San Francisco Passes Proposition C Also Known as the "Homeless Tax"

Status
Not open for further replies.
Zarathustra[H] said:
About 55% of those of us who vote in the US are in favor of greater social safety nets, much like what is present in Scandinavia.

About 45% of those of us who vote are very much opposed.

.
Click to expand...

Please stop speaking for "us". Your distinctly leftward tilt and deep ignorance means your comment simply reflects your biased view, not objectively describing American politics. "About 55% of those of us who vote in the US are in favor of greater social safety nets, much like what is present in Scandinavia." Stupid, baseless statement free of facts and detail.

There is a contingent on the left that believes everything must be provided for free to everyone who sticks their hand out. At the moment, there are Democrats who believe we have an obligation to pay people for not working, and wish to extend the "safety net" of taxpayer funded benefits to ILLEGAL ALIENS! When a party believes the citizens of other nations sneaking across our border entitles them to the cornucopia of social welfare benefits it's reasonable to believe they are adhering to the strategy the left started espousing in the 60's, that the best way to usher in a socialist utopia is to "crash the system" by exploiting the system to the breaking point.
 
Last edited:
This is on-par with SF policies. Such as handing out needles in order to combat a HIV problem that barely existed which now in turn has just led to more people OD'ing and throwing dirty needles around the city.

At a certain point you wonder why people keep moving to this place.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PaulP
like this
cageymaru said:
I was reading that a family of 3 or 4 that has an income of $100,000 a year is considered low income in that area due to the housing situation and cost of living.

Found it.

Six-figure salary now considered ‘low-income’ in SF, according to feds.
https://sf.curbed.com/2018/6/26/17505550/low-income-limit-2018-salary-san-francisco-families-hud

HUD figures say “low income” limits in city start at at $82K per year for single persons and quickly break $100K for families
Click to expand...
The issue is the "family" curve ball, because that usually means children, and unfortunately children are a HUGE money pit for parents. You'd say $100k isn't horrible because two adults, both working that's 50k each which isn't astronomically high, however you throw the kids aspect into it and if both are making 50k who's looking after the kids? Hopefully you have family members there, because if you need daycare then one of the parents salaries is almost exclusively going to daycare. So until those kid reach public school age they can cost parents a lot.

Also due to the rent control nature of the city if you've lived here for 20 years then chances are your rent isn't as horrible as headlines show the average cost of 1 bedroom apt prices show, I'm not saying that it's "cheap" because it's not but it isn't as horrible as every news agency pushes to "sell papers"

It's a dynamic that most people just don't get because it's so foreign to people who don't live through it. For all the doom and gloom that's talked about how much people need to make, and how high costs of housing is making people homeless I can look around my neighbhorhood and see families that have grown up here, families that have been here 10 years, and people who aren't living 10 people to a house and with very high confidence these people aren't making 6 figure salaries.
 
Cyraxx said:
Yeah if only we had tons of non-profits with bedding, clothes, and job assistance services that pledge to help anyone that comes that is willing to kick their habits.

Oh wait, we do.
Click to expand...

I can only speak for the services available locally in my area, and they are woefully inadequate. There are not beds for everyone, shelters are often full, especially when it is cold, and even so many homeless people don't find the shelters to be safe, and thus prefer to try their luck on their own.

Both mental health services and drug treatment centers can't even keep up with the need from families who have insurance, let alone those who don't or are homeless. A colleague of mine's 13 year old kid was recently diagnosed with schizophrenia, and he literally could not find a psychologist through normal channels for him to get treatment, despite having insurance. He eventually had to use professional connections he had through work in the research community to get out in touch with someone who would take him on as a patient. Most People can't do this.

Add to this that most drug treatment programs are completely unregulated, and completely divorced from reality when it comes to what medicine and psychology actually says about treating addiction.


Your characterization of there being ample services available for free seems so disconnected from reality as to make me wonder where you got that idea. I don't think we even have the capacity to treat 5% of patients with insurance, let alone those without or on the street.
 
Zarathustra[H] said:
It can fail the way you suggest, if structured incorrectly, but it also can work if done right.

Most homeless people don't want to be on the streets as it is. Once they find themselves there - however - it is very difficult to come back. If you don't have an address, a phone number or an email, or clean clothes and a place to clean up to prepare for a job interview it is very difficult to get a job and pill yourseöf out of that situation.

A guy may have started on the street as a temporary thing, sleeping in his truck after his girlfriend kicked him out after a fight, or somethibg like that, and then got stuck there.

