Politics

img_3698.jpg
 

I dunno, government has done a good job saving failing corporations/industries that they selectively decide to bail out...

Not suggesting the government controlling the means of production and pricing of goods is the solution, but is it really that bizarre to any of you that people who have been getting repeatedly fucked over by politicians that cater to special interests and lobbyists are gravitating towards this messaging?
 

LA Times is pulling out all the stops... it means The Fresh Prince has finally arrived!



Spencer Pratt’s Make L.A. Great Again acolytes and their dark vision of the city​


If anyone needs the axiom “Tell me who you’re with, and I’ll tell you who you are” whispered to them every morning as a reminder to do better, it’s Spencer Pratt.

Can someone do that ASAP, por favor?

Instead of holding events around Los Angeles to convince skeptics that his mayoral campaign is for everyone, the former reality television bad boy has bunkered himself inside an echo chamber of sycophants, friendly podcasters and milquetoast media outlets.

Instead of offering an on-ramp to join his pissed-off posse, he calls Mayor Karen Bass “Basura” — trash — and her supporters “Bassholes,” insults that his followers share and like on social media by the thousands.

Instead of enlisting surrogates to push an uplifting vision for L.A.’s future, Pratt elevates those who speak of the city as a West Coast Chernobyl.

He’s running on a message of righteous fury as a survivor of the Palisades fire, in an era when many Angelenos feel pessimistic about what’s next. In recent months, he’s raised funds at a faster pace than Bass and City Councilmember Nithya Raman and delivered a decent debate performance, while holding strong in the polls with two weeks left before the June 2 primary.

Now that Pratt has shown his electoral quest isn’t a farce, it’s time he shows all Angelenos that they can rely on a Republican entertainer with no political experience to head a largely progressive, multicultural metropolis.

Instead, he continues to double down on his doomsday message, exciting the type of people who have been whining that L.A. is a “Lost Cause” since the days of the Watts riots.

They’re the ones depicting Pratt in AI-generated videos as a superhero — Batman, Luke Skywalker and a gladiator, among others — battling Bass, cast as a clown, Darth Vader, the Joker or as herself handing out needles to half-crazed homeless people.

They hound anyone who points out that L.A. is nowhere near as apocalyptic as they make it out to be, when homicides are at their lowest since the 1960s, burglaries are down 30% from last year and unsheltered homelessness has dropped two years in a row. They follow Pratt’s example and call unhoused people with drug problems “zombies” and “bums” while depicting the L.A. of the past as a problem-free playground out of “The Wonderful World of Disney” that derailed once Democrats took over.

Not all of Pratt’s supporters are this obnoxious. But he repeatedly platforms the worst of them and shows no signs of stopping. That nihilism might sell books and gain followers — but it’s no way to prove to Angelenos he’s serious about fixing anything other than his reputation.

Anyone who truly loves the city complains about it even on its best days. They realize L.A. can never be perfect, and that’s what makes it so wonderful. When people try to better their part of paradise, everyone benefits.

But Pratt needs to realize that Angelenos don’t want the city to be torn down, as dissatisfied as they may be. Criticizing the status quo is necessary — but waging a campaign of humiliation, a la Donald Trump, isn’t how to heal L.A. It won’t get large swaths of the city on your side, and it can’t spark the true change City Hall so desperately needs.

Instead, we get people like former Times contributor Meghan Daum — who now calls herself the “official Liberal Elite for Pratt” — gushing in the Atlantic about how her man is the “factory-reset option” to Make L.A. Great Again.

Resetting to when, Meghan? The 2000s of the Great Recession? The 1990s of anti-immigrant policies, the Northridge earthquake and the riots? The 1980s and its out-of-control gangs? The white flight of the 1960s? The 1950s of legal segregation and hideous smog?

Or just to the days when the problems that have long racked L.A. didn’t lap up to the denizens of Prattland — until they did?

These are the people who stayed largely silent as Trump unleashed ICE goons across Los Angeles last summer. They said nothing about housing affordability and violent crime in the years when those issues primarily afflicted South L.A. and the Eastside. They didn’t have a fit about homelessness until encampments spread beyond Skid Row.

Pratt’s loudest fans fundamentally loathe modern-day L.A., and that should chill all other Angelenos. These haters would be his primary constituents and populate his brain trust if he does beat Bass — and if he lets them take over, heaven help the City of Angels.

