In my limited understanding of California property taxes, I believe property values are only reassessed on the sale of the property, so if he was living in a house deeded to him by his parents, he might have been paying taxes on a decades-old appraisal. So even if they bought his exact house back for him, he’d still be stuck with significantly higher taxes, which he’d have to fight to be compensated for as well.
It’s like he watched Beto O’Rourke commit political suicide over guns and thought “I bet I can do that on a national scale.”
Pretty low, actually. Viking_Hippie is actually a pretty legit Lemmy contributor, despite having some utter garbage takes on American politics and making occasionally disingenuous arguments for them, as above. Pretty sure he’s Danish though, not Russian.
And Obama broke the legal Occupy Wall Street protests and killed civilians in Yemen with drone strikes. So he takes the title instead? “Most progressive” is a comparative qualification, and he does not need to BE a progressive to take the title.
While I agree that the strike shouldn’t have been broken and that the rail workers should have the right to stop as much work as they control in order to make their demands heard, Biden also became the first president to walk a picket line during that strike and ultimately got the rail workers a deal that their unions all were reportedly happy with. He may not be everything you want, but he IS the most pro-union president of my lifetime. Again, not a high bar to clear. Recognize progress when it happens, even if it’s not your dream come true.
Furthermore, with all the terrifying examples of actual rising fascism that surround us right now, don’t muddy the waters with BS like that. It just makes you look like a troll.
Reagan, HW Bush, Clinton, W Bush, Obama, Trump. Take your pick.
“Most progressive” is not a high bar to clear. It’s a reasonably fair claim that Biden has been more progressive than Obama, and definitely isn’t outrageous enough to justify ranting about crack smoking and traumatic brain damage.
Not that it changes your point about representation in this case, but I’m pretty sure that photo is at least 20 years old. This is the current, equally diverse Oklahoma Supreme Court:
The more solid red states there are, the easier it is for them to enact their bullshit at a federal level. Then it’s your problem, too.
Texas has been trending bluer in the last decade and the fact that these laws also get blue voters to leave is not by accident.
Only if you ignore that there’s also a segment of Democratic voters who would reconsider support for Biden if he took a stance that they perceived as anti-Israel. Democrats are a coalition party of compromises between factions who have to work together to find as much common ground as possible in order to have any political relevance in a first-past-the-post system. Biden has to walk whatever tightrope loses the fewest votes, and he seems to think that not doing a 180 on decades of US foreign policy is the best way to do that.
Are you in the US? I wouldn’t dissuade anyone from being an organ donor, it’s obviously a great necessity and saves thousands of lives, but I’m always amazed that the bottomless skepticism of our for-profit healthcare system dries up on certain topics.
We all love to moan about greedy health insurance companies and hospital administrations putting profit above the actual health of patients and outcomes of procedures, so why is it taken for granted that, when faced with a decision to go to extraordinary lengths to save a badly injured, uninsured person, or get expensive organs for 3 or 4 insured people at the top of the recipient list, that the responsible parties will make the right decision? Hell, even without a profit motive, that can be a difficult decision that can be influenced by personal beliefs and biases.
I certainly don’t know enough about exactly how these decisions are made to have a strong opinion, but I don’t think it’s fair to characterize potentially warranted skepticism as moronic.
Unfortunate that this graph starts in 1972, when the oldest baby boomers were already 27. If you compare that first section of the boomers’ line to the corresponding section of the millennials’ line, boomers were to the left of millennials around the same age.
Now, I find it hard to imagine that millennials will have the “Reagan moment” that boomers had in 1980, but this data shouldn’t convince anyone that millennials are some shining ray of hope for the future. Today’s non-voting, politically apathetic millennials could easily be swayed to the right by the time they’re the age of today’s boomers. I see this sentiment repeated a lot lately, but it’s pure foolishness to think that conservatives will die with boomers.
There’s absolutely no shortage of shitty, authoritarian millennials. I don’t think there will be any “sigh of relief” moment when millennials are in majority of control.
Hell, back in high school my boomer Government teacher was telling us how US politics would move to the left once the Silent Generation died off. It just never happens that way.
Unfortunately, I think he knows what he’s doing. He’s counting on being able to make all his troubles go away if he’s elected and he knows that maintaining the premise that these are unfounded, politically-motivated attacks by the deep state is exactly what his devotees want to hear. He just has to keep them living in his version of reality long enough to take the throne.
You’re right. The alternative is much better:
Trump Backs Israel Bombarding Gaza: ‘Gotta Finish the Problem’
A perfectly fair point. My only concern there is that reliance on “sure things” in 2016 is part of why Hillary lost. There were, after all, more votes for Trump in California than any other state, simply down to population size. I’d just hate to see us all get shot in the foot again due to complacency.
-> You’ll be shot in the head if you don’t eat your Brussels sprouts.
-> No, cookies and ice cream or nothing!
Life and especially politics is full of compromises. Everybody compromises on something on every vote. You know what the stakes are, and you know what the consequences of inaction are.
Unfortunately, “not Trump” IS a good enough reason, and you have the choice to come to terms with that fact before November, or during a Trump presidency/dictatorship.
Dems need to target the people on the fence between voting Dem and not voting at all.
Believe it or not, I’d say that’s who this message is targeted at. It’s for the people saying “Biden isn’t the exact candidate I want, so I’m not going to vote this time to teach Dems a lesson. Then they’ll have to run the exact candidate I want next time.” The message is that you should know that strategy will get you Trump, and you should know by now how that will go.
Yeah, this is exactly what’s wrong with constantly demonizing boomers and attributing every shitty thing they’ve ever done to leaded gas and paint chips. Populations tend more conservative as they get older and they have for centuries. Even if a minority of individuals actually change their minds, people who were politically apathetic when they were younger tend to be more conservative when they do start voting when they’re older, skewing the whole generation more conservative. There’s already plenty of conservative millennials out there, and even more of them among the ranks of the non-voters.
Remember, boomers are the generation of hippies. Actual, literal hippies who, despite whatever imperfect motives you may ascribe to their movement, achieved greater social revolution in their time than any attitude shifts that have occurred during millennials’ peak social years. And that was only with ~30% of boomers participating in the movement. The rest of them went on to vote for Reagan and kick off helicopter parenting and satanic panic and music censorship and the whole bit.
Anyone who thinks millennials will be somehow immune to this pattern is in for a rough next few decades.
Sorry, but you're not going to get ranked choice voting just by pretending you already have it. FPTP and the electoral college are realities of US politics and the "lesser of two evils" approach is the only realistic way to play the game.
The executive branch is the wrong place to try to achieve ranked choice voting anyway. Vote for legislative candidates who support ranked choice. If nobody is talking about it, call your representatives. Start petitions. Join grassroots organizations. Anything, but don't fool yourself into thinking the path to fixing our issues involves voting for Jill Stein over Biden next year.
Dragging his feet on student loans? I feel like that’s the only campaign promise he’s been making a consistent effort on. He literally got shot down by the Supreme Court and has kept trying different strategies. The only times he’s reduced the scope of the proposed relief is once he’s been blocked at every turn.
Even as someone with student loans, I’ve almost been frustrated that he’s been putting as much effort as he has into student loan relief while bigger issues see no action.
Turns out it’s just a canoe rental place that’s named “Laundromat Bingo Tanning Notary.”