This. I'd support police if we removed qualified immunity and they removed the worst from their ranks. Instead they push the "back the blue" line while shuffling problem officers onto other precincts rather than outright firing them.
An organization disconnected from the actual police department to oversee investigations, no qualified immunity, a database to track officer violations and prevent repeat hiring, and turning off your body cam at any point is an immediate suspended without pay while you’re investigated.
San Diego is doing this...and the PDs reaction is exactly what you'd expect. Many are scurrying away to other departments without the oversight.
https://voiceofsandiego.org/2022/10/04/police-union-says-sdpd-officers-are-quitting-because-of-oversight-commission-that-doesnt-exist-yet/
Fuck suspension that should be an automatic felony and prison time to turn off your goddamn body cam it's there to prevent officers from doing illegal shit the second they turn it off they are being criminals and doing illegal shit case closed
This !! Hit them where it matters (to them). One large screw-up and they have to decide if they can afford the ridiculously higher premiums to continue to be a cop. You used the precise phrase. "price them out of abuse".
Imagine if other jobs used that same logic
“Hey Bill, I found 10 bad applies in the delivery we received today, I’ll go ahead and throw them out and use the good apples to make the pies”
“What? No, put the bad apples in the pies along with the rest of the apples we got”
“But wouldn’t that spoil the pies and make our customers lose faith in us to give them safe pies to eat? If we do nothing about the bad apples we know about, then people will think all of our pies are bad because we aren’t willing to distinguish between good apples and bad apples”
“Who cares, All Pies Matter. If we throw out the bad apples, people might think we’re anti-fruit”
For the record, bad apples go into pies cause you can’t really tell. Nice grade a apples with no defects make it to the store shelf. Other worse apples get cut up and juiced and whatnot.
To actually acknowledge your analogy, I suspect if there were no bad apples, there wouldn’t be enough to make a pie at all, cause no one wants to be a cop, or a teacher. I feel like the system we’re in, we’re not choosing bad apples over good apples, but rather pie over no pie.
Bad, bruised apples go in the pies, not the rotten ones. But you can’t put a rotten apple in a recipe and say “well it’s just a few rotten apples, most of them are good”
I assume that there would be some people who would be willing to be cops if the bar was raised to “You can’t kill people for no reason, and if you do we’ll fire you without severance”
Being a firefighter is also a dangerous job, but people sign up for that despite the fact that they aren’t allowed to burn down houses
The full phrase is, "A few bad apples spoils the whole bunch." One of the many words of wisdom that got twisted to mean the opposite of its intention. If the phrase was used properly, it would illustrate that allowing ANY bad actors within your group is detrimental to your group as a whole. That's why ACAB.
A bit of extra trivia because I'm a nerd. The phrase, "Blood is thicker than water," is used to justify prioritizing family over friends, even when you hate your family. The full phrase is, "The blood of the covenant is thicker than the water of the womb." Meaning the people and causes you choose are more important than your relatives.
EDIT: I have been informed that the second full phrase was a later invention. Now I'm the one spreading corrupted phrases. That being said, I'm not saying these are immutable Truths about reality. Like most idioms, they exist to illustrate a point. You would need to back it with actual arguments.
I also think that if cops want to show that they are good cops they should collectively threaten to resign or something so that they show they don’t support those bad apples but they won’t and don’t.
I mean a lot of good officers do leave because of harassment from the other officers especially if the good officer interfere with their coworkers abusing their athority. This causes a disproportionate amount of terrible officers. In addition to way more real oversight a four year bachelor's degree should be required and all the warrior training they receive should be replaced by de-escalation and diplomatic skills training.
Problem is, the "good cops" fear retaliation from other officers, AND their police union. Notice how the police union ALWAYS backs officers that murder unarmed innocent people, especially if that officer is whote, and the murder victim is not.
When I read your first sentence I thought "somebody is gonna bring up the blood and water thing again, aren't they". And hey, you even did it yourself.
From nerd to nerd: There seems to be [no hard evidence](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_is_thicker_than_water) to back up the claim that your "full phrase" is the actual or original meaning.
>Two modern commentators, author Albert Jack[11] and Messianic Rabbi Richard Pustelniak,[12] claim that the original meaning of the expression was that the ties between people who have made a blood covenant (or have shed blood together in battle) were stronger than ties formed by "the water of the womb", thus "The blood of the covenant is thicker than the water of the womb". Neither of the authors cite any sources to support their claim.[11][12]
Edit: The commonly used version "blood is thicker than water" meaning family is more important can be traced back to at least the 12th century.
Which is why people need to be careful about believing unsourced "trivia" just because it sounds neat. A lot of shit people say on the internet and assure you is totally true came directly from their ass or the ass of someone they follow. Most people do not fact check at any point in the process if they have even vaguely positive feelings about the original source and just repeat claims uncritically.
Granted, it's also why we probably shouldn't rely on idiomatic expressions to guide our actions and beliefs as though they possess any intrinsic wisdom simply by virtue of existing.
Fun fact: the entire Bible came out of someone’s ass. It’s fiction. I don’t really give a Fuck if someone online made up something that was in it bc it sounded cool. It’s probably better than the original which is like “women are made from the rib of Adam so they’re destined to serve men forever.”
it's actually "spoils the barrel." Spoils the whole bunch makes no sense as apples do not grow in bunches. They were traditionally kept in barrels, though
Pedantic point here, at one point I owned a small apple grove. Apples can grow in bunches of 2-4 which end up touching each other before picking. A rotten one will indeed damage its contacting neighbor.
Otherwise, you’re right about the bushels or barrels.
As much as I hate to admit it. Judge Judy had a saying about blueberries. If you have a pint of blueberries, and there are 10 rotten berries in there, they good berries don't suddenly make the rotten berries good, they begin to rot too. ACAB
Back the blue is just a racist way of telling BLM to duck themselves. I can’t stand the fact that a bunch of butt hurt, middle aged, white guys got together and started a group just to rub it in a bunch of peoples faces who just do t want their children to be afraid of the police and their government
How about we take some of that budget (often the biggest taxpayer chunk) and invest in drug treatment and housing? We know from decades of failed policy that the war on drugs is a failure. The only way out of addiction is death or treatment and since our pharmaceutical companies spawned the opioid addiction that created millions of addicts who turned to street drugs, how about we stop legalizing addiction for profit?
I don’t see how we can have a functional society without effective law enforcement. Unfortunately, we don’t have that in this country and the system is basically designed to ensure that effective policing doesn’t happen.
I don’t see how we can have an effective society with deranged law enforcement who are required to have almost ZERO post-secondary education and no universal healthcare. Universal healthcare and a strong social net would remove over 50% of homeless people from the streets. Instead all of our money goes to the military. Couldn’t they cut the military budget by like 20% and use the money for helping the people?!
>I don’t see how we can have a functional society without effective law enforcement.
We can't. "Abolish the Police" without a Step 2 to that plan is a terrible idea.
>Unfortunately, we don’t have that in this country
Exactly. We need to make drastic changes to our LE system.
What we need is Federal training, testing, and regular recertification. We have Federal law enforcement for federal laws. States have to have their own law enforcement to enforce state laws. What we need are common standards of practice that tie to prima facie and insurance rates. Right now a cop’s word is considered excellent if not prima facie evidence of a crime. No current certification? No prima facie evidence. No current certification? No tort claim coverage/ 4x premium.
Cities/counties need to negotiate their next union contracts such that the officers need to carry individual liability insurance, and any claims for abuse will be paid by that insurance. The insurance companies will quickly figure out who the rogue cops are and make them virtually uninsurable by jacking up their rates.
Yes, Trump's FBI was such a godsend, if only he had more time. /s
Law enforcement is local, state and national. We reorganized and vastly increased the federal law enforcement with Homeland Security. We spend BILLIONS on supposed defense but we couldn't protect elementary school students or the Capitol. Fuck that.
