Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

RickyDaytonaJr t1_itnvlpl wrote

Q: “General Bolduc, where do you stand on racial issues?”

A: “Thank you for that question. I was in the military for 33 and a half years, and dealt with everything from violations to felonies…”

Apparently, the general believes racial issues = crime.

34

DadIsPunny t1_itpoh6n wrote

I get that he sucks at public speaking, but that is so far out of context it makes it hard to take other criticisms of him seriously. This part of the statement he was trying to explain the fact that as a flag officer he had to deal with disciplinary issues and nonjudicial punishment under article 15 of the UCMJ, which he proceeded to say that racial issues were not brought to him. Please stop the knee jerk "he's racist" bullshit, it detracts from actual criticisms that have weight.

−11

RickyDaytonaJr t1_itpp6k5 wrote

His first thought when asked a open-ended question about “racial issues” is to start talking about crime. I wonder why that could be. Hmm…

15

WapsuSisilija t1_itnqmgy wrote

Is still saying the 2020 election was rigged?

14

LELANDYEE t1_itnw1gc wrote

That apparently doesn't "play well" up here.

7

TheMobyDicks t1_itq6fmy wrote

I'm an Independent. A real one. And guess what? It's my vote that matters in a purple state like New Hampshire. The closer a candidate is to the middle - whatever the party - is who I vote for. And right now, the Republican candidates that are in my district, Bolduc and Leavitt, are far-right wingnuts. Don't love the Dems at all, but that's who I have to vote for as they're closer to the middle (read: reasonable). And for that reason, the Dems will win in NH. Plain and simple.

11

pahnzoh t1_itqtlvb wrote

That's literally just your biased perspective.

Hassan and Pappas are Democrat establishment and you've bought the "far right wingnut" lie about their opponents.

In an ideal world we wouldn't have to deal with any of these people but try to be a bit more of an actual independent thinker, rather than "oh yeah I'm independent but just so happens to be an apologist for the Democrats."

−4

TheMobyDicks t1_itqv6su wrote

>apologist for the Democrats

Dude. You're out of your mind. I don't apologize for anybody. I fucking hate both parties. Agree that Hassan and Pappas are establishment Dems, just as Chuck Morse and Matt Mowers are establishment Repubs. It's just Bolduc and Leavitt tout ridiculous, election-denying, anti-abortion far-right agendas and I'm not having it.

10

pahnzoh t1_itqvwrc wrote

Those are literally propaganda talking points to play to emotions. The Dems and repubs agree on 95% of governance.

What is the executive, judicial, legislative, and administrative state actually doing under both of their rules?

The same thing maybe to minor degrees of differences.

None of these people are far right. They're all authcenter. Both the Dems and repubs. If you forget the terms and look at what they actually support outside of the 3 social issues that are constantly repeated you'll see very little difference.

−6

Joeyeastman t1_itr6t2h wrote

"Those are literally propaganda talking points to play to emotions."

No he has said that multiple times. You lose me right there. I don't want our state to be a circus. I don't want the Boeberts or the AOC's monopolizing time while issues just get forgotten.

He said it. He lost me. It's as simple as that.

5

TheMobyDicks t1_itqy5ni wrote

It's all fucking gridlock. Federal and state. I've punched a few things through the statehouse and it's crazy how so many things are party driven. And if someone goes "rogue" the shit they take is nuts. There are TONS more differences besides the "3 social issues that are constantly repeated". Affordable housing in NH, for example, is a tremendous issue for our state and there has been plenty of sensible legislation that has been proffered. But (and this is just one issue) every time it comes to the floor it's been bastardized in committee or had something that would never pass tacked on to it, etc. Okay, some things have passed on this but they're mostly ineffectual. Fact is, we're working on something now that we've devoted a bunch of time to and are worming our way forward knowing that likely it'll get torpedoed or hung up as a non-vote. And everybody knows how insanely important housing is to our workforce and the drastic demand on companies. I was told - so it's not firsthand - that a manufacturing company on the Seacoast is losing $1 million a month in potential revenue because it can't hire a hundred more workers. And, again, that's just one issue. I hate that the system dictates that if you're one party or another you have to sabotage the other party's efforts. So, yes, an independent.

