All purpose news and politics thread part VI: This Is Not The Time For Posing

[Zauriel]

US politics baffles me.

I thought Democrats controlled Presidency, Senate, and Congress…is it really possible for Republicans to stall them for long on such a fundamental issue, if it’s important to the Democrats?

The democrats control the entire government, but that doesn't mean they have the balls to achieve their goals on a fundamental issue.

Democrats control the House & Senate and could have passed legislation to extend the eviction moratorium or better yet canceled rents, but once again they chose to side with Real Estate developers & landlords so every person and family who is evicted is on them.

The Democrats control the entire government right now, but instead of using their majority to extend the eviction moratorium or pass Medicare for All they are STILL blaming Jill Stein.

Imagine still blaming Susan Sarandon, Jill Stein, Ralph Nader, and Bernie Sanders when Democrats control the entire government and aren’t using their majority to pass a living wage or make health care and housing a human right.

[Tami]

Yeah, no kidding owning a home is preferable to renting an apartment. I don't think anyone is arguing the opposite. The poor folk who can only afford (or can't even do that without assistance) apartments would surely love some of these subsidized mortgages you're talking about.

In the real world though, we can barely get Congress to subsidize their living in packed-together apartment buildings that yes are more likely to be run-down and in disrepair than single-family homes. Probably because there are enough people even among those who claim to be Democrats that are quick to label poor folk as not being "family friendly" or "safe".

Again, you can't just funnel all of the poor and minority folk you don't want in your neighborhood into the cities and just call it a day, while people with greater resources are free to keep the suburban and rural areas to themselves so they can feel "safe". Honestly, you shouldn't want to.

I agree that people should be free to live wherever they want, and not forced to live in one location. People come to live in small towns, suburban or rural, for the reasons that define them as small towns. Turing a small town into a mini-version of a 'big city', which is rampant in parts of NJ, kind if defeats that purpose.

I just think there are better ways to allow for people to live where they want without automatically resorting to creating high-density places like apartments.

It's kind of like saying, if we can't force poor people to live in the city, then we will transform anyplace they want to live into a city.

One the one hand, it might be true that apartment living is the only option for low income people, on the other hand, are they leaving a low income apartment in the city just to move into a low income apartment in the suburbs? Is that the assumption? That low income people are incapable of owning their own home?

[babyblob]

Everyone knows they are. This has nothing to do with protecting the newborn, it never did, it's all about control of a woman's body and her right to choose. In some, if not most ways, the GQP is no better than the Taliban when it comes to strident, hardcore fundamentailism. Why Qpublicans aren't publicly called out on their hypocrisy is a mystery to me.

Because time and time again The Dems take the high road. They are so worried about offending the voter base that they rarely say anything or call the QOP out even when it needs to be done. And what voter base are they so worried about offending? The QOP cult members who get pissed are never going to vote for them any way. They are so busy making sure they take the high road they dont worry about the road being washed out from under them. I would like to say maybe they will do something different if they lose the Senate but I doubt it.

[Zauriel]

Liberals always need a scapegoat because they refuse to accept just how corrupt the “Democratic” party is. The party is completely bought and beholden to giant corporations and the ruling class. I voted Green in 2020 and will NEVER vote Democrat again.

[Kirby101]

Liberals always need a scapegoat because they refuse to accept just how corrupt the “Democratic” party is. The party is completely bought and beholden to giant corporations and the ruling class. I voted Green in 2020 and will NEVER vote Democrat again.

That's the thinking that gave us Trump over Hillary, cause "no difference". Now we have a SCOTUS that will ban abortion.
Get real.

[thwhtGuardian]

Liberals always need a scapegoat because they refuse to accept just how corrupt the “Democratic” party is. The party is completely bought and beholden to giant corporations and the ruling class. I voted Green in 2020 and will NEVER vote Democrat again.

I mean, that's an okay stance if you live in a left leaning state where you have the luxury of vanity voting( I live in Mass and have been guilty of that) but you see how that could shoot you in the foot if you live elsewhere right?

[Tendrin]

'Democrats have a majority, they just don't have balls!' is a deeply naive point of view.

[babyblob]

That's the thinking that gave us Trump over Hillary, cause "no difference". Now we have a SCOTUS that will ban abortion.
Get real.

I mean, that's an okay stance if you live in a left leaning state where you have the luxury of vanity voting( I live in Mass and have been guilty of that) but you see how that could shoot you in the foot if you live elsewhere right?

