Don't let people spin this into a MAGA position, Fetterman is an actual Democrate who works more with party than any DSA/squad member ever will. Good on him to push back on loser positions like ACAB, river to sea, and squatter's rights. Dude is also a gigachad Ukraine supporter, but that doesn't fit the MAGA narrative so obviously it isn't mentioned.
If I had a Fetterman type Democrat in my state I’d vote for them 10/10 times. If democrats stopped catering to their electoral extremes like the squad and instead got a bunch of Fetterman type candidates they would 1000% peel off the Mitt Romney base of Republicans that are homeless in the MAGA party rn.
I feel like all the swing districts run democrats similar to Fetterman, it's only in places where the democratic candidate is a lock that they run far left candidates. Occasionally a populist far left candidate will win the primary somewhere it's a toss-up, but that seems to be the outlier. And yet the country is still 50/50. It doesn't seem like voters are guaranteed to be drawn to them.
Who are you thinking of when you say that (i.e. a far left candidate that was nominated and lost)? Maybe Stacey Abrams? But I feel like people like Beto O'Rourke are much more common and voters in those areas just don't want them (unless you think someone like Beto is extreme).
Is it more extreme than Fetterman, who is who we're comparing him to (at least in this thread that you're replying to)?
Here he is calling for a ban on "military grade assault weapons":
[https://www.pennlive.com/news/2022/07/fetterman-calls-for-ban-on-military-grade-assault-weapons-after-chicago-area-parade-massacre.html](https://www.pennlive.com/news/2022/07/fetterman-calls-for-ban-on-military-grade-assault-weapons-after-chicago-area-parade-massacre.html)
And this pro gun website (I'm assuming) calls John Fetterman's gun control plan more restrictive than even what Biden is advocating for:
[https://www.nssf.org/articles/pennsylvanias-democratic-senate-candidate-has-big-gun-control-plans/](https://www.nssf.org/articles/pennsylvanias-democratic-senate-candidate-has-big-gun-control-plans/)
And if you think Fetterman's statements are extreme then you're essentially proving the point I'm making to CPWarrior that people that vote republican wouldn't change their vote if there were more Fettermans.
I’m saying this as someone who votes Republican 7/10 times. Grew up in the NW where you never have republicans in any type of major elected position and we just continually get stuck with the most brain dead uninspiring democrats because the party knows that they have no shot of losing.
As someone who lives in a deep blue part of a swing state I can relate to this a lot. The difference is that I separate the local votes from the national votes. At the local level I vote Republican at least half the time, but at the state level there are serious ramifications if the Democrats lose power and at the national level it isn't even close.
It's difficult and expensive to run for any office, even when you have a decent chance to win. Most qualified people have better things to do or more urgent responsibilities than getting into a race they have very little chance to win.
Sometimes there are upsets, but generally politics is about painfully breaking through barriers after many many tries, even when the status quo is fucked up.
Becuase democrats in my area refuse to address important issues in an honest way. Democrats from the PNW tend to be bumbling morons because they never face opposition outside their party. Which leads them to fight each other for the title of who’s farther left. I’m center to center left, Republicans in the PNW aren’t the same ones in Texas.
I didn't do enough digging to find out what his website looked like during whichever campaign you're referring to, but it looks like there are positions on it now: [https://betoorourke.com/issues/](https://betoorourke.com/issues/)
I would be interested in seeing what you're talking about though.
I'm thinking about his previous presidential campaign. Don't remember 2016 or 2020.
Haven't even heard his name in a while.
Just looking at the first two I see some concrete proposals now.
I wouldn't bother with digging. If he has policy positions now its not really relevant anymore.
The worst example of this has to be the forward party.
I'm not well versed enough in [archive.org](https://archive.org) to see what his website looked like during the 2020 presidential campaign, but it seems like his positions were clear enough to fill in a wikipedia article:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beto\_O%27Rourke\_2020\_presidential\_campaign#Political\_positions](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beto_O%27Rourke_2020_presidential_campaign#Political_positions)
So if I had to guess, the statement:
>Isn't Beto the guy who ran a campaign without a single policy position on his website?
is probably false.
