Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting!
NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.
It looks like both Biden and Trump are still planning on having their debate in 3 days (June 27th, 9 PM Eastern time). + Show Spoiler +
I'm not expecting much from either of them, and I wouldn't be surprised if the second debate (September 10th) doesn't happen for whatever reason.
This Thursday's debate will be 90 minutes long, with 2 commercial breaks, with CNN anchors Jake Tapper and Dana Bash as moderators. There are two interesting adjustments to this debate - no live studio audience, and microphones will be muted unless it's a candidate's turn to speak. I think those two adjustments hurt Trump more than they hurt Biden, as I think Trump really thrives on audience energy and he endlessly interrupts his opponents.
They are going to be 8 feet apart, so Biden's definitely going to hear him. Feels like a bit of an oversight by the Biden team.
CNN's got the budget to use whatever microphones they want, so it'll be audible at their discretion. Fair to assume they'll still record Trump's mic while it's muted and use any juicy bits to bring people back to CNN for post-debate coverage.
I could see them just letting everyone run with an inexplicable Biden fumble that suddenly makes more sense with Trump's audio the next day too.
It looks like both Biden and Trump are still planning on having their debate in 3 days (June 27th, 9 PM Eastern time). + Show Spoiler +
I'm not expecting much from either of them, and I wouldn't be surprised if the second debate (September 10th) doesn't happen for whatever reason.
This Thursday's debate will be 90 minutes long, with 2 commercial breaks, with CNN anchors Jake Tapper and Dana Bash as moderators. There are two interesting adjustments to this debate - no live studio audience, and microphones will be muted unless it's a candidate's turn to speak. I think those two adjustments hurt Trump more than they hurt Biden, as I think Trump really thrives on audience energy and he endlessly interrupts his opponents.
They are going to be 8 feet apart, so Biden's definitely going to hear him. Feels like a bit of an oversight by the Biden team.
CNN's got the budget to use whatever microphones they want, so it'll be audible at their discretion. Fair to assume they'll still record Trump's mic while it's muted and use any juicy bits to bring people back to CNN for post-debate coverage.
I could see them just letting everyone run with an inexplicable Biden fumble that suddenly makes more sense with Trump's audio the next day too.
On June 27 2024 07:01 Liquid`Drone wrote: I mean Trump has said that he might intentionally lose the debate (to avoid democrats deciding to replace Biden) so let's see how it goes.
I feel like the only way for it not to be shameful is measuring Biden and Trump against each other rather than pretty much any other president or western nations leader.
On June 27 2024 07:01 Liquid`Drone wrote: I mean Trump has said that he might intentionally lose the debate (to avoid democrats deciding to replace Biden) so let's see how it goes.
I feel like the only way for it not to be shameful is measuring Biden and Trump against each other rather than pretty much any other president or western nations leader.
San Francisco had a Democratic primary debate for mayor and one candidate hit another with an absolute banger of a gotcha question, “can you name 3 drag queens in San Francisco?” Apparently this daft lad couldn’t name any drag queens in the last debate either so she gave him an opportunity to redeem himself.
The lady asking the question is the incumbent candidate Mayor London Breed. I assume she won the last election by being able to name more drag queens than anybody else.
Imagine living in the worst run city in the US and everything is going to shit and the candidates for mayor are arguing over who can make more drag queens as if that’s a major qualification to fix SF’s problem. Stay woke, my friends.
"The Supreme Court has rejected a case claiming the Biden administration illegally coerced social media platforms into taking down posts about Covid-19 and the 2020 election that were considered misinformation."
On June 27 2024 07:01 Liquid`Drone wrote: I mean Trump has said that he might intentionally lose the debate (to avoid democrats deciding to replace Biden) so let's see how it goes.
I feel like the only way for it not to be shameful is measuring Biden and Trump against each other rather than pretty much any other president or western nations leader.
On June 27 2024 09:58 BlackJack wrote: San Francisco had a Democratic primary debate for mayor and one candidate hit another with an absolute banger of a gotcha question, “can you name 3 drag queens in San Francisco?” Apparently this daft lad couldn’t name any drag queens in the last debate either so she gave him an opportunity to redeem himself.
The lady asking the question is the incumbent candidate Mayor London Breed. I assume she won the last election by being able to name more drag queens than anybody else.
Imagine living in the worst run city in the US and everything is going to shit and the candidates for mayor are arguing over who can make more drag queens as if that’s a major qualification to fix SF’s problem. Stay woke, my friends.
It appears that naming LGBTQ+ advisors and listing drag queens they've spoken to were ways to challenge each other over just how pro-LGBTQ+ they are, which might be reasonable questions / litmus tests within the narrow context of trying to figure out if someone is truly pro-LGBTQ+ or not even caring enough to reach out to someone within that demographic.
