What does a TRUMP presidency look like?

[DGuller]

As said this idea that there are deserving and undeserving poor goes right back. It was explicitly called out in 19th century poor laws.  Both are still poor and focussing just on the 'undeserving' ones to make an excuse for why you don't help the deserving ones is an age old trick.

It's not about deserving and undeserving, it's about tractable and intractable.  What do you do with people who are nominally free, but whose brain doesn't allow them to be practically free, the ones who willingly choose the life of vagrancy despite the help offered?

One solution not make them nominally free, so that you can impose solutions on them.  Another solution is to assume that we just haven't offered enough help, and keep offering more, hoping that at some point magic would happen.  Another solution is to shrug shoulders and go "oh, well, that's how they choose to live, it's your problem and your intolerance that you feel threatened by their choice".

[HVC]

You're disregarding the fact that impovershmet is a leading cause for drug dependence (variable might be a better term?). So while it wouldn't help those burned out (or help less) it would keep people from getting to that point, which would diminish both the number of homeless and "homeless"

Like Tamas said there's a reason that Europe doesn't have the same scale of  issues with homelessness as the US has (nor does Canada for that matter, but much like social nets in general were a halfway point between you and them, to keep things simple).

[The Minsky Moment]

My suggestion is to shape this discussion with reference to the ample available data on homelessness. eg:

https://www.minneapolisfed.org/article/2025/who-is-homeless-in-the-united-states-a-2025-update
https://www.pew.org/en/research-and-analysis/articles/2023/08/22/how-housing-costs-drive-levels-of-homelessness
https://www.minneapolisfed.org/research/institute-working-papers/homelessness

The "scary" mentally ill homeless can be very visible but are not necessarily representative.  The fastest growing segment of homeless consists of children under 18.  There is a very strong correlation between rising housing costs and homelessness and many studies concluding there is a causal linkage.  Higher real incomes would definitely have a significant and material impact on reducing homelessness.

[Josquius]

As said this idea that there are deserving and undeserving poor goes right back. It was explicitly called out in 19th century poor laws.  Both are still poor and focussing just on the 'undeserving' ones to make an excuse for why you don't help the deserving ones is an age old trick.

It's not about deserving and undeserving, it's about tractable and intractable.  What do you do with people who are nominally free, but whose brain doesn't allow them to be practically free, the ones who willingly choose the life of vagrancy despite the help offered?

One solution not make them nominally free, so that you can impose solutions on them.  Another solution is to assume that we just haven't offered enough help, and keep offering more, hoping that at some point magic would happen.  Another solution is to shrug shoulders and go "oh, well, that's how they choose to live, it's your problem and your intolerance that you feel threatened by their choice".

This does still sound close to the old 19th century take of deserving/undeserving, though fair enough go with tractable.

Sure, there's always going to be some who choose to be homeless. But they're a tiny minority of the homeless out there. Research shows maybe 10% absolute max. And a lot of these due to homeless shelters being such terrible places in their area. You do offer what help you can but you can't really force them not to be homeless.

A lot of these people aren't particularly into substances either. Many of them are really not troublemakers at all.
Worth noting only about a third of homeless in the US are drug users. These numbers vary in other countries but I've never seen it topping 50%.

[crazy canuck]

Yi visits Denmark

https://www.instagram.com/reel/DOWBu3FEXKX/?igsh=emk3OTRmaWQ2bml0

[Baron von Schtinkenbutt]

My suggestion is to shape this discussion with reference to the ample available data on homelessness. eg:

https://www.minneapolisfed.org/article/2025/who-is-homeless-in-the-united-states-a-2025-update
https://www.pew.org/en/research-and-analysis/articles/2023/08/22/how-housing-costs-drive-levels-of-homelessness
https://www.minneapolisfed.org/research/institute-working-papers/homelessness

The "scary" mentally ill homeless can be very visible but are not necessarily representative.  The fastest growing segment of homeless consists of children under 18.  There is a very strong correlation between rising housing costs and homelessness and many studies concluding there is a causal linkage.  Higher real incomes would definitely have a significant and material impact on reducing homelessness.

Adding to this, and addressing Tamas' point, per the numbers on Wikipedia the overall rate of homelessness in the US is actually on the better side compared to Europe.  However, and based on the very limited data there, the unsheltered homeless rate is significantly worse in the US.  So, the US doesn't have more homeless than Europe (quite the opposite, compared to refugee-heavy France, Germany, and the UK), it just has far more visible homeless because it does a much worse job of taking care of them.

[crazy canuck]

Yeah, I think that's the critical point. The cost of living and particularly housing has gone up everywhere while wages have stagnated over a couple of decades pretty much everywhere. The thing that separates the United States from most others is the way it treats its most vulnerable people.

[Sheilbh]

Maybe I'd slightly query those figures. It seems unexpected for, say, France and the UK to have effectively twice the rate of homelessness as the US.

