Public land is owned and Worcester bans encampments on public land and MassDOT owned some of the land they were cleared off of in this instance.

Because they were not actually in the house with the Walmart workers while the Walmart workers slept. WTF?

And it’s a relevant question for the “not on land owned by someone else” reply.

ALL LAND IS OWNED BT SOMEONE ELSE.

What land then?

I definitely think they should be permitted to be on public land.

You keep lecturing me but not understanding the point. So stop please.

The person above said “not on someone else’s land”.

ALL LAND IS SOMEONE ELSE’S. So if they are not dead, where do they go?

Because they were not actually in the house with the Walmart workers while the Walmart workers slept. WTF?

And it’s a relevant question for the “not on land owned by someone else” reply.

What land then?

What land do you propose? The person above says no land that is owned. So what land?

If you propose allowing them to stay on public land, I support that. But many locales don’t allow that. In this case they were also cleared off of MassDOT land and Worcester does not permit encamping on public lands.

Edit: This space seems about as out-of-the-way as any in Worcester. Seems Worcester is playing “chase them out of our town. Someone else can deal with it”

I’m fully aware you understand that my security is at risk if random people live in my house but Walmart’s security is not at risk if they live next to the parking lot. There’s also an issue of physical space. My residence is 800 sq. feet.

I’m also a person, not a massively wealthy corporation with many thousands of acres of land - and they were not using this land.

3rd time I’ll ask: what land do you propose? Until you propose some land I will maintain my understanding that you don’t think they should be able to live.

Evidently the theory of some. One person telling me they can’t “be on someone else’s land”. What land in the US is NOT “someone else’s”? My guess is there is literally not a single spot of land in this country that is not owned.

My house is not comparable to an unused space between a parking lot and a river. Think more clearly.

I’ll ask again: what land would you propose?

It was unused ground between the parking lot and the river. How does that impact the store?

What land would you propose? What land is not “someone else’s”?

Seems like Walmart was one of the complainants that led to the removal. And I’d guess the motive for clearing the trees was to stop people from camping there again.

I was hoping that clearing the camp without providing homes was the legal violation, but I can’t disagree with removing the trees being a legal violation anyway.

Edit: I guess the downvoters don’t think homeless people should be allowed to continue living.

Yay clearing homeless camps I guess.

Edit: The replies full of “durr let them live in your house then”. Shitty right wing brains can’t understand the difference between “society and government should manage this problem differently” and “You personally should manage this problem all on your own”.

Sigh. I haven’t asserted that news sources are unbiased.

You seem not to have processed the meanings of the words in my reply at all.

There is data on this.

Your personal acquaintance is not an unbiased nor statistically representative sample.

Sir, I don’t get my news from listening to the radio or watching TV. I read, and I check all sources and raw data where available.

If it’s not, I take the information with a grain of salt.

I also read actual monographs on important topics by non-journalists.

Not everybody gets their information from popular media.

It’s remarkable to me that you think you are teaching me something after the unorganized and ill-thought-out positions you have posted here.

And the fact that you are saying as a fact that the author of a study you have never even seen, lied, is so obviously your will replacing your capacity to think that I’m amazed your will also overrode your ability to recognize even that.

Most Massachusetts precincts vote majority Democratic, whether in Boston or not.

Probably the reason most of your friends are Republican is that you are very fiercely Republican.

And that person is correct, that usually the majority of Americans overall vote Democratic.

Oh this isn’t so. Studies have been done by non- journalists, and the data is public.

It matters not who reports it. The base information is available to be checked.

I don’t see the relevance of your reflection on journalism.

Machine counts can easily be off by a few votes due to damaged or poorly marked ballots. The hand “recount” is mainly getting a human eye looking at the ballots the machine could not read.

It is not akin to two people each counting a pile of things and getting different numbers.

Third count (second by hand) would likely produce the same outcome as the first by hand.

Usually a hand recount is a very careful review by multiple people to catch and accurately record votes that the machines couldn’t read due to damages to the ballot.

Again, it’s not a matter of trust except in trusting to reason.

The sequence of vote counting does not impact the total.

It’s known that Democrats are more likely to vote by mail, and these are often counted last.

There’s nothing suspicious about that.

There have been a small number of people arrested for voter fraud for the 2020 election, and even fewer prosecuted. Exact numbers are hard to get because of inconsistent reporting methods from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. But fewer than 400 for all 2020 elections - including local, county, state, and federal - were forwarded by investigators to DAs for prosecution.

In many of these cases, who the fraudulent vote was for is not public information.

In several, they have been for Republicans, and in several, Democrats.

Most accountings identify more Republican fraudulent votes than Democratic. Both exist. Both are so rare as to only risk impacting an election with a tiny margin, such as this one.

I don’t perceive that many Democrats are against recounts in close races. Can you cite that?

I’m not familiar with a hand-count and machine-count that were significantly different from each other. There are often a very small number of ballots that are damaged or not marked well and cannot be read accurately by the machine. Consequently, again, it may affect a very close race, so if the vote gap is very small, it makes sense to do a hand recount to eyeball the ballots that might not have been properly legible.

In this case, it is not that the machine is ‘inaccurate’ but that the ballot was not legible.

If you’re familiar with a case in which hand and machine counts differed beyond a small margin, please let me know.

Otherwise, this is not really a matter of trust but of statistics.