• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Camps for the Homeless?

Homeless - They need to be off the streets. Call it what you want. Forced relocation, whatever. Its hot in the summer in LA. I'm guessing the homeless would be ok if you called them ****wads as long as you gave them housing.

Is the solution a federal one? No. Its a state and city problem. Unfortunately, state and city budgets are filled with complete nonsense that an actual safety net is not possible.
 
SonOfDaedalus said:
Have you ever talked to a homeless person? I'm in NYC maybe homeless people in Sand Diego are different. Here most of them don't look employable.

There are shelters but they don't want to go to the shelters because of real fear of crime or just paranoia or both.

But if conservatives want to help the homeless, that's great. It would be the first time I ever heard of Republican politicians trying to help the homeless.
Click to expand...

Crime is more common in the camps. Come on...there is no oversight in the camps at all, but at least some, even lockers, in the shelters. Rules, locks, lights....

We dont hear of murder in the shelters, but do in the camps.
 
Amelia said:
Hehe ... it's all moot. Democrats aren't going to let Trump meddle in California's business.

They just banned for-profit prisons. They banned for-profit ICE detention centers. Existing contracts with those businesses will be allowed to continue but may not be renewed. And if Trump tries to trundle the homeless off to some for-profit detention center, that will be squashed also.

If Trump has some other solution in mind, perhaps it would be considered. But "Trump" and "solution" are not words which go together.
Click to expand...
Hehe...Californians are literally ****ting on peoples cars in broad daylight.
 
Obscurity said:
Why are there any homeless people?

We're near 100% employment. Why are these people homeless? If homelessness is at it's highest point in, well, years, then perhaps the economy is not nearly as good as the Trump insists?

How can it be that we have a homeless problem with the "greatest economy ever seen"?
Click to expand...

Left, right or center, few people want to employ or work with those who are insane or are dissipated drug addicts, even in the most booming economies with high employment.
 
Last edited:
Grand Mal said:
Safe injection sites work good here. We don't give them drugs but they can have their drigs checkd for fentanyl.
Just makes sense.
Click to expand...

As a doctor, I think it's my duty of care to at least suggest that supporting, and enabling self destructive actions. Is possibly one of the worst things that you can do for someone.
 
Lisa said:
They didn't commit a crime, but who cares about the pesky Bill of Rights..........
Click to expand...

Along with Rights there are Responsibilities. I have lived abroad for several decades, legally in a Country where I am allowed to remain ONLY by showing that I take full responsibility for my needs/wants each successive year I apply for a VISA extension. A British friend was recently required to leave the Country until he could return with evidence he was financially capable of providing for his support for a 1 year period of residency.

It would be much more efficient to place all the homeless in a single location in each State, where any government assistance and/or protection could be much more easily provided until which time they could be found capable of providing for their own lives without need of government assistance.
 
Individual said:
Along with Rights there are Responsibilities. I have lived abroad for several decades, legally in a Country where I am allowed to remain ONLY by showing that I take full responsibility for my needs/wants each successive year I apply for a VISA extension. A British friend was recently required to leave the Country until he could return with evidence he was financially capable of providing for his support for a 1 year period of residency.

It would be much more efficient to place all the homeless in a single location in each State, where any government assistance and/or protection could be much more easily provided until which time they could be found capable of providing for their own lives without need of government assistance.
Click to expand...

Most people who argue against something like this, don't even know that places like Mexico. Would send you right back to where you came from in about the same case.

I like the idea of getting these people of the streets and into situations that could allow them to better themselves, through at least a marginal amount of effort.
 
Individual said:
Along with Rights there are Responsibilities. I have lived abroad for several decades, legally in a Country where I am allowed to remain ONLY by showing that I take full responsibility for my needs/wants each successive year I apply for a VISA extension. A British friend was recently required to leave the Country until he could return with evidence he was financially capable of providing for his support for a 1 year period of residency.

