Kshama Sawant Is Running for City Council Again

Comments

1

A large contingent of the working class no longer supports Sawant because of her bullshit. She's toast.

2

Awesome, I'm a socialist and can't wait to vote for someone else.

3

Looking forward to voting against her!

4

@1:

Somehow I'm just not picturing an anonymous troll (especially one so cowardly as to immediately delete their account after commenting) as being the duly-appointed spokesperson for the entirety of Seattle's working class - or is this one of those "some people say, or so I've heard" type pronouncements?

5

@1 & @3 See a picture of a brown-skinned woman and rush to make their bigotry as plain as can be. MAGA, folks.

6

Of course she is. Once you get used to having power over others its hard to give up...

7

Like a lot of her record, but she is wildly off-putting. The SA stuff is a hard pill to swallow, as we like to believe that we on the left hold ourselves to a highly level of transparency and accountability to voters. I find the 'I don't need to disclose anything because of my voting record' argument to be childish and disingenuous at best. If a city council member was admittedly taking dictation from Amazon, would that be OK, even if we liked the way they voted?

9

@5 Agree. Remember everything is racism (unless it's sexism)

10

Question - Why are there quotes around “one of Seattle’s colleges”?

Is this because they changed the name from the CC that it was and assumedly still is, a display of disdain for the people in an article covering the purported representative of their party, or something else?

Her “referendum” stance is noise. A vote for her does not provide ownership of anything. Owning stuff entails ownership of stuff.

5 where do I attain this wondrous power of divinity?

11

@8- no, no it is not. While it may be hard to believe, WA state has some of the lowest property taxes in the country. The average effective rate in King County- the state's most expensive market (effective rate=amount that was actually paid) was 0.99%. My family back in the midwest actually pay about double what I do, and their homes are worth considerably less.

12

Eh typo she’s not people’s party I conflate the two.

Waiting for mom and dad to die 4 funds party.

13

"But she wanted to emphasize that SA doesn't even need to be transparent because they're always working for the working people and never not working for the working people."

And the second they (again) do something that demands accountability, don't expect this position to change. Just our version of Chavezism in the making.

14

I don't see how anyone could have a problem with an elected official that is complete beholden to an opaque, unelected group of people who refuse any kind of accountability or transparency.

15

Problem I have here is that she sees herself as 'accountable to the movement' as opposed to accountable to her constituents. She might have a bit more of a leg to stand on with this stuff if she was a council member at large but she represents a specific district and I'm not terribly convinced that she is all that interested in doing all the tedious things that being an effective representative entails. I will be taking a serious look at whoever is running against her this time around.

16

Sawant has been more of a showboater and egoist than anything else. Seattle could use more AOC-type folks and less seeking more notoriety than they can find teaching community college classes.

17

9 - For you it is simple stupidity.

19

@5- regardless of how ridiculous their platform, not voting for a POC makes you racist. Got it.

20

I will vote against her. I will donate my time and money to whoever challenges her.

21

I only like Sawant for the pants-pooping fits she induces in the Butthurt Broflake Brigade. So I predict with, say, 73% certainty, despite the massive panic campaign against her, she will once again be re-elected. And I will laugh and laugh and laugh.

22

@17 - So is your point that all people that are opposed to Sawant are racist, even if they vote for Beto? Also name one thing you were referencing in your first response that was bigoted.

23

As an actual district 3 resident, I’m looking forward to voting for her again, despite all the hate from grumpy old white dudes in blog comment sections. She’s not perfect, but neoliberalism has failed, and she’s still better than the rest of the council.

24

@23 As a grumpy white dude, I'm going to vote for the Hispanic gay guy that entered the country illegally. White privilege!

26

@25 Amazon tech bros are 'working people'?

Scandinavia: total failure.

Thanks, I will just say no to your stupid ideas.

27

Amazon tech bros = construction workers?

