-
Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
-
Congrats to the winners of the 2023 Smog Awards!
Serious 2020 Democratic Primary Thread
- Thread starter MikeDawg
- Start date
fanyfan
i once put 42 mcdonalds chicken nuggets in my anus
https://berniesanders.com/justice-and-safety-for-all/
As if I couldn’t like Bernie any more. Incomplete list of the amazing things he’s proposing here:
- Ban Private Prisons
- Legalizing Marijuana
- Ending civil asset forfeiture
- Boosting public defenders
- End mandatory minimums and Three Strikes laws
- Abolish the Death Penalty
- End the criminalization of homelessness
etc
This is just all incredible stuff. Imagine how many people’s lives would be better if the prison population was reduced by 50% like he’s proposing. I really hope people get behind this b/c this is really good.
As if I couldn’t like Bernie any more. Incomplete list of the amazing things he’s proposing here:
- Ban Private Prisons
- Legalizing Marijuana
- Ending civil asset forfeiture
- Boosting public defenders
- End mandatory minimums and Three Strikes laws
- Abolish the Death Penalty
- End the criminalization of homelessness
etc
This is just all incredible stuff. Imagine how many people’s lives would be better if the prison population was reduced by 50% like he’s proposing. I really hope people get behind this b/c this is really good.
I'm genuinely curious why anyone would be against these things. Like seriously, what's the argument in favor of private prisons, or criminalizing homelessness?
I will say that while decriminalizing homelessness is a step in the right direction (or more accurately walking back a step in the wrong direction), it's only a single step. Shelters, employment programs, and rehab centers need to be better funded, and court-mandated rehab should be favored over prison sentences in most drug-related cases. Criminalizing homelessness is ass backwards, but we should strive to make homelessness as rare a problem as possible in the first place.
I will say that while decriminalizing homelessness is a step in the right direction (or more accurately walking back a step in the wrong direction), it's only a single step. Shelters, employment programs, and rehab centers need to be better funded, and court-mandated rehab should be favored over prison sentences in most drug-related cases. Criminalizing homelessness is ass backwards, but we should strive to make homelessness as rare a problem as possible in the first place.
Good on Bernie for that plan. Lofty goals in these times we're living in but necessary. Really refreshing compared to Biden's tough on crime attitude.
In terms of private prisons what I hear mostly is that the private sector is a good thing, it'll give a better quality to the inmates, it means less government involvement and spending, etc.
Granted I think these are all really stupid reasons and I'm in favor of decriminalizing homelessness and banning private prisons. This is just what I've heard on the other side.
The arguments I've heard in favor of criminalizing homelessness is that it's an incentive to make people not want to be homeless if the punishment and life of being homeless is so harsh. The idea is that people are motivated to work harder than they are and pull themselves up by their own bootstraps or whatever.
In terms of private prisons what I hear mostly is that the private sector is a good thing, it'll give a better quality to the inmates, it means less government involvement and spending, etc.
Granted I think these are all really stupid reasons and I'm in favor of decriminalizing homelessness and banning private prisons. This is just what I've heard on the other side.
What do these things mean?
Meanwhile, in the Hamptons...
We all have to thank Tulsi for destroying her in the debates. I'd like to think that's at least partially responsible to her dip in support haha. But yeah, skipping the Climate Change summit which everyone on the spectrum from Biden to Bernie is going to... just to go to a fundraiser in LA... yikes. Not a good look. Before a lot of people didn't know how two faced she was but I mean, the more she shows her true colors the more people realize it.
re: homelessness, i'm guessing proponents would probably put it as a public safety issue. I doubt anyone has a problem with a homeless person and I would hope most would probably be sympathetic towards a homeless individual/homelessness in general but I think the experience many people have with it is negative and possibly even dangerous more often than not. People associate encampments of homeless with panhandling, public drug use, and general criminal activity. People have negative experiences with the homeless which makes them think - "Why are they allowed to violate social norms and act in ways that for anyone else would be socially unacceptable and criminally punishable?" Why is it ok that I have to walk down a street where a lot of homeless are and there are just used needles everywhere lying on the street? I think it's those sort of experiences that propel the argument of criminalizing homelessness. And I don't think really think people want to make being homeless a crime, but for there to be consequences for engaging in activity that is clearly not ok in society eg doing drugs in public spaces, threatening passerbys on the street, etc.
