Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 20, 2024 0:13:33 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 6, 2019 3:12:02 GMT
Dear Brits, Thank you. Love, Pro-American Anti-Trump Pea (please let your friends know how many of us there are here and how our antiquated electoral system, gerrymandering, GOP complicity and other electoral malfeasance has gotten us into this state)
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 20, 2024 0:13:33 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 6, 2019 3:37:40 GMT
This can be a good thing or it’s opening Pandora’s Box
Press Democrat...
“San Francisco to force treatment on mentally ill drug users”
SAN FRANCISCO — San Francisco officials decided Tuesday to force some people with serious mental illness and drug addiction into treatment, even if it goes against the spirit of a city known for its fierce protection of civil rights.
Several members of the Board of Supervisors voiced deep concerns Tuesday about the possibility of taking away a person's civil liberties, but the proposal for a pilot program passed 10-1.
Mayor London Breed and other supporters say the move — known as conservatorship — is necessary to help people who are often homeless, addicted to drugs and have a mental illness, making them a danger to themselves.
"Allowing people to continue to suffer on our streets is not acceptable or humane, and I am glad the Board of Supervisors supported our approach to finally make a change," Breed said in a statement after the vote.
The measure would apply to a handful of people, the city's department of public health estimated, although the number would grow under legislation pending at the state level.
Supervisor Shamann Walton was the sole no vote, saying the city didn't have plans in place to reduce the impact on African American people and other minorities who tend to have negative run-ins with police.
Several supervisors decided to give the pilot program a try after changes were made that require providers to give the person multiple opportunities to accept voluntary help. They also were encouraged by Breed including more money for additional treatment beds in a proposed budget.
By all accounts, the number of people affected will be small, but no matter how small the number, we all need to be watching closely to make sure the impacts are positive," said Supervisor Vallie Brown, a co-sponsor of the proposal.
Critics call the measure politically driven and a violation of civil rights that runs against the principles of the liberal city. They say it would lead to locking up people in facilities and that San Francisco lacks the resources to successfully expand the number of people in such a program.
"We are concerned about ensuring that persons receive mental health treatment and services in their communities, in supportive housing, in supportive environments — and not in facilities," said Curt Child, legislative director of Disability Rights California.
"This is a major civil rights issue in the sense of confining people against their will," he said.
San Francisco struggles with income inequality and a growing number of homeless people — some with disturbing behavior tied to drugs, schizophrenia or bipolar disorder. They shuffle from the streets to jail and psychiatric care, unaware they need steady treatment, sometimes dashing into traffic or screaming at strangers.
Supervisor Rafael Mandelman, another co-sponsor, says business owners and residents in his district see such people go "from 'kind of not great' to being in absolute and complete distress."
Sen. Scott Wiener, a San Francisco Democrat, co-authored state legislation that allows pilot programs in Los Angeles, San Francisco and San Diego counties. He is working on changing that legislation to expand the number of people affected.
Too many people are deteriorating and dying on San Francisco's streets, and we have a moral responsibility to help them," he said in a statement after the vote. "It's neither progressive nor compassionate to stand by while people die."
Supervisors in San Diego and Los Angeles counties have not officially considered it. Los Angeles County saw a 12% rise in the number of homeless people over the past year.
San Francisco's program would allow a court to appoint a public conservator for someone who has been involuntarily detained for psychiatric hospitalization at least eight times in a year. The treatment could last for as long as a year.
Only about five people could be forced into treatment in San Francisco, said Rachael Kagan, spokeswoman for the city's Department of Public Health. Wiener's new bill could bump that up to 55, which is the number of people who now fit the definition for at least eight holds.
The health department has identified an additional 48 people who have been detained six or seven times.”
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 20, 2024 0:13:33 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 6, 2019 3:44:01 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 20, 2024 0:13:33 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 6, 2019 8:50:57 GMT
RNC Chairwoman Ronna Romney McDaniel, good words?!?!?!? “We are celebrating the anniversary, 75 years of D-Day,” McDaniel said. “This is the time where we should be celebrating our president, the great achievements of America, and I don’t think the American people like this constant negativity.” “There are times when we should be lifting up our president, especially when he’s overseas,” she added. What a bloody insult to all the British and other allied troops to suggest that they should celebrate such a despicable man. Teaching her president some diplomacy would be a good start for her. Did she also forget that there were 156,000 troops out of which only 73,000 were Americans. And she expects the rest of them to " celebrate" her president! This is how you mark the anniversary of the sacrifices ones country made that day. Here is the text of the speech delivered by Prime Minister Theresa May alongside French President Emmanuel Macron at the inauguration of the British Normandy Memorial. She said: "Thank you President Macron for your support to ensure a lasting monument to the service and sacrifice of those who fought in the Battle of Normandy - something which means so much to our veteran community and to the whole of the British nation.