28

I could not be more excited for Kshama to run again! as a queer person, I have seen her office continually fighting for the LGBTQ community!!! the queer community needs affordable housing! We need housing now!! and Kshama's office and the movements that have worked with her have been the strongest fighters for affordable housing in Seattle's hands down!!! GO TEAM SAWANT!!!

29

Or you could vote for the actual LGBTQ candidate. Not someone who has lived her full life flaunting her straight privilege.

30

So basically CM Sawant claims all the other CM amd candidates are controlled by a group of influencers(ie the wealthy), but when its been explicitly shown that her vote and staff actually works s controlled by a group of influencers CM response is “its om, they’re the good group”....

If CM Sawant is going to be a puppet for the SA she could at least stop calling her co-workers puppets.

31

Ugh i meant “its ok” sorry for the typo

32

@28- as a gay man I found it repulsive that she hijacked the Pulse memorial to talk about rent control.

33

I have never seen any honest accounting of the following factors:

New buildings are inherently more expensive to live in than older buildings.
The unending influx of jobs and people causes a requirement for more rental units.
There is a very visible, not-wish-away-able confluence of interest between those calling for more “affordable housing” (fancy new places to live in on the cheap, generally due to feeling slighted after all of the study, but running hand-in-hand with immigrants) and property developers.
Those calling for “affordable housing” (see above) are absolutely convinced that the least costly unsubsidised method of living in this city(renting a portion of one of these houses, either by yourself or with others) is the evil capitalist scum holding them down.

4a. I’m sure older apartment units / renting an older apartment with friends is just as feasible as 4, but emphasis on older / preexisting.

While the Reds bleat on, many of them side with property developers, lining the developers’ pockets and pricing regular folk out the city, all the while directing vitriol at those of us who have no interest in either paying more or accepting handouts.

Where do the paths of “affordable housing” advocates and property developers diverge?

Rent control? Only then?

34

That was formatted, once upon a time.

35

@5, Nice try, dipshit. I voted for Sawant the last time around, mostly because of her involvement in the fight for $15.

Since then, she has shown herself to be more interested in building her public brand than representing her constituents. When I found out that the person I elected wasn't the one making decisions on how to vote, it crossed a line for me.

I now regard her as a fraud. But sure, anyone who doesn't rush to vote for a brown-skinned woman—no matter how terrible that brown-skinned woman might be as a councilmember—is racist. Probably alt-right, too. Shit, maybe even a Nazi!

UR SMRT.

36

The lady doesn’t even tip well. It’s notorious. How’s she working for us again?

38

Wow, lots of trolls out today. The reality is Kshama has huge support in her district and across the city (it's obvious when you see her at big public events like the MLK Day march last weekend- she and her staff were surrounded by fans whenever I walked passed). She's been the only one in City Hall to do anything about popular issues like saving the small businesses on 23rd, saving the Showbox, fighting gentrification, taxing Amazon, etc. and she brings more ordinary people into City Hall to participate in the political process than any councilmember ever, I'd guess. Go Kshama, ignore the trolls, we're with you!!

39

This time will be different. Assuming she wins the primary, which her name recognition alone will likely assure, her opponent will be widely supported in the district. Some will vote for her but more will vote for anyone but her. The cash will flow freely from the city at large. Her true believers will rant and bluster. But she is widely reviled by the rest. Her record speaks for itself.

40

this is some of the most cynical reporting i've ever seen. Kshama has done more for the district in her years on City Council than most other councilmembers will do in their lifetimes. I find the obsession with her connection to SA kind of weird; considering everyone else on council is beholden to corporate money. Where's the democracy in that? I'm psyched about her running again and hope she wins; in my view she's proved her determination to fight for us over and over again.

41

@37 Those building a tower for Amazon might however be so attired. I know this small fact has absolutely nothing to do with their animus towards the head tax though.

42

The council woman who supported taxing Amazon the same per employee Head Tax that Dicks burgers would have to pay despite the profits of Amazon being slightly higher than Dicks...
Oh yea, and the time she called two Police Officers cold blooded murderers before any evidence was known to anyone...
There's a reason she didn't run for a city-wide council seat or Mayor, her small but vocal minority of supporters can't sustain her in the long run. Good luck Sawant, as an incompetent socialist, you're going to need it.

