Community Fridges Are Facing Vandalism and Regulatory Challenges
The community fridge is a civic model that regulators should encourage, not seek to shut down.

Community fridges—refrigerators parked on city sidewalks by volunteers who stock them with food that hungry people may take as they need—are facing a raft of challenges from crime and vandalism. If that weren't enough, some community fridges are also facing the ax from overzealous regulators.
As I explained in a column last year, a "community fridge" refers to a working refrigerator that volunteers plug in on a city street and stock (and restock) with food that anyone can take and eat free of charge. Community fridges operate like microscopic, hyperlocal, decentralized food banks. They are, I opined, "exactly the sort of community-building and local self-reliance that America needs right now."
But right now, crime appears increasingly to be hampering the operation and spread of community fridges. In July, a community fridge in DeKalb County, Georgia, was vandalized and its contents strewn across the street. That particular fridge, which had been vandalized previously, is operated by a mutual-aid organization that's reduced the fridges it operates from six to two since it began operating in 2020. A month earlier, in Philadelphia, a community fridge and its contents were stolen right off the street—presumably to be sold for scrap.
But those examples of theft and vandalism pale in comparison to what's happened to a couple who regularly stock a community fridge that's located near their home in Portland, Oregon.
"Jeana and Mark Menger sleep with their car keys near their bedside, and they have a plan," The Oregonian reported in July. "Should a man who has frequented the community refrigerator full of free food on their Portland street make good on his vow to burn down their bungalow, they will climb out their bedroom window and drive off to safety." The paper notes residents who live near the community fridge also face other, perhaps lesser negative externalities, including human waste, rodents, and vandalism.
These are just some of the latest threats faced by community fridges and their supporters. Despite those threats—some literal and terrifying—the biggest challenges facing the community-fridge model across the country may still be regulations that prevent them from operating at all.
Indeed, as I noted in my column last year, community fridges in some cities and towns "are in jeopardy due to an unwelcome combination of outdated laws and overzealous regulators." In 2020, for example, code enforcement officers in Sacramento shut down a community fridge there, dismissing it as nothing more than "dangerous" "'junk' and 'debris.'" Then, earlier this year, code enforcement was at it again. They shuttered a city council candidate's community fridge with the same junk-and-debris claim. The city has since sent out warnings to others operating community fridges in the city, threatening them with hundreds of dollars in fines.
In Des Moines, Iowa, last year, the city ordered a resident farmer to close the community fridge in her yard. The city told farmer Monika Owczarski, the Des Moines Register reports, that "zoning permits the placement of sheds only in side or back yards" and "the refrigerator and the open-front shed housing it are a secondary structure on a property in a residentially zoned neighborhood without a primary structure—another violation of the city's code." The report also notes this was at least the second such time the city had ordered a community fridge to close due to misguided zoning rules.
Despite these continued challenges, many still see promise in the community fridges model. It's easy to see why. They allow people to help others in their communities directly, allow people in need to choose foods that are right for them and their families, reduce food waste, foster community, and other positive outcomes.
But overzealous regulations and regulators—along with crime and other challenges—have limited their reach and effectiveness. That problem, alas, is as old as community fridges themselves. After the first community fridges appeared in Germany about a decade ago, according to a group called Whole Healthy Group which promotes the use and spread of community fridges, "[g]overnment authorities intervened around 2016 and shut down most of the fridges[.]"
At a time of record-high food prices and crushing inflation, lawmakers should be doing more to ensure they lower or eliminate regulatory burdens to allow community fridges to be made available wherever charitable people see a need they wish to address.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
They are, I opined, "exactly the sort of community-building and local self-reliance that America needs right now."
No.
I prefer that we encourage actual self-reliance, and responsibility, and stop enabling behavior that allows people to live on the generosity of others. Especially when expectations of generosity lead to mandatory redistribution.
But when a lied-to babe get lied to by Lying Lothario, and she learns that he's got 12 other babes on the side, some ALSO lied-to and pregnant, she may NOT do the RESPONSIBLE thing and abort the sacred fartilized egg smell, right, ye Nosenheimenr and Buttinsky!?! Hypocrite! I hope that they tax the SHIT out of YOU, and leave ME alone, when the chickens come home to roost, on this one!
Full details here... Search for "Lying Lothario" in here... http://www.churchofsqrls.com/Jesus_Validated/
Your mom said to stop posting junk on the internet and go clean your room.
My mom is dead for years now. Ethical people do NOT encourage "talking to the dead"! There being no data to support ant reality in communicating with the dead, this simply encourages the mentally ill to THINK that the voices in their heads are the dead!
STOP taking therapy from the voices in your head!!!
Your psychiatric nurse said stop posting junk on the internet and go back to your room, you creepy old fuck.
To see what happens when you do NOT stop taking therapy from the voices in your head... See Marxist-Mammary-Necrophilia-Fuhrer!!!
Did that make sense to anyone? I can’t tell if Sqrlsy is off his meds, or taking too many.
I am creating eighty North American nation greenbacks per-hr. to finish some web services from home. I actually have not ever thought adore it would even realisable but (oaf-0a2) my friend mate got $27k solely in four weeks simply doing this best assignment and conjointly she convinced Maine to avail. Look further details going this web-page.
.
---------->>> https://dollarprofits99.blogspot.com/
As I’ve said before, sqrlsy eats poop. What grows in poop? Shrooms.
That's right. Charities, including private charities, just enable bad behavior by feeding the poor. In Libertopia, charities would be highly discouraged and shunned as contributing to irresponsibility among the poor. Every instance of a poor person going hungry is the result of that person's irresponsible behavior. It is only right and proper that the poor should starve, as that is the just result from their wicked and irresponsible behavior.
I wonder if there might be a better way to do charity than leaving food on the sidewalk for anyone to take?
There is. The church's used to play a much larger role in protecting a community. The church has been vilified these days, and the idea of a community has changed dramatically in the last half century.
Yeah, I was facetiously mocking Lying Jeffy’s stupidity.
Yup. Joining the thought in response to Jeff.
People can and will do good without God...most notably by both keeping themselves employed or opening businesses that create jobs....all without either garbage in the street or garbage in the mind.
Yup, they can, have and do with God as well. The idea is the helping, not the religious affiliation. And community. As God is purged from our communities have you not noticed a decline in civility? You may not like religion, and focus on the darker sides of its history but like all things, the bad is weighted far more than the good.
My neighbors in Silicon Valley were largely atheists, and very friendly. My red state neighbors mostly friendly, but the extremely religious ones are superficially friendly and insular.
The notion that civility is a monopoly of religion is wishful thinking. My City has a house of worship on every corner of many creeds, yet still has per Capita murder rates that have matched Chi-Town. Ditto with nearby Charlotte, NC.