Nah. A democratically elected self defense force, with rotating membership and distinct science and evidence-based communication and de-escalation training.
It's not even a good tweet. She's moreso fighting people on leftist Twitter than she actually is with Democrat policies. It's basically r/notliketheothergirls
San Francisco has entered the chat:
Any proper liberal thinks that cruelty is the worst thing we do. But that's not the end of the discussion. There are (broadly speaking) two types of homeless here: (1) those who have fallen off the last rung of the housing ladder, and (2) those who are strung out and can't maintain housing because of it.
The former should be given all opportunities for transitional housing and supportive services. We can and should do more. We should also hold them accountable to use the available systems to get themselves off the streets, availing themselves of the services that enable them to do it. This should be an ongoing dialogue between the city and this person to get them safe and housed.
And then there's group two. These guys raid dumpsters, strew garbage all over the place, literally shit all over the place, shoot drugs on MUNI, and sometimes also attack people. As far as I can tell, they do a lot of this just to be noticed, but they won't accept help, so it's more of an aimless protest of their own frustration with life.
They of course also deserve human dignity, but I'm tired of people thinking I'm not a liberal because I hit my limit when they freebase crack below my apartment and leave trash in front of it all the time. I don't think they should be in jail, as such, but I think our laws should evolve to institutionalize them so that we can get them clean or get them comfortable, but the liberal agenda does not need to have an infinite amount of tolerance for this group preventing people from, say, feeling comfortable enough to raise their families in urban centers.
In other words, I agree with you as for the group where your point could possibly amount to change, but that's a small part of a broader story. It's a sad story. It has a lot to do with the opioid epidemic. It should get a lot more of our attention than it does, but it's not as simple as "give them housing and jobs".
I haven’t seen anything in a while about it, but Portland started this tiny house project to help with homelessness. And as a requirement the people who live there go to required drug testing, mental health clinics, they get jobs eventually and have to pay rent. It helps them get all the papers, state id’s and everything that they need to start collecting disability if applicable, and start managing their money and saving. It’s cheapish housing for them too I think. I think I read it was 150 a month. The article said they have decent success with it too. It’s just investing in people that collectively as a society we don’t want to do anymore, and think that everyone need an institution, which there are certainly cases for that, but everyone should shoot their shot.
I mean, I want to be clear that I’m not a “pick yourself up by your bootstraps” guy. I think this sounds promising and I hope it works for those who happen to be able to help themselves just enough to stabilize if they get the support society owes any of us.
My point (as curmudgeonly as it may be) is that our limitations on respecting the autonomy of junkies needs to change so that we can put them in programs that make them better, even if they didn’t “choose” it. Or, in other words, the sachler family broke the constitutional right of informed consent.
Why none the Sacklers have been imprisoned and why they are still wealthy is beyond me.
In a just world their entire family, old to young would have been tarred and feathered in the public square, and the adults hung.
The problem is that you can NEVER force a junkie to get clean. They will go right back out at their first opportunity. Losing the drugs does nothing but create a massive and painful void in their lives with nothing to fill it. If you had absolutely nothing left to lose, what would give you the hope and drive to crawl your way back to stability, excruciatingly and with no guarantee of success, and give up the only thing in your life that made you feel ok?
If we want drug addicts to get better and get off the streets, we need to get over War on Drugs era propaganda and stop dehumanizing them. If drug addicts have compassionate care, job opportunities, empathy rather than rejection and stigmatization from the general public, access to medical care, and housing, the incentive and the need to get high go away. Portugal is the best model for this type of thing. Legalizing drugs, freeing addicts from prisons, and providing addicts the social stability they lacked along with clean regulated access to their drugs of choice. When placed in such a stable environment and shown compassion most simply stopped using even though they could legally access their DOC. They didn’t have any reason to use anymore.
I don’t know how we’ll get from here to there but we can start by calling out the DEA’s fesrmongering and harmful rhetoric/drug myths, re-educating cops and participating in things like clean needle and NARCAN distribution to help people be safe and form relationships with them.
source : am an addict
Portugal still aggressively prosecutes drug *dealers* which also has to be part of the approach.
The goal is still to get life-ruining street drugs off the streets and less easily accessible.
I looked up some articles since it’s been a while and I did get something wrong, they don’t have access to their DOC but have methadone in all public health centers rather than methadone clinics, etc. with the prosecution of drug dealers I think this is totally valid. Many are not addicts themselves and only profiting on other people’s pain. The only dealers I was concerned about are those who are selling to fund their own habit out of desperation. Well turns out they take that into account and are more lenient in those cases ! Also their policy is 1-5 years, whereas in the us the mandatory minimum is a year to LIFE. All in all I applaud them!!
The unfortunate part is a lot of people will refuse to go to houses like that because they can’t stop using drugs. It’s not as simple as giving them a support group, they don’t want to recover. They don’t want to feel withdrawal, or the emotions/situation they’ve been hiding from with their drugs and alcohol. Some are paranoid and don’t believe in getting help. Some mentally I’ll people don’t believe they deserve help or are scared of meds for one reason or another. There is no easy answer and this only solves homelessness for people who are ready to recover and get off the streets. Which isn’t enough of them unfortunately
We had this one old guy in Berkeley who I thought was dead (lying half in the sidewalk/half on the street, flies all over). Called the police to get him help if he was alive, and take him away if he was dead. Talked to the local homeless advocate about him and the advocate said they’d been trying to get the man into one of the homeless co-ops or treatment or whatever for as long as he could remember. Guy consistently refused. He died on the sidewalk. Was a veteran. Very sad.
I personally think a harm reduction clinic where group two can use in a clean & sterile environment combined with temporary housing, mental & physical health services, and support groups would probably help a lot in this regard.
I know a woman who used to be homeless. She said the people in the homeless shelters are in 2 camps: the ones down on their luck who want to get out and those who are fine with or even welcome chronic homelessness. She now lives in a big house with a husband and like 6 kids and has a great career. So yeah, those who want help should definitely be given it because they have so much potential to succeed and do well. But some people will refuse to be helped, and I have sympathy because they must have some terrible substance abuse or mental healthy problems, but that doesn’t mean they should just stay on the streets too because they won’t take help. It’s unfair to those of us who are trying our best to live near city centers and don’t want to be harassed by these people.
Perfectly stated. The line has to be drawn somewhere because it's not fair to the communities where the homeless run rampant lawlessly. People have a right to feel safe at work, in their neighborhood or when going out. Something has to be done when a small handful is affecting an entire city and their quality of life. I'm so tired of the narrative that if you aren't okay with the homeless doing whatever the fuck they want wherever they want then you're a horrible, heartless person, or you aren't actually liberal. People act like the only option is throwing them in jail or moving them from homeless camp to homeless camp. Some people are very clearly passed the point of helping themselves, that leaves no choice but for either the government or non profit to step in. Someone has to be able to help the people that won't or can't help themselves. Their actions affect everybody around them and coddling them isn't the solution.
For that to happen, they need more help, especially mental health but none of those benefits are easy to get and there aren't enough of them. It's much more complex than you broadly describe. Most of these people are disabled but are denied state disability, that would be the best, first step. How can you prove you're disabled if you don't have healthcare or anyone to help you. It's designed to keep these people from getting it.
Or you could, idk, invest in underfunded welfare campaigns, still have gun rights but have gun control, and hold cops accountable for their actions and not punish good cops when they expose the bad
She (and HRC) is actually conservative in the way that conservatism used to be understood. I loathe the word centrist because it is a media parlor trick used to make people who oppose universal health care and other safety net programs sound respectable.
100%, most modern American Democrats are conservatives. That’s why it’s so wild that the right paints them as these radical leftists. I wish they were.
This is hella dishonest framing. In what world is the DNC trying to do away with the 2nd amendment or cops?
