California Doing California Things

[Colonel Sanders]

You know what would fix this. Tax revenue to create housing and provide mental health treatment. But that is anathema to your side.

You can throw billions and billions of dollars at the problem and it wouldn't be enough.

One example are the 5150 holds that you can place people on. They last for about 3 days. A 5250 can hold a person for about two weeks. If they're considered an ongoing risk, they may be held for up to six months, but those are rare because all the above are people are there involuntarily. After that, they have to be released barring X incidents while being held. Also, professionals are required to evaluate them to determine if they pose a threat to themselves or others, but at some point they will be released whether they're ready or not because there's enormous pressure to get people out so that others can be brought in.

Could money be used to increase capacity for longer holds and more treatment?

In addition, detaining these people has to be justified, and even then it flirts with due process violations. It's also noteworthy that most people held for the above described holds aren't homeless to begin with. Thus, new laws at the federal level designed to specifically get homeless off the streets that currently would be in violation of basic Constitutional rights would have to be made.

You seem to feel the homeless want to be homeless or are homeless due to mental health issues. Most people are homeless simply because they cannot afford housing. Could tax revenue be used to create housing cheap enough for the homeless to live in?

There are ~70,000 homeless people in L.A. county alone. It's estimated that there are over 150,000 homeless people in California in total. For comparison, California state prisons combined contain ~90,000 inmates at any given time.

And?

The only way the legal issues could be resolved is for SCOTUS to make an exception to the 14th Amendment. Even then, despite how much money California has, it doesn't have the money to build, staff, and maintain new facilities for 70,000 people. It would take a nationwide effort to resolve the problem; and we all know that's not going to happen.

As I said, the solution is anathema to the right. And again, most homeless people want homes. They just cannot afford them. No messing with the 14th amendment necessary.

Finally, the Dems would never get onboard with a new legal resolution--they'd do everything possible to defy it (see illegal immigration). I can already hear "No person is illegal!" or some other insufferable bullshit.

The Democrats participated in a bipartisan immigration reform legislation accepted by both parties. Trump quashed it because he needed his "Biden Open Border" bullshit campaign message. Biden was following the laws as they were written. It's obvious Trump doesn't give a crap about laws or constitutionality.

The Republicans would never accept paying the costs. Also, they're happy the homeless problem exists because they've so successfully used it as ammunition against the Dems despite it not being true.

Wow, this is the first time I'm actually seeing you place some blame on Republicans when this is actually the core of the problem. Tax cuts for the right are far more important than people sleeping on the streets.

Money is just one factor in an extremely complicated issue.

Sure, Jan.

I don't know where to begin, so I'll just start.

1. My post said that it's not just money that would fix it. It's more complicated than that, which I think I did a good job of explaining. Money is only part of the problem. There are legal barriers and political differences that can't be resolved and the reasons for that.

2. You seem to think that I'm not in favor of treatment when I clearly am. Addiction and severe mental illness have been allowed to get out of control to the point where it's a massive blight on the entire nation yet despite the desire by the vast majority to begin solving the problem, it's only getting worse. There should be treatment and housing for the homeless and there are various ways it could be done, but it's not going to happen.

3. You seem to think that simply taxing "the rich" could solve the problem. It can't. This one is especially irritating because cursory math will show that it wouldn't be enough. There's also no consideration for what would happen to the people who work for large corporations and midlevel businesses. Also, with respect to money, it wouldn't be a one time infusion that would solve the problem. The practical and logistical costs would be ongoing. You could drain the pockets of every single billionaire in the country and it might get the program off the ground, but then what? Finally, you seem to be okay with simply taking the property of others while at the same time unwilling to carve out other legal exceptions. Hypocrisy isn't a good look nor does it add to your hoped for credibility.

4. Biden's proposed immigration reform was fucking cynical and disingenuous. It was an election year farce. If that administration had been serious about the issue it would've been done something far earlier. It had paid little attention to a matter that most people were concerned about up until that time, which is the Democratic Party in a nutshell: out of touch, apathetic, and prioritizing idealism over national interests.

