• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

California Doing California Things

Democrats are in serious trouble if they can’t tap into what Americans are actually living through right now. Jobs data, inflation, housing costs, Trump’s tariffs acting like an extra tax, Republicans are actively making life harder while claiming the opposite, and somehow Democrats still can’t capitalize.

Their entire political machine should be at full steam, hammering away every single day at what this means for people’s lives. What we got right now? Newsom? Nigga place. The message should be simple ‘We’re all feeling it. Businesses are getting squeezed by Trump’s tariffs, while the rest of us are stuck in a declining job market and high costs of living where it takes three or more incomes to survive.’ That’s where the fight is, and if Democrats don’t own it, they’ll lose it. Again. :rolleyes:

Only thing I hear the most right now is..... Drum roll...


The fucking Epstein files.
 
W beat a moderate Al Gore
Or rather he got close enough to allow the SCOTUS to get away with handing the presidency to another Republitard.
Gore actually won Florida. A newspaper consortium did a full recount (which was required by Florida law but not done) found Gore beat Bush by a small amount.
 
Are you high right now? California property law was not written by early medieval Anglo-Saxons.
Nobody said it was. It was written by late medieval Normans: judges sent throughout the realm by William the Conqueror's successors to bring a little order to the endless petty disputes among their conquered but fractious Anglo-Saxon subjects. California law, like American law in general, evolved from English Common Law. The features of law that stop Californian Indians from recovering title to their tribes' ancestral land are features shared with the rest of the Anglosphere, features that developed in England in the late medieval and early modern period in response to the land disputes going on at the time. What's high is the notion that these features developed to serve the end of inheritors of the California genocide not giving up an acre of what their forebears won for them. The law was preadapted to be able to do that. ...
The ancient history of the law is not as important as the current status of the law,
Not as important for what purpose? Winning a lawsuit isn't what we're on about here. Which hat were you wearing when you made your accusation about the purpose of California property law. your social scientist hat or your political demagogue hat? For purposes of rage-manufacture, the current status is what matters, but to evaluate whether

"Some of those who deny the California genocide are defending their own great-grandparent's actions, and they are certainly defending the real estate transferred to their families as a result of the genocide, from the Law of the River to the termination era to redlining, right down to Prop 13. The inheritors of the genocide do not want to give up an acre of what their forebears won for them, and we have developed one of the most elaborate, restrictive, and labyrinthine systems of property law on the planet to serve that end."​

was truthful or trumped-up, ancient history matters. There's a reason cops don't investigate a murder by considering only the current status of who benefited from the murder, but also consider aspects of ancient history, such as, you know, determining time of death.

and there's a hell of a lot of intervening history you are unaware of.
Yeah, that's true of anybody it's directed at no matter what topic is under discussion.

No, the medieval Normans had nothing remotely equivalent to modern property law, and indeed few modern US states have a system of property law equivalent in complexity and idiosyncracy to California's.
But the issue at hand is not complexity and idiosyncrasy per se, but what end they serve -- whether they were put in place to serve the end of inheritors of the California genocide not giving up an acre of what their forebears won for them.

What does that have to do with anything we're discussing in this thread?
As yourself what “the medieval Normans had nothing remotely equivalent to modern property law” means to this thread.
I wasn't the one who brought them up. And they didn't. Our system has very ancient roots, yes, but it is not a feudal monarchy, and the Normans did not vote in Prop 13, dismantle fire insurance coverage for the poor, or sign racialized housing covenants.
But racialized housing covenants have been unenforceable for over half a century, and fire insurance coverage subsidies aren't even property law, and Prop 13 is not what stops courts from giving tribes' ancestral lands back to the Indians. What stops courts from giving an acre back is no doubt a pile of rules, but first and foremost among those is surely the statute of limitations. The genocide and the land grabs were a long time ago; in the U.S. land title suits are generally barred after some designated period, no longer than forty years.

The first statute of limitations for real estate lawsuits was enacted in 1166 AD.
 
Democrats are in serious trouble if they can’t tap into what Americans are actually living through right now. Jobs data, inflation, housing costs, Trump’s tariffs acting like an extra tax, Republicans are actively making life harder while claiming the opposite, and somehow Democrats still can’t capitalize.