Meh. i dont blame anyone for Trump other then the GOP cult members who voted for him. Someone voting 3rd party is not the problem. If the Dems do not match someones value system or they have a real problem with the candidate that is put forward they have no obligation to vote for them. if they choose to vote 3rd party that is their right as an American. And it is an okay stance to take no matter where a person lives. If voting a 3rd part costs Dems the votes that is just how it is in our system. If you want to eliminate this then outlaw all 3rd party candidates which is not a good thing at all.

Anyone who meets the states requirements to be on a presidential ballot has the right to be there. And anyone in that state that wants to vote for them has that right and should not get shamed or blamed if a GOP Candidate ends up winning.

[Mister Mets]

That's the thinking that gave us Trump over Hillary, cause "no difference". Now we have a SCOTUS that will ban abortion.
Get real.

This isn't really a Trump thing, though.

That may be an example of poor messaging from Democrats of focusing on Trump rather than things President Rubio would have done.

One question would be where it would make a difference? Were any congressional Republicans candidates evasive about their opposition to abortion?

I wonder how long will it take for every Republican state to pick up an identical bill.

I'm sure we'll see copycats.

More states adopting this increases the speed with which pro-choice groups will find litigants willing to bring this to the court.

The democrats control the entire government, but that doesn't mean they have the balls to achieve their goals on a fundamental issue.

Democrats control the House & Senate and could have passed legislation to extend the eviction moratorium or better yet canceled rents, but once again they chose to side with Real Estate developers & landlords so every person and family who is evicted is on them.

The Democrats control the entire government right now, but instead of using their majority to extend the eviction moratorium or pass Medicare for All they are STILL blaming Jill Stein.

Imagine still blaming Susan Sarandon, Jill Stein, Ralph Nader, and Bernie Sanders when Democrats control the entire government and aren’t using their majority to pass a living wage or make health care and housing a human right.

Some Democrats don't like Medicare For All, a phrase that is also intentionally vague which makes it easy to campaign on, but difficult to make policy.

As for eviction moratoriums, the argument for that has ended as Covid numbers decline, and people received a lot of stimulus funding to pay debts to landlords, many of whom are middle-class people who are themselves in financial need because tenants haven't been paying.

[Mister Mets]

Yeah, no kidding owning a home is preferable to renting an apartment. I don't think anyone is arguing the opposite. The poor folk who can only afford (or can't even do that without assistance) apartments would surely love some of these subsidized mortgages you're talking about.

In the real world though, we can barely get Congress to subsidize their living in packed-together apartment buildings that yes are more likely to be run-down and in disrepair than single-family homes. Probably because there are enough people even among those who claim to be Democrats that are quick to label poor folk as not being "family friendly" or "safe".

Again, you can't just funnel all of the poor and minority folk you don't want in your neighborhood into the cities and just call it a day, while people with greater resources are free to keep the suburban and rural areas to themselves so they can feel "safe". Honestly, you shouldn't want to.

I think apartments make sense in quite a few contexts.

In high density areas like cities and inner suburbs, there is significant demand for places to live. The solutions are either to make places very expensive, or smaller. I think the latter approach helps more people.

Rent itself is underrated. It's useful for people who don't have the money to buy a house, or who might not be interested in committing to live somewhere for a long time (IE- someone who isn't sure they'll live in the same region five years later.) Buying and selling a house can be the equivalent of a part-time job, and some people want to focus on their own career.

Increasing the supply of apartments also makes it easier for people to own apartments. It doesn't have to be a binary between home ownership and renting apartments.

In some areas i would rather have Low cost housing that is being used.

Here in Cincy they have been trying for years to turn some of these bad neighborhoods into hipster places with some high priced places and neat little bars and shops. And in some places it has worked. but there are many many of these condos and hip little high priced apartments just sitting empty and not being used. And it is a waste of money and space.

Blight is a separate problem. That's what happens when there's high supply in places with no demand.

I used to work in Newark, and I was around when they tore down the apartment buildings and replaced them with lost cost individual homes. It made the area more family friendly, safer, and home ownership is much more preferable than renting out an apartment that often ends up having issues and slow moving responses from landlords to getting them fixed.

My argument is for adding lost cost homes with low cost subsidized mortgages that buyers can pay off quickly instead of apartment buildings.

Though it was considered a condo, we all saw what happened in Surfside Florida with the building collapse. And those were expensive units and they still couldn't afford the repairs. Imagine a building like it, but its an apartment, and no one is forking up the money to repair any damages, infestations, or other problems.

Apartment buildings may have a place in big cities, but I really think that there are better alternatives for smaller towns.

Houses make sense in small towns, where there is low population density.

Inner suburbs are not small towns.

The gains of people being able to move closer to jobs and good schools far outweigh the costs.