5. I haven't voted for a Republican since 1987 when I turned 18. You've provided another illustration of how the left loses votes. Criticism = fascism. If I don't sit in the out of touch democrat bubble and nod my head in agreement at everything it does and proposes, then I must be a fascist. I have written over and again that the Trump administration represents one of the greatest threats to American democracy in the nation's history and why I think that, yet I'm a fascist.

Finally, stop with the "Sure, Jan" bullshit. You seem to think it's a clever snark. It isn't. It's juvenile and indicates an unwillingness to discuss things like a mature adult.

 

[Patooka]

Some asshole goes and ineptly commits an attempted mass killing in a poor neighborhood, and TSwizzle thinks the crime is that people are "allowed" to live there. Wild.

This is not a "poor neighborhood". This is 50 blocks of people living (if you can even call it that) on the sidewalk of a major US city in the fourth largest economy in the world. It's basically an open air psychiatric ward.

You are shameless, comfortable to see this inhuman treatment.

You pretending to have empathy towards another human being is without a doubt the most hilarious thing you have ever posted.

 

[laughing dog]

I don't know where to begin, so I'll just start.

1. My post said that it's not just money that would fix it. It's more complicated than that, which I think I did a good job of explaining. Money is only part of the problem. There are legal barriers and political differences that can't be resolved and the reasons for that.

I agree lack of money is only part of the problem but it is a big part of any solution.

3. You seem to think that simply taxing "the rich" could solve the problem. It can't. This one is especially irritating because cursory math will show that it wouldn't be enough. There's also no consideration for what would happen to the people who work for large corporations and midlevel businesses. Also, with respect to money, it wouldn't be a one time infusion that would solve the problem. The practical and logistical costs would be ongoing. You could drain the pockets of every single billionaire in the country and it might get the program off the ground, but then what? Finally, you seem to be okay with simply taking the property of others while at the same time unwilling to carve out other legal exceptions. Hypocrisy isn't a good look nor does it add to your hoped for credibility.

Where do you get that Ziprhead or anyone is proposing "simply taxing 'the rich' could solve the problem"?

4. Biden's proposed immigration reform was fucking cynical and disingenuous. It was an election year farce. If that administration had been serious about the issue it would've been done something far earlier. It had paid little attention to a matter that most people were concerned about up until that time, which is the Democratic Party in a nutshell: out of touch, apathetic, and prioritizing idealism over national interests.

Your opinion of the reform is interesting but irrelevant to the reality that it was killed.

5. I haven't voted for a Republican since 1987 when I turned 18. You've provided another illustration of how the left loses votes. Criticism = fascism. If I don't sit in the out of touch democrat bubble and nod my head in agreement at everything it does and proposes, then I must be a fascist. I have written over and again that the Trump administration represents one of the greatest threats to American democracy in the nation's history and why I think that, yet I'm a fascist.

I don't see that Ziprhead called you a facist or that you support the GOP. But you do seem overly sensitive to that charge.

 

[scombrid]

Walked the dogs through riverfront park yesterday a bit before sunset. Families on the swing sets. Kids playing volleyball on the sand court. Dad and kids fishing in the lagoon. Couples walking hand in hand watching dolphins. Kids doing football drills in the amphitheater.

Oh and some homeless people that scored nodding out in one of the pavilions. I know two of them. They are definitely too crazy for mainstream life unless somebody is going to pony up for medical management of their problems. There’s some living under the bridge and on derelict vessels. The crack heads are mostly harmless but they will definitely steal anything that isn’t bolted down.

Once again. Not CA but good old Cocoa Village Florida.

 

[Bomb#20]

Moreover, I think you're vastly overestimating the number of husbands in the fifties who told their wives how to vote.

I'm not the one hawking this bull...

You're the one hawking this bull:

they are actively trying to bring full-time unpaid labor without representation on the basis of gender.​

and hawking this bull:

What part of "submit to your husband in all things" do you not understand? Doubling his vote is a critical part of the MAGA strategy​

The trope that traditional housewives just vote for the man their husbands vote for keeps getting recycled even though back in the fifties George Gallup pointed out it wasn't fact-based.

