American Politics Thread V: We're Just Biden Our Time ...

[Necroghastia]

I, for one, welcome our new sexy Chiss overlords.

What if they end up looking like Thermians or Xenomorphs?

You say that as though it's a bad thing.

[Luminesa]

This is also crucial because the historic flooding in parts of Louisiana (that’s right, folks, hurricane season came early) means many people are out of work or worse.

...
i don't know whether to celebrate JBE now or rage at the chamber of commerce
i shall do both

Pretty sure that commission that Congress is voting on is supposed to deal with things like investigating that.

29 R'S AND COUNTING

I don’t blame you. Though JBE was fast to declare a state of emergency for the flooding. So that’s good.

[Luminesa]

With that many in the house, maybe some in the Senate will support. I am pretty sure we already have 4 in the Senate.

Well, I feel the likes of Murkowski, Romney, Collins, and maybe Sasse, Cassidy, Toomey, Portman, and Burr. Assuming all do (which I have no clue on the latter 5), they would only need two. But it will force Republicans to go on the record that they opposed an investigation into an insurrection that attempted to undermine American Democracy if they choose that route.

Cassidy seems to have suggested that he’s open to a Commission.

[San Lumen]

https://www.oregonlive.com/politics/202 ... tates.html

Five Oregon counties voted to join Idaho yesterday via a referendum. It will go nowhere as both state governments would have to approve it and Salem never would. Congress would never approve it either which would be next step.

[Immortan Khan]

I'm very much a believer in aliens since it seems laughably unlikely that we are the sole island of life in the universe, however, having said that, I do require more proof than a government saying 'this is kind of freaky and we don't know what it was'.

I will certainly grant that alien visitation is a possibility, but far from the confirmed only explanation, considering the fallibility of humans, glitches in technology and frankly weird shit that can go on outside of alien activity.

I would agree if it was just a handful of incidences that happened relatively recently. It is however very different when it spans many decades and includes various events that had not been known even to dedicated UFOlogists and further that the US government seems baffled, if not at times seemingly concerned, about these events.

[Galloism]

I'm not actually kidding about that. It is an order of magnitude more likely that dolphins have developed an advanced underwater civilization we don't understand, have developed flying machines half filled with water that are controlled using their flippers, and are spying on us than there are aliens from another planet that have traveled across the cosmos to our little planet, discovered us, and are spying on us.

Anon, I know it's hard to accept that it's increasingly more likely that we are being observed by alien Jane Goodall but seriously saying it's highly unlikely given how government officials are responding to it and what they've said is really bewildering about these encounters is going into denialism.

"Increasingly more likely" is a phrase without meaning. It is increasingly more likely that a person who buys a lottery ticket will win the lottery than someone who doesn't buy a lottery ticket, but that doesn't make it likely.

[Thermodolia]

It's funny to me how apologists keep insisting that people are overreacting to the insanity of the GOP when it's literally on loud and proud public display.

Like, your friendly reminder that the State of Arizona is conducting an audit of an election they lost 6 months ago, using an out of state company with no election experience being funded by...nobody actually knows, and that amidst a general shitshow of unsecured ballots and computer illiterate employees, is literally pointing UV lights at ballots based on a QAnon conspiracy theory from the election that Trump ordered millions of ballots printed with secret watermarks as part of his Master Plan(tm) to expose all the Democratic voter fraud.

Actually the state isn’t doing the Audit, they are just paying it. Some company that is full of morons is doing it. And this company is receiving outside funds and is being roasted by the republican controlled Maricopa county Twitter.

[Thermodolia]

Rep. Paul Gosar (R-AZ) claims the Democrats "aided and abetted" the Capitol Storming

ep. Paul Gosar (R-AZ) appeared on a conspiracy theory show that streams on Facebook and claimed that the Democratic leadership “actually aided and abetted” the January 6 insurrection. He also agreed with the host’s characterization that people arrested for participating in the Capitol attack are being held as political prisoners and said that Democrats are using the “narrative” of January 6 and the coronavirus pandemic “to really put a persecution on this country, to change its demographic.”

Gosar has palled around with and supported far-right media figures. He was recently a keynote speaker at a white nationalist conference and met with white nationalist Nick Fuentes. Gosar is also a fan of Ali Alexander, who helped organize so-called “Stop the Steal” events and has a history of violent rhetoric.

Gosar appeared on the May 18 edition of the Stew Peters Show, an online program that streams on Facebook and other platforms. Peters, who has worked as a bail bondsman, is a right-wing conspiracy theorist who has claimed that “the left incited the violence” on January 6 “in a total setup manufactured by” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), “and the criminal progressives.” He also wrote that “legacy media,” including CNN, MSNBC, Newsmax, and Fox News, “ALL abandoned the fight for TRUTH and went with the LIE.” In making that claim, Peters was promoting a debunked video that supposedly “destroys" the "‘insurrection' narrative” because the U.S. Capitol Police purportedly allowed “protesters inside" the Capitol. (The video does not show that.)

Prior to introducing Gosar, Peters referenced that video and said, “The entire January 6 event was a Hollywood-like script written and played out by Democrats as a distraction away from the political assassination of President Donald J. Trump, the installation of a dictatorial and radical regime and a globalist agenda to force subservience from everyone to the state.” During his interview, in which the death of Ashli Babbitt was discussed, Peters told Gosar: “I hope that I'm wrong but it's my opinion that they needed a death that day, and they weren't going to get it from peaceful and patriotic Trump supporters. It had to be manufactured.”