44

Also its worth noting that the law suits against CM Sawant for slander has cost the city more than the annual budget for dog parks.

46

I'll vote for a Communist over my own dead body. Hard pass. Beto Yarce for City Council.

47

Kshama Sawant is intelligent, capable, and occasionally innovative and brave. She is also dogmatic, hypocritical, and insufferably self-important. Ultimately, as many in this comment section have noted, she's too much about building her own brand; she's overrated and overhyped. I'm all for giving Beto a chance--especially as his advocacy of entrepreneurship healthfully challenges the rigid sanctimony of Sawant's class-defined rhetoric. And, Rich: how about at least trying to write a balanced piece? Sawant's record is very spotty--some bright ideas and legislative wins mixed in with poorly crafted proposals, absenteeism, inaccessibility, numerous ethics violations, lack of fiscal transparency, and crass self-promotion. Ultimately, she spouts a formula, some of which is true and much of which is simplistic and unfair. Dogma is not a synonym of principle. If Kshama Sawant wins, it won't be a tragedy--but I'm rooting for Beto.

48

@45 Let's turn that around Ace: fuck all the people cast out on the street because Amazon has driven up the cost of living to stratospheric levels while being rather parsimonious in the area of giving back to community...huh?

'Working people'. Disingenuous at best. All 'working people' were against taxing Amazon? Or just the ones who had a gun to their heads?

49

@25, medicare, social security, the GI bill are all successful and popular socialist programs that not only have not failed, but were successful at allowing seniors to retire and care for themselves (medicare and ss), or helped build the american middle class (gi bill). I regularly drive on interstate highways that were built at a time when the top marginal tax rates were higher than what AOC is proposing. Etc. You don't know what you're talking about.

51

@50 Some impressive 'facts' there! Is all insurance a 'ponzi scheme'?

53

@52 Come on buddy, insurance is a 'ponzi scheme'? I thought you were a sharp one. This sort of Fox News talking point is pretty lazy ass. MAGA hat cutting off the circulation to your brain?

54

"Socialism has failed every single time it has ever been implemented on a national scale. Just say no to stupid ideas."

This statement is so laughably false and ignorant of reality but it's predictable given the barrel scraping education in the US.

Let's see: France, Germany, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, The Netherlands, The UK, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, and China...

All doing pretty okay with one degree or another of forms of socialism.

Just like here in America. IE: The US Military being the world largest socialist institution.

56

"I wouldn't consider the GI bill a socialist program"

HAHAHA.

This is your problem. See, you are dumb. All you know is logical fallacies. Like this last "No True Scotsman" fallacy. The GI Bill IS a socialist program. As is the entire US Military. This is just a simple fact. What you "consider" is irrelevant.

But see you are so dumb you don't know what is or isn't a logical fallacy because they appeal so deeply to your emotional bias. So that is all you apply. But facts are pesky. the exist outside what you "consider."

Also. The dumbest people on earth can't admit when they are wrong. It's symptom of the dumbness. If you want to recover from being dumb know it's okay to admit when you're wrong.

Capitalism works fantastically for generating wealth and certain kinds of profit motive innovation. But Capitalism is awful at distributing wealth. And it's really awful at long term social investments where no immediate profit is perfectly tangible but never less the less real. Healthcare. Environmental protection. Defense. Pure research science. Socialism does these things fantastically. This is why all successful modern states are hybrids of the two forms of political and economic strategies and communities. this is another pesky fact. Regardless of what Fox, Brietbart, Ayn Rand and talk radio tell you.

58

@55

You know how many times this myth of the insolvency of social security has been debunked?

