Republican activist organizes clean up in W. Baltimore

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s nice that he made an effort and all, but a one-time clean-up doesn’t address the systemic issues (poverty, etc.) that leads to the situation in the first place.

No. Poverty doesn't lead to trash in the streets. You can be poor and know to not throw trash in the street. It's a complete lack of respect that leads to the mess.

Actually the global, universal indicator of poverty IS trash and litter strewn everywhere.

Doesn’t matter if it’s an alley in Baltimore, an Indian reservation in Arizona, virtually anywhere in Mexico, most population centers in Africa, Russia, India, or Southeast Asia... wherever you find poor people, you will find litter.

It stems from hopelessness, and simply not caring. That’s what poverty does to the human spirit. Litter is a symptom of that.

It requires ZERO effort to put something in the trash or simply not throw it in the ground where it will be unsightly. Yet that’s exactly what happens. Why? Because what’s the point of keeping wherever you are tidy if you have no hope for anything.

Then how do you explain the dirt-poor neighborhoods of two decades back, where poor people kept everything nice and tidy? They had pride in their home, and in their neighborhood, even though they didn't have a penny to spare. What was different about 70 years ago as compared to now?

You are really embellishing history. Dirt poor neighborhoods have always been run down.

That's not true. And what do you mean by "run-down"? You mean old buildings in need of repair, or piles of garbage lining the streets? If it's the latter, I can assure you that there were many poor neighborhoods where you didn't see a scrap of trash on the curb. People had pride in where they lived.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s nice that he made an effort and all, but a one-time clean-up doesn’t address the systemic issues (poverty, etc.) that leads to the situation in the first place.

No. Poverty doesn't lead to trash in the streets. You can be poor and know to not throw trash in the street. It's a complete lack of respect that leads to the mess.

Actually the global, universal indicator of poverty IS trash and litter strewn everywhere.

Doesn’t matter if it’s an alley in Baltimore, an Indian reservation in Arizona, virtually anywhere in Mexico, most population centers in Africa, Russia, India, or Southeast Asia... wherever you find poor people, you will find litter.

It stems from hopelessness, and simply not caring. That’s what poverty does to the human spirit. Litter is a symptom of that.

It requires ZERO effort to put something in the trash or simply not throw it in the ground where it will be unsightly. Yet that’s exactly what happens. Why? Because what’s the point of keeping wherever you are tidy if you have no hope for anything.

Then how do you explain the dirt-poor neighborhoods of two decades back, where poor people kept everything nice and tidy? They had pride in their home, and in their neighborhood, even though they didn't have a penny to spare. What was different about 70 years ago as compared to now?

You are really embellishing history. Dirt poor neighborhoods have always been run down.

Stop making excuses for poor people who litter their own neighborhoods. It hasn't always been like that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s nice that he made an effort and all, but a one-time clean-up doesn’t address the systemic issues (poverty, etc.) that leads to the situation in the first place.

No. Poverty doesn't lead to trash in the streets. You can be poor and know to not throw trash in the street. It's a complete lack of respect that leads to the mess.

Actually the global, universal indicator of poverty IS trash and litter strewn everywhere.

Doesn’t matter if it’s an alley in Baltimore, an Indian reservation in Arizona, virtually anywhere in Mexico, most population centers in Africa, Russia, India, or Southeast Asia... wherever you find poor people, you will find litter.

It stems from hopelessness, and simply not caring. That’s what poverty does to the human spirit. Litter is a symptom of that.

It requires ZERO effort to put something in the trash or simply not throw it in the ground where it will be unsightly. Yet that’s exactly what happens. Why? Because what’s the point of keeping wherever you are tidy if you have no hope for anything.

Then how do you explain the dirt-poor neighborhoods of two decades back, where poor people kept everything nice and tidy? They had pride in their home, and in their neighborhood, even though they didn't have a penny to spare. What was different about 70 years ago as compared to now?

You are really embellishing history. Dirt poor neighborhoods have always been run down.