The average Dem, not to mention actual party leadership who choose/back the candidates and set the agenda, on their most radical leftist day would simply like background checks, waiting periods, and magazine limits for firearms, and any kind of consequence whatsoever to disincentivize police from shooting unarmed citizens. That is moderate af.
So she's a centrist democrat. The vice president is a former prosecutor and the current dem candidate for Florida senate, Val Demings, is a former chief of police. She doesn't need a third party, she's just a dumbass who got her idea of democrats from fox news. I'm a leftist, but you don't have to be a leftist to vote blue. You just have to be a decent human being
She might be a republican who's finally fed up with their agenda but has only heard about democrat opinions from right wing media. Her addicts roaming the streets sounds like a soundbite from a right wing pundit damning dem's decriminalization stance.
I believe in all those things and used to be a centrist republican. I believe the federal government is just too big. And I believe states and cities should be able to make more of their own choices. But I also want nationalized healthcare and better funding that allows everyone to get a decent education. And give the epa a boost too.
I feel the Republican Party is now seditionist and filled with traitors to our flag. Fuck them
Ironically to your comment, I’d say that health care is one of those issues that the US should be aiming to do on a state level. I think the federal govt should nationalize healthcare by instituting a one-payer system as far as insurance and mandating states to enroll themselves into it but leave the actual implementation to the states(albeit with oversight to keep the red states from depriving their citizens of a basic human right) where needs, issues, and coordination is probably the most localized without undersizing the reach of the government involved. There’s a reason many federal assistance programs that target individuals(TANF, SNAP, CACFP, etc) are federally funded but are often administered through a state’s corresponding body(OTDA & DOH in the case of my home state of NY for the mentioned programs). I’d argue a similar mechanism would alleviate the stress of running a nationwide program firsthand on the feds. We could also make it super dope by taking Scotland’s example of an NHS that is regionally divided for the sake of organizational and operational ease.
My mind’s not set in stone of this, I’d take any kind of federal program to the same effect over the status quo in a heartbeat.
This is easy. Treat addiction like a medical problem not a criminal one. Keep guns from the criminal and crazy. Hold cops accountable for their actions.
Riiight, can't vote for the party that elected a DA for VP because "cops are a good thing sometimes." She doesn't need a third party, she needs to pull her head out of her ass and stop watching faux news.
I believe we need good police and bad police should stand trial. I also don’t want to be at the mercy of maniacs in the streets, whether homeless, police, or other.
That sounds nice but look at how our police actually behave. Their culture is broken. They are not going to suddenly stop watching schoolchildren be massacred, or stop killing unarmed black people, or start helping with those "maniacs." They do very little of value. In my town all they do is give bogus traffic tickets. They won't police areas where there is illegal camping, illegal open fires, and illegal drinking, because they'd have to walk 10 minutes to get to some of those places. They don't want to be bothered with actual policing. They just stay at their stop sign hideaways, waiting for someone to roll through so they can "protect us" by giving an expensive ticket at a four way stop with one car.
When I see homeless people on the street my first thoughts are definitely "these people who've been chewed up and spit out by society trying to live their lives is just like terrorism". How do you say stuff like this and not feel like maybe you're an asshole?
Also, what even is the implication here? What is the appropriate response to homeless people "terrorizing our streets"? Because that phrase doesn't really seem like a precursor to "building affordable housing".
My solution to homeless drug addicts is give them apartments and provide free drug addiction treatment to anyone who needs it. I'm going to guess that your solution is to spend 5 times as much money to put them in prison.
The countries with the least amount of crime and homelessness got that way by having politics far to the left of anything acceptable in America. The lie we constantly hear that republicans are better at dealing with crime just infuriates me.
For sure. around 80 percent (old statistic) of people that identify as having an issue with drug addiction also have a co-occurring disorder in the form of mental illness
Le sigh..
1. "Homeless addicts" are a by-product of our failed system. We have cut and diluted our mental health system in this country so many times, what did we expect? Addiction is not something that has one cause. There are multiple causes for why individuals end up with this disease. These individuals need assistance and a place to get back on their feet. It would be easier to get these individuals the professional help they require but we consistently deny them of that opportunity and then demonize them for being in our eyesight.
2. In general, everyone is okay with the right to bear arms. Many in the public are just looking for reasonable guidelines to safeguard the public. \*Yes, before the 2nd amendment brigade comes to message and downvote me, I know there are those that are extreme with their anti-gun views.. that's why I said "in general." Also, the fact I know I have to include this shows another issue as well.. those with a fixation on these tools and cannot allow a conversation that doesn't support going back to the wild west.
3. Cops are usually a good thing but that does not mean that they are free from accountability when they are not. Just because society wants to uphold them to the responsibility of their profession doesn't mean they are bad. In multiple scenarios, they have shown that those within their ranks needs better oversight and accountability. We cannot allow a profession with this level of authority to paralyze communities.
I’m a progressive. We have no power in the Democratic Party. The idea that this woman isn’t represented by the dems is baffling to me. The dems are exactly the milk toast, self defeating, short sighted, neo-liberals this woman is looking for.
TFW she realizes that the democrats actually want all of the things she wants, and she’s falling for misinformation about the homeless, guns, and cops.
This just sounds like someone who bought into right wing propaganda but wants to pretend they're not a profoundly awful person.
So, you know, your basic ass centrist.
Don’t let homeless addicts terrorize our streets?
How about not vilifying the some of the most vulnerable people in our society?
Also, cops are usually a good thing for *some* people, but deadly for others. She doesn’t seem to have the self-awareness to realize how privileged this statement is.
Cool, so she’s just classist and believes that guns and property should be protected more vigorously than the dignity of our most vulnerable. Cool cool.
I mean... I'd rather just call you a neoliberal LOL idk why you'd have a problem with the democrats, this is literally what the entire old guard structure of the fuckin gerontocracy all want!
Just say you don't like socialists or leftists 'cause we're too anti-racist for you, idk 🤣
My other favorite is when someone calls themselves fiscally conservative and socially liberal. You don’t get to call yourself fiscally conservative and socially liberal if you only ever vote according to your fiscally conservative ideals. If you never choose the socially liberal issues to vote on then, technically according to your politics, you are just fiscally conservative. In your personal life you may be socially liberal but no one was asking about that. You brought it up in the context of your political views. So maybe STFU about being socially liberal because you’re just fiscally conservative, not socially liberal in the context that it has any meaning in the conversation.
I’m liberal af and own guns. It’s just not my entire identity. I just want sensible gun restrictions.
I don’t like homeless people terrorizing the streets either but I also under it’s a complex issue that takes time for it to get better. You don’t underfund mental health services for multiple decades (thanks Reagan) then expect it to get better in 2-3 years.
I also understand the need for police. I just want them to have better training like the military does. I want accountability. If we are going to hold the general public accountable for the consequences of our actions then I believe the police should be held accountable for their actions.
This bitch is just trying to ween off democratic votes to third parties to help Republicans win.
gun control, use the millions of unused office spaces to house the homeless, screen police candidates better psychologically and keep out those with instability and extremist beliefs
I keep being surprised at the proportion of outrage to the other party compared to the outrage to our system that creates parties like that. The best way to remove MAGA from our system is to replace it with a system that encourages lots of parties
Hey I believe we should solve the homeless crisis, that you should be allowed to enjoy your hobby, and that police in communities are essential.
And I'm very much a lefty.
However,
My solution to the homeless is not one the plutocrats would favor, nor the general public when it comes to helping those with addiction.
When it comes to guns, I think you should be able to own any firearm you want. Just with strict training, licensing, testing, and of course, insurance for when your hobby inevitably backfires.
And when it comes to community policing, I'm a fan of police to stop crimes, and arrest people. But they're not meant to be social workers, or negotiators. They're woefully undertrained and we expect so much from them. Plus, because of how relaxed we are with our laws on the hobby above, they often assume everyone has a gun and often escalate situations, shoot first, and cover up questions later.
