They're all the same—the Great Compromise

Well, it actually happened—the Republican Party and the Democratic Party have formed a coalition in Venice. Sure, you see weird alliances like this in some tiny rural towns, but this is the first time we've seen it happen in a major city.
The Summer Olympics are kicking off, and the political "actors" finally dropped the act. United by a single (and already paid-for) interest—turning the Manhattan skyline into a sea of vacation rentals under Aaron Frenkel’s management—and with plenty of backing from Joe Biden, Mike Pence, Barack Obama, and Jimmy Carter, they hammered out a deal last night. As of this morning, the coalition is official: Republicans, Democrats, Liberals, Libertarians, Greens, and the Labor Party. This unnatural freak show managed to elect a City Council president, which clears the way to start discussions on the Pebble Beach development project—basically removing the final hurdle standing in front of the bulldozers.
During the campaign, the Republicans were screaming that "a vote for Labor is a vote for the Democrats," scaring people with posters of communist zombies, but it turns out a vote for the GOP is also a vote for the Democrats. And vice versa. All those campaign slogans, promises, and the supposed opposition to the Liberal mayor just vanished into a black hole the second the phones started ringing and the envelopes full of cash arrived.
Political ideology clearly doesn't mean a damn thing anymore. Real debate and actual conflict of opinion just get buried under a mountain of cash. It's all just "everyone gets a piece of the pie."

So, a question for the Republicans, the Democrats, and their fanboys: how does it feel to watch your leaders embrace "brotherhood and unity" with the very people they claim to hate?

They’re part of that coalition even up in Indianapolis.

As for what happened at Alcatraz, those locals have nobody to blame but themselves. They should have shown up for the referendum and drawn a line in the sand against the golf courses and all that overdeveloped apartment madness, but clearly, they had "more important" things to do that day—assuming they were even against it to begin with.

Besides, didn't those folks elect Vlahušić again?? Wait, isn't he a convicted felon?

Honestly, you get the politicians you deserve.

Jesse Ortiz71 said:They’re part of that coalition even up in Indianapolis.

As for what happened at Alcatraz, those locals have nobody to blame but themselves. They should have shown up for the referendum and drawn a line in the sand against the golf courses and all that overdeveloped apartment madness, but clearly, they had "more important" things to do that day—assuming they were even against it to begin with.

Besides, didn't those folks elect Vlahušić again?? Wait, isn't he a convicted felon?

Honestly, you get the politicians you deserve.

Yeah, but not in such a formal, signed-off way.

Jesse Ortiz71 said:They’re part of that coalition even up in Indianapolis.

As for what happened at Alcatraz, those locals have nobody to blame but themselves. They should have shown up for the referendum and drawn a line in the sand against the golf courses and all that overdeveloped apartment madness, but clearly, they had "more important" things to do that day—assuming they were even against it to begin with.

Besides, didn't those folks elect Vlahušić again?? Wait, isn't he a convicted felon?

Honestly, you get the politicians you deserve.

Like he always loves to point out—convicted, but it hasn't even stuck yet. 🙂
I’m with you on all that—but look, I don't want this to turn into some massive, deserved teardown of most people in the city. That’s not the move. Let's pivot this into a real conversation about that whole "they're all the same" mentality instead.

I’m telling you, all those big ideological battles are mostly just noise at the top level. Down on the local level? People are actually making moves and getting things done, just look at what happened in Indianapolis

Of course they are. I don't care how much people try to sugarcoat their positions or play both sides by talking about "nuance" or different levels of intensity. It's all the same nonsense.

They’re all just leftovers from the Democratic Party.

I spit on it!

🤮

These election results were a foregone conclusion. They had to satisfy those "investors" who greased their palms to make it happen. The Democratic Party was never a powerhouse in cities like New York, and after this, they won't even scrape together two seats in the next cycle. On the flip side, the GOP voters are such irrational creatures; you can talk down to them all you want, and they’ll still vote the exact same way. Their last line of defense is always that tired cliché about how they "built this country."
The only hope for New York is a coalition of citizens (and maybe some progressives) who will scoop up the leftist votes next time around. It might already be too late for Manhattan, but there’s still enough green space left for those "strategic investors" to set their sights on.