That's not true. And what do you mean by "run-down"? You mean old buildings in need of repair, or piles of garbage lining the streets? If it's the latter, I can assure you that there were many poor neighborhoods where you didn't see a scrap of trash on the curb. People had pride in where they lived.

Because they were working poor, not dirt poor, not hopeless. Working.

You are equating them. That's your misunderstanding, not mine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s nice that he made an effort and all, but a one-time clean-up doesn’t address the systemic issues (poverty, etc.) that leads to the situation in the first place.

No. Poverty doesn't lead to trash in the streets. You can be poor and know to not throw trash in the street. It's a complete lack of respect that leads to the mess.

Actually the global, universal indicator of poverty IS trash and litter strewn everywhere.

Doesn’t matter if it’s an alley in Baltimore, an Indian reservation in Arizona, virtually anywhere in Mexico, most population centers in Africa, Russia, India, or Southeast Asia... wherever you find poor people, you will find litter.

It stems from hopelessness, and simply not caring. That’s what poverty does to the human spirit. Litter is a symptom of that.

It requires ZERO effort to put something in the trash or simply not throw it in the ground where it will be unsightly. Yet that’s exactly what happens. Why? Because what’s the point of keeping wherever you are tidy if you have no hope for anything.

Then how do you explain the dirt-poor neighborhoods of two decades back, where poor people kept everything nice and tidy? They had pride in their home, and in their neighborhood, even though they didn't have a penny to spare. What was different about 70 years ago as compared to now?

Easy. They weren’t poor.

As evidenced by the fact that they clearly had both pride in what they had, and hope for the future. That’s not poverty. They may have occupied a lower SES than you, but that doesn’t make them poor.


And trashed slums filled with garbage and litter and the attendant hopelessness go all the way back to the early 1800’s in this country, btw. This didn’t magically appear 40 years ago.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Good on him. He, and the other volunteers from surrounding states, are good people. Too bad *actual residents* of Baltimore didn't feel the need to help clean up their own city.

What are you reading?

https://www.wbaltv.com/article/scott-presler-volunteers-cleanup-trash-west-baltimore-president-donald-trump/28611545#

"The cleanup was attended, in large part, by supporters of President Donald Trump."

So interesting that it took Trump supporters to organize, mobilize, and PAY for this enormous cleanup. They paid for porta-potties, dumpsters, equipment, etc. - to clean up a city they don't even live in.

You are so gullible if you believe this was done for anything but political purposes. This guy is getting a whole bunch of attention he never would have gotten otherwise.

I don't care and the residents don't care if this was or wasn't done for political purposes. The fact is, they worked long, hot, sweaty hours, using their own money, to clean up a city they don't even live in. And all you can do is complain that he did it for "political purposes"? It's as plain as day who cared enough about this place to pitch in and clean it - and who didn't.

I imagine you and your ilk are kicking yourselves that you didn't think of it first.

You're arguing for the same thing you argue against when you claim people get dependant on government handouts.

Um, nope. The government had nothing to do with this group of volunteers coming together. Not one government dime was spent on this cleanup, only private funds belonging to the volunteers (Trump supporters, btw). Which actually speaks very, very poorly for the city of Baltimore and its Democratic "leaders".

This wasn't a group of volunteers, this was a political stunt.

It was a group of volunteers. This guy (who happens to be gay, BTW) organized over 170 volunteers who worked for over 12 hours today to clean up portions of Baltimore.
Don't be surprised if he organizes another clean up day in another city. It was THAT successful.

Instead of marching, this guy took action. I commend him for what he did.

Same here. Instead of just paying lip service to the atrocious conditions in Baltimore, he galvanized an entirely volunteer-based group of people to go clean it up. It's jaw-dropping that the liberals on this thread are arrogant enough to criticize him for it.

It wasn't volunteer, they were doing it for political gain.

Are you really this stupid? People donating their time, efforts, and money for the greater good without receiving payment of any kind are VOLUNTEERS. You just can't stand it that most of these VOLUNTEERS are Trump supporters, so all you can do is splutter about it being "politically motivated". I'm quite sure you weren't out there in the heat, helping to clean up a city in which you don't even live.