"It is incredibly moving to be here today, looking out across beaches where one of the greatest battles for freedom this world has ever known took place - and it is truly humbling to do so with the men who were there that day.
"It is an honour for all of us to share this moment with you
"Standing here, as the waves wash quietly onto the shore, it's almost impossible to grasp the raw courage that it must have taken that day to leap out from landing craft and into the surf - despite the fury of battle.
"No one could be certain what June 6 would bring. No one would know how this - the most ambitious - amphibious and airborne assault in all of human history, would turn out.
"And, as the sun rose that morning, not one of the troops on the landing craft approaching these shores, not one of the pilots in the skies above, not one of the sailors at sea - knew whether they would still be alive when it set once again.
"If one day can be said to have determined the fate of generations to come - in France, in Britain, in Europe and the world - that day was June 6, 1944.
"More than 156,000 men landed on D-Day - of which 83,000 were from Britain and the Commonwealth.
"Over a quarter million more supported operations from air and sea - while the French Resistance carried out extraordinary acts of bravery behind enemy lines. Many were terribly wounded.
"And many more made the ultimate sacrifice that day and in the fierce fighting that followed, as together our allied nations sought to release Europe from the grip of fascism.
"Men like Lieutenant Den Brotheridge of the Oxfordshire and Buckinghamshire Light Infantry. Twenty-eight years old. Husband. Father-to-be. Thought to be the first Allied soldier to be killed in action after leading the charge over Pegasus Bridge.
"Marine Commando Robert Casson of 46 Royal Marine Commando, who was killed on the approach to Juno Beach, three weeks before his brother Private Joseph Casson was also killed in Normandy.
"And twins Robert and Charles Guy, 21, who both served in the RAF and were shot down and buried separately. Their names will now be reunited here.
"These young men belonged to a very special generation, the greatest generation.
"A generation whose unconquerable spirit shaped the post-war world. They didn't boast. They didn't fuss. They served.
"And they laid down their lives so that we might have a better life and build a better world.
"The memorial that will be built here will remind us of this. Of the service and sacrifice of those who fell under British Command in Normandy, of the price paid by French civilians - and of our duty, and our responsibility, to now carry the torch for freedom, for peace and for democracy.
"I want to thank all those involved in this memorial. George Batts and the veterans who have campaigned so hard to make it happen. The people of Ver-sur-Mer, and Phillipe Onillon the town's mayor.
"Here in Normandy, the names of those British men and women who gave their lives in defence of freedom, will forever sit opposite their homeland across the Channel.
"Here in Normandy, we will always remember their courage, their commitment, their conviction.
"And to our veterans, here in Normandy, I want to say the only words we can: thank you."
|
|
inkedup
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 4,837
Jun 26, 2014 5:00:26 GMT
|
Post by inkedup on Jun 6, 2019 9:27:01 GMT
This can be a good thing or it’s opening Pandora’s Box This is such a difficult issue. On the one hand, I am pro-choice. Period. No one should be able to tell another human what to do with their own body if they aren't harming anyone else. But how do we define harm? The homeless population has exploded in my Southern California city. Most are opiate addicts, many are mentally ill addicts. Their actions are harmful to my community and dangerous for my family. I had to run to the store for milk last week. There is a mentally ill addict who hangs around my local grocery store. He is often clearly agitated and angry, shouting and throwing things. Long story longer, he chased me to my car that night and threw a water bottle at my car. It was terrifying, but the police said there is nothing they can do. He didn't assault me or damage my property. This guy has a right to choose not to take his medication. I have a right to be safe in my community. I don't know the answer. Forced medication goes against my pro-choice beliefs, but I also don't think it's fair to endanger others if you choose not to medicate yourself.
|
|
|
Post by pierkiss on Jun 6, 2019 10:55:13 GMT
So San Francisco is voting on a plan to force the mentality ill on the street into treatment. More details as they become available. To “force” the people into treatment? Like against their will? If that’s the case I hope it doesn’t pass. (Sorry, not reading the link right now, just woke up and haven’t had coffee so brain is not fully comprehending things just yet 😛). People should not have unwanted treatments forced upon them. Free will and a right to happiness and all that. Also, if the treatment is unwanted, when they get out of the facility they are in, they can choose to simply stop taking their meds or following along with whatever strategies were put into place for them. So this then becomes a giant waste of money. Now if it’s instead making services available and affordable/free for homeless people who WANT the help, then yay! I’m all for it.