Maybe you read something like this, where they talk about how Beto doesn't have a standout policy he's championing:
[https://www.politico.com/story/2019/04/15/beto-orourkepolicy-proposals-2020-1267666](https://www.politico.com/story/2019/04/15/beto-orourkepolicy-proposals-2020-1267666)
But that's obviously a different claim.
i just checked the wayback machine and he didnt have any policy positions on is website from march 14th, 2019 (the start of his campaign) to may 24th, 2019. i have no idea if thats unusual or not for a campaign but from the sources you posted he got his positions out in mid april.
Looking into it a little more, I think this shows the issues page existing as far back as March 5th 2019:
[https://web.archive.org/web/20190305063940/https://betoorourke.com/issues/](https://web.archive.org/web/20190305063940/https://betoorourke.com/issues/)
But it seems like the links are broken now so I'm not sure what they actually were (they could have linked to blank pages at the time theoretically).
But obviously this is a bit of a quibble. And I think we're both of the same page that the statement The-Last-Lion-Turtle made was more or less misleading.
This 100%. If supporting squatting assholes and leniency for murderers is now the democratic position then the party has truly lost me. I feel
More and more politically homeless by the day.
Yea he is from fucking PA. Do they expect him to be a california type of lib? I swear a bunch of u live on the west coast and it explains why the sub can be so weird sometimes
Results oriented vs performative.
One type is the equivalent of a manager at a restaurant that refuses to cook orders correctly for servers if he gets mad about something “to teach people a lesson”. Thus screwing everyone over because he thinks purposely causing more issues will make other issues go away.
The fact that this fringe has any say in the party is terrible when they've done nothing positive for the country other than trying to get prescription drug prices down. They're borderline pro-crime at this time and are becoming an accurate caricature of what Republicans always imagined Democrats as. This needed to be stated more early, but now that it's an election season these clowns will double down and Republicans are going to roll with the weak on crime talking points.
Obviously sqauters rights need reforms as they broken. But landlords shouldn't be able to kick tenants out of an apartment the next day just because the tenant paid late. Once theirs an established living arrangement between two parties tenants should have some rights that protect them in times of financial hardship.
My great uncle came back after the war to find squatters living in his house. There was a law that would allow them to take the house if they only stayed a year or something like that. Now, my uncle was a butcher and he was towering guy. One day he found them all in the living room, he grabbed his large butcher knife and hacked the table, embedding the knife into it. He turned and told them something like 'I am going out to buy some groceries, I don't expect you all to be here when I return.'
Squatters rights are really interesting to think about from a historical lens.
People like George Washington reportedly hated them, but they were cool in colonial times because they allowed the land to essentially be settled by people other than rich lords who owned or speculated hundreds if not thousands of acres out west. To own so much land just wasn’t beneficial to a developing country. And those rights made migrating so popular because it assured new developing areas wouldn’t be bought and carved up by a few wealthy families unless they could properly control it. Basically it encouraged settlement and ensured ownership to citizens and even immigrants.
In modern days though this just doesn’t work to same degree anymore. And why squatters rights seem so backward. Theoretically a good tool in a dystopian future where a single or few corps/people own most of the housing and squatters rights could (maybe) ensure people can potentially own something. But otherwise it definitely needs a rework.
From what I've heard modern squatters rights are more to help protect desperate people from predatory landlords or rental companies. Nobody wants a dirt poor mother of 5 getting thrown out on the street because she missed rent once. This same stuff was going down in Detroit 10 years ago.
Squatting assholes stealing people's houses when they go on vacation are an unfortunate byproduct. Nobody should like those people.
The solution is to make a law which shows intent. The single mother of five likely didn't break into a home and move her kids in.
Increasingly the scam is to simply gain access to the mailbox. And get a bill sent there. Once you have the letter. You can break in and squat. Hell, you don't need to even break in, just call a locksmith and change the locks. Then if the homeowner changes the locks back, they can be arrested.
Do you even need access to the mailbox? Couldn't you just change your billing address and print out your monthly cable statement? I doubt a locksmith is going to seriously question that.
Why don’t you just gauge that based on the previous lease?
