I think Harris is trying to capture a group of Americans that hardlines on immigration, unfortunately some of what she’ll concede on during this election cycle will likely alienate progressives in favor of tempting the opposition. It’s strategically valuable because progressives will still vote for her, but maybe a few conservative voters will be swayed.
Imo it’s more important to pay attention to how she’s voted, how she acts, and whether she will change her mind when presented with important information. In that way she’s by far our most trustworthy candidate even on issues like this one.
I think Harris is trying to capture a group of Americans that hardlines on immigration, unfortunately some of what she’ll concede on during this election cycle will likely alienate progressives in favor of tempting the opposition. It’s strategically valuable because progressives will still vote for her, but maybe a few conservative voters will be swayed.
The bigots who buy the “migrant crime” narrative were always gonna vote Trump. Being the lesser evil holds no appeal to them. But the party covets votes it will never get and will throw marginalized people under as many buses as necessary in hopeless pursuit of the vote of the fictional “good” bigot.
Here’s the dumbest part, the only problem with the American/Mexican border is that the U.S. is too slow at processing migrants and getting them into the country. The far-right has invented a narrative of a migrant crime wave requiring harsh restrictions at the border, the public bought the lie, and now Democrats are trying to pass legislation based on the lie to appeal to the public.
Remember Trump and the Heritage foundation are Presbyterian WASPS OK White Anglo-Saxon Protestants don’t forget it. Most racist Christians that ever was. Don’t forget that. They love to talk out of both sides of their mouths. They love toxic positivity, remember that, and definitely listen to what they say and believe them because they always tell on themselves too.
Newsom was in favor of the SC ruling because CA has a lot of unused bed capacity. Many cities and counties have more unhoused people than beds, but many of the beds are unfilled.
Newsom wants to clear encampments if shelter space is available, not if shelters are full. That was impossible to do before the SC ruling. If you had 10,000 unhoused people and 2000 total beds, and only 1000 of the beds were filled, you would needed 10,000 beds before you could clear encampments. Newsom wanted to be able to say “I have 1000 more beds, so I want to get 1000 more people off the street.”
Last I checked a few months ago, San Francisco had about 10% of its beds open, and cities like Oakland have something like 30% of its beds open. I was looking for LA’s stats, but I have not been successful.
This all sounds great in theory, but a lot of people avoid shelters because they’re not safe, don’t allow you to have belongings, etc. That’s the first problem we need to solve. Adding more beds isn’t going to help if reasonable people don’t want to take them.
That’s because homeless shelters are dangerous and unpleasant for all sorts of reasons:
I spent most of my time homeless out on the street. It wasn’t until the very end of my homelessness that I ended up in a shelter. And I found out that a lot of what I was afraid of was true. I never found out what a body louse was until I got into the shelter. You know, I had my shoes stolen, just like people said you get your shoes stolen, although I will say that there were three people in the shelter who offered to give me a pair of shoes after that happened.
…
Hi, yeah, I was homeless in Berkeley, and I found it very, very difficult to go in at the times that they wanted us to go in and to leave at the times that they wanted us to leave. It was difficult because it was exhausting. You had to leave whether it was rain or shine. And a lot of people had nowhere to go. And so you would find women that were just, you know, sitting outside the shelter at all hours of the day, waiting for the shelter to open up again.
And then, you know, when it was open up again, you had to be in there by a certain time. I was dealing with both mental illness and substance abuse, and I think people forget that with substance abuse, you don’t have much control. You need help, you really need help, and you can’t necessarily come in without having alcohol on your breath.
You can certainly not drink while you’re in the shelter. I’ve been sober for a few years now, but at that time I just, I wasn’t able to do what they wanted me to do and to come in at that time.
…
Hi. Nobody has addressed the thing about animals. And I just want to say, when I was homeless, I had a dog. I used my dog as protection because I was just a single young woman on the streets. And, you know, they wouldn’t let him in shelters. They - you couldn’t have an animal, and I needed my dog. I mean, my dog was kind of my family. And so we slept outside because I didn’t want to have to give up my dog.
There used to be this racist picture floating around online of the border between San Diego and Tijuana. And the thing is, the US likes to pretend we are “above” that, but we’re actually worse. Because we don’t even give people the grace of a shack to sleep in anymore. We would have shanty towns in this country if we gave people even that little dignity.
Maybe if we didn’t make city streets as wide as highways, people wouldn’t drive so fast. I feel like it’s obvious that people will drive faster between painted lines than if those lines were walls. Even lining a street with trees lowers speeds. An indirect side effect would be a drop in ticket revenue, but surely the police department would prefer safety over money.
The fact that things like this happen in the US shows how corrupt lawmakers and the judiciary have become.
In the US, if you don’t have money, your life is worthless, according to lawmakers and the courts. And, according to the latest Supreme Court decision signed off on by hypocritical Christian Amy Coney Barret, you can be a criminal just because of being poor: yep, that’s what fake imaginary jesus would have definitely wanted.
She obviously doesn’t believe the bible fairy-tale on some level or she wouldn’t have agreed with the ruling.
Here is her disgusting hypocrisy on full-blast, the supposed Christian, ruling as jesus would, that the poor are criminals for sleeping: www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/…/23-175_19m2.pdf. (She did not write it, but as a Pro-life in all cases Christian, the hypocrisy is fucking astounding.)
It’s unbelievably disgusting. Even if she knows jesus is fake, it’s cruel and evil. I am mentioning this case because it sets the tone for how people are treated in the US. If a poor person can be locked up for being unable to stay awake, of course they can pull organs out from a criminal without permission. Why not? They can do anything they want until global warming finally comes with its revenge, destroying the planet for the idiocy of the upper-class selfish myopic morons who demand it with their selfishness.
My dude that’s what the spare-tube-with-the- cooler-in-it is for. Slide a double-bagged ziploc surprise in there and White Aryan Texas Whatevers won’t be fucking up for too long.
Of course you’ll be plastered, so the odds that it all goes terribly wrong are still pretty high. Common sense dictates: Do Not
news
Oldest
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.