pros of sleeping on concrete: heat from underground. cons: mice
Mice are just new friends, chief.
Mice are just new meals, chef
Why is this stuff being blamed on liberals and not conservatives all of a sudden? I feel like Trump and the right really succeeded in making you all hate each other while they run off with the country.
In my country at least the conservatives pull this shit, and if anything the liberals go to the other extreme too much, which is “just let homeless people make shanty towns in parks and subways it’s their right” both are stupid but one is very clearly worse in a mora sense
Conservatives wouldn’t build the bench.
Free public spaces don’t encourage people to go in to a shop hard enough. You wanna sit down? Starbucks has chairs. Want a sip of water, go buy a bottle.
the thing about Democrats and ‘liberals’ is that its a broad coalition of ideologies and political groups competing for power and having to compromise. we all want to bring about our vision of society and help people, but small differences lead to huge schisms. also, monied interests have undue amounts of power over our institutions.
conservatives on the other hand are completely united by cruelty and adherence to rigid heirarchies (in spite of how dysfunctional they are), and basically the only issues they ever have in their own base is that something isn’t causing enough pain to people they hate.
i feel it is important to hold our representatives accountable, but saying things like both sides are exactly the same or complaining about liberals as if they are one cohesive entity has no value outside of pushing people away from politics. there are VERY specific people and groups that are making very bad decisions for Americans, like AIPAC or other big donors that simultaneously fund people like Andrew Cuomo and Donald Trump
who here said both sides same?
Both sides currently yell and scream at anyone that doesn’t agree with them unequivocally. I don’t agree with everything liberal, and a few conservative viewpoints I do agree with. But for the most part I consider myself to be a moderate.
But vocalizing that I disagree with how to do something and both sides will either call me a libtard or a MAGAt.
This is something both sides have an issue with. So stop saying both sides is wrong. Here is an example that disproves that statement completely.
All I want is a party by and for the people. Not billionaires. Done with idiocracy and insanity.
All I want is a party by and for the people.
Sounds like you’d be interested in Marxism then.
All I want is a party by and for the people
Never going to happen.
Political parties are run by the wealthy elite, not “the people”
There’s nothing to allow for a candidate who is sincere but not connected to big money to succeed at anything but the most local of elections.
If someone were to win a bigger federal level election with word of mouth and no money, be sure that whatever social media platform that allowed their word to go out and grow was on their side and working in the shadows of their ‘formula’ that promotes some content over others.
How would sleeping on that bench be any better than the ground even without the arms? If it was cold at all you would freeze from below.
Hygiene.
It feels safer to be a bit more above ground level, especially if people walk by
An angle grinder would make short work of those “arm rests.”
If you don’t do it perfectly, it’ll leave sharp edges.
i doubt they are welded, a wrench or pliers might do
I wouldn’t damage public property. You certainly can improve on it. A couple of weather treated 2x4s would raise the seat up, just high enough to clear the armrests. You wouldn’t draw attention to yourself while grinding, but instead it would look super clean and nobody would report it.
Ok, but the people at Covenant House aren’t the ones who decided to put the anti-homeless architecture in place.
Most charities are just scams. And yeah they might do some good, but charity is a symptom of failure. We are byproduct of our environment.
Anti-homeless architecture is meant to encourage homeless people to actually go to homeless shelters where they might get help finding affordable housing, not to mention help for whatever issues they have going on in their lives. It’s meant to combat the problem of some homeless people choosing to avoid getting help and continue to bury themselves in drugs/alcohol and sleep on things like public benches, where they prevent other people from using them for their intended purpose.
There’s nothing wrong with wanting people to get the help they need and stop being an inconvenience for the rest of their community. Are you against homeless outreach programs too? Do you think people should just be allowed to set up shack wherever they please in public spaces? I’m not trying to pretend that the lack of affordable housing isn’t at the core of the problem, but even if we had enough of that, there’d still be mentally ill people and drug addicts that would prefer to live on the street, just to avoid social workers pressuring them to address their problems.
Amazingly, you think because someone has a mental illness that they chose to live on the street.
