MODERATED General Politics Thread II

HardlinesFour

Super Ninja & Site Mod.
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Oct 7, 2011
Messages
4,673
The one solution is create a fascist culture where you grab any homeless or drug users and run them out of town.
That would fix things, for a while.
But people become poor.
They crash and burn.
Some people become mentally ill or drug addicts, who weren't before.
Then you have to run them out.

Or you could spend the huge amount of money that is needed to take care of the people on the streets.
But the companies that made everything so expensive don't want to pay more taxes....
So what do you do?
"Fascist" .... give me a break. Universally, almost all of the homeless are not people who have been displaced because their rent payments skyrocketed. Those that were affected by sky-high rents, either got roommates, or moved two or three hours away, to commute in daily to their job. They are called "super commuters". They don't just go and setup a tent outside their office. They either find a new job in a different area, or relocate and commute in. I know of at-least one who commutes & carpools from Fresno. Ultra Low Interest Rates & horrible Federal Policy basically sparked a ridiculous buying binge & propped up SF Real Estate to the Sky. It's a bubble that is finally bursting.

The overwhelming majority of the homeless in San Francisco are drug addicts, plane & simple. These people need to understand, their are consequences to their actions. You cannot just have people openly out and using Meth, on a corner, in front of the Starbucks or Chase Branch. They need to be gathered up, ARRESTED, and FORCED into DRUG REHAB programs. They should be forced to either attend rehab, prove sobriety -- or sit in Jail and contemplate their life choices. Leaving them on the street, imo, is just cruelty. We are allowing a sizable demographic to just sit there, rot, and eventually die in a pile of filth. What could be more shameful than our in-action and enabling of their downfall?
 

commiecorvus

Former Signing Ninja
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Jun 10, 2011
Messages
16,633
"Fascist" .... give me a break. Universally, almost all of the homeless are not people who have been displaced because their rent payments skyrocketed. Those that were affected by sky-high rents, either got roommates, or moved two or three hours away, to commute in daily to their job. They are called "super commuters". They don't just go and setup a tent outside their office. They either find a new job in a different area, or relocate and commute in. I know of at-least one who commutes & carpools from Fresno. Ultra Low Interest Rates & horrible Federal Policy basically sparked a ridiculous buying binge & propped up SF Real Estate to the Sky. It's a bubble that is finally bursting.

The overwhelming majority of the homeless in San Francisco are drug addicts, plane & simple. These people need to understand, their are consequences to their actions. You can just have people openly out and using Meth, on a corner, in front of the Starbucks or Chase Branch. They need to be gathered up, ARRESTED, and FORCED into DRUG REHAB programs. They should be forced to either attend rehab, prove sobriety -- or sit in Jail and contemplate their life choices. Leaving them on the street, imo, is just cruelty. We are allowing a sizable demographic to just sit there, rot, and eventually die in a pile of filth. What could be more shameful than our in-action.
Okay, so you round up all the homeless who have drug addiction, a good portion of whom have serious mental health issues that led them to the addiction in the first place.
You force them in drug rehab.
Who is going to pay for all of that?
Rehab that works costs $20,000 per person for the inpatient, then another $10,000 for outpatient and this is for the most basic services.
This doesn't cover the people who have ongoing mental health issues that will take long term mental health care which will cost much more.

Then you have the vocational rehabilitation question.
You have a person who is clean and sober but has no resources, no place to live, and no job history.
They need to be retrained, given skills so they can get a job, and learn how to live/work with people again.
That costs money too.
DVR has those programs but in California they are on order of selection which means there is a two year waiting list.
In two years people can easily wind up back on the streets.

I'm just trying to say that there aren't easy answers to many of these problems.
 

HardlinesFour

Super Ninja & Site Mod.
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Oct 7, 2011
Messages
4,673
Okay, so you round up all the homeless who have drug addiction, a good portion of whom have serious mental health issues that led them to the addiction in the first place.
You force them in drug rehab.
Who is going to pay for all of that?
Rehab that works costs $20,000 per person for the inpatient, then another $10,000 for outpatient and this is for the most basic services.
This doesn't cover the people who have ongoing mental health issues that will take long term mental health care which will cost much more.
So, lets ignore the issue and just let them die on the streets, right? It's probably cheaper that way to handle them short term until they make it to the County Morgue. One funny little fact, is 99.998% of them also qualify for state Medicaid, which would probably cover the entire costs for the rehabilitation. The state could assemble public meetings, and other resources for what Medicaid doesn't cover.