I would hope that someone as Totally Committed To Honesty as you, would understand that EBHS's complaint about the 'community fridges' was much broader than simply this particular mode of delivery of the charity food. Here, let me repeat it for you, since it is impossible to believe that someone as Totally Committed To Honesty as you could have deliberately missed it the first time around.
I prefer that we encourage actual self-reliance, and responsibility, and stop enabling behavior that allows people to live on the generosity of others.
I am sure that you can see, Mr. Honesty, that such a broad statement is a condemnation of most all charity. How is handing food out to poor people at a soup kitchen any less "enabling behavior that allows people to live on the generosity of others" than handing food out to poor people via a 'community fridge'? Hmm?
So there are better ways to do charity than leaving food on the sidewalk for anyone, or no?
Huh. So you deliberately missed the entire point of the comment and now want to argue about minutiae. This sure does sound like another dishonest tactic coming from you, Mr. Totally Committed to Honesty.
Do I need to start asking you permission for what I comment about?
It’s a very odd stance that making comments you don’t think I should is dishonest. It’s almost like you’re obsessed with catching me being dishonest so anything I post you don’t like you’re going to label as dishonest.
One of the sea lions primary tactics is changing the basis of all arguments into one they feel comfortable about. Jeff is used to this. Even going far as to talk about bears in trunks.
Is that bears wearing trunks? Or bears packed in trunks?
When you consciously and deliberately ignore the point of the conversation and instead try to substitute your own point with an intent to derail it, that's called "trolling" and it is a fundamentally dishonest tactic. This is what you've done right here.
And this is a habit for you.
You will ignore the dishonest and disingenuous statements made by the Team Red tribalists around here, and instead attack the people you don't like. And then you have the gall to claim that you are Totally Committed to Honesty. What you are in fact doing is running cover for the dishonest and disingenuous statements of your fellow tribesfolk while pretending to be some sort of diviner of truth.
Since you claim to be a libertarian, you should know that the standard libertarian answer to the question "what will replace the welfare state?", is private charity. And here we have EBHS arguing against this very mainstream libertarian position, in favor of... what, exactly, I am not sure.
I mockingly pointed this out, and how do you respond? Do you offer an argument in favor of the mainstream libertarian position of private charity to address social problems? No, instead you want to talk about "better ways to do charity" than community fridges. The "better way" is entirely besides the point here - EBHS is arguing against charity itself.
So why even bring up the efficacy of community fridges in delivering charitable services when that was not even germane to the conversation at hand? EBHS isn't arguing that he is opposed to community fridges because they are inefficient. He's arguing that he is opposed to them because they enable "behavior that allows people to live on the generosity of others".
It's because you're trying to bait me into defending community fridges.
You are running interference for people in your tribe who are making some pretty disgusting arguments about how the poor should be treated, while attacking the person who is actually defending the traditional libertarian viewpoint of private charity being a valid option for addressing social problems. Because you are not committed to honesty. You are a troll.
Lol at you ranting about tribes again. So much projection.
Nobody’s gonna read all that, lol.
Sadly, it appears people will always be people. We don't and won't find Utopia because humans, at the base, are still animals. Instinctively, when times heat up, we devolve to base instinct. The stronger take, the weaker cower and some manage to work both sides and survive. The fact that a community cannot put up a source of food without others destroying it, taking advantage of the generosity when they don't need it is sad. But human nature will always win out over the idea that we are all the same and deserve the same. We don't. And when push comes to shove it is revealed.
It would indeed be better in libertopia if poor people died from their poor choices.
There's no poor in Libertopia.
So your a practicing Darwinist?
I am mocking the Darwinists around here.
100% agree.
It should be obvious from the vandalism and crime that they are setting up an anarchic commons, and we all know what happens to a commons. If anything the city is 100% in the right to shut these down, because they are to the homeless, the drug-addled, and the irresponsible, what a lamp is to a moth. I would not want to live in a neighborhood with some hippy-dippy neighbor putting a food for those people on the street.
If you really want to help the homeless, do it more directly, make it targeted, or give them cash. Do not just set out the free bowl of Halloween candy and think you're doing anyone a favor.
In my neighborhood that generosity has lead to beer cans strewn in the road and an increase in car break ins. It's been a great addition, the generosity costs us all extra dollars and times now.
Thanks hip folks!
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
This is just more enabling of dysfunction.
Just as unwise as feeding wild animals.
Got in an argument with a lady at a state park once who didn’t understand why it was a bad idea to feed a baby raccoon.
Now, I will admit to having fed sugar cubes to a raccoon at some point in the past, because I wanted to see if the really DID run down to the creek to wash it... I know it's cruel, but it was funny.
But you should see the fat asshole raccoons in my neighborhood, stealing my avocados and rummaging for anything not under lock and key. I don't feed them, the neighbor who puts out cat food for them is the one at fault, but these horrible trash pandas have no fear. Yell at them to get out of the path when you're walking to your door at night and they'll either ignore you or bare their teeth.
I’ve got a Treeing Walker Coonhound. I kill coons asap so she doesn’t get to them, for the sake of potential vet bills. Usually she’s able to take them out quickly by snapping their necks, but once a big ass coon fended her off and was stuck against our fence fighting her and our Australian shepherd. Fuckers are nasty.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treeing_Walker_Coonhound
What if the bear in your trunk is hungry?
Most people who live on the streets are are there because of drugs, which they do not get for free. It is true that free food leaves more income to spend on drugs, but most get their money through petty theft. Feed the homeless and watch car break-ins rise.
I strongly agree with the concern about giving away free food in a residential neighborhood. Charity should be funneled through organizations and places that can accomodate attracting, not poor people, we are not talking about poor people here, but dysfunctional, post-incarceration career addicts and criminals.
Poor people get SNAP. I recently read that with government transfer payments, working age lowest quintile? quartile? income households average $48,000 income a year versus the next highest, working households, who average $52,000 a year.
A Microsoft Fellowship Caps the Number of White and Asian Applicants - Lawyers Say That’s Illegal.
"It’s not just Google. Microsoft is capping the number of white and Asian students that universities can nominate for a prestigious research fellowship that includes a generous $42,000 stipend, part of a pattern of discriminatory policies sweeping corporate America."
I really can't understand what the companies end game is here.
I think they know what they're doing is morally wrong, and that there are other, better ways to ensure kids from marginalized communities get opportunities that may be otherwise unaffordable.
Link didn't take: https://freebeacon.com/campus/a-microsoft-fellowship-caps-the-number-of-white-and-asian-applicants-lawyers-say-thats-illegal/
I don't know if Microsoft has looked at the makeup of cs and ee departments, but if you cap the whites and asins your initial talent pool is going to be very low
I hope that Microsoft "caps" (at a level of ZERO) hypocrites who PROUDLY push for others to commit suicide!!! Decent people do NOT need such EVIL scum around them, befestering them with EVIL! Evil people should best reform themselves, but if they won't, they could scrounge through garbage dumps, to make a living. They're too great of a danger to decent people.