Trying to move the goalpost, I see. We aren't talking about actual "traditional housewives" of the actual 1950s, we're talking about the #tradwife movement of the 2020s. Your derail has <expletive deleted> to do with the topic at hand.

It's not a derail or a goalpost move. The point of the #tradwife movement of the 2020s is some women feeling nostalgia for the 1950s and wanting to live like that. The thing making you think they're aiming less for 'actual "traditional housewives" of the actual 1950s' and more for your own personal caricature of them is undoubtedly your own personal prejudice -- I don't believe for a second you ever actually heard a #tradwife wannabe say she intends for her husband to tell her how to vote. You made it up because it helps you feel good about looking down on them.

Ironically, it appears to have been originally invented by suffragettes in order to make giving women the vote feel less threatening to male chauvinist pigs.

And your sense of history is decades off track, as well. Suffragettes? In 1950s California?? En serio?

A trope having been invented in the 1910s, gaining currency in the 1920s, and remaining widely believed well into the 1970s in spite of having been empirically refuted when scientific polling evolved in the 1950s does not constitute a claim that suffragettes were still active in the 1950s.[/Captain Obvious]

It wasn't a whine; it was an evidently much-needed reminder that I cut in to scold you for your appalling behavior, not to advocate for Loren's contention.

No one needs or wants you to "scold" me for anything, gramps.

And? No one needs or wants you to strawman people for disagreeing with you, yet here we are. People often post things on their own initiative without waiting for others to need or want to hear it. Welcome to the internet.

Of what possible value could that be?

It contributes to preventing you from successfully persuading others to believe the nonsense you're trying to spread. It might potentially deter others who might be inspired by your example to try their own hand at strawmanning their opponents. There's a negligible but nonzero probability that it will induce you to take ZH's "Basic Belief" to heart. And if nothing else, it partially restores the cosmic balance, with a smidgen of justice for the people you've wronged.

You keep challenging me to back up other people's claims.

If you're going to leap in to white knight for them, that is a likely result, yes.

You appear confused as to what "white knighting" is. But hey, I'll take that as a confession that standing up for fairness to those you disagree with is alien to your mindset.

He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself. - Thomas Paine​

 

[Politesse]

Moreover, I think you're vastly overestimating the number of husbands in the fifties who told their wives how to vote.

I'm not the one hawking this bull...

You're the one hawking this bull:

they are actively trying to bring full-time unpaid labor without representation on the basis of gender.​

and hawking this bull:

What part of "submit to your husband in all things" do you not understand? Doubling his vote is a critical part of the MAGA strategy​

The trope that traditional housewives just vote for the man their husbands vote for keeps getting recycled even though back in the fifties George Gallup pointed out it wasn't fact-based.

Trying to move the goalpost, I see. We aren't talking about actual "traditional housewives" of the actual 1950s, we're talking about the #tradwife movement of the 2020s. Your derail has <expletive deleted> to do with the topic at hand.

It's not a derail or a goalpost move. The point of the #tradwife movement of the 2020s is some women feeling nostalgia for the 1950s and wanting to live like that. The thing making you think they're aiming less for 'actual "traditional housewives" of the actual 1950s' and more for your own personal caricature of them is undoubtedly your own personal prejudice -- I don't believe for a second you ever actually heard a #tradwife wannabe say she intends for her husband to tell her how to vote. You made it up because it helps you feel good about looking down on them.

Ironically, it appears to have been originally invented by suffragettes in order to make giving women the vote feel less threatening to male chauvinist pigs.

And your sense of history is decades off track, as well. Suffragettes? In 1950s California?? En serio?

A trope having been invented in the 1910s, gaining currency in the 1920s, and remaining widely believed well into the 1970s in spite of having been empirically refuted when scientific polling evolved in the 1950s does not constitute a claim that suffragettes were still active in the 1950s.[/Captain Obvious]

It wasn't a whine; it was an evidently much-needed reminder that I cut in to scold you for your appalling behavior, not to advocate for Loren's contention.

