Trumps Victory Was Great! BUT..

[jakee 1,489]

4 minutes ago, metalslug said:

We know who's having the last laugh now.

And yet the lesson you have taken from it is that it couldn’t happen again.

[metalslug 36]

4 minutes ago, jakee said:

And yet the lesson you have taken from it is that it couldn’t happen again.

?? That lesson can be taken from the US constitution. After his next term, he's done. Obviously it couldn't happen again.

Edited November 21, 2024 by metalslug

[jakee 1,489]

27 minutes ago, metalslug said:

?? That lesson can be taken from the US constitution. After his next term, he's done. Obviously it couldn't happen again.

It’s when you start to play silly games like this that we know you’ve noticed your mistake.

[metalslug 36]

Just now, jakee said:

It’s when you start to play silly games like this that we know you’ve noticed your mistake.

You asked if it could happen again after specifically asking what happened to Trump. If you'd like to ask if that can happen to someone else, then ask that. The 'games' are coming from you.

If somehow you're imagining that it could happen to Harris then you're comparing apples with oranges (orange pun intended); Trump had already established a record of a win in 2016 and only missed 2020 by a narrow margin. The reason for the R's to support Trump in 2024 was much like the D's supporting Biden for the same reason; a record of victory. Harris has no such record; she ran once and failed hard. She burned through a billion dollars and then some, without result. She would have a tough time just finding donors again. Despite the apparent early polling mentioned above; the thinking Dems know she's not the best candidate they have. Even on this forum there was a thread discussing who would be most suitable to replace Biden and, aside from the campaign funding 'lock-in' issue, Harris was not a popular choice amongst liberals in that thread.

[jakee 1,489]

2 hours ago, metalslug said:

Alright then; back to positive polling news; A poll released by Puck News/Echelon Insights "found that 41 percent of likely Democratic voters would vote for Harris to be on the top of the Democratic ticket in 2028". If Trump can hold it together for 4 years, even if the improvement is small, then Republicans are set again.

Jesus you’re obtuse. Try this - that’s exactly what the dems thought 4 years ago. 

(And if you’re unable to do the substitution if parties and candidates yourself, that’s in you.)

[jakee 1,489]

11 minutes ago, metalslug said:

The reason for the R's to support Trump in 2024 was much like the D's supporting Biden for the same reason; a record of victory. Harris has no such record; 

Ooh, please go ahead and explain that one. This’ll be fun.

[metalslug 36]

5 minutes ago, jakee said:

Jesus you’re obtuse. Try this - that’s exactly what the dems thought 4 years ago. 

(And if you’re unable to do the substitution if parties and candidates yourself, that’s in you.)

So we're onto PA's now? I always knew you had it in you. I now have other members I'd rather keep engaging with. Shout at clouds if you'd like.

[jakee 1,489]

4 minutes ago, metalslug said:

So we're onto PA's now? I always knew you had it in you. I now have other members I'd rather keep engaging with. Shout at clouds if you'd like.

Yes of course, as with Putin and as with your imaginary Jan 6th panels you will decide to stop engaging for completely unrelated reasons when you are unable to support your argument any further.

[base698 14]

7 hours ago, JoeWeber said:

about that gem: using a bamboo rod to beat a defenseless person.

That is not what I said at all.  

Did you happen to visit a West coast major city in the last decade? 

[jakee 1,489]

1 minute ago, base698 said:

That is not what I said at all.  

What do you think caning means?

[base698 14]

Just now, jakee said:

What do you think caning means?

Defenseless person is point of contention. I've made references to dangerous schizo multiple times in this very thread. 

Do you consider a dangerous schizo drug addict defenseless?

What about a corner boy selling crack and fentanyl in the open at 8am on a weekday?  

[jakee 1,489]

6 minutes ago, base698 said:

Defenseless person is point of contention. I've made references to dangerous schizo multiple times in this very thread. 

Do you consider a dangerous schizo drug addict defenseless?

When they’re in custody after having been convicted of a first offence, yes. That’s exactly what they are.

Unkess you’re taking about the police dispensing summary justice in the streets. Is that right? Do you agree with Trumps Judge Dredd fantasy of the police being really violent against suspects of petty crime?

In which case, yes they still would be. The police aren’t going to risk fighting a dangerous person if they don’t have to, they’d just taser them first then dispense the caning. Duh.

So anyway, yeah. What Joe said you said is exactly what you said.

[base698 14]

3 minutes ago, jakee said:

When they’re in custody after having been convicted of a first offence, yes. That’s exactly what they are

Ok then. If you find a guy who has murdered and dismembered his wife, is he defenseless once he is in jail and away from the scene of the crime?