Characterizing the problem as "how do we deal with the homeless" makes it seem like such a simple issue but I think it's incredibly complex to deal with. There's probably a housing issue involved. I think probably there's a big aspect of it which is a mental health issue. I think it's also a problem of "how do we help people who doesn't necessarily want to be helped?" What about the people who for whatever reason want to live on the street and participate in destructive behavior? How can we help those people, if at all? It's easy to spot the common factor in all of this (the homeless) but much more difficult to deal with the root of the problem (What are the circumstances that lead people to be or choose to be homeless? Why are people choosing to behave in ways that aren't conducive to society?).
it's because ppl who already 'got it' dont want the value of their house to go down. period end of sentence. contemporary real estate markets necessitate that there must be homeless ppl, just like it creates landlord and wage slave classes. the seemingly wealthy ppl in power accept this and ppl with no power get to be homeless or pay half their income to a landlord for the rest of their miserable life. ppl dont want to share their wealth period.
letting ppl live in the street is incredibly easy through a narrative that 'they don't want to be helped', but that only accounts for like 1/100 homeless ppl at most (and btw not wanting to live at the shitty underfunded shelter is not the same as not wanting help), and providing services to that population, even housing to them, altho not a fun job, is very inexpensive relative to how much such individuals will cost the county by showing up in the ER. it's a common thing: a market fails do to greed and the government is left to pick up the externalities. This has been going on a long time and will never account for increases in homelessness, such as we've had recently/
2 generations of middle class americans got told they should pump all their money into a mortgage and a high home value is essentially their retirement savings, so now when ever it comes time to address homelessness, only short-term solutions and band-aids that don't threaten to decrease property values are taken seriously. So even tho nearly all major cities including in conservative locals have always provided services for mentally ill homeless ppl (the population we think of as not wanting help), the population of homeless ppl that has been exploding for the last 8 years has almost very few of these ppl naturally. Of course these services would be helped by better management and funding, but entirely new plans must be made to address the spike in homelessness we've had this decade.
ppl don't want to talk about america like it's a third world country. if they did they'd point out that number of internally displaced ppl we have (50,000 in los angeles, 15000-20000 in portland, 75k in new york and 30k in the bay area) and so thats 200k internally displaced homeless ppl just in 4 large metropolitan areas.
tl dr
letting ppl live in the street is incredibly easy through a narrative that 'they don't want to be helped', but that only accounts for like 1/100 homeless ppl at most (and btw not wanting to live at the shitty underfunded shelter is not the same as not wanting help), and providing services to that population, even housing to them, altho not a fun job, is very inexpensive relative to how much such individuals will cost the county by showing up in the ER. it's a common thing: a market fails do to greed and the government is left to pick up the externalities. This has been going on a long time and will never account for increases in homelessness, such as we've had recently/
2 generations of middle class americans got told they should pump all their money into a mortgage and a high home value is essentially their retirement savings, so now when ever it comes time to address homelessness, only short-term solutions and band-aids that don't threaten to decrease property values are taken seriously. So even tho nearly all major cities including in conservative locals have always provided services for mentally ill homeless ppl (the population we think of as not wanting help), the population of homeless ppl that has been exploding for the last 8 years has almost very few of these ppl naturally. Of course these services would be helped by better management and funding, but entirely new plans must be made to address the spike in homelessness we've had this decade.
ppl don't want to talk about america like it's a third world country. if they did they'd point out that number of internally displaced ppl we have (50,000 in los angeles, 15000-20000 in portland, 75k in new york and 30k in the bay area) and so thats 200k internally displaced homeless ppl just in 4 large metropolitan areas.
tl dr
Stratos
Banned deucer.
I assumed we criminalized homelessness for the same reason we criminalized suicide: it's typically caused by mental illness, and the only way to forcibly commit these people to psychiatric facilities is to find them guilty of a crime.
