Matthew

Yes, both of those are assertions. Allowing local governments wide latitude for imposing criminal punishments and all kinds of sweeping rules aimed at preventing homeless people sleeping in public spaces, without having to offer any legal alternative for shelter. Sure, the town in the Supreme Court case: Grants Pass, Oregon. Trargeting the entire homeless population of 600 people by simply banning all camping and all roadside sleeping. First offense is a fine, after that the punishment is jail.

No try again. The thing you said I lied about was that homelessness in the US doubled during his presidency. It's pretty widely understood that homelessness spiked in the mid 1980s, so what makes you think that it didn't?

I'm not so sure. From my experience small and medium-sized towns are much more closely policed and far more strict about vagrants, panhandlers, and people living homeless in public spaces. The policy that the OP is based on is from a town of 40k people.

We each made an assertion. Yours is the one I was asking about. I implied that this specific decision is part of a larger context or pattern of many similar policies that have long served to treat impoverished people as criminal deviants. See, that's a very specific claim. So that means we can easily test it. If it's true then you can name the specific spot you would legally sleep tonight if you were homeless.

Ok so this part right here is what I'm testing. If you can tell me where you would legally sleep as a homeless person then presumably you'd be able to show why your hypothetical choice is not a crime. In a policy discussion, it is reasonable to ask for a real world application for one's claim.

Let's see your facts / sources. Every expert on the subject of homelessness, and the local history of every place where homelessness is a problem will testify to a dramatic increase in the mid 1980s.

Well you've said the decision in question does not contribute to the criminalization of homelessness. So to test that you can explain your thoughts on where a homeless person can legally sleep without it being a crime. I'm guessing you know the answer or you wouldn't be avoiding it so hard.

Homelessness in the US doubled under Reagan.

Well because it will test to see if your statement is true. Pretend you have nothing and nobody to help you. Where would you sleep tonight?

Alright, suppose you became homeless right now and had no money and no credit. Where would you legally sleep tonight?

Blaming people for being poor and criminalized their poverty has been around for hundreds of years. It was a major theme of the fledgling capitalist middle class culture of the 1700s-1800s. So yeah the nuances of what this case does is not groundbreaking.

That would be true if you were talking about ISIS or some other transnational jihadist conquest movement. But these particular groups (Hamas IRA and ETA) are more similar than different in terms of their localized aims. Lots of options depending on how many countries were interested in seeing it happen sooner rather than later. Palestinian territory is extremely small, so long-term intensive international investment and political statebuilding endeavors would be very realistic , likely through the UN. It would first require the creation of a Palestinian nation-state and the facilitation of national elections, etc. This has been done before in war-torn areas like post-Nazi germany and Iraq. The first step to this process has been blocked by Israel and the US since 1948, so getting past hardline Zionist aims of colonizing the entire Levant is a major impediment to Israel ever having a secure future.

There are many but in recent years, the disbanding of the IRA and ETA terrorist groups would be most similar to Hamas. There is nothing idealistic about it. Short-term, militaries can combat the military mobilization of a terrorist groups as a military opponent, but to eliminate the group entirely long-term the society in which the terror group functions needs to be able to deal with the group as a criminal rather than military entity. They need a modern nation-state with a court system and police force and intelligence network. They need an educational system and healthcare and economy in which a young man can take care of his family better via education and a job rather than bribes by Hamas recruiters.

This about sums it up. Odd title for an article in which one point after another just ruthlessly bashes the Democrats. You're led to assume that eventually the author will spin it around to deliver some twist as to why Biden is still the guy, but no not really.

Undignified ad hominum. No not a rational response to injustice, but a natural consequence to any power vacuum. The only long term way to combat terrorism is to remove the political and material conditions in which it thrives by building a stable and just society. More nationalism and more killing of civilians is how you make the terrorism grow. I don't care about Hamas in the sense of valuing their existence in any way. I get what you're arguing. On the Venn diagram of people who hate Jews in one blob and people who don't want the Israeli state in another blob, those two circles would significantly overlap. My argument is still that they in fact do not 100% overlap. Of course they are. Gazans in particular are imprisoned in a stateless territory by Israel and ruled over against their will by unelected leaders of a terrorist group.