Looking at the sources - both the French and UK stats are from homelessness charities (Abbe Pierre Foundation and Shelter respectively), while the US is from Federal stats. Looking at official Office of National Statistics on who is "statutorily homeless" so as defined in law and the UK number is significantly less than 380,000 (though a little unclear as it's "household" based).

Also just to add that in the UK refugees aren't part of the homeless population - again this is part of the controversy around asylum hotels - there is a legal duty to house asylum seekers until a decision is reached on their claim. That's a blanket obligation. The duties on rehousing people are a bit more nuanced (there's a duty to prevent, to support etc but housing is based on priority groups - so anyone with kids, or who is old or disabled etc).

[Josquius]

I suspect there's a difference in how homeless is defined, much like Sweden as rape capital of the world simply because its a lot stricter on classing things other countries just laugh at as rape?

For instance families in temporary council provided hotel accommodation- in the US might they be counted as perfectly fine whilst they're homeless in Europe?

[Razgovory]

Raz definitely doesn't get more passes than others.  He was the only one in recent memory threatened with a forum ban publicly.

That's wasn't for his thoughts, nor even really his actions towards others, but because he was spamming every thread with his new pet obsession. Not applicable I don't think.

Yeah, other people get ban threats for mentioning topics that interest them outside their specific threads.  

[HVC]

Raz definitely doesn't get more passes than others.  He was the only one in recent memory threatened with a forum ban publicly.

That's wasn't for his thoughts, nor even really his actions towards others, but because he was spamming every thread with his new pet obsession. Not applicable I don't think.

Yeah, other people get ban threats for mentioning topics that interest them outside their specific threads.   

Every thread . After one (two?) clean up efforts and being asked nicely several times.

[Razgovory]

Raz definitely doesn't get more passes than others.  He was the only one in recent memory threatened with a forum ban publicly.

That's wasn't for his thoughts, nor even really his actions towards others, but because he was spamming every thread with his new pet obsession. Not applicable I don't think.

Yeah, other people get ban threats for mentioning topics that interest them outside their specific threads. 

Every thread . After one (two?) clean up efforts and being asked nicely several times.

Yeah, imagine if we banned discussion of Trump outside the Trump thread.  Or you know, Racism.

[HVC]

Fine, fine, you're persecuted and down trodden. It has nothing with derailing every thread.

I mean I was red texted in the last year too, so let's share the pity between the both of us

[celedhring]

Maybe I'd slightly query those figures. It seems unexpected for, say, France and the UK to have effectively twice the rate of homelessness as the US.

Looking at the sources - both the French and UK stats are from homelessness charities (Abbe Pierre Foundation and Shelter respectively), while the US is from Federal stats. Looking at official Office of National Statistics on who is "statutorily homeless" so as defined in law and the UK number is significantly less than 380,000 (though a little unclear as it's "household" based).

Also just to add that in the UK refugees aren't part of the homeless population - again this is part of the controversy around asylum hotels - there is a legal duty to house asylum seekers until a decision is reached on their claim. That's a blanket obligation. The duties on rehousing people are a bit more nuanced (there's a duty to prevent, to support etc but housing is based on priority groups - so anyone with kids, or who is old or disabled etc).

Yeah, similarly official Spanish sources only track homeless people that have interacted with the state's homelessness programs - then there are the statistics produced by NGOs which estimate the number of homeless people to be roughly twice that (a bit less).

Same with refugees - they have to be housed - although immigrants are heavily overrepresented.

[Jacob]

So, now that I have watched it, Trump's speech to the military brass was rather eerie.

Using cities as training grounds for the military? What is he on about?

It's pretty clear to me, between Trump and Hegseth: they're conditioning the military to be used to maintain MAGA power through force.

If, as things are right now, Trump or Hegseth orders the military to enforce some sort of order to keep him in power (i.e. they overturn election results to keep Republicans in power in the midterms, or in the next presidential elections) there's a significant chance they won't be obeyed.

The likelihood of the military obeying orders to carry out a MAGA coup increases if:

• Officers who believe in the constitutional order leave the military at a steady pace (because they're forced out or because they resign due to their principles), while MAGA loyalists stay (hence Hegseth's recent actions).
• The US military, as an organization, gets used to deploying against US civilians (hence Trump's training). This is easier to swallow if it's for low stakes and non-sensical reasons (why object if it doesn't really mean anything). But at the same time the organization builds up the institutional capability of operating in US civilian environments - SNAFUs get figured out, individuals and units get used to it, legal quibbles get resolved and justifications agreed upon.
• The US public gets used to seeing the military deployed in places where resistance against a coup is more likely - that is the city - and if the US public gets used to thinking of the residents of those places as lawless threats to peace and security, since that will justify the use of force to hold on to power.

Now, I'm not saying it's a given that the Trump regime is preparing the ground for a coup, but if they were the steps they're taking right now make a lot of sense. The US population can get pretty feisty at times, and the US military has a deep and profound culture that will take time to shift. Both of those (and other things beside) will have to be managed carefully if a hypothetical MAGA coup is going to succeed.

IMO the conditions for a successful coup that definitively ends democracy in the US do not exist yet, but if current trends hold they will.