Biden / Harris Focused Discussion

[Shadowferal]

Depends on how much your company pays for.

Oh? You think I'm only speaking of medical insurance?
You obviously don't live in the US regardless of your earlier claim.

[uuuhname]

The same can be said of your viewpoint.

as you do when you know your viewpoint appeals to no one except yourself.

[Shadowferal]

CDC issues eviction moratorium extension after Democratic outcry

The order will expire on Oct. 3. It was issued after days of back-and-forth between the White House and congressional Democrats over who was responsible for extending the moratorium while scores of Americans faced uncertainty about potential removal from their homes.

President Biden acknowledged at a news conference earlier Tuesday that the CDC order may not hold up in court. But he argued it would minimally buy time for state and local governments to distribute aid to renters and landlords.

[Milchshake]

If this actually happens I am going to laugh and laugh. And make a thread to watch BErnie Bros twist in their own Bowls of Shit^TM.

Turnout also suggests a win for Shontel MBrown in #OH11. It's not great overall (16.8%), but much higher in areas with a relatively large number of Jewish voters. Our prediction - the 22K Jewish voters in the district are going to make the critical difference for Brown.

Considering that Nina Turner's campaign went deep into negative campaigning complaining about (((outsiders))) and elites.



And Cenk and Kulinski are already throwing out accusations of the primary being "Rigged". Meltdwon on the TYT stream.

[Fugus]

If this actually happens I am going to laugh and laugh. And make a thread to watch BErnie Bros twist in their own Bowls of Shit^TM.

Alright, we get it, Bernie Sanders is banging your mom and your not happy about it, let it go man.

[Benggaul]

Biden administration issues new targeted moratorium on evictions for areas hit hardest by COVID-19

Good shit, given that Congress dropped the ball on it.

[Draco-Onis]

Biden administration issues new targeted moratorium on evictions for areas hit hardest by COVID-19

Good shit, given that Congress dropped the ball on it.

But that only buys them time the right wing supreme court will shut that down and I doubt congress will act in time given republicans are against it and Joe Karadshian Manchin will back them up.

[Milchshake]

This is sweet. President Biden just called Shontell Brown #OH11.



UwU

[Elegiac]

But that only buys them time the right wing supreme court will shut that down and I doubt congress will act in time given republicans are against it and Joe Karadshian Manchin will back them up.

Thus enabling the administration to point out that said evictions are SCOTUS' fault. This is the passive aggressive version of the bully pulpit - so it's not a bad strategy.

[Themius]

If this actually happens I am going to laugh and laugh. And make a thread to watch BErnie Bros twist in their own Bowls of Shit^TM.

Turnout also suggests a win for Shontel MBrown in #OH11. It's not great overall (16.8%), but much higher in areas with a relatively large number of Jewish voters. Our prediction - the 22K Jewish voters in the district are going to make the critical difference for Brown.

Considering that Nina Turner's campaign went deep into negative campaigning complaining about (((outsiders))) and elites.



And Cenk and Kulinski are already throwing out accusations of the primary being "Rigged". Meltdwon on the TYT stream.

They didn’t call it rigged. Why are you lying? Why are you supporting a candidate that got millions from corporations and ISRAELI LOBBIES and not the one who got money from small donors? Why do you support their lying campaigns that said she wasn’t in support of $15 minimum wage?

- - - Updated - - -

This is sweet. President Biden just called Shontell Brown #OH11.



UwU

No questions from you on why democrats and republicans spent millions on a democrat safe seat to make sure a progressive didn’t win when they typically ignore these races?

You are what I call a shillocrat as you shill for corporate democrats.

- - - Updated - - -

Alright, we get it, Bernie Sanders is banging your mom and your not happy about it, let it go man.

It’s really fucking weird and they can’t explain their position except to say “corporations good. Bernie bad because….. he Bernie”

[Kellhound]

What part of almost a century old did you not understand?

The oldest interstate is 65. The Pennsylvania Turnpike is 80. The entire city I live in is less than 100.

- - - Updated - - -

Not really unless you're of the opinion that reducing hardship is a bad thing.



A difference which isn't relevant to the fact the US is bad at infrastructure because such projects are ad hoc versus countries which regularly engage in it. Lol.

No one's interested in pedantry.

I am of the opinion the government isn't responsible for one's bad choices.

It is very relevant to what you said though. And it depends on the type of infrastructure.

- - - Updated - - -

Oh? You think I'm only speaking of medical insurance?
You obviously don't live in the US regardless of your earlier claim.

With three kids, taxes are not exactly high.

- - - Updated - - -

as you do when you know your viewpoint appeals to no one except yourself.

Which is not the case here.

- - - Updated - - -

Thus enabling the administration to point out that said evictions are SCOTUS' fault. This is the passive aggressive version of the bully pulpit - so it's not a bad strategy.

Because only the tenants have rights

[Breccia]

The Pennsylvania Turnpike is 80.

The Pennsylvania Turnpike is a shining example of how not to do infrastructure. After it was privatized, the rates skyrocketed, and nearly no repairs were done. It's an embarrassment.

[Kellhound]

The Pennsylvania Turnpike is a shining example of how not to do infrastructure. After it was privatized, the rates skyrocketed, and nearly no repairs were done. It's an embarrassment.

My understanding is it is still owned and operated by the PTC.

