This seems like one in the few politicians that aren’t corrupt at all and really wants to help the community ion live in Chicago but I sure wish she was in Rochester
Objects can't be a basic human right, because then it inherently means that you're taking away other people's actual basic rights. If you want to say access to something is a basic right, then sure, you should (and do) have the right to go down to the grocery store and buy a gallon of water if you want, but what you don't have is the right to go down to the grocery store and just take whatever you want because you think you have a "right" to whatever you want, nor do you have the right to have the government to force people at point of gun to give you just whatever you want. "How do you decriminalize homelessness and mental illnesses?" Um, is that a trick question or just an ignorant one? Police aren't omnipotent beings that can just tell everything about a person within mere seconds, that's not how reality works, so to try and put the blame on the police for being forced into situations where they have to make extremely quick decisions about the safety of themselves and others is utterly asinine. If you want to help the mentally ill, then they need to be institutionalized and dealt with, and not let out after a week of being on some drugs (also releasing tens of thousands of mentally ill people in the, I believe, 1960's along with making it increasingly difficult for friends and family to put someone in an institution seem like some dumb ideas). If you want to fix homelessness, you first have to accept two things: that when you take out those who have a mental illness, it's people making poor life choices that got them in that situation; and that you can't fix it by just throwing money at them. Once you solve the first part and accept the second, then you can actually try very localized programs that try to rehabilitate people and prevent them from making the same poor life choices that got them to that place. Stop trying to pretend that Stop and Frisk is a bad policy. It was a policy designed for the sole purpose of putting the police in high-crime areas and lowering crime. And guess what, it worked really well. If you see a cop and your first thought is "dread," then you're either doing something illegal or have a warped perception of reality. More police should be in areas with a higher rate of crime, otherwise that area will just continue to get worse and worse. Plus, the police can't be the only thing working on reducing crime, it also heavily involves things like people making basic good life choices, such as not having a kid out of wedlock, graduating high school, and getting a job. Then if you have a kid, raise them properly instead of warping their mind to believe garbage and/or never disciplining your kid and holding them accountable for their actions. Plus, Chicago is referred to as "Chiraq" for a fucking reason, because it's ravaged by massive amounts of gang crime. So the idea that anyone wouldn't want more policing in that city truly boggles any sane person's mind. "Sanctuary Cities" are inherently immoral and unConstitutional, and this isn't even remotely up for debate. You can't harbor illegal immigrants in a country, that's borderline active rebellion against the Union. Plus, if an immigrant is scared of ICE or being deported, then they're probably an illegal who shouldn't be in the United States to begin with. Otherwise, they're a citizen or are otherwise here legally and have literally nothing to worry about. And evidently Amara doesn't understand how to revitalize a city's economy, because it's extraordinarily simple: >Lower taxes, especially on businesses. >Cut almost all worthless public programs that don't actually benefit anyone and can be done better through the Free Market. >Lower the crime by increased policing and having people make better life choices. >Incentivize big businesses to come into low-income areas and actually invest in the community (such as having high school kids work there and they start a college fund, and then help them with college funding once they get into it), as well incentivizing people to create small businesses (the incentives being things previously stated, such as lower taxes, lowering crime, lowering the hoops and garbage people have to go through to get a business up and running, etc.). Honestly though, it's not surprising that Amara doesn't understand how basic economics works, since she just runs with the typical "the 1% is the problem and they deserve all of the blame" routine that every moron who lacks even an elementary knowledge on economics runs with. If you constantly blame "the 1%" and "corporations" for your economic woes, you're just admitting that you're ignorant and jealous.
Great interview. I played some of your RUclips interviews for my parents this week. You've got 2 more votes!
Great questions Chance but even better solutions. Go Amara!!!!
We need a Mayor with solutions and she is ONLY one with them!!
This woman is the *ultimate solutionist!*
Go Amara! I believe in you! Keep doing great things
This seems like one in the few politicians that aren’t corrupt at all and really wants to help the community ion live in Chicago but I sure wish she was in Rochester
She is who Chicago needs. She’s my candidate for mayor.
My mayor matches her nails with her dress😂. Great job tho guys👍
💯✔💯✔💯✔
Why this dot have more views or likes. This is woke af
Oh fuq
Objects can't be a basic human right, because then it inherently means that you're taking away other people's actual basic rights. If you want to say access to something is a basic right, then sure, you should (and do) have the right to go down to the grocery store and buy a gallon of water if you want, but what you don't have is the right to go down to the grocery store and just take whatever you want because you think you have a "right" to whatever you want, nor do you have the right to have the government to force people at point of gun to give you just whatever you want.
"How do you decriminalize homelessness and mental illnesses?" Um, is that a trick question or just an ignorant one? Police aren't omnipotent beings that can just tell everything about a person within mere seconds, that's not how reality works, so to try and put the blame on the police for being forced into situations where they have to make extremely quick decisions about the safety of themselves and others is utterly asinine. If you want to help the mentally ill, then they need to be institutionalized and dealt with, and not let out after a week of being on some drugs (also releasing tens of thousands of mentally ill people in the, I believe, 1960's along with making it increasingly difficult for friends and family to put someone in an institution seem like some dumb ideas). If you want to fix homelessness, you first have to accept two things: that when you take out those who have a mental illness, it's people making poor life choices that got them in that situation; and that you can't fix it by just throwing money at them. Once you solve the first part and accept the second, then you can actually try very localized programs that try to rehabilitate people and prevent them from making the same poor life choices that got them to that place.
Stop trying to pretend that Stop and Frisk is a bad policy. It was a policy designed for the sole purpose of putting the police in high-crime areas and lowering crime. And guess what, it worked really well. If you see a cop and your first thought is "dread," then you're either doing something illegal or have a warped perception of reality. More police should be in areas with a higher rate of crime, otherwise that area will just continue to get worse and worse. Plus, the police can't be the only thing working on reducing crime, it also heavily involves things like people making basic good life choices, such as not having a kid out of wedlock, graduating high school, and getting a job. Then if you have a kid, raise them properly instead of warping their mind to believe garbage and/or never disciplining your kid and holding them accountable for their actions. Plus, Chicago is referred to as "Chiraq" for a fucking reason, because it's ravaged by massive amounts of gang crime. So the idea that anyone wouldn't want more policing in that city truly boggles any sane person's mind.
"Sanctuary Cities" are inherently immoral and unConstitutional, and this isn't even remotely up for debate. You can't harbor illegal immigrants in a country, that's borderline active rebellion against the Union. Plus, if an immigrant is scared of ICE or being deported, then they're probably an illegal who shouldn't be in the United States to begin with. Otherwise, they're a citizen or are otherwise here legally and have literally nothing to worry about.
And evidently Amara doesn't understand how to revitalize a city's economy, because it's extraordinarily simple:
>Lower taxes, especially on businesses.
>Cut almost all worthless public programs that don't actually benefit anyone and can be done better through the Free Market.
>Lower the crime by increased policing and having people make better life choices.
>Incentivize big businesses to come into low-income areas and actually invest in the community (such as having high school kids work there and they start a college fund, and then help them with college funding once they get into it), as well incentivizing people to create small businesses (the incentives being things previously stated, such as lower taxes, lowering crime, lowering the hoops and garbage people have to go through to get a business up and running, etc.).
Honestly though, it's not surprising that Amara doesn't understand how basic economics works, since she just runs with the typical "the 1% is the problem and they deserve all of the blame" routine that every moron who lacks even an elementary knowledge on economics runs with. If you constantly blame "the 1%" and "corporations" for your economic woes, you're just admitting that you're ignorant and jealous.
Great interview!! I want her as my mayor!