That might be too optimistic of a take on the criminal justice system's ability to deal with the mentally ill, but I think the theory is sound. As bad a soundbyte as it would make, I think as long as we make other strides toward a more humane justice system, criminalizing long-term homelessness makes sense.
That might be too optimistic of a take on the criminal justice system's ability to deal with the mentally ill, but I think the theory is sound. As bad a soundbyte as it would make, I think as long as we make other strides toward a more humane justice system, criminalizing long-term homelessness makes sense.
EV
Banned deucer.
Being poor isn't a mental illness.
https://nlchp.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Homeless_Stats_Fact_Sheet.pdf
https://nlchp.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Homeless_Stats_Fact_Sheet.pdf
nah you only need to be danger to self or others to be committed, no correlation or causal connection to found with this assertion that you can't commit ppl without criminalizing them. i.e nonsense. unless by committed you mean 'in jail' which on the one hand has some truth as a vacuous tautological syllogism since committed=in jail=criminalization is duh, and on the other hand is entirely untrue since jails don't help anyone's mental health and the things they are criminalized for that get them in jail don't often endanger theirselves or others
Last edited:
Stratos
Banned deucer.
https://www.bbrfoundation.org/blog/homelessness-and-mental-illness-challenge-our-societyBeing poor isn't a mental illness.
https://nlchp.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Homeless_Stats_Fact_Sheet.pdf
According to a 2015 assessment by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 564,708 people were homeless on a given night in the United States. At a minimum, 140,000 or 25 percent of these people were seriously mentally ill.
https://www.nami.org/learn-more/mental-health-by-the-numbers
Approximately 1 in 25 adults in the U.S. (11.2 million) experiences a serious mental illness in a given year that substantially interferes with or limits one or more major life activities.
25% occurence of serious mental illness in homeless people vs 4% in the general population...
I can't find it in a quick google search so maybe I was misinformed on this point--but I remember hearing or reading that very few mentally healthy people remain homeless for longer than 8 weeks, and the majority of long-term homeless are mentally ill. I'd do more research but I'm at work.
In regards to Myzo's point, I didn't know that so thanks. But still...:
>you only need to be danger to self or others to be committed
>the things they are criminalized for that get them in jail don't often endanger theirselves or others
are you saying that "danger to self or others" doesn't cover all mentally ill people who need help? because that's kinda my point.
Last edited:
fanyfan
i once put 42 mcdonalds chicken nuggets in my anus
- Ending civil asset forfeiture
Civil asset forfeiture is legalized robbery by cop. It’s where the cops can take your stuff if they “suspect” you were going to use it in a crime without you being convicted of anything and then flip the burden of proof in order for you to get it back. Legalized robbery by cop might sound like exaggeration but it really isn’t.
- Boosting Public Defenders
Odd word choice on my part. I just meant improving the public defender system with more and better public defenders.
- Ending mandatory minimums and Three strikes laws
- mandatory minimums
Set minimums on the sentence lengths of certain crimes. For instance, if caught in possession of marijuana, you get minimum 2 years or smth like that.
- Three Strikes laws
Laws that say if you get three, felonies I believe it is, then you get automatic life in prison. Just laws that help private prisons get more people locked up for longer
eh serious mental illness isn't a great analytic category. id break it down, but im not really sure how they assessed it. to start with tho, I'd point out that there is a chicken and egg problem because being chronically homeless is typically accompanied by trauma that could get a PTSD diagnosis. however, in practicality this diagnosis is rare ime, because typically someone with a serious case of ptsd may have accompanying features that point to a another diagnosis (i.e 2 or more conditions will be diagnosed, with ptsd not being central to the service plan).