Go drunk, you’re home, Sqrlsy.
It’s Saturday, and on Saturdays sarc shits up threads with his sqrlsy sock.
Any time I think I have had too much to drink I unmute sqrl and realize that I'm sober
Unsupervised distribution of free stuff is of course a target. If you wouldn’t put a “community fridge” on your front porch, you shouldn’t put it right next to someone else’s property.
It’s nice for people to think they’re doing something good by dropping food off without ever having to get too close to the smelly homeless. But they’re just enabling a problem that is redirected away from them.
Why even do a fridge when everything is available in cans? You can get a canned whole chicken.
Hey Peanuts can you believe how amazing this Biden economy is?! Liberal capitalist Jeff Bezos made $3.51 billion yesterday. I'm a liberal capitalist too and I support the same political party his newspaper does so it's fair for me to gloat when he gets richer.
#TemporarilyFillingInForButtplug
At least he is losing some of that on his shitty Rings of Power.
So amazing that there's garbage, shit, and crime in the street from Community Fridges! You're at the top of your game, OBL! 🙂
Instead of complying with the 22-month requirement spelled out in the Civil Rights Act of 1960, 94 counties reported that they did not keep or sloppily handled information showing the vote.
.
“One of the most basic ways to ensure election transparency is to verify if the number of votes counted equals the number of people listed as voting,” said a new report from Trump-aligned America First Policy Institute.
.
“Of the 100 total counties, only six counties properly retained the voter files from the 2020 general election,” said the report, which was written by Steven Smith, AFPI's chief of staff, and John Lott, president of the Crime Prevention Research Center.
.
Even in the six counties that kept the data, the average “discrepancy” between the number of people voting and the number of ballots cast was 2.8%, the highest being 8.8% in Georgia’s Cobb County.
.
In presenting the report in the Federalist, the duo wrote, “Cobb County, Georgia, had a massive discrepancy of 34,893 votes, or 8.8%. All but one of the precincts had more ballots cast than voters. The gap was more than two and half times the 13,471 votes Republican David Perdue fell short of winning in Georgia’s first round Senate race in November 2020.”
Cleanest election ever.
The most basic audit is knowing the number of votes cast and these counties can't even confirm that number.
Apparently the FBI has now raided 35 people connected to Trump. How is this not a bigger story?
Local story and Orange Man Bad. Also trust the FBI on this one.
"How is this not a bigger story?"
Is there a point to even asking this rhetorically any more?
There’s always a point to pointing out hypocrisy.
Look at enbs article about Aretha Franklin. The FBI is not to be trusted, except when they are completely selflessly going after trump.
When the FBI goes after a Republican, it is proof that the FBI is corrupt.
When the FBI goes after a Democrat, it is proof that the Democrat is corrupt.
What an odd lie.
When has the FBI seriously investigated any corruption allegations involving Democrats recently?
Do you mean investigate so they know they've destroyed all evidence and given immunity to everyone involved or do you mean the non-Democrat version of actually attempting to pursue charges?
So what do you want to see done about it, Jesse? Hmm?
You and your right-wing pals here just bitch and whine endlessly about the election. Yet I hardly ever see you all propose anything concrete to try to fix elections in a manner that you want.
You say you want "audits". Well Arizona conducts an audit, it doesn't change the outcome, then you say "well that wasn't a REAL audit".
ML says he wants a "risk-limiting audit". I point out that most swing states performed a risk-limiting audit and didn't find any problems. Suddenly, the conversation goes silent. Hmm. (Interestingly, one of the swing states that did not, is yours, Jesse. Why not?)
Republicans propose bills to make voting more difficult. When I and others point out that many of these changes won't actually fix the problems that have been discussed, you all tell us to shut up and let's do it anyway because it might hypothetically cut down on fraud in some theoretical sense. Funny how your arguments in favor of increasing voting restrictions mirror those of the gun grabbers - they too are in favor of increasing restrictions on exercising one's rights, with little regard if their proposed restrictions will actually do anything to combat the alleged harms that come from those rights.
At this point I don't think you actually want to fix elections. I think you want to undermine them. You want to destroy public confidence in elections by continuing to pull on the thread of 2020 election problems until the public at large becomes so cynical and distrustful about elections that they say "why bother, it doesn't matter anyway".
So I think the right-wing strategy must be something like this:
1. Pass laws that make it more difficult for people in general to vote. These laws are facially neutral but disproportionately impact voters in blue precincts. This reduces the power of the hardcore Team Blue voters.
2. Continue to spread doubt and uncertainty about the 2020 election while not proposing anything that would *actually* make things better. In so doing, it discourages the swing voters/low-information voter to just stay home because "it doesn't matter anyway".
Therefore the power of the hardcore Team Red voters is amplified, as the hardcore Team Blue voters are legally disenfranchised and the swing voters just don't bother and stay home.
*In so doing, it discourages the swing voters/low-information voter from voting, and ENCOURAGES them to just stay home because "it doesn't matter anyway".
Why do you like to lie about Joe Rogan so mich? Was it just for speaking against your masters?
I didn't say anything about Joe Rogan. Why did you bring him up?
And, Mr. Committed To Honesty, why didn't you do even basic fact-checking on Jesse's article above? How do we know those claims that he posted are actually true?
First he didn't even provide a link. That is suspicious right there. Why is Jesse trying to conceal the link to his own source?
Second, if you do actually go to the original report upon which that article is based, you can take a look at the methodology that the authors used. From their methodology, it is really not clear if they are truly comparing apples to apples.
Why didn't you do any of this type of fact-checking into Jesse's claims, Mr. I'm-So-Totally-Committed-To-Honesty? Maybe Jesse is lying to you. Maybe Jesse's source is lying to him and he is (deliberately) repeating lies to dishonestly push a narrative. How do you know unless you dig into what is being reported?
Yet you did none of this. You accepted his claims at face value, running cover for whatever dishonesty is present in his claims, while attacking me over Joe Rogan of all people. Huh.
It's almost like you're a Team Red tribalist.
Why won’t you answer my simple question, Lying Jeffy?
Why won't you answer my question, Troll Mac?
No you!?
Right. Just another way to avoid addressing the question, why someone like you supposedly so Totally Committed To Honesty, consistently runs interference for the Team Red tribalist lies around here.
Such an honest person. So so honest.
Remind me how I’m being dishonest right now?
You're derailing the conversation on elections by bringing in a totally irrelevant comment about Joe Rogan. That is a dishonest thing to do.
Asking you an off topic question is dishonest?
