california-launches-new-effort-to-fight-election-disinformation (Los Angeles, San Francisco, Fortuna: crimes, college, living)

[NoMoreSnowForMe]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

They certainly did last presidential election 2016 ... and they’re still fired up now.

In California?

[LuvSouthOC]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

They certainly did last presidential election 2016 ... and they’re still fired up now.

Ah so the concern was over the last presidential election, just as I thought.

[Exitus Acta Probat]

Originally Posted by LuvSouthOC

No, that just can't be. I was given the work of scholars that was "peer reviewed" and subject to rigor beyond mention. Plus some on this site who have sleep disorders (and others) who proclaimed themselves experts told me as much. I am so so bewildered.

http://www.kabc.com/2018/05/31/la-mayor-mim/

With the passage of Props 47 and 57, a lot of drug addicts are not going for treatment because they no longer face the threat of jail time for dodging it, which has contributed to the current homeless crisis.

Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti agrees with the homeless advocates and law enforcement officials who say the reforms went too far.

Yeah, so will those Prop 47 advocates on this forum acquiesce and admit they were wrong? Or do they now believe Garcetti too is incorrect? Nevermind that it's simply a matter of logical induction to assume that, when you let criminals out of prison, crime is going to increase since the whole point of putting criminals in prison is to prevent them from committing crimes since their criminal behavior indicates that they have a proclivity to commit crime.

[Exitus Acta Probat]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

They certainly did last presidential election 2016 ... and they’re still fired up now.

Yeah, it's unfortunate and I wish those fired-up people would realize it's not illegal to talk to Russians -- the 80's called and they want their international policies back...hehe. But alas, providence favors this nation and has blessed us with a living god and savior of Western Civilization, our President Donald John Trump, Charlemagne Reincarnate.

Have a nice evening, sir.

[LuvSouthOC]

Originally Posted by Exitus Acta Probat

Yeah, it's unfortunate and I wish those fired-up people would realize it's not illegal to talk to Russians -- the 80's called and they want their international policies back...hehe. But alas, providence favors this nation and has blessed us with a living god and savior of Western Civilization, our President Donald John Trump, Charlemagne Reincarnate.

Have a nice evening, sir.

I’d prefer Emperor Vaspesian Donaldus Triumfus, rejuvenator of our declining Empire.

Charlemagne defeated the Saxons despite Widukind’s resistance (and destroyed Irminsuul’s tree temple) and I still have a bone to pick with him for that, though I know he was the first Holy Roman Emperor and all...plus he was a Frank.

[2sleepy]

Originally Posted by LuvSouthOC

With the passage of Props 47 and 57, a lot of drug addicts are not going for treatment because they no longer face the threat of jail time for dodging it, which has contributed to the current homeless crisis. Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti agrees with the homeless advocates and law enforcement officials who say the reforms went too far.

Garcetti did little to nothing to mitigate the homeless problem so now he blames the law /sigh. Prop 57 has nothing to do with drug treatment, period. It allows inmates to apply for parole after serving their entire primary sentence, rather than having to serve the full term for other charges that were to run consecutive.

But tell me this - what is the recovery rate for these wonderful 'drug programs' that addicts no longer have to participate in? Here you go, I will save you the trouble of looking it up:

While a limited literature exists, the majority of studies (78%) evaluating compulsory treatment failed to detect any significant positive impacts on drug use or criminal recidivism over other approaches, with two studies (22%) detecting negative impacts of compulsory treatment on criminal recidivism compared with control arms. Further, only two studies (22%) observed a significant impact of long-term compulsory inpatient treatment on criminal recidivism: one reported a small effect size on recidivism after two years, and one found a lower risk of drug use within one week of release from compulsory treatment.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4752879/

Cliff notes version: compulsory drug treatment doesn't work.

[2sleepy]

Originally Posted by Exitus Acta Probat

Yeah, so will those Prop 47 advocates on this forum acquiesce and admit they were wrong? Or do they now believe Garcetti too is incorrect? Nevermind that it's simply a matter of logical induction to assume that, when you let criminals out of prison, crime is going to increase since the whole point of putting criminals in prison is to prevent them from committing crimes since their criminal behavior indicates that they have a proclivity to commit crime.

Of course Garcetti is wrong, he's just trying to blame something else for the problem that he hasn't done much to fix. And yes, keeping people in prison does prevent them from committing crimes - until they get out that is. But the downside is the cost, 75k per head per year, and the fact that many people commit more serious crimes after they have been in prison (it's a great place to learn how to commit crimes) and many inmates became affiliated with a gang in prison that they can't drop out of when they are paroled.

That's not an argument against sending people to prison, but rather being selective about who we send to prison and making sure they are going to prison because they are a danger to the public, not because we're Pi$$ed off at them.

[2sleepy]

Originally Posted by Exitus Acta Probat

Yeah, it's unfortunate and I wish those fired-up people would realize it's not illegal to talk to Russians -- the 80's called and they want their international policies back...hehe. But alas, providence favors this nation and has blessed us with a living god and savior of Western Civilization, our President Donald John Trump, Charlemagne Reincarnate.

Have a nice evening, sir.

It's not about 'talking to Russians' but I'm sure you know that.

[Exitus Acta Probat]

Originally Posted by 2sleepy

Of course Garcetti is wrong, he's just trying to blame something else for the problem that he hasn't done much to fix. And yes, keeping people in prison does prevent them from committing crimes - until they get out that is. But the downside is the cost, 75k per head per year, and the fact that many people commit more serious crimes after they have been in prison (it's a great place to learn how to commit crimes) and many inmates became affiliated with a gang in prison that they can't drop out of when they are paroled.

That's not an argument against sending people to prison, but rather being selective about who we send to prison and making sure they are going to prison because they are a danger to the public, not because we're Pi$$ed off at them.

So to save tax money we should unleash criminals who steal our stuff? Is that actually saving us money? Did the person who lost their televisions, stereo, appliances, jewelry, art collection, and various other things in their house save money? I support saving money, but letting criminals out of prison is not the most efficient manner in which to go about it.

[Exitus Acta Probat]

Originally Posted by 2sleepy

It's not about 'talking to Russians' but I'm sure you know that.

Shall we then discuss Uranium One? But I'm sure you know all about that.