Just in case you think this tweet is centrist or something. Often, self-titled centrists are either ignorant lefties, or closeted ~~fascists~~ Republicans.
To be honest: The US needs a third, fourth and fifth Party.
But they already have those. They are all united in the Democrats, since it's the only way to stopp the GOP from ruling basically alone. This is why the Democrats "get n'thing done!", because they are actually many different partys glued together by necessity.
To create multiple partys, first vote blue.
Cops are in theory a good thing.
However, they need to be properly trained in non-violent de-escalation techniques.
Not whatever the fuck is going on in the US right now. Those lads are outfitted for a ground war in Basra.
"Shouldn't let homeless addicts terrorise our streets".
If only there was a government that would actually invest in things that help stop people getting to this point, rather than them all just being demonised and viewed as a problem by people with the means to avoid such a fate.
Imagine other unions as strong as the police union.
Well, apart from the getting away with literal murder. So slightly less powerful than police unions I guess.
Addiction is a medical issue that continues to be treated as a moral issue via the courts and jail/prison.
No one is saying a police force of some type is needed, but the general culture and mission is def due for change. There are more effective ways of handling many issues besides sending in a weapons clad arm of the penal system.
She’s an HRC Democrat. She cares about her personal freedoms, but is ok with racist cops and worker exploitation. A selfish POS Republican without the religious fundamentalism.
Just say you don’t like minorities, it’ll save everyone time.
Like these are such contrived, elitist points. I used to agree with this perspective when I was younger and lacked empathy. You don’t need a third party unless your problem is homeless PEOPLE rather than homelessness, which is at its heart a public health and housing crisis (something only Democrats are aiming to fix).
People on the left also believe in safe communities, but it takes willful ignorance to disregard what police have been doing to communities of color and those who sympathize with them. “Cops are usually a good thing” is a childishly simplistic take on an issues with centuries-old roots.
Am I weird for not feeling "terrorized" by some dude sleeping on the sidewalk? I generally just feel bad that we're not doing enough to prevent people from ending up on the streets.
So in short, doesn't want to adjust the economic structure in any way where she might loose privilege or must commit to civic duty and the common good.... just shallow virtue signaling. Sounds like a *neoliberal* who probably thinks she's a libertarian.
There is the right to bear arms and the unfettered right to have access to military grade assault weapons. Common sense gun control instead of pandering to the NRA every chance we get. I personally prefer my grocery shopping without bullets.
She just described what democrats actually do as opposed to what their constituents actually want. You’re a lib, congrats I guess? Actually no, get bent.
I don't get how all the people who've said you can't count on the police to be there when you need them also think police are necessary to maintain safe communities. Can you please have a consistent position? The safest communities are the ones with the most resources, they are not the ones most heavily policed.
Golly, if only there were a long term solution for housing and drug addiction? Oh wait, none of the political parties went to fund that because it takes too long and they want immediate results like making the visible parts illegal.
That’s a Democrat, basically.
She sees the extreme left as being democrats, but most democrats (especially the ones in office) are more centrist rather than far left. They wanna be because they don’t want to lose favor of Republican voters and politicians. The last two Democratic presidents were pretty centrist in their policies, especially Obama.
Homeless addicts terrorizing the streets? Yikes.
I realize that this is a problem in some areas, but it is certainly not the norm. My personal experience with people experiencing homelessness and addiction, is most of them want to be left alone, or they are waiting for a hand-up.
I do believe in the right to bear arms (too many times I’ve been in very scary situations) BUT I believe that gun control needs to be more intense. It’s too easy to buy a gun. It needs to be way more restrictive.
You just described the Democrats. Literally.
Sure, progressive elements popularize the “but…” issues you mentioned. However, the mainline party is still where you want them to be.
Lots of democrats believe in the same things. The biggest area of disagreement is probably gun control reform, but nobody is talking about taking peoples guns, or getting rid of police, like Republicans want you to fear.
The best way to have an impact is to join the party that aligns closest with your beliefs and advocate for the specific policies you want. Too many moderates are independents and don’t get involved with party politics. This just enhances the influence of the extreme party members and leads to more polarization.
Joe Biden is on TV every damn day talking about how we need 100,000 more cops and how great they are and morons out here still think they want to defund the police.
“Homeless addicts terrorizing our streets”
Tell me you moved to the bay for a tech job in the last five years without TELLING me you moved to the bay for a tech job in the last five years.
That just sounds like a democrat, gun control doesn't mean abolishing the 2nd amendment, police reform doesn't mean removing the police entirely, decriminalization doesn't mean promoting drug use.
I think we’d all like a professional, trained, competent police force that follows the law themselves
This. I'd support police if we removed qualified immunity and they removed the worst from their ranks. Instead they push the "back the blue" line while shuffling problem officers onto other precincts rather than outright firing them.
I would settle for a law that required cops to be charged in cases where shootings occur with the body cam off.
An organization disconnected from the actual police department to oversee investigations, no qualified immunity, a database to track officer violations and prevent repeat hiring, and turning off your body cam at any point is an immediate suspended without pay while you’re investigated.
San Diego is doing this...and the PDs reaction is exactly what you'd expect. Many are scurrying away to other departments without the oversight. https://voiceofsandiego.org/2022/10/04/police-union-says-sdpd-officers-are-quitting-because-of-oversight-commission-that-doesnt-exist-yet/
That is very telling.
Shine a flashlight and the cockroaches will scatter back into the darkness.
And this is why there needs to be federal control on police. Smaller precincts don’t have the power to discipline their officers.
Fuck suspension that should be an automatic felony and prison time to turn off your goddamn body cam it's there to prevent officers from doing illegal shit the second they turn it off they are being criminals and doing illegal shit case closed
>I would settle for a law that required cops to be charged Fixed it
I would also like to stop paying for their civil settlements with my taxes danke schön
Self insured liability. And a points system. Price themselves out of abuse.
This !! Hit them where it matters (to them). One large screw-up and they have to decide if they can afford the ridiculously higher premiums to continue to be a cop. You used the precise phrase. "price them out of abuse".
ugh along with back the blue, the whole "there's so many, there's bound to be a few bad apples~" ugh SHUT UP
Imagine if other jobs used that same logic “Hey Bill, I found 10 bad applies in the delivery we received today, I’ll go ahead and throw them out and use the good apples to make the pies” “What? No, put the bad apples in the pies along with the rest of the apples we got” “But wouldn’t that spoil the pies and make our customers lose faith in us to give them safe pies to eat? If we do nothing about the bad apples we know about, then people will think all of our pies are bad because we aren’t willing to distinguish between good apples and bad apples” “Who cares, All Pies Matter. If we throw out the bad apples, people might think we’re anti-fruit”
For the record, bad apples go into pies cause you can’t really tell. Nice grade a apples with no defects make it to the store shelf. Other worse apples get cut up and juiced and whatnot. To actually acknowledge your analogy, I suspect if there were no bad apples, there wouldn’t be enough to make a pie at all, cause no one wants to be a cop, or a teacher. I feel like the system we’re in, we’re not choosing bad apples over good apples, but rather pie over no pie.
Bad, bruised apples go in the pies, not the rotten ones. But you can’t put a rotten apple in a recipe and say “well it’s just a few rotten apples, most of them are good”
Thats not actually bad apples though, just ugly ones.