Their entire political machine should be at full steam, hammering away every single day at what this means for people’s lives. What we got right now? Newsom? Nigga place. The message should be simple ‘We’re all feeling it. Businesses are getting squeezed by Trump’s tariffs, while the rest of us are stuck in a declining job market and high costs of living where it takes three or more incomes to survive.’ That’s where the fight is, and if Democrats don’t own it, they’ll lose it. Again. :rolleyes:

Only thing I hear the most right now is..... Drum roll...


The fucking Epstein files.

I agree with you. Forget Epstein. But what do you mean about Newsome? He's fighting. He's fighting against the tarriffs; vote rigging, economic issues, housing, ice, inflation, and etc. He's one of the few dems that is fighting. But yea, the dems are done if they can't articulate a winning economic message.
 
Democrats are in serious trouble if they can’t tap into what Americans are actually living through right now. Jobs data, inflation, housing costs, Trump’s tariffs acting like an extra tax, Republicans are actively making life harder while claiming the opposite, and somehow Democrats still can’t capitalize.

Their entire political machine should be at full steam, hammering away every single day at what this means for people’s lives. What we got right now? Newsom? Nigga place. The message should be simple ‘We’re all feeling it. Businesses are getting squeezed by Trump’s tariffs, while the rest of us are stuck in a declining job market and high costs of living where it takes three or more incomes to survive.’ That’s where the fight is, and if Democrats don’t own it, they’ll lose it. Again. :rolleyes:

Only thing I hear the most right now is..... Drum roll...


The fucking Epstein files.

I agree with you. Forget Epstein. But what do you mean about Newsome? He's fighting. He's fighting against the tarriffs; vote rigging, economic issues, housing, ice, inflation, and etc. He's one of the few dems that is fighting. But yea, the dems are done if they can't articulate a winning economic message.
Congressional Democrats plan red district tours for August recess

Congressional Democrats are not changing their economic message to appeal to red district voters this summer; they say President Donald Trump and the Republican Party have done that work for them.

Armed with talking points highlighting the cuts to health programs, social services and climate efforts in Trump’s domestic policy megabill, progressives this August recess are touring deep red and in-play GOP districts. They’ll be making the same pitch they’ve been touting for months: Republicans want to, and have already, cut taxes for the wealthiest Americans at the expense of public benefits.

“Donald Trump ran for office promising to lower costs on day one,” Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts said in an interview. “Our secret, super-duper strategy is to get out there and tell the truth … that Donald Trump has taken a bad situation and made it worse.”

Warren is among several high-profile progressives participating in the “Won’t Back Down Tour.” It’s a project of the political action arm of the left-leaning grassroots advocacy group MoveOn, which will host rallies in competitive GOP districts headlined by Democratic elected officials.
Sorry, you are wrong. Many Dems are taking that exact fight nationwide.
 
Democrats are in serious trouble if they can’t tap into what Americans are actually living through right now. Jobs data, inflation, housing costs, Trump’s tariffs acting like an extra tax, Republicans are actively making life harder while claiming the opposite, and somehow Democrats still can’t capitalize.

Dude, Newsom has done much of that to us Californians. Highest unemployment rate, highest taxes, highest gas and energy prices, increased the number of homeless despite having billions of dollars lobbed at it, more people living at or below poverty levels. Newsom is not the answer.
 
But what do you mean about Newsome? He's fighting. He's fighting against the tarriffs; vote rigging, economic issues, housing, ice, inflation, and etc.

Ffs, have you not seen what the insufferable prick Newsom has done to the state of California? He’s obsessed with Trump and meanwhile the state gets ignored unless it’s something he thinks will raise his profile.
He's one of the few dems that is fighting. But yea, the dems are done if they can't articulate a winning economic message.

The dems are done for a generation at least.
 
Democrats are in serious trouble if they can’t tap into what Americans are actually living through right now. Jobs data, inflation, housing costs, Trump’s tariffs acting like an extra tax, Republicans are actively making life harder while claiming the opposite, and somehow Democrats still can’t capitalize.

Dude, Newsom has done much of that to us Californians. Highest unemployment rate, highest taxes, highest gas and energy prices, increased the number of homeless despite having billions of dollars lobbed at it, more people living at or below poverty levels. Newsom is not the answer.