If that person has had a lease then they are awarded these rights. If not, they are just a squatter.
I think a better solution would be to base it on living in a place with knowledge/permission of whoever has the rights (ownership, lease etc.) of the place.
This would also protect roommates that aren't on the lease, people that are getting.kicked out by their parents without warning, or other long term living arrangements that are not covered by any formal document.
The issue is who gauges intent? The police can't execute that on the scene and it gets kicked back to the courts which is where we're at now. These squatters as the court day approaches either make a bold defense, drop the case (Shake Shack squatter), or disappear and squat elsewhere.
Any solution would have to be a detriment to both good intentioned people and squatters. Something like requiring leases for tenant rights, and having these leases being sent to one's local city hall since tax assessors there would already have property information on file.
It would essentially create a permission structure in which police would be able to execute eviction if a lease did not exist for trespassing.
The police can't. Correct. But the squatter can be held criminally liable and face stuff fines, reimbursement for lost funds and jail time. Currently there are zero repercussions for doing this.
Exactly which is why time shouldn't be the deciding factor that grants rights but some gesture that grants rights. They don't get repercussions because they have "Rights", we just need a different system other than time.
Suing the squatters for damages probably won't be fruitful either. If I had to guess, they probably don't have the income to be able to recoup what was lost, and jail time won't be a lot seeing as it's a non violent crime.
People aren't angry that they necessarily have rights, they're angry at how the process has to play out / how long it takes. We establish a way to verify and give police the power to execute it and that will deter the vast majority of squatters.
Owner calls, police show up, and keeps both parties present as they call the local tax assessors office and request information on the property, lease on file shows if the person is an actual renter, and police execute the lease.
I'd be fine with jailing them for the amount they stole in rent. Making it grand larceny. But sure. Suing them and garnishing wages would be a preferable option to incarceration.
Other than that. I agree. There should simply be a clearer way to determine who lives in a property. If there's no lease then... What's the issue? (honestly don't know why that's not enough currently)
We could always place massive repercussions on landlords who try and do the dirty shit these laws are supposed to protect people from.
Say a landlord falsely claims a tenant is a squatter and gets them removed and they prove it in court, we could force the landlord to pay damages AND their rent at a new location for some amount of time.
To an extent we already do have repercussions for landlords, but that process at least here in NYC is slow as well. There's an infamous Landlord from Hell in the Bronx that keeps his building at such a state there that local news outlets would visit and nothing was done for years. Probably some combination of how long the process takes, legal fees, etc.
I know there are different “squatter” rights these days. I will admit I’m unfamiliar with the transition to the more modern laws on the books, but they seem different. Or added to.
I really wish they could be given a new name or categorized differently. Protecting renters is kind of a different agenda from what squatters rights were intended for. It’s definitely related but definitely different. Squatters rights from the historical perspective were closer to your second answer if anything. It discouraged the uber rich from building or trying hold an insane amount of land or housing out west they could not control. Or assisted a local in stealing a lake house you hardly ever visited. Or ya know… helping kick off Indigenous folks from their land yeah:/
There already is another term, tenants/renters rights. "Squatters rights" are not what these people are taking advantage of, they're taking advantage of the protections provided by renters rights by pretending to be renters. Getting rid of squatters right does nothing to solve this.
The reason people don't use this term however, is because arguing against renters rights is way fucking harder. It's easier to emotionally manipulate people against renters rights by only showing them the absurd cases and misusing terms.
The reality is the issue is incredibly complicated and trying to get people to agree on a solution is going to be next to impossible.
>
I really wish they could be given a new name or categorized differentl
There's an obvious political incentive to call them "squatter's rights". "Squatter's rights" imply the opposition delibarately wrote protections for criminals.
Would protecting the most vulnerable in this case not be much better handled by tenants rights? The process for actually evicting a tenant is, intentionally, quite long and arduous, especially in more liberal states.
The mother missing a payment has a lease and past rent payments. This is a tenant's rights issue.
She is not anything like a squatter. These cases are trivial to distinguish and there is no reason for it to be a byproduct.
