Liberty is the answer. You have to convince Americans that they don't stand for simple freedom, they stand for motherfucking liberty; which accounts for all people, not one people or the other.

Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness...

Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.

"Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

The real irony is that economic hardship hits Seattle folks quite hard. We lose 20 families a week to cost of living problems, and our homeless tent cities are near legendary by now. We have 'economic anxiety' right here in River City. Still didn't vote for a sexual predator.

blame?

i don't know if i would use such a charged word to describe a very and nuanced question.i think there is plenty of blame to go around,and it is never quite as simple as the media soundbytes we are all subjected to on a daily basis.

who do i blame most?
democrats..hands down.

but there are other factors that all served to produce this circus of an election cycle.

1.the failure of the left to actually understand just how frustrated and angry the working class had become.those people may be politically unsophisticated,but they are not dumb.

this really had very little to do with republican vs democrat.this was a large portion of the american population that had simply become fed up with a system that they finally understood had thrown them overboard decades ago.many of the people who voted for trump also voted for obama..TWICE..because they wanted to see "change" and what they got nothing,zip,zilch,zero,nada.

they simply refused to play charlie brown to the democrats lucy.

2.the DNC and debbie wasserman shultz,may she burn in hell for eternity.
this woman singlehandedly secured the nomination for clinton,while blocking a sanders nomination.

remember laurence lessig?
well,don't feel bad if you don't,because wasserman and the DNC kept changing the rules of application so lessig couldn't even get on the primary ballot.

the DNC basically said to the sanders supporters "sanders? fuck you! you get hillary and will like it".

3.the ultra left liberals,for being so sensitive and touchy (don't get mad,you guys are way too soft skinned) that they restrict their interactions in these weird,singular echo chambers.where everybody is agreeing with each other and nobody is challenging anything,no critical examination.

so when trump won.
they damn near lost their minds in shock!
because anybody who may have shed some actual light on the situation was already blocked or on ignore.

4.the republican party,who hated trump but allowed him to fan the flames of dissent with his bombastic speeches,emotionally charged rhetoric and divisive language.

they let this go on for almost a year,and while publicly denounced trump,privately sought a way to capture his thunder.

want carson?.....nope
cruz?...nope.
kasich?..nope.

because just like the left,they too,had misjudged just how pissed off people were in regards to our political system,and their plan backfired.

5.the democratic party for allowing such a shit candidate,and just like the republicans,not fully understanding just how pissed the electorate was.

6.the corporate media,who sought solely to profit from the election by giving us all this mish mash of reality tv,wrestling and days of our lives.they didnt report the issues,they fed the drama.

and every political pundit,every pollster,every opinion news mrs mcprettyface,got it FUCKING WRONG.

7.bernie bros who stayed home in protest,but this entire election was a protest vote.

so,
yeah..a lot of mitigating factors went into trumps win.

i didn't think he was going to win but i knew it was going to close,but i sure as fuck was not surprised.i was actually laughing at loud.

would you look at that...
my fellow countrymen just hit the nuclear option.
i didn't want a trump victory..no sir..but i have to admire the audacity of my fellow citizens to hit that shiny red button.

fuck you washington!

we live in interesting times my friends.
interesting and terrifying times.

and really...what would clinton have given us?
more of the same?
more wars and regime change?
more tax breaks for the super rich while children starve and more people become homeless?

i may find my fellow americans choice horrifying,but i have to respect it.
either way kids...something is gonna change.


Sad democrats, there is someone not doing anything but stating their mind, homeless or otherwise she shouldn't have to deal - all the harassment is wrong

And what party affiliates are the most violent? Here in NC we had a fire bombing at an RNC office last week.

It is time to triple the police force in Los Angeles and build more prisons to confine these deplorable and irredeemable Liberals.

Trump will win by a landslide

*promote giving homeless dogs a job.

I agree that 'writing off' a huge, near majority of the population is disastrous....but it's pretty damn close as it stands, with neither party doing much to improve things. It's already not a great time to be Mexican, black, or a woman in America today.

I, also, am at a loss on what to do. Southpark said, and I agreed, that 1/4 of Americans are mentally defective. I'm seeing now that that number is probably closer to 3/4, making meaningful, helpful change impossible. (Trump will be 'meaningful' change, but there's a >99% chance it won't be helpful to anyone not named Trump.)
A constitutional amendment declaring politics off limits for businesses and/or large groups, and making lobbying completely illegal, and funding elections rather than making them 'pay for play' would be a great start...but since the people who benefit from the current system are the same one's charged with making those changes, it's a non starter with no legal solution beyond voting every incumbent out of office...and that's not a good solution either.

Trump is likely not the answer if America is to continue as a united country.