Guess we need to let him go too.

Edited November 21, 2024 by base698

[jakee 1,489]

1 minute ago, base698 said:

Ok then. If you find a guy who has murdered and dismembered his wife, is he defenseless once he is in jail and away from the scene of the crime?

Guess we need to let him go too.

Funny thing, it would indeed be illegal to cane that person in that scenario.

Is there any chance at all that the absurdity of your own example applied to your own suggestion will make you stop and think for a second?

No, of course it won’t.

[base698 14]

24 minutes ago, jakee said:

Funny thing, it would indeed be illegal to cane that person in that scenario.

Is there any chance at all that the absurdity of your own example applied to your own suggestion will make you stop and think for a second?

The law can certainly never be changed. We are talking hypothetically about how you could solve it I thought.

Yes, it is illegal now.  We have thousands of homeless people strewn through residential areas.  Some of them are violent drug addicts.  Others just steal bicycles and catalytic converters.  They refuse shelter and prefer to stay in the street.  The prisons are full, the police are busy.  Innocent people in the residential neighborhoods are harmed by this situation.  It's been going on a decade.

Do you wait to build more jails?  Hire more police?  Build a camp in the desert?  

[jakee 1,489]

18 minutes ago, base698 said:

Yes, it is illegal now. 

So right now, you would let the murderer go? Because it’s illegal to cane him, and those are the two options you just represented? Pretend he’s not helpless and cane him, or acknowledge that he is helpless and let him go?

26 minutes ago, base698 said:

The law can certainly never be changed.

And the Constitution? That’s a bit trickier, I thought.

29 minutes ago, base698 said:

Do you wait to build more jails?  Hire more police?  Build a camp in the desert?  

And what would caning do about that? Homeless psychotic drug addicts will suddenly get their act together as a result?  Come off it. Even Trump pretends his plan is about rehab. You think if you came someone they’ll suddenly decide the government has their best interests at heart and therefore they will engage with a government rehab program? 

[nigel99 471]

1 hour ago, base698 said:

The law can certainly never be changed. We are talking hypothetically about how you could solve it I thought.

Yes, it is illegal now.  We have thousands of homeless people strewn through residential areas.  Some of them are violent drug addicts.  Others just steal bicycles and catalytic converters.  They refuse shelter and prefer to stay in the street.  The prisons are full, the police are busy.  Innocent people in the residential neighborhoods are harmed by this situation.  It's been going on a decade.

Do you wait to build more jails?  Hire more police?  Build a camp in the desert?  

Drug addiction is a medical problem, not a criminal problem. If you’re serious about solving drug addiction then a good first step is the US catching up with most of the Western world and having good public medical services.

Decriminalisation of drug use is the next step in harm reduction. 

Spend law enforcement time going after the bigger dealers, most corner dealers are just feeding a habit and it’s a waste of resources going after them. 

With your hard stance on illegal drugs does Matt Gaetz get a free pass?

[olofscience 480]

1 hour ago, base698 said:

Some of them are violent drug addicts.  Others just steal bicycles and catalytic converters.

Then they'll have to answer for their violence and thefts through the legal system.

As for being drug addicts, as nigel99 said, that's a medical and mental health problem, not a criminal problem.

1 hour ago, base698 said:

They refuse shelter and prefer to stay in the street.

Then offer them something that actually improves their current situation. Like treatment for their addiction, safety, and some hope.

1 hour ago, base698 said:

The prisons are full, the police are busy. 

It's not the homeless people's fault is it? It's also pretty unrelated.

1 hour ago, base698 said:

Innocent people in the residential neighborhoods are harmed by this situation.

So are the homeless people.

 

Also, where do you think homeless people come from? Most of them used to be "innocent people in the residential neighbourhoods" too.

You can ship all of them out into the desert, and you think no more homeless people will be created? You're just looking at the symptoms, not the root cause.

Edited November 21, 2024 by olofscience

[base698 14]

1 hour ago, jakee said:

And what would caning do about that? Homeless psychotic drug addicts will suddenly get their act together as a result?  Come off it.

If that's the threat do drug addicts in general go other places?  Would that free the police to intervene with the violent and dangerous ones?

 

59 minutes ago, olofscience said:

You can ship all of them out into the desert, and you think no more homeless people will be created? You're just looking at the symptoms, not the root cause.

We can discuss root cause when addicts aren't attacking people and sexually assaulting them near their homes.  No one has been able to reverse the trend and lots of excuses get made.  This is not about newly homeless people it's about and environment that incentivizes and tolerates addiction at the expense of everyone else.

 

1 hour ago, olofscience said:

Then offer them something that actually improves their current situation. Like treatment for their addiction, safety, and some hope.

