 narrative is really what is ultimately driving much of the entrenched attitudes of the Sanders and Warren encampments about the other. All of it is very short-sighted, narrow-minded fact choosing to me and left me feeling somehow even more apathetic about the most progressive candidates in my lifetime. Both of whom I should give a shit about - but don't.

The blind zeal that (I feel) has been demonstrated by the various encampments has been nothing but a turn off. Instead of using the precious limited time there is left to motivate people to vote progressively both of these gangs have been busy convincing themselves that they'll "win" if the other is eliminated. If anyone thinks that motivation won't be necessary in Oct. - Nov. 2020 they're probably fooling themselves.

Confirmation bias is a dangerous habit.
Click to expand...

Granted this is predictable coming from me, but I don't think that's completely fair in this specific case. I have been advocating for Warren almost as hard as Bernie and talking her up to baby boomers in my parents world who are too centrist to vote for Bernie in a primary. The same goes of the vast majority of Sander's supporters in my bubble. And polling has shown roughly 60% of Bernie supporters list Warren as their #2 option and vice versa.

That said, I absolutely think you are right that 2016 is amplifying the emotions over this.
 
Indymisanthrope said:
Wait...we’re now making some assumptions about who “brought it up.” You mentioned yesterday that we know candidates don’t control all their spokespeople. Her statements after that have only addressed it because the only other two options, silence or lying about it, are worse. Instead she simply and directly acknowledged the event and then asked voters to focus on what’s actually important.

That’s the first half. The second half is “She’s bringing no new bases into the Democratic Party. We need to turn out disaffected working-class voters if we’re going to defeat Trump.” I.e., she can’t win. I’m not saying that the talking point is a problem. Only that it’s easy to see how some surrogates with knowledge of that 2018 conversation would see an opportunity to hit back on why they think he might be saying that.

I just don’t see anything especially or unusually underhanded about this, especially since the candidates themselves have said their piece and basically brushed it off. Warren’s only direct “move” here has been to answer the question when asked, honestly and directly, and then to tell everyone to move on.

The whole thing is a nothingburger. Either candidate’s supporters getting upset at the other candidate *while* complaining about media coverage of it is all very strange to me.
Click to expand...

The first part is saying the same thing as the second part, i.e. making an electability argument. So we agree on that. We disagree that it's saying she "can't win". It's that Bernie has an easier path to winning. Or it least, that's how I've repeatedly framed it for months.

As to the convo. Numerous reports have said there were only twp people in that room. Warren & Sanders.

"Although Lee said she based the story on “the accounts of four people,” they were “two people Warren spoke with directly soon after the encounter,” and “two people familiar with the meeting.” There were only two people in the room, Sanders and Warren. Lee’s “four people” actually relied on just one source, Warren." (CNN's Debate Performance Was Villainous and Shameful).

Versus hundreds of thousands of volunteers nationwide. Even then, I think most people held off in judgment and waited for Warren's response. Which twice now has served as basically doubling down on the previous comment. She could have provided context or alluded to a misunderstanding last night but didn't. And yet, I'd still vote for her without thinking about it in a general.

The problem is that she has just made it substantially less likely that either her or Bernie is the nominee. You brush it off as nothing, but a lot of people don't see it that way. For example, R/politics is usually EXTREMELY pro-Warren. 10-50k+ upvotes for pro-Warren stories. The consensus for months has been "I'd be happy either A or B though I might prefer A (or B) for such and such reason related to policy or perceived electability, but the priority is getting a progressive to win no matter what.... She has been getting absolutely hammered on there since the debate ended specifically because people perceive it as an attack on character that undermines the chances a progressive comes out on top. (Maybe it's a generational thing as Reddit is made mostly of the under 40 crowd?).

Meanwhile CNN has been focusing on it all day while their talking heads say things like "I think what Bernie forgot was that this isn’t a he said/she said story. This is a reported-out story that CNN was part of breaking. So, to have him just flat-out say no, I think wasn’t — wasn’t nearly enough to address that for the women watching" while #NeverWarren and #NeverBernie trend on Twitter.

I hope you are right and this all blows over. My gut says that this just handed Biden the nomination, but I also thought Bernie's heart attack was going to end his campaign so....
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
I mean this is the problem and why we probably just have to accept that we get at least four more years of Trump. The Democrats don’t have ANYONE that provides as many passionate voters as Trump does and. Democratic voters are less likely to just toe the line of the party. Warren and Sanders would do better just to create their own ticket now... if I’m nominated the other one will be VP pledge, like now. The political machine is going to put these two against each other, the current my side is the only right side discourse in the country is going to be apparent in the microcosm of those two and shut them down. Then we have Biden that no one is passionate about and is honestly a big symbol of how we got here. Pelosi waited till the worst possible time to impeach Trump and then has been whether rightly or wrongly grandstanding to the point where chances are the trial is over after the election. Trump wins and now has a mandate for the people clearly like what he is doing and starts pulling Putin level antics.

I also convinced that he doesn’t willingly leave office even if not elected.
 
Warren

Warren
14
Sanders

Sanders
12
Yang

Yang
10
Steyer

Steyer
10
Klobuchar

Klobuchar
8
Buttigieg

Buttigieg
7
Bloomberg

Bloomberg
5
Gabbard

Gabbard
5
Biden

Biden
4

A little bit surprised that Warren came out on top. I considered her a second or third choice. Glad to see Biden falls dead last, that's accurate.
 
Djxfactor511 said:
Anyone take that Washington Post quiz to see which nominee you agree with the most?



I considered myself a Buttigieg or Warren guy before but my results point away from Warren.

Klobuchar - 13
Yang - 13
Steyer - 13
Buttigieg - 12
Biden - 11
Bloomburg - 10
Warren - 7
Gabbard - 7
Sanders - 5
Click to expand...

Steyer - 11
Bernie and Elizabeth - 10
Bloomberg, Klobuchar, Yang - 9
Biden, Mayor Pete - 8
Gabbard - 6

I don't even know who Steyer is. Does Yang have any chance in hell? And I'm not surprised at all by Gabbard being so low.
 
Djxfactor511 said:
Anyone take that Washington Post quiz to see which nominee you agree with the most?



I considered myself a Buttigieg or Warren guy before but my results point away from Warren.

Klobuchar - 13
Yang - 13
Steyer - 13
Buttigieg - 12
Biden - 11
Bloomburg - 10
Warren - 7
Gabbard - 7
Sanders - 5
Click to expand...
Fascinating. I came up with Biden and Bloomburg. I swore I was more liberal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top