It depends on the level of rot. If every load bearing beam in your home is infested with termites and rotten to the core....burning it down just might be the only way to save your neighbors homes, yours is already gone. We are at best on that knife edge where it's a toss up which is better, repair or replacement...but we aren't doing either, which is making the decision for us as the rot gets worse and less repairable. Perhaps a new structure is needed, one built to eliminate the rot from the get go. Of course....I see that leaves us all homeless in the interim, and many won't survive that, and in that circumstance it will be MUCH worse before it's better....most people advocating the dismantling of the government don't see that. I'm not advocating it, but I am considering it as a possibility.

Er this is way out of date, but i just came across this.

The Big Issue is sold by homeless people, and the idea is that they are classed as employed for the various benefits that bestows against anti-begging rules or social norms.

And it kind has a respectability to it so it gives confidence to people who believe the usual stigmata; this is a Big Issue seller so you're not going to get spat on, swore at, it's not stolen and your money won't go on booze, etc.

The previous description made it sound a bit like a career choice, when it's more like a helping hand when you don't have a career.

Well, a murder of bar dudes would matter. But if it's just random homeless people? I think Gwyneth can be forgiven.

like payback said, vancouver has been "rich washing" for decades. i've heard some crazy stories from expo 88 era. before the olympics they cracked down on the poor. often ostensibly rounding them up and sending them to the suburbs (this is fairly normal procedure for cops who "catch" binners/panhandlers in richer areas: they "arrest" them, drive them out to the suburbs, and just leave them there).

http://thetyee.ca/News/2009/10/14/OlympicsHomelessLaws/

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/feb/03/vancouver-winter-olympics-homeless-row

Kind of....but not as you describe.
Folks are already disqualified only if they have been found by the courts to be dangerously mentally defective after testing by a professional. That's a much bigger hurdle to leap than simply BEING defective, a hurdle that rarely is leaped.
You don't have to lie or hide anything if you've never been tested by a professional and deemed dangerous. Most mental defectives have not had that happen.
Guns MAY be confiscated after one is deemed legally dangerously mentally defective AND that determination is forwarded to the police AND they have the time and manpower to do something about it. That usually only happens when the person is already being prosecuted for some crime, they are found by the court to be dangerous to themselves and/or others, AND their guns are registered.

I have no idea where you got this idea that the law says indigence=criminally insane....it simply does not. Some elderly are having their firearms taken when they are put on welfare because they have dementia and can't manage their funds, but that's not what you said. It may be true that those forced by financial pressures to live in government run homes are not allowed to bring their firearms there, but again, that's not what you said.
The state does not move in and forcibly 'financially manage' the indigent in the US just because they're poor. Ever. If they did, we would not have a growing homeless population.

There are so many loopholes to 'compulsory service' that it's not compulsory at all, nor is it likely to ever be used again. Massive numbers of untrained soldiers is no longer a positive on the battlefield.

Being well trained in the proper use of firearms inhibits accidental misuse of firearms AND makes one reasonably 100% liable for their misuse if they ignore their training. If you were never trained what's proper and what's not, it makes it easy to misuse them and to then claim ignorance to avoid or mitigate liability for your actions.

-Newt

Of course no one is talking about a full gun ban. However, once you compromise the 2nd Amendment, you place the decision in the hands of our legislature. You know, the super functional branch of our government that never makes mistakes. You also allow them to decide 'what' you need.

I've not been to NZ, but I seriously doubt that the cultural dichotomy that is present in the USA is remotely represented in NZ.

I support abortion rights, I support gay marriage, I would love to be able to trip out to the local head shop and buy some weed, and I don't think heavily restricting guns would solve the issues we are looking at. The last two mass shootings were terrorist related. Prior to that, they have primarily been mental health related. We have one of the worst mental health policies and systems in the world. Medicate first, don't hospitalize, don't provide therapy, and other such bright ideas. Ever since we passed the Community Mental Health Centers Act of 1963, homelessness and acts of violence by the mentally ill have been on the rise. Inpatient centers have become rare and, like I said, most people get a pill and a swift kick in the ass out the door. I would be willing to bet if we fixed our health care issues in regards to the mentally ill and maybe put a 15 day waiting period on the purchase of ANY gun, we would stop 99% of these mass shootings.

What I don't understand is why do Christians bluntly defend the money system that often kicks them out of their home and become homeless?

Are they afraid God will strike lightning if they say something bad about a rich corporation?

The bible actually had a system called Jubilee where every certain number of years the system will *reset* and people get back what was taken from them as a chance to start over if things got screwed up.

Capitalism lacks any kind of *reset* to give people a second chance.

Listen to Michael Card's song *Jubilee* in which I didn't understand when I was younger so meant nothing to me but now that I understand it I see the flaws in all *systems* that isn't inspired by the true creator.

We need a new kind of *Jubilee* where the (debt) slaves are set free who paid their debts and got their land and home back and their family back if they were sold.

Today's system results in people making poor choices that hurt themselves such as prostitution out of control/drugged out brains where they can't see properly let alone drive.

