Page 2075 of 2185 FirstFirst ... 1075157519752025206520732074207520762077208521252175 ... LastLast
Results 20,741 to 20,750 of 21842

Thread: Politics

  1. #20741
    Administrator
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    7,660
    Part of the problem is that the solution almost always comes back to criminalizing it, which I feel like a lot of your post alludes to. The cops being demoralized, that there's no punishment, that it's sparking crime, etc etc. Our city council just passed an ordinance basically criminalizing being homeless, and one of the few councilmembers that's been doing real work to try to get people housed and into treatment programs is being targeted for a recall by the people around here.

    It's a lot easier to sell the idea that you'll just round homeless people up and ship them off somewhere. A good chunk of the people on my local Nextdoor advocate literally for that, they think all the homeless people in LA should be shipped off to Lancaster.

  2. #20742
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    10,766
    I saw a documentary call Seattle is dying... that reporter showed Rhode Island has implemented some sort of intervention program. Yes, we do need to criminalize criminals. No getting around that.

    At least in that documentary, all... or at least all those they showed indicated that they are grateful to be arrested and "rescued" off of the streets. They will end up have lifetime supplies of anti-drug drugs to fend off their addictions and rehabilitated back into society living relatively normal lives. For people with mental issues, surely it'll be better for them to be in a mental institution rather than be running around aimlessly in the city?

    All of them, who were interviewed, believe that had the police never intervened, they'll probably all be dead soon. Documentary claimed that the program had a 93% success rate. Out of 100 homeless folks, 93 able to live normal lives is a pretty amazing statistic.

    Currently at West Coast, a lot of homeless people probably just die off on the streets... and then more on the fringes end up taking their place...

    Anyway, my point is, yes, fighting climate change for our future generations is a noble goal and right thing to do, but when there are so many in our current generation suffering and dying, why would they participate in saving the planet when they themselves are in serious trouble? Ignoring them and attempt to reduce carbon emissions can't possibly be the path forward.

    This is probably also the main reason why somebody like Trump could attain power.

    If we could solve this people problem, Trump would never have a chance I think... As more people living above poverty line, we'll also have more people interested in saving the planet. If we want to be pragmatic, we ought to solve problems for people. Who the hell cares about filibuster? So what if you get rid of it or not? Even if dems got rid of it, it'll probably only end up helping Republicans do their job better and easier.
    Last edited by Crazed_Insanity; January 5th, 2022 at 03:19 PM.

  3. #20743
    Junior Potato
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    8,497
    I'm sure the residents of Lancaster will love to have bus loads of homeless people placed on their doorsteps.

    Various governments in Australia have been trying to deal with homeless people, but the situation is more nuanced than just sending them to homes or hospitals or prisons.

    One idea was to revamp dilapidated city streets by adding a couple of stories of housing apartments above shopfronts. You could build public housing, but then how do you decide who gets to be given an apartment? And how do you make sure that people aren't freeloading and adding to their wealth unfairly?

    So that requires a significant investment in service infrastructure, which is already hamstrung by government regulation and inefficiency.

    And if you build additional housing, what if the homeless people that they are targeted toward don't want to take them up? A large proportion of the 'homeless problem' is that mental illness prevents a lot of people from being able to make these decisions. If you take someone off the street and give them a home, how do you know if they'll be OK? Will they be able to manage by themselves? Do you force them off the street and into hospital when they cannot make the decision to do so by themselves?

    What if they aren't mentally ill and just want to live on the street? Some people just prefer that, and the 'normal' people in society are uncomfortable with it. How close do we get to kidnapping them without legal grounds? Because it could easily become kidnapping when you think about it. It's merely one step away from wrongful imprisonment. You could make a law that says being homeless is a criminal act, but where's the defence if homeless people have no choice but to be homeless?

    Remember, homeless people are people too, and sometimes the attempt to help them will impinge on their rights to be left alone. How much of that is just for the aesthetic convenience of normal people?

  4. #20744
    Junior Potato
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    8,497
    Quote Originally Posted by Crazed_Insanity View Post
    Anyway, my point is, yes, fighting climate change for our future generations is a noble goal and right thing to do, but when there are so many in our current generation suffering and dying, why would they participate in saving the planet when they themselves are in serious trouble? Ignoring them and attempt to reduce carbon emissions can't possibly be the path forward.