Gosar echoed Peters’ rhetoric about January 6 during his appearance on the show. Gosar and Peters referenced video of Capitol Police, and Peters asked Gosar if he believed that January 6 “was a complete setup? Was it a premeditated plan to distract away from all of these events that were occurring around the election?” Gosar replied: “What I believe is a few bad apples utilized this to their benefit, and it was aided and abetted by leadership. …They actually aided and abetted, from my standpoint, that facilitation by not following protocols.”

PAUL GOSAR: The little snippet that we saw this weekend now shows, you know, Capitol Police talking to people and then allowing “go, go, go,” you know, moving barricades. Once again we need to see it. This is public footage from the public building. The people's house is paid at taxpayer expense. We need to put it out here. The narrative has got to stop.

STEW PETERS: So you've seen this video that you referenced. Was, so after seeing that video, congressman, is it your opinion that January 6 was a complete setup? Was it a premeditated plan to distract away from all of these events that were occurring around the election?

GOSAR: What I believe is a few bad apples utilized this to their benefit, and it was aided and abetted by leadership. I'll give you an example. So when President Trump saw the huge gathering the day before, over -- across from White House, he initially gave access to 1,000 to 10,000 National Guard troops. The FBI at the Norfolk division sent out a blast that they got wind of some type of problem coming. Supposedly no one got that. But this Capitol Police turned down an additional hundred Capitol Police officers. They turned it down. And who does that come from? Nancy Pelosi. Pelosi is responsible for the security of the Capitol buildings. So, you know, her ineptness, you know, when you've got an inauguration coming in a couple weeks after this, you're not beefing up? Every time I've been here for an inauguration, security is beefed up. So they actually aided and abetted, from my standpoint, that facilitation by not following protocols and threat assessment.

PETERS: Well you call it inept, I think it's intentional. And I think that that's going to come to light and I'm pretty sure that you know that, which is why you're up there asking the tough questions and writing the letters that you're writing asking for this information.

When asked if he viewed the people arrested for participating in the January 6 insurrection “as political prisoners,” Gosar replied: “Absolutely. … We wouldn’t even do this on our worst enemies, for criminy sakes. We don't even do this in Gitmo.” (During a recent House hearing, Gosar said that the Department of Justice is “harassing peaceful patriots across the country" regarding January 6.)

The Republican congressman later theorized that Democrats are using January 6 and the COVID-19 pandemic to change the country’s demographics, stating: “We have the perfect storm where they use the narrative of the 6th and COVID to really put a persecution on this country, to change its demographic, to change its outlook. And, you know, it's now beholden to the federal government instead of being the government, they’re beholden to this federal government.”

Toward the end of the interview, Gosar also discussed the sham Arizona presidential audit and stated: “I think this is going to be contagious. … This isn't over by a long shot.”

As a new Arizonan, Gosar can kindly fuck off

[San Lumen]

https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/5 ... in-schools

Utah legislature passes prohibition on mask mandates in schools

[Sincluda]

https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/554476-utah-legislature-passes-prohibition-on-mask-mandates-in-schools

Utah legislature passes prohibition on mask mandates in schools

Wait, that was a prohibition? Shiiiit, I thought it was just a mandate lift. But can they seriously not wait until school is out? My last shot is on the last day of school, and this is the biggest slap in the face. Props to Cox for fighting it best he could though.

[Postauthoritarian America]

Well, I feel the likes of Murkowski, Romney, Collins, and maybe Sasse, Cassidy, Toomey, Portman, and Burr. Assuming all do (which I have no clue on the latter 5), they would only need two. But it will force Republicans to go on the record that they opposed an investigation into an insurrection that attempted to undermine American Democracy if they choose that route.

Cassidy seems to have suggested that he’s open to a Commission.

1. There aren't 10 Republican votes in the Senate to impeach a man who incited a violent mob to attack them.

2. Republicans won't let any pesky thing like a filibuster stop them from doing exactly what they want to do if they ever regain a position to do it.

3. Time to shitcan the filibuster. It, like the Electoral College, is a perversion of democracy that does nothing but privilege the most reactionary elements in American society, which these days means insurrectionists and traitors.

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

I don't know where else to post this, I thought about TET but I don't want to contaminate TET with politics.

I'm getting worried for my own sanity and American politics as a whole.

I said this, but I'm worried how much I meant it.

avoiding 'us vs them' mentality died when Trump supporters not only clang on to there bullshit beliefs of "da election waz stolen!11 ornge man said soo!111" but then attacked the US capital in what looks like sounds like and was imo a terrorist attack.

It is now Us vs Them. You are either a traitor to democracy to own da libs or you fight for the republic and liberty.

With the latest Repub after Repub not only continuing to believe that the election was ""Stolen"" but refusing to back the commission into the terrorist attack (imo) are we really at us vs them? Or am I just becoming an extremist?
Is SD_Film right? Is there a way to fight the 'Us vs them' mentality or is it already over?

[Albrenia]

It is a little weird that the people who keep calling themselves Patriots are the ones constantly acting like actual traitors.

Still incredibly lucky that the focus of this hero worship is a buffoon like Trump, rather than someone intelligent enough to properly harness the devotion thrown at his feet. Chilling to think about, really.

[Kowani]

Portland declares war on homeless people

The city of Portland announced Wednesday it plans to more aggressively clean, downsize or remove homeless encampments starting Monday.