It would be much more efficient to place all the homeless in a single location in each State, where any government assistance and/or protection could be much more easily provided until which time they could be found capable of providing for their own lives without the need of government assistance.
Click to expand...

They do not lose their rights/freedoms and cannot be rounded up into camps just because they are poor or sick. They are not second class citizens to be treated like cattle until they prove they are self-sufficient.

I agree with proving them the opportunities and healthcare but you cannot force them to take part and you cannot round them up and ship them off to camps if they refuse. They are citizens with full rights as you and I and not animals to be herded to places where they aren't seen or second class citizens to be forced to earn their freedom back.
 
Last edited:
Lisa said:
They do not lose their rights/freedoms and cannot be rounded up into camps just because they are poor or sick. They are not second class citizens to be treated like cattle until they prove they are self-sufficient.

I agree with proving them the opportunities and healthcare but you cannot force them to take part and you cannot round them up and ship them off to camps if they refuse. They are citizens with full rights as you and I and not animals to be herded to places where they aren't seen or second class citizens to be forced to earn their freedom back.
Click to expand...

So leave them on the streets until they expire?
 
Tlrmln said:
Every day, I have the choice of refraining from using heroin, or potentially going to prison. Even so, there's no significant probability that I will go to prison.
Click to expand...
When you potentially go to prison, is there a potential trial?
Or does the potential prison thing happen w/o a potential trial?
Somehow, in America, we have this crazy idea that sending people to prison necessarily involves a trial.

If there's no significant chance of you going to prison, how significant of a role does the insignificant chance play in your decision making?

Tlrmln said:
When I said that, I assumed that you understood the difference between "millions" and "less than one million." My mistake.
Click to expand...
The folks who're facing this extortion WILL have to be rounded up?


Tlrmln said:
People can be arrested and put in jail without an immediate trial. Chances are that, for 99% of them, that would trigger their desire to be in a nice clean camp, instead of a cell.
Click to expand...
We're changing things from prison to jail now?
Rounding up and incarcerating CA homeless population in jails w/o a trial is easy even though rounding them up and putting them in prison w/o a trial is not easy.


Tlrmln said:
Yes, I used that word, but not in the way you claimed I did.
Click to expand...
You just mean it would be easy for anyone to walk up to a homeless person and ask, "Hey, would you rather go to prison or go to a camp?"
Not that it would actually be easy to get CA's homeless scofflaws into camps?
 
Individual said:
Along with Rights there are Responsibilities. I have lived abroad for several decades, legally in a Country where I am allowed to remain ONLY by showing that I take full responsibility for my needs/wants each successive year I apply for a VISA extension. A British friend was recently required to leave the Country until he could return with evidence he was financially capable of providing for his support for a 1 year period of residency.

It would be much more efficient to place all the homeless in a single location in each State, where any government assistance and/or protection could be much more easily provided until which time they could be found capable of providing for their own lives without need of government assistance.
Click to expand...

Then you are advocating for state run concentration camps
 
Lisa said:
They do not lose their rights/freedoms and cannot be rounded up into camps just because they are poor or sick. They are not second class citizens to be treated like cattle until they prove they are self-sufficient.

I agree with proving them the opportunities and healthcare but you cannot force them to take part and you cannot round them up and ship them off to camps if they refuse. They are citizens with full rights as you and I and not animals to be herded to places where they aren't seen or second class citizens to be forced to earn their freedom back.
Click to expand...

You're right. You can't force them to be taken care of, medicated & fed. You can't force them to care for themselves. If they're too stupid or mentally ill, they'll just sit there and rot. Or rob & steal to get what they want.