|
|
|
Post by pierkiss on Jun 6, 2019 11:07:11 GMT
This can be a good thing or it’s opening Pandora’s Box Press Democrat... “San Francisco to force treatment on mentally ill drug users”SAN FRANCISCO — San Francisco officials decided Tuesday to force some people with serious mental illness and drug addiction into treatment, even if it goes against the spirit of a city known for its fierce protection of civil rights. Several members of the Board of Supervisors voiced deep concerns Tuesday about the possibility of taking away a person's civil liberties, but the proposal for a pilot program passed 10-1. Mayor London Breed and other supporters say the move — known as conservatorship — is necessary to help people who are often homeless, addicted to drugs and have a mental illness, making them a danger to themselves."Allowing people to continue to suffer on our streets is not acceptable or humane, and I am glad the Board of Supervisors supported our approach to finally make a change," Breed said in a statement after the vote. The measure would apply to a handful of people, the city's department of public health estimated, although the number would grow under legislation pending at the state level. Supervisor Shamann Walton was the sole no vote, saying the city didn't have plans in place to reduce the impact on African American people and other minorities who tend to have negative run-ins with police. Several supervisors decided to give the pilot program a try after changes were made that require providers to give the person multiple opportunities to accept voluntary help. They also were encouraged by Breed including more money for additional treatment beds in a proposed budget. By all accounts, the number of people affected will be small, but no matter how small the number, we all need to be watching closely to make sure the impacts are positive," said Supervisor Vallie Brown, a co-sponsor of the proposal. Critics call the measure politically driven and a violation of civil rights that runs against the principles of the liberal city. They say it would lead to locking up people in facilities and that San Francisco lacks the resources to successfully expand the number of people in such a program. "We are concerned about ensuring that persons receive mental health treatment and services in their communities, in supportive housing, in supportive environments — and not in facilities," said Curt Child, legislative director of Disability Rights California. " This is a major civil rights issue in the sense of confining people against their will," he said.San Francisco struggles with income inequality and a growing number of homeless people — some with disturbing behavior tied to drugs, schizophrenia or bipolar disorder. They shuffle from the streets to jail and psychiatric care, unaware they need steady treatment, sometimes dashing into traffic or screaming at strangers. Supervisor Rafael Mandelman, another co-sponsor, says business owners and residents in his district see such people go "from 'kind of not great' to being in absolute and complete distress." Sen. Scott Wiener, a San Francisco Democrat, co-authored state legislation that allows pilot programs in Los Angeles, San Francisco and San Diego counties. He is working on changing that legislation to expand the number of people affected. Too many people are deteriorating and dying on San Francisco's streets, and we have a moral responsibility to help them," he said in a statement after the vote. "It's neither progressive nor compassionate to stand by while people die." Supervisors in San Diego and Los Angeles counties have not officially considered it. Los Angeles County saw a 12% rise in the number of homeless people over the past year. San Francisco's program would allow a court to appoint a public conservator for someone who has been involuntarily detained for psychiatric hospitalization at least eight times in a year. The treatment could last for as long as a year. Only about five people could be forced into treatment in San Francisco, said Rachael Kagan, spokeswoman for the city's Department of Public Health. Wiener's new bill could bump that up to 55, which is the number of people who now fit the definition for at least eight holds. The health department has identified an additional 48 people who have been detained six or seven times.” Holy crap, I can’t believe this passed. I can’t believe people think this is ok Do you think lawsuits will be brought forward to fight this? The government should not be able to force people into a treatment of any kind against their will. This is a DANGEROUSLY SCARY SLIDE down a slope covered in ice. I can think of one person who hangs out in Washington DC who might see this and decide to run with it. Only instead of forcing proven psychiatric treatments on people to treat their illnesses, maybe he’ll decide to mandate conversion therapy onto All gay people. I can’t believe this passed.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 20, 2024 0:13:33 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 6, 2019 13:07:17 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 20, 2024 0:13:33 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 6, 2019 13:08:16 GMT
Not a word from the right on the massive debt that the Billionaire tax cuts are creating. Always remember that when they bleat BUT HOW ARE WE GONNA PAY FOR IT!!! ?!?
