A thread for Democrats Only
POSTED BY: THGRRI
UPDATED: Sunday, September 6, 2026 15:36
VIEWED: 755368
PAGE 73 of 725
Quote:You wrote: "If it is shown to save the community money, I would expect many Republicans would agree with it." You are too late, because it has already been shown to be true and it made no goddamn difference to the GOP.
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
You claim there is a savings due to the factor of "permanent address" - but that would not cause savings, and is not stated in the story.
From what I read, the savings comes from the centralized community, and the round-thr-clock care. The trained care negates the need for unnecessary emergency medical/police, and the whole group at the same address instead of dozens of dispersed locations, that seems to be where the saving lie.
Focusing on those elements, simulating a more independent and active version of "retirement home" could really be productive across many nations.
If it is shown to save the community money, I would expect many Republicans would agree with it. The ideas throwing away good money on the worthless are the ones Democraps will support - any excuse to waste Government funds.
Republicans strongly believe that no one has a right to a government benefit unless they have proved themselves to be deserving and worthy. Spending money on people who are NOT deserving and NOT worthy is something Republicans will NOT do, even if it would save money. Their hearts are opposed to the idea, calling the approach "public stupidity" rather than "public policy". But there is evidence that Housing First does work and does save money, just no evidence that any Republicans will ever support the idea once they understand what it is. It must be something in the GOP's DNA. https://endhomelessness.org/
http://endhomelessness.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/housing-first-fa
ct-sheet.pdf
Permanent supportive housing has been found to be cost efficient. Providing access to housing generally results in cost savings for communities because housed people are less likely to use emergency services, including hospitals, jails, and emergency shelter, than those who are homeless.
One study found an average cost savings on emergency services of $31,545 per person housed in a Housing First program over the course of two years. Another study showed that a Housing First program could cost up to $23,000 less per consumer per year than a shelter program.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Housing_First
Example of how a Republican would run a homeless program. Hopefully, you'd see how this program is designed to exclude people who are not worthy enough to be helped: Back on My Feet, a nonprofit which challenges homeless individuals to run over a 30-day period to boost self esteem and create a support network. Once they fulfill the requirement, workforce training and house support assistance are provided. (if you can't run, you get nothing because you are a worthless loser)
www.csmonitor.com/World/Making-a-difference/2018/0326/She-gives-a-sens
e-of-community-and-purpose-to-homeless-through-a-running-club
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Not sure if you are intentionally avoiding my point. Perhaps your hatred of sensible Republicans is fogging your viewing device.
Originally posted by second:Quote:You wrote: "If it is shown to save the community money, I would expect many Republicans would agree with it." You are too late, because it has already been shown to be true and it made no goddamn difference to the GOP.
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
You claim there is a savings due to the factor of "permanent address" - but that would not cause savings, and is not stated in the story.
From what I read, the savings comes from the centralized community, and the round-thr-clock care. The trained care negates the need for unnecessary emergency medical/police, and the whole group at the same address instead of dozens of dispersed locations, that seems to be where the saving lie.
Focusing on those elements, simulating a more independent and active version of "retirement home" could really be productive across many nations.
If it is shown to save the community money, I would expect many Republicans would agree with it. The ideas throwing away good money on the worthless are the ones Democraps will support - any excuse to waste Government funds.
Republicans strongly believe that no one has a right to a government benefit unless they have proved themselves to be deserving and worthy. Spending money on people who are NOT deserving and NOT worthy is something Republicans will NOT do, even if it would save money. Their hearts are opposed to the idea, calling the approach "public stupidity" rather than "public policy". But there is evidence that Housing First does work and does save money, just no evidence that any Republicans will ever support the idea once they understand what it is. It must be something in the GOP's DNA. https://endhomelessness.org/
http://endhomelessness.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/housing-first-fa
ct-sheet.pdf
Permanent supportive housing has been found to be cost efficient. Providing access to housing generally results in cost savings for communities because housed people are less likely to use emergency services, including hospitals, jails, and emergency shelter, than those who are homeless.
One study found an average cost savings on emergency services of $31,545 per person housed in a Housing First program over the course of two years. Another study showed that a Housing First program could cost up to $23,000 less per consumer per year than a shelter program.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Housing_First
Example of how a Republican would run a homeless program. Hopefully, you'd see how this program is designed to exclude people who are not worthy enough to be helped: Back on My Feet, a nonprofit which challenges homeless individuals to run over a 30-day period to boost self esteem and create a support network. Once they fulfill the requirement, workforce training and house support assistance are provided. (if you can't run, you get nothing because you are a worthless loser)
www.csmonitor.com/World/Making-a-difference/2018/0326/She-gives-a-sens
e-of-community-and-purpose-to-homeless-through-a-running-club
b
You have shown no indication that US Models of homeless housing would have less cost than none. US models seem to have dispersed addresses instead of centralized address/community.
