alpha_destroy posted:

https://twitter.com/SarahSpain/status/908845565424873473

How? How does the day keep getting dumber?

Chilichimp posted:

KM... got... the receipts?

Jaxyon posted:

Jesus Christ do you have a poo poo opinion on literally everything?

Dead Reckoning posted:

What the gently caress. I work in EMS and I probably have more regular contact with the chronically homeless than 90% of the posters here, but if I say, "'beep boop, give homeless people a home, so simple' isn't a a panacea and fails to address their underlying issues in many cases" it is apparently some Randian prescription for mulching the poor into soylent.

Dead Reckoning posted:

What the gently caress. I work in EMS and I probably have more regular contact with the chronically homeless than 90% of the posters here, but if I say, "'beep boop, give homeless people a home, so simple' isn't a a panacea and fails to address their underlying issues in many cases" it is apparently some Randian prescription for mulching the poor into soylent.

Calibanibal posted:

Kill the rich and let hobos take up in their tacky mansions.

WrenP-Complete posted:

Are we talking about Housing First experience in here? I was a street based outreach worker and therapist for people with mental illness who were rough sleeping, using drugs in chaotic and harmful ways, and then a therapist for people in that population who got into supportive housing.

It's definitely possible to recover from homelessness and mental Illnesses and trauma and addiction. It takes a lot of hard work, and not everyone gets there, but it's possible.

Deteriorata posted:

Rather than free-standing homes, would something like a managed care apartments with varying degrees of independence as they show the ability to handle it work?

Each tenant would have a room, and weekly maid service with linens as necessary. Community dining with an option for in-room cooking as independence increases. As they begin to work, 25% of income goes to "rent", however much they make to help them develop the habit of paying it (also builds the credit score).

Medical and mental health staff available to meet those needs. Social workers to oversee cases and keep them all moving forward. Everyone moving toward getting out and completely independent, to free up space for new tenants - maybe a soft 2-year time limit, which could be extended indefinitely in individual cases as needed.

Further developed group homes for people still learning to cope with independence, but maybe 4 or 6 to a house with a social worker/house mother to keep it going, again as the continue to gain the skills needed to keep a home of their own. Eventual complete graduation and independence.

That's been my vision for a program I would like to see. Would be any good? Any critiques?

It seems to me like a workable plan that I would like to try getting into motion eventually around here. Please shoot it full of holes whereever you can! I want it to get to a stage where I'm confident it would work.

Deteriorata posted:

Rather than free-standing homes, would something like a managed care apartments with varying degrees of independence as they show the ability to handle it work?

Each tenant would have a room, and weekly maid service with linens as necessary. Community dining with an option for in-room cooking as independence increases. As they begin to work, 25% of income goes to "rent", however much they make to help them develop the habit of paying it (also builds the credit score).

Medical and mental health staff available to meet those needs. Social workers to oversee cases and keep them all moving forward. Everyone moving toward getting out and completely independent, to free up space for new tenants - maybe a soft 2-year time limit, which could be extended indefinitely in individual cases as needed.

Further developed group homes for people still learning to cope with independence, but maybe 4 or 6 to a house with a social worker/house mother to keep it going, again as the continue to gain the skills needed to keep a home of their own. Eventual complete graduation and independence.

That's been my vision for a program I would like to see. Would be any good? Any critiques?

It seems to me like a workable plan that I would like to try getting into motion eventually around here. Please shoot it full of holes whereever you can! I want it to get to a stage where I'm confident it would work.

Office Pig posted:

Is it just me or is Saint Louis on fire, and rightly so?

Mustached Demon posted:

gently caress the cards.

Koalas March posted:

Anyone who still has a soul and wants to know how loving hosed our society is from top to bottom: volunteer as a peer counselor for low/no income people.

Mustached Demon posted:

gently caress the cards.

KiteAuraan posted:

So like, did they choose today on purpose to be white supremacist shits or something? Because September 15th is some pretty bad loving timing to accidentally tell black people that their lives don't matter in the USA.

skylined! posted:

interestingly, as already noted, a fixed address for a homeless person seems to solve the problem of homelessness.

incredibly, this allows the previously-homeless to then focus on and receive help for their other issues, such as 'schizophrenia', or 'addicted to substance abuse' or 'suffering ptsd' or 'victim of domestic violence'.

homelessness is typically the outer shell of a matryoshka doll of awful garbage. your dumb statement is akin to disregarding needles because the antibiotic in the barrel is more effective.

Office Pig posted:

https://twitter.com/kodacohen/status/908831426694479874

PerniciousKnid posted:

Pardon my ignorance, but what is this and should I actually do it?


Excuse me, the Cardinals officially ended racism in St. Louis in 1964.

RaySmuckles posted:

my fiancé was telling me of a program where they just give rooms with a lock to homeless people and even that makes a big difference.

just having somewhere to safely secure your things, sleep, be safe, be away from drug use, and get off the streets when you need to can make a huge difference in these peoples' lives.