Videos that have someone narrating with that whiny, nasal millennial voice. Seriously, it's ok to ask someone over 30 that can actually speak to narrate your vid about how plastic is slowly seeping into the sun and that's why you can't afford a house next to the dolphins that have been trained to dress homeless hipsters who serve meals on wheels. Get off my lawn.

As much as I want this to be real, I'm pretty sure it's fake.
I was incredibly suspicious with the way the man woke up right after the videographer left the frame, extremely suspicious with the man instantly noticing the money and his really odd over reaction about it, but what put me over the edge is the obvious microphone clipped to the man's collar that is completely ignored by the homeless man. That's why the audio is so clear.

Maybe I'm wrong, but this sure SEEMS to be another of the multitude of fake 'social experiments' that's really nothing but a terribly written and acted morality play.

@transmorpher

It's a little difficult to 'debate' your comment, because the points that you address to me are numbered but don't reference to specific parts of my post. That's probably my fault as i was releasing frustration haphazardly and sarcastically, and that sarcasm wasn't aimed at you. All i can do is try and sum up whether i think we agree or disagree overall.

Essentially everything is a question of 'taste', even for you. There's no escaping our nature, most of us don't drink our own piss, many of us won't swallow our own blood, almost all of us have a flavour that we can't abide because we were fed it as a child. So yes, our decisions are defined by taste. But taste is decided by the food that is available to people, within reasonable distance of their house, at a price they find affordable according to the society around them, from a range of food that is decided by society around them. Your average person does not have the luxury to walk around a high street supermarket selecting the most humane and delicious foods. People get what they can afford, what they understand, what they can prepare and what is available. Our ancestors ate chicken because of necessity of their own kind, their children are exposed to chicken through no fault of their own, fast forward a few generations, and thus chicken becomes an affordable, accessible staple. Can we reach a compromise here? It may not be necessary for chickens to die to feed the human race, but it may be necessary for some people to eat chicken today because of their particular life.

I don't like the use of the phrase 'if i can do it, i know anyone can'. I think it's a mistake to deal in certainties, especially pertaining to lifestyles that you can't possibly know about without having lived them. Are you one of the many homeless people accepting chicken soup from a stranger because it's nourishing, cheap and easy for a stranger to buy, and keeps you warm on the streets? Are you a single mother with coeliac disease, a grumpy teenager and picky toddler who has 20 minutes to get to the supermarket and get something cooking? Or one of the millions using foodbanks in the UK (to our shame) now? I don't think you're willfully turning a blind eye to those people, i'm not tugging heart strings to do you a disservice. Maybe you're just fortunate you not only have the choice, but you have such choice that you can't imagine a life without it. I won't budge an inch on this one, you can't know what people have to do, and we have to accept life is not ideal.

And within that idealism and choice problem we can include illnesses that once again in IDEAL situations could survive without dead animals, nevertheless find it necessary to eat what they can identify and feel safe with.

Yes, those damn gluten hipsters drive me round the bend but only because they make people think that a LITTLE gluten is ok, it makes people take the problem less seriously (see Tumblr feminism... JOKE).

I agree that we must look at what action we can take now - and that is why i keep reminding you that we are not in an ideal world. If the veganism argument is to succeed then you must suggest a reasonable pathway to go from how we are now to whatever situation you would prefer. My "ideal farm" description was just me demonstrating the problem - that you need to show us your blueprint for how we start again without killing animals and feeding everyone we have.

And on that subject, your suggestions need to be backed by real research, otherwise you don't have any real plan. "It's fair to say there is very little risk" is a nice bit of illustrative language but it is not backed by any fact or figure and so i'm compelled to do my Penn and Teller impression and call bullshit. As of right now, the life expectancy of humans is better than it has ever been. It is up to you to prove that changing the diet of 7 billion people will result in neutrality or improvement of health and longevity. That proof must come in the form of large statistical analyses and thorough science. I don't want to sound like i'm being a dick, but any time you state something like that as a fact or with certainty, it needs to be backed up by something. I'm not nit picking and asking for common knowledge to have a citation, but things like this do:

-- 70% of farmland claim
-- 'fair to say very little risk' claim
-- meat gives you cancer claim - i accept it may have a carcinogenic effect but i'll remind you so does breathing, joss-sticks, broccoli, apples and water
-- 'the impact to the planet would be immense' claim - in what way, and what would be the downsides in terms of economy, productivity, health, animal welfare (where are all the animals going to be sent to retire as of day 1?)
-- etc. etc.

Oh, and a cow might get its protein from plants, but it walks around a field all day eating grass, chewing the cud and having sloppy shits with 4 stomachs and enzymes that i don't have................. I'm a bit puzzled by this one... I probably can't survive on what an alligator or a goldfish eats, but i can survive on parts of an alligator or fish. I can't eat enough krill in a day to keep me going, but i can let a whale do it for me...?