How about here by that notorious communist Certified Financial Planner and Wall Street investor Matthew Frankel at the socialist hell hole Motely Fool:

https://www.fool.com/retirement/2017/07/24/5-social-security-myths-debunked.aspx

"Myth 1: Social Security is broke
Don't let anyone tell you that Social Security is broke. In fact, Social Security has $2.85 trillion in reserves and ran a $35 billion surplus in 2016. What's more, the surplus is expected to continue to build the reserves for another five years."

He goes on to say the fund is only projected to be depleted y 2034 IF there are no on-going adjustments to it.

"...the incoming payroll taxes will be enough to cover 77% of promised benefits. So as a worst-case scenario, we're talking about a 23% across-the-board cut, not elimination of the program, unless Congress for some reason decides to abolish the payroll tax."

"Myth 5: Social Security is beyond repair
This is 100% false. In fact, there are plenty of options to fix Social Security. Here are examples of three different ways we could fix the program for good right now. Most take the form of either tax increases or benefit cuts, and the vast majority of Americans say they would gladly pay higher Social Security taxes if it ensured the program would survive for the long term.

The problem is that Congress will need to agree on any long-term solution, and that's easier said than done. The good news is that we have 17 years until we'll be forced to do something. However, the longer we wait to fix the problem, the more painful the potential solution is likely to be."

Anything else you want to be wrong about today?

59

@54 - name a bunch of market economies and then tell me that socialism works. Brilliant!

Christ are you really this dumb?

You decried how socialism "doesn't work" without even understanding what it is. It's no the same as Marxism or communism, right? You know that? Right? You know that "Socialism" isn't an all or nothing policy, right? No. Of course you don't.

Everyone of those countries named are MORE socialized than the US and doing just fine.

The fact is nobody is proposing to completely ditch market economies. The point is Market economies and socialistic institutions can be hybridized together.

60

Anything that is subsidized through taxation can be considered socialism. I'm just using the word in the same fashion it's used by people who tend to think like you -- the government takes our money and redistributes it to others. I learned this from Michelle Malkin (whatever happened to her btw?). The way the word was bandied about during the obamacare debate, any program the government touches is considered socialism by large majorities of conservatives. Socialism is a pejorative people use when they don't like the way their tax dollars are being spent.

If people know a program is going to fail and choose to do nothing about it, the failure is on the heads of the people who have the means to fix it but choose not to. People have been talking about social security insolvency since at least the clinton administration. Of course they all know they will be dead before the shit hits the fan anyway so instead they do nothing and use the impending failure of social security to rile up their voters.

61

@55 Oh the system would be quite sustainable with a few minor tweaks. Like getting rid of the ludicrous cap that basically serves as a massive tax giveaway to the wealthy. Of course nitwits like yourself think such tax giveaways are sacrosanct, and if the elderly end up dying on the streets from preventable diseases, hey tough luck. Free market in action! Population of those paying into the system declining? Obvious genius solution: build the wall!

64

Well. I shouldn't say "no one" is proposing to ditch market economies entirely. But very few people. Certainly not Democratic Socialists. There are a few die-hard Marxists out there. But most of them understand Marx about as well as you do.

The fact remains "socialism" just like capitalism works as well as you want it to and requires the same sorts of of oversight, adjustments and transparency that well functioning market require.

65

@62 Who promised that tax rates would not go up? Who is 'stealing' your benefits? Most people get more out of SS than they ever paid in. This works (or worked) because there were enough people paying in, kind of like how insurance companies can pay claims because a larger number of people are paying premiums than are making claims. Of course if you deplorables got the America of your dreams, one that contains old white people and basically no one else, it sure as hell would not be sustainable.

66

@62 I proved you right? You can't even postulate a cohesive argument how can you be "right?"

You're fundamental premise has already been disproven by multiple posters you simply refuse to admit it.

Here. let me help you. What you meant to say was "centrally planned economies rarely last." Which is true. or. "Abolishing private property doesn't work." Which is true.

There. Does that help? But neither of those things are "socialism."