Then you have the vocational rehabilitation question.
You have a person who is clean and sober but has no resources, no place to live, and no job history.
They need to be retrained, given skills so they can get a job, and learn how to live/work with people again.
That costs money too.
DVR has those programs but in California they are on order of selection which means there is a two year waiting list.
In two years people can easily wind up back on the streets.
They do not need vocational rehab. They need drug treatment, and assistance to get to close relatives & family. For the remaining individuals, who are truly estranged -- they need temporary shelter beds, and a Work Placement Program. Most/if not all are fully capable of working and contributing. The one's who are psychically unable to -- need to be placed on Social Security Disability.
 

HardlinesFour

Super Ninja & Site Mod.
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Oct 7, 2011
Messages
4,673
I'm just trying to say that there aren't easy answers to many of these problems.
I truly believe their are solutions. No one just wants to wake up, and make them take their medicine. We have too many lost, souls, that we've abandoned and enabled on the streets. Letting them kill themselves is just reprehensible.
 

commiecorvus

Former Signing Ninja
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Jun 10, 2011
Messages
16,633
It's true that Medicad will cover Rehab but most places don't accept it or not places anyone would want to go.
Way too many of the people who go through Rehab have done it two or three times before it takes.
Having a backslide is such a part of addiction, it is almost a given.
This makes the overall cost much higher.

The sad part is that many of the people are vets, who have many resources.
They just feel so alienated that it is impossible to reach out to anybody.


I agree that they need a safety net.
Friends and family are very important.
But many of these people have alienated their families or lost everyone.
Having a job, a goal, and a chance to rebuild their lives is important to not backsliding

I would never write anyone off.
The solution takes hard work on a bunch of different levels.
If the veterans organizations, food banks, homeless organizations, tech companies, city government, etc. all sat down at the table and made a plan to work together I think the problem could be solved.
It would require money and for people to give up their egos.
We need less infighting and more supporting each other.
 
Joined
Aug 19, 2013
Messages
2,037
They do not need vocational rehab. They need drug treatment, and assistance to get to close relatives & family. For the remaining individuals, who are truly estranged -- they need temporary shelter beds, and a Work Placement Program. Most/if not all are fully capable of working and contributing. The one's who are psychically unable to -- need to be placed on Social Security Disability.
Believe it or not, I agree with many of these points. However, here's the TLDR response I've been given by virtually everyone I've ever mentioned these ideas too:
"Blah blah socialism. Those people need to take responsibility and pull themselves up by their bootstraps."
 

can't touch this

your fave poster
Joined
Nov 20, 2017
Messages
4,434
It's like when lolbertarians say it should be legal to smoke oxy on elementary school playgrounds, they just say "rehab lol" when I point out how dangerous opioids are. They haven't thought or care about second-order effects of hard drug abuse and they think rehab is some quick-n-simple in and out deal like getting Lasik done. Extra large yikes.
 
Joined
Aug 19, 2013
Messages
2,037
One of the dumbest clickbait outrage "news" stories I have ever seen:

In short, Maverick's jacket doesn't have Taiwan and Japanese patches like in the first film. Obviously this was done so the movie can air in China and make a lot more money but the author thinks the US Navy should be demanding that they be left in. Navy obviously doesn't give a fuck about that kind of thing so author is claiming that they are bowing to Chinese demands.
 

commiecorvus

Former Signing Ninja
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Jun 10, 2011
Messages
16,633
I found this sad and kind of interesting.
The right loves to yell about Chicago and how bad the crime is, or how terrible things are in certain cities but when the numbers are crunched Chicago is number 10 (which is still absolutely horrible mind you) and with places like Kansas City, Missouri at #7 and St. Louis at #1.
I blame the media because those never really show up on the radar as being dangerous places to live.
We hear about Newark NJ, #9 or New Orleans and Detroit, #3 and #4, but not about Missouri or #11 Cincinnati, Ohio.
So yeah, interesting stuff.


Murder map: Deadliest U.S. cities - https://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/murder-map-deadliest-u-s-cities/
 
Last edited:
Joined
Feb 27, 2015
Messages
1,809
We may never know because the police offed his ass but there is very good evidence that the Dayton shooter was pissed that his sister, one of the people he killed, was dating a black man).
Most of the people he killed were black and when the cops got him he was heading for a bar popular with POC.
Fuck this guy.

Suspected White Supremacist Shooter In Dayton Was Reportedly Angry His Sister Was Dating A Black Man - https://newsone.com/3883585/dayton-shooter-killed-sister/
What "very good evidence?"