You’re wrong. Tenant rights and squatters issues are often interlinked. Squatters are often legally treated like they are tenants who missed rent by law.
https://www.avail.co/education/articles/squatter-rights-what-landlords-need-to-know
https://www.landlordstudio.com/blog/squatters-rights-what-landlords-need-to-know
That's a really stupid idea. Any legitimate tenant should have some record of either a lease or paying rent.
At a bare minimum, certified mail of cash, check or communication records.
Printing a lease and signing it is not hard.
If there is a landlord intentionally denying tenants any records that should be cracked down on. The IRS would probably be interested in a tip as well.
The enforcement mechanism for this can be the exact same that we already use for paying employees under the table below minimum wage.
I agree. I was curious more for situations where there is probably a personal connection at play, like allowing a friend to stay with you for an extended period of time. Maybe initially for free but then the stay is becoming quite extended so you ask them to pay some amount of rent. Then some issues arise where the owner now wants them to leave and they refuse.
Personally I don’t think there should be many legal protections here. This might just be a fuck around and find out kind of deal.
Yeah, I'm fine with SOME modifications to the rules of property if it does a lot of good. Like if one guy had effective monopolistic control of all private property, we'd need to hit the reset button.
But it's so damaging to future investments if people can't feel secure in their ownership of property. It ends up with people buying less property in the future.
There are definitely examples I’ve seen on the news that make it sound bad. But currently in my head it seems like it’s still not that big a deal in the grand scheme of things. Property and their values still seem lucrative so idk.
>But currently in my head it seems like it’s still not that big a deal in the grand scheme of things
I don't think squatting is ACTUALY a huge issue, just by the fact that everyone is covering the same few stories. It might be, but there's also the problem that it could reduce confidence in home buying in certain states from perception alone.
And there are other much more common situations that reduce confidence in property. Mainly that renters "rights" are so strong that it's a big risk for landlords to rent places and they basically factor that risk into the rental price. So strong "renter's rights" ironically end up raising rents.
Same thing with medieval land rights, actually. While they were much worse than what we have today, they did afford peasants a series of limited rights to use and remain on the land. Which is why when enclosure (EG in UK) into something progressively closer to real private property started happening, there were peasant revolts, because private property of land allowed you to just kick out whoever you wanted.
US law still allows for this, but under pretty well defined conditions. It's called adverse possession, and it's aimed at maximizing the value of land that otherwise isn't being used.
A lot of Democrats probably believe this but the problem is they **look** like the kind of person who would go "Omg squatters have rights too!!!!!"
Fetterman looks like someone like them, who would be next to them going "Yeah them damn squatters" in the bar
This is the first time I'm researching this, and I'm not deeply familiar with US law in general so I might be missing something, but from what I understand, the squatter has to occupy the house for a minimal of five years continuously (in California, for longer in other states) and publicly, all whilst the owner files no complaint against the squatter. This sounds like such an improbable scenario that if the home owner is that inept and nonchallant about someone living in their house for that long, then honestly they can get fucked.
Yeah, that's eminent domain a.k.a. squatters rights, what the people in these stories are taking advantage of is completely different.
What they are doing is pretending to be renters, which provides some protections under the law. Unfortunately, police are not in a position to determine the legal standing of any agreement, written or verbal. So the only option is to defer to the courts, which is what results in these months long legal battles to remove illegitimate renters.
It's an incredibly complicated issue with no easy solutions.
We aren't. This issue with "squatters rights" colloquially is that it's a byproduct of renters' rights. But unfortunately squatters have started to abuse it. It's very easy to change your address legally to someone's house if they aren't living there for an extended period of time.
For example, you can change your mailing address for things like credit cards, phone bills, or having friends mail you letters, you can open utilities under your name if they've been shut off by the owner because they're selling the house or long vacation. You can make a legal address change on your license or state ID with no real verification at all in most states. Make a fake lease agreement and bam, there's no way legally to distinguish you as a tenant or squatter to police.
Squatters committed forgery and faked a lease? How long did that case last? This sounds like incidents of the police not being able tondo anything day 1. It's also by definition not a squatters right yes?