You: “I’m sure if given the chance to have a place to live, an unhoused person would reject it”
They remove benches and rest stops/bus shelters to stop the unhoused from occupying them to the detriment of people using the service. And you see nothing wrong with that.
It’s very obvious to most why this is done.
But not you.
Amazingly, you think because someone has a mental illness that they chose to live on the street.
No, I don’t. I’m a therapist that works at a mental health clinic, so I’d wager I have a better understanding of the psychosocial conditions affecting these people than you do. And I know the feeling psychosocial impacts have on the homeless better than you do. I’ve seen and worked with people living on the street. Can you claim to have the same experience?
Jesus Christ, do you even know what you’re talking about?
I’m not going to waste my time with you, because you haven’t demonstrated you have even an inkling of an understanding of what you’re dealing with.
Get educated before you spout off, nitwit.
I’ve actually been homeless. Have you?
The time you went to Starbucks and left your keys inside your house doesn’t count, Brian
Says they are a therapist and that they know better than anyone. Doesn’t know anything about me.
HOW EMBARRASSING IT MUST BE FOR YOU TO EXIST.
Get educated before you spout off, nitwit.
Oh, the irony! 🤣
You do realize you’re just embarrassing yourself all over this thread, right?
Ah yes, sharing they have experience working with homeless, how embarrassed they must be
Claiming that they have experience working with homeless, but demonstrating that they’re a callous asshole (and probably very bad at their job, if they aren’t outright lying).
Anti-homeless architecture is meant to encourage homeless people to actually go to homeless shelters
Umm no… anti-homeless architecture isn’t meant to encourage people to go to homeless shelters, it’s meant to make it inconvenient to be homeless where “rich people” might have to see and acknowledge you. Its goal is to make the problem easier to ignore not drive people to get help.
You can’t disconnect the problems you are pretending are separate.
Shelters, even if there was enough space, can be dangerous for vulnerable people, do not allow pets, and rarely provide medium term housing or transitional opportunity.
Anti-homeless architecture simply attempts to push the houseless further away from urban centers, and consequently food kitchens, shelters, and other resources. This is deadly when extreme weather occurs or acute health problems arise.
It actively makes the city more dangerous to those most fucked by society.
As far as “wanting” to live on the street, this is a narrative made up to victim blame and deny empathy. It only needs one or two examples for the false narrative to be cast on the population writ large.
You’re stupid if you think this is the effect anti-homeless architecture is having in the places it’s being implemented. They have very little impact to begin with. I don’t pretend to think that shelters can’t be improved, but if people refuse to utilize the resources we have, we must either come up with new resources or reevaluate our investments in the resources we currently employ.
Hey maybe I’m stupid too, but it seems to me it’d be way fucking easier and cheaper to just put some flyers in a little letterbox attached to the bench advertising the nearest homeless shelter or something, rather than inconveniencing literally everyone who wants to use the bench. But what do I know, I’m probably just stupid
Imagine trying to spin anti-homeless architecture as pro-homeless.
but even if we had enough of that, there’d still be mentally ill people and drug addicts that would prefer to live on the street
How about we get there first and then you can hand wring about any of these supposed people who are left?
Nah, because these people are always going to be here. Do you have a better solution or are you just hand-wringing about people you don’t have to deal with in your daily life?
Those people don’t exist, they are just an excuse for you to be cruel
Your refusal to acknowledge their existence is what is cruel.
That may be true in some cases but most of the time anti homeless street furniture is just made to get homeless people to not hang around that particular area.
And what’s wrong with that? These people should be getting help, not taking up public space. I realize that it probably seems to you like an abuse campaign to insist they sleep somewhere else, but I would argue you’re an enabler who naively thinks they’re helping while actually just cooperating with these poor people’s poor adaptation strategies by giving them a place to stay in public space that isn’t actually a safe to stay in. Check yourself. Do you actually have these people’s best interests in mind, or are you just virtue signaling about the homeless, a class you see as less than yourself?
Why do you believe I see homeless people as less than myself? Quite a lot of people are only a short term breakdown away from being homeless, especially in ultra capitalist places like the US. Certainly they need help, but help is not always directly available, and you want to argue that while they look for help, making the world as hostile as possible is a good thing? And then you try to gaslight me with that? I think you need help.
