6 ms·

She also (previously) watered down the right to repair bill. She is... not the best. https://www.engadget.com/new-york-right-to-repair-law-kathy-hochul-1846547

by suby 3y ago

She also (previously) watered down the right to repair bill. She is... not the best. https://www.engadget.com/new-york-right-to-repair-law-kathy-hochul-184654713.html https://www.engadget.com/new-york-right-to-repair-law-kathy-...

asah 3y ago
Watering down is standard for politicians responding to social change. This is the first step.
r00fus 3y ago
There's a reason she almost lost to the extremist Zeldin. She's completely owned by Wall Street.
- kernal 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - NotSammyHagar 3y ago
    Can you share the terrible things that his extremist org has done? I see he supports unpopular and extremists things like 1. abortion rights 2. civil rights 3. keeping the govt working by funding it 4. helping american manufacturing 5. blocking the dictatorship in russia from taking over the small democracy next door.
    - kernal 3y ago
      [flagged]
      - NotSammyHagar 3y ago
        This isn't a serious list, almost all of these are just political talking points with no substance. I will agree the withdrawal from Afghanistan was extremely poorly done. Yes, he was following the treaty trump had negotiated with the other side (was that neg. with terrorists?) but it was poorly done. A lot more soldiers died pointlessly in Iraq and no one saw it as a war crime on Bush2. The us had secret prisons. My country kidnapped people and tortured them in black prisons. That's a crime too. I'd like to prosecute that. The justice dept raided trumps home because he (1) had a long list of secret docs he wasn't supposed to keep (2) he was recorded on his own video call with his own lawyers where he talked about having them, that he shouldn't have them, and he knew they were still top secret because he specifically discussed that he hadn't changed their classification (3) asked him to give them back and he kind of gave a few back (4) asked him again for the things that were in the call and he didn't give them back. Then he asked people working for him to lie about the whole affair. Some of them turned state's evidence. Your points don't stand up to scrutiny. Among other things, ex-presidents are subject to the rule of law.
      - dang 3y ago
        Could you please stop posting unsubstantive comments and flamebait? You've unfortunately been doing it repeatedly. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for. We don't care about which political side you're on but we do care about not having those sorts of comments here. If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.
    - bigstrat2003 3y ago
      > abortion rights I'm not trying to debate abortion for the millionth time here, but you can't just slip that one in like it's some anodyne proposition that no reasonable person objects to. The fact of the matter is that abortion is still fiercely debated in this country, with its detractors considering it no different from infanticide. So if the Biden administration supports abortion rights, there will be many people who consider that to be a heinous position for him to take.
      - Shekelphile 3y ago
        [flagged]
      - throwup238 3y ago
        > you can't just slip that one in like it's some anodyne proposition that no reasonable person objects to. It's not that no reasonable person can oppose abortion (the objection doesn't even need to be religious in nature), it's that no reasonable person opposes abortion because it's infanticide and opposes all post-natal support policies which is the case in almost all the states that have banned abortion. Hell take a look at the list of states ranked by child mortality and abortion states lead the way by a mile. Welfare and education for mothers and their young children? Rejected. Food stamps? Fuck that. Now there's plenty of debate to be had about the effectiveness and fiscal efficiency of these policies, but anti-abortion states soundly reject the vast majority of them and leave mothers and their children to fend for themselves. Everyone is entitled to their opinion but we don't have to respect their opinions if they are nakedly hypocritical.
- xyzelement 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - monero-xmr 3y ago
    [flagged]
  - o11c 3y ago
    It's not just a word; you can look at his record of attempting to overthrow democracy (regarding January 6). If overthrowing democracy is no longer considered extremist, what is?
    - koolba 3y ago
      [flagged]
      - kevingadd 3y ago
        Accusing Pelosi of conduct equivalent to January 6 is blatantly disingenuous, regardless of your political feelings.
        koolba 3y ago
        [flagged]
        the_gastropod 3y ago
        I don’t recall Pelosi doing that. Have a source?
        koolba 3y ago
        Straight from the horse’s mouth: https://rumble.com/vs7r3v-flashback-pelosi-objects-to-counting-ohio-electoral-votes.html https://rumble.com/vs7r3v-flashback-pelosi-objects-to-counti...
- matrix87 3y ago
  This is the danger of having shitty gop candidates, then the dems can roll with some uninspiring, corrupt, hillaryesque candidate like Hochul and manage to hold onto power. When one party gets shittier, it allows the other one to get shittier as well
  - akira2501 3y ago
    This is the danger of a two party system. They both have an incentive to disenfranchise voters, because our great loophole is that, a "no" vote actually does not count in any meaningful way. So, if you can get 50% to 75% of the eligible population to not vote, then it becomes much easier to maintain power without actually having to take any responsibility for your actions. It should be that if less than 50% of the eligible population turns out, the election is null, and needs to be re-run. We have a right to say "none of the above" and have it stick. The parties need to bear the costs of creating these terrible ballots and candidates that actually appeal to no one.
    - lukevp 3y ago
      Our HOA elections are unable to proceed without a defined quorum, yet the US has no such rules… strange! I think first past the post is a big part of the issue though, and am holding on hope for ranked choice voting to expand
      - Dalewyn 3y ago
        Two things: * Abstention from voting or refusing to vote are a form of political expression. Mandating that everyone must vote is an attack on freedom of speech and expression and will not fly. * Ranked Choice and all the other alternatives often floated run afoul of the most basic criteria: They are complicated. The people either will not or cannot understand and consequently will not tolerate complicated voting schemes. Anything more complicated than "<XYZ> gets my vote." is impractically useless. FPTP remains popular because it is fucking simple enough that anyone can understand it, that it's also generally beneficial to the political parties is merely a side effect.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

by suby 3y ago

asah 3y ago

Watering down is standard for politicians responding to social change. This is the first step.