Which economy in the country is stronger than California?


California is beating Texas and Florida. It's beating most of the world. It's kinda funny and ironic, but you make a lot of inadvertent arguments for Newsome!
 
Democrats are in serious trouble if they can’t tap into what Americans are actually living through right now. Jobs data, inflation, housing costs, Trump’s tariffs acting like an extra tax, Republicans are actively making life harder while claiming the opposite, and somehow Democrats still can’t capitalize.

Dude, Newsom has done much of that to us Californians. Highest unemployment rate, highest taxes, highest gas and energy prices, increased the number of homeless despite having billions of dollars lobbed at it, more people living at or below poverty levels. Newsom is not the answer.

Which economy in the country is stronger than California?

ffs, take out three maybe four of the Bay Area tech companies and the picture looks a little different and Newsom had fuck all to do with bringing on these companies in California.
 
Ffs, have you not seen what the insufferable prick Newsom has done to the state of California? He’s obsessed with Trump and meanwhile the state gets ignored unless it’s something he thinks will raise his profile.
Washington DC, under the control of Trump, has a higher unemployment rate. Significantly higher.
 
Ffs, have you not seen what the insufferable prick Newsom has done to the state of California? He’s obsessed with Trump and meanwhile the state gets ignored unless it’s something he thinks will raise his profile.
Newsom taking on Trumpian style is really something to behold. Does he really think this helps him in 2028?

Washington DC, under the control of Trump, has a higher unemployment rate. Significantly higher.
Washington DC is run by the mayor and the city council.
Only recently has Trump called in National Guard to police DC. You can't seriously claim that the unemployment rate is due to that?
 
Last edited:
Warren is among several high-profile progressives participating in the “Won’t Back Down Tour.” It’s a project of the political action arm of the left-leaning grassroots advocacy group MoveOn, which will host rallies in competitive GOP districts headlined by Democratic elected officials.
Sorry, you are wrong. Many Dems are taking that exact fight nationwide.
You'd think the Dems with their massive liberal media machine and the endearment of Hollywood celebs and pop music icons this would be a cakewalk. So why do I get this mental image:
Dems Fight Back.jpg
 
The problem isn't knowing the list of grounds for eviction, but what isn't in the list: because the lease is up. That means if you want to sell somebody one-year occupation of your property, you're required to throw in an option for much longer occupation.
B - I can't find support of this, not that it's my job to do so. Got an LAHD link?
Los Angeles has a "Just Cause Ordinance". According to Google's AI Overview, "The JCO requires landlords to have a "just cause" to terminate a tenancy, including non-renewal." And "terminate a tenancy" including non-renewal isn't just an AI hallucination; finding proof of that took some digging.


SEC. 165.03. JUST CAUSE EVICTIONS.​
A landlord shall not terminate a tenancy unless it is based upon one or more of the following grounds:​
A. The tenant has defaulted in the payment of rent.​
...​
E. The tenant had a written lease that terminated on or after the effective date of this Article, and after a written request or demand from the landlord, the tenant has refused to execute a written extension or renewal of the lease for an additional term of similar duration with similar provisions, provided that those terms do not violate this Article or any other provision of law.​
...​

They wouldn't have listed clause E if "terminate a tenancy" didn't include tenants with leases that terminated.
Yes, they can evict after the lease ends.
Why do you think that? Is it because you think "terminate a tenancy" means "break a lease", and doesn't include leases simply ending when their time limits expire? If that's what you think, it seems you're not convinced by my above reasoning, which is fine, but here's somebody with actual domain expertise:

What is termination of tenancy?
Termination of tenancy means ending a rental agreement between a landlord and a tenant. It can happen for many reasons—like the lease reaching its end, one party giving notice, or someone breaking the terms of the lease. Once the tenancy is terminated, the tenant is no longer allowed to live in or use the property, and the landlord can take back possession.
...

Or do you think they can evict after the lease ends because one of the fourteen legal grounds for terminating tenancy listed in the ordinance linked above says they can? If so, which one?