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 20, 2024 0:13:33 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 6, 2019 15:16:01 GMT
Kyle Griffin... ”Members of the military deployed near the border have been assigned to spend a month painting a mile-long stretch of barriers to improve their "aesthetic appearance," CBS News reports. Rep. Joaquin Castro: "These are soldiers, they are not painters."
|
|
|
Post by crazy4scraps on Jun 6, 2019 15:27:30 GMT
This can be a good thing or it’s opening Pandora’s Box This is such a difficult issue. On the one hand, I am pro-choice. Period. No one should be able to tell another human what to do with their own body if they aren't harming anyone else. But how do we define harm? The homeless population has exploded in my Southern California city. Most are opiate addicts, many are mentally ill addicts. Their actions are harmful to my community and dangerous for my family. I had to run to the store for milk last week. There is a mentally ill addict who hangs around my local grocery store. He is often clearly agitated and angry, shouting and throwing things. Long story longer, he chased me to my car that night and threw a water bottle at my car. It was terrifying, but the police said there is nothing they can do. He didn't assault me or damage my property. This guy has a right to choose not to take his medication. I have a right to be safe in my community. I don't know the answer. Forced medication goes against my pro-choice beliefs, but I also don't think it's fair to endanger others if you choose not to medicate yourself. I think your right to live in a safe, peaceful community should win out over someone else’s right to be scary, threatening and dangerous (i.e. throwing things at strangers). Does this guy really have a right to choose not to take medication? I think it really boils down to an individual’s level of mental fitness and competence. If a person isn’t in a state of mind where they can make competent decisions for their own wellbeing and that of others in their community, then it becomes a public safety issue to just let them go on being their scary unmedicated self. I honestly don’t know what the answer is either but people are dying out on the street because they are ill, addicted and unable to make competent life decisions. Somehow I don’t think forcing someone to take some meds that could help them live more humanely is worse than that, free will or not.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 20, 2024 0:13:33 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 6, 2019 15:34:37 GMT
Kyle Cheney..
”BREAKING: Michael FLYNN has fired his counsel and is retaining a new lawyer ahead of his sentencing.”
Intetesting.
|
|
|
Post by hop2 on Jun 6, 2019 15:37:59 GMT
This can be a good thing or it’s opening Pandora’s Box This is such a difficult issue. On the one hand, I am pro-choice. Period. No one should be able to tell another human what to do with their own body if they aren't harming anyone else. But how do we define harm? The homeless population has exploded in my Southern California city. Most are opiate addicts, many are mentally ill addicts. Their actions are harmful to my community and dangerous for my family. I had to run to the store for milk last week. There is a mentally ill addict who hangs around my local grocery store. He is often clearly agitated and angry, shouting and throwing things. Long story longer, he chased me to my car that night and threw a water bottle at my car. It was terrifying, but the police said there is nothing they can do. He didn't assault me or damage my property. This guy has a right to choose not to take his medication. I have a right to be safe in my community. I don't know the answer. Forced medication goes against my pro-choice beliefs, but I also don't think it's fair to endanger others if you choose not to medicate yourself. I have the same conundrum when it comes to states rights & home rule. I have always been in favor of ‘home rule’ per se because the citizens of that area know how they want to govern themselves. For example stricter emissions laws in California, I firmly believe California has every right to have strict emissions laws, I was there in the 80’s I know what they are battling against. The EPA has no business telling Ca they have to loosen their emissions laws. My DD brought up slavery & I’m like of course not that’s against overall human decency, you can’t have slavery. Then she brought up abortion laws currently in state legislatures around the country, should they be allowed to decide how they want to govern themselves? & I’m like hmmm good point. I don’t know where I stand on anything anymore I guess Mentally ill people do not always have the capacity to make a choice. BUT where is that line. I don’t know I just don’t know. It’s GOT to be more than one relative getting someone sent away to a mental institution though. That’s too risky. I can imagine my Ex having me committed would have been cheaper than divorce. Definitely a fine line to walk. Although I think terrorizing strangers at the grocery store wether or not they have the opportunity to cause harm should be something that should be addressed
|
|
|
Post by crimsoncat05 on Jun 6, 2019 16:31:36 GMT
What an idiot. What an embarrassing idiot. I was listening to the old-time radio channel on Sirius radio this morning, and they played part of Eisenhower's speech to the troops on D-Day... I was struck by the contrast and the eloquence of his speech, and the (sad) state of our current President's public speaking. DT is not inspiring to listen to, in the least.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 20, 2024 0:13:33 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 6, 2019 16:34:09 GMT
This from yesterday..
Steve Scalise..
”Democrats wasted 2 years on witch hunts trying to find nonexistent collusion, and now they're trying to impeach @realdonaldtrump. Instead of wasting everyone's time on conspiracy theories, they should investigate how Obama allowed Russia to threaten our elections under his watch!”