After a year of avoiding or limiting encampment evictions, the city will act more strictly. The change comes after officials in charge of cleaning and removing street camping sites concluded their passive approach “has been ineffective,” according to a memo released by the city. Instead of allowing extended time for campers to comply with rules – including separating tents by at least six feet and keeping sidewalks, building entrances and accessibility ramps clear for pedestrians – the city will instead immediately post an eviction notice if certain health and safety concerns are present. The office that wrote the new rules answers to Portland Mayor Ted Wheeler via his chief administrative officer and longtime ally Tom Rinehart.

“We have found that encampments return to a state of non-compliance within a matter of days, if not hours, depending on the location,” according to the memo written by city staff.

In a joint statement, all five city commissioners expressed support for the change, casting the stepped up evictions as good for people experiencing homelessness.

“These new protocols reprioritize public health and safety among houseless Portlanders and aim to improve sanitary conditions until we have additional shelter beds and housing available,” Wheeler and the rest of the City Council wrote. “Bureaus are currently inventorying city-owned properties for viable shelter or camping sites.” The city does not know, however, how quickly or in what number new shelters on city property or elsewhere will open.

Tony Ngo, who has been living in a tent for six months in Old Town, said he believes the city should have more sanctioned campsites or tiny home villages available before kicking people off the sidewalk where they currently sleep. He said the cycle of tent removals is harmful to people who have nowhere else to go.

“I was asked to leave where I was sleeping because a business didn’t want me there, so they kicked me out because they said I was impacting tourism,” Ngo said. “But it is hard to find another place to go because wherever I go, they kick me out, so it is hard to figure out where I can sleep.”

THE NEW RULES

Immediate eviction notices will be posted at high-impact campsites which meet at least one of the following criteria, the city memo says:

Human waste is prevalent
Biohazardous materials, including needles, are present
City officials declare an encampment a fire hazard
Observers report repeated violence or criminal activity
The encampment is impacting a school
Tents and other materials are blocking sidewalks or impacting access to curb cuts or other accessibility measures
The city will prioritize evictions at encampments that have eight or more structures, a provision that would apply to many camp clusters around the city.

City officials and contractors will continue to give individuals 48 hours notice before an eviction, the memo says. However, the protocol change will eliminate the 24-hour compliance notice that typically would have come before the eviction notice. This means campers will have two days to pack up their belongings and move elsewhere before the city returns to remove any remaining personal belongings.

Additionally, the outreach team is no longer required to work with individuals at high-impact campsites before posting an eviction notice, said Heather Hafer, public information officer for the city department that oversees encampment clean ups. This means the city won’t always offer shelter or services prior to evicting campers, though they plan to continue sending their outreach team to many of the sites.

Eric Tars, legal director of the National Homelessness Law Center, said cities cannot legally displace people unless an adequate alternative place to sleep is provided.

Under a 2018 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling in a case out of Boise, the court decided that governments cannot criminalize conduct that is unavoidable as a result of experiencing homelessness. To punish a homeless individual for sleeping outside when there aren’t enough shelter beds would be comparable to punishing that individual for the fact that they are homeless, a consequence the court described as a cruel and unusual.

"The city (of Portland) says they are currently looking at alternative sites for shelters and sanctioned encampments and they haven’t found them yet, but they want to start this new policy immediately … The underlying principle remains the same: you cannot and should not displace people unless you can provide an adequate alternative,” Tars said.

In his view, only offering people beds at congregate indoor shelter where individuals say they don’t feel safe sleeping does not qualify as “adequate,” Tars added.

“If there is a homeless veteran with PTSD who won’t feel safe in a congregate situation, then that shelter bed is not an adequate alternative,” Tars said.

Tars said he doesn’t believe people are “shelter resistant,” but believes cities often don’t provide the type of dignified, safe shelter that people need.

Tars said he couldn’t immediately say if Portland’s new policy is illegal without reviewing it further, but he said he doesn’t believe the policy is focused on helping individuals experiencing homelessness. At low-impact campsites, the city will continue to provide garbage removal and offer shelter, supportive services and survival gear including coats and tents.

Melissa Warkentin, who sleeps amid a row of tents on Northwest Sixth Avenue near Davis Street, said the navigation team rarely offered comprehensive services to her or her houseless neighbors even before these new rule changes.

“It is hit or miss if you see (the navigation team),” said Warkentin, who has experienced homelessness for the past three years. “They pick and choose who they help, but mostly they just offer food, hygiene kits or access to showers. It would be more helpful if actual caseworkers regularly came out to help with housing.”

Since launching in January 2019, the outreach team has provided housing referrals to just 4% of the 918 individuals they engaged with, according to outcome data that was last updated in March. The team also helped 27% of those they talked to receive identification, 13% sign up for the Oregon Health Plan and 4% be admitted to a substance abuse treatment center. [...] Warkentin believes more time should be spent enforcing cleanliness rather than evicting campers.

“If one tent among the many tents is messy, they will make us all move,” she said. “They will tell us two move two blocks up or they will tell us there is nowhere for us to move to, but then new people will just move into the spot where we were kicked out and they will be allowed to stay.”

[Neutraligon]

Portland declares war on homeless people

The city of Portland announced Wednesday it plans to more aggressively clean, downsize or remove homeless encampments starting Monday.