When the purpose is to derail the conversation, yes. It's a dishonest tactic.
I expect trolls and Tulpas to do that. Not someone who is Totally Committed to Honesty as you are, though.
The purpose was to get you to answer a question I’ve asked you before that you’ve never answered.
It’s a legit question. When Rogan first came up in the news, you’re initial response was you didn’t know much about him. Then a day or two layer you had a very strong opinion of him that was false. How did you get such a strong negative opinion of someone, based on falsehoods that just happened to match what your masters were saying, in such a short time? The guys podcasts are 3 hours long. How many could you listen to in such a short time?
It's a dishonest tactic to derail the conversation and I'm not going to validate your dishonesty. Fuck off.
You really don’t even know what honesty means.
Endless "stolen elections" crap from ideological idiots! WHEN will it STOP?!?!
Der TrumpfenFuhrer ***IS*** responsible for agitating for democracy to be replaced by mobocracy!
https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/24/politics/trump-election-warnings-leaving-office/index.html
A list of the times Trump has said he won’t accept the election results or leave office if he loses.
Essential heart and core of the LIE by Trump: “ANY election results not confirming MEEE as Your Emperor, MUST be fraudulent!”
September 13 rally: “The Democrats are trying to rig this election because that’s the only way they’re going to win,” he said.
Trump’s constant re-telling and supporting the Big Lie (any election not electing Trump is “stolen”) set up the environment for this (insurrection riot) to happen. He shares the blame. Boys will be boys? Insurrectionists will be insurrectionists, trumpanzees gone apeshit will be trumpanzees gone apeshit, so let’s forgive and forget? Poor Trump was misunderstood? Does that sound good and right and true?
It really should immediately make us think of Krystallnacht. Hitler and the NAZIs set up for this by constantly blaming Jews for all things bad. Jew-haters will be Jew-haters, so let’s forgive and forget? Poor Hitler was misunderstood? Does that sound good and right and true?
That's a lot of rationalization to defend elections. When 60% of people including a third of democrats don't trust elections that is a bad thing you retarded fuck.
The first step is basic election auditing which requires knowing the total number of votes prior to counting.
Of course you dont support this shit because you got your wet leftist dream of an expanding state.
The fact that you defend insecure elections that don't pass basic tests is astounding but expected.
I mean fuck jeff. They are violating federal laws and instead of recognizing it you ignore it. Solely because your guy won. What a pathetic person you are.
When 60% of people including a third of democrats don't trust elections that is a bad thing
And that is your team's goal, to undermine confidence in the electoral system itself. Widespread doubt about the integrity of the election system provides figleaf rationalizations to pass stricter voting requirements, which Team Red knows will disproportionately affect Team Blue precincts, thereby amplifying their own power at the ballot box.
You WANT broken elections. You WANT people to think that their ballot is compromised or insecure even when it isn't. That way Team Red gets to manipulate the vote in their favor.
The first step is basic election auditing which requires knowing the total number of votes prior to counting.
Can you provide a source as to why knowing the total number of votes prior to counting is the first step in basic election auditing?
Is there some authoritative reference manual for election auditing that you are consulting? Some standard or best practices which state this? What is your source?
Or, are you just making shit up?
How can I count the votes before I count the votes?
I am thinking of a situation in which mail-in ballots may be legally received after election day if they are postmarked on election day. By Jesse's supposed "basic election auditing", one would have to wait for all the ballots to arrive, potentially several days after Election Day, before counting any of the ballots. I have never heard anyone enunciate such a standard before so I wonder how much of a "basic election auditing" standard this really is.
Mail in voting is just asking for fraud.
Not only that, ballots are supposed to be secret. Why on earth would anyone mail in a ballot with their name on it?
If mail in voting is so susceptible to fraud, where is the empirical evidence that it has produced more fraud?
How could it possibly be secure?
Here is a summary of how mail-in voting works in New York.
https://news.columbia.edu/in-mail-absentee-ballots-secure-vote-election
Here is an article discussing security features associated with mail-in voting.
https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/how-security-features-prevent-vote-mail-misconduct
Now, maybe these security features are sufficient to deter all fraud, maybe they are not. But they are present, and I think it is undeniable that these features deter *some* fraud, if not most all fraud.
No system is 100% fraud free. That is an impossible standard.
The best that we can hope for is a system in which the level of fraud is so low that it does not affect the outcome of the election.
If the level of fraud associated with mail-in voting is no higher than the level of fraud associated with in-person voting, then why shouldn't both voting methods be considered?
If mail-in voting is SO prone to fraud, you would think that the evidence supporting this contention would be evident and overwhelming. But it is not.
I personally think that mail-in voting probably does have a larger margin of fraud than in-person voting. But, is it enough to change the outcome of any given election? The evidence seems to suggest that it is not.
Furthermore, there are always ways to make any system better.
But simply to state "I don't like this method therefore let's get rid of it" is frankly ignorant.
The push to get rid of mail-in voting is IMO purely reactionary. Not grounded in evidence or reason, simply an appeal to tradition. I don't believe in appeals to tradition as determinative.
What if a SOS tells election workers not to worry if signatures don’t match while mailing out multiple unsolicited absentee applications to everyone Lying Jeffy? You think that might increase the potential for fraud?
I live in ny. My daughter hasn’t for 12 years. In the last presidential election we received not 1, not 2 but 3 mail in ballots for her. Unsolicited. When we once again called the board of elections, as we have in years past when this happened. They didn’t care. We destroyed them. What happens when people who receive multiple ballots decide to use them?
They only get counted once. They cross you off a list of people from whom they’ve received a mail-in vote.
People who are buying the Trump lies about elections, should volunteer as poll workers and find out how their local system works.
Hey Jesse, why didn't Arizona conduct a risk-limiting audit after the 2020 election? Isn't Arizona run by Republicans at the state level?
Instead they went with the Election Ninjas people or whatever. Which was run by people who deliberately spread lies about 'stolen election'.
It's like Team Red knew there was a way to conduct a real audit, but instead went with the team which they hoped would provide them with a convenient narrative to restrict voting. When that didn't happen, the whole matter was dropped.
Lying Jeffy is seething. You can tell because he’s making multiple responses repeatedly.
He has been doing this a lot lately. The worse Biden executes his lefty wet dream the more he flails.
He’s broken like sarc now.
"Election Ninjas"
Any relation to trunk bears?