'serious mental illness' sounds really bad, but in fact applies to every diagnosis of a mental illness that isn't 'adjustment disorder'. to get mental health services from a municipality or county you have to have a diagnosis of a serious mental health disorder, the first thing an msw does is file an assessment with whoever is paying them, in that assessment there is a mandatory line to be filled out for diagnosis. if the therapist doesn't diagnose something more serious than adjustment disorder, the individual gets less services. so anyway i can't figure out how these studies got their result, but going off of serious mental health condition still leaves questions about:
how seriously mentally ill are most homeless ppl? and are they ill now because of what they experience in the process of chronic homelessness or is it 'organic' condition preceeding the homelessness?
just because they're mentally ill doesn't say a lot about their ability to function in stable environments. i.e could they live normally and participate in society in the absence of the effects of their chronic homelessness? i.e are they homeless because of financial reasons, or because they are crazy ppl that want to live on the streets. often ppl will be homeless because of domestic violence, domestic violence automatically hinting at trauma. my experience is that even mentally ill ppl want to be housed, altho there are ppl that prefer to live on the streets than in a shelter because shelters are rly fucking hard to live in if you can believe it, they still want housing just can't go through a shelter-based process to get it.
finally i would just suggest that, tho it may seem to downplay mental illness in a sense, most ppl with a diagnosis of a serious mental illlness do not present in an archetypical 'crazy wild criminal person' way that they can't function in society. Pointing to rates of mental illness among homeless ppl to justify their criminalization relies on the spectacle of this crazy person that can't be included in society no matter what, but most of these ppl don't act that different than ppl we all know most of the time. This is also suggested by the fact that all these homeless ppl aren't being institutionalized: if they were a danger to self or other they would be civilly committed but they aren't acting out so they aren't being committed.
'serious mental illness' sounds really bad, but in fact applies to every diagnosis of a mental illness that isn't 'adjustment disorder'. to get mental health services from a municipality or county you have to have a diagnosis of a serious mental health disorder, the first thing an msw does is file an assessment with whoever is paying them, in that assessment there is a mandatory line to be filled out for diagnosis. if the therapist doesn't diagnose something more serious than adjustment disorder, the individual gets less services. so anyway i can't figure out how these studies got their result, but going off of serious mental health condition still leaves questions about:
how seriously mentally ill are most homeless ppl? and are they ill now because of what they experience in the process of chronic homelessness or is it 'organic' condition preceeding the homelessness?
just because they're mentally ill doesn't say a lot about their ability to function in stable environments. i.e could they live normally and participate in society in the absence of the effects of their chronic homelessness? i.e are they homeless because of financial reasons, or because they are crazy ppl that want to live on the streets. often ppl will be homeless because of domestic violence, domestic violence automatically hinting at trauma. my experience is that even mentally ill ppl want to be housed, altho there are ppl that prefer to live on the streets than in a shelter because shelters are rly fucking hard to live in if you can believe it, they still want housing just can't go through a shelter-based process to get it.
finally i would just suggest that, tho it may seem to downplay mental illness in a sense, most ppl with a diagnosis of a serious mental illlness do not present in an archetypical 'crazy wild criminal person' way that they can't function in society. Pointing to rates of mental illness among homeless ppl to justify their criminalization relies on the spectacle of this crazy person that can't be included in society no matter what, but most of these ppl don't act that different than ppl we all know most of the time. This is also suggested by the fact that all these homeless ppl aren't being institutionalized: if they were a danger to self or other they would be civilly committed but they aren't acting out so they aren't being committed.
Last edited:
I lurk in this thread a lot and read just about every post but in this case feel compelled to add to the discussion. Homelessness is rarely caused by mental health alone, and in any case that it is there should be state support to help with rehabilitation that involves providing a house. I say this as someone who has previously struggled and been diagnosed with serious mental health issues, and as someone who is ex-homeless.
While homeless I slept rough the majority of the time but also stayed in shelters, when I begged for enough money to be able to afford to. During this period I therefore also spoke with a wide number of homeless people, as the only people willing to converse with the homeless are the homeless themselves. As I was in the same position as them, I heard a lot of honest life stories and the reason why many of them became homeless. Though serious mental health problems may play a part sometimes, there is always deeper cause behind those problems that causes the homelessness itself.