After a year of avoiding or limiting encampment evictions, the city will act more strictly. The change comes after officials in charge of cleaning and removing street camping sites concluded their passive approach “has been ineffective,” according to a memo released by the city. Instead of allowing extended time for campers to comply with rules – including separating tents by at least six feet and keeping sidewalks, building entrances and accessibility ramps clear for pedestrians – the city will instead immediately post an eviction notice if certain health and safety concerns are present. The office that wrote the new rules answers to Portland Mayor Ted Wheeler via his chief administrative officer and longtime ally Tom Rinehart.

“We have found that encampments return to a state of non-compliance within a matter of days, if not hours, depending on the location,” according to the memo written by city staff.

In a joint statement, all five city commissioners expressed support for the change, casting the stepped up evictions as good for people experiencing homelessness.

“These new protocols reprioritize public health and safety among houseless Portlanders and aim to improve sanitary conditions until we have additional shelter beds and housing available,” Wheeler and the rest of the City Council wrote. “Bureaus are currently inventorying city-owned properties for viable shelter or camping sites.” The city does not know, however, how quickly or in what number new shelters on city property or elsewhere will open.

Tony Ngo, who has been living in a tent for six months in Old Town, said he believes the city should have more sanctioned campsites or tiny home villages available before kicking people off the sidewalk where they currently sleep. He said the cycle of tent removals is harmful to people who have nowhere else to go.

“I was asked to leave where I was sleeping because a business didn’t want me there, so they kicked me out because they said I was impacting tourism,” Ngo said. “But it is hard to find another place to go because wherever I go, they kick me out, so it is hard to figure out where I can sleep.”

THE NEW RULES

Immediate eviction notices will be posted at high-impact campsites which meet at least one of the following criteria, the city memo says:

Human waste is prevalent
Biohazardous materials, including needles, are present
City officials declare an encampment a fire hazard
Observers report repeated violence or criminal activity
The encampment is impacting a school
Tents and other materials are blocking sidewalks or impacting access to curb cuts or other accessibility measures
The city will prioritize evictions at encampments that have eight or more structures, a provision that would apply to many camp clusters around the city.

City officials and contractors will continue to give individuals 48 hours notice before an eviction, the memo says. However, the protocol change will eliminate the 24-hour compliance notice that typically would have come before the eviction notice. This means campers will have two days to pack up their belongings and move elsewhere before the city returns to remove any remaining personal belongings.

Additionally, the outreach team is no longer required to work with individuals at high-impact campsites before posting an eviction notice, said Heather Hafer, public information officer for the city department that oversees encampment clean ups. This means the city won’t always offer shelter or services prior to evicting campers, though they plan to continue sending their outreach team to many of the sites.

Eric Tars, legal director of the National Homelessness Law Center, said cities cannot legally displace people unless an adequate alternative place to sleep is provided.

Under a 2018 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling in a case out of Boise, the court decided that governments cannot criminalize conduct that is unavoidable as a result of experiencing homelessness. To punish a homeless individual for sleeping outside when there aren’t enough shelter beds would be comparable to punishing that individual for the fact that they are homeless, a consequence the court described as a cruel and unusual.

"The city (of Portland) says they are currently looking at alternative sites for shelters and sanctioned encampments and they haven’t found them yet, but they want to start this new policy immediately … The underlying principle remains the same: you cannot and should not displace people unless you can provide an adequate alternative,” Tars said.

In his view, only offering people beds at congregate indoor shelter where individuals say they don’t feel safe sleeping does not qualify as “adequate,” Tars added.

“If there is a homeless veteran with PTSD who won’t feel safe in a congregate situation, then that shelter bed is not an adequate alternative,” Tars said.

Tars said he doesn’t believe people are “shelter resistant,” but believes cities often don’t provide the type of dignified, safe shelter that people need.

Tars said he couldn’t immediately say if Portland’s new policy is illegal without reviewing it further, but he said he doesn’t believe the policy is focused on helping individuals experiencing homelessness. At low-impact campsites, the city will continue to provide garbage removal and offer shelter, supportive services and survival gear including coats and tents.

Melissa Warkentin, who sleeps amid a row of tents on Northwest Sixth Avenue near Davis Street, said the navigation team rarely offered comprehensive services to her or her houseless neighbors even before these new rule changes.

“It is hit or miss if you see (the navigation team),” said Warkentin, who has experienced homelessness for the past three years. “They pick and choose who they help, but mostly they just offer food, hygiene kits or access to showers. It would be more helpful if actual caseworkers regularly came out to help with housing.”

Since launching in January 2019, the outreach team has provided housing referrals to just 4% of the 918 individuals they engaged with, according to outcome data that was last updated in March. The team also helped 27% of those they talked to receive identification, 13% sign up for the Oregon Health Plan and 4% be admitted to a substance abuse treatment center. [...] Warkentin believes more time should be spent enforcing cleanliness rather than evicting campers.

“If one tent among the many tents is messy, they will make us all move,” she said. “They will tell us two move two blocks up or they will tell us there is nowhere for us to move to, but then new people will just move into the spot where we were kicked out and they will be allowed to stay.”

This is stupid. If people have nowhere to go what exactly does the commission expect them to do? I get it, there are encampments everywhere in downtown portland, and I mean everywhere, but that just tells me there is an issue with housing that the city is clearly not dealing with. How about first you open up new beds then make this change? I am serious the issue is pervasive in Portland. I expect that we will see more anti-homeless architecture around the city.

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

Portland declares war on homeless people

The city of Portland announced Wednesday it plans to more aggressively clean, downsize or remove homeless encampments starting Monday.