Then there are those who are otthe street who have legitimate mental illness or substance abuse disorders and need treatment.

Get these people into temporary modest safe housing units, help them with job search activities and those who need it with teatment for mental issues and substance abuse and structure it such that they have an incentive to do better.

Much like the earned income tax credit, where the benefit shrinks the more money you earn, but not enough such that your total take-home is less if you work more, you can do the same with housing benefits.

Have them pay nothing at first until they get their lives in order, then increase what they pay for rent as they earn income, but never so much such that they take home less the more they earn, and also provide a route for them to move on to more traditional low cost housing, and you could have a system that actually works.

And we all would benefit from it. Fewer people defacating on the street and instead being productive members of society contributing to economic growth is a great thing!
Click to expand...

Ok...all sounds great like most leftist programs. Problem is that you guys never...NEVER want to be held accountable to some standard of success? Everything you just said is just Hollywood movie wishcasting on how you hope it works. You seriously act like the homeless are all closet brain surgeons if someone (else's money) would just give them an Iphone to call about interviews. At what point do they get cut off or are they guaranteed someone else's tax money for life because you think they deserve it? This is nothing more than a different shade of the left's failed war on so called poverty that has done nothing but created a dependent class of citizen for one party. Which I think we both know was the real purpose to begin with.
 
purple_monster said:
if you want more of something you subsidize it, if you want less you tax it.

theres lies and BS on all sides of politics but the leftists have been trying to talk and emotion their way around this simple fact since the 1920s.
Click to expand...

Certainly in a society of people with jobs, income, property and other means, this is true.

For homeless people though?

How do you tax someone who has nothing?
 
Hatriot said:
Ok...all sounds great like most leftist programs. Problem is that you guys never...NEVER want to be held accountable to some standard of success? Everything you just said is just Hollywood movie wishcasting on how you hope it works. You seriously act like the homeless are all closet brain surgeons if someone (else's money) would just give them an Iphone to call about interviews. At what point do they get cut off or are they guaranteed someone else's tax money for life because you think they deserve it? This is nothing more than a different shade of the left's failed war on so called poverty that has done nothing but created a dependent class of citizen for one party. Which I think we both know was the real purpose to begin with.
Click to expand...

Oh, here we go with the fallacy that poor people are poor because they are lazy. Nothing could be further from the truth. Generally poor people are poor due to a large number of complex intertwined issues, including lack of opportunity (poverty is a self fulfilling prophecy, if you are born poor you likely stay poor due to not having the tools to pull yourself up), disability (mental or physical) just bad luck. Sometimes people are poor because they made stupid mistakes when they were young and foolish, and now are stuck. Should this follow them for life?

Blaming the poor and the homeless and claiming they are in the situation they are because they are lazy is one of two thins, a complete blindness to reality, or an intentional excuse so you don't feel morally obliged to help. It is utter hogwash, and until you disavow yourself of this notion, there is little else we can discuss.
 
Zarathustra[H] said:
Certainly in a society of people with jobs, income, property and other means, this is true.

For homeless people though?

How do you tax someone who has nothing?
Click to expand...
Same way you tax fathers who owe child support: job or jail.
 
GlowingGhoul said:
You mean how fucked would Texas be. Leftists leave the places they've poisoned with their policies for greener pastures, and proceed to transform it into what they just left. See Oregon, Washington, Colorado, etc.
Click to expand...
They really are like a plague of locusts when they're on the move.
 
nutzo said:
The most basic rule of economics, something that some people think they can ignore. I predict the homeless problem in San Francisco will get much worse.
Maybe there will be less of a problem where I live as the local homeless move to San Francisco for more handouts.




A reasonable person would assume that is true, but it's not.
Most of these people have no interest in finding a job or getting treatment for their mental issues and substance abuse problems.
Given the choice of getting up at 7am to go to a job, or living on the street, most pick living on the street.

Where I live in Southern California, they finally decided to try and clean up the numerous homeless camps.
They sent in social workers to see if these people qualified for any benefits, offered to pay for treatment programs, and put many of these people up in hotels for a couple months. Many of these "homeless" wanted no help and just relocated to somewhere else they could be homeless. Others took up the offer on the free hotel room, but did nothing but trash the hotel rooms until they where kicked out.
Click to expand...

SoCal is filled with many William H Macy understudies. Waiting to be discovered. If only reality TV was a thing.