Sounds like you're the stupid one. They are receiving payment in the form of political currency, so they can "stick it to the libs" and virtue signal on social media.

Epic troll, brah. Epic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s nice that he made an effort and all, but a one-time clean-up doesn’t address the systemic issues (poverty, etc.) that leads to the situation in the first place.

No. Poverty doesn't lead to trash in the streets. You can be poor and know to not throw trash in the street. It's a complete lack of respect that leads to the mess.

Actually the global, universal indicator of poverty IS trash and litter strewn everywhere.

Doesn’t matter if it’s an alley in Baltimore, an Indian reservation in Arizona, virtually anywhere in Mexico, most population centers in Africa, Russia, India, or Southeast Asia... wherever you find poor people, you will find litter.

It stems from hopelessness, and simply not caring. That’s what poverty does to the human spirit. Litter is a symptom of that.

It requires ZERO effort to put something in the trash or simply not throw it in the ground where it will be unsightly. Yet that’s exactly what happens. Why? Because what’s the point of keeping wherever you are tidy if you have no hope for anything.

Then how do you explain the dirt-poor neighborhoods of two decades back, where poor people kept everything nice and tidy? They had pride in their home, and in their neighborhood, even though they didn't have a penny to spare. What was different about 70 years ago as compared to now?

You are really embellishing history. Dirt poor neighborhoods have always been run down.

That's not true. And what do you mean by "run-down"? You mean old buildings in need of repair, or piles of garbage lining the streets? If it's the latter, I can assure you that there were many poor neighborhoods where you didn't see a scrap of trash on the curb. People had pride in where they lived.

Because they were working poor, not dirt poor, not hopeless. Working.

You are equating them. That's your misunderstanding, not mine.

No, you're making excuses.

I'm talking about NY neighborhoods during the Depression - and that was dirt-poor, not working poor. They weren't working. No jobs. I have a photo of my mother as a baby, around 1933 or 1934, and you can see clear down the street all the way to the elevated subway tracks. There isn't one single piece of trash in the curbs, or on the little walks in front of the tenement houses. So why did poor people in the 1930s and 1940s keep their neighborhoods clean, and now poor people trash up where they live?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s nice that he made an effort and all, but a one-time clean-up doesn’t address the systemic issues (poverty, etc.) that leads to the situation in the first place.

No. Poverty doesn't lead to trash in the streets. You can be poor and know to not throw trash in the street. It's a complete lack of respect that leads to the mess.

Actually the global, universal indicator of poverty IS trash and litter strewn everywhere.

Doesn’t matter if it’s an alley in Baltimore, an Indian reservation in Arizona, virtually anywhere in Mexico, most population centers in Africa, Russia, India, or Southeast Asia... wherever you find poor people, you will find litter.

It stems from hopelessness, and simply not caring. That’s what poverty does to the human spirit. Litter is a symptom of that.

It requires ZERO effort to put something in the trash or simply not throw it in the ground where it will be unsightly. Yet that’s exactly what happens. Why? Because what’s the point of keeping wherever you are tidy if you have no hope for anything.

Then how do you explain the dirt-poor neighborhoods of two decades back, where poor people kept everything nice and tidy? They had pride in their home, and in their neighborhood, even though they didn't have a penny to spare. What was different about 70 years ago as compared to now?

You are really embellishing history. Dirt poor neighborhoods have always been run down.

Stop making excuses for poor people who litter their own neighborhoods. It hasn't always been like that.

There wasn't always so much disposable crap. Now consumer goods are cheap (to buy and cheaply made) and EVERYONE throws tons of stuff out. The difference is some neighborhoods have people who live places a long time, have storage, have ways of disposal (reliable trash, cars to haul things to Goodwill), and poor neighborhoods have people moving in and out all the time who can't afford moving services or cleaning services and are going to just leave things that are broken or unusable that then just get tossed by the next person, who isn't responsible and doesn't have the means to dispose of them. 40 or 70 years ago this didn't happen because people didn't have a ton of cheap appliances and cheap furniture and cheap clothes and tons of cardboard boxes and plastic containers and styrofoam packing. They also didn't move as much--the population is more mobile than it used to be.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s nice that he made an effort and all, but a one-time clean-up doesn’t address the systemic issues (poverty, etc.) that leads to the situation in the first place.