So, Jesse, here is an article that actually discusses some ways that, in the author's opinion, would make elections better in this country. Why don't you come up with some ideas like these?
https://www.americamagazine.org/politics-society/2021/03/01/election-reform-voting-bill-congress-239992
Here are his 11 ideas:
1. A national standard for voter registration
2. A national registry of voters
3. Standard vote-by-mail options in every state
4. Double-blind vote counting
5. More time to vote
6. Equal access to voting by town and neighborhood
7. Restoration of voting rights for most ex-prisoners
8. Clearly understood ballots
9. Penalties for voter-discouragement and voter-confusion tactics
10. Automatic recounts
11. Ranked-choice voting in federal elections
I think there are some good ideas and some bad ideas on the list. But at least there are some ideas on the table to be discussed to make things better, rather than continuing to grouse about 2020.
Now, since you are you, since this list doesn't come from an explicitly right-wing source you will probably denounce it as some librul plot to seize power. But maybe, perhaps after being hit on the head or something, you could discuss these ideas on their merits and discuss ideas to make elections better going forward.
"11. Ranked-choice voting in federal elections"
Instantly invalidated the rest of the list, which was half delaying and obfuscation techniques (what loathsome fucks you fascists are). Ranked-choice instead of runoff is an antidemocratic idea that instantly elevates everyone's third or forth choice to a position that they don't warrant.
Here's how to ensure free and fair elections.
1. In person voting
2. Voter ID
3. Paper Ballots
4. Public, televised count with observers nominated by all candidates present.
Instantly invalidated the rest of the list
Translation: I don't want to do the work of thinking about individual ideas, I want to be lazy and judge the entire list by the one item I really dislike.
Ranked-choice instead of runoff is an antidemocratic idea that instantly elevates everyone's third or forth choice to a position that they don't warrant.
Why? No one is required to put down a third or fourth choice.
What is "more democratic" about making voters go to the polls a second time for a runoff election?
Since I am not the lazy fuck that you are, I will be happy to evaluate each of your individual ideas, and be willing to give credit to ideas that I think are good ones even though I utterly loathe you. You are seemingly unable to do that however because you are a small-minded asshole.
1. In person voting
Would you have any allowance for absentee voting or mail-in voting at all?
2. Voter ID
I agree with you on this.
3. Paper Ballots
Would you allow for electronic counting of paper ballots? Would you allow for electronic ballots provided there is some verifiable paper trail? What if electronic voting code was open-source?
4. Public, televised count with observers nominated by all candidates present.
I also agree with this one.
I also note that you didn't mention anything about ballot drop-boxes or so-called "ballot harvesting". I imagine you object to those too, since that is the prevailing Team Red narrative and you are little more than a Team Red tribalist simpleton. So why do you object to those?
Jeff likes ranked voting because it gives losing voters a 2nd vote while the last loser gets a single vote. Take the Alaska example.
Most of the 2nd round of voters who lost didn't put a 2nd place vote. They got one vote while those who did got 2.
Likewise Palin voters never got a second vote. They were left with only one vote. So multiple people got 2 votes, her voters got 1. Jeff thinks this is fair.
Imagine if every Palin voter put the other GOP candidate as a 2nd vote. Then the original 3rd place candidate would have likely had more votes if Palin voters got a 2nd vote.
This is the idiocy of what jeff votes for.
Why would Palin voters settle for their second choice candidate in the second round if their first choice candidate in the second round still had a chance to win? This is silly.
That's just not true though. In RCV each round of vote counting is like a new election. Palin's supporters got their vote counted in the first round, and then they got their voted counted again in the second round, just like it is supposed to happen.
Most of the 2nd round of voters who lost didn't put a 2nd place vote.
The voters didn't lose anything. And it was entirely the voter's decision on whether to list any candidates for second place votes or not. If they chose not to list anyone that was their call. CHOOSING not to put anyone down as a second-place vote is not disenfranchisement of anyone.
So we've established that even though Jesse does not know how ranked choice voting actually works, he is opposed to it. Because that is what he read on some right-wing site. Because he reflexively and uncritically accepts everything he reads from right-wing media.
He read an article at Breitbart or Federalist or somesuch about how terrible ranked choice voting is. Therefore he objects to it and that's that.
It’s pretty simple. The only thing I would add is -1 day of voting. I’ve never had an issue getting to the polls on a Tuesday, but if it moved to a weekend day, whatever.
1. In person voting
Agreed as the primary method of voting. Absentee ballots should be acceptable with valid, explicitly stated, reasons.
2. Voter ID
Require ID for registration, then allow signature verification (with ID checks if there is a question about the signature similarity)
3. Paper Ballots
Alternatively, electronic balloting with all hardware and software being open source (note that RISC V is an open source CPU), and checksums on all binaries available on all machines (including firmware).
4. Public, televised count with observers nominated by all candidates present.
Not wholly feasible for statewide candidates (US presidential election would have their state slate of electors present).
For presidential elections, I would add having electors (candidates for electoral college) specifically listed and voted for individually (with possible option to select all electors for a given candidate in one shot), and allow for uncommitted electors/electors campaigning on ideas, not just candidates.
Forget 3 and 11
Makes cheating easier.
That’s Lying Jeffy’s goal.
Since you are so Totally Committed to Honesty, surely you can point out where I stated I was in favor of making cheating easier in elections, right? Oh wait, I haven't ever said that, and you are lying about me? Huh. How weird for someone such as yourself who is Totally Committed to Honesty.
Why would you admit it Lying Jeffy? What an odd response.
So you agree that you are lying about me. Perhaps you ought to reconsider your statement that you are Totally Committed to Honesty.
No, I just don’t think you’d admit it. It’s really not that complicated.
So your evidence for your claim that I am in favor of making cheating easier in elections is...?
Your consistent defense of illegal election changes by Democrats.
Where have I defended an illegal election change? And furthermore, what is the link to the change and making it "easier to cheat"? And furthermore, what is the evidence for the claim that it is supposedly my *goal* to make it easier to cheat in elections?
I’ve linked to it at least a dozen times Lying Jeffy.
Jeff. Do you believe in equal application of voting rules across a state? Yes or no. Because that didn't happen in 2020. There were more than a dozen changes to election laws mostly put in for democrat heavy areas.
Youre such an ignorant and dishonest shit weasel.
So if you've linked to it a dozen times, it should be no problem to pull it up one more time, right?
Hint: You are lying.
Tell me why you like to lie about Joe Rogan so much and I’ll link it again.
And everyone knows I’ve linked to it before, even you. What a weird thing to lie about, Lying Jeffy.
I'm not going to reward your dishonesty.
If you think I am lying you would not need to try to extort information from me.
Fuck off.
Lol, “extort”. You crack me up Lying Jeffy.
There are lots of things that *could* make cheating easier. But at some point we have to defer to empirical reality. If a voting innovation permits more people to vote, while having a minimal or negligible impact on election security, then IMO we ought to consider it.
And how does ranked choice voting make cheating easier?
"The community fridge is a civic model that regulators should encourage, not seek to shut down."
In what way do these community fridges assist the government in controlling the serfs?
Any activity based on individual initiative must be stopped immediately!