Look, they love to preach about how we live in a direct democracy, right? Well, someone actually had to cast a vote to put them there. It’s not like they just appointed themselves to office...
And honestly, if there are zero consequences for how you use your vote, why should we expect politicians to answer to anyone?
Has any single person ever stepped up and taken responsibility for keeping George W. Bush in power for six years? No. So, really, what is there to complain about now?

Jesse Ortiz71 said:They’re part of that coalition even up in Indianapolis.

As for what happened at Alcatraz, those locals have nobody to blame but themselves. They should have shown up for the referendum and drawn a line in the sand against the golf courses and all that overdeveloped apartment madness, but clearly, they had "more important" things to do that day—assuming they were even against it to begin with.

Besides, didn't those folks elect Vlahušić again?? Wait, isn't he a convicted felon?

Honestly, you get the politicians you deserve.

Do you seriously think anyone is going to bother asking for your opinion when there's like a hundred million dollars on the line???
A referendum? Don't make me laugh. I still remember that whole big vote when we joined the European Union. I don't know two people in my entire life who actually checked "YES." When they finally finished counting up the "Yes" votes, it barely looked like it hit 70% at most.

Killer piece by Jurica Pavičić in The New York Times on this topic:

briskscout13 said:Do you seriously think anyone is going to bother asking for your opinion when there's like a hundred million dollars on the line???
A referendum? Don't make me laugh. I still remember that whole big vote when we joined the European Union. I don't know two people in my entire life who actually checked "YES." When they finally finished counting up the "Yes" votes, it barely looked like it hit 70% at most.

Ha! Well, look at that—I don't know a single soul who voted "No" either. Clearly, it all depends on the crowd you run with. But, having actually worked that referendum as a precinct captain—believe it or not—it was just as I remember; the ratio was pretty much identical to the final official results, somewhere around 60% for, and 30% against.

Patrick Taylor9 said:These election results were a foregone conclusion. They had to satisfy those "investors" who greased their palms to make it happen. The Democratic Party was never a powerhouse in cities like New York, and after this, they won't even scrape together two seats in the next cycle. On the flip side, the GOP voters are such irrational creatures; you can talk down to them all you want, and they’ll still vote the exact same way. Their last line of defense is always that tired cliché about how they "built this country."
The only hope for New York is a coalition of citizens (and maybe some progressives) who will scoop up the leftist votes next time around. It might already be too late for Manhattan, but there’s still enough green space left for those "strategic investors" to set their sights on.

Personally, I also believe the Mount Rainier project brings nothing but headaches to Venice in the long run, but the voters have made themselves clear on two separate occasions. First, through that massive boycott of the referendum, and second, by voting for options that explicitly signaled their support for the project. That’s why this coalition makes sense. Anything else would just be a blatant disregard for the will of the people.

Richard Wilson4 said:I’m telling you, all those big ideological battles are mostly just noise at the top level. Down on the local level? People are actually making moves and getting things done, just look at what happened in Indianapolis

It basically shows that ideological fights are just theater, meant to make us believe we actually have a choice during "elections."

rowdyranger44 said:Personally, I also believe the Mount Rainier project brings nothing but headaches to Venice in the long run, but the voters have made themselves clear on two separate occasions. First, through that massive boycott of the referendum, and second, by voting for options that explicitly signaled their support for the project. That’s why this coalition makes sense. Anything else would just be a blatant disregard for the will of the people.

Seems that way to me too. The referendum happened, the people spoke, and it would be wrong for politicians to go against them—even if we think turning the area around Mount Rainier into apartments isn't exactly great for the European Community. Most Venice residents clearly feel differently, and there's no reason to meddle in their local affairs.

Jessica Kelly4 said:Seems that way to me too. The referendum happened, the people spoke, and it would be wrong for politicians to go against them—even if we think turning the area around Mount Rainier into apartments isn't exactly great for the European Community. Most Venice residents clearly feel differently, and there's no reason to meddle in their local affairs.

Precisely. We have no grounds for outrage here. The people of Venice had two distinct opportunities within a single month to demonstrate exactly how much this project matters to them. Both times, through their decision to show up or stay home, they made it clear that the project is moving forward—and that is the entire crux of the matter. Time will tell who was actually right about all this.