/s
 
sfsuphysics said:
Ok lets record all the relevant homeless data right now, then take a new census in 10 years and show how absolutely fucking worthless this tax was in combating homelessness and the only thing that it actually did was funnel tax money from corporations into all the groups that hold out their hands asking for funding, so some place that has spare warehouse space sets up a few dozen cots for overnight sleeping, yup they just got a paycheck. None of the abilities to help homelessness actually do anything to reverse it. I guess the only good thing that comes out of it is that it doesn't put another tax burden on the individuals of the city who already have one of the higher costs of living in the country.
Click to expand...

I'm all for using metrics to determine if something like this is successful.

These metrics have to be designed carefully though, or they will be highly misleading.

If you just look at the number of homeless people on the streets before and after, this completely ignores the fact that SF is surrounded by the rest of the country, and may attract other homeless people. You also can't know what the trend in homelessness had been had they not taken this action, so a true baseline is very difficut to establish.

If they look at the number of people they have helped remove from the streets and who have become productive members of society 5-10 years after the program was put in place, that could be a good measure, and if the numbers are disappointing, they will have the data to suggest they need to tweak it, or try something else.

Everything should be data based.
 
Zarathustra[H] said:
Oh, here we go with the fallacy that poor people are poor because they are lazy. Nothing could be further from the truth. Generally poor people are poor due to a large number of complex intertwined issues, including lack of opportunity (poverty is a self fulfilling prophecy, if you are born poor you likely stay poor due to not having the tools to pull yourself up), disability (mental or physical) just bad luck. Sometimes people are poor because they made stupid mistakes when they were young and foolish, and now are stuck. Should this follow them for life?

Blaming the poor and the homeless and claiming they are in the situation they are because they are lazy is one of two thins, a complete blindness to reality, or an intentional excuse so you don't feel morally obliged to help. It is utter hogwash, and until you disavow yourself of this notion, there is little else we can discuss.
Click to expand...
This is not a discussion on the poor, this is a discussion on the homeless, who are too lazy to join San Fran's poop patrol and make $180k/year.
 
purple_monster said:
yeah that might work for the US if we didnt have this giant thing called Mexico next to us. It hurts to hear I know.
Click to expand...

Oh, that pesky lawless place, convienently located to serve as the beautiful people's drug stash? Isn't it nice to waste your @$!* off, get your blue-eyed face absolutely stoned, all the while playing holier than thou to the rest of the world, blaming the lesser ones for all of the side effects of your habits?

Lovely! Even more so because you guys are oh so tough to play trade with anyone else. Nothing pisses an American off more than a HECHO EN MEXICO sticker - a MADE IN CHINA, maybe. Yet, when it's party time... bring it! It's the ugly people that have to dodge literal bullets because of that little habit, so what?!

Zarathustra[H] said:
Oh, here we go with the fallacy that poor people are poor because they are lazy. Nothing could be further from the truth. Generally poor people are poor due to a large number of complex intertwined issues, including lack of opportunity (poverty is a self fulfilling prophecy, if you are born poor you likely stay poor due to not having the tools to pull yourself up), disability (mental or physical) just bad luck. Sometimes people are poor because they made stupid mistakes when they were young and foolish, and now are stuck. Should this follow them for life?

Blaming the poor and the homeless and claiming they are in the situation they are because they are lazy is one of two thins, a complete blindness to reality, or an intentional excuse so you don't feel morally obliged to help. It is utter hogwash, and until you disavow yourself of this notion, there is little else we can discuss.
Click to expand...
I hope to meet you in person one day so I can buy you a beer. For someone that's spot on as you are, man, you have a LOT of patience to discuss this so often and with good arguments every time.

I've learned so much about this since I immigrated. It's amazing to see someone who gets it, and it doesn't look like you were on the receiving end like I had to be to understand, so mad props to you.
 
Last edited:
GlowingGhoul said:
You mean how fucked would Texas be. Leftists leave the places they've poisoned with their policies for greener pastures, and proceed to transform it into what they just left. See Oregon, Washington, Colorado, etc.
Click to expand...

Texas is well on its way in that direction on its own. It doesn't need any help. Last night a left wing democrat (not a centrist, mind you) came within 3 points of beating a conservative republican senator.

Texas is changing on its own.
 