I'd agree that NIMBYism does seem worse at first glance coming from the left because it's hypocrisy, but in the end do you really think it's better to be so openly against helping others (especially when it involves sacrifice or inconvenience on your part) that you wear it on your sleeve and proudly proclaim it?

As to the concerns Tami lays out, there will always be inconveniences tied to expanding housing. It's still something that needs to be done. Yes, you will have more packed schools, less parking, more traffic, more wear and tear on roads. Property values might be impacted, taxes might be impacted, resources will be harder to come by, and it will probably change the character of your community in slight ways. But there's not some magical place you can funnel all the poor folk, even urban centers with large housing developments can only hold so many.

I see most of these concerns as polite and convenient lies we tell (even/especially to ourselves) to not admit the real answer which is, "I don't want those people living near me/my children". Can't say that, because that'd make you the bad guy, and nobody's the villain of their own story. So it's those precious historical landmarks being torn down that are the real concern, never mind that in any given town of even small size there are probably dozens of "landmarks" a small fraction of the population is even aware of and an even smaller fraction of them give a damn about. Instead it's more of a way to manipulate the law to prevent this sort of thing from happening, weaponizing history not in the name of preserving it (whatever the stated intent) but to keep things the way people like them. Preferably with fewer people, especially "outsiders".

Well said.

I agree that people should be free to live wherever they want, and not forced to live in one location. People come to live in small towns, suburban or rural, for the reasons that define them as small towns. Turing a small town into a mini-version of a 'big city', which is rampant in parts of NJ, kind if defeats that purpose.

I just think there are better ways to allow for people to live where they want without automatically resorting to creating high-density places like apartments.

It's kind of like saying, if we can't force poor people to live in the city, then we will transform anyplace they want to live into a city.

One the one hand, it might be true that apartment living is the only option for low income people, on the other hand, are they leaving a low income apartment in the city just to move into a low income apartment in the suburbs? Is that the assumption? That low income people are incapable of owning their own home?

From a policy perspective, the important thing to consider is what helps the most people, especially if someone is a passionate advocate of Black Lives Matter.

More housing in places where there is high-demand helps more people.

A specific problem with New Jersey is that it's such a high population density state.

Some of the places that have traditionally been small-towns might not be the best fits for it anymore. Some people seem to want things that are incompatible, like the resources that come with living near a city where a lot of people work, but without the population density to make the resource allocation worthwhile for policy makers.

[Tendrin]

Oh WBE-Eeee, Lara Loomer is back.

FL-11: Far-right activist Laura Loomer, a self-described "proud Islamophobe" who has been banned from numerous social media, rideshare, and payment services for spreading bigotry, announced Wednesday that she would challenge Rep. Dan Webster in the GOP primary.

[Panfoot]

Jesus we still have this cry baby third party shit in 2021? I guess I shouldn't be surprised given we have people taking horse dewormer to fight a virus we have a vaccine for...

[Tami]

The Northeast got hit harder than I expected. Not as bad as in Louisiana, but the news is showing flooding in PA, NJ, and NY.

[babyblob]

Jesus we still have this cry baby third party shit in 2021? I guess I shouldn't be surprised given we have people taking horse dewormer to fight a virus we have a vaccine for...

Everyone pretty much wants to see the GOP go. Is the answer to that just having a one party Dems running the whole show? I dont like that. I have no issue with a 3rd party. If people dont like them fine but no one should say that the people have their choice then say

"Well no 3rd parties though. Have your choice but only with these two people and who cares if neither meets your goals."

Some 3rd parties are crackpots. Some main stream are crack pots. But under our system if a person meets the legal requirements to be put on a presidential ballot they should not be denied because it would cost your party votes. That smacks of voter restriction and that is what we are bitching about the GOP for doing.

[Tami]

White supremacist praise of the Taliban takeover concerns US officials

CNN)As the United States-backed government in Afghanistan fell to the Taliban and US troops raced to leave the country, White supremacist and anti-government extremists have expressed admiration for what the Taliban accomplished, a worrying development for US officials who have been grappling with the threat of domestic violent extremism.

That praise has also been coupled with a wave of anti-refugee sentiment from far-right groups, as the US and others rushed to evacuate tens of thousands of people from Afghanistan by the Biden administration's August 31 deadline.

Several concerning trends have emerged in recent weeks on online platforms commonly used by anti-government, White supremacist and other domestic violent extremist groups, including "framing the activities of the Taliban as a success," and a model for those who believe in the need for a civil war in the US, the head of the Department of Homeland Security's Office of Intelligence and Analysis, John Cohen, said on a call Friday with local and state law enforcement, obtained by CNN.