Grouchio posted:

Hooray this thread is back!

Are there any candidates for Maine Governor that are closely linked with Bernie?

Communist Zombie posted:

This sounds a lot like Haven For Hope in San Antonio, theres an A/T thread about it from a former resident. Though from what it sounded like it was very much not a proactive program*, you had to work to be accepted into it and work hard to transition out.

*Possibly just due to lack of space and funds

PerniciousKnid posted:

Pardon my ignorance, but what is this and should I actually do it?


Excuse me, the Cardinals officially ended racism in St. Louis in 1964.

logosanatic posted:

my instincts say hes grabbing a gun to plant. but just looking at the video from a evidence perspective i dont know what he has in his hand

if i was a lawyer id want to videotape replicate that situation to see what a grainy gun held at an angle looks like

also does he put it in his pocket? because i read there was footage of him walking towards the victims car and there was nothing in his hand.

what did the defense say he was grabbing there?

RuanGacho posted:

My economic development plan and plan to end homelessness are one and the same in my tower of perpetual socialism.

Niton posted:

quote:

C.I.A. Wants Authority to Conduct Drone Strikes in Afghanistan for the First Time

WASHINGTON — The C.I.A. is pushing for expanded powers to carry out covert drone strikes in Afghanistan and other active war zones, a proposal that the White House appears to favor despite the misgivings of some at the Pentagon, according to current and former intelligence and military officials.

If approved by President Trump, it would mark the first time the C.I.A. has had such powers in Afghanistan, expanding beyond its existing authority to carry out covert strikes against Al Qaeda and other terrorist targets across the border in Pakistan.

The changes are being weighed as part of a broader push inside the Trump White House to loosen Obama-era restraints on how the C.I.A. and the military fight Islamist militants around the world. The Obama administration imposed the restrictions in part to limit civilian casualties, and the proposed shift has raised concerns among critics that the Trump administration would open the way for broader C.I.A. strikes in such countries as Libya, Somalia and Yemen, where the United States is fighting the Islamic State, Al Qaeda or both.

Until now, the Pentagon has had the lead role for conducting airstrikes — with drones or other aircraft — against militants in Afghanistan and other conflict zones, such as Somalia and Libya and, to some extent, Yemen. The military publicly acknowledges its strikes, unlike the C.I.A., which for roughly a decade has carried out its own campaign of covert drone strikes in Pakistan that were not acknowledged by either country, a condition that Pakistan’s government has long insisted on.

But the C.I.A.’s director, Mike Pompeo, has made a forceful case to Mr. Trump in recent weeks that the Obama-era arrangement needlessly limited the United States’ ability to conduct counterterrorism operations, according to the current and former officials, who would not be named discussing internal debates about sensitive information. He has publicly suggested that Mr. Trump favors granting the C.I.A. greater authorities to go after militants, though he has been vague about specifics, nearly all of which are classified.

“When we’ve asked for more authorities, we’ve been given it. When we ask for more resources, we get it,” Mr. Pompeo said this week on Fox News.

He said that the agency was hunting “every day” for Al Qaeda’s leaders, most of whom are believed to be sheltering in the remote mountains that straddle the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan.

“If I were them, I’d count my days,” Mr. Pompeo said.

From the outset of his tenure at the C.I.A., Mr. Pompeo, a West Point graduate and former Army officer, has made clear that he favors pushing the agency to take on a more direct role in fighting militants. Afghanistan, the most active war zone in which the United States is fighting, makes sense as the place to start: In the past three years, the number of military drone strikes there has climbed, from 304 in 2015, to 376 last year, to 362 through the first eight months of this year.

The C.I.A., in comparison, has had little to do across the border in Pakistan, where there were three drone strikes last year and have been four so far this year, according to the Long War Journal published by the Foundation for Defense of Democracies.

“This is bureaucratic politics 101,” said Christine Wormuth, a former top Pentagon official. “The C.I.A. has very significant capabilities, and it wants to go use them.”

Spokesmen for the C.I.A. and the Defense Department declined to comment on the pending proposal, which involves delicate internal deliberations.

Defense Secretary Jim Mattis has not resisted the C.I.A. proposal, administration officials said, but other Pentagon officials question the expansion of C.I.A. authorities in Afghanistan or elsewhere, asking what the agency can do that the military cannot. Some Pentagon officials also fear that American troops on the ground in Afghanistan could end up bearing the burden of any C.I.A. strikes that accidentally kill civilians, because the agency will not publicly acknowledge those attacks. The military has also had to confront its own deadly mistakes in Afghanistan.

One senior Defense Department official said that the United States would gain little from having the C.I.A. carry out drone strikes alongside the military, and that it raised the question of whether it was an appropriate use of covert action.

A former senior administration official familiar with Mr. Pompeo’s position said that he views a division of labor with the Defense Department as an abrogation of the C.I.A.’s authorities.

