Are San Franciscans coming to their senses?

[schism666]

Roe was not decided by voters. It was decided by 9 appointed judges. More recently 9 appointed judges determined that under the Constitution, abortion policy belongs in the hands of voters and their elected representatives. Since Dobbs, voters and their elected representatives have been making decisions about the issue. You seem unhappy about that.

you can't even follow your own fucked up logic.

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

Republicans have repeatedly tried to keep abortion protection off of state ballots, because they lose whenever the public is allowed to vote on the issue.

Laws can be passed by state legislatures or by ballot measures. Either way, voters have a voice. We’ve seen instances of abortion policy set through both processes in various states in the post-Dobbs era. In many cases, it’s been a winning issue for abortion rights advocates and Democrats in general.

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

you can't even follow your own fucked up logic.

I get that you are unhappy with the potential laws SF voters might pass and I get that you’re unhappy with the Dobbs decision. These are facts you’ll just have to accept.

 

[TastySuckToy]

Should politicians, recipients of publicly funded salaries, be subject to drug testing?

I actually think that's an awesome idea.

 

[schism666]

I get that you are unhappy with the potential laws SF voters might pass and I get that you’re unhappy with the Dobbs decision. These are facts you’ll just have to accept.

you don't even "get" your own thread which i blew up with facts. you've resorted to weak ascription and more lies.

THESE ARE FACTS YOU'LL JUST HAVE TO ACCEPT.

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

you don't even "get" your own thread which i blew up with facts. you've resorted to weak ascription and more lies.

THESE ARE FACTS YOU'LL JUST HAVE TO ACCEPT.

The facts are SF residents might be ready to vote for change in their troubled city. You pivoted to abortion, my Christmas dinner guests and other random things on your mind. That said, thanks for being an active reader and commentator on my posts. Glad you find them worth your valuable time.

 

[schism666]

The facts are SF residents might be ready to vote for change in their troubled city. You pivoted to abortion, my Christmas dinner guests and other random things on your mind. That said, thanks for being an active reader and commentator on my posts. Glad you find them worth your valuable time.

i know how embarrassing this thread has become for you, it's painfully obvious. .

oh, and you pivoted to property taxes on only your second post on your failed thread that you were caught lying about.

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

i know how embarrassing this thread has become for you, it's painfully obvious. .

oh, and you pivoted to property taxes on only your second post on your failed thread that you were caught lying about.

Yes, I was responding to your comment about my posts about CA. Always appreciate your random reactions to my threads and posts. Thanks for being so engaged. Hope it’s not interfering with your important work.

 

[TastySuckToy]

It might make sense for certain occupations where public safety could be at risk, but generally I don’t think it’s necessary.

Why not? We can agree we don't want public funds used for drug use, absolutely.

But for public servants who are given significant public trust and power, wouldn't it be prudent and even more important to ensure they aren't doing drugs?

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

Why not? We can agree we don't want public funds used for drug use, absolutely.

But for public servants who are given significant public trust and power, wouldn't it be prudent and even more important to ensure they aren't doing drugs?

I’d be supportive if I thought it would save lives and result in better decisions but I don’t think it would.

 

[TastySuckToy]

I’d be supportive if I thought it would save lives and result in better decisions but I don’t think it would.

Why not? Wouldn't you agree people, including politicians who affect many lives, would be better equipped to make good decisions if they're not doing drugs?

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

Why not? Wouldn't you agree people, including politicians who affect many lives, would be better equipped to make good decisions if they're not doing drugs?

Of course. Same is true with alcohol. Politicians and other people in important jobs have been known to have issues with drugs and alcohol. Because of the demands and high visibility of public office, it’s very difficult to mask substance abuse.

Elon Musk is an example of a public figure who is under growing scrutiny for his use of drugs. Nobody needed to test him. People around him were witnessing it. When Gavin Newsom was mayor of SF he had an alcohol problem. There was no need to test him. It was obvious. A former mayor of DC was a raging coke fiend. No drug test needed.

 

[Lazaran]

BabyBoobs is trying to steal the threadfail crown from "Right"guide.

 

[TastySuckToy]

Of course. Same is true with alcohol. Politicians and other people in important jobs have been known to have issues with drugs and alcohol. Because of the demands and high visibility of public office, it’s very difficult to mask substance abuse.

Then I suppose the question is, should this disqualify them from office? If I hire a taxi driver, and find out he's an alcoholic or does drugs that can severely affect good performance, I certainly have the right to fire them.

Elon Musk is an example of a public figure who is under growing scrutiny for his use of drugs. Nobody needed to test him. People around him were witnessing it.

Not a relevant figure, he's not a public servant.