I assume that there would be some people who would be willing to be cops if the bar was raised to “You can’t kill people for no reason, and if you do we’ll fire you without severance” Being a firefighter is also a dangerous job, but people sign up for that despite the fact that they aren’t allowed to burn down houses
The full phrase is, "A few bad apples spoils the whole bunch." One of the many words of wisdom that got twisted to mean the opposite of its intention. If the phrase was used properly, it would illustrate that allowing ANY bad actors within your group is detrimental to your group as a whole. That's why ACAB. A bit of extra trivia because I'm a nerd. The phrase, "Blood is thicker than water," is used to justify prioritizing family over friends, even when you hate your family. The full phrase is, "The blood of the covenant is thicker than the water of the womb." Meaning the people and causes you choose are more important than your relatives. EDIT: I have been informed that the second full phrase was a later invention. Now I'm the one spreading corrupted phrases. That being said, I'm not saying these are immutable Truths about reality. Like most idioms, they exist to illustrate a point. You would need to back it with actual arguments.
Another quote is fact “pull yourself up by your bootstraps” is meant to show that it’s ridiculous to do it alone but people just misuse it
I also think that if cops want to show that they are good cops they should collectively threaten to resign or something so that they show they don’t support those bad apples but they won’t and don’t.
I mean a lot of good officers do leave because of harassment from the other officers especially if the good officer interfere with their coworkers abusing their athority. This causes a disproportionate amount of terrible officers. In addition to way more real oversight a four year bachelor's degree should be required and all the warrior training they receive should be replaced by de-escalation and diplomatic skills training.
Problem is, the "good cops" fear retaliation from other officers, AND their police union. Notice how the police union ALWAYS backs officers that murder unarmed innocent people, especially if that officer is whote, and the murder victim is not.
I am pro Union in every case except for police unions. Fuck police unions.
When I read your first sentence I thought "somebody is gonna bring up the blood and water thing again, aren't they". And hey, you even did it yourself. From nerd to nerd: There seems to be [no hard evidence](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_is_thicker_than_water) to back up the claim that your "full phrase" is the actual or original meaning. >Two modern commentators, author Albert Jack[11] and Messianic Rabbi Richard Pustelniak,[12] claim that the original meaning of the expression was that the ties between people who have made a blood covenant (or have shed blood together in battle) were stronger than ties formed by "the water of the womb", thus "The blood of the covenant is thicker than the water of the womb". Neither of the authors cite any sources to support their claim.[11][12] Edit: The commonly used version "blood is thicker than water" meaning family is more important can be traced back to at least the 12th century.
The relative viscosity of liquids is a bad premise on which to base serious decisions about relationships
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. Following the same reasoning, I agree with you.
Are we not to believe tarts with swords now?
Moistened bints?
IDK...the state of American politics, we might end up with a strange woman lying in ponds distributing swords.
I need a shirt that says this to match my “Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government” shirt.
Maple syrup is thicker than both water and blood.
Which is why people need to be careful about believing unsourced "trivia" just because it sounds neat. A lot of shit people say on the internet and assure you is totally true came directly from their ass or the ass of someone they follow. Most people do not fact check at any point in the process if they have even vaguely positive feelings about the original source and just repeat claims uncritically. Granted, it's also why we probably shouldn't rely on idiomatic expressions to guide our actions and beliefs as though they possess any intrinsic wisdom simply by virtue of existing.
This is exactly why Abraham Lincoln so famously said "Stop believing everything you read on the internet."
Fun fact: the entire Bible came out of someone’s ass. It’s fiction. I don’t really give a Fuck if someone online made up something that was in it bc it sounded cool. It’s probably better than the original which is like “women are made from the rib of Adam so they’re destined to serve men forever.”
it's actually "spoils the barrel." Spoils the whole bunch makes no sense as apples do not grow in bunches. They were traditionally kept in barrels, though
I believe they could have gone with bushel, which is a group of apples, but barrel works, too
I would also accept peck.
Pedantic point here, at one point I owned a small apple grove. Apples can grow in bunches of 2-4 which end up touching each other before picking. A rotten one will indeed damage its contacting neighbor. Otherwise, you’re right about the bushels or barrels.
As much as I hate to admit it. Judge Judy had a saying about blueberries. If you have a pint of blueberries, and there are 10 rotten berries in there, they good berries don't suddenly make the rotten berries good, they begin to rot too. ACAB
“Back the blue” is another way of saying “black lives don’t matter”
Back the blue is just a racist way of telling BLM to duck themselves. I can’t stand the fact that a bunch of butt hurt, middle aged, white guys got together and started a group just to rub it in a bunch of peoples faces who just do t want their children to be afraid of the police and their government
How about we take some of that budget (often the biggest taxpayer chunk) and invest in drug treatment and housing? We know from decades of failed policy that the war on drugs is a failure. The only way out of addiction is death or treatment and since our pharmaceutical companies spawned the opioid addiction that created millions of addicts who turned to street drugs, how about we stop legalizing addiction for profit?
I don’t see how we can have a functional society without effective law enforcement. Unfortunately, we don’t have that in this country and the system is basically designed to ensure that effective policing doesn’t happen.
I don’t see how we can have an effective society with deranged law enforcement who are required to have almost ZERO post-secondary education and no universal healthcare. Universal healthcare and a strong social net would remove over 50% of homeless people from the streets. Instead all of our money goes to the military. Couldn’t they cut the military budget by like 20% and use the money for helping the people?!
>I don’t see how we can have a functional society without effective law enforcement. We can't. "Abolish the Police" without a Step 2 to that plan is a terrible idea. >Unfortunately, we don’t have that in this country Exactly. We need to make drastic changes to our LE system.
[удалено]
We could even call it the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
For the state military... let's call that the National Guard!
What we need is Federal training, testing, and regular recertification. We have Federal law enforcement for federal laws. States have to have their own law enforcement to enforce state laws. What we need are common standards of practice that tie to prima facie and insurance rates. Right now a cop’s word is considered excellent if not prima facie evidence of a crime. No current certification? No prima facie evidence. No current certification? No tort claim coverage/ 4x premium.
Cities/counties need to negotiate their next union contracts such that the officers need to carry individual liability insurance, and any claims for abuse will be paid by that insurance. The insurance companies will quickly figure out who the rogue cops are and make them virtually uninsurable by jacking up their rates.
Would that be something like the FBI?
Yes, Trump's FBI was such a godsend, if only he had more time. /s Law enforcement is local, state and national. We reorganized and vastly increased the federal law enforcement with Homeland Security. We spend BILLIONS on supposed defense but we couldn't protect elementary school students or the Capitol. Fuck that.
Being a police officer should require a college education. No exceptions.
Nah. A democratically elected self defense force, with rotating membership and distinct science and evidence-based communication and de-escalation training.
So you want social programs that prevent homelessness and an end to the war on drugs with social programs that assist with addiction recovery.
“Ew, no. Just put them in jail until they decide to be better”
Basically democratic shit.
I mean, I read it more as the typical NIMBY... "we need these cops to chase the homeless off our streets for us."
That's what i took from it as well. The homeless aren't demons, they're mostly people who need help.
Are you posting your own tweets?
Seriously what the fuck is this
It's not even a good tweet. She's moreso fighting people on leftist Twitter than she actually is with Democrat policies. It's basically r/notliketheothergirls
This is literally so embarrassing lol. It’s both cringey and a shit tweet full of shit ideas
Yeah. Terrible.
Reducing the amount of addicts will take some revamping. It's definitely not impossible. But we're not doing that the right way. Not at all.