Prompted this meme thing..
”How many Republicans does it take to change a light bulb? None - they would rather sit in the dark and blame it on Obama”
There is a lot of truth in that.
|
|
|
Post by crimsoncat05 on Jun 6, 2019 16:55:08 GMT
how Obama allowed Russia to threaten our elections seriously?!? they really ARE good at passing the buck, aren't they? what ever happened to the idea that 'the buck stops here?' (oh, wait-- I guess they think that *here* is the President's desk when OBAMA was President, and that it doesn't apply to DT.)
|
|
|
Post by pierkiss on Jun 6, 2019 17:04:29 GMT
This is such a difficult issue. On the one hand, I am pro-choice. Period. No one should be able to tell another human what to do with their own body if they aren't harming anyone else. But how do we define harm? The homeless population has exploded in my Southern California city. Most are opiate addicts, many are mentally ill addicts. Their actions are harmful to my community and dangerous for my family. I had to run to the store for milk last week. There is a mentally ill addict who hangs around my local grocery store. He is often clearly agitated and angry, shouting and throwing things. Long story longer, he chased me to my car that night and threw a water bottle at my car. It was terrifying, but the police said there is nothing they can do. He didn't assault me or damage my property. This guy has a right to choose not to take his medication. I have a right to be safe in my community. I don't know the answer. Forced medication goes against my pro-choice beliefs, but I also don't think it's fair to endanger others if you choose not to medicate yourself. I think your right to live in a safe, peaceful community should win out over someone else’s right to be scary, threatening and dangerous (i.e. throwing things at strangers). Does this guy really have a right to choose not to take medication? I think it really boils down to an individual’s level of mental fitness and competence. If a person isn’t in a state of mind where they can make competent decisions for their own wellbeing and that of others in their community, then it becomes a public safety issue to just let them go on being their scary unmedicated self. I honestly don’t know what the answer is either but people are dying out on the street because they are ill, addicted and unable to make competent life decisions. Somehow I don’t think forcing someone to take some meds that could help them live more humanely is worse than that, free will or not. Ok. But what happens when that person is release and under their own control and they choose to stop their meds and strategies?
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Jun 6, 2019 17:24:02 GMT
This from yesterday.. Steve Scalise.. ”Democrats wasted 2 years on witch hunts trying to find nonexistent collusion, and now they're trying to impeach @realdonaldtrump. Instead of wasting everyone's time on conspiracy theories, they should investigate how Obama allowed Russia to threaten our elections under his watch!” Prompted this meme thing.. ”How many Republicans does it take to change a light bulb? None - they would rather sit in the dark and blame it on Obama” There is a lot of truth in that. Wasn't it McConnell who said sit on it! Do not discuss it! McConnell is still sitting on well over 100 bills that the House has passed! And what were the republicans doing for all the years, including dt's first two, they had the House and the Senate?
|
|
|
Post by crazy4scraps on Jun 6, 2019 17:46:01 GMT
I think your right to live in a safe, peaceful community should win out over someone else’s right to be scary, threatening and dangerous (i.e. throwing things at strangers). Does this guy really have a right to choose not to take medication? I think it really boils down to an individual’s level of mental fitness and competence. If a person isn’t in a state of mind where they can make competent decisions for their own wellbeing and that of others in their community, then it becomes a public safety issue to just let them go on being their scary unmedicated self. I honestly don’t know what the answer is either but people are dying out on the street because they are ill, addicted and unable to make competent life decisions. Somehow I don’t think forcing someone to take some meds that could help them live more humanely is worse than that, free will or not. Ok. But what happens when that person is release and under their own control and they choose to stop their meds and strategies? I would think that if the person ended up back where they started as a result of doing that, continuing to endanger themselves and others, it would prove that they are unable to function and live independently in society. Some people honestly can’t handle it and need some sort of ongoing supervision or intervention.
