I assume nothing. That segment of the homeless population are the ones we can most easily help. Those with mental illness or other similar issues are a much more difficult task. Especially if they don’t want help.
This is the Republican Party
- Thread starter astonmartin708
- Start date
Seems like their isn't a stick which has any effect, or which we are willing to wield. The carrot is likely the only effective method here. That will cost the cities money, but it's the only effective method.
I remember several years ago they started employing spikes and other barriers like that, in areas they didn't want them sleeping. I don't think that was effective, cost effective, or pretty. The only immediate thing they can do is force them to relocate with police officers, tasers, tear gas, etc. But that is a constant battle. They need a carrot at the place where they relocate.
I would be fine with a carrot if the same works. I just spent a week in Seattle due to soccer. The homeless problem downtown is significant. Adding to the issue is over half the homeless there are drug addicts. Trash, sanitation issues and drug use dominate these encampments. Not sure what the answer is but it is next to impossible to operate a business next to an encampment. Living next to one would also be a challenge. Not sure what the answer is other than the importance of a city having a say in where these encampments are located.
I think the most valid argument is public sanitation and safety. You want to make sure water quality is maintained and human waste and other toxic waste is taken care of properly. You also want to make sure people can navigate cities without the risk of encountering noxious drugs or used paraphernalia.
I was in Seattle last summer at right around this time after having not been there for a few years, and my observation was that, while the homeless problem was still a thing, it wasn't as bad as it had been around 2015-16 and I felt like the downtown actually had more stores than I expected in thriving operation, thought the high-end ones tended to have security.
Portland on the other hand (just visited a few months ago) was a total writeoff. I visit SLC quite often and it's another place really taken over by homelessness. On the other hand, in Des Moines or Tulsa where there is no effective public transit, you see much fewer homeless, probably because it's just harder move around the city.
What I've noticed most is that places with the best public transit where rules, fees, and standards are not well enforced have the worst homeless problems because it makes the homeless more mobile, and also ruins public transit for normal folks. I think that's one of the things I would crack down on first. Just because I don't want the homeless to be forcibly removed in all cases, doesn't mean I think they should get free public transit where they tend to cause a lot of problems. I think NYC improved quite a bit when they started to get the subway under control.
Last edited:
I think with the segment of the homeless population you're talking about (non-drug addicted, non-mentally ill) you also have to deal with the fact that many of those people have past lives.... meaning they probably have debts they've run from and horrible credit, also they may have alimony / child support debts that they may not have an easy time discharging in bankruptcy court. Getting them a job might simply not be enough. I think some of these people really could use a life counselor that can help them navigate what needs to be done to get them back in the fold of society..
Some might need debt reduction services, some might need job training. Many will need mental health services or expensive drug rehabilitation services. Others might need help dealing with PTSD related symptoms caused by America's military conflicts and a piss-poor VA system. I think very few of them need to be preached to, which is what we always seem to try first. Kicking them around in the country or imposing punitive civil / criminal fees probably won't work.
Last edited:
Seattle’s mayor conducted a study last year to find out some of the reasons people in his city were homeless. The study showed 60% of them were drug addicts. I thought that number was awful high but those were the results. We did see a lot of drug use on the streets while there. The downtown Target had practically everything other than food under lock and key.
LA and San Diego are still the worst two cities I’ve been too as far as the homeless. I’ve never been to Portland. It’s a complex issue with no easy answers. Especially since the reasons for homelessness are so diverse. Not sure I completely buy the debt reason at least in California due to the limited amount a judgment creditor can take as it relates to low income earners.
In an effort to be fair and balanced, I do think that the S.C’s decision today regarding immunity was the reasonable and correct one.
Seems to codify what the DOJs has done for over a hundred years. I do wish they would have narrowed or further explained what would qualify as an “official act”. Barrett addressed the question a bit in her concurrence. Seems fairly reasonable. I personally would favor a narrow interpretation due to my ongoing desire to limit the power of the Executive branch.
They took a pass with this 'decision'. Really cheap of them to avoid making a real decision. They just passed it off to future court decisions. No real definition, of what shouldn't be allowed.
Last edited:
Remember a few weeks ago when Hiffy was waxing poetic about the dangers of child labor for these immigrants. Well, here’s an opportunity for him to show some moral fortitude for our own citizens….
Hmm... kids of a manager... not really the same as forced labor..
I was driving and working around combines, bailers, and hay haulers at 10-11 yrs old.. i guess it was sort of forced labor.. grandpa said if i didnt work, i didnt eat..
Bauer Food LLC said in a statement that the two 10-year-olds are children of a night manager and "were not approved by franchisee organization management to be in that part of the restaurant."
- "Any ‘work’ was done at the direction of - and in the presence of - the parent without authorization by franchisee organization management or leadership," the company said.
Not a fan either. Guy looks like a legit politician. Beat Tim Ryan for the Senate seat. Thought there were better choices. VP pick doesn’t matter anyway I suppose. Look at Kamala.
lol. True. I would have preferred more of a moderate. Unfortunately, very few of those animals exist in either party these days even though I would characterize most voters as moderates. Quite the dichotomy.
Trump will now idolize FDR, and change to Democrat, in his third term. Trump as exiting President at 85.
I think he is more concerned with who he can con into voting for him, than what policies he has to represent. Winning is more important than policy to Trump. Be damned what he supports.He has been a Dem a lot longer than a Pub
I assure you I didn’t watch one second of it. Rivals mainboard had the info. Still interesting the head of the Teamster is speaking
In the purple rust belt, probably a few at least. Every vote counts in the rust belt.(Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, etc)
Quick question.... how can Trump denounce the Project 2025 Agenda when the key document from the group contains chapter after chapter authored by his senior administration staff including multiple Trump agency directors?
It's only a temporary pre-election denial.
How can you question Trump denying anything. He denies making statements that are on tape.
Trump said, “I have no idea who is behind it.” I don't see how trump would know, though. McEntee is the director of the 2025 program. Kelly got McEntee fired from Trumps staff because he had a gambling problem. Then Trump rehired him, after Trump canned Kelly. It should be obvious about Trump having no idea, seeing as how Trump hired him only for the second time, as Director of
Last edited:
If you want to become the most hated person in US History, Project 2025 is a good blueprint to get you there.
Weird deal. Not one of my conservative friends has even mentioned it. Seems like it’s all my liberal friends talk about. How many prominent Pubs have come out in support ?
It's out there but not admitted, so it can appeal to the base, but not get picked on by the main part of the party. Sly on the marketing/non marketing.
Would you like to go over the author list?
Prominent pubs don’t need to come out in support of it. They wrote it.
Sure. What elected Pubs are on the author line? Like I said, not a single of my conservative friends have even mentioned it. Not sure they would even be aware of 2025 but for posts by the left.
