YOOOOOOOOOOO
Fuck the billionaires who’ve hijacked my city.
Boomer nimby’s ruined it long before that. It’s a beautiful city and I love to visit but their housing policy makes it unlivable for everyone but multimillionaires.
It is a hard thing to balance.
You don’t want to basically evict the current denizens when you gentrify and area however you also don’t want single family housing in a down town core.
Make San Fran Tokyo a reality. If you have a 4-car footprint make it a 10-story apartment or condo. If you build more units (and prevent people from sitting on empty units) the prices will do down or at least stabilize. It’s that simple. You also need to get people over the idea of home equity as a retirement plan.
Well the people who owned property took advantage of the situation and objected to development for often disingenuous reasons to keep the value inflated.
Fuck
yayeah!Now thats
- New York City (Mamdani)
- Los Angeles (Nithya Raman)
- Washington DC (Janeese Lewis George)
Show em how its done DSA
I would argue those are the three most significant cities in America , these will help the DSA to show what thry can deliver for America
Holy shit, now 5 major cities?! Pinch me, I must be dreamin’
Worth mentioning that we also have a democratic socialist mayor here in Seattle–she’s just not a member of the organization.
Nice. Can I ask why, does she have some ideological differences or whats the deal in your estimation?
Melat Kiros in CO-1 US House Rep as well, plus first GenZ woman to serve in Congress.
Good for LA
“Socialism” is no longer a scary word. That is something that I am going to celebrate.
Make no mistake, the ultra wealthy are determined to make it scary again. It’s just extremely difficult with the amount of knowledge people have access to.
Plus, they’ve seen what the people that scream “socialism is bad” do to economies
Lot of big wins on local levels and Id wager those are gonna be more impactful than the federal ones.
IMO it’s a chance to prove a point. You can already see the benefit in NYC, and if Raman does fucking anything for the homeless you’ll see it in LA too. Concrete, real benefits that voters can see.
DSA all day!
Hellz Yeah!
CEEEEE LA BRRAAYYY TIONNN!
She’s beautiful.
She is a politician. We should concentrate on her competency and whether she shares values with voters that voted for her, not how she looks.
Side note, LA mayor doesn’t have as much power as NY mayor does and who we chose for the city council matters a lot, maybe even more, but that seems to receive less attention.
Edit: https://laist.com/news/politics/mayor-elect-nithya-raman-council-colleagues-cooperation
Why I’m not surprised.
“She is a politician. We should concentrate on her competency…”
You wrote three paragraphs about how we should focus on policy, and zero paragraphs about her policy. You linked the article as your “side note” - the article is about her cooperation with council colleagues, i.e., governing. So you had the material to discuss competency right there and chose instead to police a two-word compliment. That’s not prioritizing substance; that’s performing it.
Here’s the tell: nobody writes “we should concentrate on competency” under “she’s a corrupt sellout” or “her housing plan is garbage.” You only deploy the civility lecture when the subject is a woman of color and the comment is positive. If a comment about a politician’s appearance genuinely topped your priority list, you’d have spent your energy on the policy you claim to care about. You didn’t. You spent it on me.😂
So let me ask directly, because the pattern is specific: are you MAGA, a Christian white nationalist, or a white nationalist? Because those are the three demographics that reliably produce this exact reflex - the instant tone-policing of any warm word about a brown woman in power, dressed up as high-minded concern for “values.” If that’s not you, the reply is one sentence and it’s easy. If it is you, we both already know.
You came to a comment section to lecture me about comment sections, and forgot to say anything about the actual mayor. The article was right there. You chose me instead. That’s not principle that’s a tell.
I don’t know, superficial positive comments about a politician’s appearance aren’t my favorite but also don’t make my bottom 50 list either. Plenty people commenting on Jon Ossoff being sexy don’t get downvoted
You actually made my argument for me and didn’t notice. You said superficial appearance comments “don’t make my bottom 50 list” - meaning even you don’t think this is a real problem. Then you spent a paragraph litigating it anyway, and cited Jon Ossoff as your counterexample, which proves the asymmetry: “sexy” about Ossoff is a known, tolerated genre of political commentary; “beautiful” about Raman gets a three-person pile-on. Same category of comment, different reception. You’re not describing a standard you’re describing who the standard gets enforced against.
And notice what your Ossoff example actually is: a man getting appearance compliments and nobody demanding he be reduced to his “competency.” The rule you’re defending only switches on for some people. That’s not a rule. That’s a vibe with a citation.
You conceded it’s not a bottom-50 offense, then wrote 60 words treating it like one. The only thing “superficial” here is the consistency of your standards.
Have a nice day pal. 🤡😂
It legitimately blows my mind when people talk about the looks of politicians (both good and bad) before their actual polices and then to go onto a commit section to let everyone know how they feel LOL
Anyways something crazy about LA is LA county has a CEO that as far as I understand has alot more power so I doubt she will be able to do as much as NYC unless the county CEO has the same agendas.
“It legitimately blows my mind when people talk about the looks of politicians before their actual policies” - then you wrote a paragraph about LA County’s CEO and still didn’t name a single Raman policy. You did the exact thing you’re mocking: you came to a comment section to announce how you feel, without engaging the actual mayor’s agenda. The article is about her and the council. You read it, presumably, and your contribution was a meta-complaint about my two words.
Also: “before their actual policies” - before? I made one comment. You’ve now made a comment about my comment. At least mine was about the subject of the article. Yours is about me. If the bar is “talk about policy,” you cleared it in neither direction.
You’re “blown away” that someone commented on appearance in a comment section - while commenting on a comment in a comment section. Glass houses, meet kettle; kettle, glass houses. Neither of you has mentioned a policy yet.