r00fus 3y ago

There's a reason she almost lost to the extremist Zeldin. She's completely owned by Wall Street.

kernal 3y ago
[flagged]
- NotSammyHagar 3y ago
  Can you share the terrible things that his extremist org has done? I see he supports unpopular and extremists things like 1. abortion rights 2. civil rights 3. keeping the govt working by funding it 4. helping american manufacturing 5. blocking the dictatorship in russia from taking over the small democracy next door.
  - kernal 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - NotSammyHagar 3y ago
      This isn't a serious list, almost all of these are just political talking points with no substance. I will agree the withdrawal from Afghanistan was extremely poorly done. Yes, he was following the treaty trump had negotiated with the other side (was that neg. with terrorists?) but it was poorly done. A lot more soldiers died pointlessly in Iraq and no one saw it as a war crime on Bush2. The us had secret prisons. My country kidnapped people and tortured them in black prisons. That's a crime too. I'd like to prosecute that. The justice dept raided trumps home because he (1) had a long list of secret docs he wasn't supposed to keep (2) he was recorded on his own video call with his own lawyers where he talked about having them, that he shouldn't have them, and he knew they were still top secret because he specifically discussed that he hadn't changed their classification (3) asked him to give them back and he kind of gave a few back (4) asked him again for the things that were in the call and he didn't give them back. Then he asked people working for him to lie about the whole affair. Some of them turned state's evidence. Your points don't stand up to scrutiny. Among other things, ex-presidents are subject to the rule of law.
    - dang 3y ago
      Could you please stop posting unsubstantive comments and flamebait? You've unfortunately been doing it repeatedly. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for. We don't care about which political side you're on but we do care about not having those sorts of comments here. If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.
  - bigstrat2003 3y ago
    > abortion rights I'm not trying to debate abortion for the millionth time here, but you can't just slip that one in like it's some anodyne proposition that no reasonable person objects to. The fact of the matter is that abortion is still fiercely debated in this country, with its detractors considering it no different from infanticide. So if the Biden administration supports abortion rights, there will be many people who consider that to be a heinous position for him to take.
    - Shekelphile 3y ago
      [flagged]
    - throwup238 3y ago
      > you can't just slip that one in like it's some anodyne proposition that no reasonable person objects to. It's not that no reasonable person can oppose abortion (the objection doesn't even need to be religious in nature), it's that no reasonable person opposes abortion because it's infanticide and opposes all post-natal support policies which is the case in almost all the states that have banned abortion. Hell take a look at the list of states ranked by child mortality and abortion states lead the way by a mile. Welfare and education for mothers and their young children? Rejected. Food stamps? Fuck that. Now there's plenty of debate to be had about the effectiveness and fiscal efficiency of these policies, but anti-abortion states soundly reject the vast majority of them and leave mothers and their children to fend for themselves. Everyone is entitled to their opinion but we don't have to respect their opinions if they are nakedly hypocritical.
xyzelement 3y ago
[flagged]
- monero-xmr 3y ago
  [flagged]
- o11c 3y ago
  It's not just a word; you can look at his record of attempting to overthrow democracy (regarding January 6). If overthrowing democracy is no longer considered extremist, what is?
  - koolba 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - kevingadd 3y ago
      Accusing Pelosi of conduct equivalent to January 6 is blatantly disingenuous, regardless of your political feelings.
      - koolba 3y ago
        [flagged]
        the_gastropod 3y ago
        I don’t recall Pelosi doing that. Have a source?
        koolba 3y ago
        Straight from the horse’s mouth: https://rumble.com/vs7r3v-flashback-pelosi-objects-to-counting-ohio-electoral-votes.html https://rumble.com/vs7r3v-flashback-pelosi-objects-to-counti...
matrix87 3y ago
This is the danger of having shitty gop candidates, then the dems can roll with some uninspiring, corrupt, hillaryesque candidate like Hochul and manage to hold onto power. When one party gets shittier, it allows the other one to get shittier as well
- akira2501 3y ago
  This is the danger of a two party system. They both have an incentive to disenfranchise voters, because our great loophole is that, a "no" vote actually does not count in any meaningful way. So, if you can get 50% to 75% of the eligible population to not vote, then it becomes much easier to maintain power without actually having to take any responsibility for your actions. It should be that if less than 50% of the eligible population turns out, the election is null, and needs to be re-run. We have a right to say "none of the above" and have it stick. The parties need to bear the costs of creating these terrible ballots and candidates that actually appeal to no one.
  - lukevp 3y ago
    Our HOA elections are unable to proceed without a defined quorum, yet the US has no such rules… strange! I think first past the post is a big part of the issue though, and am holding on hope for ranked choice voting to expand
    - Dalewyn 3y ago
      Two things: * Abstention from voting or refusing to vote are a form of political expression. Mandating that everyone must vote is an attack on freedom of speech and expression and will not fly. * Ranked Choice and all the other alternatives often floated run afoul of the most basic criteria: They are complicated. The people either will not or cannot understand and consequently will not tolerate complicated voting schemes. Anything more complicated than "<XYZ> gets my vote." is impractically useless. FPTP remains popular because it is fucking simple enough that anyone can understand it, that it's also generally beneficial to the political parties is merely a side effect.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]