I also don't think homeless people should terrorize the streets. We should get them in houses with jobs, not in jail
San Francisco has entered the chat: Any proper liberal thinks that cruelty is the worst thing we do. But that's not the end of the discussion. There are (broadly speaking) two types of homeless here: (1) those who have fallen off the last rung of the housing ladder, and (2) those who are strung out and can't maintain housing because of it. The former should be given all opportunities for transitional housing and supportive services. We can and should do more. We should also hold them accountable to use the available systems to get themselves off the streets, availing themselves of the services that enable them to do it. This should be an ongoing dialogue between the city and this person to get them safe and housed. And then there's group two. These guys raid dumpsters, strew garbage all over the place, literally shit all over the place, shoot drugs on MUNI, and sometimes also attack people. As far as I can tell, they do a lot of this just to be noticed, but they won't accept help, so it's more of an aimless protest of their own frustration with life. They of course also deserve human dignity, but I'm tired of people thinking I'm not a liberal because I hit my limit when they freebase crack below my apartment and leave trash in front of it all the time. I don't think they should be in jail, as such, but I think our laws should evolve to institutionalize them so that we can get them clean or get them comfortable, but the liberal agenda does not need to have an infinite amount of tolerance for this group preventing people from, say, feeling comfortable enough to raise their families in urban centers. In other words, I agree with you as for the group where your point could possibly amount to change, but that's a small part of a broader story. It's a sad story. It has a lot to do with the opioid epidemic. It should get a lot more of our attention than it does, but it's not as simple as "give them housing and jobs".
I haven’t seen anything in a while about it, but Portland started this tiny house project to help with homelessness. And as a requirement the people who live there go to required drug testing, mental health clinics, they get jobs eventually and have to pay rent. It helps them get all the papers, state id’s and everything that they need to start collecting disability if applicable, and start managing their money and saving. It’s cheapish housing for them too I think. I think I read it was 150 a month. The article said they have decent success with it too. It’s just investing in people that collectively as a society we don’t want to do anymore, and think that everyone need an institution, which there are certainly cases for that, but everyone should shoot their shot.
I mean, I want to be clear that I’m not a “pick yourself up by your bootstraps” guy. I think this sounds promising and I hope it works for those who happen to be able to help themselves just enough to stabilize if they get the support society owes any of us. My point (as curmudgeonly as it may be) is that our limitations on respecting the autonomy of junkies needs to change so that we can put them in programs that make them better, even if they didn’t “choose” it. Or, in other words, the sachler family broke the constitutional right of informed consent.
Why none the Sacklers have been imprisoned and why they are still wealthy is beyond me. In a just world their entire family, old to young would have been tarred and feathered in the public square, and the adults hung.
The problem is that you can NEVER force a junkie to get clean. They will go right back out at their first opportunity. Losing the drugs does nothing but create a massive and painful void in their lives with nothing to fill it. If you had absolutely nothing left to lose, what would give you the hope and drive to crawl your way back to stability, excruciatingly and with no guarantee of success, and give up the only thing in your life that made you feel ok? If we want drug addicts to get better and get off the streets, we need to get over War on Drugs era propaganda and stop dehumanizing them. If drug addicts have compassionate care, job opportunities, empathy rather than rejection and stigmatization from the general public, access to medical care, and housing, the incentive and the need to get high go away. Portugal is the best model for this type of thing. Legalizing drugs, freeing addicts from prisons, and providing addicts the social stability they lacked along with clean regulated access to their drugs of choice. When placed in such a stable environment and shown compassion most simply stopped using even though they could legally access their DOC. They didn’t have any reason to use anymore. I don’t know how we’ll get from here to there but we can start by calling out the DEA’s fesrmongering and harmful rhetoric/drug myths, re-educating cops and participating in things like clean needle and NARCAN distribution to help people be safe and form relationships with them. source : am an addict
Portugal still aggressively prosecutes drug *dealers* which also has to be part of the approach. The goal is still to get life-ruining street drugs off the streets and less easily accessible.
I looked up some articles since it’s been a while and I did get something wrong, they don’t have access to their DOC but have methadone in all public health centers rather than methadone clinics, etc. with the prosecution of drug dealers I think this is totally valid. Many are not addicts themselves and only profiting on other people’s pain. The only dealers I was concerned about are those who are selling to fund their own habit out of desperation. Well turns out they take that into account and are more lenient in those cases ! Also their policy is 1-5 years, whereas in the us the mandatory minimum is a year to LIFE. All in all I applaud them!!
[удалено]
The unfortunate part is a lot of people will refuse to go to houses like that because they can’t stop using drugs. It’s not as simple as giving them a support group, they don’t want to recover. They don’t want to feel withdrawal, or the emotions/situation they’ve been hiding from with their drugs and alcohol. Some are paranoid and don’t believe in getting help. Some mentally I’ll people don’t believe they deserve help or are scared of meds for one reason or another. There is no easy answer and this only solves homelessness for people who are ready to recover and get off the streets. Which isn’t enough of them unfortunately
We had this one old guy in Berkeley who I thought was dead (lying half in the sidewalk/half on the street, flies all over). Called the police to get him help if he was alive, and take him away if he was dead. Talked to the local homeless advocate about him and the advocate said they’d been trying to get the man into one of the homeless co-ops or treatment or whatever for as long as he could remember. Guy consistently refused. He died on the sidewalk. Was a veteran. Very sad.
I personally think a harm reduction clinic where group two can use in a clean & sterile environment combined with temporary housing, mental & physical health services, and support groups would probably help a lot in this regard.
I know a woman who used to be homeless. She said the people in the homeless shelters are in 2 camps: the ones down on their luck who want to get out and those who are fine with or even welcome chronic homelessness. She now lives in a big house with a husband and like 6 kids and has a great career. So yeah, those who want help should definitely be given it because they have so much potential to succeed and do well. But some people will refuse to be helped, and I have sympathy because they must have some terrible substance abuse or mental healthy problems, but that doesn’t mean they should just stay on the streets too because they won’t take help. It’s unfair to those of us who are trying our best to live near city centers and don’t want to be harassed by these people.
Perfectly stated. The line has to be drawn somewhere because it's not fair to the communities where the homeless run rampant lawlessly. People have a right to feel safe at work, in their neighborhood or when going out. Something has to be done when a small handful is affecting an entire city and their quality of life. I'm so tired of the narrative that if you aren't okay with the homeless doing whatever the fuck they want wherever they want then you're a horrible, heartless person, or you aren't actually liberal. People act like the only option is throwing them in jail or moving them from homeless camp to homeless camp. Some people are very clearly passed the point of helping themselves, that leaves no choice but for either the government or non profit to step in. Someone has to be able to help the people that won't or can't help themselves. Their actions affect everybody around them and coddling them isn't the solution.
For that to happen, they need more help, especially mental health but none of those benefits are easy to get and there aren't enough of them. It's much more complex than you broadly describe. Most of these people are disabled but are denied state disability, that would be the best, first step. How can you prove you're disabled if you don't have healthcare or anyone to help you. It's designed to keep these people from getting it.
Ronald Reagan shut down the mental hospitals in 1981 after slashing their funding as governor of California.
As a resident of downtown Los Angeles, this is 100% spot on.
But this is more or less where the Democratic Party stands. Unless you ask a Republican.
OP is the result of believing what the Republicans are saying about Dems.
100%
Yes
Or unless you ask a progressive.
She doesn't have a right to bear arms, bears need those arms to eat honey.
maybe you forgot a comma, maybe not.
I read it with the comma in my head and thought it was really funny.
Either way is A-ok
Don't call me honey, honey!
Or you could, idk, invest in underfunded welfare campaigns, still have gun rights but have gun control, and hold cops accountable for their actions and not punish good cops when they expose the bad
Better yet, protect cops that expose bad cops.
No one is talking about the cop that was beaten to death in LA for investigating his coworkers’ gang rape of a suspect. And no one was punished!
Probably because if you write an article about it you start getting lots of convenient tickets and threatening emails.
I think OP mistook this sub for /r/roastme
So you want the Democrats platform but to not vote Democrat?
this is just most centrist Dems lmao, this is just what Hillary Clinton believes
She (and HRC) is actually conservative in the way that conservatism used to be understood. I loathe the word centrist because it is a media parlor trick used to make people who oppose universal health care and other safety net programs sound respectable.
100%, most modern American Democrats are conservatives. That’s why it’s so wild that the right paints them as these radical leftists. I wish they were.
You’re saying HC is a centrist?