For instance, one lady became homeless because of panic disorder: she couldn't claim benefits (welfare) because it either involves using the internet which she didn't have access to, or going to the council offices and doing it in person, which she found herself unable to do due to panic attacks preventing her from doing so. That meant that when she didn't reapply for benefits they pulled the rug from beneath her, and she was evicted by her landlord because she didn't have any money to pay rent. This lady should have been eligible for not just housing benefit but disability benefit to secure a decent level of quality of life for herself, yet fell through the cracks and became homeless for no reason more than policy and bureaucracy. Perhaps counter-intuitively being homeless has helped her with her mental health issues since in a way it's a sort of shock therapy, which is something that I found too. However, once you become homeless, you're homeless for life unless you manage to panhandle enough money to put a deposit on a house, since in this country in order to get a job you need an address.
One man who I've become actual friends with and still see from time to time is homeless because his wife and 2 year old daughter died in a car crash. He became victim to severe depression and unfortunately turned to drugs (heroin), which led to him being fired from his job as a builder. When he sought help from the NHS for his mental health they told him that they don't have the resources to treat people who are taking ""recreational"" drugs, since they would interact badly with whatever anti-depressants they would give him, and that he first needs to prove he can stay clean, while providing him no support in said endeavour. Eventually his drug habit cost more than his unemployment benefit and he was also evicted from his house for not paying rent.
That's not to say that this is an absolute rule. I've met homeless people who are in perfectly good mental health and who simply enjoy living freely and on their own terms. They don't need a job to pay rent because their shelter is a caravan or a tent, and they prefer it that way. Though it's not a mindset I ascribe to, I see no reason to criminalise this. Are they a danger to themself or others by choosing this lifestyle? No, not at all. The purpose of punitive law is to protect a state's citizens, and so if they're not endangering anyone, the law that's in place is not serving the correct purpose.
Of course there's also the question of correlation or causation, and though I would wager more often than not the mental health issues precede the homelessness, I don't think that's evidence enough to say that it causes said homelessness. To make that statement implies that people with serious mental health issues that impact their lives significantly enough to restrict their social contribution should be homeless, and to me that's flat out incorrect. If that were the case I would have been born on the streets; my Mum has never worked a day in her life due to her mental health (and later physical) as a result of PTSD originating from sexual exploitation she endured for several years as a child. However, because we live in the UK she receives disability benefit and housing benefit that means not only is her rent paid but she had enough money to also support raising 2 children -- with the bare minimum, but still sufficiently. As far as I can tell, this is different to America. If my Mum were in America, she would not be eligible for any welfare because you need a formal diagnosis from a doctor, and to get that diagnosis costs money that she would never be able to get without a job. Really I'd like a democratic candidate to say "yes, I'll decriminalise homelessness, but I'll also try to prevent as much of it as possible", because with a few overhauls to the US welfare system I believe a lot of people and families who are currently living in vans could be staying in the homes that they deserve. The UK welfare system is generally still horrendous and many people who need money go without it, but it's significantly better than the US', and I attribute the UK's far better homelessness rate to our welfare state.
With all that said, I'm fortunate to be typing this in the UK. Homelessness isn't criminalised here -- homeless people still get no support from just about anyone in actually getting off the streets, but it's not something you can be thrown in jail for. Not even panhandling is illegal here. Honestly, this thread is the first time I've been told that it is illegal in America, and the entire notion is just baffling. Through research I see that only "aggressive panhandling" is a crime and non-aggressive panhandling is apparently OK, but when sitting on the street with a sign and a cup is considered to be aggressive, and that's the most passive form of begging possible, clearly the distinction is fictitious. Scrolling through any political theory I've studied in my mind, I honestly cannot think of one notable figure in history who would support this law. There are plenty who would vilify or ostracise homeless people, but none that would criminalise them. I feel despair that America has got to such an indomitably social darwinist point that it's regressed past allowing poor people to die to encouraging them to.
tl;dr Mental health is very rarely the sole cause of homelessness, and people with serious mental health issues can still live ordinary lives. More often than not, neglecting people with serious mental health issues causes homelessness, and that's something that America can do something about. The spread of serious mental health issues can be limited, and victims who currently have it can be cured. The very first step to accomplish that is, naturally, to decriminalise homelessness (it's baffling that it's currently criminalised), and from there it's to actually have a functional welfare state. Also, medicaid for all.