|
|
|
Post by LavenderLayoutLady on Jun 6, 2019 17:54:54 GMT
This can be a good thing or it’s opening Pandora’s Box Press Democrat... “San Francisco to force treatment on mentally ill drug users”SAN FRANCISCO — San Francisco officials decided Tuesday to force some people with serious mental illness and drug addiction into treatment, even if it goes against the spirit of a city known for its fierce protection of civil rights. Several members of the Board of Supervisors voiced deep concerns Tuesday about the possibility of taking away a person's civil liberties, but the proposal for a pilot program passed 10-1. Mayor London Breed and other supporters say the move — known as conservatorship — is necessary to help people who are often homeless, addicted to drugs and have a mental illness, making them a danger to themselves."Allowing people to continue to suffer on our streets is not acceptable or humane, and I am glad the Board of Supervisors supported our approach to finally make a change," Breed said in a statement after the vote. The measure would apply to a handful of people, the city's department of public health estimated, although the number would grow under legislation pending at the state level. Supervisor Shamann Walton was the sole no vote, saying the city didn't have plans in place to reduce the impact on African American people and other minorities who tend to have negative run-ins with police. Several supervisors decided to give the pilot program a try after changes were made that require providers to give the person multiple opportunities to accept voluntary help. They also were encouraged by Breed including more money for additional treatment beds in a proposed budget. By all accounts, the number of people affected will be small, but no matter how small the number, we all need to be watching closely to make sure the impacts are positive," said Supervisor Vallie Brown, a co-sponsor of the proposal. Critics call the measure politically driven and a violation of civil rights that runs against the principles of the liberal city. They say it would lead to locking up people in facilities and that San Francisco lacks the resources to successfully expand the number of people in such a program. "We are concerned about ensuring that persons receive mental health treatment and services in their communities, in supportive housing, in supportive environments — and not in facilities," said Curt Child, legislative director of Disability Rights California. " This is a major civil rights issue in the sense of confining people against their will," he said.San Francisco struggles with income inequality and a growing number of homeless people — some with disturbing behavior tied to drugs, schizophrenia or bipolar disorder. They shuffle from the streets to jail and psychiatric care, unaware they need steady treatment, sometimes dashing into traffic or screaming at strangers. Supervisor Rafael Mandelman, another co-sponsor, says business owners and residents in his district see such people go "from 'kind of not great' to being in absolute and complete distress." Sen. Scott Wiener, a San Francisco Democrat, co-authored state legislation that allows pilot programs in Los Angeles, San Francisco and San Diego counties. He is working on changing that legislation to expand the number of people affected. Too many people are deteriorating and dying on San Francisco's streets, and we have a moral responsibility to help them," he said in a statement after the vote. "It's neither progressive nor compassionate to stand by while people die." Supervisors in San Diego and Los Angeles counties have not officially considered it. Los Angeles County saw a 12% rise in the number of homeless people over the past year. San Francisco's program would allow a court to appoint a public conservator for someone who has been involuntarily detained for psychiatric hospitalization at least eight times in a year. The treatment could last for as long as a year. Only about five people could be forced into treatment in San Francisco, said Rachael Kagan, spokeswoman for the city's Department of Public Health. Wiener's new bill could bump that up to 55, which is the number of people who now fit the definition for at least eight holds. The health department has identified an additional 48 people who have been detained six or seven times.” I'm against this. How long do you think it would take until locking up the mentally ill was handled by for profit corporations, and was handled the same way the for profit prison system is now?
|
|
|
Post by crimsoncat05 on Jun 6, 2019 17:55:50 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 20, 2024 0:13:33 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 6, 2019 18:17:23 GMT
Rental Mariotti...
”Trump lies about Mueller, claiming that Mueller sent a “letter” to correct his “testimony.”
Mueller never testified or sent a letter “correcting” anything.”
Anyone surprised that he lied?
ETA. George Conway...
”Lying about a war hero at a military cemetery just as a solemn, historic commemoration of patriotic sacrifice is about to commence.
This is the President of the United States.
A disgrace to our nation, an embarrassment before the entire world.”
|
|
|
Post by papersilly on Jun 6, 2019 18:27:44 GMT
on a lighter note, i wrote to the White House months ago to get a birthday greeting for my dad who turned 80 a few weeks ago. i made sure i put his birth date on the letter so they knew when to send the card. well, he got birthday greetings, in time, from two past presidents. i collage framed it for him. it was very nice.
three weeks late we get birthday greetings from the current president. i know it's not directly from him but who is running his correspondence office that they couldn't even send the greeting in time? the man never fails to disappoint. LOL
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 20, 2024 0:13:33 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 6, 2019 20:04:05 GMT
Paul Waldman - Washington Post..
“To get something in Washington, it helps to put money in Trump’s pocket”
“One of the insidious things about corruption is how used to it people can become. It’s not so much that it doesn’t continue to bother them, but that it just becomes expected. In places where you have to grease somebody’s palm to get basic services from the government, everyone learns how the system works, and often resign themselves to it.
For the most part, it isn’t something Americans have to worry about in their daily lives. Transparency International ranks the United States as the 22nd least corrupt country in the world, which is quite good (though not as good as the Scandanavian countries, which are all at the top). You usually don’t have to bribe a clerk at the DMV to get your driver’s license renewed, and when instances of corruption like the college admissions scandal are revealed, we’re genuinely surprised.
