Interesting projection.
Try homeless who piss and defecate on the street. And the city tolerates it.
Who Should Replace Nancy Pelosi and Her Cronies?//Should Pelosi step aside to let younger leaders in
My first thought was “composting toilets,” but, sure, go with golden showers.
Where do the homeless piss and defecate in GA?
Obviously this happens where ever homeless exist but SF embraces the homeless like no place else.
The OP is multiple people? :eek:
You haven’t been to Berkeley or Santa Cruz.
You seem to be criticizing SF for actually caring about people enough to allow the homeless to be resident in the city. An interesting thing to hold up as a failing.
You also seem to be confused about the roles of national and city governments. Pelosi is a US Senator, not the mayor of SF.
Did she have to kill Diane Fienstein to get the job?
SF does not care about people. They let a small number of people make the lives of the productive majority miserable. Its a surreal failing. If letting the homeless live on the streets of a city were a good thing, many other cities would also do it.
You know why they don’t?
They use the streets as their bathroom creating a health hazard.
They beg and rob innocent people trying to get around town.
They hurt businesses by driving away their customers…which hurts the cities tax revenue making it harder to solve legitimate issues.
There are humane ways to help the homeless but this ain’t it.
It’s because Dick Gephardt had a…well, let’s just say she’s not quite equipped the same way. Yes, I do very much believe that strong and effective women are demonized by the right to a far greater extent than strong and effective men. Particularly in politics. Just watch what’s happening to Kamala Harris.
Upon review, what jayjay said.
Did she have to kill Diane Fienstein to get the job?
SF does not care about people. They let a small number of people make the lives of the productive majority miserable. Its a surreal failing. If letting the homeless live on the streets of a city were a good thing, many other cities would also do it.
You know why they don’t?
They use the streets as their bathroom creating a health hazard.
They beg and rob innocent people trying to get around town.
They hurt businesses by driving away their customers…which hurts the cities tax revenue making it harder to solve legitimate issues.
There are humane ways to help the homeless but this ain’t it.
Oops…double post.
To be fair I’ve never seen what else they can do.
Natürlich, decent authorities could provide enough public toilets if they chose, but that requires taxes; most Americans would prefer open defecation to taxes. Taxes are foul tyranny.
Yeah and oops on the Senator.:smack:
The homeless epidemic that has destroyed SF does not exist.
Hundreds of thousands of people would like to live in SF but can’t because there isn’t enough housing. Business is booming.
Has SF ended homelessness? No. Humanely re-homed everyone on the streets (even those who don’t want that)? No. It’s a problem they are still trying to solve. But it hasn’t ended civilization in Northern California either.
Wait a minute… The OP is asking who should replace Pelosi as Speaker of the House? DS, old buddy, you might want to get caught up on the news, there.
I visit Pelosi’s district when I have to and used to work there. I pretty much hate going into SF but I don’t blame Pelosi. I don’t like her for different reasons.
I can’t compare to other major cities, but the public transit system (BART) in areas where homeless congregate will need to be closed from time to time due to human waste clogging the entrances. That’s pretty icky.
I did get a library card that allows me to check out ebooks and audio books which I appreciate, state residency was the only requirement. And there aren’t anymore homeless living in the library like they used to. Really I think the number has gone down recently, but it’s still more than I’d like. The vast majority are not threatening and aren’t aggressive in their pan handling, but they are still a problem.
Just some observations from a local.
You’re ignoring the obvious truth. Pelosi and Schumer are seen by conservatives as the embodiment of evil because they’re the current leaders of the Democratic Party. If they stepped aside and other Democrats replaced them, then conservatives would call those new people the embodiment of evil. And conservatives would begin comparing them unfavorably to Pelosi and Schumer.
I live in SC - 5. I think you have a very poor understanding of the district.
Ralph Norman got more than half his votes from York and Lancaster Counties. York County is an exurb of Charlotte, VERY affluent, filled with $500K homes, etc. The school districts there (other than the one in Rock Hill) are awash in money; the York Comprehensive High School looks like a community college when you drive by it. The area of Lancaster County that voted heavily for Mr. Norman is the Indian Land section, which is also part of that same upper-middle-class exurb south of Charlotte, filled with bankers and the like.
Between them, the two counties provided a margin of 5000 votes. He won the district by fewer than 3000 votes. His win is in great measure due to those two counties, and their upper-middle-class voters (also, there is a very large “adult” community of former snowbirds in Indian Land, and they are quite raging Republicans). In short, his win isn’t because of poor, uneducated hicks from the sticks (if you thought otherwise, you watch too much House of Cards). And yes, this district is FAR more representative of suburban and rural America than Nancy Pelosi’s district is. San Francisco isn’t even representative of most of the large cities in America (a fact which is both a positive recommendation for it, and an indication that it has unique challenges).
I always love when someone asserts that the reason their party loses is because voters are stupid (or some other lovely pejorative). What difference does this make? If you want to win elections, you have to convince said “stupid” voters that what you are offering is better than what the other guys are offering. And if these are “average” voters, then you’ve simply proven my point about which district is more representative of America as a whole, haven’t you? 
Amazingly, “cronies” doesn’t imply “secret illegal stuff”. I suggest getting ahold of a good definition of the word from a trustworthy dictionary. Further, how can you say I “vilified everyone” (thoroughly or not)? I made three claims about her: 1) She and her cronies must go, 2) She is seen as the “embodiment of evil” by a large portion of American voters (which isn’t all her fault, since that’s partially because Republicans have painted her that way for some time), and 3) she doesn’t help herself there with her extensive hyperbolism when talking about political issues. If this is vilifying everyone in your mind, goodness, I’d hate to think what would happen if someone actually, you know, tried to vilify more than one person!
God, I hope not. I have trouble keeping one of me supplied with peanut butter and banana pudding!
Oops. :eek: Wishful thinking? :o
You’re ignoring past history, some of which I alluded to in my post. When Dick Gephardt was the minority leader, he wasn’t painted as the embodiment of evil. I can go back and point to several Democratic House leaders in the post-Tip O’Neill period who weren’t treated this way. Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi get painted the way they do (did) because they are (were) very combative, very aggressive, quite often hyperbolic speakers on political issues before their chambers. And I, for one, don’t think that makes for a good political leader. The Republicans have been much better recently at finding people who can lead their members without frothing at the mouth; indeed, the Republicans who are noted for froth are not even close to the leadership positions, for the most part.
I believe, based in large part upon what I saw during the last election, and during the by-election in my district Tuesday, that Nancy Pelosi is hurting Democrats nationwide more than she is helping them. Thus, the OP.
Politics aside what about the conflicts of interest regarding Pelosi personally enriching her family by getting all kinds of government subsidies for the light rail system to benefit a company that Pelosi’s husband, is heavily invested in, along with inflating real estate values of properties they own. I’ve heard similar accusations about Feinstein’s husband and the military contracts steered his way.
Admittedly I heard these accusations from conservative news sources but are fellow democrats troubled by this sort of personal enrichment of millions of dollars or was I just hearing cherry-picked information to paint moral and ethical dilemmas without getting the whole picture? I admit I haven’t read enough about it to make a definitive statement on the subject.