    This is probably also the main reason why somebody like Trump could attain power.

    If we could solve this people problem, Trump would never have a chance I think... As more people living above poverty line, we'll also have more people interested in saving the planet. If we want to be pragmatic, we ought to solve problems for people. Who the hell cares about filibuster? So what if you get rid of it or not? Even if dems got rid of it, it'll probably only end up helping Republicans do their job better and easier.
    I'm sure I've told you this before, but the whole "we can't have X because we still need to fix Y" is widely regarded as nonsense. It is such a bullshit reason for not doing things, and you need to let go of it.

    It is why governments have separate departments to deal with separate parts of society.

  5. #20745
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    10,766
    Biden/progressives wants us to go more green, but there’s little political will on the right for it.

    So unless Manchin changes his mind, Build Back Better will remain rhetoric… and nothing will get done and they’ll re-elect trump and see things go further downhill…

    Or we can really build back better our roads and bridges and our people somehow. When people are drowning in addictions and some sick and tired of seeing homeless and robbers roam the streets, nobody will care about earth.

  6. #20746
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    10,766
    Quote Originally Posted by Rare White Ape View Post
    I'm sure the residents of Lancaster will love to have bus loads of homeless people placed on their doorsteps.

    Various governments in Australia have been trying to deal with homeless people, but the situation is more nuanced than just sending them to homes or hospitals or prisons.

    One idea was to revamp dilapidated city streets by adding a couple of stories of housing apartments above shopfronts. You could build public housing, but then how do you decide who gets to be given an apartment? And how do you make sure that people aren't freeloading and adding to their wealth unfairly?

    So that requires a significant investment in service infrastructure, which is already hamstrung by government regulation and inefficiency.

    And if you build additional housing, what if the homeless people that they are targeted toward don't want to take them up? A large proportion of the 'homeless problem' is that mental illness prevents a lot of people from being able to make these decisions. If you take someone off the street and give them a home, how do you know if they'll be OK? Will they be able to manage by themselves? Do you force them off the street and into hospital when they cannot make the decision to do so by themselves?

    What if they aren't mentally ill and just want to live on the street? Some people just prefer that, and the 'normal' people in society are uncomfortable with it. How close do we get to kidnapping them without legal grounds? Because it could easily become kidnapping when you think about it. It's merely one step away from wrongful imprisonment. You could make a law that says being homeless is a criminal act, but where's the defence if homeless people have no choice but to be homeless?

    Remember, homeless people are people too, and sometimes the attempt to help them will impinge on their rights to be left alone. How much of that is just for the aesthetic convenience of normal people?
    Anyway, not proposing we criminalize homelessness. If you can truly live like a hippie Jesus, more power to you. However, if you sell/possess drugs or stole or robbed, then you should be treated as a criminal… but it really is just a way to intervene into their lives to help them kick their addiction and get back on their feet.

    At least according to my theological belief, the entire world fell as Adam and Eve screwed up. Jesus didn’t come to save planet earth, but to save the people 1st.

    When people are fixed, planet earth will naturally get better.

  7. #20747
    Administrator
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    7,660
    Yeah, I'm not sure where he got this zero-sum game between climate change and homeless policy, but it's another one of those weird things he gets hung up on and, when we mostly ignore the silly part, he brings it up over and over again until one of us mentions it and then he gets all mad at us for getting hung up on it.

    I'm choosing to ignore that part.

    The thing about your documentary is - why does it have to be the police to intervene? Why not hire more people who specialize in social work and outreach to the homeless? That's what the city council member in the district next to mine has done, then the LA Sheriff came along and started sticking their nose in it and suddenly a bunch of people they'd gained the trust of just went back on the streets rather than continue through the process of moving into bridge housing. I was hanging out outside a grocery store waiting for Michele to do some shopping and watching our bikes, and heard a couple of homeless people talking. One said he'd been offered shelter, but he just felt safer on the street so he wouldn't go. Having people who's job it is to gain the trust of people and put them in better situations seems like the right way to go for me, homeless people do not trust cops, and cops are generally not there to help homeless people.

