politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
So I work with people experiencing homelessness, and can tell you with authority that there are often times when we know someone meets criteria for guardianship and would genuinely benefit from it, however they have no known next of kin and the alternative state-initiated process can take years.
Based on what I'm reading, they're not talking about seeking guardianship for someone just for being homeless, they're talking about people who have debilitating medical or psychiatric conditions, which often co-occur with homelessness. I think this is a good thing, and I wish my state would support enhanced guardianship capacity for the civilians who need this.
I notice the title posted here has been edited to remove "some" homeless veterans, which was already doing the heavy lifting as clickbait for the NYT. This effort is clearly not aimed at homeless veterans, but some homeless veterans may be impacted if they meet guardianship criteria.
Honest question. Do you trust this administration, our systems as they stand, and do you understand the historical significance of such measures?
Because I can answer those.
No. Yes. Yes.
And in no way, shape, or form would I grant them this power. Especially since we literally have a talking head on the main network that our current president literally hires from that straight up suggested just killing homeless people because it’d be easier.
So, I understand and can respect your good faith interpretation, and I understand how you could believe this could be used for good but with all that said, are you outta your god damned mind? Of course they’re gonna end up abusing that power. It’s a literal inevitability.
But what they're proposing here isn't something like the VA/feds deciding someone gets a guardian, all they're proposing is giving physicians with the VA the power to refer people into the guardianship legal process in state courts, specifically Virginia. Potential wards would still be subject to a full vetting by county-level guardianship investigators who are typically attorneys, and then be appointed an attorney ad litem, and then go before a judge to argue their case, and then be subject to regular judicial follow-ups to make sure things are on track.
They're not proposing tearing down any of the existing guardrails to protect people, nor are they attempting to federalize this process. Do I trust the Trump Admin? Absolutely not. But I see no shenanigans with this one
Yeah, my wife works with homeless veterans. They run the gamut, from hard on your luck to absolutely insane. She had to call PD yesterday because one threatened suicide. She convinced another to speak to a therapist after she acted as a mediator for two hours between the vet and their landlord.
Some of these folks are just off the deep end. Some have very serious drug addictions. And some are fine. If people like my wife got to be part of the process for determining whether someone needed to be institutionalized, I feel like I could trust that process.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_abuse_of_psychiatry_in_the_Soviet_Union
In times like ours, I'm going to oppose any attempt to expand the powers governments have at putting people in cages, however benevolent the aim.