Nah, those guys are above the law. It’s not like anything happened the hundreds of other times the government has been caught violating the constitution or acting illegally.
You’re not wrong, I’m just stating what I feel should happen. Considering they won’t even release the damn report I won’t be holding my breath for any sort of punishment
Think I will donate some money and my homemade scarfs to a shelter this weekend. Clearly our Christian government isnt going to help guess it is up to us atheists.
I mean the “justification” used by the Christians who vote for this kind of thing is that it would be under for the government to take money from people to help others, and it’s up to each individual with money to give freely to support the poor, or whatever.
That’s what they say out loud, anyway. So they can blame atheists for not giving freely. Never mind that they tend to give less, but
Glad I walked away from that garbage faith. I have seriously heard their shamans claim that they can be awful to immigrants because the direct biblical commandments to be nice to immigrants only apply to converts and since most immigrants are Christian they don’t count.
People arguing that you get to treat your own worse. It takes a special kinda fucked up to not even have basic levels of loyalty to your own.
Would really like to meet the person that’s undecided between Trump and Biden. I could understand someone staying home long before someone choosing between the two.
I think there are a lot of people who are so disconnected from the news, and their family and friend groups are similarly disconnected from the news, that it barely reaches them. They might be able to name the current president but not much else.
I think you’re wrong in that anyone disconnected from the news only feels the effects of the presidency through the economy and most unkowledgable voters don’t like Biden because of inflation.
Undecided voters have to be uneducated people that don’t know enough to discern truth from lies and therefore take trump at face value.
A) Drive out the homeless so they go to other, more charitable communities, and become someone else’s problem, and then…
B) Point out the higher rate of homelessness (and higher taxes necessary to deal with it) in those other communities and say, “Look how awful those communities are!”
“That includes California, which is home to one-third of the country’s homeless population.”
Why do these statements never follow immediately stating that California is also 10% of the ENTIRE country’s population and it’s where all of the livable weather is if you have no option but to sleep outside. Of course a lot of them are in California. We need a new deal.
True, but also the consequences of living homeless in New England would force you to either come up with some kind of way to afford shelter or move south. Whereas more homeless people die on the streets in California than you might expect, but the perception is that you can live outdoors safely all year. So there’s less incentive to scrape together enough money for a home.
Add to that, very few people move to New England with a crazy idealistic view of their opportunities to make it big. If they move there at all, it’s because they have a job lined up. Dreamers crash and burn in California every day.
Are you implying that the presence of any homeless people in New England invalidates the idea that consistently favorable weather leads to a higher ratio of homeless people living in an area?
Probably also matters long term vs short term. When someone first becomes homeless, it usually happens where they were already living regardless of the weather. Over time, people may move to where it is more comfortable to sleep outside.
So, all cities have new homeless people plus some that just never leave. And then warm areas have new homeless people plus the long term homeless people who risked traveling to get to warmer temperatures.
I could have been more clear on that. If 1/3 of homeless live in CA and CA makes up 1/10 the population, then CA has disproportionately high homeless population as compared the other states.
I was get at the point that there isn’t one cause for CA having this disparity, another commenter pointed out housing prices for one example. And that other parts of the country, even ones with harsh seasons, are still livable albeit not as hospitable.
Weathers only part of it, a large part is cost of living and especially housing costs. People have this idea that people become mentally unwell drug addicts then lose housing then move to California for the better weather/ more compassionate state. In reality a lot of it is the reverse, people live in California, lose they’re housing due to astronomical rents, then they become mentally unwell drug addicts due to the pain and trauma they suffer on the streets.
Last point still stands though, we do need a green new deal to give these people housing and employ them in meaningful jobs to help the green transition.
No it was pure corruption the way it was. Congress is supposed to write the laws, and the Judicial Branch is supposed to interpret those laws, not the unelected federal bureaucracy.
I was not crazy for him in 2016 but he has grown on me a lot. I think he is a great candidate! Biggest issue this election cycle is he is gay. Lot of bigots will not vote for him because of it and go for Trump.
That answer would shock you. Lot of older people it’s still an issue especially in the Midwest and in the south. Your younger more progressive voters it will not change a thing. Hamas is probably the most polarizing issue for the younger voters right now
The interesting thing about Pete is I know life-long Republicans who said they would vote for him. Maybe it’s one of those, “he’s one of the good ones” situations.
Can we get a class action lawsuit to sue for housing? Isn’t this almost entrapment like if the government doesn’t supply space for people to sleep but the population is still growing and the border isn’t completely sealed(not my solution I want) then shouldn’t the government be forced to build new homes or at least bunkhouses?
I’d think that for a blanket no-homelessness policy to be even reasonably humane, each person would need a right of address, even a 50 sqft. parcel of public land in/by the town of choosing which they can call their domicile.
