How about we put the few human-animals back in their cages, so the rest of us can live in a civilization that doesn't need to have clear bags full of trash on display.
California effectively outlawed mental health care for paranoid schizophrenics back in the 1980’s. (You can’t even get future-you committed in the event of a psychotic break)
It is somewhat surprising to see the latest voting records are from 2018 as I seem to recall there have been votes in 2020 and 2022 as well?
Federal election for Senator went between DEM - Dianne Feinstein and DEM - Kevin De Leon. The former won like she has done for the last two centuries. Representatives also all won by DEMs. State also went to DEMs for all electable positions.
It is also remarkable to see that Alameda County largely votes by mail - only about ¼ of the votes are cast on election day, the remaining ¾ are cast by mail.
That is how they vote in Oakland, CA and that is most likely how they will keep on voting even now that the chickens have come home to roost.
Ok, I was hoping you would explain why those votes are bad. I don't even vote anymore but when I did, I never voted any party's line, in general I wanted a moderate president, conservative senators, liberal prosecutors and house reps and very liberal judges with a mix of conservative vs moderate and liberal for the rest. The individuals also matter. But this was before trumpism, now as much as I want to, I don't care if they curr cancer, I can't support republicans after their decision to make a religion out of trump.
So when you say dems this and dems that, I mean a lot of dems downright suck, i can't believe they even let feinstein run! But if a person votes in oakland or anywhere else, is there a third option other than republicans and democrats? If not, it's either vote dem or don't vote. I choose not to vote because having only one option isn't voting and voting just to stop the other guy isn't a choice either.
To be very blunt, I hope republicans do get their fascist way, that way at least violence is on the menu again and there will be more options on both sides of left/right wing politics after that. I strongly believe ranked choice voting is the answer though (that I prefer), that and banning pacs and corporate political donations. That way conservatives who aren't absolute fascist nutjobd stand a chance and so would non-progressive and moderate liberals.
> Ok, I was hoping you would explain why those votes are bad
It is not up to me to decide whether those votes are "bad" but what I can conclude is that it is not surprising that crime rates rise when people vote for a party whose members are engaged in fighting those who fight crime either directly - "defund the police" etc. - or indirectly - prosecutors who refuse to prosecute, judges with an activist bent who are intent on "emptying the prisons" no matter the consequences, AGs who change the rules so that it becomes close to risk-free to engage in "petty theft" (<$1000 stolen per occasion is a misdemeanour and prosecutors have already shown not to prosecute those, etc).
> To be very blunt, I hope republicans do get their fascist way
You are not blunt but polarising - apart from being incorrect. Not everything you do not like is "fascist" just like not everything a conservative dislikes is "communist". Those words have meanings, use them wisely or you run the risk of losing them altogether. This has already largely happened to the term 'racist' which' willy-nilly application means it no longer means much if anything to be labelled such.
Republicans are no more "fascist" than "Democrats" are "communist". There may be some who show "fascist tendencies" in both parties but that does not mean the term is applicable to the parties in general.
>You are not blunt but polarising - apart from being incorrect. Not everything you do not like is "fascist" just like not everything a conservative dislikes is "communist". Those words have meanings, use them wisely or you run the risk of losing them altogether. This has already largely happened to the term 'racist' which' willy-nilly application means it no longer means much if anything to be labelled such.
Yeah, not willy nilly there bud. You have a literal russia controlled traitor who they support if he ate a baby on live tv, you have nationalistic propaganda (maga), overflowing xenophobia, multiple states teaching "slaves had it ok" and removing anything that paints the white race in a bad light from schools, multiple republican congress persons calling out for a civil war, what else missing? Mussolini rising from the grave?
> Republicans are no more "fascist" than "Democrats" are "communist".
No, democrats can be compared to socialism better? But even if you are right, you just made my point, who in their right mind other than a fascist would choose fascism over communism (and believe me, I abhor and am revolted by communism). Unless you are claiming a racial and nationalistic superiority centered element in the democrats you can't use fascism with respect to them. Don't get me started on "the great replacement" haha. Republicans always tolerated racists but now those people run the show. Funny thing is, republicans would run circles around democrats thanks to the growing immigrant and minority populations who are very socially conservative. It is their persitent clinging to racial and xenophopic hostility that gets in their own way.
Now democrats to me are intolerable for a whole host of different reasons. But if I were an oaklander, right out the gate republicans are not even an option because they are fighting against most oaklanders simply based on race and national origin alone (and it isn'r cheap to live in oakland anymore, most of them would be republicans if it was practical). Bush, Romney, McCain those people and their party had plenty of issues but they were not absolute nut jobs (and I voted for those republicans fyi) hell bent on destroying anything not like them. I mean even politics aside they had class, they don't brag about sexual assault, mock disabled people and veterans. I mean, "i like people who don't get caught" in reference to mccain being a PoW, and you are telling me GOP isn't a fascist cult?! An old white PoW GOP leader!
And as far as democrats' lenient prosecution, defund the police,etc... like I said before I prefer liberal judges for this reason. It is a fundamental principle of justice for "A thousand guilty men to go unpunished than one innocent person to be wrongly punished". Cops have gotten lazy because of a society that worships them and lets them do whatever they want without accountability and that in itself is a danger to society because in most big cities cops are just the cleanup crew. And they don't enforce laws they don't feel like enforcing or protect people if they get too scared (or just shoot random people/animals and hide behind their fear/cowardice). I don't agree with democrats' approach in the bay area but I do agree with their direction and hope they learn lessons and do better (e.g.: house arresr for under $1000 offenders instead of letting them go free, punish reoffenders normally but allow the convinction to be expunged if they commit no crime in 5 years,etc...).