Well you do seem Keen to insist in enabling a dangerous and damaging behavior in them
Fuck you.
Ah yes, petty insults
The leftist huckster’s crutch
A liberal didn’t build that bench.
What makes you think that? Do these not exist in blue states?
Because that bench was deliberately designed to discourage people from sitting there. To make people miserable. So which political party LOVES to be pointlessly cruel?
On the contrary: a leftist didn’t build that bench, but it’s exactly the sort of thing a liberal would do.
False
The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike from sleeping under bridges, begging on the streets and stealing bread.
Anatole France, 1894
Also fines agricultural workers and CEOs the same for speeding on their way to work—except for that Nokia executive that one time & his countrymen
I commented that exact quote several times on Lemmy, nice to see other people do the same!
It’s been one of my favorites for decades!
I encountered it reading Worshiping Power by Peter Gelderloos. Never read the original
“No kid should ever be able to sleep on the streets”
Working class: “Can we have meaningful reform?”
Conservatives: “No.”
Liberals: "No 😘 🌈 "
Correction,
liberals: “😘🌈 No”
Conservatives: "No. Kill the trans people and put gays in jail. Women belong in the kitchen. "
Liberals: "No 😘 🌈 "
Lemmy: both said no, so they’re the same!
I feel like this shouldn’t have to be explained, but “Both sides bad” does not equal “Both sides equally bad” or “Both sides the same”
There’s not a leftist on Lemmy who wouldn’t rather be patronized while being stomped on than being cussed at while being murdered.
And yes, I voted. No, it didn’t help. It was moderates who didn’t vote, not leftists. Leftists believe in harm reduction while advocating for harm elimination- the two goals aren’t contradictory. Trump stole the election so it’s all pretty much moot anyway.
By focusing on the fact that Democrats version of bad is better than the Republican version of bad, it only helps to ensure that the Democrats are the best we can hope to achieve. There is nothing wrong in wanting actual good and instead of ‘least bad’.
I don’t live in the US so I don’t have first hand experience but both on lemmy and on reddit it was mostly leftists who were spamming “genocide Biden (without mentioning that trump was even worse)”, something about inflation (like it wasn’t a global issue) and other issues where gop is clearly worse. All as a reason to not vote Democrat.
Americans don’t believe that inflation is a global issue. They think it’s a new thing called greedflation [because our country and our time period are exceptional].
How do you know they were leftists? I don’t know where you are from, but it’s been known that bots and foreign powers have been attempting to influence U.S. elections since at least Trumps first term, and let’s be honest it’s extremely likely that it has been going on for far longer than that.
Biden IS pro genocide, So is Harris, So is Trump. I don’t think it’s bad to point that out. Using it as a reason to vote for a Fascist instead is loony tunes, and as someone who frequents Leftist spaces I can tell you not a single person on reddit or Lemmy proposed any such nonsense who was taken seriously and wasn’t’ immediately down-voted into oblivion.
Their talking points were the typical that are considered “leftist” in America (and centrist in Europe): universal Healthcare, free education/forgiving student debt, etc. Whether they were bots or not is impossible to say in this day and age.
Well, do you think it’s at all likely or remotely reasonable that someone who was in favor of universal healthcare and free education would prefer a fascist dictator over a center-right Dem? It may not be possible to know for sure, but there certainly are signs.
Were these people in r/politics or on Facebook by any chance? It’s not surprising that the most popular places online to discuss politics would be a prime target for bots and Russians posing as American leftists.
After Biden finally dropped out, I was advocating we try and get anyone other than Harris- someone who might actually win, on the ballot, but that is not the same as saying I would vote for Trump or not Vote.
I can 100% relate to people who didn’t want to vote for Harris, I didn’t want to vote for her, but our election system gives us very little choice in the matter.
You’ve posted a good argument to a discussion that we are not currently having in this thread. You may need to take a little break from Lemmy.
I’m frustrated with the reflexive “both sides are equally bad” response that shuts down any meaningful analysis of what’s actually happening in our politics.