(and the phrase "overzealous regulators" is redundant)
Yes. There is no correct quantity of zeal that belongs in a regulator.
DEMOCRATIC CITIES ARE HOGGING ALL THE BENEFITS OF ILLEGAL ALIENS!! And then asking for the rest of us to pay them more.
It has widely been know that Illegal immigration has no downsides and benefits everyone. Not sure why they think they need $50 million to help them.
https://www.theepochtimes.com/democrats-request-50-million-to-cope-with-illegal-immigrants-bused-from-texas-arizona_4722320.html
D.C. politician.
King Charles Praises Mother’s ‘Unequaled’ Reign as Queen, Says He Will Seek ‘Peace, Harmony, and Prosperity’ as He Officially Takes Role
Bill Maher Says Biden Should Have Called Out 'Both Sides' In Anti-MAGA Speech - Insurrection But Also Bakery Lawsuit
WATCH: Bill Maher Says Biden Should Have Called Out ‘Both Sides’ In Anti-MAGA Speech – Insurrection But Also Bakery Lawsuit
VP Kamala Harris Smacks Down Chuck Todd Suggestion Prosecuting Trump 'Too Divisive'
‘People Are Going To Demand Justice’: VP Kamala Harris Smacks Down Chuck Todd Suggestion Prosecuting Trump ‘Too Divisive’
Mar-a-lago Trump split image Getty images.jpg
JUST IN: Justice Department Demands Trump Pay for Special Master in Espionage Act Case – Trump Wants America to Pay Half
Mike Pence Heavily Increases Political Ads Spending
Mike Pence Roasted For Calling Out Biden’s MAGA-Extremism Speech: ‘Sir, Should We Have… Let Them Hang You?’
DC Council Member Says Arizona, Texas Govs Have Turned U.S. Capital into ‘Border Town’ With Migrant Buses
By Candice OrtizSep 8th, 2022, 2:29 pm
783 comments
submit to reddit
Want to avoid video ads? Subscribe to Mediaite+ Logo
As the Mayor of D.C. Muriel Bowser declared a public emergency this morning over the influx of migrants into the city, a council member decried that the U.S. Capital was now a “border town.”
In a clip circulating on Twitter via former Mediaite writer Julio Rosas, DC Council Member Brianne Nadeau laid blame on the governors of Texas and Arizona for sending the migrants.
So it’s been said, but it’s worth reiterating that the governors of Texas and Arizona have created this crisis and the federal government has not stepped up to assist the District of Columbia. So we, along with our regional partners will do what we’ve always done. We’ll rise to the occasion. We’ve learned from border towns like El Paso and Brownsville. In many ways the governors, Texas and Arizona have turned us into a border town.
.
We don’t know how long this will take to resolve. We don’t know how long they will continue busing. And so the right thing to do here is to be prepared, to ensure we can greet every bus. We can get people off on the right foot. We can get them where they wanna go, and that will ultimately help them in their immigration.
Why can't those shit red states assume all the costs!
Wow. Butchered that. Redoing.
So it’s been said, but it’s worth reiterating that the governors of Texas and Arizona have created this crisis and the federal government has not stepped up to assist the District of Columbia. So we, along with our regional partners will do what we’ve always done. We’ll rise to the occasion. We’ve learned from border towns like El Paso and Brownsville. In many ways the governors, Texas and Arizona have turned us into a border town.
.
We don’t know how long this will take to resolve. We don’t know how long they will continue busing. And so the right thing to do here is to be prepared, to ensure we can greet every bus. We can get people off on the right foot. We can get them where they wanna go, and that will ultimately help them in their immigration.
Why can't those shit red states assume all the costs!
Lol. Thought you got hacked by a bot or something.
No. Mediadites stupid copy on phone. Tags a bunch of shit on copy.
Honestly thought you got into a bottle of whatever sarcasmic drinks, for a moment.
Seems like placing community refrigerators on street corners for homeless people would have the unintended ramification of encouraging more homeless people to move, live, panhandle, loiter, drink, inject drugs, shit, piss and stink nearby, and would encourage non homeless people (including some rich bastards) to take the free food.
Seems like some well intentioned bleeding heart liberals want to encourage more homelessness.
It's also nice for them to do this on corners where they don't live. And naturally, nobody has the responsibility of actually monitoring that this food is getting distributed, they're just putting everyone on the honor system. There's surely nobody just pulling up and dumping everything into their own trunk and saving themselves a run to supermarket.
At least now drug users can sell their EBT cards for cash without 2nd thinking it.
At least the church near me in Arvada had the decency to put the food cupboard on their property and sent folks out to clean up the shit that resulted from it.
While the community refrigerator is an interesting idea, the article points to too many flaws. I think a better idea would be a mobile community food bank. A truck or trailer parked for a period at location of hungry people. Allow the people to go in supervised and select food they need. The trailer is supervised and can be moved to a secure location when not in use.
BTW - note really a new idea as a number of communities do this.
This is basically something akin to slactivism. Caring vaguely about something, but not enough to actually do work to fix the problem. just a half assed fix that requires little effort.
(Just to be clear, I was agreeing with your idea, but that takes more work than just an unsupervised fridge)
Got to love the euphamsisms that the writer uses about the misery for the neighborhoods caused by these things:
The paper notes residents who live near the community fridge also face other, perhaps lesser negative externalities, including human waste, rodents, and vandalism.
"Negative externalities"???
Hahahahahahaha...
A steamer left by the fridge is not a negative externalize, it's a testament to the pathetic nature of these folks.
Yep. I'm afraid Baylen doesn't get out as much as he should.
This all sounds like a dumb ass idea to me and these things are directly competing with food trucks. Why does Reason hate food trucks?
Lol at just glossing over the feces and death threats.
Instead we blame the regulators who are tasked with preventing those things.
Residents earnestly want to help, then are confronted with eye-opening reality: Visitors who ring doorbells at night, enter yards or use the structures and landscaping as toilets. Entire contents of fridges inexplicably dumped onto pavement. Rodents. Knocked over fridges. Cut electrical cords. And in extreme cases like with the Mengers, people in mental crisis who threaten to hurt the very neighbors who stock the fridges full of food.
…
Brooke Jackson-Glidden, who lives in North Portland, had her guard down on July 18. She’d prepared a large batch of celery soup, garlic noodles and salads, placed them in takeout containers and made the pleasant 10-minute stroll to the closest community fridge.
When she got there, she said she noticed a woman across the street who was yelling. After loading up the fridge, Jackson-Glidden said she turned around and the woman was right there. She pounced – scratching her arms, spitting at her, threatening to kill her and pulling her hair until it bled as an estimated 10 people walked by over 10 minutes and didn’t intervene, Jackson-Glidden said.