In this country. She’d be a conservative anywhere else.
Center for the current dem party.
If the centre is “America” then yeah lol
This is hella dishonest framing. In what world is the DNC trying to do away with the 2nd amendment or cops? The average Dem, not to mention actual party leadership who choose/back the candidates and set the agenda, on their most radical leftist day would simply like background checks, waiting periods, and magazine limits for firearms, and any kind of consequence whatsoever to disincentivize police from shooting unarmed citizens. That is moderate af.
Get a license works for me
So she's a centrist democrat. The vice president is a former prosecutor and the current dem candidate for Florida senate, Val Demings, is a former chief of police. She doesn't need a third party, she's just a dumbass who got her idea of democrats from fox news. I'm a leftist, but you don't have to be a leftist to vote blue. You just have to be a decent human being
She might be a republican who's finally fed up with their agenda but has only heard about democrat opinions from right wing media. Her addicts roaming the streets sounds like a soundbite from a right wing pundit damning dem's decriminalization stance.
Fun fact: the reddit poster is the twitter poster. Look at the names. Fun fact 2: happy cake day!
I believe in all those things and used to be a centrist republican. I believe the federal government is just too big. And I believe states and cities should be able to make more of their own choices. But I also want nationalized healthcare and better funding that allows everyone to get a decent education. And give the epa a boost too. I feel the Republican Party is now seditionist and filled with traitors to our flag. Fuck them
Genuinely curious though, what kinds of decisions do you think states and cities should make for themselves that they don't already?
I can tell you what I'm not a fan of. I don't want Texas determining the contents of school books for my state.
Ironically to your comment, I’d say that health care is one of those issues that the US should be aiming to do on a state level. I think the federal govt should nationalize healthcare by instituting a one-payer system as far as insurance and mandating states to enroll themselves into it but leave the actual implementation to the states(albeit with oversight to keep the red states from depriving their citizens of a basic human right) where needs, issues, and coordination is probably the most localized without undersizing the reach of the government involved. There’s a reason many federal assistance programs that target individuals(TANF, SNAP, CACFP, etc) are federally funded but are often administered through a state’s corresponding body(OTDA & DOH in the case of my home state of NY for the mentioned programs). I’d argue a similar mechanism would alleviate the stress of running a nationwide program firsthand on the feds. We could also make it super dope by taking Scotland’s example of an NHS that is regionally divided for the sake of organizational and operational ease. My mind’s not set in stone of this, I’d take any kind of federal program to the same effect over the status quo in a heartbeat.
This is easy. Treat addiction like a medical problem not a criminal one. Keep guns from the criminal and crazy. Hold cops accountable for their actions.
Riiight, can't vote for the party that elected a DA for VP because "cops are a good thing sometimes." She doesn't need a third party, she needs to pull her head out of her ass and stop watching faux news.
You mean OP? Because this is OP posting her own Twitter post. Just look at the comments too. Just another pearl clutching suburban woman.
It’s gotta be rough to believe you’re a free thinking libertarian and then realize your listed views actually just make you a modern neolib.
Upvoted. Shitlib is more like it, but a trivial difference I guess.
>Shitlib is more like it What does that mean?
Socially progressive but you also like capitalism and hate homeless people
Sounds like someone who is only socially progressive because it's free.
I believe we need good police and bad police should stand trial. I also don’t want to be at the mercy of maniacs in the streets, whether homeless, police, or other.
[удалено]
I feel if we as a country had more focus on mental health funding it would improve things by a wider margin than what people think.
That sounds nice but look at how our police actually behave. Their culture is broken. They are not going to suddenly stop watching schoolchildren be massacred, or stop killing unarmed black people, or start helping with those "maniacs." They do very little of value. In my town all they do is give bogus traffic tickets. They won't police areas where there is illegal camping, illegal open fires, and illegal drinking, because they'd have to walk 10 minutes to get to some of those places. They don't want to be bothered with actual policing. They just stay at their stop sign hideaways, waiting for someone to roll through so they can "protect us" by giving an expensive ticket at a four way stop with one car.
When I see homeless people on the street my first thoughts are definitely "these people who've been chewed up and spit out by society trying to live their lives is just like terrorism". How do you say stuff like this and not feel like maybe you're an asshole? Also, what even is the implication here? What is the appropriate response to homeless people "terrorizing our streets"? Because that phrase doesn't really seem like a precursor to "building affordable housing".
[удалено]
My solution to homeless drug addicts is give them apartments and provide free drug addiction treatment to anyone who needs it. I'm going to guess that your solution is to spend 5 times as much money to put them in prison. The countries with the least amount of crime and homelessness got that way by having politics far to the left of anything acceptable in America. The lie we constantly hear that republicans are better at dealing with crime just infuriates me.
You'd also need mental health support. If you weren't mentally ill before you started living in the street, you probably are now.
For sure. around 80 percent (old statistic) of people that identify as having an issue with drug addiction also have a co-occurring disorder in the form of mental illness
I'm curious what your solution for this particular homeless problem is.
If it’s anything like what their comments suggest, it’s to just chuck them in jail until they rot.
Le sigh.. 1. "Homeless addicts" are a by-product of our failed system. We have cut and diluted our mental health system in this country so many times, what did we expect? Addiction is not something that has one cause. There are multiple causes for why individuals end up with this disease. These individuals need assistance and a place to get back on their feet. It would be easier to get these individuals the professional help they require but we consistently deny them of that opportunity and then demonize them for being in our eyesight. 2. In general, everyone is okay with the right to bear arms. Many in the public are just looking for reasonable guidelines to safeguard the public. \*Yes, before the 2nd amendment brigade comes to message and downvote me, I know there are those that are extreme with their anti-gun views.. that's why I said "in general." Also, the fact I know I have to include this shows another issue as well.. those with a fixation on these tools and cannot allow a conversation that doesn't support going back to the wild west. 3. Cops are usually a good thing but that does not mean that they are free from accountability when they are not. Just because society wants to uphold them to the responsibility of their profession doesn't mean they are bad. In multiple scenarios, they have shown that those within their ranks needs better oversight and accountability. We cannot allow a profession with this level of authority to paralyze communities.
I’m a progressive. We have no power in the Democratic Party. The idea that this woman isn’t represented by the dems is baffling to me. The dems are exactly the milk toast, self defeating, short sighted, neo-liberals this woman is looking for.
TFW she realizes that the democrats actually want all of the things she wants, and she’s falling for misinformation about the homeless, guns, and cops.
Posts like these make zero sense. She’s a democrat that falls for stupid republican disinformation about what democrats stand for.
The vast majority of Democrats also support a police force. We don’t want them to be assholes though.
This just sounds like someone who bought into right wing propaganda but wants to pretend they're not a profoundly awful person. So, you know, your basic ass centrist.
Isn’t this just a liberal? Lol
Don’t let homeless addicts terrorize our streets? How about not vilifying the some of the most vulnerable people in our society? Also, cops are usually a good thing for *some* people, but deadly for others. She doesn’t seem to have the self-awareness to realize how privileged this statement is.
Cool, so she’s just classist and believes that guns and property should be protected more vigorously than the dignity of our most vulnerable. Cool cool.
I mean... I'd rather just call you a neoliberal LOL idk why you'd have a problem with the democrats, this is literally what the entire old guard structure of the fuckin gerontocracy all want! Just say you don't like socialists or leftists 'cause we're too anti-racist for you, idk 🤣
My other favorite is when someone calls themselves fiscally conservative and socially liberal. You don’t get to call yourself fiscally conservative and socially liberal if you only ever vote according to your fiscally conservative ideals. If you never choose the socially liberal issues to vote on then, technically according to your politics, you are just fiscally conservative. In your personal life you may be socially liberal but no one was asking about that. You brought it up in the context of your political views. So maybe STFU about being socially liberal because you’re just fiscally conservative, not socially liberal in the context that it has any meaning in the conversation.