No one needs or wants you to "scold" me for anything, gramps.

And? No one needs or wants you to strawman people for disagreeing with you, yet here we are. People often post things on their own initiative without waiting for others to need or want to hear it. Welcome to the internet.

Of what possible value could that be?

It contributes to preventing you from successfully persuading others to believe the nonsense you're trying to spread. It might potentially deter others who might be inspired by your example to try their own hand at strawmanning their opponents. There's a negligible but nonzero probability that it will induce you to take ZH's "Basic Belief" to heart. And if nothing else, it partially restores the cosmic balance, with a smidgen of justice for the people you've wronged.

You keep challenging me to back up other people's claims.

If you're going to leap in to white knight for them, that is a likely result, yes.

You appear confused as to what "white knighting" is. But hey, I'll take that as a confession that standing up for fairness to those you disagree with is alien to your mindset.

He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself. - Thomas Paine​

But you've completely and utterly failed to demonstrate that I've done the thing you're accusing me of. Your critique falls very flat. I provided concrete examples of what I was talking about. You... accuse me of dire crimes, but offer no evidence at all except your own assertions. In fact, you're silencing tradwife voices by refusing to acknowledge what it is they are even saying, but then accusing ME of dishonesty, which is pretty rich. And it's creepy the way you follow me around the forum with your little notebook of grudges, I don't like it. Get your own life.

Urban Dictionary: white knighting

white knighting: In forum parlance, it means rushing to the aid of another poster for whatever reason. An accusation typically reserved for when a poster is...

www.urbandictionary.com

 

[TSwizzle]

That is one hell of a way to describe the principle that all citizens deserve equal protection under the law, and that no one should be indefinitely detained without evidence of a crime. Mass incarceration would not make the homeless any less homeless. A prison cell is not a home.

And neither is a tent on the sidewalk, living in squalor, pissing and shitting in the gutter but you are okay with that for some reason.

You are shameless.

 

[laughing dog]

That is one hell of a way to describe the principle that all citizens deserve equal protection under the law, and that no one should be indefinitely detained without evidence of a crime. Mass incarceration would not make the homeless any less homeless. A prison cell is not a home.

And neither is a tent on the sidewalk, living in squalor, pissing and shitting in the gutter but you are okay with that for some reason.

Logically and legally, it can be a home.

You are shameless.

Ah, the Trump tactic of every accusation is a confession.

 

[Politesse]

And neither is a tent on the sidewalk, living in squalor, pissing and shitting in the gutter but you are okay with that for some reason.

No, I most certainly am not. I have dedicated my entire life to helping class disadvantaged people, many of them homeless or housing insecure, some imprisoned, to earn the degrees and certificates they need to pull themselves out of poverty. What do you do that benefits anyone other than yourself? Have you ever so much as been inside the facilities you think 140,000 Californians should be crammed into without cause?

 

[TSwizzle]

And neither is a tent on the sidewalk, living in squalor, pissing and shitting in the gutter but you are okay with that for some reason.

No, I most certainly am not. I have dedicated my entire life to helping class disadvantaged people, many of them homeless or housing insecure, some imprisoned, to earn the degrees and certificates they need to pull themselves out of poverty.

Puh-leeeeze. You consistently vote for the same party and policies that got us here and think because you give a sandwich to some bum in the gutter that absolves you of being part of the problem?

Shameless.

What do you do that benefits anyone other than yourself? Have you ever so much as been inside the facilities you think 140,000 Californians should be crammed into without cause?

Quote me where I said such a thing.

 

[Politesse]

Puh-leeeeze. You consistently vote for the same party and policies that got us here and think because you give a sandwich to some bum in the gutter that absolves you of being part of the problem?

If you can't tell the difference between a baccalaureate degree and a sandwich, it's no wonder you vote Republican. But you cannot possibly be as stupid as you're pretending to be.