While homeless I slept rough the majority of the time but also stayed in shelters, when I begged for enough money to be able to afford to. During this period I therefore also spoke with a wide number of homeless people, as the only people willing to converse with the homeless are the homeless themselves. As I was in the same position as them, I heard a lot of honest life stories and the reason why many of them became homeless. Though serious mental health problems may play a part sometimes, there is always deeper cause behind those problems that causes the homelessness itself.
For instance, one lady became homeless because of panic disorder: she couldn't claim benefits (welfare) because it either involves using the internet which she didn't have access to, or going to the council offices and doing it in person, which she found herself unable to do due to panic attacks preventing her from doing so. That meant that when she didn't reapply for benefits they pulled the rug from beneath her, and she was evicted by her landlord because she didn't have any money to pay rent. This lady should have been eligible for not just housing benefit but disability benefit to secure a decent level of quality of life for herself, yet fell through the cracks and became homeless for no reason more than policy and bureaucracy. Perhaps counter-intuitively being homeless has helped her with her mental health issues since in a way it's a sort of shock therapy, which is something that I found too. However, once you become homeless, you're homeless for life unless you manage to panhandle enough money to put a deposit on a house, since in this country in order to get a job you need an address.
One man who I've become actual friends with and still see from time to time is homeless because his wife and 2 year old daughter died in a car crash. He became victim to severe depression and unfortunately turned to drugs (heroin), which led to him being fired from his job as a builder. When he sought help from the NHS for his mental health they told him that they don't have the resources to treat people who are taking ""recreational"" drugs, since they would interact badly with whatever anti-depressants they would give him, and that he first needs to prove he can stay clean, while providing him no support in said endeavour. Eventually his drug habit cost more than his unemployment benefit and he was also evicted from his house for not paying rent.
That's not to say that this is an absolute rule. I've met homeless people who are in perfectly good mental health and who simply enjoy living freely and on their own terms. They don't need a job to pay rent because their shelter is a caravan or a tent, and they prefer it that way. Though it's not a mindset I ascribe to, I see no reason to criminalise this. Are they a danger to themself or others by choosing this lifestyle? No, not at all. The purpose of punitive law is to protect a state's citizens, and so if they're not endangering anyone, the law that's in place is not serving the correct purpose.
Of course there's also the question of correlation or causation, and though I would wager more often than not the mental health issues precede the homelessness, I don't think that's evidence enough to say that it causes said homelessness. To make that statement implies that people with serious mental health issues that impact their lives significantly enough to restrict their social contribution should be homeless, and to me that's flat out incorrect. If that were the case I would have been born on the streets; my Mum has never worked a day in her life due to her mental health (and later physical) as a result of PTSD originating from sexual exploitation she endured for several years as a child. However, because we live in the UK she receives disability benefit and housing benefit that means not only is her rent paid but she had enough money to also support raising 2 children -- with the bare minimum, but still sufficiently. As far as I can tell, this is different to America. If my Mum were in America, she would not be eligible for any welfare because you need a formal diagnosis from a doctor, and to get that diagnosis costs money that she would never be able to get without a job. Really I'd like a democratic candidate to say "yes, I'll decriminalise homelessness, but I'll also try to prevent as much of it as possible", because with a few overhauls to the US welfare system I believe a lot of people and families who are currently living in vans could be staying in the homes that they deserve. The UK welfare system is generally still horrendous and many people who need money go without it, but it's significantly better than the US', and I attribute the UK's far better homelessness rate to our welfare state.