This is just a two-minute clip, so I have no way of knowing if this was what the entire debate about. I would hope that plenty of other SF-related topics and questions were also addressed.
Out of curiosity, how do you qualify/quantify San Francisco being the "worst run city in the US"? Just curious.
On June 27 2024 09:58 BlackJack wrote: San Francisco had a Democratic primary debate for mayor and one candidate hit another with an absolute banger of a gotcha question, “can you name 3 drag queens in San Francisco?” Apparently this daft lad couldn’t name any drag queens in the last debate either so she gave him an opportunity to redeem himself.
The lady asking the question is the incumbent candidate Mayor London Breed. I assume she won the last election by being able to name more drag queens than anybody else.
Imagine living in the worst run city in the US and everything is going to shit and the candidates for mayor are arguing over who can make more drag queens as if that’s a major qualification to fix SF’s problem. Stay woke, my friends.
It appears that naming LGBTQ+ advisors and listing drag queens they've spoken to were ways to challenge each other over just how pro-LGBTQ+ they are, which might be reasonable questions / litmus tests within the narrow context of trying to figure out if someone is truly pro-LGBTQ+ or not even caring enough to reach out to someone within that demographic.
This is just a two-minute clip, so I have no way of knowing if this was what the entire debate about. I would hope that plenty of other SF-related topics and questions were also addressed.
Out of curiosity, how do you qualify/quantify San Francisco being the "worst run city in the US"? Just curious.
On June 27 2024 09:58 BlackJack wrote: San Francisco had a Democratic primary debate for mayor and one candidate hit another with an absolute banger of a gotcha question, “can you name 3 drag queens in San Francisco?” Apparently this daft lad couldn’t name any drag queens in the last debate either so she gave him an opportunity to redeem himself.
The lady asking the question is the incumbent candidate Mayor London Breed. I assume she won the last election by being able to name more drag queens than anybody else.
Imagine living in the worst run city in the US and everything is going to shit and the candidates for mayor are arguing over who can make more drag queens as if that’s a major qualification to fix SF’s problem. Stay woke, my friends.
It appears that naming LGBTQ+ advisors and listing drag queens they've spoken to were ways to challenge each other over just how pro-LGBTQ+ they are, which might be reasonable questions / litmus tests within the narrow context of trying to figure out if someone is truly pro-LGBTQ+ or not even caring enough to reach out to someone within that demographic.
This is just a two-minute clip, so I have no way of knowing if this was what the entire debate about. I would hope that plenty of other SF-related topics and questions were also addressed.
Out of curiosity, how do you qualify/quantify San Francisco being the "worst run city in the US"? Just curious.
Thanks for sharing! It looks like SF does really well in some areas, and really poorly in others:
"The study considered six factors in its rankings. Find each category and San Francisco’s ranking out of the 148 cities measured below: Financial stability (#52) Education (#15) Health (#1) Safety (#107) Economy (#133) Infrastructure and pollution (#12)
Each factor was comprised of more specific metrics. San Francisco had the nation’s worst long-term outstanding debt per capita but the best infant mortality rate, according to WalletHub. ... WalletHub took a total of 36 metrics into account when doing its study. Each metric was weighted differently, with cities receiving a score between 1-100 in each category."
It seems that the factors where SF performed the worst, were the ones weighed the heaviest: "San Francisco’s strong performance in some of the categories listed above was weighed down by a high per-capita budget."
On June 27 2024 07:01 Liquid`Drone wrote: I mean Trump has said that he might intentionally lose the debate (to avoid democrats deciding to replace Biden) so let's see how it goes.
I feel like the only way for it not to be shameful is measuring Biden and Trump against each other rather than pretty much any other president or western nations leader.
On June 27 2024 07:01 Liquid`Drone wrote: I mean Trump has said that he might intentionally lose the debate (to avoid democrats deciding to replace Biden) so let's see how it goes.
I feel like the only way for it not to be shameful is measuring Biden and Trump against each other rather than pretty much any other president or western nations leader.
Yes, a big reason they were ranked worst was because they have the highest revenue per capita of any city and not much to show for it. The people that tell us that if they just had a little more money they could solve all the problems just so happen to have the most money and the most problems. Funny that. The solution is an obvious one: they just need a little more money.
To be honest, I have no idea how they edged out New York City. Virtue signaling on being a sanctuary city and accepting the poor huddled masses before getting overrun with a migrant crisis is an all-time self-own.
On June 27 2024 09:58 BlackJack wrote: San Francisco had a Democratic primary debate for mayor and one candidate hit another with an absolute banger of a gotcha question, “can you name 3 drag queens in San Francisco?” Apparently this daft lad couldn’t name any drag queens in the last debate either so she gave him an opportunity to redeem himself.