In the article you tagged, Bekah Freitas says that "The shooter in Dayton killed his sister because she was dating a black man."

That's a pretty bold statement considering I can't find any other news source to back that up.

I'm not saying it's not true. I don't know. But usually you need something to corroborate a statement like this. Did Bekah know him?

Another quote from the article:

' "The shooter in Dayton killed his sister because she was dating a black man. He then proceeded to kill 5 more black people just because. There is a sickness in this country and Trump’s racist rhetoric had emboldened that sickness. #TrumpsTerrorists #ThisIsAmerica,” the tweet read.'

Based on what? Again, I'm not saying it is or isn't true. How can these people so certain when no investigation I've read or seen on tv corroborates this?

I mean, correct me if I'm wrong.
Did I miss something? I'm still waiting on any evidence for this assertion. I live in Ohio, maybe very close to where this happened. Maybe I even know someone who went to school with the shooter or his sister. Maybe it was me. The bar and area mentioned is popular with everyone. I just don't understand why people jumped to this conclusion. No law enforcement agency is saying it was race based.
 

commiecorvus

Former Signing Ninja
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Jun 10, 2011
Messages
16,633
Did I miss something? I'm still waiting on any evidence for this assertion. I live in Ohio, maybe very close to where this happened. Maybe I even know someone who went to school with the shooter or his sister. Maybe it was me. The bar and area mentioned is popular with everyone. I just don't understand why people jumped to this conclusion. No law enforcement agency is saying it was race based.

Mea Culpa.
My fuck up.
I followed a series of articles that reported this all of which had been reliable in the past.
It looks like they all got their information from the same couple of people who knew the guy tangentially but really didn't have any evidence to back up what they were saying.
Was waiting to see if anything else came of it but so far nothing.
I jumped too soon.
I usually try not to do that.
Sorry.
 
Joined
Aug 19, 2013
Messages
2,037
I found this sad and kind of interesting.
The right loves to yell about Chicago and how bad the crime is, or how terrible things are in certain cities but when the numbers are crunched Chicago is number 10 (which is still absolutely horrible mind you) and with places like Kansas City, Missouri at #7 and St. Louis at #1.
I blame the media because those never really show up on the radar as being dangerous places to live.
We hear about Newark NJ, #9 or New Orleans and Detroit, #3 and #4, but not about Missouri or #11 Cincinnati, Ohio.
So yeah, interesting stuff.

Murder Map
There's only one reason that the right even pretends to care about Chicago's murder rate.
 

HardlinesFour

Super Ninja & Site Mod.
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Oct 7, 2011
Messages
4,673
I found this sad and kind of interesting.
The right loves to yell about Chicago and how bad the crime is, or how terrible things are in certain cities but when the numbers are crunched Chicago is number 10 (which is still absolutely horrible mind you) and with places like Kansas City, Missouri at #7 and St. Louis at #1.
I blame the media because those never really show up on the radar as being dangerous places to live.
We hear about Newark NJ, #9 or New Orleans and Detroit, #3 and #4, but not about Missouri or #11 Cincinnati, Ohio.
So yeah, interesting stuff.
Everytime I attempt to click on your link, all I get back is this "about:blank#blocked". Can you repost it. Regardless, the right like to make Chicago a talking point, because of the insane amount of (weekly) gun violence, in a municipality that has enacted what would be considered "stronger" gun laws than most other areas of the country.

Newark, NJ may be "#9".... but truth is, you are literately a dead man walking if you are there after dark. I wouldn't feel even remotely the same about St. Louis, in most areas. Same goes with Kansas City. In Addition, NJ (from my understanding, but I could be wrong) also has extensive gun laws & regulation, mostly drafted from NY's Bills.
 

HardlinesFour

Super Ninja & Site Mod.
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Oct 7, 2011
Messages
4,673
Not really attempting to go off topic - but I've wanted to bring this up. In Florida -- in 2006, I purchased a AB-10. It's a semi-automatic "assault" pistol, which I've legally possessed in the state of Florida, Colorado, and California. I also have 32 & 50 Round Clips, which I also purchased completely legally. As of today, I have this weapon safely tucked away in a safe, bolted into the floor, in my closet.

What exactly is the plan -- to get rid of these weapons, that MILLIONS of people, just like me, have in our possession? It's like Pandora's Box. It's already been opened, and the guns are already out there "on the street". How do you actually get rid of them? I *may* actually, willingly hand this gun over, if I was forced/asked to, and was well compensated. However, I could name off at-least four people - who you would have to pry the guns out of their cold, dead hands.