I’m not discounting Pratt’s chances of winning — he’s too savvy a media pro to fully flop. I knew Bass and Raman would misjudge the anger of Angelenos, fail to capitalize on that rage and find themselves on the defensive against Pratt’s populist push. I also figured he would eschew politeness for the demonizing that has tainted past L.A. elections, from Yorty’s mayoral campaigns of the 1960s to the San Fernando Valley secession movement a generation ago to the continued charges of communism thrown at the democratic socialist wing of the City Council.

I don’t blame Pratt for jumping into the race after his life was upended. And I sure don’t underestimate L.A.’s middle-class malaise, long a reactionary force in city politics with a winning track record that spans decades. But I can’t trust the guy and his crew for just now beginning to say they care about reforming L.A., when all he has fought for is his dark idea of the city.

And if you think L.A. needs a complete makeover, then you probably never really loved it in the first place.

On a recent podcast with Adam Carolla — who has long railed against L.A.’s liberal, multicultural ways and is planning to move to Nevada after his children graduate high school — Pratt huffed that he will “be done with trying to live” in the city if he doesn’t become mayor.

“I’ll go find somewhere that my kids will not have to see naked zombies,” he said, in a comment that was cheered on and seconded by his online army.

Do Angelenos really want to entrust their city to someone who might pick up his ball and quit on a place he professes to love, if he doesn’t get his way?
 
I get a kick out of this part:

On a recent podcast with Adam Carolla — who has long railed against L.A.’s liberal, multicultural ways and is planning to move to Nevada after his children graduate high school — Pratt huffed that he will “be done with trying to live” in the city if he doesn’t become mayor.

“I’ll go find somewhere that my kids will not have to see naked zombies,” he said, in a comment that was cheered on and seconded by his online army.

Do Angelenos really want to entrust their city to someone who might pick up his ball and quit on a place he professes to love, if he doesn’t get his way?

I don't listen to Carolla much these days (he has been ranting non-stop about the same shit for 15+ years, it's extremely repetitive), but to frame his complaints about LA as being against 'multicultural ways' is hilarious.


He typically rants about overregulation (trying to build a house/run a business in LA), grift (billions spent on homelessness and bullet trains, little to nothing to show for it) and traffic (LA has some of the worst traffic on the planet).

When he does bring up race it's either in the context of:

- If you or I tried to sell shots of Don Julio and cans of Modelos outside of the Staples Center or Dodger Stadium without a business permit, we'd be arrested immediately. If a couple illegals set up shop, bike cops drive right past. How do I know this? Because I go to at least 10 Dodgers games a year and see the scene play over and over again.

- Gavin Newsome said that Hispanics and Blacks are unable to obtain checking accounts. When I asked him why, he said, "it just happens to be that way for many marginalized non-White communities". So then I ask him, "what about Asians? Asians aren't White and they seem to be kicking ass?" to which he has no answer.


It is so bizarre how they continuously try to paint common sense observations as racism.
 
I get a kick out of this part:



I don't listen to Carolla much these days (he has been ranting non-stop about the same shit for 15+ years, it's extremely repetitive), but to frame his complaints about LA as being against 'multicultural ways' is hilarious.


He typically rants about overregulation (trying to build a house/run a business in LA), grift (billions spent on homelessness and bullet trains, little to nothing to show for it) and traffic (LA has some of the worst traffic on the planet).

When he does bring up race it's either in the context of:

- If you or I tried to sell shots of Don Julio and cans of Modelos outside of the Staples Center or Dodger Stadium without a business permit, we'd be arrested immediately. If a couple illegals set up shop, bike cops drive right past. How do I know this? Because I go to at least 10 Dodgers games a year and see the scene play over and over again.

- Gavin Newsome said that Hispanics and Blacks are unable to obtain checking accounts. When I asked him why, he said, "it just happens to be that way for many marginalized non-White communities". So then I ask him, "what about Asians? Asians aren't White and they seem to be kicking ass?" to which he has no answer.


It is so bizarre how they continuously try to paint common sense observations as racism.
import the 3rd world, become the 3rd world.
 
Do Angelenos really want to entrust their city to someone who might pick up his ball and quit on a place he professes to love, if he doesn’t get his way?
LMMFAO, this is such a hack and useless take. I'll bet whoever wrote this is either a pear shaped beta simp or one of those triple xl "yass queen" girl boss types. Honestly, it kind of pisses me off.

Since I'm going through my own personal fun and games at the moment, this metaphor feels especially apt: if I'm in a relationship and love someone, does that mean I'm forever bound to them, no matter what they do? Forever obligated to sit through anything with a smile because I love them? That sounds rather abusive and exploitative tbh.