You keep throwing the term around as a catch all and rhetorical cudgel. But you don't understand what it implies. You clearly don't understand the wide variety of economic and political mechanisms possibly described by the term "socialism."

To you it's just some emotional response. A boogie man. But the simply fact is your whole life you have benefited from socialism. As unfortunate as that is for the rest of us.

67

So “government” has come to mean “socialism”?

What are government functions that are not socialism?

Really. If the military is a product of socialism, is the Pentagon one as well?

If any pooling of funds whatsoever is going to be called socialism, well, I better dig a hole and start hiding money in it.

68

@65 It's typical.

Americans have grown up with obscene levels of unrecognized entitlement. I grew up overseas. Largely in developing nations. People in America have no idea what their comfy invisible socialism has gifted to them.

This David character has sucked from the teat of the state his whole life and doesn't even know it: Public schools; Transportation infrastructure; Government secured insurance; Public lands; Electrical grids; Telecommunications infrastructure; Sanitation; Food safety and security; Agricultural regulation; on and on. All paid for by other people long before he was a candy bar in his fathers back pocket.

And now that it's his turn to kick a few shekels he squeals like a selfish little baby.

He should be thankful. Grateful. But no. Of course not.

69

@67 YES! Modern governments are essentially "socialistic." As opposed to Feudal or purely Market. You get it!

The fact you are just know realizing this fact is a step the right direction!

70

Your stance is that colonialism is socialism.

Good night.

72

I have to say—capitalism and democracy are basically the same thing. You choose who you vote for, just like you choose what you buy and who you buy it from. It’s all a free market. If there is a demand, there will be a supplier. And if there isn’t, you always have the option of being one.

73

Fuck Sawant and her rent control bullshit. What we need is a tax on empty land square footage (yards, parking lots, etc.) which rises dramatically the closer it is to transit. That would encourage density. Nobody will build shit with rent control - there’s no profit in it and we don’t live in some commie utopia. Also no more wasting money on bike lanes. Just close some streets to cars during rush hour. Fuck anybody that drives a car. We wasted billions on a useless tunnel for those selfish fucks.

74

Lol this comment thread sure devolved...

I was just going to say I'm excited to be able to vote for someone with an ACTUAL SPINE, unlike 11 of the 13 city council people who just totally rolled over to Jeff Bezos and reversed something the head tax, something that would ACTUALLY create more affordable housing. So Beto's plan for affordable housing is...what exactly? Beg Jeff Bezos to just "do the right thing" and then he will do it? Come on!

I've been renovicted twice, as have many of my friends. Clearly we need someone who will actually stand up to fight for affordable housing. And I can't think of anybody more up for that than Sawant.

76

To be fair Stalin never gave up power either

77

I would take "socialists" more seriously if more of them actually knew what socialism fucking was.

At least Sawant actually seems to understand what socialism is with her "let's steal private property and use it to make public busses" nonsense.

It really makes you wonder why when you ask for countries where socialism was a success, you always get a list of capitalist countries. When you ask for successful socialist systems, you only ever get lists of ones which are driven by capitalist production and the taxation of capital producers. But they never see the irony.

They never see it.

80

We've had Sawant in power for years and what do we have to show?
+Increased Crime--highest property crime in the nation
+Increased Homelessness
+Increased filth and trash
Sawant has been in power for years, and what do we have to show:
+Increased rents and cost of housing
+Increased traffic (voted worst and most expensive in the US)
+Increased shootings
+Increased rents and cost of living
+Increased other Taxes--soda, etc
+Increased car tabs
+Increased invasion of privacy--Apt Inspection Prgm allows City to inspect your apt w/o a search warrant
+Increased drug use, dealing, and needles
+Increased congestion--despite billions spent
+Increased utility prices (Water is Seattle costs 3X more than Phoenix)
+Increased sewage spills into Puget Sound
+Increased road shrinkage
+Increased bike lanes
+Increased unfunded Pension obligations (Billions of $$$ not in the pension fund—just like Detroit)

It's time to elect someone that can be effective.