After a year of avoiding or limiting encampment evictions, the city will act more strictly. The change comes after officials in charge of cleaning and removing street camping sites concluded their passive approach “has been ineffective,” according to a memo released by the city. Instead of allowing extended time for campers to comply with rules – including separating tents by at least six feet and keeping sidewalks, building entrances and accessibility ramps clear for pedestrians – the city will instead immediately post an eviction notice if certain health and safety concerns are present. The office that wrote the new rules answers to Portland Mayor Ted Wheeler via his chief administrative officer and longtime ally Tom Rinehart.

“We have found that encampments return to a state of non-compliance within a matter of days, if not hours, depending on the location,” according to the memo written by city staff.

In a joint statement, all five city commissioners expressed support for the change, casting the stepped up evictions as good for people experiencing homelessness.

“These new protocols reprioritize public health and safety among houseless Portlanders and aim to improve sanitary conditions until we have additional shelter beds and housing available,” Wheeler and the rest of the City Council wrote. “Bureaus are currently inventorying city-owned properties for viable shelter or camping sites.” The city does not know, however, how quickly or in what number new shelters on city property or elsewhere will open.

Tony Ngo, who has been living in a tent for six months in Old Town, said he believes the city should have more sanctioned campsites or tiny home villages available before kicking people off the sidewalk where they currently sleep. He said the cycle of tent removals is harmful to people who have nowhere else to go.

“I was asked to leave where I was sleeping because a business didn’t want me there, so they kicked me out because they said I was impacting tourism,” Ngo said. “But it is hard to find another place to go because wherever I go, they kick me out, so it is hard to figure out where I can sleep.”

THE NEW RULES

Immediate eviction notices will be posted at high-impact campsites which meet at least one of the following criteria, the city memo says:

Human waste is prevalent
Biohazardous materials, including needles, are present
City officials declare an encampment a fire hazard
Observers report repeated violence or criminal activity
The encampment is impacting a school
Tents and other materials are blocking sidewalks or impacting access to curb cuts or other accessibility measures
The city will prioritize evictions at encampments that have eight or more structures, a provision that would apply to many camp clusters around the city.

City officials and contractors will continue to give individuals 48 hours notice before an eviction, the memo says. However, the protocol change will eliminate the 24-hour compliance notice that typically would have come before the eviction notice. This means campers will have two days to pack up their belongings and move elsewhere before the city returns to remove any remaining personal belongings.

Additionally, the outreach team is no longer required to work with individuals at high-impact campsites before posting an eviction notice, said Heather Hafer, public information officer for the city department that oversees encampment clean ups. This means the city won’t always offer shelter or services prior to evicting campers, though they plan to continue sending their outreach team to many of the sites.

Eric Tars, legal director of the National Homelessness Law Center, said cities cannot legally displace people unless an adequate alternative place to sleep is provided.

Under a 2018 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling in a case out of Boise, the court decided that governments cannot criminalize conduct that is unavoidable as a result of experiencing homelessness. To punish a homeless individual for sleeping outside when there aren’t enough shelter beds would be comparable to punishing that individual for the fact that they are homeless, a consequence the court described as a cruel and unusual.

"The city (of Portland) says they are currently looking at alternative sites for shelters and sanctioned encampments and they haven’t found them yet, but they want to start this new policy immediately … The underlying principle remains the same: you cannot and should not displace people unless you can provide an adequate alternative,” Tars said.

In his view, only offering people beds at congregate indoor shelter where individuals say they don’t feel safe sleeping does not qualify as “adequate,” Tars added.

“If there is a homeless veteran with PTSD who won’t feel safe in a congregate situation, then that shelter bed is not an adequate alternative,” Tars said.

Tars said he doesn’t believe people are “shelter resistant,” but believes cities often don’t provide the type of dignified, safe shelter that people need.

Tars said he couldn’t immediately say if Portland’s new policy is illegal without reviewing it further, but he said he doesn’t believe the policy is focused on helping individuals experiencing homelessness. At low-impact campsites, the city will continue to provide garbage removal and offer shelter, supportive services and survival gear including coats and tents.

Melissa Warkentin, who sleeps amid a row of tents on Northwest Sixth Avenue near Davis Street, said the navigation team rarely offered comprehensive services to her or her houseless neighbors even before these new rule changes.

“It is hit or miss if you see (the navigation team),” said Warkentin, who has experienced homelessness for the past three years. “They pick and choose who they help, but mostly they just offer food, hygiene kits or access to showers. It would be more helpful if actual caseworkers regularly came out to help with housing.”

Since launching in January 2019, the outreach team has provided housing referrals to just 4% of the 918 individuals they engaged with, according to outcome data that was last updated in March. The team also helped 27% of those they talked to receive identification, 13% sign up for the Oregon Health Plan and 4% be admitted to a substance abuse treatment center. [...] Warkentin believes more time should be spent enforcing cleanliness rather than evicting campers.

“If one tent among the many tents is messy, they will make us all move,” she said. “They will tell us two move two blocks up or they will tell us there is nowhere for us to move to, but then new people will just move into the spot where we were kicked out and they will be allowed to stay.”

What the hell is Portland?

It seems like right now it's going to get hated by both the left and right with whats going on in it.

[Shrillland]

I don't know where else to post this, I thought about TET but I don't want to contaminate TET with politics.

I'm getting worried for my own sanity and American politics as a whole.