So unless one of the other clauses applies, the landlord has to offer the tenant the option to renew the lease on similar terms. (A small rent hike is allowed, but not a large rent hike.)
That's not the way I read it. I don't see anywhere that it says the land lord must offer a new lease.
The landlord doesn't have to offer a new lease, provided one of the other clauses applies. For instance clause I-1 says they can refuse to renew the lease if they're going to demolish the house. But what I don't see is any indication that the lease ending is enough all on its own to imply they can evict after the lease ends.

Making sure businesses follow their contracts is an entirely separate matter from dictating the terms of contracts.
Can you point out "dictating the terms"?
Well, apart from the whole "You have to renew the lease if we don't think you have a good enough reason not to" policy, the ordinance is packed with micromanaged tenant protections that could perfectly well be negotiated between the tenant and the landlord -- included in the lease if the tenant wants them and is willing to pay what they cost the landlord, or waived if the tenant would rather get a break on rent than have the protection. For example, clause B-2 says the tenant can bring in a roommate. An extra occupant costs the landlord something in increased wear-and-tear, more utilities usage, more noise annoying the neighbors, etc. To make it worth her while she needs to charge higher rent, even from a single renter, in order to protect herself in case he brings in a roommate six months into the lease. If he could make an enforceable promise to be the only occupant then she could charge him lower rent in return for the promise, and both parties would be better off. Dictating the terms of contracts like that typically results in Pareto-suboptimal outcomes, because the renter knows a lot better than the government whether he's going to want a roommate.

"People respond to incentives. That is the whole of economics -- the rest is commentary."
Maybe the incentive is a butt load of money from corporate buyers. Both are speculation with no proof offered.
Corporate buyers don't offer butt loads of money out of generosity. So if they're offering more than mom-and-pop landlord, and more than somebody who just wants a house to live in, why are they doing that? What's the corporation's incentive? They must expect to make a bigger profit on the house than mom-and-pop would make, and that's probably because the regulatory system favors them somehow. The forced renewals is one way it can; but I'll bet a pro economist could read that ordinance and spot half a dozen ways it hurts mom-and-pop more than it hurts corporations.
 
The problem isn't knowing the list of grounds for eviction, but what isn't in the list: because the lease is up. That means if you want to sell somebody one-year occupation of your property, you're required to throw in an option for much longer occupation.
B - I can't find support of this, not that it's my job to do so. Got an LAHD link?
Los Angeles has a "Just Cause Ordinance". According to Google's AI Overview, "The JCO requires landlords to have a "just cause" to terminate a tenancy, including non-renewal." And "terminate a tenancy" including non-renewal isn't just an AI hallucination; finding proof of that took some digging.


SEC. 165.03. JUST CAUSE EVICTIONS.​
A landlord shall not terminate a tenancy unless it is based upon one or more of the following grounds:​
A. The tenant has defaulted in the payment of rent.​
...​
E. The tenant had a written lease that terminated on or after the effective date of this Article, and after a written request or demand from the landlord, the tenant has refused to execute a written extension or renewal of the lease for an additional term of similar duration with similar provisions, provided that those terms do not violate this Article or any other provision of law.​
...​

They wouldn't have listed clause E if "terminate a tenancy" didn't include tenants with leases that terminated.
Yes, they can evict after the lease ends.
Why do you think that? Is it because you think "terminate a tenancy" means "break a lease", and doesn't include leases simply ending when their time limits expire? If that's what you think, it seems you're not convinced by my above reasoning, which is fine, but here's somebody with actual domain expertise:

What is termination of tenancy?
Termination of tenancy means ending a rental agreement between a landlord and a tenant. It can happen for many reasons—like the lease reaching its end, one party giving notice, or someone breaking the terms of the lease. Once the tenancy is terminated, the tenant is no longer allowed to live in or use the property, and the landlord can take back possession.​
...​

Or do you think they can evict after the lease ends because one of the fourteen legal grounds for terminating tenancy listed in the ordinance linked above says they can? If so, which one?
See the bolded and italicized. Where is the discrepancy in what I said?

So unless one of the other clauses applies, the landlord has to offer the tenant the option to renew the lease on similar terms. (A small rent hike is allowed, but not a large rent hike.)
That's not the way I read it. I don't see anywhere that it says the land lord must offer a new lease.
The landlord doesn't have to offer a new lease, provided one of the other clauses applies. For instance clause I-1 says they can refuse to renew the lease if they're going to demolish the house. But what I don't see is any indication that the lease ending is enough all on its own to imply they can evict after the lease ends.