Your only claim of savings is for one wasteful spending spree costing less or more than a different wasteful spending spree, both with equal lack of benefit.
A saving of $16,000 per year while wastefully spending $109,000 per year does not equal a cost savings.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
If you meet the requirements ( slightly to the right, middle and liberal ) and you have an interest in starting a discussion say so.
T 
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:The cost is NOT $109,000 per year per person. The cost is $109,000, for one time only, to build the shelter. And the shelter can be reused if the homeless person gets a job and is ambitious enough to move out. I noticed a character issue or a personality issue with Republicans at fireflyfans.net. The Republicans don't try to understand how something works. That's why JewelStaiteFan sees a $109,000 per year cost rather than a one-time only $109,000 investment. You aren't even trying before you launch into writing: "Perhaps your hatred of sensible Republicans is fogging your viewing device." Driving an idea into the head of a Republican is like driving on a dirt road that has mud a foot deep. The wheels spin and the idea gets stuck. Forward progress requires me to get dirty and push the idea real hard, through mile after mile of mud. I just don't have the energy to do that for Republicans. It is easier to let them stay stuck while I drive around them in my Caterpillar, waving my hat. Good luck to you, JewelStaiteFan, you old stuck-in-the-mud!
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Not sure if you are intentionally avoiding my point. Perhaps your hatred of sensible Republicans is fogging your viewing device.
You have shown no indication that US Models of homeless housing would have less cost than none. US models seem to have dispersed addresses instead of centralized address/community.
Your only claim of savings is for one wasteful spending spree costing less or more than a different wasteful spending spree, both with equal lack of benefit.
A saving of $16,000 per year while wastefully spending $109,000 per year does not equal a cost savings.
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2018/03/26/despite-porn-sta
rs-and-playboy-models-white-evangelicals-arent-rejecting-trump-this-is-why/?utm_term=.d2d6690f91aa
Why are white Christians sticking so closely to Trump, despite these claims of sexual indiscretions? And why are religious individuals and groups that previously decried sexual impropriety among political leaders suddenly willing to give Trump a “mulligan” on his infidelity?
Our new study points to a different answer than others have offered. Voters’ religious tenets aren’t actually what’s behind Trump support; rather, it’s Christian nationalism — their view of the United States as a fundamentally Christian nation.
Here’s how we did our research
To explore the link between Christian nationalism and Trump support, we examined data from the fifth wave of the Baylor Religion Survey. Fielded soon after the election, from Feb. 2 through March 24, 2017, this survey is a national, random sample of 1,501 American adults with telephones and is weighted to estimate population parameters. This data set is unique in its size, time of collection, and the measures it contains.
To measure Christian nationalism we combined responses to six separate questions that ask whether respondents agree or disagree with these statements:
1) “The federal government should declare the United States a Christian nation”
2) “The federal government should advocate Christian values”
3) “The federal government should enforce strict separation of church and state” (reverse coded)
4) “The federal government should allow the display of religious symbols in public spaces”
5) “The success of the United States is part of God’s plan”
6) “The federal government should allow prayer in public schools”
We also examined many other common explanations of support for Trump, including economic dissatisfaction, an index of attitudes on gender, an index of anti-black prejudice, a measure of respondents’ attitudes toward illegal immigrants and an index of views toward Muslims.
Finally, our statistical models also accounted for religious affiliation, religious beliefs, and a variety of religious behaviors, as well as political measures including party affiliation and political ideology, and sociodemographic predictors including age, gender, race, education, income, marital status, and residential context.
The more someone believed the United States is — and should be — a Christian nation, the more likely they were to vote for Trump
First, Americans who agreed with the various measures of Christian nationalism were much more likely to vote for Trump, even after controlling for a host of other influences, such as political ideology, political party, and other cultural factors proposed as possible explanations of Trump voting.
As you can see in the figure below, even when holding constant a host of other explanations, a Democrat at the higher end of the index was three times more likely to vote for Trump than a Democrat at the lower end of Christian nationalist ideology. For independents, the probability of voting for Trump increased moving across the range of the Christian nationalism scale. Likewise, Republicans scoring low in Christian nationalism were significantly less likely to vote for Trump than those scoring high on the index.
No other religious factor influenced support for or against Trump
Second, we find that Americans’ religious beliefs, behaviors and affiliation did not directly influence voting for Trump. In fact, once Christian nationalism was taken into account, other religious measures had no direct effect on how likely someone was to vote for Trump. These measures of religion mattered only if they made someone more likely to see the United States as a Christian nation.
Antagonism toward Muslims was just as important as Christian nationalism
Finally, the various cultural explanations that other researchers have examined didn’t predict Trump support in our study, with one notable exception: anti-Muslim sent
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Stormy Daniels, this is a delicate subject, but do you have pictures of the President’s, shall we say, executive branch?