I said this, but I'm worried how much I meant it.

avoiding 'us vs them' mentality died when Trump supporters not only clang on to there bullshit beliefs of "da election waz stolen!11 ornge man said soo!111" but then attacked the US capital in what looks like sounds like and was imo a terrorist attack.

It is now Us vs Them. You are either a traitor to democracy to own da libs or you fight for the republic and liberty.

With the latest Repub after Repub not only continuing to believe that the election was ""Stolen"" but refusing to back the commission into the terrorist attack (imo) are we really at us vs them? Or am I just becoming an extremist?
Is SD_Film right? Is there a way to fight the 'Us vs them' mentality or is it already over?

This might not be what you want to hear as a response...but I have to speak honestly.

If the idea of political peaceful coexistence is not already dead in the United States, it is so close to the point of death that you would need an electron microscope to find the daylight between them. What we saw on January 6 and what we've seen from most Republicans since is the culmination of 40 years of self-repeating misinformation and gaslighting by the ideological media, particularly the right-wing ideological media. The extremism of Trumpism and the rise of things like QAnon couldn't have been possible without a feedback loop of hatred constantly looking for ways to make your opponents into enemies and your enemies into inhuman monsters.

Kowani has shown on several occasions how this reinforced bubble has affected their world view from being just something we can disagree yet still be friends on into something far more dangerous. Republicans are now backing these lies because they're afraid of their constituents after January 6 and because, no matter how bad their leaders may be, the Dems and the Liberals and everybody against them is an existential threat. We don't even live in the same reality, and that's hell for people like you and me. Worse still, they think the exact same thing about us, that we don't live in reality and need to wake up. Although there are still many Republicans who hate what's happening, their numbers, either through fear or embracing of ideas, shrink hourly.

So, yes. For all intents and purposes, unless something radical changes in our mindsets or our political system to eliminate big tent parties that lead to these horrific ideological black holes, it's already over.

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

I don't know where else to post this, I thought about TET but I don't want to contaminate TET with politics.

I'm getting worried for my own sanity and American politics as a whole.

I said this, but I'm worried how much I meant it.



With the latest Repub after Repub not only continuing to believe that the election was ""Stolen"" but refusing to back the commission into the terrorist attack (imo) are we really at us vs them? Or am I just becoming an extremist?
Is SD_Film right? Is there a way to fight the 'Us vs them' mentality or is it already over?

This might not be what you want to hear as a response...but I have to speak honestly.

If the idea of political peaceful coexistence is not already dead in the United States, it is so close to the point of death that you would need an electron microscope to find the daylight between them. What we saw on January 6 and what we've seen from most Republicans since is the culmination of 40 years of self-repeating misinformation and gaslighting by the ideological media, particularly the right-wing ideological media. The extremism of Trumpism and the rise of things like QAnon couldn't have been possible without a feedback loop of hatred constantly looking for ways to make your opponents into enemies and your enemies into inhuman monsters.

Kowani has shown on several occasions how this reinforced bubble has affected their world view from being just something we can disagree yet still be friends on into something far more dangerous. Republicans are now backing these lies because they're afraid of their constituents after January 6 and because, no matter how bad their leaders may be, the Dems and the Liberals and everybody against them is an existential threat. We don't even live in the same reality, and that's hell for people like you and me. Worse still, they think the exact same thing about us, that we don't live in reality and need to wake up. Although there are still many Republicans who hate what's happening, their numbers, either through fear or embracing of ideas, shrink hourly.

So, yes. For all intents and purposes, unless something radical changes in our mindsets or our political system to eliminate big tent parties that lead to these horrific ideological black holes, it's already over.

I see. This is horrible.

I don't know how to feel about this.

At least I know i'm not becoming the thing I swore to destroy...

but still fuck me this is bad

[Immortan Khan]

Anon, I know it's hard to accept that it's increasingly more likely that we are being observed by alien Jane Goodall but seriously saying it's highly unlikely given how government officials are responding to it and what they've said is really bewildering about these encounters is going into denialism.

"Increasingly more likely" is a phrase without meaning. It is increasingly more likely that a person who buys a lottery ticket will win the lottery than someone who doesn't buy a lottery ticket, but that doesn't make it likely.

So what do you propose is the likely situation involving these encounters that span decades, numerous administrations, and perform feats that current technology is incapable of performing?

[San Lumen]

https://fox17.com/news/local/tennessee- ... -lgbtq-law

Tennessee Gov. Bill Lee signs ban on gender-confirming treatment into law

[San Lumen]

https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watc ... for-family

A federal criminal investigation into New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D) is reportedly expanding to examine priority COVID-19 testing for his family and associates, according to multiple reports.

The New York Times reported that investigators in the U.S. attorney’s office for the Eastern District of New York are looking into whether the governor’s administration had a priority testing program that benefited his close family members and associates early in the pandemic.

[The Alma Mater]

It's funny to me how apologists keep insisting that people are overreacting to the insanity of the GOP when it's literally on loud and proud public display.

Like, your friendly reminder that the State of Arizona is conducting an audit of an election they lost 6 months ago, using an out of state company with no election experience being funded by...nobody actually knows, and that amidst a general shitshow of unsecured ballots and computer illiterate employees, is literally pointing UV lights at ballots based on a QAnon conspiracy theory from the election that Trump ordered millions of ballots printed with secret watermarks as part of his Master Plan(tm) to expose all the Democratic voter fraud.

don't forget looking for bamboo ballots from Asia!