Making sure businesses follow their contracts is an entirely separate matter from dictating the terms of contracts.
Can you point out "dictating the terms"?
Well, apart from the whole "You have to renew the lease if we don't think you have a good enough reason not to" policy, the ordinance is packed with micromanaged tenant protections that could perfectly well be negotiated between the tenant and the landlord -- included in the lease if the tenant wants them and is willing to pay what they cost the landlord, or waived if the tenant would rather get a break on rent than have the protection. For example, clause B-2 says the tenant can bring in a roommate. An extra occupant costs the landlord something in increased wear-and-tear, more utilities usage, more noise annoying the neighbors, etc. To make it worth her while she needs to charge higher rent, even from a single renter, in order to protect herself in case he brings in a roommate six months into the lease. If he could make an enforceable promise to be the only occupant then she could charge him lower rent in return for the promise, and both parties would be better off. Dictating the terms of contracts like that typically results in Pareto-suboptimal outcomes, because the renter knows a lot better than the government whether he's going to want a roommate.
So post the clauses you think apply, not your interpretation like "'You have to renew the lease if we don't think you have a good enough reason not to' policy".

"People respond to incentives. That is the whole of economics -- the rest is commentary."
Maybe the incentive is a butt load of money from corporate buyers. Both are speculation with no proof offered.
Corporate buyers don't offer butt loads of money out of generosity. So if they're offering more than mom-and-pop landlord, and more than somebody who just wants a house to live in, why are they doing that? What's the corporation's incentive? They must expect to make a bigger profit on the house than mom-and-pop would make, and that's probably because the regulatory system favors them somehow. The forced renewals is one way it can; but I'll bet a pro economist could read that ordinance and spot half a dozen ways it hurts mom-and-pop more than it hurts corporations.
Are you a pro economist?
 
I'm telling y'all right now if y'all are going to be pushing Newsom for challenging the Trump regime, you're picking a non-starter.

Walz would be a good pick, or AOC, or any of a number of senators, but Newsom has too much clear corporate baggage and trying to ram him down the electorate's throats even if a lot of people are holding their mouths open wide is a classic Democrat "Defeat From The Jaws of Victory" energy right there.
This is a perfect example of why the Democratic party is so thoroughly unpopular and can manage to lose to a grease painted, monkey brained circus act not once, but twice.

Walz?

AOC?

Delusion often accompanies self-sabotage, so let's double down and run them as POTUS and VP candidates. If we're gonna lose, then let's go all out to break Mondale's record. He only won one more state than I did, so let's do better. Let's shoot for historical precedent and aim for clean 0.

That'll show The Corporations.

In the meantime, women have lost clearly identifiable rights in many red states and there may be a national ban coming. Obergefell is already being targeted and it's reasonable to speculate that it's going to be up for review within the next 12-18 months, which means that same sex marriage is going to be rescinded.
While I agree that Walz isn't primetime for the White House and AOC likely will be limited to being a US Senator... a gentle reminder, W beat a moderate Al Gore (with even right leaning moderate Lieberman as VP) and a liberal John Kerry (with conservative/lady's man Edwards as VP). while Trump beat moderate Hillary Clinton (with moderate white bread as her VP). And even with a sluggish economy, 9/11, and Iraq kind of turning sour, the US re-elected those boobs. Get a bit of inflation and the nation rebels against the Democrats in the White House.

These three losses (only one against an actual liberal) resulted in 5 seats being swapped for conservative to very conservative justices, one of which was stolen from Obama. So while nominating too far to the left or lacking in enough charisma likely won't help in 2028, the people of this country have fucked it pretty badly with the '00, '04, and '16 elections (and '24). The Democrats keep needing to go further to the right, further to right. Obama wasn't very liberal. Neither was Clinton (Bubba). Gore and Clinton (the Hillary one) hardly that liberal either.

The GOP just sells their fraud of "balancing the budget" while "cutting taxes" so very well.
All very true. OTOH, Biden ran as a moderate and won because people were fed up with Trump's incompetent boobery. Biden was the right guy at that time.

I think we're screwed but for the sake of discussing who's viable to run against... I just can't do it this morning. Will Trump even leave the White House? If so, who will his successor be? How deeply has the GOP infected the voting process?

