You sourced it from my post. I just translated it for you. I speak Democrat because I used to be one and know the lingo.Would like a source on that.
You sourced it from my post. I just translated it for you. I speak Democrat because I used to be one and know the lingo.Would like a source on that.
You sourced it from my post. I just translated it for you. I speak Democrat because I used to be one and know the lingo.
This is literally just more of the same thing that every city and state has already been doing, regardless of which party is in charge of the local government(s). We need a permanent, nationwide solution to the problem, but Trump has already blown the money necessary to fund something like that on tax cuts for the rich, so it's not gonna happen as long as he's still in office.It's better than making them live on the streets in their own filth. Too bad the Democrats in charge couldnt think of it. I guess it doesn't matter when you live in a mansion with big fences away from the problem. "Out of sight, out of mind" is one of the democrat's motto.
State sovereignty is not a matter of partisan politics, it's constitutionally protected. I realize Republicans only heed the constitution when it's convenient though, so you do you.Unfortunately, I have to agree with you as an Obama appointed judge will probably put an injunction on whatever the admin comes up with to block it from happening thus making the problem continue. Maybe, if we can work together to vote out these Democrats, real "change we can believe in" will begin to happen. You with me?
If you keep good records that prove you wrote the song before that other person published it and claimed the song as his own while making money off of it, you can sue the bastard for past/present/future royalties and make the homeless problem worse by litigating his ass to the poor house. Just saying.Trust me, I do a lot of great things--I actually wrote a few songs that were "stolen" (and you actually know them and most people like them) just because it's the internet and you don't "own" anything until you own it.
They wasted it by using it for ways that didn't fix the problems, rather made them worse. Instead of building housing for the homeless, they gave them tents and free needles. Then they wasted some of the money on paying people to pick up the used needles and power wash the fecal matter off the sidewalks.The problem with the statement it makes and you makes is what you are saying that they wasted it(meaning it didnt go anywhere) and pocketed the rest. If this statement was true, then the post could not make the statement that the problem was exacerbated by cuts because if they pocketed it, then there was no money given at all in the first place... It's one or the other, not both.
Try looking into New York City's homeless problem during Rudy Giuliani's term as mayor. He found a solution that worked. Bloomberg was able to keep the homeless down because of Giuliani's methods, mostly. I'm not sure if he kept them, or the problem just escalated slowly during his term. The homeless problem began to skyrocket during De Blasio's term and keeps getting worse, but at least they don't have a plastic straw problem.This is literally just more of the same thing that every city and state has already been doing, regardless of which party is in charge of the local government(s). We need a permanent, nationwide solution to the problem, but Trump has already blown the money necessary to fund something like that on tax cuts for the rich, so it's not gonna happen as long as he's still in office.
OMG, I'm starting to think you're just trolling me, too, like that other guy from Canada about the UBI. An Obama judge can stop a federal mandate at the state level if they put an injunction on it as they have most of Trump's executive orders. Maybe debating people on a gaming related website was a bad idea.....State sovereignty is not a matter of partisan politics, it's constitutionally protected. I realize Republicans only heed the constitution when it's convenient though, so you do you.
Just saying.
They wasted it by using it for ways that didn't fix the problems, rather made them worse. Instead of building housing for the homeless, they gave them tents and free needles. Then they wasted some of the money on paying people to pick up the used needles and power wash the fecal matter off the sidewalks.
did you happen to post the song on a website, email, or personal message? If you have any proof whatsoever and the other person profited on it, you could go see a copyright lawyer who will do the rest of the work and send you the check. Make that guy homeless and then you can try your secret technique to prove it will work. Kill two birds with one stone. Just saying.It's tough to prove, but I took it as a lesson learned. Lucky for me, it was before I had the ability to critically think and devise strategies that work efficiently.
*sigh* if the state just bought them tents before and now they have less money, this means the homeless have less tents and have to resort to cardboard boxes. This is not an upgrade, trust me. They still have to spend money on washing away the fecal matter and picking up needles for the tax paying citizens.What you're saying that it was worse when they gave them money. The article says it got worse after the cuts. If what you are saying was right, cuts would make it better. which is contradictory to the article. Unless you want to say the entire article is not credible and posting it here serves 0 purpose.
Utah has a solution that works, as do several other states/cities. That solution is giving small homes/studio apartments to the homeless, rent-free. Once they're no longer homeless, finding solutions to the other problems each individual is struggling with becomes a lot easier. This solution is also cheaper in the long run, but convincing Republicans to look past their short-term greed is extremely difficult. And, as I said, that money is already gone. The Trump administration has run up a $1 trillion+ budget deficit.Try looking into New York City's homeless problem during Rudy Giuliani's term as mayor. He found a solution that worked.