To elaborate further cuz y'all don't have a choice, so fuck you: I'm currently at my wits end in my relationship. I feel like no matter what I try and do, my intent is always assumed to be negative and I find myself constantly defending myself against her interpretations rather than my own actions. As I told her, I can't be the forever villain in your story and if things don't change, I need to leave.

After God only knows how long, I've mentally gotten myself to a point where I actually am starting to believe I'm not a bad person, but a decent dude at heart. Full of flaws, and making plenty of mistakes, but with his heart in the right place. And I can't live in a relationship where out of everyone who knows me, my partner and my love seems to be the one who holds the dimmest opinion of me.

My point is that, no matter how much you love something or someone, there is a natural limit to how far you're able to bend for them before you need to walk away, and I have found mine.

But!

By this authors logic, that would be me "picking up my ball and quitting" because I'm not "getting my way." Fucking clown.
 
LMMFAO, this is such a hack and useless take. I'll bet whoever wrote this is either a pear shaped beta simp or one of those triple xl "yass queen" girl boss types. Honestly, it kind of pisses me off.

Since I'm going through my own personal fun and games at the moment, this metaphor feels especially apt: if I'm in a relationship and love someone, does that mean I'm forever bound to them, no matter what they do? Forever obligated to sit through anything with a smile because I love them? That sounds rather abusive and exploitative tbh.

To elaborate further cuz y'all don't have a choice, so fuck you: I'm currently at my wits end in my relationship. I feel like no matter what I try and do, my intent is always assumed to be negative and I find myself constantly defending myself against her interpretations rather than my own actions. As I told her, I can't be the forever villain in your story and if things don't change, I need to leave.

After God only knows how long, I've mentally gotten myself to a point where I actually am starting to believe I'm not a bad person, but a decent dude at heart. Full of flaws, and making plenty of mistakes, but with his heart in the right place. And I can't live in a relationship where out of everyone who knows me, my partner and my love seems to be the one who holds the dimmest opinion of me.

My point is that, no matter how much you love something or someone, there is a natural limit to how far you're able to bend for them before you need to walk away, and I have found mine.

But!

By this authors logic, that would be me "picking up my ball and quitting" because I'm not "getting my way." Fucking clown.
Read every word. Lots or "R" words in there.

I am sorry you're in that situation.
 
LMMFAO, this is such a hack and useless take. I'll bet whoever wrote this is either a pear shaped beta simp or one of those triple xl "yass queen" girl boss types. Honestly, it kind of pisses me off.

Since I'm going through my own personal fun and games at the moment, this metaphor feels especially apt: if I'm in a relationship and love someone, does that mean I'm forever bound to them, no matter what they do? Forever obligated to sit through anything with a smile because I love them? That sounds rather abusive and exploitative tbh.

To elaborate further cuz y'all don't have a choice, so fuck you: I'm currently at my wits end in my relationship. I feel like no matter what I try and do, my intent is always assumed to be negative and I find myself constantly defending myself against her interpretations rather than my own actions. As I told her, I can't be the forever villain in your story and if things don't change, I need to leave.

After God only knows how long, I've mentally gotten myself to a point where I actually am starting to believe I'm not a bad person, but a decent dude at heart. Full of flaws, and making plenty of mistakes, but with his heart in the right place. And I can't live in a relationship where out of everyone who knows me, my partner and my love seems to be the one who holds the dimmest opinion of me.

My point is that, no matter how much you love something or someone, there is a natural limit to how far you're able to bend for them before you need to walk away, and I have found mine.

But!

By this authors logic, that would be me "picking up my ball and quitting" because I'm not "getting my way." Fucking clown.

The crazy part is that Pratt legit lost his house to a wildfire that was, in part, caused by ineptitude by city officials who have for decades repeatedly bypassed sensible forestry maintenance in the name of 'environmentalism'.

Even if you take the devil's advocate stance of, "wildfires aren't 100% preventable and it's possible that even with hypercompetent leadership that Pratt's house would have burnt down"... the city of LA is making it next to impossible for any re-building to be done.

Carolla (who has a construction background) actually has been putting out interesting vlog's about it in real time, and having conversations with the engineers.. many of whom agree that the building codes and permitting process are nonsensical. There's one home that actually is being rebuilt (a rarity), the city is demanding 10,000 yards of concrete to build massive caissons underneath the structure. It's absolutely insane.


Bass and the city of LA have turned a manageable problem into a dystopian nightmare. The idea that if they are re-elected that someone, who lost their home partially due to their policies, will leave is considered selfish or 'hateful' is laughable.
 
Back
Top