Nevertheless, we often talk about the political system being corrupt, which in many ways it is. That kind of corruption, however, tends to be done both within the confines of the law and in largely public (even if not widely noticed) ways. Yes, old-fashioned corruption of the “Here’s a suitcase full of cash for that government contract” type is much rarer than it used to be. Instead, we have lobbyists who provide expertise and advice to members of Congress, in addition to timely campaign donations, and a revolving door between industry and federal agencies that winds up aligning their worldviews and priorities. It’s all very civilized.
Or at least it was, until Donald Trump came to Washington claiming he’d “drain the swamp.” While anyone with eyes and ears could see he’d do nothing of the sort, I don’t think we were quite prepared for how clear he would make it to everyone that if you want something from this administration, you have to literally pay the president of the United States.
Here are some recent stories:
The Post reports that an Iraqi sheik who has been pressing the White House and the State Department to take more aggressive steps to overthrow the government of Iran recently “checked into the Trump International Hotel in Washington and spent 26 nights in a suite on the eighth floor — a visit estimated to have cost tens of thousands of dollars.”
ProPublica reports that the payday loan industry, which was desperate to shelve a rule developed under the Obama administration that would make it harder for them to exploit desperate poor people by making them even more desperate and poor, has for the last two years held its annual meeting at the Trump Doral golf course, at a tab of around $1 million. The rule they were so worried about is now in limbo, no longer a threat for the moment.
The president has made a point of visiting his properties as often as possible and at significant government expense. Politico reports that these visits seem to produce higher revenue for the properties, likely from the attendant publicity. On his way back from the 75th anniversary of D-Day, Trump is making a detour to visit the money pit of a golf course he owns in Ireland.
The 2020 Trump campaign is maintaining expensive office space in the struggling Trump Tower, meaning that when you donate to get him reelected, part of the money literally goes in the president’s bank account.
Likewise, the Republican Party and GOP candidates have booked millions of dollars worth of events in Trump properties since he became president, because the best way to show your loyalty to him is to let him wet his beak. So if you donate to the party or another candidate, it’s a fair bet you put money in Trump’s pocket.
The State Department has allowed seven foreign countries to rent luxury condos at another of Trump’s buildings in New York. I suspect he’s well aware of who they are.
While T-Mobile was awaiting government approval of a merger with Sprint, its executives spent nearly $200,000 at Trump’s Washington hotel. Attorney General Barr, in the ultimate show of loyalty to the president, very publicly had a meal at Trump’s hotel, thereby slipping him some cash. What we have here is a system and a set of expectations that have developed. The whole world knows that if you want something from the Trump administration, paying off the president might not be required, but sure it couldn’t hurt.
It would be nice to think that once Trump is no longer president, the expectations around corruption will reset to where they were before he took office, and people in both parties will once again believe the very thought of the president using the presidency to personally enrich himself to be abhorrent. But the alacrity with which Republicans decided that Trump’s brand of corruption is perfectly fine suggests otherwise.
There is another, more hopeful possibility. It’s that the moral squalor of the Trump era will produce a reaction in the other direction, a desire to clean up the system not just so we don’t get another president as corrupt as Trump, but so we can have something better than what we had before he arrived, when the rich and powerful already were well able to twist policy for their benefit.
One can hope.
|
|
|
Post by hop2 on Jun 6, 2019 21:09:02 GMT
What an idiot. What an embarrassing idiot. I was listening to the old-time radio channel on Sirius radio this morning, and they played part of Eisenhower's speech to the troops on D-Day... I was struck by the contrast and the eloquence of his speech, and the (sad) state of our current President's public speaking. DT is not inspiring to listen to, in the least. apparently he is too someone
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 20, 2024 0:13:33 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 6, 2019 21:35:34 GMT
We all know trump tells lies. Well most of us do anyhow.
But unless he is being sarcastic, his lies have hit an all time low..
trump today..
”Just signed Disaster Aid Bill to help Americans who have been hit by recent catastrophic storms. So important for our GREAT American farmers and ranchers. Help for GA, FL, IA, NE, NC, and CA. Puerto Rico should love President Trump. Without me, they would have been shut out!”
He almost didn’t sign the bill because money was included for Puerto Rico.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 20, 2024 0:13:33 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 6, 2019 23:58:12 GMT
Stephen Schwartz...
