That just goes in hand in hand with her decision to sabotage the $15 minimum wage. Keep the poors poor, and have plenty of cops on hand in case they get uppity.

Again, saying I'm wrong over and over again is neither a meaningful nor interesting contribution, if you have nothing else to offer. And, as I also stated, you simply do not know what you are talking about.

Well, you're not making any arguments or providing any information, so this is pointless. And you're wrong anyway. I'm certain that I have spent a great deal more time investigating the issue of homelessness than you have, and a great deal more time with homeless people. Your armchair conservative opinions aren't worth my time.

Hedge funds buying up housing and raising rent, artificially induced inflation, low minimum wage, inaccessible healthcare. How are we NOT manufacturing homelessness? Plenty of countries have extreme poverty and slums etc etc. but none have the wealth and resources that we do, the mass of unoccupied housing sitting empty. We have no excuse to have this many people on the streets.

Every society does have poor and homeless. None have as much as we do, because we manufacture homelessness. That’s no platitude.

It's simply untrue that they would destroy proper housing if it was given to them. Yes, some with severe mental illness or addiction may do some damage. But plenty of working people with homes also trash them. Ever been to a hoarders house, or a rural property with 20 rusting cars in the yard? Some people make a mess. Homeless people are just people.

​

To your point about society, our society is designed around competition in such a way that necessitates the creation of a permanent houseless underclass. They have existed as long as this society has. It is in fact a function of our society, not an obstacle to its function. The real solution is of course a restructuring of society on the basis of cooperation, not competition. But I somehow imagine that you will have plenty of objections to that.

But they didn't even do that. And they could not have expected what they did to accomplish that. If they wanted to "protect the infrastructure" they would have fenced off the area after bulldozing everything or found some means of keeping people away from the bridge. But they did nothing to prevent people from immediately moving back. And they did it knowing that the very close proximity of the camp to the soup kitchen, and it's sheltered position under the bridge were literally life-saving factors for people. Propane tank explosions and brush fires by roads and bridges are not ideal, but they cause a lot less harm than an unnecessary eviction and the willful destruction of lifesaving shelter and property.

Don’t evict them. Especially during winter, and especially when alternate housing is not provided.

It is. And it’s even worse when they get evicted from their camps in winter. Concord PD evicted a camp under a bridge last December, with a number of disabled and elderly people. They had to go live in the woods, miles outside of town. And it achieved nothing. Other people immediately moved under the bridge, and a few people came back, but all their tents and most of their belongings had been bulldozed. It was just utterly needless cruelty.

Use small portable heaters, cover their tents with blankets, bundle up. It’s brutal though. Some of them die every winter.

Thoughts and prayers

Well French speakers don’t ofc, but obviously English colonists using the name did pronounce the T, or they wouldn’t have reason to drop it. I would think anyway.

Dropping the T seems quite natural, the name rolls of the tongue better without it. Interesting!

I mean Vermont is a French name, so perhaps conflating it with Canada isn’t so unreasonable. The changed spelling is curious though 😁