This is a talking point and issue that has been completely ignored by both parties in the Gun Control Debate. It's not like there are only 1,000 "assault" weapons out there, there are at-least hundreds of thousands, if not millions. I *may* very well own more than one gun, as well. Who knows. It's just something I wonder.
 

commiecorvus

Former Signing Ninja
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Jun 10, 2011
Messages
16,633
Everytime I attempt to click on your link, all I get back is this "about:blank#blocked". Can you repost it. Regardless, the right like to make Chicago a talking point, because of the insane amount of (weekly) gun violence, in a municipality that has enacted what would be considered "stronger" gun laws than most other areas of the country.

Newark, NJ may be "#9".... but truth is, you are literately a day man walking if you are there after dark. I wouldn't feel even remotely the same about St. Louis, in most areas. Same goes with Kansas City. In Addition, NJ (from my understanding, but I could be wrong) also has extensive gun laws & regulation, mostly drafted from NY's Bills.

Fixed the link.

I've hung out in Newark but it was with people who lived there and had street cred so I never felt in danger.
I would have never done it by myself.
My understanding from those people is that folks who need guns either buy them from cutouts (people who have good backgrounds and do the buying for criminals) or go to other states where the rules are more lax to either buy or steal them.
That was before the new laws that they passed so I'm not sure what they do now.
I'm sure the methods are the same in Chicago.
Having strong gun laws in your state doesn't help if someone can drive 80 miles to someplace where they don't.

The thing about Chicago as @can't touch this so bluntly pointed out, is it has had a long tradition of crime, graft, and lets say, violent solutions to problems.
There is a reason Al Capone came out of that town.
The fact that POC are the ones currently doing a lot of the shooting (not all) has little to do with the nature of the city itself.
 

commiecorvus

Former Signing Ninja
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Jun 10, 2011
Messages
16,633
Not really attempting to go off topic - but I've wanted to bring this up. In Florida -- in 2006, I purchased a AB-10. It's a semi-automatic "assault" pistol, which I've legally possessed in the state of Florida, Colorado, and California. I also have 32 & 50 Round Clips, which I also purchased completely legally. As of today, I have this weapon safely tucked away in a safe, bolted into the floor, in my closet.

What exactly is the plan -- to get rid of these weapons, that MILLIONS of people, just like me, have in our possession? It's like Pandora's Box. It's already been opened, and the guns are already out there "on the street". How do you actually get rid of them? I *may* actually, willingly hand this gun over, if I was forced/asked to, and was well compensated. However, I could name off at-least four people - who you would have to pry the guns out of their cold, dead hands.

This is a talking point and issue that has been completely ignored by both parties in the Gun Control Debate. It's not like there are only 1,000 "assault" weapons out there, there are at-least hundreds of thousands, if not millions. I *may* very well own more than one gun, as well. Who knows. It's just something I wonder.

Do I expect anyone to give up their weapons, nope.
Can we come up with ways to restrict people who will shoot up Walmarts from getting them? Maybe.

Beau is a redneck who thinks a lot like I do.
Smart dude.


 
Joined
Aug 19, 2013
Messages
2,037
As has been said on here before, virtually no one is trying to outright ban and confiscate all guns. Every bill that has been suggested mostly involved licensing and background checks to try to keep the wrong people from just waltzing into almost any store and buying a weapon. The guy who was investigated twice by the FBI for possible terrorism links? Maybe he shouldn't have been allowed to buy a weapon without at least SOME extra scrutiny.

Also, local gun laws don't mean shit when you can drive for an hour and bypass them. Let's pretend Dallas passes strict gun control laws that makes it very difficult to purchase a weapon. Let's pretend I live in Dallas and want to acquire a weapon but now I can't due to the new laws. All I have to do is drive over to Arlington (easternmost suburb of Fort Worth but it's outside of Dallas county) and hit a pawn shop. Or, I can drive over to bi-monthly gun show in downtown Ft. Worth or any dozens of places that don't have such laws in place.

Obviously no single solution is going to 100% work. Even if a universal background check ever does get passed without being derailed as "THEY TERKIN UR GUNZZZ", the next shooting that does happen is going to have right-wing news screaming "SEE! SHOOTINGS STILL HAPPEN!!" The important thing is that we actually TRY to do something to limit the events. Doing nothing just makes the recycled Onion headline accurate: "No Way To Prevent This,’ Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens"
 
Top