Right...they can stop it because of constitutionally-protected state sovereignty. It'd be one thing if the Trump administration was willing to build/refurbish these facilities with no strings attached, but attempting to have the federal government micromanage what are normally state-run facilities is a big no-no.An Obama judge can stop a federal mandate at the state level if they put an injunction on it as they have most of Trump's executive orders.
did you happen to post the song on a website
Oh, so you know Trump's ideas for California will work. I don't see where we disagree here, then.That solution is giving small homes/studio apartments to the homeless, rent-free. Once they're no longer homeless,
Wrong, they can put an injunction on them until a formal inquiry can be done to see it it is Constitutional. Just like the new asylum rules where the supreme court recently overruled the lower federal judge's injunctions. Trump doesn't get the benefit of innocent until proven guilty because the Democrats believe it's guilty until proven innocent. The Democrats don't care about the poor or anybody else, just that they can hinder trump.Right...they can stop it because of constitutionally-protected state sovereignty.
Wow, talk about tl:dr...I actually had both sides--thieves and people who wanted to work with me, but ultimately, I need creative freedom or to work with someone on my level.....it's tough and complicated.
*sigh* if the state just bought them tents before and now they have less money, this means the homeless have less tents and have to resort to cardboard boxes. This is not an upgrade, trust me. They still have to spend money on washing away the fecal matter and picking up needles for the tax paying citizens.
That isn't the plan. Their plan is building more temporary shelters, not individual housing/apartments. A temporary solution to a permanent problem, and not even an original one at that.Oh, so you know Trump's ideas for California will work. I don't see where we disagree here, then.
Like I said, Republicans only heed the constitution when it's convenient for them. I don't think they'd win this one, but if they somehow did, it would set a really bad precedent for the future of states' rights.Wrong, they can put an injunction on them until a formal inquiry can be done to see it it is Constitutional.
the state doesn't give them free needles filled with drugs. Hell, if they did I'd be on skid row myself right now instead of chatting on here.you were going on about them funding drugs..
. So the homeless should stay in shelters forever instead of moving on after they get help? Hmm, that doesn't make sense.That isn't the plan. Their plan is building more temporary shelters, not individual housing/apartments. A temporary solution to a permanent problem, and not even an original one.
well, Rachel Maddow was wrong to tell you that (or was it Lawrence O'Donnell this time? He seems trustworthy with his Russian collusion breaking news).Like I said, Republicans only heed the constitution when it's convenient for them. I don't think they'd win this one, but if they somehow did, it would set a really bad precedent for the future of states' rights.
Wow, talk about tl:dr..
Precisely, it doesn't make sense to build more temporary shelters when it just encourages moving from one shelter to the next. The assistance needs to be long-term.So the homeless should stay in shelters forever instead of moving on after they get help? Hmm, that doesn't make sense.
No state minds federal assistance, but every state will resist attempts to interfere with their ability to self-govern. The idea that narcoleptic Ben Carson could do a better job of managing temporary shelters than the state government is laughable.I don't think a state would mind to get help with their homeless problem except in the cases where the governor is a never-Trumper.
I'm thinking of writing a kids book called "the littlest troll who trusted the left". It's a sad book where the troll, who believed in its leftist leaders, loses in the end and ends up homeless on the streets of calitrollia shooting up smack and pooping on the streets while his king Newslum sits in a castle surrounded by a big fence to keep the other small trolls out. Based on a true story. Don't steal my idea, I'm making a screenshot proving when I came up with it.You're telling me, but, it is what it is.
I was actually going to "detail" the whole thing in a children's book, but I keep losing people. I mean, I ask people close to me and I know I should just outsource the work, but I hate being that guy who has the friend who bashes you, "...and you just sit here with all your money, while I starve and suffer everyday; wahhhh.", when in reality, "...motherfucker, I gave you the opportunity and you chose to not work with me, so shit soup."
I'm thinking of writing a kids book called "the littlest troll who trusted the left".
I was going to donate them to the homeless in California, so they can have a roof over their head until Trump fixes the issues. Not much money involved in that, but all for a good cause.Make it a comic strip fort Brietbart.
You're welcome for the idea as long as you give me 15% of what you get from whoever pays you.
the FAA buildings are very "huuuuge" and permanent. I can't say what happens next as it's all in the brainstorming phase now. Give it time, hope in Trump, and the world will be a better place. Maybe, if people supported the president rather than fighting him, things would get done quicker.Precisely, it doesn't make sense to build more temporary shelters when it just encourages moving from one shelter to the next. The assistance needs to be long-term.
. First, I have no comment on Ben Carson or his sleepiness.No state minds federal assistance, but every state will resist attempts to interfere with their ability to self-govern. The idea that narcoleptic Ben Carson could do a better job of managing temporary shelters than the state government is laughable.