Zarathustra[H] said:
Oh, here we go with the fallacy that poor people are poor because they are lazy. Nothing could be further from the truth. Generally poor people are poor due to a large number of complex intertwined issues, including lack of opportunity (poverty is a self fulfilling prophecy, if you are born poor you likely stay poor due to not having the tools to pull yourself up), disability (mental or physical) just bad luck. Sometimes people are poor because they made stupid mistakes when they were young and foolish, and now are stuck. Should this follow them for life?

Blaming the poor and the homeless and claiming they are in the situation they are because they are lazy is one of two thins, a complete blindness to reality, or an intentional excuse so you don't feel morally obliged to help. It is utter hogwash, and until you disavow yourself of this notion, there is little else we can discuss.
Click to expand...

For my part, most homeless people I've seen are that way because they either 1) are mentally ill or 2) have a serious drug addiction/problem. Many of this same group end up in prison.

In my opinion, that is the majority of the problem. As for the solution, I do not offer one. That often involves a conversation on the value of a person and the responsibility of society.
 
OpenSource said:
Texas needs to look into laws prohibiting California migrants. You'll never hear left leaning California natives either admitting or realizing their tax-happy ideaology is the reason they're plopping their ass down in cheaper states. Nashville is a perfect example of this right now.
Click to expand...

California used to be conservative until it was filled with left leaning migrants, mainly from the east coast.
I've considered retiring to a more conservative state, but these states are turning blue so fast, they may all be just as bad as California by the time I retire :(
 
nutzo said:
A reasonable person would assume that is true, but it's not.
Most of these people have no interest in finding a job or getting treatment for their mental issues and substance abuse problems.
Given the choice of getting up at 7am to go to a job, or living on the street, most pick living on the street.
Click to expand...

The reason many homeless who have received some help fail and return to the streets is well documented. They don't want to be homeless, but usually their entire support structure and social circles are there and they find they have an absolutely horrible time coping in isolation once housed. Any program that is going to be successful has to consider both the physical AND the psychological needs of the human being.
 
Joust said:
In my opinion, that is the majority of the problem. As for the solution, I do not offer one. That often involves a conversation on the value of a person and the responsibility of society.
Click to expand...

Aye, that's the rub.

Assume for a moment though that we are completely selfish and don't care at all about helping our fellow man.

Even in this scenario there are plenty of reasons for solving homelessness.

- There is currently a worker shortage. Getting more people in jobs drives the economy, and makes services available to customers.

- Cities are nicer/cleaner/smell better when there aren't a ton of homeless around

- Reducing the spread of disease, crime and begging.

This has some value to most people, right?

Or are we not going to solve these problems just because we are afraid that some of the homeless people "are there because of their own fault" and "don't deserve help"?
 
cageymaru said:
I was reading that a family of 3 or 4 that has an income of $100,000 a year is considered low income in that area due to the housing situation and cost of living.

Found it.

Six-figure salary now considered ‘low-income’ in SF, according to feds.
https://sf.curbed.com/2018/6/26/17505550/low-income-limit-2018-salary-san-francisco-families-hud

HUD figures say “low income” limits in city start at at $82K per year for single persons and quickly break $100K for families
Click to expand...

I believe it. I make what to many probably would sound like a luxurious high salary, but where I have to live for my job, I can't afford to buy a home and drive 10-20 year old cars to get around.

And, San Francisco is way worse than where I live.

Income is very relative.
 
Zarathustra[H] said:
The reason many homeless who have received some help fail and return to the streets is well documented. They don't want to be homeless, but usually their entire support structure and social circles are there and they find they have an absolutely horrible time coping in isolation once housed. Any program that is going to be successful has to consider both the physical AND the psychological needs of the human being.
Click to expand...
Zarathustra[H] said:
Aye, that's the rub.

Assume for a moment though that we are completely selfish and don't care at all about helping our fellow man.

Even in this scenario there are plenty of reasons for solving homelessness.

- There is currently a worker shortage. Getting more people in jobs drives the economy, and makes services available to customers.

- Cities are nicer/cleaner/smell better when there aren't a ton of homeless around

- Reducing the spread of disease, crime and begging.

This has some value to most people, right?

Or are we not going to solve these problems just because we are afraid that some of the homeless people "are there because of their own fault" and "don't deserve help"?
Click to expand...

Those you say that would rather kill 'em all and bury them somewhere far away, or pile the bodies if that's cheaper.
 
[
cdr_74_premium said:
Those you say that would rather kill 'em all and bury them somewhere far away, or pile the bodies if that's cheaper.
Click to expand...
It's a discussion very susceptible to hyperbole, which is part of the reason I do not intend to participate.
 