As an aside, credit to you for reminding me when I knew the country was fucked. It was the birth of gaslighting by Rove and Co. who sold stupid Americans on the idea that Dubbya was a war hero and Kerrey was a coward. Also, after the debacle in Iraq when it was well known just how poorly it was planned for and what a disaster it was, there was no way Americans would vote for Dubbya again. No fucking way.

We had 8 years of respite from humiliating international and economic disasters. That shit was over and now we were moving on.

Yet here we are.
 
Democrats are in serious trouble if they can’t tap into what Americans are actually living through right now. Jobs data, inflation, housing costs, Trump’s tariffs acting like an extra tax, Republicans are actively making life harder while claiming the opposite, and somehow Democrats still can’t capitalize.

Their entire political machine should be at full steam, hammering away every single day at what this means for people’s lives. What we got right now? Newsom? Nigga place. The message should be simple ‘We’re all feeling it. Businesses are getting squeezed by Trump’s tariffs, while the rest of us are stuck in a declining job market and high costs of living where it takes three or more incomes to survive.’ That’s where the fight is, and if Democrats don’t own it, they’ll lose it. Again. :rolleyes:

Only thing I hear the most right now is..... Drum roll...


The fucking Epstein files.

I agree with you. Forget Epstein. But what do you mean about Newsome? He's fighting. He's fighting against the tarriffs; vote rigging, economic issues, housing, ice, inflation, and etc. He's one of the few dems that is fighting. But yea, the dems are done if they can't articulate a winning economic message.
That's my perspective as well. At least he's doing something. Meanwhile the Dems are sending out Bernie and AOC to play to packed houses designed to be full of people who already agree with them.

What's the goal?

Newsom's going to be The Guy if elections are legitimate in 2028. There is no other Dem at this time who can compete with him. He's hated in the red states, but so what? That's nothing new. It's the battleground states that matter, and he can win there. We're fucked anyway because of SCOTUS, but if Newsom can do two terms it would at least stay the disastrous road we're on for some time.
 
All very true. OTOH, Biden ran as a moderate and won because people were fed up with Trump's incompetent boobery. Biden was the right guy at that time.

I think we're screwed but for the sake of discussing who's viable to run against... I just can't do it this morning. Will Trump even leave the White House? If so, who will his successor be? How deeply has the GOP infected the voting process?

As an aside, credit to you for reminding me when I knew the country was fucked. It was the birth of gaslighting by Rove and Co. who sold stupid Americans on the idea that Dubbya was a war hero and Kerrey was a coward. Also, after the debacle in Iraq when it was well known just how poorly it was planned for and what a disaster it was, there was no way Americans would vote for Dubbya again. No fucking way.

We had 8 years of respite from humiliating international and economic disasters. That shit was over and now we were moving on.

Yet here we are.
Gretchen Whitmer would be near the top of the list. Gavin Newsom has been running for President for a while now. With no way in heck a Democrat gets elected Senator in Kentucky, Andy Beshear is a name that rises to the top, at least for VP consideration. I'd say the Democrats have options, but 2028 is so far out that picking candidates is a bit nuts. Obviously these people need to start fishing for money for the run, but the general populace is making it hard to feel how they want to vote (other than punishing an elected candidate over the economy, and of that, it is a relatively small group of people).
 
Ffs, have you not seen what the insufferable prick Newsom has done to the state of California? He’s obsessed with Trump and meanwhile the state gets ignored unless it’s something he thinks will raise his profile.
Newsom taking on Trumpian style is really something to behold. Does he really think this helps him in 2028?
No. That isn't why he is doing it. If anything, it is an attempt to diffuse the ridiculousness that has been these stupid AI generated images in the first place. The one with Newsom being praised by Hogan, Carlson, and a third dipshit who's name is escaping me was quite genius.

Washington DC, under the control of Trump, has a higher unemployment rate. Significantly higher.
Washington DC is run by the mayor and the city council.
Only recently has Trump called in National Guard to police DC. You can't seriously claim that the unemployment rate is due to that?
No, the unemployment would be from the firing of local Federal employees and decentralization of other Federal jobs to other states.
 
Back
Top Bottom