Alright, we also need to think back to that The New York Times front page on the day of the referendum. Honestly, it’s almost a shame the referendum didn't pass, because I bet we would've seen exactly how they'd find a loophole to bypass it. I mean, I really don't doubt they would've found a way.

Since everyone keeps bringing up the Mount Rainier situation and the European Union in the same breath, we should probably remember that based on the rules for an EU referendum, there wouldn't be any golf on Mount Rainier. Or, looking at it the other way, if we followed the rules for the golf course at Mount Rainier, we wouldn't have joined the European Union. So, it seems pretty obvious there's both institutional rule-bending going on and massive media pressure pushing things toward whatever the elites want.

Daniel Palmer22 said:Well, it actually happened—the Republican Party and the Democratic Party have formed a coalition in Venice. Sure, you see weird alliances like this in some tiny rural towns, but this is the first time we've seen it happen in a major city.
The Summer Olympics are kicking off, and the political "actors" finally dropped the act. United by a single (and already paid-for) interest—turning the Manhattan skyline into a sea of vacation rentals under Aaron Frenkel’s management—and with plenty of backing from Joe Biden, Mike Pence, Barack Obama, and Jimmy Carter, they hammered out a deal last night. As of this morning, the coalition is official: Republicans, Democrats, Liberals, Libertarians, Greens, and the Labor Party. This unnatural freak show managed to elect a City Council president, which clears the way to start discussions on the Pebble Beach development project—basically removing the final hurdle standing in front of the bulldozers.
During the campaign, the Republicans were screaming that "a vote for Labor is a vote for the Democrats," scaring people with posters of communist zombies, but it turns out a vote for the GOP is also a vote for the Democrats. And vice versa. All those campaign slogans, promises, and the supposed opposition to the Liberal mayor just vanished into a black hole the second the phones started ringing and the envelopes full of cash arrived.
Political ideology clearly doesn't mean a damn thing anymore. Real debate and actual conflict of opinion just get buried under a mountain of cash. It's all just "everyone gets a piece of the pie."

So, a question for the Republicans, the Democrats, and their fanboys: how does it feel to watch your leaders embrace "brotherhood and unity" with the very people they claim to hate?

Well, the Republican Party was founded by one faction of the Communist Party, while the other faction stayed to form the Democratic Party.
The Republicans eventually transformed into a decent Christian Democratic party following the war and merging with the diaspora, whereas the Democrats are still searching for an identity today. Social democrats aren't quite what they claim to be, if you ask me. They aren't even patriots, which makes them perfectly suited to embracing all sorts of foreign ideas.
On a local level, though, those "old buddies" can function together quite smoothly, although it isn't the same everywhere. For instance, in my neck of the woods, I doubt the Republicans would ever go into business with The Party. Maybe I'm wrong, who knows.

James Lee77 As I have stated before, there is an undeniable reality to the situation that many refuse to acknowledge. It isn’t merely about a difference of opinion; it is about the fundamental facts of how these institutions function. One cannot simply ignore the structural flaws inherent in our current system and expect a different outcome. We see it playing out in every major decision made by the City Council, where the influence of special interests often outweighs the actual needs of the public. It is a pattern that repeats itself, regardless of which party holds the majority, yet people continue to act surprised when the results align perfectly with the established status quo. To suggest otherwise is to ignore the very mechanics of power that govern us.
And besides, we really ought to take the front page into account as well. The New York Times On the day of the referendum. Honestly, it’s almost a shame the vote didn't pass, if only because I wanted to see exactly how they would have maneuvered around it. I have zero doubt they would have found a way to bypass it entirely.

When people start dragging both the Mount Rainier golf course controversy and the European Union debate into the same conversation, it’s worth pointing out a glaring logical contradiction in how these rules are being applied. If we were strictly following the regulations governing an EU referendum, that golf course on Mount Rainier wouldn't even be on the table. Conversely, if we were playing by the rules established for the Mount Rainier referendum, the EU issue wouldn't be part of the equation. This reveals a blatant institutional manipulation of the referendum process itself; there is a clear attempt to weaponize media pressure to steer the public toward whatever outcome the elites have already decided is most desirable.