I’m not naive about the Democratic Party’s problems. They struggle with internal divisions, sometimes cave to corporate pressure, and they’ve made compromises that disappointed their base. But when I look at voting records, policy proposals, and legislative priorities, I see meaningful differences that have real consequences for people’s lives.
On issues I care about (healthcare access, climate action, voting rights, ext.) one party consistently proposes solutions and votes for them when they have the numbers. The other party doesn’t just oppose these policies, they fight tooth and nail to undermine them, delay them, or dismantle them entirely. That’s not a matter of opinion. That’s a matter of public record.
When Democrats fail to deliver, it’s often because they lack sufficient majorities or face procedural roadblocks. When they do have power, they’ve passed significant legislation on infrastructure, climate investment, and healthcare expansion. Meanwhile, when Republicans have unified control, their priorities have been tax cuts for the wealthy and rolling back environmental protections.
I understand the appeal of cynicism. It can feel sophisticated to dismiss all politicians as equally corrupt. But that cynicism serves the interests of those who benefit from the status quo.
If you can’t tell the difference between someone trying to reform a broken system and someone actively working to keep it broken, you’re not offering insight. You’re providing cover for obstruction.
Does this mean Democrats are perfect? Of course not. Should we hold them accountable when they fall short? Absolutely. But pretending there are no meaningful differences between the parties just because neither is perfect makes it harder to build the coalitions we need to create the change we actually want to see.
I’m frustrated with the reflexive “both sides are equally bad”
No one is saying both sides are equally bad. And we keep saying this over and over, and it gets ignored. Just so were on the same page NO ONE is saying both sides equally bad.
…response that shuts down any meaningful analysis of what’s actually happening in our politics.
Ironically it’s usually the opposite. Someone will make the lightest possible criticism of Liberals and the knee-jerk reaction to that is “So you think both sides are equally bad?!” That’s what usually shuts the conversation down.
sometimes cave to corporate pressure
Try replacing sometimes with “usually”. They may be different corps, but almost all of them are in the pocket of one corp or another.
they’ve made compromises that disappointed their base
That’s putting it mildly.
I see meaningful differences that have real consequences for people’s lives.
Of course, and again literally no one is saying they are equally bad. You can vote for the less bad option while still hoping for meaningful change.
On issues I care about (healthcare access, climate action, voting rights, ext.) one party consistently proposes solutions and votes for them when they have the numbers.
It’s usually weak, ineffective half-measures more designed to look progressive than actually being progressive, but sure if you compare them to literal Nazi’s they are saints.
When Democrats fail to deliver, it’s often because they lack sufficient majorities or face procedural roadblocks. When they do have power, they’ve passed significant legislation on infrastructure, climate investment, and healthcare expansion.
So, just as an example when Obama was president and Dems had the majority in both houses of congress, and Republicans were shitting all over themselves proving that they would not compromise a single inch- instead of passing any type of “Medicare for all” or “Right to Healthcare”, instead they passed the highly compromised “Affordable Care Act”. Why? Contrast that fact with this statement from Obama prior to the election.
“I happen to be a proponent of a single-payer universal health care program," Obama said. "I see no reason why the United States of America, the wealthiest country in the history of the world, spending 14 percent of its gross national product on health care, cannot provide basic health insurance to everybody. And that’s what Jim is talking about when he says everybody in, nobody out. A single-payer health care plan, a universal health care plan. That’s what I’d like to see. But as all of you know, we may not get there immediately. Because first we’ve got to take back the White House, we’ve got to take back the Senate, and we’ve got to take back the House.”
Odd that when the Dems had “taken back” the White House and both houses of Congress the best they could do was a watered down and problematic solution that still left a lot of people without health care. It’s not like compromising on that gained them a single Republican vote.
“Coincidentally” the Healthcare Industry ‘donated’ over $20 million to the Obama campaign, way more than even the almost $8 million they ‘donated’ to John McCain. Very odd indeed.
But that cynicism serves the interests of those who benefit from the status quo.
I honestly can’t think of a single institution anywhere in the world more devoted to maintaining the status quo than the DNC. Not one. They aren’t ‘progressive’ in any way. Obama didn’t even come out in support of Gay Marriage until he had been president for over 3 years, and after right wing Democrat Joe Biden already had. This wasn’t due to some sense of fairness or equality, it was political pressure.