If her idea of a meal is Celery soup and salad, she deserved it
I was thinking her sin was using takeout containers.
I hope no one leaves muffin bottoms. They'd probably burn Portland down some more.
Ackshuyally, celery is good with chicken.
Normally, Baylen has good ideas. Here? Hell. To. The. NO!
In addition to all the crime and filth these fridges attract, they can also be an upright casket for wondering little children who get inside and suffocate!
WLOS, an NC TV staion in the mointains, actually had PSAs telling people to block or remove the doors on refridgerators in their yards for this very reason! Just. Damn!
I'm curious now if that has ever actually happened, or if this is similar to the poison candy Halloween paranoia.
Fridges don’t have latches anymore. Easy to push open from the inside.
^ This.
Fridges from the before-times had actual latches, but one should note that just about no modern fridge has a latch. In fact I haven't seen a single modern fridge with a latch and I've spent more than my fair share of time in the appliance section of Lowes or Home Depot.
That being said, having a 'public' refrigerator is a retarded idea for any number of sanitary reasons. Even the 'public' refrigerator at your company gets cleaned out, or should be, by a cleaning service relatively frequently. And it's improbable anyone is going to take a shit or store their heroin in that fridge.
Also there's the question of where these appliances are actually plugged in, because someone is paying for the electricity on these and one might be curious if they found an outdoor outlet attached to a business that isn't aware they're siphoning off electricity. Something tells me not a lot of businesses are interested in having a homeless attracting 'food bank' right off their business.
Oh, and lastly, what kind of food are they even storing in these things because something tells me homeless people don't have a microwave, stove, or oven handy for cooking jack or shit.
Instead of celery maybe these good samaritans can prepare Vichyssoise and Gazpacho.
Ay Gawd! I ordered Vichysoisse at a Froggie restaurant one time and Dad-blammit, that Froggie Gar-Kon brought me cold 'tater soup! 😉
You haven't been to Jeff's house. His mom had to add a latch to stop his overeating.
What about the cookies?
One, the soft heads who run Community Fridges prolly have a soft head for nostalgic latched "ice boxes."
Two, even a new fridge can fall forward with the door on the ground from children tipping it like a vending machine and thus suffocate a child inside.
Three, an appliance meant for indoors and placed outdoors can get rain or snow in the electrical components and turn into a deadly shock box.
Face it, fridges are not play-purties for children or other living things...including mush-brained "humanitarians."
Old fashioned refrigerators has latches that could trap you inside. Modern refrigerators are easily opened from the inside.
No shit?
Legit curious how many regular commentators you’ve muted at this point to make a comment as if it hadn’t already been thoroughly discussed in the thread.
It doesn't happen near as often as the past, of course, but the danger is real even in recent times and is no urbwn legend:
Refrigerator Death--Wikipedia
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refrigerator_death
Died getting stuck in a latching toy chest. Sad.
Indeed. All the more reason not to have pylons of death like community fridges in a neighborhood. Let those who want to feed people do it in a soup kitchen or someplace where actual humans supervise safety, security, hygiene, and courtesy for all concerned.
The number one mistake of any charity, or indeed of any good deed, is ignoring tough love. Without tough love, people WILL take advantage of your generosity, no matter what.
If someone takes the entire refrigerator, isn't that just the culmination of the idea?
Yeah, we're back to "the free store" of the 1960s. Trust me, it ain't the regulations that are going to kill this.
There should be a reality tv series on community refrigerators.
BTW, Seattle did something similar with their hyper-advanced automated public toilets.
One of the major blindspots progressives have is they believe these types of public experiments work, because they believe everyone will act in a narrow set of reasonably predictable ways. It's why communism and Marxism were failures-- and of course supported widely by progressives. It's all based on a fundamentally utopian vision of humanity.
The irony of most progressive utopian ideas is that they require a kind of mythical 1950s America, where everyone obeys the rules and is largely law-abiding-- a kind of cultural homogeneity, if you will.
Seattle has these clothing donation boxes all over town. Make no mistake, these things are seriously hardened with a somewhat elaborate drop-drawer system that keeps people from being able to reach in and pull the clothing out. There's a part of me that wonders why-- but that's another discussion. Anyhoo, despite these things being made of incredibly heavy gauge steel with all kinds of security measures, these things to get destroyed and broken into from time to time.
Start your idea with the premise that people suck ass, and then go outward from there.
Calling it a "belief" is giving them too much credit. They tell themselves and others emotionally satisfying stories and decide to believe the stories, like children playing make-believe.
The perfectibility of man is a conceit you will always find among those types of people.
Mankind is simply not perfect, and any attempts to make them so will be abject failures. If the church couldn't do it over the course of a few dozen centuries, progressives sure as fuck won't be able to do it in a few decades.
I'm a pretty firm believer that no amount of genetic engineering will get us there either, or at least it won't lead to anything recognizable as a human being.
Christianity never had a chance of perfecting people. It teaches anti-sanity ideas: that what happens to people in this life doesn’t matter that much because there is a better (or worse) eternal life waiting; that good or bad things happen to you because you please or don’t please an invisible man in the sky, and by the way we’ll tell you what is pleasing to him, and you should give us a chunk of your income; that you should feel guilty about harmless pleasures; that other people who don’t believe exactly as you believe are evil.
Christianity never had a goal of perfecting people. Nor is what you do in this life of no consequence. Nor does it teach that non-Christians are evil. There are Christian and Catholic Libertarians. This is a fairly adolescent and ignorant take on what Christianity teaches. Sophie Scholl and the White Rose Society were pretty damn sane. So were Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Maximilian Kolbe, Edith Stein, etc etc.
Mike Liarson is a squawking bird named Dee and should be treated as such.
Sure, if you cherry pick the right examples. And forget all the wars, the Inquisition, etc.
Any form of idealism requires everyone to act as you want them to. Idealism is pernicious.
Someone should start community-feeding bears, wolves, and mountain lions on these properties. Or right next door.
Freedom, right? No?
Speaking of visionary leadership:
And another:
Europe Splurges on Russian Oil As EU Ban Nears
Masterful statecraft, Germany, Masterful!
You know who else did some masterful statecraft in Germany?
Otto von Bismarck
The Romans?
Stalin?
Russia is making a nice profit on the war they started.
SleepyJoe said he would turn the Ruble into rubble. LOL
Oh look. The tribe supposedly in favor of populism wants to limit the ability of the people to have their voices heard.
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/09/10/the-lefts-best-chance-for-restoring-abortion-rights-in-red-states-is-in-jeopardy-00055901
And?
Should constitutional questions require bare majorities?
Much worse than democrats pushing their all abortion all the time at the federal level fucking idiot.
And how dishonest is this article? This is effecting constitutional ballot initiatives. California has had quite a few terrible ones pass. Have you seen the requirements to amend the US constitution?