You’re right that the rules were essentially rigged to serve the interests of the politicians, but at the end of the day, the reality remains: the voters didn't really step up to the plate. Instead of actually showing up and speaking their minds, they mostly just went along with the status quo or settled for doing nothing at all.

We ought to have a "No Way" party on the ballot—one that guarantees its members won't even show up to Congress, let alone cast a vote for anything. For those who feel the urge to cast a protest vote instead of just doodling Donald Duck on their ballot, they should vote for "No Way." By doing so, they effectively snatch a vote away from the rest of the field, ensuring the remaining parties are left fighting over a smaller majority of valid votes.

James Lee77 said:Alright, we also need to think back to that The New York Times front page on the day of the referendum. Honestly, it’s almost a shame the referendum didn't pass, because I bet we would've seen exactly how they'd find a loophole to bypass it. I mean, I really don't doubt they would've found a way.

Since everyone keeps bringing up the Mount Rainier situation and the European Union in the same breath, we should probably remember that based on the rules for an EU referendum, there wouldn't be any golf on Mount Rainier. Or, looking at it the other way, if we followed the rules for the golf course at Mount Rainier, we wouldn't have joined the European Union. So, it seems pretty obvious there's both institutional rule-bending going on and massive media pressure pushing things toward whatever the elites want.

It might have been slightly more difficult for them to sidestep the issue if a significant number of people had actually shown up for the referendum. Say, something like 70-75%, with a majority voting against it.

As it stands, the residents of Venice simply showed their lack of interest, and then subsequently turned out in massive numbers to vote for the lists supporting the project. Thus, this grand coalition is perfectly logical, and the rushed approval from City Hall regarding the Golf course at Mount Rainier serves as a confirmation of the electoral will.

nimbleharbor10 said:

James Lee77 As I have stated before, there is an undeniable reality to the situation that many refuse to acknowledge. It isn’t merely about a difference of opinion; it is about the fundamental facts of how these institutions function. One cannot simply ignore the structural flaws inherent in our current system and expect a different outcome. We see it playing out in every major decision made by the City Council, where the influence of special interests often outweighs the actual needs of the public. It is a pattern that repeats itself, regardless of which party holds the majority, yet people continue to act surprised when the results align perfectly with the established status quo. To suggest otherwise is to ignore the very mechanics of power that govern us.
And besides, we really ought to take the front page into account as well. The New York Times On the day of the referendum. Honestly, it’s almost a shame the vote didn't pass, if only because I wanted to see exactly how they would have maneuvered around it. I have zero doubt they would have found a way to bypass it entirely.

When people start dragging both the Mount Rainier golf course controversy and the European Union debate into the same conversation, it’s worth pointing out a glaring logical contradiction in how these rules are being applied. If we were strictly following the regulations governing an EU referendum, that golf course on Mount Rainier wouldn't even be on the table. Conversely, if we were playing by the rules established for the Mount Rainier referendum, the EU issue wouldn't be part of the equation. This reveals a blatant institutional manipulation of the referendum process itself; there is a clear attempt to weaponize media pressure to steer the public toward whatever outcome the elites have already decided is most desirable.

You’re right that the rules were essentially rigged to serve the interests of the politicians, but at the end of the day, the reality remains: the voters didn't really step up to the plate. Instead of actually showing up and speaking their minds, they mostly just went along with the status quo or settled for doing nothing at all.

We ought to have a "No Way" party on the ballot—one that guarantees its members won't even show up to Congress, let alone cast a vote for anything. For those who feel the urge to cast a protest vote instead of just doodling Donald Duck on their ballot, they should vote for "No Way." By doing so, they effectively snatch a vote away from the rest of the field, ensuring the remaining parties are left fighting over a smaller majority of valid votes.

The truth is, voters couldn't care less about all these endless referendums, elections, signature drives—whatever you want to call this "democracy" that feels anything but democratic. In Venice, we dealt with five or six of these nonsense cycles in just six months. Once the media starts coming at you with constant threats and intimidation, staying home isn't just an option—it’s the only logical response.

Fix that typo in the headline and put an 'r' where it belongs