Comments
Please wait...
Comments are closed.
Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.
Editors' Picks
is a proud member of the
media network
media network
All contents © Index Newspapers LLC
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
Appointed by the Council, reelected with incumbent advantage (and no opponent? someone check), no spine, and a total bench warmer who talks out of both sides of her mouth to be sure to appease everyone and bog us down in Seattle Process.
DUMP CLARK.
Murder the mothers of the opposition, their children are little snakes. Let's get to the level of grotesque fear mongering they have in the Middle East.
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2014/07/16/…
Thanks a lot SECB. At least Goldy had the balls to call you on your bullshit endorsement last year. (What happened to that guy?)
But for fuck sake. It's nonsense like this that Holcomb is talking about:
And you know god damned well she used to spout delusional bullshit like that about collectivizing Microsoft and Amazon, etc all the time. Which would be an abject disaster even if you could pull it off and you guys know it. It's too bad nobody at the Stranger confronts that horseshit when you interview her, you'd be doing her a big favor.
Anyway. Sawant realizes she's an actual politician that is actually accountable now. So she keeps her trap mostly shut. But you can see that crazy "collectivize" shit just bubbling underneath the surface.
So if somebody runs against her and actually confronts that delusional nonsense, she will get destroyed in the next election. She'll either have to back away from it - and loose the loony moonie eyed left - or embrace it and lose anybody that actually lives on planet earth.
Therefor I'd rather have that next seat be Holcombe than another developer shill.
It would be ideal to get both. But face it. Sawant is going to be vulnerable.
Hey, Stranger - maybe Holcomb is challenging Sawant because she lives there? I hope the new districts include a residency requirement, or else it was a crappy idea to go yhat way after all.
Does it "rule" that two-thirds of the City Council doesn't need to bother answering my emails because I can't vote for them?
Does it "rule" that I live west of I-5, yet my district includes all Lake Washington-adjacent properties from Laurelhurst to Sand Point Country Club?
where are these hypothetical "leftists" going to go anyway?
I do not however agree that Sawant is opposed to that method of action- her political party is in debt and is hemorrhaging money like there's no tomorrow, and this backs them into a corner where they need to generate revenue to continue to function- this is where the credit stealing and donation mongering come from, not a failure to work with others in good faith.
Complaining about the others not answering your emails makes as much sense as complaining that the people who represent Spokane in the state and US House not answering your email.
If your districts were drawn poorly, that's a legitimate complaint. That does suck.
Currently all nine City Councilmembers are accountable to me (or at least to my vote), and therefore have a vested interest in my concerns. Next year that number will be three, with the other six not giving a flying fuck what my concerns are.
I prefer the current system, and not just because I'm "stuck" on it.
Your local rep is going to be more invested in your neighborhood, especially if you live in an easy to ignore part if town like Bitter Lake. Those people deserved better than they get under an entirely at-large council gives them.
Ever since $15 came into prominence, she has rarely disappointed me as a councilwoman. Plus, she pulls the conversation towards progressive routes; that alone is worth the benefit of any doubt from me.
The bonus of every corporatist internally self-combusting every time they hear her name is just icing on the cake.
I'd LOVE to get both. I like Sawant in there. In spite of her crazy bullshit and populist cult (I abhor populism if it's Tea Party populism of Socialist Populism it always goes bad, always). But because of how the district elections work that probably won't be possible.
You know Big Money is gong to come after Sawant. Hard. She won last time by being Not Richard Conlin. That's why I and most people voted for her. She won't have that luxury this time.
So either we get somebody like Holcomb in there with a shred of integrity... or you get a total business lackey.
Well. Exactly. Here on SLOG to yell at Seattle to all be vegans while sitting home in their aPodments clutching their worn Howard Zinn manifestoes doing the same inert whiney nothing they do every election cycle.
But Sawant still won't want to alienate them if she starts backing away from her crazy economic fantasies. It will be a difficult position for her.
And, of course, I can still do that with district representation. The big difference is only three councilmembers are accountable to me.
(By the way, the two most progressive candidates fighting it out is presumably what The Stranger wanted, since they were so supportive of districts. Surely they weren't so short-sighted that they couldn't see this would be (one of) the likely outcomes from the NIMBY-funded, NIMBY-empowering plan they were cheering on?).
Exactly what I was thinking. How is this not a good thing?
If Ms. Holcomb believes she can be an effective progressive voice on the council, she should run for the at large seat or move to the 5th - that seat is wide open.
Tell that to the people who work in Amazon's warehouses. I'm sure you've seen the articles in Mother Jones and elsewhere. You do know that Boeing admitted that moving production to South Carolina is because of the unions, right? Maybe you don't give a crap about your neighbors, but some of us do. How do you propose to give power back to the people? Corporations aren't people, despite Willard Romney and John Roberts thinking otherwise. How successful is capitalism when, if left unchecked, it just encourages a race to the bottom?
"She's (Sawant) been effective, and she's been a voice for people who otherwise feel as though they've been silenced by the political process."