If you can’t tell the difference between someone trying to reform a broken system and someone actively working to keep it broken, you’re not offering insight. You’re providing cover for obstruction
By refusing to even hear about potential failings of ‘liberal democrats’ without engaging in ‘whataboutism’, it only strengthens the DNC’s position as the ‘good guys, fighting for reform’ when the reality is they are the ‘less bad guys, fighting to maintain the status quo’.
Fascists are bad. We all know they are bad. We all know they are worse than a bunch of corporate stooges who want everyone to be slaves to Capitalism, but at least you can feel good they are doing the bare minimum to address the multitudes of problems in the country.
There is a third option, and there is absolutely noting wrong with pointing out the flaws on both sides of the Two Party system and hoping for a future of ‘actually good’ instead of ‘less bad’. Even if it is just a dream, I’d rather waste my life trying to make those dreams real than throwing my arms up and saying “This is the best we can ever hope for”.
From my detached non American (but still a citizen of the planet so likely to get fucked hard by the way Americans vote) point of view, seems like Americans are continually letting perfect be the enemy of least bad. “Well since Democrats are kinda bad in these instances maybe we should just go fully fascist theological doom cult. That will force the Democrats to improve, or kill us all.”
American here…I think it’s actually more the opposite. Everyone is being told to vote for the lessor evil and no one is getting what they want. That’s what caused all this to begin with imo… The Magas torched their party trying to get something different to happen politically (not to excuse them or anyone). This is all on the 2 party system, if we make it out of this I think ending that system is one major change that will need to take place to avoid repeating the cycle. Basically, we lost our Republic a long time ago when Congress stopped representing us and became owned by billionaires.
I have written and rewritten my response here trying to find the right tone. I feel like we are closer to agreement here than might be immediately obvious. I think a lot of what we are seeing now is a result of 50+ years of people who find the idea of your republic distasteful seeking every method they can to erode it away. All the details are just components of this project, seems to me that MAGA is a result of years of stoking xenophobia and anti-intellectualism. Turns out if you spend decades laying the groundwork you can make the situation seem completely hopeless to a whole populace. I sincerely worry the long term goal is to perfect the formula for dismantling democracy and then start exporting it to the rest of the world.
Or I could be a fool, I don’t know and I don’t want to rewrite this again. Sorry that this was so rambling.
It’s called controlled opposition. The Democratic party has a lot of passionate, honest people, who want to make the world a better place. But they’re funded and directed at the highest levels of leadership by a group that secretly wants to make the world a worse place.
And the way they accomplish that is making sure the passionate honest people lose. Kamala Harris was bragging about drilling for oil and staying quiet about Gaza because either she or the people giving her advice wanted her to lose.
“Both sides bad” is the party’s intended messaging strategy. And it’s a lie. But it’s a lie people are falling for and repeating.
I agree with you that the parties are not the same. The GOP are outright evil puppets of the billionaire class. The Democrats are ineffectual cowards who’ve made careers out of paying lip service to the right thing, and every now and then doing something helpful if it’s convenient for them and doesn’t piss off their billionaire donors. A lot of the time that ends up translating to the same results for most people.
I don’t buy the “sorry, our hands are tied” line we always get from the left. Dems throw up their hands even when they do have majorities. The first meaningful opportunity the Democrats had to obstruct Trump’s agenda, after the left base had been screaming for weeks for their representatives to do something, Schumer rolled over immediately. I can’t take this party seriously anymore.
the left
Democrats are definitely not leftist. Center right would be more apt.
The dems are not left they are center right. The repubs are far right.
I won’t defend Schumer’s choice here. It was a bad call, and the anger from House Democrats and the base was completely justified. You’re right that the party leadership sometimes folds when they should fight. They make strategic decisions that feel disconnected from the urgency the moment demands. And yes, Democrats have corporate-aligned figures who blunt the force of reform, but that is also a reality of our current system that we have to work within.