GlowingGhoul said:
Please stop speaking for "us". Your distinctly leftward tilt and deep ignorance means your comment simply reflects your biased view, not objectively describing American politics. "About 55% of those of us who vote in the US are in favor of greater social safety nets, much like what is present in Scandinavia." Stupid, baseless statement free of facts and detail.
Click to expand...

This is not a subjective comment. Just tally up voter counts and compare them with overall outcomes.

In my post above I'm not making value judgments on any policy, just comparing numbers. How many people vote for each side, and who wins. For the left in the U.S. to win in elections they have to win in a system where most of the rules are stacked against them, requiring 60+% of the overall actual vote just to get a simple 50% majority.
 
Honestly I don't get how so many people are homeless in this country. You must be a real piece of shit if you are homeless. All these people don't have any kind of family or friends that could take you in? If I found myself suddenly homeless tomorrow I can think of at least a dozen people would help me out if I went to them. If you burn all your Bridges or can be bothered to suck up your pride and ask family for help then you don't deserve help. it is not hard to get a job in this country. Sure they won't be the best but you have to start somewhere.
 
NukeDukem said:
Zero-sum. San Francisco wants more homeless, and less business. Everyone who lives there loses, other than the central planners themselves.
Click to expand...

But people in SF voted for this right? It was on the ballot.

So, if people and businesses have determined that the homelessness problem is out of control, and they are willing to pay to try to do something about it, because it has turned the city gross, where is the problem in that?
 
Zarathustra[H] said:
But people in SF voted for this right? It was on the ballot.

So, if people and businesses have determined that the homelessness problem is out of control, and they are willing to pay to try to do something about it, because it has turned the city gross, where is the problem in that?
Click to expand...

You're right. God bless 'em. Keep it on the Left Coast.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DocNo
like this
Zarathustra[H] said:
Oh, here we go with the fallacy that poor people are poor because they are lazy. Nothing could be further from the truth. Generally poor people are poor due to a large number of complex intertwined issues, including lack of opportunity (poverty is a self fulfilling prophecy, if you are born poor you likely stay poor due to not having the tools to pull yourself up), disability (mental or physical) just bad luck. Sometimes people are poor because they made stupid mistakes when they were young and foolish, and now are stuck. Should this follow them for life?

Blaming the poor and the homeless and claiming they are in the situation they are because they are lazy is one of two thins, a complete blindness to reality, or an intentional excuse so you don't feel morally obliged to help. It is utter hogwash, and until you disavow yourself of this notion, there is little else we can discuss.
Click to expand...

Actually, money generally correlates (Fairly closely) to IQ levels.

Statistically they are too stupid to be productive members of society. Similar to our military, it is generally accepted that 10% of our society is simply too stupid.

Toss all the money you want, there is no hope.
 
Zarathustra[H] said:
About 55% of those of us who vote in the US are in favor of greater social safety nets, much like what is present in Scandinavia.

About 45% of those of us who vote are very much opposed.
Click to expand...

the 45% are most the working class people who pay a vast majority of the taxes basically losing their shirts because the side voted to steal from them.

Its completely bullshit
 
Zarathustra[H] said:
This is not a subjective comment. Just tally up voter counts and compare them with overall outcomes.

In my post above I'm not making value judgments on any policy, just comparing numbers. How many people vote for each side, and who wins. For the left in the U.S. to win in elections they have to win in a system where most of the rules are stacked against them, requiring 60+% of the overall actual vote just to get a simple 50% majority.
Click to expand...

Oh, the poor oppressed left. The nerve of conservatives, requiring proof of citizenships, denying the vote to dead people, and adhering to the fucking constitution, instead of world opinion on how we should handle our internal matters.
I've got news for you- we are NOT a Democracy, we ARE a representative Republic.
That means rule of law, not rule of mob.
That also means that minorities have a voice-which sucks for non-minorities, but it keeps God-Emperor Trump from declaring the existence of communists to be illegal and ordering their immediate execution.
You should thank God that we are what we are and not what you wish we were.
 
More homeless, more freebies, more programs , more votes. The more you keep em down, the less fight they'll have in em. Classic Democrat / Liberal move.
 
Sikkyu said:
the 45% are most the working class people who pay a vast majority of the taxes basically losing their shirts because the side voted to steal from them.

Its completely bullshit
Click to expand...