When Gavin Newsom was mayor of SF he had an alcohol problem. There was no need to test him. It was obvious. A former mayor of DC was a raging coke fiend. No drug test needed.

Then my next point would be a prudent measure is immediate dismissal of such irresponsible public servants.

If they lack the self control, education and intelligence to not be substance abusers, I see zero rational justification to empower them over other people.

 

[schism666]

Yes, I was responding to your comment about my posts about CA. Always appreciate your random reactions to my threads and posts. Thanks for being so engaged. Hope it’s not interfering with your important work.

pointing out your lies isn't "engaging." it's making fun of you for having to lie about your ex to make yourself feel better.

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

Then I suppose the question is, should this disqualify them from office? If I hire a taxi driver, and find out he's an alcoholic or does drugs that can severely affect good performance, I certainly have the right to fire them.

Not a relevant figure, he's not a public servant.

Then my next point would be a prudent measure is immediate dismissal of such irresponsible public servants.

If they lack the self control, education and intelligence to not be substance abusers, I see zero rational justification to empower them over other people.

So drug testing only for elected officials? Would it extend to their staff? What about non elected public employees?

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

pointing out your lies isn't "engaging." it's making fun of you for having to lie about your ex to make yourself feel better.

What lie did I tell?

 

[TastySuckToy]

So drug testing only for elected officials? Would it extend to their staff? What about non elected public employees?

I'm a private sector employee and I have zero issue, and support, no tolerance policies for substance abuse problems. Public employees make it even more crucial.

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

I'm a private sector employee and I have zero issue, and support, no tolerance policies for substance abuse problems. Public employees make it even more crucial.

Private businesses have the right to drug test. I worked for a company years ago that required it. Few companies do that though, especially in industries like tech where hiring and retention is difficult. I don’t worry about employees who use cannabis or who might do coke or mushrooms on a Friday night every once in awhile. If job performance slips, let them go.

There’s an old story about how one of General Grants military rivals whispered to President Lincoln that Grant had an alcohol problem. The president told the tattletale to find out what Grant drinks and order bottles for all his generals.

 

[TastySuckToy]

Private businesses have the right to drug test. I worked for a company years ago that required it. Few companies do that though, especially in industries like tech where hiring and retention is difficult. I don’t worry about employees who use cannabis or who might do coke or mushrooms on a Friday night every once in awhile. If job performance slips, let them go.

There’s an old story about how one of General Grants military rivals whispered to President Lincoln that Grant had an alcohol problem. The president told the tattletale to find out what Grant drinks and order bottles for all his generals.

Using that premise, then what's the justification for denying welfare to recipients if they utilize drugs to the same extent as people in your examples?

 

[schism666]

What lie did I tell?

bro

bro

you don't have the chops to gaslight me or anyone else here. if you truly cared, you would have asked this question when i called you a liar the previous 3 times.

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

Using that premise, then what's the justification for denying welfare to recipients if they utilize drugs to the same extent as people in your examples?

Thanks for the question. Figured we needed to get to it eventually. The difference is the City of San Francisco has thousands of people living on the streets and drug use is rampant. Imagine if halls of Congress were filled with politicians passed out in the hallways, shitting on the floor, and shooting up in plain sight.

SF is both a city and a county so the local government is responsible for administering federal assistance as well as city and county assistance. That includes food stamps, cash, emergency shelter as well as permanent supportive housing, health services, navigation of state and federal programs, etc. The goal is to help them become employable and at least semi-self sufficient. That can’t happen if they’re simply accepting the benefits without getting the help they need to get clean. There needs to be strings attached. Without strings, the city has become a magnet for addicts. An abundance of drugs plus lots of free government subsidies to support the lifestyle.

Not all homeless people in SF are addicts. There are families, an others who have just fallen on hard times, and unfortunately they’ll be unnecessarily subject to drug testing too. But because of the scope of the open air drug markets and needles that are found all over, drug screening is needed there. Get clean, or get cut off or locked up.

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

bro

bro

you don't have the chops to gaslight me or anyone else here. if you truly cared, you would have asked this question when i called you a liar the previous 3 times.

So you can’t point to any lies because there were none. Lol

 

[Rightguide]

San Francisco has an estimated homeless population of about 7,700. They live on the streets, where open drug use, panhandling, pooping and pissing, and other forms of dangerous behavior are part of daily life downtown. It may seem small as a percentage of the total population but it’s VERY significant to folks who live there. That’s why so many residents appear ready to vote for change.

To say nothing of the mobs of worthless people who go "shopping without money" that are driving every profit-oriented business owner out of town.

 

[Rightguide]

I actually think that's an awesome idea.

I do as well. It might explain a whole number of disastrous ideas foisted upon the unsuspecting public.