ImTheCaptain
I disagree with you
uh, is SF losing wealthy people/businesses?
A city full of progressives and super progressives decide that the progressive shit they are doing is too much and decide to try something different as seen by the massive percentage voting for the scaled back different. It’s real easy to say all your ideas are great until you are directly faced with the consequences.
A city full of progressives and super progressives decide that the progressive shit they are doing is too much and decide to try something different as seen by the massive percentage voting for the scaled back different. It’s real easy to say all your ideas are great until you are directly faced with the consequences.
That Bowles article is hilariously bad. Sorry, guys, Here’s a good rebuttal, though:
https://www.latimes.com/business/st...-says-sf-failed-because-its-liberal?_amp=true
Where does the money come from for all of the public assistance programs that our evil society provides? It comes from taxpayers and tax-paying businesses. Working and making money is not a bad thing, neither is a safety net for our most vulnerable citizens. But when the taxpayers do not feel safe in the city to whom they provide those funds, you have a problem. Ensuring the safety of your constituents should not be a "conservative" principle.
So again, I think it's a valid question to ask why a major metro area controlled exclusively by liberals is failing.
Where does the money come from for all of the public assistance programs that our evil society provides? It comes from taxpayers and tax-paying businesses. Working and making money is not a bad thing, neither is a safety net for our most vulnerable citizens. But when the taxpayers do not feel safe in the city to whom they provide those funds, you have a problem. Ensuring the safety of your constituents should not be a "conservative" principle.
So again, I think it's a valid question to ask why a major metro area controlled exclusively by liberals is failing.
Where does the money come from for all of the public assistance programs that our evil society provides? It comes from taxpayers and tax-paying businesses. Working and making money is not a bad thing, neither is a safety net for our most vulnerable citizens. But when the taxpayers do not feel safe in the city to whom they provide those funds, you have a problem. Ensuring the safety of your constituents should not be a "conservative" principle.
So again, I think it's a valid question to ask why a major metro area controlled exclusively by liberals is failing.
A city full of progressives and super progressives decide that the progressive shit they are doing is too much and decide to try something different as seen by the massive percentage voting for the scaled back different. It’s real easy to say all your ideas are great until you are directly faced with the consequences.
Political education is shit in this country. These conversations suck because everyone has different understandings of liberal, progressive, left, and therefore a wrong interpretation of who runs major metro areas.
I disagree completely, I think it’s a dogshit article written for moderate liberals whose major concern is criminalizing poverty. Moderate liberals wholly benefiting from speculative capitalism and blaming the consequences of that capitalism on “permissive” progressives. In that whole dogshit screed you posted, written by the heiress to a fortune, the only sensible pragmatic moderate solution proposed for anything is London Breed putting more police officers downtown. It’s the hallmark of current liberal doctrine to concern troll about the housing crunch by complaining about burdensome building regulations, without *EVER* addressing what they want built and who is going to build it. Bitching about building regulations is meaningless if you aren’t going to ever address the intentions of developers, who aren’t building lower class and lower-middle class homes, because those aren’t profitable. You just have the bullshit trickle down real estate theory that if you build enough expensive homes that cheaper livable ones will free up.
I’d gotten used to the crime, rarely violent but often brazen; to leaving the car empty and the doors unlocked so thieves would at least quit breaking my windows. A lot of people leave notes on the glass stating some variation of Nothing’s in the car. Don't smash the windows. One time someone smashed our windows just to steal a scarf. Once, when I was walking and a guy tore my jacket off my back and sprinted away with it, I didn’t even shout for help. I was embarrassed—what was I, a tourist? Living in a failing city does weird things to you. The normal thing to do then was to yell, to try to get help—even, dare I say it, from a police officer—but this felt somehow lame and maybe racist.
Are moderates really opposed to white collar crime? Or is it just crimes committed by the less desirable portion of our society.
That Bowles article is hilariously bad. Sorry, guys, Here’s a good rebuttal, though:
https://www.latimes.com/business/st...-says-sf-failed-because-its-liberal?_amp=true
These data points don’t fit the preconceived narrative that is the hallmark of cheap punditry, which brings us back to the Bowles analysis. A former New York Times reporter now contributing to the Substack blog run by her wife, the conservative commentator Bari Weiss
ok, I stopped reading after this paragraph, and I'm embarrassed I read that far.
That Bowles article is hilariously bad. Sorry, guys, Here’s a good rebuttal, though:
https://www.latimes.com/business/st...-says-sf-failed-because-its-liberal?_amp=true