1

pahnzoh t1_itr0ew2 wrote

That's a problem of not only political party but the idea that you need the state to solve a problem.

The issue with affordable housing is that the state claims legal title to all land not already privately owned and you need to go through the state to own or develop the land.

0

TheMobyDicks t1_itr4uzc wrote

That's so not close to the reality of needed solutions. I'm extremely versed in this matter - asked to speak on it all the time, invited to groups trying to turn the tide, asked to meet with companies having workforce issues, etc. I'm not going to go into it here but there are many issues and few solutions. Yes, enabling legislation that encourages local zoning changes that incentivize such housing stock would be a good place to start but there are many, many more issues. If you want to see who's getting it right, check out Harmony Homes in Durham, who built housing for their workers and are continuing to do so.

Edit: This is good discourse and I appreciate it.

3

pahnzoh t1_itr6o6n wrote

Of course it's way more complex, but it's largely complex because of supply and demand of humans seeking housing, builders and developers, and supply of materials and equipment. The costs of materials and labor is another issue but that's not something the state can solve. All of that is not really related to the government so I didn't mention it.

The state is causing the problem for which you are seeking a solution. If you could homestead unimproved land like you could 200+ years ago, you would solve a major issue. The state through land claims, zoning laws, property laws, local code requirements, etc. is creating artificial barriers to entry. Right now you have to buy property from existing owners at very high prices and not many are selling. But if you look at the actual state of unimproved land there is a lot of it where people could live, in thoery. Satellite images show this vividly.

Yes that's only part of the issue of housing. But again, realistically neither party seeks to change that. Libertarians have a property ethic that fairly deals with property outside of the states current system, but of course that's not on the table.

1

TheMobyDicks t1_itr8vgy wrote

Interesting concept for sure but untenable as, you know, NH and local control and all. Any politician that would champion anything but, would get the brakes beat off 'em. One of the largest problems we have is communities that have no interest in being part of the solution and zone accordingly. One very interesting example of this is the yes vote Exeter took to supply water/sewer to Stratham and the overwhelming no vote Stratham took; Stratham naysayers lobbied the public stating that they don't want multifamily housing as...oh no...schools and "less than desirable people". All BS, of course, but that's the game. The InvestNH $100 million program is seeking to incentivize both developers and municipalities that prioritize affordable housing. This is a drop in the bucket, of course, but it will give the state and us (citizens) some insight into how effective such investment is, if at all.

3

pahnzoh t1_itra4ma wrote

I agree. Because the incentives are so perverse for both voters and politicans. When you setup a system of institutional coercion it's nearly impossible to scale back. People want to use the system for their own benefit to the detriment of others. That's why I have such disdain for the political parties and can't see how adults who have been around long enough still put effort into supporting shitty politicans.

1

Nevaknosbest t1_ityyjs1 wrote

I'm also an independent and I could have written OP's post myself.

3

pahnzoh t1_iu2kov5 wrote

Sounds like you're a Democrat calling yourself an independent.

1

Nevaknosbest t1_iu3rwpq wrote

Sounds like you're a Russian calling yourself an American.

2

pahnzoh t1_iu42pii wrote

Pretty lame insult since I'd openly say fuck Putin and the Russian government. You won't do the same about Democrats even though you pretend to be an independent.

1

Nevaknosbest t1_iu4croo wrote

How do you know? You stalking me? At least bring something over for dinner tonight.

1

pahnzoh t1_iu574hj wrote

Based on your comments in this thread. You're pushing a Democrat agenda and talking points and calling yourself an independent when you're not.

1

AMightyOak43 t1_ito9uc4 wrote

Glad I don't have to deal with that scum.

10

maxhinator123 t1_itrfzjz wrote

He's got zero chance. To begin he's an election denier.. yuck. Extremism has no place in NH

9

Spezs_Fat_Mom_45 t1_itpvtiw wrote

“If we can spend $465k on teaching pigeons how to use slot machines, we can take care of our elderly citizens, we can put that money back and ensure that it’s protected from the government because it’s their money.” BOOM 😂

−2