[Elegiac]

I am of the opinion the government isn't responsible for one's bad choices.

Based on the (wrong) assumption that poverty and hardship are functions of personal choices.

It is very relevant to what you said though. And it depends on the type of infrastructure.

Not really. The US is bad at all areas of infrastructure owing to aforementioned reliance on the private sector.

- - - Updated - - -

Because only the tenants have rights

Yep.

Sorry to inform you but shelter is kind of necessary for people's welfare, being a parasite landlord is not.

[Kellhound]

Based on the (wrong) assumption that poverty and hardship are functions of personal choices.



Not really. The US is bad at all areas of infrastructure owing to aforementioned reliance on the private sector.

- - - Updated - - -



Yep.

Sorry to inform you but shelter is kind of necessary for people's welfare, being a parasite landlord is not.

If you are in poverty despite your best efforts to not be, that is one thing. But that is only true for a portion of those in poverty.

The private rail industry does quite well in maintaining and improving in demand trackage. Before subsidized auto travel and air travel, they did an excellent job even providing long distance passenger travel.

No landlords, no shelter. On the other hand, the projects show just how well the government is at providing shelter.

[Elegiac]

If you are in poverty despite your best efforts to not be, that is one thing. But that is only true for a portion of those in poverty.

"Because you say so" isn't compelling evidence.

The private rail industry does quite well in maintaining and improving in demand trackage. Before subsidized auto travel and air travel, they did an excellent job even providing long distance passenger travel.

It also does it more expensively and doesn't provide remotely the same level of coverage, which is the point; the private sector will only do something if it's profitable, as opposed to it being done because it's publicly beneficial.

If it were left to the private sector, half the country would still be lacking electricity.

No landlords, no shelter.

Or, novel thought; no landlords, enough supply to lower the costs to make owning shelter affordable.

On the other hand, the projects show just how well the government is at providing shelter.

Shockingly, creating concentrated centers of poverty in a system where the quality of social services highly localized is going to have bad results.

You're not disputing that the US is simply bad at infrastructure.

[Kellhound]

"Because you say so" isn't compelling evidence.



It also does it more expensively and doesn't provide remotely the same level of coverage, which is the point; the private sector will only do something if it's profitable, as opposed to it being done because it's publicly beneficial.

If it were left to the private sector, half the country would still be lacking electricity.



Or, novel thought; no landlords, enough supply to lower the costs to make owning shelter affordable.



Shockingly, creating concentrated centers of poverty in a system where the quality of social services highly localized is going to have bad results.

You're not disputing that the US is simply bad at infrastructure.

Yet that is your evidence.

Private railroads in the US move freight. They do it quite well. They do it better that Europe by far. They quit moving passengers because people quit riding them and the Post Office quit using them.

You want landlords, just government ones. Government run housing is not something I would live in.

Not sure how you think you can build enough housing to lower costs without resorting to what is essence new projects, with the failings that come with them.

[Elegiac]

Yet that is your evidence.

Cool, glad to see you've admitted you can't justify your argument.

Private railroads in the US move freight.

So, yes: an inadequate and overly expensive level of service.

You want landlords, just government ones.

No, actually, I'd rather that people be able to afford to own their own housing.

But government landlords are still a better alternative because the costs are directly reflective of the cost of maintenance rather than that cost plus however much profit the private landlord wants.

Not sure how you think you can build enough housing to lower costs without resorting to what is essence new projects, with the failings that come with them.

Not making public services so localized is a good start. That's how you avoid situations like Detroit.

The other is making sure public housing is adequately diffused rather than stacking it in the same area, which involves telling the NIMBYs to shove it.

[Kellhound]

Cool, glad to see you've admitted you can't justify your argument.



So, yes: an inadequate and overly expensive level of service.



No, actually, I'd rather that people be able to afford to own their own housing.

But government landlords are still a better alternative because the costs are directly reflective of the cost of maintenance rather than that cost plus however much profit the private landlord wants.



Not making public services so localized is a good start. That's how you avoid situations like Detroit.

The other is making sure public housing is adequately diffused rather than stacking it in the same area, which involves telling the NIMBYs to shove it.

Which means you admit you cannot as well.

I am not sure where you get that idea.

So you want to see a significant increase in single family homes then?
I would rather pay more to a private landlord of my choosing than a public one any day of the week. Actually, I'd rather be homeless than have a government landlord.

So, your solution is to equalize housing by lowering the quality of life of everyone else.

[Elegiac]

Which means you admit you cannot as well.

I'm not making the claim, you are; burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that poverty is a function of personal choices and that said "personal choices" themselves do not happen for systemic reasons (see: substance abuse).

Moreover, you've not actually demonstrated that even if it were that it's a reason not to provide remedy - we don't let drunk drivers die on the side of the road even if they caused the accident because that would be, you know, unethical as shit.

So you want to see a significant increase in single family homes then? I would rather pay more to a private landlord of my choosing than a public one any day of the week. Actually, I'd rather be homeless than have a government landlord.

This is a non sequitur, and you're just demonstrating you're entirely unfamiliar with how difficult being homeless actually is.

So, your solution is to equalize housing by lowering the quality of life of everyone else.

Nothing about what I proposed entails a reduction in anyone's quality of life. You know, unless you're of the opinion that having to live next to minorities is an inherently lower quality of life.