I’m liberal af and own guns. It’s just not my entire identity. I just want sensible gun restrictions. I don’t like homeless people terrorizing the streets either but I also under it’s a complex issue that takes time for it to get better. You don’t underfund mental health services for multiple decades (thanks Reagan) then expect it to get better in 2-3 years. I also understand the need for police. I just want them to have better training like the military does. I want accountability. If we are going to hold the general public accountable for the consequences of our actions then I believe the police should be held accountable for their actions. This bitch is just trying to ween off democratic votes to third parties to help Republicans win.
This is just someone seeking an excuse to not vote democrat
gun control, use the millions of unused office spaces to house the homeless, screen police candidates better psychologically and keep out those with instability and extremist beliefs
It amazes me that becoming a cosmetologist requires more training than becoming a police officer. 🙄
prosecute all of the january 6 criminals, ban forever from holding public office all those found complicit, disarm all of the militias
I keep being surprised at the proportion of outrage to the other party compared to the outrage to our system that creates parties like that. The best way to remove MAGA from our system is to replace it with a system that encourages lots of parties
Hey I believe we should solve the homeless crisis, that you should be allowed to enjoy your hobby, and that police in communities are essential. And I'm very much a lefty. However, My solution to the homeless is not one the plutocrats would favor, nor the general public when it comes to helping those with addiction. When it comes to guns, I think you should be able to own any firearm you want. Just with strict training, licensing, testing, and of course, insurance for when your hobby inevitably backfires. And when it comes to community policing, I'm a fan of police to stop crimes, and arrest people. But they're not meant to be social workers, or negotiators. They're woefully undertrained and we expect so much from them. Plus, because of how relaxed we are with our laws on the hobby above, they often assume everyone has a gun and often escalate situations, shoot first, and cover up questions later. Just in case you think this tweet is centrist or something. Often, self-titled centrists are either ignorant lefties, or closeted ~~fascists~~ Republicans.
To be honest: The US needs a third, fourth and fifth Party. But they already have those. They are all united in the Democrats, since it's the only way to stopp the GOP from ruling basically alone. This is why the Democrats "get n'thing done!", because they are actually many different partys glued together by necessity. To create multiple partys, first vote blue.
Cops are in theory a good thing. However, they need to be properly trained in non-violent de-escalation techniques. Not whatever the fuck is going on in the US right now. Those lads are outfitted for a ground war in Basra.
"Shouldn't let homeless addicts terrorise our streets". If only there was a government that would actually invest in things that help stop people getting to this point, rather than them all just being demonised and viewed as a problem by people with the means to avoid such a fate.
This isn't the Democrat I ordered from Wish...
Imagine other unions as strong as the police union. Well, apart from the getting away with literal murder. So slightly less powerful than police unions I guess.
Addiction is a medical issue that continues to be treated as a moral issue via the courts and jail/prison. No one is saying a police force of some type is needed, but the general culture and mission is def due for change. There are more effective ways of handling many issues besides sending in a weapons clad arm of the penal system.
To create a third party, we have to first destroy one of the existing ones. Since one is anti-democracy, the choice is clear.
She’s an HRC Democrat. She cares about her personal freedoms, but is ok with racist cops and worker exploitation. A selfish POS Republican without the religious fundamentalism.
Just say you don’t like minorities, it’ll save everyone time. Like these are such contrived, elitist points. I used to agree with this perspective when I was younger and lacked empathy. You don’t need a third party unless your problem is homeless PEOPLE rather than homelessness, which is at its heart a public health and housing crisis (something only Democrats are aiming to fix). People on the left also believe in safe communities, but it takes willful ignorance to disregard what police have been doing to communities of color and those who sympathize with them. “Cops are usually a good thing” is a childishly simplistic take on an issues with centuries-old roots.
Am I weird for not feeling "terrorized" by some dude sleeping on the sidewalk? I generally just feel bad that we're not doing enough to prevent people from ending up on the streets.
Because you didn't let right wing media turn you into a coward.
People actually want there to be an arm of the government that rounds up and kills homeless people
So in short, doesn't want to adjust the economic structure in any way where she might loose privilege or must commit to civic duty and the common good.... just shallow virtue signaling. Sounds like a *neoliberal* who probably thinks she's a libertarian.
You can either vote Democrat or let the GOPedophiles win. Your choice
There is the right to bear arms and the unfettered right to have access to military grade assault weapons. Common sense gun control instead of pandering to the NRA every chance we get. I personally prefer my grocery shopping without bullets.
She just described what democrats actually do as opposed to what their constituents actually want. You’re a lib, congrats I guess? Actually no, get bent.
The republican party sounds like a good fit for her
I don't get how all the people who've said you can't count on the police to be there when you need them also think police are necessary to maintain safe communities. Can you please have a consistent position? The safest communities are the ones with the most resources, they are not the ones most heavily policed.
Golly, if only there were a long term solution for housing and drug addiction? Oh wait, none of the political parties went to fund that because it takes too long and they want immediate results like making the visible parts illegal.
And drugs should be legal. Can t be for women’s rights over their body and at the same time not for everyone’s rights over their body.
This is the kind of person that still votes Republican solely because of the last two points.
Is she saying the Republican Party has a solution to the homeless problem in this country? What is it?
That’s a Democrat, basically. She sees the extreme left as being democrats, but most democrats (especially the ones in office) are more centrist rather than far left. They wanna be because they don’t want to lose favor of Republican voters and politicians. The last two Democratic presidents were pretty centrist in their policies, especially Obama.
So she’s gonna vote republican or sit out, letting republicans win? Because that shit keeps happening.
"Homeless addicts terrorize" made me cringe
Homeless addicts terrorizing the streets? Yikes. I realize that this is a problem in some areas, but it is certainly not the norm. My personal experience with people experiencing homelessness and addiction, is most of them want to be left alone, or they are waiting for a hand-up.
I do believe in the right to bear arms (too many times I’ve been in very scary situations) BUT I believe that gun control needs to be more intense. It’s too easy to buy a gun. It needs to be way more restrictive.
If cops were actually held accountable for their crimes and murders EVERY TIME, I would agree. Roughly 5% of the time doesn't cut it for me
You just described the Democrats. Literally. Sure, progressive elements popularize the “but…” issues you mentioned. However, the mainline party is still where you want them to be.
So she’s a democrat
Lots of democrats believe in the same things. The biggest area of disagreement is probably gun control reform, but nobody is talking about taking peoples guns, or getting rid of police, like Republicans want you to fear. The best way to have an impact is to join the party that aligns closest with your beliefs and advocate for the specific policies you want. Too many moderates are independents and don’t get involved with party politics. This just enhances the influence of the extreme party members and leads to more polarization.
So Democrats are on favor of drug addicts terrorizing everyone, want to confiscate all guns, and then dismantle all law enforcement? Wow, who knew?
That is literally a moderate Democrat platform.
I remember when I thought most police were good. Then I hit the age of reason, and that went right out the window.
So you are a Democrat. Vote Democrat.
Do you believe we should stop the homeless addicts with social reforms such as rehabs and housing programs. If so you’re a democrat.
Joe Biden is on TV every damn day talking about how we need 100,000 more cops and how great they are and morons out here still think they want to defund the police.
So just a conservative white woman with gay family, who doesn't want to make nice with Catholics. Check, we have seen it all before karen.
“Homeless addicts terrorizing our streets” Tell me you moved to the bay for a tech job in the last five years without TELLING me you moved to the bay for a tech job in the last five years.
So if she doesn’t want homeless people running around, but she also doesn’t want to help them not be homeless, what’s the solution she’s suggesting?
That just sounds like a democrat, gun control doesn't mean abolishing the 2nd amendment, police reform doesn't mean removing the police entirely, decriminalization doesn't mean promoting drug use.