Quote me where I said such a thing.

You are constantly demanding incarceration as the cure for every social ill, homelessness included. But I would be very happy to be proven wrong. Just what exactly do you think the state government should be doing to combat homelessness?

 

[TSwizzle]

Puh-leeeeze. You consistently vote for the same party and policies that got us here and think because you give a sandwich to some bum in the gutter that absolves you of being part of the problem?

If you can't tell the difference between a baccalaureate degree and a sandwich, it's no wonder you vote Republican. But you cannot possibly be as stupid as you're pretending to be.

Behave yourself.

Quote me where I said such a thing.

You are constantly demanding incarceration as the cure for every social ill, homelessness included. But I would be very happy to be proven wrong. Just what exactly do you think the state government should be doing to combat homelessness?

Quote me.

 

[Politesse]

Puh-leeeeze. You consistently vote for the same party and policies that got us here and think because you give a sandwich to some bum in the gutter that absolves you of being part of the problem?

If you can't tell the difference between a baccalaureate degree and a sandwich, it's no wonder you vote Republican. But you cannot possibly be as stupid as you're pretending to be.

Behave yourself.

Quote me where I said such a thing.

You are constantly demanding incarceration as the cure for every social ill, homelessness included. But I would be very happy to be proven wrong. Just what exactly do you think the state government should be doing to combat homelessness?

Quote me.

I'm not interested in playing stupid games. What is your plan for assisting California's homeless population?

 

[TSwizzle]

Puh-leeeeze. You consistently vote for the same party and policies that got us here and think because you give a sandwich to some bum in the gutter that absolves you of being part of the problem?

If you can't tell the difference between a baccalaureate degree and a sandwich, it's no wonder you vote Republican. But you cannot possibly be as stupid as you're pretending to be.

Behave yourself.

Quote me where I said such a thing.

You are constantly demanding incarceration as the cure for every social ill, homelessness included. But I would be very happy to be proven wrong. Just what exactly do you think the state government should be doing to combat homelessness?

Quote me.

I'm not interested in playing stupid games. What is your plan for assisting California's homeless population?

Quote me.

 

[bilby]

Puh-leeeeze. You consistently vote for the same party and policies that got us here and think because you give a sandwich to some bum in the gutter that absolves you of being part of the problem?

If you can't tell the difference between a baccalaureate degree and a sandwich, it's no wonder you vote Republican. But you cannot possibly be as stupid as you're pretending to be.

Behave yourself.

Quote me where I said such a thing.

You are constantly demanding incarceration as the cure for every social ill, homelessness included. But I would be very happy to be proven wrong. Just what exactly do you think the state government should be doing to combat homelessness?

Quote me.

I'm not interested in playing stupid games. What is your plan for assisting California's homeless population?

As far as I can see, he doesn't have one.

A search for posts by user @TSwizzle and keyword "homeless" tops out at 200 hits going back to 2022, almost all of which are complaining about the problems homeless people cause, or deriding somebody else's proposed or attempted solution(s) as unworkable or ineffective.

The closest I can find to any kind of solution he supports are:

This is what happens when you empty the jails and allow the "homeless" to use public spaces as their shelters.

And

The mental cases need to be taken off the streets and put into suitable care facilities for everyone's sake.

Both of which strongly imply that incarceration is his preferred solution (or at least that its absence is a large contributor to the problem), without showing the requisite testicular fortitude from him to actually say so explicitly.

Basically, his "solution" appears from his posting history to be to whinge incessantly, until the problem goes away, while denigrating anyone who proposes actually doing anything, particularly if that thing might require a cent of taxpayer funding.

Also, calling Gavin Newsom an insufferable prick seems to feature a lot, though no clarity is provided as to by what mechanism such name-calling is supposed to help anyone to find a home.

 

[Elixir]

calling Gavin Newsom an insufferable prick seems to feature a lot, though no clarity is provided as to by what mechanism such name-calling is supposed to help anyone to find a home.

I think it’s a heartfelt plea to his fellow citizens to change their ways in the next election cycle, and elect a sufferable prick.