This is refused as well. 

 

 

[olofscience 480]

2 minutes ago, base698 said:

We can discuss root cause when addicts aren't attacking people and sexually assaulting them near their homes.

That's like saying you'll only consider fixing a gushing fire hydrant when you've finished drying the street. It's never going to happen or be solved until you fix the root cause.

6 minutes ago, base698 said:

it's about and environment that incentivizes and tolerates addiction

Nobody, and I repeat, nobody likes being a homeless addict. Nobody is given any incentives to be a homeless addict. 

You're angry and upset, it's understandable. But you should listen to yourself - you're not making any sense.

[base698 14]

20 minutes ago, olofscience said:

Nobody, and I repeat, nobody likes being a homeless addict. Nobody is given any incentives to be a homeless addict. 

I've stated over and over when given the choice between treatment with housing and staying on the street, they choose to stay on the street.   They may not like it at first, but the decision they make is to continue with addiction and not seek treatment.  Addicts given food stamps will sell them to enterprising restaurants for pennies on the dollar so the restaurants can buy rice.  There are other benefits that incentivizes an addict not to seek treatment and stay on the street.  

Sometime in the last 20 years the containment of skid row (and similar areas) was allowed to spill out into the rest of the cities.  If you want to let them wallow in misery at least go back to that.  It used to be they weren't allowed to wonder out of the bad areas.  The tolerance and treating it like a victimless crime is what got us here. 

[olofscience 480]

23 minutes ago, base698 said:

It used to be they weren't allowed to wonder out of the bad areas.

Not "allowing" people to wander out of the bad areas is unlawful imprisonment. Are you sure this happened before? And are you not only okay with it, but you want it to happen more?

[JoeWeber 2,720]

34 minutes ago, base698 said:

I've stated over and over when given the choice between treatment with housing and staying on the street, they choose to stay on the street.   They may not like it at first, but the decision they make is to continue with addiction and not seek treatment.  Addicts given food stamps will sell them to enterprising restaurants for pennies on the dollar so the restaurants can buy rice.  There are other benefits that incentivizes an addict not to seek treatment and stay on the street.  

Sometime in the last 20 years the containment of skid row (and similar areas) was allowed to spill out into the rest of the cities.  If you want to let them wallow in misery at least go back to that.  It used to be they weren't allowed to wonder out of the bad areas.  The tolerance and treating it like a victimless crime is what got us here. 

As Olof pointed out unless we slow down the process of making homeless people we have no hope of ever fixing the problem in any degree. Like it or not caning them or busing them to the desert will only make a few people feel better and then for just a few moments. The first step in addressing what exists today is to spend the money needed to help the ones who want to help themselves. Are you cool with that?

[wmw999 2,442]

39 minutes ago, base698 said:

I've stated over and over when given the choice between treatment with housing and staying on the street, they choose to stay on the street.   They may not like it at first, but the decision they make is to continue with addiction and not seek treatment.  Addicts given food stamps will sell them to enterprising restaurants for pennies on the dollar so the restaurants can buy rice.  There are other benefits that incentivizes an addict not to seek treatment and stay on the street.  

Not all of them; lots and lots of homeless people really do just need an affordable place to stay, and plenty of addicts want to get better (one of my sisters-in-law works with them). It's hard work, and when you're down and out you have far fewer options, and often you got that way by having less imagination than average. 

If you can reduce the problem of homelessness by 60% with a housing-first approach (number picked out of the air, but based on conversations with actual homeless people), is that worth it? 

There isn't a perfect solution; you have to apply the Pareto Principle and fix what you can with the resources you have, and then see if the problem morphs into something different and maybe more manageable.

And all those "no foreign aid until every single veteran is housed" memes? Far and away the most destructive addict I met when I volunteered in that community was a veteran who only had a problem with alcohol (and with being an asshole). He was housed and kicked out at least twice in the two years I volunteered there; rather a special accomplishment.

Every problem doesn't, in fact have an easy 100% solution. 

[billvon 2,990]

4 hours ago, base698 said:

We have thousands of homeless people strewn through residential areas.  Some of them are violent drug addicts.  Others just steal bicycles and catalytic converters.  They refuse shelter and prefer to stay in the street. 

Some refuse shelter and prefer to stay in the street.  Most don't.  They have problems ranging from physical drug addictions to PTSD to very low IQ to illiteracy to mental illness to physical illness to poverty to abusive spouses, all of which makes it difficult or impossible to find housing to begin with.  Many live in vehicles ranging from 40 year old RVs to cars to bike trailers.  Others live in tents.

Any solution that starts "well, the problem with all homless people is . . ." is doomed to failure.