The lady asking the question is the incumbent candidate Mayor London Breed. I assume she won the last election by being able to name more drag queens than anybody else.
Imagine living in the worst run city in the US and everything is going to shit and the candidates for mayor are arguing over who can make more drag queens as if that’s a major qualification to fix SF’s problem. Stay woke, my friends.
It appears that naming LGBTQ+ advisors and listing drag queens they've spoken to were ways to challenge each other over just how pro-LGBTQ+ they are, which might be reasonable questions / litmus tests within the narrow context of trying to figure out if someone is truly pro-LGBTQ+ or not even caring enough to reach out to someone within that demographic.
This is just a two-minute clip, so I have no way of knowing if this was what the entire debate about. I would hope that plenty of other SF-related topics and questions were also addressed.
Out of curiosity, how do you qualify/quantify San Francisco being the "worst run city in the US"? Just curious.
Aye I mean, can’t remember who (maybe David Cameron?) claimed to be a childhood/ongoing Aston Villa fan over here. Naturally someone asked him to name a couple of players and he fucked it.
If, however someone was to ask a politician, apropos of absolutely bloody nothing to name Aston Villa’s current centre forward, it would be completely fucking asinine as a line of questioning.
Whereas if you’re trying to ingratiate yourself with whatever demographic it’s perfectly reasonable, indeed somewhat desirable to have your bona fides checked out
On June 27 2024 01:19 Salazarz wrote: So when it comes to public schools, cutting funding is just to get rid of waste and corruption. But when it's about cutting funding to police departments, suddenly there's no waste or corruption to be had and it's just woke libtards empowering criminals?
Huh.
I don't think anyone had mentioned police, but since you brought it up.
Public school teachers can get crayon on their shirt, and have the same vacations as children. Police officers can be shot. Ergo you have to at least provide funding equivalent to the number of police officers you need to fight crime multiplied by a police officer's salary. The main reason is that, despite how clever you probably thought that sounded, there is no private option for police. There is no "police choice." Private security are not officers of the law, and indeed they usually barely even qualify as private security when all they (can) do is watch people walk out of a store with its entire inventory.
Additionally, law enforcement except for the FBI, DEA, ATF, Homeland Security, and probably someone else (CIA and NSA are considered "intelligence" as they don't arrest/take custody of people, inside the US at least), is not federal. That means again, like schools, they are outside of the federal government (hereafter "Drumpf")'s purview. Most police spending is local, followed by state, followed by federal. Very little federal funding goes to other branches. However, to address your point, we are more than familiar with Drumpf's view of the FBI and are pretty sure he's up for reforming it.
If you need more than the annualized minimum wage of a worker to teach a single kid for a year, something has gone wrong, objectively, doubly so if they aren't even learning anything. If you cut so much funding for police that your embattled jurisdiction has no choice but to lay off officers, your "crime rate" will go down in the sense of you don't have enough people to make arrests. If you stop incentivizing shit schools, the idea is not that you raise averages by removing students from the system, but by letting them be better educated somewhere else.
The idea of school choice is very much wound up together with funding. If you cut funding for a school (actual funding, not just the federal help money part), you have to let the parents (family) choose what school they go to also. That includes vouchers. Otherwise, instead of a better school, you just have no school. Which, while amounting to a total lack of public education, is probably still a utilitarian improvement over spending $20k a year to teach 40% of your students NOTHING. You could even just subsidize a nuclear family's homeschooling with that, and with one stone improve about a dozen social problems that get no attention by dumping the same money in schools that don't work.
You should not ONLY reduce school funding to improve schools, but the federal government does not and should not control local school boards. But you can see revolts even among deep blue jurisdictions like in California as they replace school board members, realizing that unlike what they previously thought, they can't just leave the Democratic party on autopilot and expect everything to work out by itself.
If a police department is corrupt, or not functioning, the solution is not to cut funding. Then the corrupt people will fire the non corrupt ones, protect each other more, and worsen both policing and corruption because they have tighter control.
The correction is immediate state or federalDrumpf takeover of the force, emergency relief, mobilizing national guard if necessary, investigation, prosecution, and electoral solutions where applicable (ex. voting a new sheriff, DAs who prosecute criminals, etc.). You use the remaining money to employ new officers and train them and build a force that isn't corrupt. Additionally, politicians are themselves corrupt and keep getting voted for unchallenged in these jurisdictions anyway.
If any law enforcement department is bloated compared to an apparent lack of work for it to do, the solution would be first redirection if possible, otherwise yes, cutting - just like the rest of government waste - done at the appropriate level of government.
In short, schools and police are different, the government should do both, the federal governmentDrumpf should probably only do the second one, although there are people called libertarians who think the government should do neither, the government anyway needs to do both better if it's going to do them at all.