Extremes are bad for everyone except the extremists.
I can see that it does not make sense to appeal to moderation when phrases like "literal russia controlled traitor" and "removing anything that paints the white race in a bad light from schools" are used...
...but I'm stubborn.
When you write something do a quick check: drop all epithets - "Russia!" "Racist!" "Fascist!" "Mussolini!" and that is just the first line - and if you're left with nothing but an empty <textarea> it is probably better not to press that [reply] button.
Also, consider voting next time. If you can't find any good candidate just vote for your favourite band. Not voting does not solve anything as it just strengthens the votes of those who do vote - who could be exactly the people who you least agree with.
Someone is pointing out that drag-queen shows directed at young children are weird and that enacting Portlands policies may not make for a safe city! Can't have that!
I'm pretty sure thousands of years ago nobody in France was watching TV, flying in airplanes, even eating french fries.
People import culture all the time. Most dishes of the Italian cuisine involve tomatoes which weren't there before contact with the Americas. In India spicy food wasn't really same without chilli peppers!
Just be honest. It's not about culture, it's just that some people don't like other people that come from other lineages and appear different to us.
No matter how you adapt and fit in you'll always be unwelcome by some people, just because you shouldn't have come in the first place!
People rationalize around details all the times but ultimately it boils down to this: for some there is a double standard; you're either full-blood American, French, Italian, whatnot or you just should shut up and perhaps "we can put up with you, if you behave.". If an American, French, Italian commits crime in his country, well that unfortunate but ultimately "he's a good boy, who went astray".
I've lived in France and the idea is to make an attempt to speak French. After they have surmised that you sincerely are making an attempt and that you are also butchering their language, they'll do their best to meet you with English if they can.
France isn't quebec. I have no problem talking with people in France if they and I are making good faith attempts to communicate, nor will anyone doing as you suggest. This is about a public servant intentionally refusing to speak a language they understand because of the institutional prejudice of the province.
Ironically, in most situations Quebeckers will refuse to speak French to you if there's any hint you're an anglophone.
Lying to a federal agent is a felony, and often times they don't have enough evidence for the original crime, but by talking to you they get evidence of you lying
It's worse than that -- often their MO is to deliberately get people rattled so they say something false (that the FBI already knew was false), then charge them for that. It's stupid, but it's currently the [courts' interpretation of] the law. (The written law has a materiality requirement, but this has been interpreted so loosely as to be irrelevant.)
With this law on the books they often operate under the same practice/advice you hear given to attorneys in court: "only ask questions you already know the answer to".
In many/most cases if they're asking questions they already know the truth behind at least some of them. They are attempting to leverage you into cooperating against co-conspirators or at least be able to hit you with a felony for misleading/false statements in the event the original investigation doesn't pan out to charges.
If you can, get past his ideology and that he was a Trump guy, the actual process of what happened to him and what he was charged with is pretty crazy.
He was very stupid for talking to agents without a lawyer. But, they went in and got him to lie about something that wasn’t a crime, and he didn’t actually do.
As a member of President Trump's transition team, Flynn made a pair of direct diplomatic requests to Russia's ambassador to the United States (Russia complied with both requests). Later, during an FBI counterintelligence investigation centering on Russia, Flynn lied twice about having had those diplomatic conversations at all. The case was later dropped because the entire overarching investigation (Crossfire Hurricane) --- which did not center on Flynn --- was dropped.
Flynn is a cut-and-dried example of how 18 USC 1001 can make sense. He wasn't entrapped. He hung himself out to dry. It's a great example of the logic of this thread and the post: don't talk to federal agents, because if you're an idiot and try to bullshit your way past basic facts of their investigation, they'll convict you for it.
I think this case is the prime example why lying to a federal agent ought to not be a crime at all. Why should I go to prison and have a felony if Michael Flynn doesn’t have to? If I have to go to prison, so does Michael Flynn.
Where did you read the mall is closing? The final paragraph in the linked article indicates things are staying open, Westfield isn't shutting anything down, just deciding to back out of repaying the remainder of their loan.
It's a functional foreclosure, which divests them of their interest much like selling an asset would - do you just mean it's "much different" because of the amount of money they make/lose?
Trying to understand the distinction you're making as it relates to this article and their preexisting plans to exit the market.
They've lost all their major tennants and defaulting on their loans because of public & employee safety made the business unviable, what makes you think they'll stay open even if they weren't leaving?
The general area has also seen a huge wave of closures including pretty much every anchor tennant with IKEA being the only major business to buck the trend so far.
This isn't a just a "business is going okay but we over leveraged" situation.
> what makes you think they'll stay open even if they weren't leaving?
The fact that their lender probably wants to squeeze any return they can out of it and they stand to lose far more money leaving it with lights off than at least letting it limp along until they can get someone else on the hook for it, to start.
It could be that the lender also writes off the loss and just shutters the mall, but usually properties in foreclosure stay open because they want to claw back as much make-up ROI as possible on an already down position.
How is the lender going to deal with rampant retail theft, auto break ins, and near zero traffic owing to general public safety concerns and a lack of anchor tennants to draw traffic?
A lot of these buisnesses were largely supported by tourism traffic from asia & white collar work travel buisness and conventions all of which are no longer happening because of public safetey concerns.
It's going to take years before the city does anything.
Like me, he's an introvert. But I force him to go to the office and I go to just to keep him alive.