There's a reason why Democrats are losing support left and right in the while country.
They're simply Republican light.
this post was submitted on 31 May 2025
306 points (98.1% liked)
A Boring Dystopia
12315 readers
757 users here now
Pictures, Videos, Articles showing just how boring it is to live in a dystopic society, or with signs of a dystopic society.
Rules (Subject to Change)
--Be a Decent Human Being
--Posting news articles: include the source name and exact title from article in your post title
--If a picture is just a screenshot of an article, link the article
--If a video's content isn't clear from title, write a short summary so people know what it's about.
--Posts must have something to do with the topic
--Zero tolerance for Racism/Sexism/Ableism/etc.
--No NSFW content
--Abide by the rules of lemmy.world
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
CO resident here:
Polis didn't veto the bill because he wanted to have rent raised in Colorado, or make collusion legal and anti-trust illegal, he vetoed the bill because what it was making illegal is already illegal here. Passing this new law would have done nothing except increase the number of laws on the books. Over the last few years Polis has made it a priority to remove superfluous laws from the books.
If this is causing Democrats to lose support, it's not because of the policy, it's because of the headline-only-reactions and refusal of so many voters to actually think about what it is they're presented with
So a law already exists, but it clearly isn't being enforced, so they passed a new one with teeth. But this DINO wants the old, weak law to supercede the new, useful law, and the corp that it was meant to stop congratulates him.
When people say both sides are the same, this is what they mean.
Democrats have always been like that so DINO doesn't make sense. Progressive is the only label that aligns with good politics these days
And when Polis vetoed a act that would have removed a superfluous block on unionization, did that also help make the law all smooth and happy?
There's enough nuance to that veto I disagree on that being superfluous a law existing on the books. It takes 50% of employees to vote in favor of forming a union. That part was not going to change under that bill. The repeal (and it's subsequent veto) was entirely on the vote threshold to allow a union to charge all employees union dues regardless of membership status.
Now there's is an argument that the law indirectly disincentives unions since in combination with another law unions in CO must act on behalf of all employees, regardless of membership status, so a union must do more work on less money since 50% of employees are needed to create a union for 100% of employees, but 75% of employees are needed to force all 100% of employees to pay for that extra representation. Most people if given the opportunity will act selfishly and won't join the union and still reap the benefits. In that event, it's pretty likely a union wouldn't have the funds to perform necessary negotiations and representation ultimately leading the union to fail.
But that's a set of laws and human behavior acting in concert, not a single law that on its own is entirely captured by another.
That law doesn't strike you as messy, anti-union, and convoluted? As opposed to merely having the union gain that power when the employees vote to unionize? Are we afraid that without that law, we'll see the return of the 1930s unions that fought guerilla wars in southern Colorado to take over company towns?
To summarize your comment.
Had the bill passed nothing would have changed in Colorado. The bill was simply virtue signalling and grandstanding, taking no real action to the very real problem of rental prices in Colorado.
My criticism of the original comment is that this is not an instance of Democratic policy that is making people distance themselves from the party. If a person does distance themself from the party over an action like this, they did it because of the headline and how that headline made them feel in the moment
The national lawsuit against RealPage was filed in January. It may be years before that lawsuit resolves and there's no guarantee that RealPage will be found liable. In the meantime, "anticompetitive pricing costs renters in algorithm-utilizing buildings an average of $70 a month". Does that not warrant prompt action even if it might merely help millions of people on a 2-year timeframe?
I mean, in this case wasn't it clear it was the headline that was wrong?
Do you think we can fix "headline only reactions" amongst voters, or do you think we should do things that make good headlines regardless of if it increases the number of laws, a metric absolutely nobody cares about?
It's almost as if voters are human and we should care about what they think, rather than expect every voter to think like you do.
Fixing headline only reactions requires people to use critical thinking skills and to understand that stories have nuance and can't be boiled down to just a few words. That requires education which this country seems hellbent on eliminating
Having an abundance of laws on the books leads to real government inefficiencies and I think those are worth putting time and effort into eliminating. I know I used a lot of the same words as he who should actually get deported, so I feel it necessary to clarify that I do not agree at all with what him and the rest of administration is claiming to be making the government more efficient.
What I want is for people to actually read and think, even if it differs from my own thoughts. The whole reason I made my original comment is that the headline and reactions in this thread frame Polis as if he went out of his way to make collusion legal for land lords, and if people read the article and looked at Polis's track record that is objectively not what he did
So that's a no. You spent a lot of words to avoid saying the word no, but you seem to understand we cannot fix that problem in the short term.
So why do you insist on acting as if we have an informed electorate that will weigh their options and come to an informed decision? At what point do Democrats have to stop the wishful thinking and join us in reality?
If it helps, I'd like the same thing. But what we want doesn't matter. Winning elections does.
And for the record, I and a lot of other people read the article. Pretending 'everyone who comes to a different conclusion than you did is uninformed' is condescending. We simply choose to give credence to the activists that work for consumers over another corporate backed Democrat. "There are too many regulations on the books" is a right wing talking point and a nonsense excuse.
“This veto sends the devastating message that corporate landlords can keep using secret price-fixing algorithms to take extra rent from people who have the least,”
Edit: Open Secrets says the Real Estate industry is #2 in donations to Gov. Polis at $12,000.
I didn't use the word no because I felt my answer needed more explanation. Short term no, long term yes with a ton of caveats.
There's a difference between being uninformed and wilfully ignorant. Blasting politicians for there actions based on a headline is wilfully ignorant and yeah I'll call them fucking morons. And on a post about an article that people clearly didn't read, I'm inclined to call that out.