With all that said, I'm fortunate to be typing this in the UK. Homelessness isn't criminalised here -- homeless people still get no support from just about anyone in actually getting off the streets, but it's not something you can be thrown in jail for. Not even panhandling is illegal here. Honestly, this thread is the first time I've been told that it is illegal in America, and the entire notion is just baffling. Through research I see that only "aggressive panhandling" is a crime and non-aggressive panhandling is apparently OK, but when sitting on the street with a sign and a cup is considered to be aggressive, and that's the most passive form of begging possible, clearly the distinction is fictitious. Scrolling through any political theory I've studied in my mind, I honestly cannot think of one notable figure in history who would support this law. There are plenty who would vilify or ostracise homeless people, but none that would criminalise them. I feel despair that America has got to such an indomitably social darwinist point that it's regressed past allowing poor people to die to encouraging them to.
tl;dr Mental health is very rarely the sole cause of homelessness, and people with serious mental health issues can still live ordinary lives. More often than not, neglecting people with serious mental health issues causes homelessness, and that's something that America can do something about. The spread of serious mental health issues can be limited, and victims who currently have it can be cured. The very first step to accomplish that is, naturally, to decriminalise homelessness (it's baffling that it's currently criminalised), and from there it's to actually have a functional welfare state. Also, medicaid for all.
Last edited:
yes lol, to suggest otherwise is just ignoring the vast majority of ppl w mental illness, indicating an ignorance of the phenomena. danger to self or others gets u put in locked care for assessment at the minimum. that is not the experience of the vast majority of ppl even w serious mental illness
Agreed. And hopefully we elect a President that stands in solidarity with Jeremy Corbyn and we don't have Trump and Johnson talking about getting American insurance companies in on a privatized NHS...
fanyfan
i once put 42 mcdonalds chicken nuggets in my anus
Ok more amazing stuff Bernie has done recently. Not trying to become like MikeDawg with Kamala, but Bernie released three big plans in a short amount of time. Anyway,
Workplace Democracy Plan:
The idea here is to strengthen unions, which is amazing. One of the problems rn is union membership is not great, which is definitely a problem. Bernie’s plan here has some amazing ideas, including:
- Automatically certifying a union when a majority of the eligible workers consent
- Forcing companies to negotiate a first contract with the unions
- Eliminating “Right to Work” laws
- Give Federal Workers the right to strike
- Guaranteeing public sector workers and other workers who historically have been denied a right to a union that right.
- Ban the permanent replacement of striking workers
Plus more!
I love this plan, and if you support unions, you should too.
Green New Deal:
Now, I liked the GND by AOC and Ed Markey, but it was non-binding, didn’t have much specific policy, and tried to include too much unrelated to climate change. Bernie has come out with a new Green New Deal, which is incredible. Unlike a lot of climate change plans from a lot of dem candidates, it hits the 2030 deadline to avoid the worst of climate change. It’s exactly what this country needs. This might be my favorite proposal of his, just because of how necessary it is. It’s super long, so I’ll try to just hit on a few highlights. It includes:
- 100% renewable energy for electricity and transportation by 2030 and complete decarbonization by 2050 at the latest
- Creating 20 million jobs and support for any current fossil fuel worker
- Declaring Climate Change a national emergency
- Leading the world on reducing emissions and investing to help less developed countries reduce theirs
- Investing in conservation of our forests and soil
- And, (most important if you’re a conservative), the plan will pay for itself over 15 years
Plus, of course, much more
This plan should masked anyone who’s worried about climate change at least consider Bernie. Like, even if you don’t like him, isn’t saving the planet more important? But yeah, I love it and it may be the most important proposal of this century.
Workplace Democracy Plan:
The idea here is to strengthen unions, which is amazing. One of the problems rn is union membership is not great, which is definitely a problem. Bernie’s plan here has some amazing ideas, including:
- Automatically certifying a union when a majority of the eligible workers consent
- Forcing companies to negotiate a first contract with the unions
- Eliminating “Right to Work” laws
- Give Federal Workers the right to strike
- Guaranteeing public sector workers and other workers who historically have been denied a right to a union that right.
- Ban the permanent replacement of striking workers
Plus more!
I love this plan, and if you support unions, you should too.