But, sticking to your example, there is a key difference: when Democrats cave, it’s often to avoid causing harm, like a shutdown that would devastate working people. When Republicans cave, it’s to secure more tax cuts, more deregulation, and more authoritarian power. The intent and the outcome are not the same, even if the compromise leaves a bad taste in everyone’s mouth.
It also matters that Democrats have factions pushing from within. The anger from House Dems, from AOC, from the base, that’s real pressure that can move things. Republicans don’t have that kind of internal accountability. Their party punishes dissent and rewards obstruction.
And while it’s easy to say “they always have excuses,” the reality is that even when Democrats had a trifecta in 2021, their margin in the Senate was literally 50-50. One or two bad actors (like Manchin or Sinema) could tank an entire agenda, and did. That’s not an excuse. That’s a math problem, and the only way around it is bigger, more engaged progressive coalitions.
So yes, Schumer failed in that moment (and many others). Yes, we should be furious. But walking away or writing off the party entirely means handing power back to a movement that’s not just flawed. It’s actively hostile to democracy, human rights, and the planet. That’s not moral purity. That’s surrender.
Your defense of the Democrats boils down to “at least we’re not the GOP.” And you’re not wrong. I’ve done my part by voting against the GOP in every election since I was eligible. The Democrats themselves don’t even do that. I wish their effort would at least match mine, seeing as it’s their full-time job. And I wish you held your reps as accountable as your fellow voters.
I agree with you and like to emphasis on one point you already mentioned. The demcrats encompass everything to the left of the GOP. Because the GOP is far right, everything to the left of it includes center right, conservatives, centrist and liberal opinions, as well as a lot, or most of the left wing depending on definitions.
In my opinion this is one of the major reasons why the democrats seem so undecicive, because there already are so many different world views of people that are forced to be in the same party, because effectively, there only are two of them, and the alternative is straight up fascism.
If the democrats ever regain power, changing the voting system to allow for a 3rd or 4th party to actually emerge would be a saving grace, but unfortunately, the above mentioned composition will likely prevent them from it, even when in power. And on top of that they will have their hands full with the debt crisis.
Democrats CONTINUE to enforce and support the unpopular, treasonous, ineffectual leadership. We can talk about Schumer’s bad choice all day long but it means nothing if he is never ever ever ever ever “held accountable” for it. They literally stuck an old fossil with cancer in the DNC chair versus the clearly obvious choice that gets things done and excites the voters. He literally ran a PRO-TRUMP Democrat to unseat McConnell when all the energy was behind Charles Booker.
Young voters and progressives do not believe in anything you say because there is no will to back it up. They get stabbed in the face over and over and over and over and over again.
As for the good policies that Dems enacted? They’re easily dismantled or else undermined by administrative excess, handing power back to the GOP. Case in point: FEMA and the Lahaina fire relief. FEMA swooped in to help house the displaced; to do this they paid $9000/month in rent to anyone that would help house the victims. All of our rents went up ASTRONOMICALLY because FEMA far exceeded the market rate, leading to more homelessness even for those NOT displaced by the fire. Landlords got RICH AS FUUUUUCK on the taxpayer dime.
There’s a great article written here about how Neo-liberal policy backed up into this corner where neither party can produce meaningful progress.
You’ve fallen for Democrat propaganda. They want you to think they can’t be taken seriously. They want to lose.
Ive always put it in the very crude fashion of “They are both going to fuck us, but one of them spits on it and goes in gentle the other one wants us to struggle.”
Personally, I’d go with the idea that the Democrats are the ones who fight for brightly-colored warning signs, guardrails, and PPE for the operators of the orphan crushing machine.
shitty children petulantly whining they never get their way.
mind you, “their way” would alienate more than 60% of voters
no party is perfect, but they are wholly deluded and will lash out like spurned tweens denied their crocks. they know conservatives don’t give two flying fucks about them, so they have to lash out at dems / liberals / anyone not sufficiently ML to stand up to their purity tests.
it would be hilarious academically, but their bullshit does real world harm.
The more accurate form of the comment to which you’re reacting would be:
Can I have a free beer?