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:So they will never use utilities? They will never eat? OR, what ARE the annual costs? If these costs are $4,000 per year, the savings of $12,000 per year of Emergency Response Services compared to the $109,000 (in Finland) gives about 9 years return. Will the heating system not need to be replaced? No other aspect will need maintenance - surely the occupant will not perform maintenance?
Originally posted by second:Quote:The cost is NOT $109,000 per year per person. The cost is $109,000, for one time only, to build the shelter. And the shelter can be reused if the homeless person gets a job and is ambitious enough to move out. I noticed a character issue or a personality issue with Republicans at fireflyfans.net. The Republicans don't try to understand how something works. That's why JewelStaiteFan sees a $109,000 per year cost rather than a one-time only $109,000 investment. You aren't even trying before you launch into writing: "Perhaps your hatred of sensible Republicans is fogging your viewing device." Driving an idea into the head of a Republican is like driving on a dirt road that has mud a foot deep. The wheels spin and the idea gets stuck. Forward progress requires me to get dirty and push the idea real hard, through mile after mile of mud. I just don't have the energy to do that for Republicans. It is easier to let them stay stuck while I drive around them in my Caterpillar, waving my hat. Good luck to you, JewelStaiteFan, you old stuck-in-the-mud!
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Not sure if you are intentionally avoiding my point. Perhaps your hatred of sensible Republicans is fogging your viewing device.
You have shown no indication that US Models of homeless housing would have less cost than none. US models seem to have dispersed addresses instead of centralized address/community.
Your only claim of savings is for one wasteful spending spree costing less or more than a different wasteful spending spree, both with equal lack of benefit.
A saving of $16,000 per year while wastefully spending $109,000 per year does not equal a cost savings.
Is that correct?
And if it is a Government project, it must be built at Union Wages, so the cost becomes $200,000 per unit. right?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:So Anderson Cooper is the new Jerry Springer?
Originally posted by second:
Stormy Daniels, this is a delicate subject, but do you have pictures of the President’s, shall we say, executive branch?
Sounds like Fake News 60 Minutes continues to uphold the finest traditions in yellow smut journalism.
Ho hum.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:It’s currently fashionable to dismiss interest in the Daniels story as fundamentally reflecting nothing more than a prurient interest in Trump’s sex life. But the possibility of bribery and blackmail of Trump makes it impossible to fully separate out highbrow and lowbrow aspects of the scandal. The problem with the interview was that Cooper didn't ask enough questions because Cooper didn't really want to go to a very dangerous place:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
So Anderson Cooper is the new Jerry Springer?
Sounds like Fake News 60 Minutes continues to uphold the finest traditions in yellow smut journalism.
Ho hum.
Stormy Daniels’s 60 Minutes interview was, in its way, fascinating. But it ultimately failed to shed light on the two most interesting questions that are dangerous to the whole country:
1) How many other sexual partners has Trump paid hush money to?
2) How many foreign intelligence services know about one or more of those women?
It’s obviously possible that shortly after his third wife gave birth to his fifth child, Donald Trump began the one and only adulterous affair of his life and then had his longtime lawyer/fixer write Daniels a six-figure check to shut her up.
But that would, obviously, fly in the face of our basic understanding of human behavior. It also contradicts Steve Bannon’s remarks in Fire and Fury when he says that another Trump attorney, Marc Kasowitz, “has gotten him out of all kinds of jams. Kasowitz on the campaign — what did we have, a hundred women? Kasowitz took care of all of them.” And the National Enquirer appears to have paid $150,000 to former Playboy centerfold Karen McDougal to try to keep her quiet.
For one reason or another, Trump is clearly quite committed to trying to prevent his former partners from discussing their dalliances in public. He and his associates are willing to put cash on the line for this, threaten massive legal consequences, and perhaps even engage in acts of physical intimidation.
And while that put Daniels under pressure, it means that entities with more power and sophistication than Daniels can use those secrets to put pressure on Trump.
Maybe Daniels and McDougal are the only women he’s ever paid off. Or maybe there are others out there but nobody from Russia or the United Arab Emirates or the Mossad or whoever hates the Japanese steel industry found out about it. Anything’s possible. But I have my doubts.
The president has successfully cultivated an image as so flaky and incompetent that his many baffling decisions on the world stage — from leaking Israeli intelligence to the Russian foreign minister to undercutting his own administration’s policy on Qatar to mysteriously leaving Japan off a list of allies exempted from steel tariffs — generally get written off as evidence that he is flaky and incompetent rather than being actively manipulated by foreign actors.
Precisely because a lot of people would be interested in embarrassing material about the president’s sex life — and because Trump, a very image-conscious person, could be very worried about that interest — the existence of embarrassing secrets could well be a national security crisis for the country.
If Trump is in the habit of making these kinds of payments, we need to have a full account of it. And the sooner, the better.
www.vox.com/2018/3/25/17162750/stormy-daniels-foreign-blackmail-60-min
utes-anderson-cooper-donald-trump
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME