4 ms·

Being too “progressive” hasn’t been the problem. Politicians claiming to be be progressive then pandering to corporate interests has.

seanmcdirmid 4y ago
Applying what we could call progressive ideas without thinking them through is a problem. IMHO we should vote for smarter politicians who don't have ideological baggage limiting their decision making. > Politicians claiming to be be progressive then pandering to corporate interests has. That doesn't have much to do with SF's problems as far as I can tell. Quite the opposite actually.
- gcheong 4y ago
  All politics is ideological but to blame a single progressive DA for the entirety of the current crime problem in SF without realizing that much of what is happening today is more likely the result of past decisions than one guy actually doing what he said he would do to me is just ridiculous but if you feel that way then convince me in the next election with whatever platform you run on, not telling me I should recall someone so you can just put in your preferred puppet without having to say what you’ll actually do and how it would be better.
  - seanmcdirmid 4y ago
    > All politics is ideological but to blame a single progressive DA for the entirety of the current crime problem Isn't that a straw man though? No one reasonable is saying that this DA is responsible for the entirety of the crime problem, and of course this uptick in crime is a nationwide problem! However, the DA isn't doing enough to make things better, and putting people in jail who are committing crimes repeatedly because they've realized there are no consequences for their actions is probably the smarter thing to do ATM. So let's instead elect a DA that will do that (like we did here in Seattle, it won't solve the problem...but it is a start).
    - gcheong 4y ago
      If you listen to the recall pushers it doesn’t sound like much of a straw man to me and the idea that the DA isn’t doing enough to prosecute isn’t a new concept here but if you actually look into the details of what Chesa is trying to do there is more method to it than just a blanket non-prosecutional ideology. It doesn’t mean that people don’t face any consequences at all if they fail to meet the standards laid out for them but they are given a chance. But this idea that a progressive ideology isn’t what is needed now because we’re in some nationwide uptick in certain crimes strikes me as odd because if not now then when? And to your point, a recall isn’t an election - the appointee doesn’t have to say anything about what they’re going to do and as it stands now they get to run as an incumbent in the next election which gives them a big advantage. So people are just presuming that whoever is appointed will be the “tough on crime” DA that they presumably want without actually knowing who they’re going to get.
      - seanmcdirmid 4y ago
        > ut this idea that a progressive ideology isn’t what is needed now because we’re in some nationwide uptick in certain crimes strikes me as odd because if not now then when? People are simply fed up right now. Even the most liberal progressive will flip to a tough on crime attitude after they reach their breaking limit. If they don't see results, they will keep swapping out people until they get them. The problem perhaps is that the DA's methods would require decades to show some results, but they aren't going to be given that much time. > So people are just presuming that whoever is appointed will be the “tough on crime” DA that they presumably want without actually knowing who they’re going to get. Isn't that what an election would get us anyways? We would swap out something we don't think is working for something different, that might still not work, but will at least lead to a chance of an improvement.
        gcheong 4y ago
        “ The problem perhaps is that the DA's methods would require decades to show some results, but they aren't going to be given that much time.” Or they may not take that long to show results but if we simply allow people to swap out a known for an unknown each time they’re fed up with the apparent lack of action or results of something then that just rewards those that benefit from it without having them have to do the work of convincing anyone that their person will do better because of what they’re promising to do rather than just “we’re not that guy.” I’m not convinced that things have gotten bad enough in SF that “anyone but Chesa” is a strong enough argument and I think he deserves to be allowed to work out the remainder of his term and be judged on that basis. Any opposition after that can come in the form of an actual candidate that has to run an actual campaign to at least give the people some chance of understanding what that candidate’s stances are.
smsm42 4y ago
Could you explain how enabling current crime wave is "pandering to corporate interests"? Corporations didn't demand to defund the police or stop prosecuting crime or develop a homeless camp on every major street, as far as I know. Did they?

seanmcdirmid 4y ago

Applying what we could call progressive ideas without thinking them through is a problem. IMHO we should vote for smarter politicians who don't have ideological baggage limiting their decision making. > Politicians claiming to be be progressive then pandering to corporate interests has. That doesn't have much to do with SF's problems as far as I can tell. Quite the opposite actually.

gcheong 4y ago
All politics is ideological but to blame a single progressive DA for the entirety of the current crime problem in SF without realizing that much of what is happening today is more likely the result of past decisions than one guy actually doing what he said he would do to me is just ridiculous but if you feel that way then convince me in the next election with whatever platform you run on, not telling me I should recall someone so you can just put in your preferred puppet without having to say what you’ll actually do and how it would be better.
- seanmcdirmid 4y ago
  > All politics is ideological but to blame a single progressive DA for the entirety of the current crime problem Isn't that a straw man though? No one reasonable is saying that this DA is responsible for the entirety of the crime problem, and of course this uptick in crime is a nationwide problem! However, the DA isn't doing enough to make things better, and putting people in jail who are committing crimes repeatedly because they've realized there are no consequences for their actions is probably the smarter thing to do ATM. So let's instead elect a DA that will do that (like we did here in Seattle, it won't solve the problem...but it is a start).
  - gcheong 4y ago
    If you listen to the recall pushers it doesn’t sound like much of a straw man to me and the idea that the DA isn’t doing enough to prosecute isn’t a new concept here but if you actually look into the details of what Chesa is trying to do there is more method to it than just a blanket non-prosecutional ideology. It doesn’t mean that people don’t face any consequences at all if they fail to meet the standards laid out for them but they are given a chance. But this idea that a progressive ideology isn’t what is needed now because we’re in some nationwide uptick in certain crimes strikes me as odd because if not now then when? And to your point, a recall isn’t an election - the appointee doesn’t have to say anything about what they’re going to do and as it stands now they get to run as an incumbent in the next election which gives them a big advantage. So people are just presuming that whoever is appointed will be the “tough on crime” DA that they presumably want without actually knowing who they’re going to get.
    - seanmcdirmid 4y ago
      > ut this idea that a progressive ideology isn’t what is needed now because we’re in some nationwide uptick in certain crimes strikes me as odd because if not now then when? People are simply fed up right now. Even the most liberal progressive will flip to a tough on crime attitude after they reach their breaking limit. If they don't see results, they will keep swapping out people until they get them. The problem perhaps is that the DA's methods would require decades to show some results, but they aren't going to be given that much time. > So people are just presuming that whoever is appointed will be the “tough on crime” DA that they presumably want without actually knowing who they’re going to get. Isn't that what an election would get us anyways? We would swap out something we don't think is working for something different, that might still not work, but will at least lead to a chance of an improvement.
      - gcheong 4y ago
        “ The problem perhaps is that the DA's methods would require decades to show some results, but they aren't going to be given that much time.” Or they may not take that long to show results but if we simply allow people to swap out a known for an unknown each time they’re fed up with the apparent lack of action or results of something then that just rewards those that benefit from it without having them have to do the work of convincing anyone that their person will do better because of what they’re promising to do rather than just “we’re not that guy.” I’m not convinced that things have gotten bad enough in SF that “anyone but Chesa” is a strong enough argument and I think he deserves to be allowed to work out the remainder of his term and be judged on that basis. Any opposition after that can come in the form of an actual candidate that has to run an actual campaign to at least give the people some chance of understanding what that candidate’s stances are.

smsm42 4y ago

Could you explain how enabling current crime wave is "pandering to corporate interests"? Corporations didn't demand to defund the police or stop prosecuting crime or develop a homeless camp on every major street, as far as I know. Did they?