    Right now, all the cops do here is show up to an encampment, take most of everyone's stuff, and then tell them to go somewhere else. They go a couple blocks away, start amassing stuff again, and it just happens over and over, and in the meantime we're paying these cops to just move the problem around. Arresting them is even more money and resources that could go to actually helping people.

    I know I've told this story before, but my aunt works with a government program in Norway that will just *get you housing* if you can't afford it. It's a small apartment, but it's shelter with heat and an address that you can use when looking for work. They have a much smaller homeless population there per capita than we do, despite being a very expensive place to live, and I'm willing to bet it costs less than the equivalent cost of the police and incarceration if you just chose to start arresting people for being homeless.

  8. #20748
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    10,766
    Again, I'm not proposing we arrest homeless people. You can get hung up on stuff too you know.

    I do want to police to start intervening when crime happens. When people are committing crime, we shouldn't just pretend that doesn't matter.

    Chances are people addicted on drugs would not voluntarily seek help because they're not thinking straight. Of course it is definitely possible for some to realize they need help when they hit rock bottom...; however, the problem we have now is that where can they go to seek help right now?

    At the moment, it's not as simple as helping them find affordable housing. Addicts need help to kick their habit. Not to mention if you're actually mentally impaired, what would affordable housing do for them?

    We need a comprehensive program to intervene and help them out.

    In red states, sure, there are less homeless, but for sure plenty of addicts too. Of course we can't just go arrest addicts..., but if they do commit a crime, then it'd be a good reason for police to intervene... and help them.

    Of course we also need to stop whatever drugs being sold to them too.

    This cannot just be arresting and charging of low level criminals or rioters and locking them all up and completely ignore the assholes on top.

    Regardless of which level you are, people need to be held responsible for their actions. You can't rob or steal to sell/buy drugs and get away with that. Not the dealers and especially not big pharma.

    Our society has the tendency to be harsh with lower level folks, but people on top are rarely held accountable. People need to be held accountable for their actions period. Justice department needs to be able to deliver justice for ALL!
    Last edited by Crazed_Insanity; January 5th, 2022 at 06:26 PM.

  9. #20749
    Administrator
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    7,660
    As far as red vs. blue cities, It may not be quite as one-sided as you think. Anchorage, AK is #6 for per capita homelessness for major US cities. The top five cities are all pretty left-leaning, but San Francisco, for instance, isn't in the top 5. http://www.citymayors.com/society/us...elessness.html

    My main point is - police aren't necessarily the ones who should be intervening. They're likely not the best ones to be intervening. I think we both agree there should be intervention, I just think that police, as well trained as they are, aren't trained that well for this task. If anything, I think it's treating the symptom, not the disease.

    In the meantime, police forces are expensive. LAPD is 30% of the entire city budget, and 50% of discretionary (what hasn't already been earmarked). People who might be better suited to this work might cost less which, hey, frees us up to focus on other things like climate change!
    Last edited by Tom Servo; January 5th, 2022 at 08:40 PM.

  10. #20750
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    10,766
    Police should be allowed to stop or fight crime. For sure I’m not asking cops to intervene just because somebody has no home or somebody who’s dark skinned. Also, even if crime is in progress, police shouldn’t shoot or kneel to kill, but to protect and serve this segment of the population who desperately need help. Intervene to rescue them, not to lock’em up and throw away the keys.

    Anyway, I think it’s obvious blue cities has more pronounced problems with homelessness and things are only getting worse… however if we look at it as a drug problem, then there are plenty of rednecks hooked on painkillers in red cities. People on both sides are suffering and dying in this unbelievably rich nation of ours.

    Yet neither party has the political will to help these Americans out.

    At least Democratic Party has some political will to save the planet, but they just don’t have the votes they need even with a majority.

    So I guess we’ll just have to wait and not build anything back better and pray for Trump to make America great again?

    I guess I don’t absolutely need cops to do the interventions, but reality is that I don’t think west coast has any programs in place like Rhode Island?

    Also with all these flash mob robberies, do you really want to further defund the police? Actually police are defunding and retiring early themselves because what’s the point of working hard catching them if they’ll only be quickly released by the courts so that they can go rob again!
    Last edited by Crazed_Insanity; January 5th, 2022 at 08:58 PM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •