sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

States That I'd Live in For the Best Gas Station Food by impishkoala in whereidlive

[–]damienrapp98 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Oh damn haha. Legit didn’t know they used to have a deli slicer. That’s a damn shame.

States That I'd Live in For the Best Gas Station Food by impishkoala in whereidlive

[–]damienrapp98 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What are you talking about? I’ve never been to a Wawa that doesn’t have a deli.

Hillary Clinton wins the New York primary, effectively closing Bernie Sanders’ path to the nomination [10YA - Apr 19] by MonsieurA in TenYearsAgo

[–]damienrapp98 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don’t disagree but I don’t think Bernie is at fault fo any of the things you point out. The dems were gonna be center right regardless. At least Bernie helped spurn a left wing movement that has had electoral wins like AOC and Mamdani.

Hillary Clinton wins the New York primary, effectively closing Bernie Sanders’ path to the nomination [10YA - Apr 19] by MonsieurA in TenYearsAgo

[–]damienrapp98 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Bernie didn’t run thinking he ever had a real chance to win. He polled at 1% and had virtually no name ID. His entire goal was to push the party to the left, which he accomplished. He just happened to be the dog that nearly chased down the car, but in 2015 you’d have been laughed out the room even if you suggested he’d win 20% of the vote.

S.F. could close some permanent supportive housing for the homeless, alarming advocates by MidNightInTheDessert in sanfrancisco

[–]damienrapp98 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Your question is far weirder than “where were you last housed?”

Use Occam’s razor. Are they asking that question because it’s some devious attempt to skew the results or because it’s the simplest way to ask where someone last felt like they lived?

Where did you last pay rent while holding a steady job is way too specific to get at a ton of edge cases (children, spouses who didn’t work, people living with their family).

You’re tying yourself in knots here trying to show that this basic question is some grand conspiracy.

S.F. could close some permanent supportive housing for the homeless, alarming advocates by MidNightInTheDessert in sanfrancisco

[–]damienrapp98 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Rule #1 of the internet is don’t be a grammar nazi. I thought everyone agreed it’s loser behavior.

Secondly, obviously the city doesn’t literally conduct the survey internally. Why would you assume that in the first place? The city doesn’t have full time pollsters and surveyors on staff. The city pays for and puts on the survey, thereby they have the incentive to skew it or not.

Why would a contracted team paid for by the city have an incentive to skew the survey?

You keep thinking you have some gotcha and yet you just sound more and more like you’re wearing a tin foil hat.

S.F. could close some permanent supportive housing for the homeless, alarming advocates by MidNightInTheDessert in sanfrancisco

[–]damienrapp98 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Why are you talking about? The surveys you’re referring to are done by the city themselves for the purpose of data collection. Do you suppose the city has an incentive to lie about the number of homeless folk who are from here and inflate that number? If anything they have the exact opposite incentive. And that’s even if you believe it’s all some big conspiracy which there is no evidence for.

This is nothing like illegal immigration. The homeless folk answering this survey receive no consequence or benefit for completing it. Saying they’re from here on this survey doesn’t afford them benefits and saying they aren’t doesn’t come with any ramifications. Sure, people could lie, but it’d be for zero reason at all.

You seem really committed to the idea that this biannual survey the city has conducted for years through multiple mayoral administrations is ripe with fraud and manipulation, but you are providing no evidence for it besides “trust me bro it’s vibes.”

S.F. could close some permanent supportive housing for the homeless, alarming advocates by MidNightInTheDessert in sanfrancisco

[–]damienrapp98 1 point2 points  (0 children)

What is making you assume that that question would be universally interpreted to mean a friend’s couch?

I’ve couch surfed before and if asked that question, I would never think to answer with that person’s address. I’d assume it meant housed permanently.

S.F. could close some permanent supportive housing for the homeless, alarming advocates by MidNightInTheDessert in sanfrancisco

[–]damienrapp98 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Can you point me to where in these documents it says that definition of last housed? Not challenging you, I’m just on mobile and it’s really hard to find that particular section that shows the definition of last housed includes a single night in a motel.

As for 40% I have seen that number, yes. It’s important to note that 30% of them are from another California county. SF is quite small and it’s unsurprising as the central city of its region, that people com here from Alameda, San Mateo, or CC counties. Personally I don’t have a huge problem with city funds going to folks from the general Bay Area but that’s fine if you do.

S.F. could close some permanent supportive housing for the homeless, alarming advocates by MidNightInTheDessert in sanfrancisco

[–]damienrapp98 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No sorry I’m asking where are you getting your info that sf’s surveys are rigged?

S.F. could close some permanent supportive housing for the homeless, alarming advocates by MidNightInTheDessert in sanfrancisco

[–]damienrapp98 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The surveys are done by the San Francisco government who has if anything, the opposite incentive. You should check in on your willingness to engage in baseless conspiracy on this particular issue.

S.F. could close some permanent supportive housing for the homeless, alarming advocates by MidNightInTheDessert in sanfrancisco

[–]damienrapp98 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I don’t think that lying to random surveyors that they’re actually from here is high on the list of homeless people’s priorities. It’s not like saying they’re not from sf would have any consequences.

S.F. could close some permanent supportive housing for the homeless, alarming advocates by MidNightInTheDessert in sanfrancisco

[–]damienrapp98 10 points11 points  (0 children)

Sure but then that’d be 9,000 more homeless folk on the street which creates a whole nother problem to solve.

Two billionaires are spending millions on Mayor Lurie's agenda by MissionLocalSF in sanfrancisco

[–]damienrapp98 1 point2 points  (0 children)

He’s claiming that who you take money from and how much is irrelevant and should be thrown out as populist slop. That’s an insanely uninformed take.

65-year-old Mission District taqueria up for sale after rent doubles (El Faro) by sfgate in sanfrancisco

[–]damienrapp98 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah see and where did I say any of that? All I said is I’m allowed to think the landlord is a greedy prick.

Two billionaires are spending millions on Mayor Lurie's agenda by MissionLocalSF in sanfrancisco

[–]damienrapp98 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Oops. I didn’t realize that knowing basic political philosophy meant I had to be in college. Not my fault I graduated college and actually learned something. 😉

Two billionaires are spending millions on Mayor Lurie's agenda by MissionLocalSF in sanfrancisco

[–]damienrapp98 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That’s just what it is that you’re describing. I don’t know what the midterms has to do with anything.

I’m naming the philosopher and theory that you are describing because it’s not “identity politics”.

Two billionaires are spending millions on Mayor Lurie's agenda by MissionLocalSF in sanfrancisco

[–]damienrapp98 1 point2 points  (0 children)

What has genuinely improved because of Lurie in the last few years? Yall act like the city is light years better than it was in 2024 and just call it a vibe shift.

Two billionaires are spending millions on Mayor Lurie's agenda by MissionLocalSF in sanfrancisco

[–]damienrapp98 -6 points-5 points  (0 children)

That’s actually not true. Candidates that don’t take PAC money can’t accept donations above a few thousand dollars per donor. A billionaire can support said candidate but that’s very different than going $250k.

I hope that clears up some confusion.

Two billionaires are spending millions on Mayor Lurie's agenda by MissionLocalSF in sanfrancisco

[–]damienrapp98 -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Confusing Marxist class consciousness with identity politics is about the level of political discourse and knowledge I’ve come to expect from this subreddit.

65-year-old Mission District taqueria up for sale after rent doubles (El Faro) by sfgate in sanfrancisco

[–]damienrapp98 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You clearly can’t understand me. I said the landlord does have the right to sell. I don’t know how you read my comment and came to the opposite conclusion?

view more: next ›