Green New Deal:
Now, I liked the GND by AOC and Ed Markey, but it was non-binding, didn’t have much specific policy, and tried to include too much unrelated to climate change. Bernie has come out with a new Green New Deal, which is incredible. Unlike a lot of climate change plans from a lot of dem candidates, it hits the 2030 deadline to avoid the worst of climate change. It’s exactly what this country needs. This might be my favorite proposal of his, just because of how necessary it is. It’s super long, so I’ll try to just hit on a few highlights. It includes:
- 100% renewable energy for electricity and transportation by 2030 and complete decarbonization by 2050 at the latest
- Creating 20 million jobs and support for any current fossil fuel worker
- Declaring Climate Change a national emergency
- Leading the world on reducing emissions and investing to help less developed countries reduce theirs
- Investing in conservation of our forests and soil
- And, (most important if you’re a conservative), the plan will pay for itself over 15 years
Plus, of course, much more
This plan should masked anyone who’s worried about climate change at least consider Bernie. Like, even if you don’t like him, isn’t saving the planet more important? But yeah, I love it and it may be the most important proposal of this century.
Yeah, Daddy Bernard is absolutely killing it. He was already the greatest, but these new plans... THE BEST PLANS in the field... make him the absolute GOAT.
Meanwhile... this is incredible since I didn't notice at all:
Where are all the Biden-bots?? There were tons and tons of Hill-bots in 2016, but Biden vs. Bernie raging on Twitter is not a thing. Bernie supporters and Warren supporters have more Twitter arguments. Biden's garnered enthusiasm is far inferior to Hillary Clinton's (actually everything about Biden is inferior to Clinton, but eh...)
Meanwhile... this is incredible since I didn't notice at all:
Where are all the Biden-bots?? There were tons and tons of Hill-bots in 2016, but Biden vs. Bernie raging on Twitter is not a thing. Bernie supporters and Warren supporters have more Twitter arguments. Biden's garnered enthusiasm is far inferior to Hillary Clinton's (actually everything about Biden is inferior to Clinton, but eh...)
Biden doesn't have that much online support because his supports aren't online as much.
I don't think Biden's support is any softer, despite the lack of enthusiasm, because his supporters are probably more stubborn (older, less willing to change their opinions), for lack of a better word, than supporters for other candidates.
I don't think Biden's support is any softer, despite the lack of enthusiasm, because his supporters are probably more stubborn (older, less willing to change their opinions), for lack of a better word, than supporters for other candidates.
Right, and I think anyone gets that intuitively... but this vid really made me think by contrasting it to the Hillary campaign. Because, as noted, Hillary DID have many, many, passionate supporters online, ready to be triggered into battle at any tweet by the left.
I think it's a clear illustration that all the passion of the Hillary campaign has either A) gone over to Warren or is still meekly holding onto Kamala/Buttegieg/Booker/Castro/etc. or B) Still supports Biden but is not charged or ready to defend him on Twitter.
I think if we say "The Biden campaign is inherently weaker than the Hillary campaign," I don't think there's much to argue against that. Hillary was smarter, more prepared, garnered more enthusiasm-- and frankly I'd rather have a candidate flip-flop than champion wallstreet deregulation, abusive bankruptcy laws and criminal justice positions, and going to war with Iraq. Hillary was better than Biden in pretty much every way. And she lost.
Last edited:
I think if you're a biden supporter (even of a demographic that knows what twitter is) you also don't need to vociferously defend your candidate the same way in a crowded field as you do in a reasonably close horse race. once the field narrows down, you'll see more arguments.
trying to compare this campaign cycle to the last one at this point is just inherently flawed.
trying to compare this campaign cycle to the last one at this point is just inherently flawed.
Nah, I'm pretty sure this is also because of everything that's really obvious-- the candidate has a terrible record, terrible message, terrible memory. There's nothing that anyone can actually point to Biden at and say that they actually like... his support is all "default" support by people who haven't tuned in enough to have an opinion or pay attention to the candidate. Hence why the 2nd favorite amongst his supporters is Bernie Sanders, the 2nd most known person.
So the kind of people who actually care to pay attention enough to have an opinion have probably all figured out that their candidate is Harris, or Buttegiege, or Booker, or Warren... or as the 2nd favorite numbers for both candidates show, Bernie Sanders.