No. Poverty doesn't lead to trash in the streets. You can be poor and know to not throw trash in the street. It's a complete lack of respect that leads to the mess.

Actually the global, universal indicator of poverty IS trash and litter strewn everywhere.

Doesn’t matter if it’s an alley in Baltimore, an Indian reservation in Arizona, virtually anywhere in Mexico, most population centers in Africa, Russia, India, or Southeast Asia... wherever you find poor people, you will find litter.

It stems from hopelessness, and simply not caring. That’s what poverty does to the human spirit. Litter is a symptom of that.

It requires ZERO effort to put something in the trash or simply not throw it in the ground where it will be unsightly. Yet that’s exactly what happens. Why? Because what’s the point of keeping wherever you are tidy if you have no hope for anything.

Then how do you explain the dirt-poor neighborhoods of two decades back, where poor people kept everything nice and tidy? They had pride in their home, and in their neighborhood, even though they didn't have a penny to spare. What was different about 70 years ago as compared to now?

You are really embellishing history. Dirt poor neighborhoods have always been run down.

That's not true. And what do you mean by "run-down"? You mean old buildings in need of repair, or piles of garbage lining the streets? If it's the latter, I can assure you that there were many poor neighborhoods where you didn't see a scrap of trash on the curb. People had pride in where they lived.

Because they were working poor, not dirt poor, not hopeless. Working.

You are equating them. That's your misunderstanding, not mine.

No, you're making excuses.

I'm talking about NY neighborhoods during the Depression - and that was dirt-poor, not working poor. They weren't working. No jobs. I have a photo of my mother as a baby, around 1933 or 1934, and you can see clear down the street all the way to the elevated subway tracks. There isn't one single piece of trash in the curbs, or on the little walks in front of the tenement houses. So why did poor people in the 1930s and 1940s keep their neighborhoods clean, and now poor people trash up where they live?

Ah, the good old days of the Great Depression...

Ask your grandparents if they were hopeless. Or if they were hardscrabble.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s nice that he made an effort and all, but a one-time clean-up doesn’t address the systemic issues (poverty, etc.) that leads to the situation in the first place.

No. Poverty doesn't lead to trash in the streets. You can be poor and know to not throw trash in the street. It's a complete lack of respect that leads to the mess.

Actually the global, universal indicator of poverty IS trash and litter strewn everywhere.

Doesn’t matter if it’s an alley in Baltimore, an Indian reservation in Arizona, virtually anywhere in Mexico, most population centers in Africa, Russia, India, or Southeast Asia... wherever you find poor people, you will find litter.

It stems from hopelessness, and simply not caring. That’s what poverty does to the human spirit. Litter is a symptom of that.

It requires ZERO effort to put something in the trash or simply not throw it in the ground where it will be unsightly. Yet that’s exactly what happens. Why? Because what’s the point of keeping wherever you are tidy if you have no hope for anything.

Then how do you explain the dirt-poor neighborhoods of two decades back, where poor people kept everything nice and tidy? They had pride in their home, and in their neighborhood, even though they didn't have a penny to spare. What was different about 70 years ago as compared to now?

Easy. They weren’t poor.

As evidenced by the fact that they clearly had both pride in what they had, and hope for the future. That’s not poverty. They may have occupied a lower SES than you, but that doesn’t make them poor.


And trashed slums filled with garbage and litter and the attendant hopelessness go all the way back to the early 1800’s in this country, btw. This didn’t magically appear 40 years ago.

So THAT's you're definition of being really poor? If the neighborhood looks like crap with trash all over the place, they're really poor. If there isn't any litter, hey.....that's a sign they're not really all THAT poor. My parents were really poor urban dwellers, and their neighborhood were clean. (Old and run-down, but clean.) Shared an apartment with strangers, with the bathroom down a common hall. I'm sure that the urban poor in Baltimore are living in apartments at least as good as that, and most likely better. I even bet they have a bathroom in the apartment.