Correct. Once the electorate finds they can vote themselves benefits from the public treasury, it's all over. These things happen in cycles, and the modern West is beginning the decline. Confucius talked about this 2500 years ago, it's nothing new.

All bleeding stops. The only question is when; before or after death. I'd prefer the former.
 
Last edited:
Cyraxx said:
Yeah if only we had tons of non-profits with bedding, clothes, and job assistance services that pledge to help anyone that comes that is willing to kick their habits.

Oh wait, we do.
Click to expand...


Yup

If homeless wanted off the streets, there are plenty of non profit orgs that will give them clean close and help get them going in the right direction. Most do NOT want to help themselves no matter what you do.


Idiot's buy into this bullshit that they want help and well.... everyone else pays for it
 
  • Like
Reactions: DocNo
like this
NickM said:
Oh, the poor oppressed left. The nerve of conservatives, requiring proof of citizenships, denying the vote to dead people, and adhering to the fucking constitution, instead of world opinion on how we should handle our internal matters.
I've got news for you- we are NOT a Democracy, we ARE a representative Republic.
That means rule of law, not rule of mob.
That also means that minorities have a voice-which sucks for non-minorities, but it keeps God-Emperor Trump from declaring the existence of communists to be illegal and ordering their immediate execution.
You should thank God that we are what we are and not what you wish we were.
Click to expand...


1.) A Representative Republic IS a form of Democracy. That tired old argument is ridiculous.

2.) What this results in is a tyranny of the minority.

3.) Voter ID requirements aren't a bad idea in general, but the problem is that they assume everyone has the proper documentation to identify themselves. I recently read an account of someone who had to spend three days and $80 to get all the documentation together to get his Texas license in order to be able to vote. For you and me this is not much of an issue, but for someone who is poor and works and hourly job, they cant get the time off to go stand in line during limited business hours and probably don't have the $80 to spend. That's why we banned poll taxes decades ago. That's also not to mention that voter ID laws like the one in Texas tned to cherry pick which ID's are valid and which aren't based on which ID's white older men are more likely to have, and which young minorities are less likely to have. Case in point. School ID's are not accepted, but firearms ID's are...

And then add to the fact that all this is justified as an attempt to combat voter fraud, something that is more rare than being struck by lightning. These justifications are nothing but red herring coverups in order to put policies in place that maximize the ability of one group to vote, and minimizes the ability of others.

Automatically register all eligible voters to vote, and hand out eligible ID's for free that don't require people to take time off from work and stand in line, and suddenly absolutely no one has a problem with Voter ID, because if you do this it doesn't rob anyone of their right to vote.
 
I've talked about my experience with the homeless in another thread.

My question is, okay, lets help all the homeless that don't want to be.

Now that's out of the way what do you do with the people that want to be homeless? The ones that truly have zero drive or disability and have made the decision to live off the government and on the streets?
 
  • Like
Reactions: DocNo
like this
Sikkyu said:
the 45% are most the working class people who pay a vast majority of the taxes basically losing their shirts because the side voted to steal from them.

Its completely bullshit
Click to expand...

Again, I'm not making any value judgment (at least not in the post you are quoting) about any policy of either side politically. Just pointing out that our elections aren't free and fair, and that they are starting to resemble a tyranny of the minority.
 
Cyraxx said:
Actually, money generally correlates (Fairly closely) to IQ levels.

Statistically they are too stupid to be productive members of society. Similar to our military, it is generally accepted that 10% of our society is simply too stupid.
Click to expand...

But yet 98% of the Armed Force have at least a high school dipolma vs 86% of the general population...and 71% of the general population cant serve due to being too fat, not strong enough, etc...

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/after-service/201801/are-military-members-the-lowest-our-low
 
Zarathustra[H] said:
Just pointing out that our elections aren't free and fair, and that they are starting to resemble a tyranny of the minority.
Click to expand...

How do you propse fixing this then? Shit dumbasses in my state just reelected a child rapist and someone who was brought up on ethics charges by the last administration for fucks sake.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DocNo
like this
Zarathustra[H] said:
Texas is well on its way in that direction on its own. It doesn't need any help. Last night a left wing democrat (not a centrist, mind you) came within 3 points of beating a conservative republican senator.

Texas is changing on its own.
Click to expand...
Texas is changing because we are bringing in all the CA businesses that want to flee the high taxes of Ccalifornia. State Farm, Liberty Mutual, Toyota USA to name a few.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top