 

[Politesse]

Puh-leeeeze. You consistently vote for the same party and policies that got us here and think because you give a sandwich to some bum in the gutter that absolves you of being part of the problem?

If you can't tell the difference between a baccalaureate degree and a sandwich, it's no wonder you vote Republican. But you cannot possibly be as stupid as you're pretending to be.

Behave yourself.

Quote me where I said such a thing.

You are constantly demanding incarceration as the cure for every social ill, homelessness included. But I would be very happy to be proven wrong. Just what exactly do you think the state government should be doing to combat homelessness?

Quote me.

I'm not interested in playing stupid games. What is your plan for assisting California's homeless population?

Quote me.

You are absolved. I apologize.

On the condition that you explain now explain what your plan is for assisting California's homeless population.

 

[Bomb#20]

... I don't believe for a second you ever actually heard a #tradwife wannabe say she intends for her husband to tell her how to vote. ... No one needs or wants you to strawman people for disagreeing with you, yet here we are. ...

But you've completely and utterly failed to demonstrate that I've done the thing you're accusing me of. Your critique falls very flat. I provided concrete examples of what I was talking about. You... accuse me of dire crimes, but offer no evidence at all except your own assertions.

You already admitted Loren didn't say the words you put in his mouth. As for the rest, no, you did not provide any concrete examples of CS making either the argument that the DP is the party of exclusion because it's the only party that supports anything other than straight white males and their interests, or the argument "Shut up and sit down, you don't need rights, you might make this one specific social class feel discriminated against"; neither did you provide any concrete examples of tradwives actively trying to do away with representation on the basis of gender. I watched the tradwife video you posted and she said nothing to that effect whatsoever. If you think you can quote CS and/or a tradwife influencer saying anything that backs up your accusation that they hold the views you attributed to them, knock yourself out.

In fact, you're silencing tradwife voices by refusing to acknowledge what it is they are even saying

Urban Dictionary: white knighting

white knighting: In forum parlance, it means rushing to the aid of another poster for whatever reason. An accusation typically reserved for when a poster is...

www.urbandictionary.com

You linked to a page with seven definitions, apparently hoping that would be enough slop to get some on me.

 

[Politesse]

... I don't believe for a second you ever actually heard a #tradwife wannabe say she intends for her husband to tell her how to vote. ... No one needs or wants you to strawman people for disagreeing with you, yet here we are. ...

But you've completely and utterly failed to demonstrate that I've done the thing you're accusing me of. Your critique falls very flat. I provided concrete examples of what I was talking about. You... accuse me of dire crimes, but offer no evidence at all except your own assertions.

You already admitted Loren didn't say the words you put in his mouth. As for the rest, no, you did not provide any concrete examples of CS making either the argument that the DP is the party of exclusion because it's the only party that supports anything other than straight white males and their interests, or the argument "Shut up and sit down, you don't need rights, you might make this one specific social class feel discriminated against"; neither did you provide any concrete examples of tradwives actively trying to do away with representation on the basis of gender. I watched the tradwife video you posted and she said nothing to that effect whatsoever. If you think you can quote CS and/or a tradwife influencer saying anything that backs up your accusation that they hold the views you attributed to them, knock yourself out.

In fact, you're silencing tradwife voices by refusing to acknowledge what it is they are even saying

Urban Dictionary: white knighting

white knighting: In forum parlance, it means rushing to the aid of another poster for whatever reason. An accusation typically reserved for when a poster is...

www.urbandictionary.com

You linked to a page with seven definitions, apparently hoping that would be enough slop to get some on me.

Your party's fate depends on the American people continuing to be dumb enough to fall for cheap shot bullshit like this. Luckily for you, they may well do. I, however, was not born yesterday.

 

[Patooka]

Yeah, I've never heard of the phrase "trad wife" being used online except in the way Politesse has described. Laurwn Southern, Erika Kirk etc. But I have full confidence in bomb being able to provide examples so it doesn't look like he's talking out of his arse.