Over 15% of school teachers report experiencing violence from students; then there's violence from parents as well, and the 300 something school shootings per year. The idea that the worst that can happen to a teacher is 'getting some crayon on their shirt' is insulting. It's also largely untrue that school teachers get vacations comparable to children -- teachers in the US work ridiculous amounts of overtime, and most of them work throughout vacations to catch up on lesson prep and other admin stuff.
'Private option' for education is not an option for most students, either. Average cost of private schooling is over $12,000 per year, which is way beyond what vast majority of Americans can afford.
The US doesn't spend more than annualized minimum wage of a worker per student, either. US expenses on primary & secondary education are near the top of OECD, but not particularly remarkable and similar to those of other advanced economies such as UK, Germany, Netherlands, South Korea, or the Nordics.
If you 'stop incentivizing shit schools' by cutting off budget from public education, you're not going to have students be better educated somewhere else, because it's not as if there are empty high quality schools around just waiting for students to attend them while the clueless students are stuck in shitty schools presumably because... the government is giving too much money to those schools? I don't know.
It's honestly so weird that you think that inefficient and corrupt police departments need intervention from federal government to set them straight, meanwhile inefficient and corrupt schools are best fixed by a blanket funding reduction on the entire public school system.
There's just so many strange assumptions and ideas in your post. Like, where's the '40% of students are learning nothing' coming from? Where are you even getting the idea that schools are these wasteful and corrupt organizations from? Most teachers and principals talk about dire lack of funding and their inability to afford the tools they need to provide for their students' needs, and given that even relatively poor and 'cheap' countries such as Czechia or Estonia are spending ~$10,000 per year on each student, ~$15,000 in the US sure doesn't sound like a lot of money.
Incidentally, the US spends 2x as much per police officer as the UK and 3x as much as Germany. But sure, it's schools that are cesspits of waste that can't get anything done and need their budgets slashed, not your police force. You're a perfect example of the hypocritical 'small government!!!111' conservative who is in reality just full of shit.
it’s consistently one of the biggest tourist cities in the entire world, more people see it and document it than most places. and news outlets still get to write that shit and have their readers believe and repeat it.
better let all those millions know to avoid it. maybe insta will blow up with all these personal anecdotes of crisis in the streets. along with the aliens.
it’s funny, my father (we’re new yorkers, he’s a long islander though. it’s where most of the conservatives live, courted by the exorbitant tax rate) repeats the same nonsense, but can’t be pressed to actually articulate any experience he or anyone he knows has had relating to any migrant crisis.
i hit the city several times a year, have many friends that live in manhattan and brooklyn. the complaints are the same as they have been for years. it smells like trash at night, and it’s just too close to new jersey for comfort. and actually that’s it. they love it.
leave it to the home of the statue of liberty to actually be proud to welcome huddled masses. the shame they bring upon themselves lol. self own indeed. they ought to abandon principle when it becomes remotely difficult or politically inconvenient.
On June 27 2024 22:37 farvacola wrote: Had a nice visit to NYC just the other week to see a show, take in some sights, and eat some good food. Visited three of the five boroughs and nary a “migrant crisis” to be seen. Maybe I missed them.
made up immigrant crisis? must be election season again. time to roll out the imaginary dead horse to beat. unfortunately even facing the same play book i bet the dems have nothing better to roll out to beat it this time. its like mariano in the late 90s, or ovechkin now. you know exactly what’s comin but you can’t beat it.
Had a nice visit to NYC just the other week to see a show, take in some sights, and eat some good food. Visited three of the five boroughs and nary a “migrant crisis” to be seen. Maybe I missed them.
I dunno call me crazy but could San Francisco’s various problems be I dunno, partly due to a very high cost of living and wage inequality?
Or is it just the woke mob?
It’s where we get many a migrant at the lower pay end of the scale. Sure you’re earning like 80% of what you could in Dublin or London but if your other outgoings are a third or a quarter you’re coming out well ahead
I find it sad that governments still gets away with the "cut budgets to improve quality" bs.
This is pure political spin, and it never works in real world. Politicians will never know enough details about the inner lives of institutions to have any idea what they are talking about. Institutions even have incentives to cut first where it hurts the most politically, to scare politicians from further cuts, and regaining funding in the future.
The quality WILL suffer, and consequences can be disastrous.
On June 28 2024 01:40 Slydie wrote: I find it sad that governments still gets away with the "cut budgets to improve quality" bs.
This is pure political spin, and it never works in real world. Politicians will never know enough details about the inner lives of institutions to have any idea what they are talking about. Institutions even have incentives to cut first where it hurts the most politically, to scare politicians from further cuts, and regaining funding in the future.
The quality WILL suffer, and consequences can be disastrous.
It’s altogether a much easier schtick for the “government never works” folks to pull. Their being put into power becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.
EPT