As for your reality, what's better? Willingly lie and manipulate the electorate expecting them to be too dumb or stupid to notice, manufacturer headlines, fabricate a whole new reality just to achieve political victory? I despise the republican party because that's exactly what they do
Have you read Colorado legislation? I haven't gotten through all of it, but there's a lot of stuff in there, some of it even contradictory or tied to things that have been obsolete for a hundred years. There's absolutely value in a system, government or otherwise, that attempts to minimize active rules and regulations, so I wildly disagree with your notion that minimizing regulations is a nonsense excuse. Regardless of its association of some talking head on Fox talking about the eViL FedERaL GuvMenT
Yup, if it doesn't make people upset they don't share it and ads don't get viewed.
If it already existed, and actually worked, a second law would change nothing ... No reason to veto ... So your analysis must be wrong. Sorry!
Haven't heard very many good takes from this guy lately. Seems he's kinda fucking over his whole state. Was he always this bad?
i played league of legends with him when he was a representative as part of his outreach to constituents. he has taken a hard billionaire turn as his net worth is approaching 0.5 billion. it is actually really sickening seeing him change like this, i used to be the biggest fan of Gay Nerd Governor.
Colorado has effectively become a joke of a state where there are only two groups of people: peons who live here at the behest of major companies in workforce housing, and people who can afford a $1M minimum for starter homes in the middle of nowhere. Even in bedroom communities and small towns without real stores or services nearby, little bungalows go for $1M and vacant quarter acre lots go for $200k.
Sad as it may be, Colorado’s governor has no point in being a man of the people. There arent really normal people left here to be a champion of anyways. Except maybe some of the plains towns where they will hate the governor for not making this place identical to Texas anyways
I love being a resident of such a beautiful state, but its just a fools errand to think you will be here long term if you are a normal person on a less than 6 figure income
We had a burrito place open up nearby that does "Colorado style" smothered burritos. They suck, and people left reviews about how he is fucking up the historic district of our town with his overkill flags and his really shitty food. He didn't like that, and is actively harassing people who leave bad comments on his business. Dude got real mean real fast when he got called out, I wonder if it's just a Colorado thing at this point to be a prick.
Any burrito that sucks is not a true Coloradan style burrito. Burritos are like the premiere food item of Colorado as far as general quality goes
Odds are the guy is not a Coloradan. There arent many actual Coloradans. Colorado has never had more natives than immigrants at any point in its entire history as a state. Although the few “native” coloradans do tend to be insufferably hoity toity about being from Colorado
This makes me sad, from someone who was planning to move to your state.
Colorado is dope don't listen to their negativity. They're over exaggerating. Def not perfect but it's better than so many other places.
Yeah not going be chased away. I got plans.
no clue what this dude is talking about, recommends Kansas over Colorado? As someone who has lived in both states, Kansas can go die in a fire.
I know people who live there and I remember guy bragging and begging me to move to the area because he had no local friends. After showing me cheap housing in the area, he couldn't show me any jobs. Plus I been through the state. Is miles of flat nothing.
I want to be in the mountains dude trying send me to flat places or deserts like WTH.
Honestly if you love Colorado its worth considering moving to Kansas or New Mexico, in my opinion. Better to live a normal life within a spitting distance of the mountains than it is to try and make it living in the hellish economic environment of the mountains themselves. All the good aspects of living in the mountains are basically unavailable to you unless you are a millionaire.
So many people working three jobs to stay afloat out here, there is no time to have any quality of life
I live in Oklahoma, Kansas or New Mexico wouldn't be any better. I was thinking of moving to Colorado and live in a camper until I built of the funds to buy and off grid property. I own my home in Oklahoma (its not much we got lucky and bought it in 2018) but I hate it here but love mountains and enjoy my time I spend there. I been to Yellowstone three times and would to live near there but jobs are not plentiful and there spots that have nothing for hundreds of miles.
I get what you mean. Tbf at least they do have their own mountains in New Mexico, but I imagine living in them might as well be as expensive as Colorado. But you could probably live closer to the mountains in NM for a reasonable price, and be closer than OK is to the Rockies in CO.
Southern Colorado appeals to me but its just insanely priced out. Even houses in Lamar, nowehere near the mountains, go for well beyond what you would pay to live in Kansas 50 miles away
Thank you for advice but fucking not moving Kansas nor New Mexico. Would hate living there more than Oklahoma. I want to be near Yellowstone both those states don't do that and Kansas there nothing there.
Is there a reason you dont want to live in Wyoming? Wyoming is more reasonable to try and live in than Colorado, as is Montana (although only slightly less so in MT)
No Besides the fact nothing there doubt job market be all that great. Beyond that I wouldn't mind it. Not sure about the cold though.
Was he any good?
yeah he was legitimately a good team player, he played maokai
Who did he play and was he shit?
Tragically, he was a competent maokai support (we had a Rammus who was main tanking)
He's a businessman a heart. He's not a true progressive. He made his money with an online flower business.
Actually he used to be anti-vax. He might still be actually, and maybe he just had someone close to him tell him to not talk about it in covid and hr had the sense to listen.
So maybe he's better than before?
Probably schmoozing the orange overlord
It’s sad to see so many politicians blatantly bought by lobbyists. Their job is to serve the people, not screw them over…
Not sure it's lobbyists. Maybe actual bribes, or just not wanting this for personal gain later, but he can't be re-elected. His second term for Governor ends with the 2026 election. Lobbying would imply he was taking money for his election campaign but there won't be one for him unless maybe he's running for a seat in the legislature?
Campaigning for a cushy job after he leaves office is also called "lobbying" because "bribery" is only when you hand a politician a bag with a big dollar sign on it and explicitly say "This is a bribe to do a crime for me".