”Instead of staying in France tonight after visiting Normandy to mark the 75th anniversary of D-Day, Trump flew all the way back to Doonbeg, Ireland, to spend a second night at his own unprofitable resort because, he says, "it’s convenient and it’s a great place." (cc: @waltshaub)”
Convenient?
|
|
|
Post by redhead32 on Jun 7, 2019 2:15:33 GMT
This is such a difficult issue. On the one hand, I am pro-choice. Period. No one should be able to tell another human what to do with their own body if they aren't harming anyone else. But how do we define harm? The homeless population has exploded in my Southern California city. Most are opiate addicts, many are mentally ill addicts. Their actions are harmful to my community and dangerous for my family. I had to run to the store for milk last week. There is a mentally ill addict who hangs around my local grocery store. He is often clearly agitated and angry, shouting and throwing things. Long story longer, he chased me to my car that night and threw a water bottle at my car. It was terrifying, but the police said there is nothing they can do. He didn't assault me or damage my property. This guy has a right to choose not to take his medication. I have a right to be safe in my community. I don't know the answer. Forced medication goes against my pro-choice beliefs, but I also don't think it's fair to endanger others if you choose not to medicate yourself. I have the same conundrum when it comes to states rights & home rule. I have always been in favor of ‘home rule’ per se because the citizens of that area know how they want to govern themselves. For example stricter emissions laws in California, I firmly believe California has every right to have strict emissions laws, I was there in the 80’s I know what they are battling against. The EPA has no business telling Ca they have to loosen their emissions laws. My DD brought up slavery & I’m like of course not that’s against overall human decency, you can’t have slavery. Then she brought up abortion laws currently in state legislatures around the country, should they be allowed to decide how they want to govern themselves? & I’m like hmmm good point. I don’t know where I stand on anything anymore I guess Mentally ill people do not always have the capacity to make a choice. BUT where is that line. I don’t know I just don’t know. It’s GOT to be more than one relative getting someone sent away to a mental institution though. That’s too risky. I can imagine my Ex having me committed would have been cheaper than divorce. Definitely a fine line to walk. Although I think terrorizing strangers at the grocery store wether or not they have the opportunity to cause harm should be something that should be addressed So it isn't exactly the same thing, but in MN you used to be able to be committed if you are a danger to yourself or others. The process started with a 72 hour hold (involuntary, usually), often initiated by family members. There were court hearings and expert witnesses. Once the hold was up, then there would be additional hearings to commit the patient for up to 6 months. I suspect the California version will do something similar. There will be hearings, which will take time, and the issue of where to hold/house people. MN used to have multiple state hospital facilities. I don't think they are used anymore, but I don't know for sure. It shouldn't be a case of an angry ex being able to haul someone to court and have them involuntarily treated or held. The process should protect the patient while balancing the danger - like the scary person who chased inkedup to her car and threw the water bottle.
|
|
|
Post by redhead32 on Jun 7, 2019 2:19:04 GMT
Ok. But what happens when that person is release and under their own control and they choose to stop their meds and strategies? I would think that if the person ended up back where they started as a result of doing that, continuing to endanger themselves and others, it would prove that they are unable to function and live independently in society. Some people honestly can’t handle it and need some sort of ongoing supervision or intervention. In MN, it could mean recommittment. Repeat as needed.
|
|
|
Post by dewryce on Jun 7, 2019 3:07:06 GMT
pierkiss, I do get where you are coming from and I’m having a lot of the same kind of thoughts about slippery slopes and who makes the determination as to who can’t make their own decisions because they are temporarily basically mentally incompetent and how to avoid people taking advantage of that for nefarious reasons. But I think we need to remember many of these people aren’t in their right minds. And I’m not even saying “crazy.” There have absolutely been times when I wasn’t really cognizant of my situation, how bad things were, the true reality of how bad things were. And I didn’t/couldn’t realize that until I was medicated. I have bipolar disorder, and mine isn’t even that severe. I don’t suffer from delusions and I have only had one mental break. From what I understand a large portion of the homeless with mental disorders are pretty severe. These aren’t people with occasional bouts of anxiety or “just” narcissists. So an all out lock everyone up treatment plan isn’t the way to go, but I can see the benefit of people being treated and helped to recover to the point of taking back their lives. I think the conversion therapy argument is a false equivalence. Well, maybe not with this administration, but I don’t think we can base much on that. They have shown holes in our system of checks and balances that MUST be changed for much of our government to work. But in general, one is the treatment of a mental illness/disease, and would involve people professionals making health decisions for someone who is not mentally capable of doing so at the time. The other is trying to change an immutable characteristic of someone else because it doesn’t fit your religious views.
|
|