I think you’re underestimating people in the US. As long as there are homeless shelters and programs ran by volunteers who are genuinely trying to help, I think the people are doing the right thing. The huge problem here is one that you are actually overestimating - presidents (and governments) of the US.
The simple fact that Nixon was impeached should’ve put a huge question mark on all his policies, including the war on drugs. It’s like everyone who came after him went “hey, this person that we determined was not fit to be president left us with this huge initiative to crack down on drugs, but mostly fueled by actually being very harsh on minorities, should we stop it or keep it going? Yeah, just do as he said, fuck minorities” - motherfucker, really?
You have demonstrably flawed representatives who attack a part of your community. Nixon’s war on drugs, Reagan a few years later doing his part in that + busting unions (another attack on lower/middle class), etc. And it’s like, these guys are actively trying to destroy communities and lives, they introduced some shit measures, maybe we should stop their legacy after we finally get rid of them, no?
But the president’s office is such a cult of personality that you can’t really be seen going against something they did, even if it’s a bad thing. Even you in your own post are saying people don’t want to look at the homeless as people, when in fact the ones responsible for making those people homeless are the fuckers who passed those laws a few years ago.
Part of it is that the secret service protects past presidents, I think. Let them go without protection for a few decades. Let them be responsible for their decisions. You know Johnny who’s been on the streets for 20 years because he smoked a joint in highschool and after 10 years in prison nobody would hire him? Why not let Johnny meet the former president and see what he thinks about the fuck who ruined his life? Let’s not put a guy with a gun and years of training between Johnny and the source of his problems. Let’s stop protecting the cunts who make it hard for regular people to live their lives.
I’d say better yet, let’s hold them directly responsible for their actions at the end of the term (how many people did you kill? How many people will lose their lives because of the laws you passed? How many families will be destroyed for that extra million you received to your campaign donations?), but that doesn’t seem likely to happen anywhere in the next few hundreds of years.
For that to happen, section 1983 of the federal code has to be properly copied, and then challenged in front of SCOTUS to overturn Harlow V Fitzgerald. Once you do that, the 1871 reconstruction Congress totally agrees with you, and the bullshit Qualified Immunity rules get thrown out. Then you’ll be able to prosecute while they are in office, as President Grant gave us that precedent in 1872 by getting pulled over for speeding in the city limits of Washington DC.
I think you’re underestimating people in the US. As long as there are homeless shelters and programs ran by volunteers who are genuinely trying to help, I think the people are doing the right thing. The huge problem here is one that you are actually overestimating - presidents (and governments) of the US.
The simple fact that Nixon was impeached should’ve put a huge question mark on all his policies, including the war on drugs. It’s like everyone who came after him went “hey, this person that we determined was not fit to be president left us with this huge initiative to crack down on drugs, but mostly fueled by actually being very harsh on minorities, should we stop it or keep it going? Yeah, just do as he said, fuck minorities” - motherfucker, really?
You have demonstrably flawed representatives who attack a part of your community. Nixon’s war on drugs, Reagan a few years later doing his part in that + busting unions (another attack on lower/middle class), etc. And it’s like, these guys are actively trying to destroy communities and lives, they introduced some shit measures, maybe we should stop their legacy after we finally get rid of them, no?
But the president’s office is such a cult of personality that you can’t really be seen going against something they did, even if it’s a bad thing. Even you in your own post are saying people don’t want to look at the homeless as people, when in fact the ones responsible for making those people homeless are the fuckers who passed those laws a few years ago.
Part of it is that the secret service protects past presidents, I think. Let them go without protection for a few decades. Let them be responsible for their decisions. You know Johnny who’s been on the streets for 20 years because he smoked a joint in highschool and after 10 years in prison nobody would hire him? Why not let Johnny meet the former president and see what he thinks about the fuck who ruined his life? Let’s not put a guy with a gun and years of training between Johnny and the source of his problems. Let’s stop protecting the cunts who make it hard for regular people to live their lives.
I’d say better yet, let’s hold them directly responsible for their actions at the end of the term (how many people did you kill? How many people will lose their lives because of the laws you passed? How many families will be destroyed for that extra million you received to your campaign donations?), but that doesn’t seem likely to happen anywhere in the next few hundreds of years.
For that to happen, section 1983 of the federal code has to be properly copied, and then challenged in front of SCOTUS to overturn Harlow V Fitzgerald. Once you do that, the 1871 reconstruction Congress totally agrees with you, and the bullshit Qualified Immunity rules get thrown out. Then you’ll be able to prosecute while they are in office, as President Grant gave us that precedent in 1872 by getting pulled over for speeding in the city limits of Washington DC.