What? Are you telling me lefties in Seattle feel "silenced"? When the mayor supports 15Now, universal pre-k, maternity leave, higher taxes, and every other progressive program and every election in this city, including this one if it happens, is extreme progressive vs VERY extreme progressive, how the hell could Sawant's kind of people feel "silenced by the process"?
And it should be noted that the GOP usually gets about 20-22% of the vote in Seattle, and libertarians probably get 3-5%. Want to talk about a group that is silenced in this city? Try conservatives and libertarians. This is our city too but thanks to the runoff process we can't even get a token candidate on the ballot for a city position.
But I doubt if we ever did elect a fiscal conservative, which may be possible in the newly created 7th and 1st districts, that Der SStranger would ever say said council person would be "giving a voice to those who feel left out of the process."
Sorry, but when you do something that results in my losing my job, you don't get any support from me.
Would Holcomb vote in favor of campaign finance reform? Maybe, maybe not. A campaign statement, even a very good one, isn't the same as an actual, on-the-record vote. I can't justify voting out someone who is actively working towards fixing the single biggest problem with American politics.
What happened?
Could you please explain the reason you use Pol Pot as a screen name?
Is it meant to be cute in a hipster ironic way?
Showing your sophistication?
(You do know who Pol Pot was, I assume.)
Maybe you'll use Hitler or Stalin next time and be even cuter?
Sawant doesn't do herself in favors, but almost every argument against here is idiotic. It all amounts to the fact that a socialist is actually a socialist. OMG, A SOCIALIST HAS SOCIALIST BELIEFS. HOLY SHIT.
Sawant doesn't do herself any favors, but almost every argument against her here is idiotic. It all amounts to the fact that a socialist is actually a socialist. OMG, A SOCIALIST HAS SOCIALIST BELIEFS. HOLY SHIT. Everyone was perfectly well aware of her rhetoric when she was elected the first time. Why would her supporters suddenly give a shit about videos they already saw during the first campaign? Are there some new videos out there with damning new evidence against her. She's already a known quantity. Most opposition to her seems to be coming from the same people it came from last time, anti-socialists who will never support a socialist candidate anyway. If anything, the fear mongering from that camp probably strengthened her campaign because it was self-evidently knee-jerk reactionary paranoia. Until the worst fears of the anti-15 crowd are realized and small businesses and franchises start dying in record numbers (I'll believe it when I see it), no one is going to care about Sawant's Occupy rhetoric.
I'm against every Seattle politician because NONE of them come even close to reflecting my values. Republicans get 22% or more of the vote in Seattle, but their views are never reflected locally by any politician and they never so much as consider the views of nearly a quarter of the voting public. Neither do my libertarian views. I don't like any of Seattle's politicians. But Sawant advocated something that cost me my job and got it passed, so she's the one I hate the most. Not because of her politics alone they're all essentially socialists, but because she spearheaded an effort that is costing me my job and hurt me directly.
But I do not now and will NEVER live on Capitol Hill (or "hipster hill" as I call it) so Sawant never had my vote to begin with.
Small business =/= Good business
Big business =/= Bad business
Make a note of it.
Let me know when you actually get laid off due to belt-tightening in the wake of a higher minimum wage. Until then, it's a lie to say that; try instead "Sawant advocated something that I think will cost me my job". Remember, your opinions are not necessarily reality.
STFU and I'll say it again:
Could you please explain the reason you use Pol Pot as a screen name?
Is it meant to be cute in a hipster ironic way?
Showing your sophistication?
(You do know who Pol Pot was, I assume.)
Maybe you'll use Hitler or Stalin next time and be even cuter?
Why is it so hard for you people to understand how a lease works? My job signed a lease the expires in December 2015. My boss TOLD US ALL AT A MEETING that she's not renewing the lease. She was nice enough to give us over a year's warning, but still, that's a job I'm losing. And she said, point blank, the new minimum wage has a big part of it.
So people should only wait until they're handed a pink slip? So I guess you're angry at the Stranger for talking about Microsoft layoffs several days before they happened?
If someone had "Bush lover" or "Romney Army" as a screen name, no one on Der SSstranger would let them live it down, even if it was ironic (Bush is only slightly less popular than Pol Pot)
And yes, there are people in America who like Pol Pot...mostly white, upperclass champagne socialists, of course: http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editori…
I am asking a question of Pol Pot, not you.
So kindly cease blathering.
Have you considered the outlandish possibility that your employer is perhaps relocating rather than closing up shop? And even if your boss has said explicitly that all of you are getting laid off, the correct phrasing is "this law will cost me my job", future tense.
@57: There were left-wing communists in America who supported the Khmer Rouge. There were right-wing nationalists in America who supported Hitler.
@58: "Hey @55
I am asking a question of Pol Pot, not you.
So kindly cease blathering."
Let's look at post #55: "54:..."
Okay, what was Jizzlobber replying to of post #54?
"@47
STFU and I'll say it again:"
Okay, who posted #47, which caution&daring replied to in #54? None other than Jizzlobber. So yes, I'd say that caution&daring DID directly ask a question of Jizzlobber. Q.E.D. motherfucker.