This is right up the same alley as being fit for society. If someone can't conform to a decent way of living, as in not adversely affecting others, then they shouldn't be allowed to be in a free society, when they're affecting other peoples freedoms. Be it theft. Or just hanging out in front of someone public business and scaring away customers. (on a public sidewalk)

The rules are, you don't do drugs. You don't get drunk. You don't adversely affect others. If you can do those things, we'll help you get on your feet. If you don't, then go back to living on the streets. Go back to bumming. Go back to your drugs and booze. Go back to freezing in the winter and burning up in the summer.
Go back to not having a chance to getting off the streets. This is what life in society is all about.

It's simple, really. When you have nothing and you want something, you have to do what others tell you. Or you'll continue to have nothing. Period. End of story.
 
Grandpappy said:
Some kind of a work camp. They learn how to make a paycheck, and get off the street. I like it.
Click to expand...

And of course their room and board will cost 110% of what they're paid.

Did we learn nothing from the poor houses, debtors prisons and company stores?
 
Tlrmln said:
Do you have an "easier" solution?

Let me guess -- billions in Federal funding to build "affordable housing" in CA, because the wealthiest state in the country absolutely needs money from everyone else to solve problems of its own making.
Click to expand...

California did not make the weather nice in California.
 
Grandpappy said:
Many people on the street are there because they want to be. Mental issues and substance abuse are problems for a significant percentage of them.
But if they're capable of walking or riding a bicycle around picking through trash cans, they are capable of performing some kind of marketable service for their food and shelter.
And please refrain from the inevitable ridiculous liberal comparisons to concentration camps. Seriously?
Click to expand...

Technically, removing the unwanted and "concentrating" them in one place is the definition of "concentration camp".

Net money it'll be for profit and they'll have to pay for their room and board and that room and board will be just expensive enough they'll never be able to buy their way out.

Debtors prison is next, or some form of indenture.

This is how our ownership class is going to address a post labor economy.
 
JohnnyDollar said:
A lot of them are unemployable because of their living conditions. Including the mental stuff that goes on after becoming homeless. It's a downward spiral. There's sooooo much land out west that could be made habitable, with apartments, and other forms of housing. Throw in a few businesses and the next thing you know, you'd have a regular town.

Of course it would have to be highly policed. Especially by the tenants. Those that would occupy this, would have to understand, that if they screw up, they're out.

Of course, those with mental and drug/alcohol issues would have to be dealt with differently. Maybe a big rehab center for them before they enter the general population. Those with mental issues that can't be helped, should be placed in asylums.

You know, you don't hear about mental asylums anymore. Where did they all go?
Click to expand...

Too expensive. So they cried "freedom" and kicked them all out on the street.
 
Lovebug said:
So much ego, so much partisan nonsense, loling back and forth. Stop the bs and think people. Come up with solutions. What is the solution? Leave them to die in their filth is better than Trump's suggestion? This had been going on for too long, is a disgrace, a stain on our society. No, not the left side or the right side, this is on all of us. Stop and think beyond your partisan ego. Yeah, I know, but Trump.
Click to expand...

Ok. And when it turns out to be exploitive and for profit will you acknowledge that we called it?

Homeless people.probably don't vote, so he's not wooing them.

Rich people don't Luke having to see all those dirty poor on their way to work or the opera.

Trump DOES pander to them.

So I am suspiscious of motive.
 
What if...? said:
Ok. And when it turns out to be exploitive and for profit will you acknowledge that we called it?

Homeless people.probably don't vote, so he's not wooing them.

Rich people don't Luke having to see all those dirty poor on their way to work or the opera.

Trump DOES pander to them.

So I am suspiscious of motive.
Click to expand...

So it is ok to leave them in their filth, because of perceived motive? Well where are the humanitarians who care about kids in Obama built cages more than the people in their front yard?
 
VanceMack said:
Trump could cure cancer and you would **** yourself because he is depriving people the opportunity to enjoy invasive radiation treatment. If he came out in favor of oxygen you would stop breathing.
Click to expand...

And if he declared radiation treatment a waste of money or that oxygen was a liberal conspiracy you'd jump right on that bandwagon.

Don't even try to pretend you wouldn't.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom