Simply incorrect.
You're conflating local politics with national politics. 
There are different sets of people addressing different sets of issues at each level.  
At the national level, Seattle voters favor leftists, and you identify that correctly.  
At the local level, they favor NIMBYs, whether left or right.
The NIMBYs hate high density housing.  That's the whole issue.

Did you watch the whole video?

Stopped at about halfway through.  I saw the city council meeting you mentioned and a bunch more.  The narrator teased that he would present a solution but I didn't make it that far.  What did he say the solution was?

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

There are 2 types of homeless: those who want to be and those who are trying to not be. We should help the ones that are putting in the effort to not be homeless. For ones that don't want to put in any work, we shouldn't do a thing for them. They will continue to destroy whatever you give them and will still be homeless in the end.

There is really no solution to those type of people. It could be addiction, mental issues, etc but you can't help those people unless they want help. Either you need to come up with a solution to remove them out of people's way or live with it.

---

Did you watch the whole video?

Stopped at about halfway through.  I saw the city council meeting you mentioned and a bunch more.  The narrator teased that he would present a solution but I didn't make it that far.  What did he say the solution was?

Hmm, but you feel qualified to comment. 

Well anyway, he said to kick all the NIMBYs into the street and give their homes to the homeless.

---

There are 2 types of homeless: those who want to be and those who are trying to not be. We should help the ones that are putting in the effort to not be homeless. For ones that don't want to put in any work, we shouldn't do a thing for them. They will continue to destroy whatever you give them and will still be homeless in the end.

There is really no solution to those type of people. It could be addiction, mental issues, etc but you can't help those people unless they want help. Either you need to come up with a solution to remove them out of people's way or live with it.

No, that’s exactly what you don’t want to do or the problem will continue to fester. 

If anyone feels compelled to watch the entire video it’s enlightening.

---

Stopped at about halfway through.  I saw the city council meeting you mentioned and a bunch more.  The narrator teased that he would present a solution but I didn't make it that far.  What did he say the solution was?

Hmm, but you feel qualified to comment. 

Well anyway, he said to kick all the NIMBYs into the street and give their homes to the homeless.

Thatsbait.gif

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Stopped at about halfway through.  I saw the city council meeting you mentioned and a bunch more.  The narrator teased that he would present a solution but I didn't make it that far.  What did he say the solution was?

Hmm, but you feel qualified to comment. 

Well anyway, he said to kick all the NIMBYs into the street and give their homes to the homeless.

---

There are 2 types of homeless: those who want to be and those who are trying to not be. We should help the ones that are putting in the effort to not be homeless. For ones that don't want to put in any work, we shouldn't do a thing for them. They will continue to destroy whatever you give them and will still be homeless in the end.

There is really no solution to those type of people. It could be addiction, mental issues, etc but you can't help those people unless they want help. Either you need to come up with a solution to remove them out of people's way or live with it.

No, that’s exactly what you don’t want to do or the problem will continue to fester. 

If anyone feels compelled to watch the entire video it’s enlightening.

I will say those 5 women behind the MAT program deserve an award.

---

Original Season Ticket Holder - Retired  1995 - 2020


At some point you just have to let go of what you thought should happen and live in what is happening.
 

There are 2 types of homeless: those who want to be and those who are trying to not be. We should help the ones that are putting in the effort to not be homeless. For ones that don't want to put in any work, we shouldn't do a thing for them. They will continue to destroy whatever you give them and will still be homeless in the end.

There is really no solution to those type of people. It could be addiction, mental issues, etc but you can't help those people unless they want help. Either you need to come up with a solution to remove them out of people's way or live with it.

No, that’s exactly what you don’t want to do or the problem will continue to fester. 

If anyone feels compelled to watch the entire video it’s enlightening.

Unfortunately there is no solution. If you move them, it's someone else's problem but you can't force them be members of society. No one is going to take option C or D which is to lock them up or move them to an isolated area, give them access to unlimited substances they are addicted to, and let them take care of it themselves.

People have free will and until they choose to change, nothing can make them change.

---

Stopped at about halfway through.  I saw the city council meeting you mentioned and a bunch more.  The narrator teased that he would present a solution but I didn't make it that far.  What did he say the solution was?

Hmm, but you feel qualified to comment. 

Well anyway, he said to kick all the NIMBYs into the street and give their homes to the homeless.

Okay, I gave in and watched the rest.
At the halfway mark, he starts talking about how the prosecutors are not prosecuting shoplifting, so the police have stopped arresting for it. Obviously, the city is pretty far gone if they no longer think it's worthwhile to prosecute shoplifting. A bunch of things went wrong before we got to that point. Any reasonable person thinks that shoplifting should be prosecuted, let's try to understand how they got there.  He doesn't give any of the people who made those decisions time to explain them. Then he says, maybe people are starting to push back against these bad decisions, and he shows a group of construction workers protesting. This is deceptive. Those construction workers were protesting against a new tax proposal. They were not protesting against feckless police and prosecutors.  You already know that it is easy for TV to deceive, but I will bet you didn't realize you were being deceived in that particular moment. That's the thing about being deceived, you don't realize it's happened to you.
Anyhow.
At the 3/4 mark, he makes his final point, which is that some places are going back to involuntary inpatient treatment for narcotics addiction, after decades of not doing it.  He recommends that for Seattle. I agree with him about this, it seems good. But like I've already said, most homeless people are not using drugs.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Hmm, but you feel qualified to comment. 

Well anyway, he said to kick all the NIMBYs into the street and give their homes to the homeless.

Okay, I gave in and watched the rest.
At the halfway mark, he starts talking about how the prosecutors are not prosecuting shoplifting, so the police have stopped arresting for it. Obviously, the city is pretty far gone if they no longer think it's worthwhile to prosecute shoplifting. A bunch of things went wrong before we got to that point. Any reasonable person thinks that shoplifting should be prosecuted, let's try to understand how they got there.  He doesn't give any of the people who made those decisions time to explain them. Then he says, maybe people are starting to push back against these bad decisions, and he shows a group of construction workers protesting. This is deceptive. Those construction workers were protesting against a new tax proposal. They were not protesting against feckless police and prosecutors.  You already know that it is easy for TV to deceive, but I will bet you didn't realize you were being deceived in that particular moment. That's the thing about being deceived, you don't realize it's happened to you.
Anyhow.
At the 3/4 mark, he makes his final point, which is that some places are going back to involuntary inpatient treatment for narcotics addiction, after decades of not doing it.  He recommends that for Seattle. I agree with him about this, it seems good. But like I've already said, most homeless people are not using drugs.

Mr Sez has spoken!

---

Original Season Ticket Holder - Retired  1995 - 2020


At some point you just have to let go of what you thought should happen and live in what is happening.
 

most homeless people are not using drugs.

I think that is incorrect. Most are using drugs.

---

most homeless people are not using drugs.
[/quote' Wrote: I think that is incorrect. Most are using drugs.

If you include alcohol as a drug, you might get a bare majority. The plurality of homeless people are not using drugs or alcohol. Using alcohol moderately doesn't count.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Look, I know you all have better things to do with your time than spend hours watching deceptive videos.
Here's a link that will teach you 11 things about homelessness very quickly, took me less than 5 minutes to read.
Like any good website, if you want to learn more, click on the thing you want to learn more about.
https://www.vox.com/2015/1/15/7552441/ho...acts-myths

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Those stats are incorrect. 91 percent of homeless people have destroyed their lives with drugs and alcohol

---

Hmm, but you feel qualified to comment. 

Well anyway, he said to kick all the NIMBYs into the street and give their homes to the homeless.

Okay, I gave in and watched the rest.
At the halfway mark, he starts talking about how the prosecutors are not prosecuting shoplifting, so the police have stopped arresting for it. Obviously, the city is pretty far gone if they no longer think it's worthwhile to prosecute shoplifting. A bunch of things went wrong before we got to that point. Any reasonable person thinks that shoplifting should be prosecuted, let's try to understand how they got there.  He doesn't give any of the people who made those decisions time to explain them. Then he says, maybe people are starting to push back against these bad decisions, and he shows a group of construction workers protesting. This is deceptive. Those construction workers were protesting against a new tax proposal. They were not protesting against feckless police and prosecutors.  You already know that it is easy for TV to deceive, but I will bet you didn't realize you were being deceived in that particular moment. That's the thing about being deceived, you don't realize it's happened to you.
Anyhow.
At the 3/4 mark, he makes his final point, which is that some places are going back to involuntary inpatient treatment for narcotics addiction, after decades of not doing it.  He recommends that for Seattle. I agree with him about this, it seems good. But like I've already said, most homeless people are not using drugs.

LOL.  You just admitted they are not reasonable people; therefore their "explanations" are irrelevant because their reasoning was flawed.  The problem really isn't difficult to understand.

---

When you get into the endzone, act like you've been there before.

Okay, I gave in and watched the rest.
At the halfway mark, he starts talking about how the prosecutors are not prosecuting shoplifting, so the police have stopped arresting for it. Obviously, the city is pretty far gone if they no longer think it's worthwhile to prosecute shoplifting. A bunch of things went wrong before we got to that point. Any reasonable person thinks that shoplifting should be prosecuted, let's try to understand how they got there.  He doesn't give any of the people who made those decisions time to explain them. Then he says, maybe people are starting to push back against these bad decisions, and he shows a group of construction workers protesting. This is deceptive. Those construction workers were protesting against a new tax proposal. They were not protesting against feckless police and prosecutors.  You already know that it is easy for TV to deceive, but I will bet you didn't realize you were being deceived in that particular moment. That's the thing about being deceived, you don't realize it's happened to you.
Anyhow.
At the 3/4 mark, he makes his final point, which is that some places are going back to involuntary inpatient treatment for narcotics addiction, after decades of not doing it.  He recommends that for Seattle. I agree with him about this, it seems good. But like I've already said, most homeless people are not using drugs.

LOL.  You just admitted they are not reasonable people; therefore their "explanations" are irrelevant because their reasoning was flawed.  The problem really isn't difficult to understand.

They got through law school and got themselves elected in a large city.  By a lot of voters.  And they have staffs of others who also got through law school.  Even if none of the thought process is reasonable, if it's all a mass delusion, even so it's important to understand what the hook was.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Look, I know you all have better things to do with your time than spend hours watching deceptive videos.
Here's a link that will teach you 11 things about homelessness very quickly, took me less than 5 minutes to read.
Like any good website, if you want to learn more, click on the thing you want to learn more about.
https://www.vox.com/2015/1/15/7552441/ho...acts-myths

This is your politics in a nutshell.

---

Look, I know you all have better things to do with your time than spend hours watching deceptive videos.
Here's a link that will teach you 11 things about homelessness very quickly, took me less than 5 minutes to read.
Like any good website, if you want to learn more, click on the thing you want to learn more about.
https://www.vox.com/2015/1/15/7552441/ho...acts-myths

As always you redefine the discussion to fit your view.  Clearly this conversation is about “street people” and you moved the goal post to include sheltered homeless.  They are not the same and you are aware of that.

---

Original Season Ticket Holder - Retired  1995 - 2020


At some point you just have to let go of what you thought should happen and live in what is happening.
 

Look, I know you all have better things to do with your time than spend hours watching deceptive videos.
Here's a link that will teach you 11 things about homelessness very quickly, took me less than 5 minutes to read.
Like any good website, if you want to learn more, click on the thing you want to learn more about.
https://www.vox.com/2015/1/15/7552441/ho...acts-myths

This post illustrates the problem with you and your fellow "lefties", you're too gullible. You seize any and all information that supports your agenda without consideration for timing and/or situational relevancy, then pride yourselves of being 'informed".  The article credits specific studies a total of ten times, the most recent of which dates back to 2014.  

5 from 2014
2 from 2013
2 from 2010
1 from.............................wait for it........................1996.

---

When you get into the endzone, act like you've been there before.

I've stated a few times before that Tucker Carlson's only redeeming quality is his astute monologues. Otherwise, I can't stand listening to the guy. But his monologues are measured and surprisingly not as politically biased as his show. Last night he presented a truthful treatise on the motivations for homelessness in America.
 
Regardless of your political leanings I think it's a worthwhile watch. 

https://youtu.be/DREmnsungVM

I was okay with what he was saying until he made the statement that Democrats and big Wall Street law firms did something "because they wanted to increase homelessness."   Seriously?  I would think that if he actually wanted to persuade someone of something, he would offer a whole bunch of facts before he came out with bull [BLEEP] like that.  

And then he follows up with the statement that he doesn't know why they wanted to increase homelessness.  But somehow, he knows that Democrats and big Wall Street lawyers wanted to increase homelessness.  

I can't listen to bull [BLEEP] like that.

Maybe he has some legitimate point to make somewhere in that morass of ideas he's putting out, but it seems from the start that it's just another attempt to demonize people on the other side of the political equation and toss some red meat to his viewers.

So then he goes on for 20 minutes about a problem we are all well aware of, and at the end he offers the solution: throw their tents in the land fill and tell them to get out of town.  How is that remotely supposed to happen?  Tell a drug addict or insane person to get out of town?  Okay.  Then what?  

Yes, I did watch the whole thing.  It's nothing but a nice way to fill 25 or so minutes of his show with little effort.

---

Look, I know you all have better things to do with your time than spend hours watching deceptive videos.
Here's a link that will teach you 11 things about homelessness very quickly, took me less than 5 minutes to read.
Like any good website, if you want to learn more, click on the thing you want to learn more about.
https://www.vox.com/2015/1/15/7552441/ho...acts-myths

As always you redefine the discussion to fit your view.  Clearly this conversation is about “street people” and you moved the goal post to include sheltered homeless.  They are not the same and you are aware of that.

I didn't write the article.  I agree the article is broader than the discussion here, but still has facts that are pertinent to us.  Do you have a better article to link us to?

---

Look, I know you all have better things to do with your time than spend hours watching deceptive videos.
Here's a link that will teach you 11 things about homelessness very quickly, took me less than 5 minutes to read.
Like any good website, if you want to learn more, click on the thing you want to learn more about.
https://www.vox.com/2015/1/15/7552441/ho...acts-myths

This post illustrates the problem with you and your fellow "lefties", you're too gullible. You seize any and all information that supports your agenda without consideration for timing and/or situational relevancy, then pride yourselves of being 'informed".  The article credits specific studies a total of ten times, the most recent of which dates back to 2014.  

5 from 2014
2 from 2013
2 from 2010
1 from.............................wait for it........................1996.

Same question to you.  Do you ha e a better article?

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

As always you redefine the discussion to fit your view.  Clearly this conversation is about “street people” and you moved the goal post to include sheltered homeless.  They are not the same and you are aware of that.

I didn't write the article.  I agree the article is broader than the discussion here, but still has facts that are pertinent to us.  Do you have a better article to link us to?

---

This post illustrates the problem with you and your fellow "lefties", you're too gullible. You seize any and all information that supports your agenda without consideration for timing and/or situational relevancy, then pride yourselves of being 'informed".  The article credits specific studies a total of ten times, the most recent of which dates back to 2014.  

5 from 2014
2 from 2013
2 from 2010
1 from.............................wait for it........................1996.

Same question to you.  Do you ha e a better article?

---

Original Season Ticket Holder - Retired  1995 - 2020


At some point you just have to let go of what you thought should happen and live in what is happening.