Stop making excuses.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s nice that he made an effort and all, but a one-time clean-up doesn’t address the systemic issues (poverty, etc.) that leads to the situation in the first place.

No. Poverty doesn't lead to trash in the streets. You can be poor and know to not throw trash in the street. It's a complete lack of respect that leads to the mess.

Actually the global, universal indicator of poverty IS trash and litter strewn everywhere.

Doesn’t matter if it’s an alley in Baltimore, an Indian reservation in Arizona, virtually anywhere in Mexico, most population centers in Africa, Russia, India, or Southeast Asia... wherever you find poor people, you will find litter.

It stems from hopelessness, and simply not caring. That’s what poverty does to the human spirit. Litter is a symptom of that.

It requires ZERO effort to put something in the trash or simply not throw it in the ground where it will be unsightly. Yet that’s exactly what happens. Why? Because what’s the point of keeping wherever you are tidy if you have no hope for anything.

Then how do you explain the dirt-poor neighborhoods of two decades back, where poor people kept everything nice and tidy? They had pride in their home, and in their neighborhood, even though they didn't have a penny to spare. What was different about 70 years ago as compared to now?

Easy. They weren’t poor.

As evidenced by the fact that they clearly had both pride in what they had, and hope for the future. That’s not poverty. They may have occupied a lower SES than you, but that doesn’t make them poor.


And trashed slums filled with garbage and litter and the attendant hopelessness go all the way back to the early 1800’s in this country, btw. This didn’t magically appear 40 years ago.

So THAT's you're definition of being really poor? If the neighborhood looks like crap with trash all over the place, they're really poor. If there isn't any litter, hey.....that's a sign they're not really all THAT poor. My parents were really poor urban dwellers, and their neighborhood were clean. (Old and run-down, but clean.) Shared an apartment with strangers, with the bathroom down a common hall. I'm sure that the urban poor in Baltimore are living in apartments at least as good as that, and most likely better. I even bet they have a bathroom in the apartment.

Stop making excuses.

Right? These Baltimorans are losers. Fine.

Now can you stop?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s nice that he made an effort and all, but a one-time clean-up doesn’t address the systemic issues (poverty, etc.) that leads to the situation in the first place.

No. Poverty doesn't lead to trash in the streets. You can be poor and know to not throw trash in the street. It's a complete lack of respect that leads to the mess.

Actually the global, universal indicator of poverty IS trash and litter strewn everywhere.

Doesn’t matter if it’s an alley in Baltimore, an Indian reservation in Arizona, virtually anywhere in Mexico, most population centers in Africa, Russia, India, or Southeast Asia... wherever you find poor people, you will find litter.

It stems from hopelessness, and simply not caring. That’s what poverty does to the human spirit. Litter is a symptom of that.

It requires ZERO effort to put something in the trash or simply not throw it in the ground where it will be unsightly. Yet that’s exactly what happens. Why? Because what’s the point of keeping wherever you are tidy if you have no hope for anything.

Then how do you explain the dirt-poor neighborhoods of two decades back, where poor people kept everything nice and tidy? They had pride in their home, and in their neighborhood, even though they didn't have a penny to spare. What was different about 70 years ago as compared to now?

You are really embellishing history. Dirt poor neighborhoods have always been run down.

That's not true. And what do you mean by "run-down"? You mean old buildings in need of repair, or piles of garbage lining the streets? If it's the latter, I can assure you that there were many poor neighborhoods where you didn't see a scrap of trash on the curb. People had pride in where they lived.

Because they were working poor, not dirt poor, not hopeless. Working.

You are equating them. That's your misunderstanding, not mine.

No, you're making excuses.

I'm talking about NY neighborhoods during the Depression - and that was dirt-poor, not working poor. They weren't working. No jobs. I have a photo of my mother as a baby, around 1933 or 1934, and you can see clear down the street all the way to the elevated subway tracks. There isn't one single piece of trash in the curbs, or on the little walks in front of the tenement houses. So why did poor people in the 1930s and 1940s keep their neighborhoods clean, and now poor people trash up where they live?

Ah, the good old days of the Great Depression...

Ask your grandparents if they were hopeless. Or if they were hardscrabble.

Well, I can't ask my grandparents anything, anymore. May they RIP.

But they were no better off - and most likely, much worse off - during the Depression than the poor people in today's Baltimore, and still they didn't lose hope. They emphasized study and school for their children, and all of them went on to graduate from college. So why were my grandparents not hopeless, in the face of the worst economic situation in modern American history, and today's poor, with benefits such as food stamps, free lunches for the kids, Medicaid, etc., etc.,, too hopeless to pick up their own garbage?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s nice that he made an effort and all, but a one-time clean-up doesn’t address the systemic issues (poverty, etc.) that leads to the situation in the first place.

No. Poverty doesn't lead to trash in the streets. You can be poor and know to not throw trash in the street. It's a complete lack of respect that leads to the mess.

Actually the global, universal indicator of poverty IS trash and litter strewn everywhere.

Doesn’t matter if it’s an alley in Baltimore, an Indian reservation in Arizona, virtually anywhere in Mexico, most population centers in Africa, Russia, India, or Southeast Asia... wherever you find poor people, you will find litter.

It stems from hopelessness, and simply not caring. That’s what poverty does to the human spirit. Litter is a symptom of that.

It requires ZERO effort to put something in the trash or simply not throw it in the ground where it will be unsightly. Yet that’s exactly what happens. Why? Because what’s the point of keeping wherever you are tidy if you have no hope for anything.

Then how do you explain the dirt-poor neighborhoods of two decades back, where poor people kept everything nice and tidy? They had pride in their home, and in their neighborhood, even though they didn't have a penny to spare. What was different about 70 years ago as compared to now?

You are really embellishing history. Dirt poor neighborhoods have always been run down.

That's not true. And what do you mean by "run-down"? You mean old buildings in need of repair, or piles of garbage lining the streets? If it's the latter, I can assure you that there were many poor neighborhoods where you didn't see a scrap of trash on the curb. People had pride in where they lived.

Because they were working poor, not dirt poor, not hopeless. Working.

You are equating them. That's your misunderstanding, not mine.

No, you're making excuses.

I'm talking about NY neighborhoods during the Depression - and that was dirt-poor, not working poor. They weren't working. No jobs. I have a photo of my mother as a baby, around 1933 or 1934, and you can see clear down the street all the way to the elevated subway tracks. There isn't one single piece of trash in the curbs, or on the little walks in front of the tenement houses. So why did poor people in the 1930s and 1940s keep their neighborhoods clean, and now poor people trash up where they live?

Ah, the good old days of the Great Depression...

Ask your grandparents if they were hopeless. Or if they were hardscrabble.

Well, I can't ask my grandparents anything, anymore. May they RIP.

But they were no better off - and most likely, much worse off - during the Depression than the poor people in today's Baltimore, and still they didn't lose hope. They emphasized study and school for their children, and all of them went on to graduate from college. So why were my grandparents not hopeless, in the face of the worst economic situation in modern American history, and today's poor, with benefits such as food stamps, free lunches for the kids, Medicaid, etc., etc.,, too hopeless to pick up their own garbage?

With guns being much more proliferant in society today than they were in your grandparents' lifetimes, I can guarantee you that today's poor people in Baltimore are much worse off than your grandparents were. Get some perspective.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s nice that he made an effort and all, but a one-time clean-up doesn’t address the systemic issues (poverty, etc.) that leads to the situation in the first place.

No. Poverty doesn't lead to trash in the streets. You can be poor and know to not throw trash in the street. It's a complete lack of respect that leads to the mess.

Actually the global, universal indicator of poverty IS trash and litter strewn everywhere.

Doesn’t matter if it’s an alley in Baltimore, an Indian reservation in Arizona, virtually anywhere in Mexico, most population centers in Africa, Russia, India, or Southeast Asia... wherever you find poor people, you will find litter.

It stems from hopelessness, and simply not caring. That’s what poverty does to the human spirit. Litter is a symptom of that.