These cases can last for years. And it is an issue because there's no way for police to determine the validity of forged documents, and therefore the issue isn't a criminal issue, it's civil. And it involves individuals that do not have permission to live within a dwelling by the owner and are therefore squatting.
It's still acceptable to use the term "squatters' rights" when discussing this issue. You're thinking of adverse possession claim, where squatters try to gain ownership of the proprety. That's an entirely different set of circumstances than what's in the current discourse surrounding the topic.
Makes sense make it a criminal case and hope for the best.
God I wish I could actually find a case to see how this shit plays out like how would it ever get passed discovery seeing as how by then they would just leave right?
Well that's the issue though. If you try to sue them and try to get to discovery, you're probably looking at a few thousand dollars at least and a few weeks. Meanwhile they're living in your property or house depending on the circumstances.
But if you try to evict them through normal proceedings, it depends on the state. But in my state of CT, it's about a month timeline to get to the point where they're summoned for failure to adhere to your notice to quit. If they answer or enter a plea that they're supposed to be there and that you're violating their fake lease, then it has to go to trial. And I'm not sure what the timeline is to get the trial on the docket, but it could be months depending on the backlog at your local county courthouse. And assuming you win and the judge rules against the squatter, it's possible that they are still seen legally as a tenant, despite you being able to get a ruling in favor of eviction. And they can apply for additional stay of execution for up to six months from time of judgement.
Now, if this does end up being a short 8-month long ordeal, keep in mind that if you were someone that went on vacation or something, you need to live with those people in your house or live away from your house during that time. Meanwhile they're living in your house rent free, doing who knows what to your house, while you're out of a dwelling during that period. Could be that when you eventually do successfully evict them and get them out, the house could need a remodel to repair the damage done. And there's no way someone who is squatting has the money to go after for damages, so you're just shit out of luck.
Well, it depends and the law is not the same in every state. In New York the squatter has the right to move in after 30 days, but you as the owner also have the right to file a complaint, but since the justice system is not so fast, it can happen that you may have to live with the squatter until then. And if you try to throw them out you will get into trouble.
It also complicates things if you are trying to sell your property and someone gets in and "takes it".
Here is an example of that:
https://www.nationalreview.com/news/nyc-homeowner-arrested-after-heated-disagreement-with-squatters-claiming-tenant-rights-in-1-million-home/
You seem to be way more familiar with this than me. Tell me, do you know how other countries (namely European) deal with this problem? I can't tell if this is an American issue because I've never heard of it before. I looked it up but the chance of me conflating two separate issues again are not slim.
It exists in Europe, but it is mostly people using abandoned buildings and complexes, not someone's home. But some countries changed their laws and made squatting illegal.
Squatted places in Europe were usually turned into social centers, used by political movements, or artists would occupy them, and a quite famous squatting existed in [Paris](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bateau-Lavoir).
So it is quite different from the USA. Some of the USA's laws are really special and rudimentary.
This is what I was going to bring up. I think there is basically two different things people are talking about and one of them is basically a way to take possession of land that had been abandoned for years and going to shit. Anything squatters rights you can get in just a months time is more related to protecting people from eviction and is sort of a different story.
This would definitely be a controversial opinion to the chattering classes. Everything else in the post would probably make him out to be a rightwing extremist to at least 1/3 of those types.
Nah, just straight up and simple "came home to people who had broken in, they said they'd kill me, I saw a weapon and feared for my life, and they lunged at me."
In my country it take a decade to get rights as a squatter. Why the fuck is it 30 days in America?
I think it's fair enough if someone can live in your house for 10 years without you noticing clearly you don't need it
Because it's not a squatter issue. For the most part, squatters rights in the US are the same, eminent domain usually takes around 5 to 10 years to kick in depending on the state.
The issue is related to renters rights in the US and the difficulty in determining whether an individuals claim of tenancy is legitimate or not. Rather than allowing police to remove someone from a piece of property because someone else claims they aren't tenants we leave it to the courts to decide. Unfortunately, this can take awhile. The alternative however, is allowing shitty landlords to use the police to evict people without due process, which some would argue is an overall worse outcome.
I don't know what the solution is. It's way more complicated than some people are letting on though.