Conservatives: No
Liberals: Points to novelty sign on wall Free Beer Tomorrow winks “so you want a beer today? That’ll be $8.99”
The results aren’t exactly the same, but the gulf is not meaningful is the problem. Realistically, most people don’t actually like either party, they just dislike the other party more. If one day we had a 7 random parties just appear and Rs and Ds vanish, for a solid 20 years, political discourse would be verdant and nuanced in a way rarely seen in the US.
Ooof that fact that you think the “gulf is not meaningful” is insane.
I mean JFC, are you blind or a troll? I don’t even have enough time to list the Nazi level illegal and democracy ending shit Trump is doing right now.
Attacking the commenter personally is not helpful. Obviously the whole destruction-of-American-Democracy thing is very different. But let’s look at some salient issues.
As far as the war in Gaza, Biden/ establishment Democrats still stood behind Netanyahu in the wake of Oct 7th. There was only slight functional differences in Biden’s America’s stance on Israel in Gaza and Trump’s.
Less salient, adding a cap on mortgage interest deductions on taxes. Republicans under Trump I did it to punish wealthy coastal (high home value) residents who rented to vote blue. Democrats left it in place because they approved of people who have more home value paying more taxes.
It goes on. Both Democrats and Republicans failed to close Guantanamo, advance voting reform, advance marijuana legalization, end the war in Afghanistan, or take ANY action about climate change for decades, etc.
It’s not every issue mind you, but Democrats are frustratingly adherent to the status quo while the United States has needed meaningful reform for decades.
Lol, I have two degrees in studying this, and I’m old enough to have seen the full cycle play out a few times for both sides. I’m not trolling, I’m jaded AF. And I’m taking about what either party does as a party line. Orange Bully is obviously different, but it’s an individual thing, nothing the party itself has accomplished or done.
Look, if the difference was so vast, ask yourself why Schumer and all the other 70+ year old Dems seem hellbent on laying low and doing nothing but maintain their own power? Maybe get a couple seats in 2026? That’s not resistance. That’s capitulation. Not even strategic capitulation, simply consent and wishes for crumbs. The same thing the alt-right does because TACO boy always chickens out when it comes to a “crossing the Rubicon” style move.
Political parties only exist to enrich and entrench politicians in the party. They are unions for politicians, with no benefits passed to the voters unless it first benefits the politicians. Open your eyes. If you think either party is so noble and steadfast and true, ask yourself where, in a time of need, they are.
Edit: I’m a privacy advocate, and so you have shit like this: https://lemmy.today/post/31901334. While on the other side, journalist Taylor Lorenz has repeatedly mentioned that during a social media influencer event the Biden White House held, they pushed for the idea of “unmasking internet trolls,” which by default means knowing who everyone is online. (The most recent episode of Power User mentions it again) This, the slow deterioration from a few Senators in 2017-18 trying for an internet bill of rights, down to not a bill but…principles, down to privacy as a consumer right, down to F it we need tech bro money too so scrap it all and let’s support Digital IDs now (https://www.meritalk.com/articles/congress-warms-to-digital-ids-as-fraud-privacy-concerns-grow/)
Plenty of examples of both parties having incredibly similar implementations of two different sounding policy goals. Which is fascinating to read about, but a terrifying place in which to live.
Most of three Democrats in Congress are hardly liberal
Leftist. Liberalism is a right wing ideology.
Think of the kids.
But don’t do anything.
“No kid should ever have to sleep on the streets, so we made it borderline impossible for them to physically do so. Hopefully their bootstraps figure out someplace they can sleep, because we sure as hell didn’t. You’re welcome.”
It’s more like “no kid should ever sleep on the streets so we provide them with shelter and support”, but that doesn’t make a good internet rant m
Except for the part where, in reality, they didn’t actually do that.
My knowledge is limited to a short wikipedia scan, but I didn’t see any reason to doubt they do it. Feel free to link some info if you know better.
https://duckduckgo.com/?t=ffab&q=not+enough+homeless+shelters&ia=web
Re your other comment: do you think there are only 2000 homeless kids in North America? What they’re doing isn’t even close to enough, by multiple orders of magnitude.
The disparity between demand and supply is so vast it feels like the government isn’t even trying.