And claiming that ballots were fed to chickens, after which the farm was set on fire.

[New haven america]

What if they end up looking like Thermians or Xenomorphs?

You say that as though it's a bad thing.

It's not, tentacles are always fun.

But I know others are much less accepting of other biological differences within sentient and sapient species.

[Kowani]

I don't know where else to post this, I thought about TET but I don't want to contaminate TET with politics.

I'm getting worried for my own sanity and American politics as a whole.

I said this, but I'm worried how much I meant it.

avoiding 'us vs them' mentality died when Trump supporters not only clang on to there bullshit beliefs of "da election waz stolen!11 ornge man said soo!111" but then attacked the US capital in what looks like sounds like and was imo a terrorist attack.

It is now Us vs Them. You are either a traitor to democracy to own da libs or you fight for the republic and liberty.

With the latest Repub after Repub not only continuing to believe that the election was ""Stolen"" but refusing to back the commission into the terrorist attack (imo) are we really at us vs them? Or am I just becoming an extremist?
Is SD_Film right? Is there a way to fight the 'Us vs them' mentality or is it already over?

addressing this for a moment, because it's important...yeah
it's way past gone
SO LETS TALK OPINIONS!
First, a major caveat. Almost all of the "bad" attitudes you see here are probably undercounting. Why? A certain subset of hard conservatives don't trust polls. And while in the past, non-response was something you could weight for...it's getting harder to do and its systematically messing up the results. in fact, the results (and this is just a sample of the growing consensus in polling-that partisan non-response within demographic strata is driving polling errors-which is not a phrase you want to hear if you want to feel confident in public opinion polling going forward.
So with that caveat, let's begin.
So firstly, we know that a majority of Republicans see Democrats as Enemies.

But this doesn't hold in reverse.

This bleeds into other areas. Before Biden came into office, only one side was interested in compromise.

We're 5 months in. How's that changed? (Spoiler: It hasn't. In fact, it's only gotten worse.
So the first litmus test is policy.
Nope, they don't want to work with Biden on specific policies.

But that just doesn't just extend to policy, where you could argue that those policies are just unpopular. If you remember, a couple weeks ago, McConnell said ""One-hundred percent of our focus is on stopping this new administration."
Unfortunately...the GOP base agrees with him-in masse.

So that's the first bit. Now, as Shrill mentioned, Republicans increasingly live in an alternate reality, one where the Capitol storming was done by antifa, and where the election was stolen.

Three months after a mob of Trump supporters stormed the Capitol to try to overturn his November election loss, about half of Republicans believe the siege was largely a non-violent protest or was the handiwork of left-wing activists “trying to make Trump look bad,” a new Reuters/Ipsos poll has found.

Six in 10 Republicans also believe the false claim put out by Trump that November’s presidential election “was stolen” from him due to widespread voter fraud, and the same proportion of Republicans think he should run again in 2024, the March 30-31 poll showed.

In fact, more recent polling says that that number's only grown.

While less than three in ten Americans (29%) agree with the statement that “the 2020 election was stolen from Donald Trump,” two-thirds of Republicans (66%) agree that the election was stolen. Among all Americans, more than two-thirds (68%) disagree with the “big lie,” including 57% who completely disagree. Only 33% of Republicans disagree, and less than one in five (18%) completely disagree.

(unsurprisingly, this is very heavily influenced by media consumption)

With that out of the way, let's talk democracy.
So there was an...illustrative CBS poll the other day

Almost half of the GOP base openly admits that the objective should be making it harder to vote.
And that shows elsewhere, with the number of Republicans who think that we should try to make voting easier has dropped like a stone.

and that really hits for the more conservative ones-who have disproportionate power in the party.

There are also ideological differences among members of both parties. Conservative Republicans are significantly more likely than moderate and liberal Republicans to say elections would be less secure if voting rules were changed (67% vs. 51%, respectively).

And while this may have accelerated and solidified as a result of the Trump administration...it didn't start there.
First link, "Laboratories of Democratic Backsliding."
In fact, the largest indicator of how the health of your state's democracy will go...is if Republicans control it.

Republican control of state government reduces democratic performance. The magnitude of democratic contraction from Republican control is surprisingly large, about one-half of a standard deviation. Much of this effect is driven by gerrymandering and electoral policy changes following Republican gains in state legislatures and governorships in the 2010 election. Competitive party systems and polarized legislatures do much less to explain the major changes in American democracy in the contemporary period. Moreover, although the Republican Party has capitalized on racial animus in recent elections, racial demographic change within states—whether on its own or in conjunction with Republican control—plays little role in state level democracy. These results point toward national partisan dynamics rather than within-state factors as the driver of democratic change.

Following the strategy of the Varieties of Democracy Project (V-Dem), we then collect indicators of democratic performance. These democracy indicators are individual variables that we aggregate into the State Democracy Index measure. 47 of these variables are indicators related to electoral democracy, such as felon disenfranchisement and measures of gerrymandering. Felon disenfranchisement and prisoner voting policies were collected from the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL). Data on same day voter registration, early voting, voter ID laws, youth preregistration, no-fault absentee voting, and automatic voter registration are from Grumbach and Hill (2021). Additional electoral variables, especially indicators of state administrative performance in elections, are from the MIT Election Lab.4 Gerrymandering data, which feature prominently in the democracy indices, are provided by Stephanopoulos and Warshaw (2020), with an additional district compactness measures from Kaufman, King and Komisarchik (2019). We also use indicators of policy
responsiveness to public opinion (separated into social and economic policy domains) based on the state policy and mass public liberalism measures from (Caughey and Warshaw 2018). Indicators covering liberal democracy and freedom from authoritarian control come from
additional sources. Indicators related to criminal justice are from the Correlates of State Policy Database (Jordan and Grossmann 2016), as well as the Bureau of Justice Statistics and Institute for Justice. We also include state asset forfeiture ratings by the Institute for
Justice “Policing for Profit” dataset. We list all 61 indicators and their sources in Appendix Table A.