Mr. Pompeo’s argument seems to be carrying the day with Mr. Trump, who has struck a bellicose tone in seeking to confront extremist groups in Afghanistan, including Al Qaeda, the Islamic State and the Haqqani network, a faction of the Taliban.

In Mr. Trump’s speech last month outlining his policy for South Asia, including Afghanistan, the president promised that he would loosen restrictions on American soldiers to enable them to hunt down terrorists, whom he labeled “thugs and criminals and predators, and — that’s right — losers.”

“The killers need to know they have nowhere to hide, that no place is beyond the reach of American might and American arms,” the president said. “Retribution will be fast and powerful.”

Mr. Pompeo may have a potentially important ally: Gen. John W. Nicholson Jr., the top commander in Afghanistan, who reportedly favors any approach to train more firepower on the array of foes of Afghan security forces and the 11,000 or so American troops advising and assisting them.

Mr. Trump has already authorized Mr. Mattis to deploy more troops to Afghanistan. Some 4,000 reinforcements will allow American officers to more closely advise Afghan brigades, train more Afghan Special Operations forces and call in American firepower.

Among the chief targets for the C.I.A. in Afghanistan would be the Haqqani network, whose leader is now the No. 2 in the Taliban and runs its military operations. The Haqqanis have been responsible for many of the deadliest attacks on Afghanistan’s capital, Kabul, in the war and are known for running a virtual factory in Pakistan that has steadily supplied suicide bombers since 2005.

Despite their objections, Defense Department officials say they are now somewhat resigned to the outcome and are working out arrangements with the C.I.A. to ensure that United States forces, including Special Operations advisers, are not accidentally targeted, officials said.

Beyond the military, critics see the proposal as another attempt to expand the C.I.A.’s drone wars without answering longstanding questions about whether American spies should be running military-style operations in the shadows.

“One of the things we learned early on in Afghanistan and Iraq was the importance of being as transparent as possible in discussing our military operations,” said Luke Hartig, a senior director for counterterrorism at the National Security Council during the Obama administration.

“Why we took the specific action, who all was killed or injured in the operation, what we were going to do if we had inadvertently killed civilians or damaged property,” he continued. “I don’t know what the Trump administration is specifically considering in Afghanistan, but if their new plans for the war decrease any of that transparency, that would be a big strategic and moral mistake.”

When John O. Brennan, a former top White House counterterrorism adviser, became C.I.A. director in late 2013, he announced an intention to ratchet back the paramilitary operations that have transformed the agency since the Sept. 11 attacks.

Mr. Brennan’s goal, he said during his confirmation hearings, was to refocus the agency on the traditional work of intelligence collection and espionage that had sometimes been neglected. During those hearings, Mr. Brennan obliquely criticized the performance of American spy agencies in providing intelligence and analysis of the Arab revolutions that began in 2009, and said the C.I.A. needed to cede some of its paramilitary role to the Pentagon.

In a speech in May 2013 in which he sought to redefine American policy toward terrorism, President Barack Obama expanded on that theme, announcing new procedures for drone operations, which White House officials said would gradually become the responsibility of the Pentagon.

But critics contended that effort, too, proved slow-going, and that Mr. Brennan did not push forcefully for moving all drone operations away from the C.I.A.

Now, with Mr. Pompeo in charge, the agency appears to be aggressively renewing its paramilitary role, and pushing limits on other forms of covert operations outside conflict zones, including in countries where no fighting is underway, such as Iran. A veteran C.I.A. officer viewed as the architect of the drone program was put in charge of the agency’s Iran operations this year, for instance, and Mr. Pompeo has made it clear that he believes the C.I.A. has a robust role to play in fighting militants.

“We broke the back of Al Qaeda,” he said at a public appearance in July, referring to the drone campaign inside Pakistan that decimated the militant network’s leadership ranks.

“We took down their entire network,” he said. “And that’s what we’re going to do again.”

Hollismason posted:

Wait.. what if we built houses out of the homeless !!! I know it's crazy but it might just work.

Xae posted:

Bernie turned down joining the party for 30+ years. He then joined the party, ran for leadership on a platform of making GBS threads on the party, lost then left the party.

Is it really surprised that the party is a bit... standoffish?

Look at the actions, he is that guy from any organization. He says hes a super badass, joins the group, poo poo all over it then quits.

When Sanders left the party after 2016 he just proved all of his critics correct. He only wanted to take from the party, not give anything back.

PerniciousKnid posted:

Pardon my ignorance, but what is this and should I actually do it?

VitalSigns posted:

lmbo imagine believing this.

"What do we want?"
"A ruling elite that stifles debate and awards leadership positions for seniority and personal loyalty over ability and vision!"
"When do we want it?"
"Don't question us, questions sound like criticism which must be banned from our insulted bubble where our warmed-over 90s corporatism maintains its illusion of sensibility and wonkishness!"

*Loses every level of government to a tangerine pussy grabbing rapist*

Inescapable Duck posted:

Lol @ Democrats saying Bernie isn't a real Democrat like that's a bad thing