Do you think there’s only 1 charity in north America? What a weird argument to make.
Do you think even all the charities put together come close to fixing the problem? 'Cause they don’t, which you would understand if you’d actually bothered to avail yourself of the info you asked for beyond your “short wikipedia scan.”
It would be nice to see shelter and support being provided, rather than a bisected bench designed to discourage the ability to comfortably lie down for a night’s rest.
As far as a quick Google search goes, support seems to be provided, they offer 2000 shelter spots across north America.
Instead the message is “no child should ever sleep on the streets. We made it impossible to sleep on this bench because it’s for people we want here.”
So you would prefer that there is no shelter and more benches for homeless children?
I think the message is perfectly clear, and people online are just looking for reasons to be upset (not that they would do something about it, just posting angrily).
I would prefer shelter and no anti-homeless architecture. But I get that you prefer anti-homeless architecture and no shelter, since we’re being uncharitable.
I live in a country where if you don’t have a job the government will pay for your rent and utilities, indefinitely.
Additionally, I have a deal with them as well: If they don’t sleep on the benches I will not sit in their beds. Works wonders.
Maybe the populous should have been more specific then
I believe populace means the people, whereas populous is an adjective that’s a synonym of crowded
I suppose “populous” could be contextually nounified in niche circumstances.
Holy shit! There’s a bunch of poor homeless kids that are starving!
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
What?! Lemme get outraged and blame the parents, then post some Facebook comments about how outraged I am!
Yep. This is what happens when you bleeding heart assholes stop the school shooters, bullying-to-suicide, and ecumenical rape. The whole ecosystem gets out of whack.
This year, we couldn’t even find enough people to take all the hunting licenses.
It’s estimated that 20% (1 in 5) orphans go straight to being homeless at 18. Homelessness is becoming illegal. Banning abortions ups the number of orphans… Which ups the homeless population, which in turn will up the incarceration numbers.
Our plan to fix any of it? To make cuts to social services.
Our plan to fix any of it?
What do you mean, “fix it?” The prison slave labor system is working exactly as intended.
Eventually the homeless kids will go to jail and become
productive members of societymodern slave laborRight. It’s just insane.
Obviously you need to ban abortion, but if you arent sacrificing those children to moloch, what is even the point of society?
Like, im all for cutting social services, but you need to follow it up with proper ritual! We aren’t even sacrificing enough of the children we have on purpose, and we’re just replacing them. Its a fucking insult.
The old yeet ze child into the flames so the crops would grow better.
It’s a bold move cotton, how many babies/children to bring back the bee population do you think?
into the flames
Well, into the machine.
to bring back the bees
Dunno! Im mostly in this for the solitude filth and ugliness tbh, but im sure there’s a number.
Your fascist anger nourishes me. Please, tell me more about how angry and miserable I make you.
I live for nothing else
Maybe if you owned a proper Ford F50000 Fleshreaper (BLOOD FOR THE CAR GOD™) you would have your own tiny body count, instead of being high on train fumes all the time. Mwybe moloch would love you, then.
I can’t write a smarmy response to a comment that is legitimately fucking funny
You do realize they’re joking right?
How arrogant for you to believe that I am even in the same stratosphere of stupid as you are. Of course, you are so fucking stupid. You can’t imagine anyone who isn’t as stupid as you are. So I can’t entirely blame you.
You’re still a piece of shit though
Wat
Don’t mind them, they’re just speed running getting banned from every community.
Not everyone is brave enough to advertise how fucking stupid they are. Good for you.
Is that just a weird perspective, or is that bench just an inch or two off the ground?
Perspective. You can see the leg on the right side through the bench.
Saw a guy sleeping under a bench with a similar design as this one, checkmate.
they probably put spikes on the ground after that
There is so much going on in that image. Layer after layer. It made me kinda dizzy.
I knew the threads would be cha0s. I was hoping someone would comment about the image itself. And wow. Hell of a comment. :]Ty!
Yankee woke neo_Liberalism is stupidity trying to look good with little to no oversight. Yankee Conservatism is bitches runing wild.
Aww they put kid sized sleeping areas on the bench!