This...has led to republicans contracting democratic rights in states they control.

With the State Democracy Index in hand, we first explore variation between states, and within states across time, in democratic performance. Figure 2 shows a map of state scores in the year 2000 (left panel) and in the year 2018 (right panel).

Hell, we can directly point to Republicans as the cause.

We present the main results in Table 1. The results of Models 1 through 3 show that, on their own, there is a modest positive relationship between competition and democracy, and no relationship between polarization and democracy—but a large negative relationship between Republican control and democracy in the states. Across the model specifications, the effect of Republican control of government is between 0.4 and 0.5 standard deviations of democratic performance, a substantial amount. The effect of competition, by contrast, is between 0.1 and 0.2 standard deviations, and the effect of polarization is near zero.

This holds for multiple methods.

Due to recent concern about the weighting of treatment estimates in multiperiod difference-in-differences analysis using two-way fixed effects (Goodman-Bacon 2018), we use alternative aggregation procedures to estimate the average treatment effect on the treated (ATT) of Republican control.16 In Figure 5, we plot the results from three different types of ATT aggregation from Callaway and Sant’Anna (2020): dynamic, group, and simple (group-time). In addition to using different aggregation procedures, the model drops states that were ‘treated’
(i.e., under Republican control) in the first period, the year 2000. aggregation procedures to estimate the average treatment effect on the treated (ATT) of Republican control.16 In Figure 5, we plot the results from three different types of ATT aggregation from Callaway and Sant’Anna (2020): dynamic, group, and simple (group-time). In addition to using different aggregation procedures, the model drops states that were ‘treated’ (i.e., under Republican control) in the first period, the year 2000.

And if we broaden it...again

In the Appendix, we show that these results are robust under a wide variety of state democracy measures. First, we replicate these results using the additive democracy index described earlier, in which each democracy indicator is weighted equally. The results in Appendix Table A4 are substantively unchanged. Second, in Appendix Section A5, we replicate our main analyses, but this time using a broader measure of state democracy, which combines electoral democracy with the concept of egalitarian democracy and a more extensive definition of liberal democracy. This broader measure leverages 116 democracy indicators. The additional indicators extend the measure’s coverage to issues such as economic inequality, women’s rights, campaign finance, labor rights, and LGBT rights, which scholars have argued are integral to the realization of democracy in practice. The results from this additional analysis are substantively very similar to the analyses using the main State Democracy Index measure, with Republican control significantly reducing democratic performance, and little explanatory role for other potential causes of democratic change.

But the acceleration is rather striking.

Figure 1 shows the movement of the Republican and Democratic parties in this millennium on two dimensions: Illiberal rhetoric and left/right positioning on economic policy. The Republican party has not changed left-right placement but moved strongly in an illiberal direction. In this sense it is now more similar to autocratic ruling parties such as the Turkish AKP, and Fidesz in Hungary than to typical center-right governing parties in democracies such as the Conservatives in the UK or CDU in Germany.

Figure 2 illustrates where the Republican Party (orange dots) and the Democratic Party (blue squares) placed on several indicators before the 2018 election relative to all other ruling parties in democracies (above the line) and opposition parties in democracies (below the horizontal
lines) in this millennium. The black vertical line gives the median or typical value. The data shows that the Republican Party in 2018 was far more illiberal than almost all other governing parties in democracies. Only very few governing parties in democracies in this millennium (15%) were considered more illiberal than the Republican Party in the US. Conversely, the Democratic Party was rated slightly less illiberal than the typical party in democracies. The Republican party scores much higher than almost all parties in democracies on almost all of these indicators.

The indicators here...are not good.
And there's nothing to suggest they're going to turn around, either.
The right-wing media infosphere is an impermeable radicalization agent, and the electoral drive is one based on racial animus (and has been since the 60's)-and we know that reduces Republicans' commitment to democracy.

So yeah, I'd say broadly, we're very screwed, because there is a political party with exceedingly little commitment to democracy-either in outcomes or in process, very little commitment to reality, both of which seem to primarily be driven by a desire to keep one demographic group at the top of the racial hierarchy, and as far as I can see...no way to change that fact.

[Desena]

https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/554480-cuomo-investigation-includes-priority-virus-testing-for-family

A federal criminal investigation into New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D) is reportedly expanding to examine priority COVID-19 testing for his family and associates, according to multiple reports.

The New York Times reported that investigators in the U.S. attorney’s office for the Eastern District of New York are looking into whether the governor’s administration had a priority testing program that benefited his close family members and associates early in the pandemic.

Doesn't really elaborate on whether or not they even think it was a crime, just as part of the other investigation, so I'm guessing it probably isn't. Regardless, are there people actually opposed to this? I might just be missing something but I would be more surprised if people who come into contact with him even semi-regularly weren't constantly being tested. Same for any other important figures.