No voter is disenfranchised because they can vote in legislatures to change the laws you ignorant fuck.
Changing a constitution should be much harder than changing a law. God damn jeff.
I mean, youre the one always decrying mob rule. Lol.
It's like you're incapable of considering unintended consequences, Jeff.
But that's the history of the entire left, isn't it? From Marx to Derrida.
The tribe supposedly in favor of populism wants to limit the ability of the people to have their voices heard.
Populism is not the same as majoritarianism.
And Republicans are not populist, they are conservative.
Lying Jeffy threw this comment out there then ignored all responses. How dishonest.
Could someone shovel a bit of coal in the fire box of the boiler powering the Rasen server?
Or blow on the solar wind turbines if there isn't enough hot air at the moment.
Free libraries work because books are not consumed and are not perishable, and the little wooden libraries themselves have no other use; they wouldn't even make good birdhouses or doll houses.
Free food is consumed, is perishable, and refrigerators have plenty of value themselves. There is also the matter of needing power.
I don't know the history of community refrigerators, but putting one out on a sidewalk is just begging for trouble. It is also inefficient as hell, too hot in the summer, too cold in winter, and a tempting target for bird poop and dog piss. Put the damn thing in a community center where it is safe, sanitary, and cheaper to run.
Just stop making it easier to be a bum.
Actual charity towards the poor, needy, and homeless, as provided by churches, is a good thing. But the deal there is that the free stuff comes with guidance and and personal attention.
Just dumping food on the sidewalk for the homeless is not charitable, it is lazy and destructive.
But the deal there is that the free stuff comes with guidance and and personal attention.
Or like in the old days, in exchange for doing some work.
JohannesDinkle
September.10.2022 at 9:11 am
"...It is true that free food leaves more income to spend on drugs, but most get their money through petty theft. Feed the homeless and watch car break-ins rise."
Sans Fran city gov't spends >$1Bn/year now to house, feed, provide medical care and (yep) send tailers with showers around to the encampments.
And the politicos profess to wonder why so many are here.
It's hard to buy that level of STUPID, but electing it seems quite easy.
A month earlier, in Philadelphia, a community fridge and its contents were stolen right off the street
It was later found in an alleyway in Olney, after being shot 11 times.
Food banks have staff that make sure they don't get vandalized. Community fridges take the cheap part of providing food, namely the actual food, and try to force tax payers to pay for for the manpower necessary for providing security. That's not libertarian.
Yes, because people don't want to attract the homeless to their neighborhoods. In a libertarian society, where local roads would be privately owned and neighborhoods would be governed by HOAs, this would most likely also not be permitted in most locations.
This problem wouldn't exist in a libertarian society.
Are you saying that there wouldn't be any drug addicts or homeless in a libertarian society? Why not?
Wood chippers.
J.D. Vance: "I don't really care what happens in Ukraine one way or another."
https://twitter.com/RonFilipkowski/status/1495091506952159233
Good to see that Team Red has reverted to their isolationist roots and learned absolutely nothing from the 1930's.
Lying Jeffy advocates for interventionism.
To be fair, that's actually pretty neutral compared to Tucker Carlson and a lot of people on the right openly rooting for Russia
Is it rooting for Russia to note that Ukraine is corrupt and has its own influential Nazi movement and is likely being used as a DNC money laundering operation?
I mean, it's not like the big guy's not going to get his 10 percent.
Republicans and libertarians have never advocated "isolationism". We advocate limiting our interactions with foreign nations to trade and travel. We also advocate that, if you are so inclined, you can personally choose to fund or participate in whatever war you like.
We also advocate that European nations take care of problems in Europe. Ukraine and Russia are not our problem, and Europe has both the manpower and the financial resources to deal with Ukraine and Russia on their own.
It is semi-fascists like you who want to build an American empire and subjugate nations around the world, and force American taxpayers to pay for it, while the military-industrial complex reaps the benefits.
Furthermore, regardless of where one stands on interventionism, the simple fact is that Russia isn't Nazi Germany. Russia is no threat to the US. It isn't even a threat to Europe. If the Ukraine war has shown us anything, it has shown us that. We can safely let Europe, Ukraine, and Russia work this out on their own.
Good to see you haven't learned from the last 20.
Why Ukraine? Is it because they're white?
Because you ignore all the other violence across the world for this one country.
Is it your programming? NPC.
It seems some local governments decry the ability for private individuals to gift their personal property to other individuals. Really? Perhaps we outlaw ALL charity?
They'd rather simply outlaw personal property. That way any transfer requires rhe approval of the state.
Socialism doesn't work. Would you leave your beer in a community refrigerator?
"Socialism doesn't work."
As a governmental policy, I agree. But voluntary socialism (which we usually refer to as "charity") is a personal choice. The right to "spread" the wealth as one chooses is as much a right as earning it.
I see. Two people fight over the food and one stabs the other who then has to wait until a volunteer socialist convinces a volunteer socialist doctor (if you can find one withing 50 miles) to treat the victim before they bleed out.
Except that socialism does work. It just requires a tightly knit group familiar with each other to directly assess needs and capabilities and social methods of control rather than brute violence
Hence why it fails above the family level.
Yeppers.
That's why I state it as "socialism doesn't scale".
How exactly do you see socialism here? The only state actions are to prevent people from sharing the fruits of their labor rather than claiming those fruits belong to the state in the first place.
At best it is authoritarianism or fascism not socialism, none of which I endorse...
Sounds like they should just stop.
I mean, the idea sounds good - I love the idea. Bit these fuckers are *mentally ill*. That's why they're homeless.
So, good on them for trying. But they're serving people who are violent and don't understand gratitude. And they're fucking things up for their neighbors in the process.
Just stop.
So, the only reason someone could be homeless is because they are violent, mentally ill ingrates?
What if they are merely poor and a little bit of food helps their situation? Are rhey still required to be mentally ill, violent or ungratful?
Why does reason seem to gush over overtly leftist collectivist talking points and feel-good nonsense more and more?!
I must have missed the gusjing and overtly leftist talking points in this article, care to point them out for us?
How much would code compliance cost in the most expensive scenario of those reported on?
Would any of those refrigerators be a problem if they were moved to indoor locations?
This sort of voluntary private activity does not foster reliance on the state and therefore must be crushed. No matter how silly and ineffectual the idea is...
'... many still see promise ..' i.e. doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. I believe there is a term for that. Perhaps the Libertarian Party might consider choosing a community fridge as their symbol?
Unsupervised community refrigerators could be quickly and effectively be eliminated by a small number of bad actors placing poisoned food in them.
Any trust that might otherwise exist would be destroyed.
Charity may be a basic right of the people to privilege as they see fit.
No way would I trust the food in one of those things.