It requires ZERO effort to put something in the trash or simply not throw it in the ground where it will be unsightly. Yet that’s exactly what happens. Why? Because what’s the point of keeping wherever you are tidy if you have no hope for anything.

Then how do you explain the dirt-poor neighborhoods of two decades back, where poor people kept everything nice and tidy? They had pride in their home, and in their neighborhood, even though they didn't have a penny to spare. What was different about 70 years ago as compared to now?

Easy. They weren’t poor.

As evidenced by the fact that they clearly had both pride in what they had, and hope for the future. That’s not poverty. They may have occupied a lower SES than you, but that doesn’t make them poor.


And trashed slums filled with garbage and litter and the attendant hopelessness go all the way back to the early 1800’s in this country, btw. This didn’t magically appear 40 years ago.

So THAT's you're definition of being really poor? If the neighborhood looks like crap with trash all over the place, they're really poor. If there isn't any litter, hey.....that's a sign they're not really all THAT poor. My parents were really poor urban dwellers, and their neighborhood were clean. (Old and run-down, but clean.) Shared an apartment with strangers, with the bathroom down a common hall. I'm sure that the urban poor in Baltimore are living in apartments at least as good as that, and most likely better. I even bet they have a bathroom in the apartment.

Stop making excuses.

Right? These Baltimorans are losers. Fine.

Now can you stop?

I didn't say they were losers. I'm asking a reasonable question: why did poor people take pride in where they lived decades ago, and now they don't?

You lost the argument that the trash-littered neighborhoods of Baltimore are such because the people are REALLY poor, as opposed to the neater neighborhoods where they're only SOMEWHAT poor. You keep making excuses for bad behavior from poor people and enabling their victim mentality. Maybe if we raised our expectations - and expecting people to put their garbage in a trash can isn't a big ask - things would improve.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Good on him. He, and the other volunteers from surrounding states, are good people. Too bad *actual residents* of Baltimore didn't feel the need to help clean up their own city.

What are you reading?

https://www.wbaltv.com/article/scott-presler-volunteers-cleanup-trash-west-baltimore-president-donald-trump/28611545#

"The cleanup was attended, in large part, by supporters of President Donald Trump."

So interesting that it took Trump supporters to organize, mobilize, and PAY for this enormous cleanup. They paid for porta-potties, dumpsters, equipment, etc. - to clean up a city they don't even live in.

You are so gullible if you believe this was done for anything but political purposes. This guy is getting a whole bunch of attention he never would have gotten otherwise.

And Cummings could have organized something similar. More easily than an out-of-state nobody. Local Baltimore politicians could have organized something similar.

They didn't. This Trump supporting guy did.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Good on him. He, and the other volunteers from surrounding states, are good people. Too bad *actual residents* of Baltimore didn't feel the need to help clean up their own city.

What are you reading?

https://www.wbaltv.com/article/scott-presler-volunteers-cleanup-trash-west-baltimore-president-donald-trump/28611545#

"The cleanup was attended, in large part, by supporters of President Donald Trump."

So interesting that it took Trump supporters to organize, mobilize, and PAY for this enormous cleanup. They paid for porta-potties, dumpsters, equipment, etc. - to clean up a city they don't even live in.

You are so gullible if you believe this was done for anything but political purposes. This guy is getting a whole bunch of attention he never would have gotten otherwise.

I don't care and the residents don't care if this was or wasn't done for political purposes. The fact is, they worked long, hot, sweaty hours, using their own money, to clean up a city they don't even live in. And all you can do is complain that he did it for "political purposes"? It's as plain as day who cared enough about this place to pitch in and clean it - and who didn't.

I imagine you and your ilk are kicking yourselves that you didn't think of it first.

You're arguing for the same thing you argue against when you claim people get dependant on government handouts.

Um, nope. The government had nothing to do with this group of volunteers coming together. Not one government dime was spent on this cleanup, only private funds belonging to the volunteers (Trump supporters, btw). Which actually speaks very, very poorly for the city of Baltimore and its Democratic "leaders".

This wasn't a group of volunteers, this was a political stunt.

How dare those horrible people do that horrible thing!

Arrest them!!!