I agree with that for the most part. Not relevant to anything I said. I don't care about Hamas. They are bad and plenty of Palestinians and Arabs and Muslims and anyone else who wishes for a better future wants one without them existing. Zionist nationalism as a movement has caused groups like this to come into being due to their refusal to allow a legitimate Palestinian state. Absolutely. US intelligence and foreign policy experts for decades have detailed the problem of blowback. That's a non-response. Many Muslims and others oppose the existence of islamist political movements like ISIS and it doesn't remotely make them islamophobic. Are you actually arguing that it does? Between the 1300s and the mid-1800s the Ottoman Empire was generally a safe haven for Jewish people, where they enjoyed significant prestige, prosperity, and sometimes their own local self government. Within the context of the Turkish Ottoman system, Arabs were conquered subjects and ethnic rivals to Jews within the empire. Jews often enjoyed higher status in the empire. So relations with Arab communities was more variable depending on the local political situation. I am not black and white on the issue as you seem to be. Realistic political decisions must have nuance and pragmatism. My own support for US nationalism is very low and it's my own country. My support for anyone else's nationalism is even lower. The framework for that has to be created. You can't just bomb millions people for decades and deny them a representative government and then complain when they are ruled by ad hoc illiterate paramilitary groups. The longer israeli nationalists prevent this the more long-term danger they face.

So far the Israeli state has not made life any safer for Jewish people. Aggressive nationalist land grabs and human rights abuses has led to many wars and nearly constant imminent threats violent conflict with a people who previously had little to no beef with Jews. Simply having a state and a majority Jewish population in that state has itself done zero to alleviate threats and deaths to Jewish people over the last 77 years. In case you're confused, I'm not suggesting that the nation-state of Israel should right now cease to exist. Past foolish untra-nationalist decisions have already been made. But think long term for a moment. The Jewish community is thousands of years old. The USA is 248 years old. We're probably not going to be around forever. Going forward, Israelis and the would community will either have to invest in a pluralistic society that respects and helps to develop a quality legitimate Palestinian nation-state neighbor. Or they will have to divest in their claims and go live elsewhere. Those are the only two sustainable long-term choices. The current situation will last for awhile but for one reason or another the USA inevitably will not be around to fund and defend Israel as a propped-up satelite state.

No, disliking the religion and cultures of Islam is completely different than disliking any Islamist political movement. A great many Muslims do not like Islamism just as many Jews do not like Zionism.

It's possible to have pluralistic societies and tolerant neighbors. There are many of them in the world. Hamas, just like any powerful terrorist organization, is a symptom of a political vacuum. Non-state paramilirary actors only exist because of Israeli and US policies that have denied the creation of a legitimate state.

Ok, thanks for your input. 🙄

Ah more weakening the world largest military alliance that we lead, undermining our alliances, and pandering to dictators who act against us? Trump debasing himself before Putin when he visited was probably the biggest diplomatic embarrassment I've witnessed.

It's not a disaster. Democrats had no advantage going into the debate and an already narrow path to election victory in November. So it would have been worse for democrats if biden's performance was just mediocre and maintained the status quo. However, bombing so hard creates a rare game changing development for democrats, in the unlikely event that they choose to strategically take advantage of it.

On the subject of lies: AP: False claims made during the debate

I love how republicans portray democrats as hapless fools who can't do the most basic thing, but also as super geninus masterminds skilled at complex plots. Or as weak blue haired transgender lesbians, but also has hardened antifa elite super soldier villans.

Ordinarily I'd agree. But that's normal for those who have debated trump. If donny can stand there and look halfway normal for awhile it's a great victory, but for the opponent they have to hit a grand slam. What Biden is running into is that people rapidly decline in their late 70s and 80s. Combine that with a minor cold virus or something and it can really impair someone's functionality. In his state of the union his throat wasn't hoarse and he could look personable and feed off the energy of his allies in the room.