If nothing else of there can’t be government funded housing then homesteading/camping outside of city limits and an advanced public transport system would be the only other option I can think of
They don’t have to pay their housing but they must make sure they have the ability to make it to a job so they can avoid being homeless
I have thought about this for a while now, before any natural resource can be exploited the following needs to be done:
An environmental restoration fund needs to be set up qith an initial payment and an aditional 2% of the value of the resource exploited anually throughout the life time of the facility, this money of controlled by the government and used to fund environmental restoration once the the facility is closed.
10% of the annual value of the resource extracted will go to the local government, and be spent on upkeep and quallity of life for the local citizes, 10% of the annual value of the resource extraxted will go to the country government.
In total that is 22% so the company gets to keep 78%, seems resonable to me.
Bidens about to go down as one of the worst Democrats in the last century because of his hubris if he doesn’t. His decent domestic agenda will be overshadowed by him ushering in another trump presidency by ignoring all the signs for him to drop out. He didn’t early last year when polls repeatedly showed that people thought he was too old. He didn’t when unnamed democrat was leading him by 10 points. He didn’t when his Gaza policy alienated large chunks of his base. If he doesn’t in the next couple weeks when there will probably be polls coming out showing majority support for him stepping down then he’s gone full head in the sand.
It’s like RBG all over again, if these people could just get it through there heads to quit while there ahead they could preserve a decent legacy, instead of tarnishing it by leading the way to a regressive order that overturns everything they’ve done.
Biden will lose against Trump. Changing candidates this late isn’t ideal but it’s better than guaranteed failure, and it’s better than after the convention if Biden deteroriates from where he’s currently at.
I’m not worried about him “deteriorating”. Anyone who has paid attention to him at all knows that was not reflective of his actual ability to lead. Hell, right after he sounded fine at the after party for anyone still listening.
I’m only worried about people thinking he’s deteriorating. A lot of people have literally only seen that debate from him in the last year and nothing else.
If we stay with Biden, he needs to get really aggressive with his image. Hang out with influencers, go to games, don’t talk about controversial politics while having fun (like with the ice cream).
If we go a different direction it needs to happen now.
I really don’t care which we do. But it’s an important conversation to have. This debate fiasco is 99% on Biden being unprepared. But image is everything for a candidate.
We can change horses if there’s overwhelming pressure to do it and it’s exceptionally well planned.
What we absolutely can’t do is nominate someone else against Biden’s wishes and still have him on the ballot as an independent… that’s how you get folks like Woodrow Wilson.
I, personally, think it’s doubtful that much pressure will materialize, but I’m prepared to be pleasantly surprised.
It depends on how the democrat’s civil war goes in that case. If the replacement gets the lion’s share of the funding then people will abandon Biden. His polling really isn’t great.
Running someone fresh that appeals to this American Idol-esque popularity contest = good.
What if no such person exists?
Then you just lose and Trump becomes President by default. Do you have confidence that Democrats can rally behind an actually named person? And if so, what is the name of that person?
I’m no Democrat. But I wouldn’t consider “replacing Biden by somebody” to be a serious option. You need to say “Replace Biden by SPECIFIC NAME HERE”. Otherwise you’re just throwing away the election before it even begins.
Are you asking that because you believe nobody is lining up wanting to be President, or that there is no candidate who fits that bill? Because I can think of half a dozen who both fit the bill and have obvious political ambitions:
Whitmer
Newsom
Buttigieg
Booker
Abrams
Warnock.
All far more youthful; all far more charismatic. All who have enough national name recognition and would trounce Trump in debates and contrast of age alone.
The question to me isn’t, “who else,” it’s, “Will Biden voluntarily step down and endorse such a person at the convention?”
The polls prove this could work:nobody likes either candidate, people want new faces, and age is a problem. Just give them another choice on the Democratic ticket and it’s game-over for the convicted felon. If I could I’d be money this gives better odds than sticking it out with Biden.
I’m not into Democrats, so I honestly don’t know half the people on that list.
Newsom needs to start resigning today to make the election. I think he’s off on technical grounds. And others have pointed out that he’s lower than Trump on a lot of polls. Buttigieg is homosexual and sad to say it, homophobia is on the rise. After the party’s experimentation with Hillary Clinton / Kamala I’m not sure that its a winning strategy. I know middle-aged white guy WASP is annoying, but its a trope for a reason.
In all cases, Trump will deny the other pick as a “loser” and refuse to debate. You’ll be going into the election without ever getting on National stage. Its a huge set of risks.
I’m not necessarily against it. But I also don’t think Biden’s performance was worse than Trump’s last night. A lot of this seems to be just Democrats getting nervous about themselves and their own choices.
Whitmer
I see she’s getting some press. I wouldn’t be against her, but I also don’t know much about her in general. Can she hold up against the Republican hate machine? We all know that Hillary couldn’t do it, so what makes Whitmer any better or more prepared?
Biden did hold up vs Trump. Better or worse, he did prove himself. I recognize that people are worried about “newer, older Biden”. But there’s severe risks in switching a candidate now, especially as vetting likely hasn’t been completed by either side yet. (Democrats need to vet to figure out how Republicans are going to attack her). Its a complete mystery.
You have to understand that the average American functions off of lizard brain impulses. It would be probably go like this:
Acknowledging age concerns of the electorate = show of weakness.
Running someone fresh that appeals to this American Idol-esque popularity contest = show of weakness.
Running someone Republicans don’t have their talking-points fleshed out on = show of weakness.
America operates on principles of running someone strong who says they will always be strong and that if they ever become weak while in office and they acknowledge this to be replaced, the entire party goes with them like a tug boat latched to a sinking oil tanker. Trump didn’t win because he’s smart or a decent human being. He won because he exudes baseless confidence like a broken nuclear reactor exudes gamma radiation.
You know I agree with much of what you say here. All I’ll say is that while there’s uncertainty in the outcome of this route, I’m convinced there is certainty at this point that Joe Biden will lose. Why? Because there is all there is to know about Joe Biden. Call it media saturation; diminishing returns… There is fundamentally nothing Joe Biden can do or say that people don’t already know and now their minds are pretty much made up. The desperation-play of even asking for that debate shows the Biden campaign knows how bad of a position they’re in… And it of course backfired tremendously.
So at this point, I view it as uncertainty versus a known loss.
And in that respect, I’m looking at this alternate path as appealing to those lizard-brain American Idol-watching popularity-contest voters. If we could distill election cycles down to a handful of things, chief among them would be “People Vote for the more interesting candidate” and “People vote for the fresher face” – Within the backdrop of age being a huge issue for >70% of American voters when polled, that rings even more truthful now.
I see the down votes, but I took this as a Wag the Dog reference. They’re pointing out just how terrible an idea it is for Biden and the democrats to keep trying to sleepwalk through this election while Trump and the republicans pull out all the rhetorical stops.
It’s not too late now, but it’s absolutely too late in October when Biden needs to appear multiple times per day and across about 5 states. If he can’t do that, then he should step down now.
I don’t blame people for wanting to distance from the topic. The problem with Biden isn’t his ability to lead and govern. It’s his image. Talking about it directly hurts his image. BUT it’s still a discussion that needs to be had.
It would be like Covid if talking about Covid also made it worse.
He was fine. He has never sounded like this before. Just look at the State of the Union for what people were expecting.
This was him being unprepared and trying to remember statistics from 3 and a half years of accomplishments, with a cold, while running a country, while being 81. It reminded me of some bad interviews I’ve been in, honestly.
Bullshit homie, he sounds like this all the time, it’s just progressing faster. They made up a new term to cover it up a few weeks ago and then grampa ran off in his bathrobe and CNN had to call some silver alerts.
For all the people that talked about how horrible cnn has been to Biden, they were cutting him off to help him. Look back on his ‘gaffes’. They’ve been bad for a long time.
But we’re already past the primary period… Are we suggesting having a quick primary anyway? Who should we put in his place? I haven’t heard a single suggestion for who else to elect. Are we saying Harris should step in? Who should she run with?
I even saw someone mention Wes Moore and I was reminded that he’s a pretty good moderate governor of Maryland now instead of “only” a West Point graduate and author.
Well, half of those were people who ran against Biden, so that makes sense.
I remember being impressed with Klobuchar, and incredibly impressed with Buttigieg (though sadly he’d lose a lot of the religious vote, sigh). I wish I liked Booker more… But yeah there are some acceptable options there, that’s a relief.
It’s like RBG all over again, if these people could just get it through there heads to quit while there ahead they could preserve a decent legacy, instead of tarnishing it by leading the way to a regressive order that overturns everything they’ve done.
This is one of the core problems of the Democrats: hubris. When Obama had a majority in the House and Senate, he could have easily pushed through a Supreme Court appointee to replace RBG. But she wouldn’t go. Because in her mind, there was no one qualified to fill her shoes. She was convinced that she was the GOAT and that to voluntarily step down when it was safe to do so would be an insult. This is coupled with the fact that Democrats were absolutely, completely certain that they would win every election for the presidency after Obama without trying and that the “coalition of the ascendant” would easily put Hillary into the White House, and then she could be the first female president in US history and have an easy PR win by replacing an aging female supreme court justice.
I’m willing to bet we have the the same problem here, but in one person: Biden probably thinks the Democrats could never field anyone for president better than him and that his victory is a lock without any real effort to campaign for it again.
Fun fact: the last time anything like this happened it was with Grover Cleveland. Cleveland was the 22nd president of the United States who lost his re-election bid the first time around, and then got re-elected to be the 24th president of the United States. We are officially in the second Gilded Age.
Here in LA, jerks are constantly suggesting “let’s build a huge structure in the desert and move 'em there”. They usually don’t know what Manzanar was.
And our answer is always no. The homeless are going to stay right here in everybody’s faces until we actually solve the problem. We aren’t willing to compromise on pushing them somewhere else.
There is no LA homelessness problem. There is a national homelessness problem and we’re dealing with it here because our Christian country won’t.
news
Oldest
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.