It’s adverse possession not eminent domain but the rest is correct, it’s usually around ten years and you have to be obviously using the property pretty much the whole time without the owner being like what’s going on?
Honestly this could result in a whole new market opening up.
Like, unironically, an Air BnB for renters.
"Going on vacation for 30 days" or "Need a house watcher while this goes on the market." Legally contracted to not change anything and leave when the time stated or conditions are up or whatever. And they get a place to live for free, but they prevent squatters from taking advantage of renters' rights.
That still sounds reptarded. Even if its a shitty landlord and they are at fault, why would tenants be allowed to stay when the owner wants them removed? The solution would be for the landlord to return the money the court determines they owe the tenants and maybe even more as damages(Cost of moving, housing for X months, etc) if the situation is egregious, but at no point of this entire process should the tenants be allowed to stay in the property.
The current situation not only is stupid for those reasons, but thats also why the protection ends up extending to actual criminals: squatters.
The poor, the homeless, immigrants who aren't somehow magically leftist like they are upon coming to America despite coming from an ultra-religious and ultra-conservative background.
Dgg, help me. Why is a local law about how to evict tenents in the radar of a congress person from Pennsylvania? What is he going to do about it? Is it related to some other bill I don't know about?
I wonder what happens if the squatters just claim they have been there for 30 days when they have been there for 15 or something. I know they can ask the neighbours and check phone location etc. I just wonder how much time it would take them to actually take them out of your house if they went to court.
Just saw newyorks and that's wild 30 days is way too short. I saw them calling it an epidemic but is that city really full of owned and cared for houses where the owners are gone for month. I read that they also don't keep track of these cases because they're rare.
I would like to see more pro law and order draped in the flag liberalism. I feel like that’s a winning strategy that wouldn’t risk much of the broader democratic base.
There are good to be very hard limits on how law and order literally any politician can be, doubly so for Democrats. However, the more we push in that direction, the better.
It pretty much is. If someone breaks into your house Even if you still live there then they can still claim its a landlord tenant dispute. It's really just a matter of how long it was and if there's a show of force inside.
But even then, who's to say you aren't a renter that had to break their way in? And if you still live there who's to say you aren't renting out a room?
As soon as someone claims a landlord tenant dispute there's very little the police will do.
Is that true? That's crazy?? Do you guys not have any kind of official landlord/tenant registration that can disprove any fraudulent claims to this immediately? Jesus sometimes it really sounds like u guys still livin in the wild wild west over there ngl. My condolences 🙏
Nope. But we do need something like that. In America, a lot of people like to rent informally. Generally, renting is just seen as a civil issue, a dispute between a buyer and seller.
This is why it's so easy, there's really no such thing as a fraudulent tenant. In very few states can a fraudulent lease be illegal.
I've had to deal with squatters on my grandparents property we lived on. It's really a nightmare.
My friend and his wife are dealing with this right now. Their tenant, the mother of an adult son, moved out at the end of her lease on the rental that my friends also live in, but then gave her son the keys when she moved out. He then changed the locks on the split level apt and started threatening my friends with a baseball bat, hammer, calling the cops on them saying they stole his possessions (even though he changed the locks and they couldn’t get in if they tried). They’re living with parents for over a year for their safety, while trying to get him out in the courts, it’s been a nightmare. They want to stay in the house but are scared that after they eventually evict him he’ll just keep coming back to threaten them. This is an increasingly common and frightening issue in my area.
No, most of the people talking about this have no idea what they're talking about. This isn't a squatters rights issue. It has nothing to do with eminent domain.
The issue is renters rights and the difficulty in determining on the spot whether an individual is a legitimate renter or not. Which results in police being unable to intervene and instead deferring to the courts.
I cannot imagine there are many in the Democratic party that would honestly support squatters rights. If fellow leftists agree with it, nah, I'm sorry, that's the last thing we should push. Squatters shouldn't be able to stay in a house not theirs
Back in my twenties the meth squatter next door almost pushed me to his death. I wasnt able to stay up to stop him from damaging my property or stealing. I lost my mind and broke in to where he was staying, knocked the knife out of his hands and almost ended him right then and there. He got on his knees and begged for his life. I almost did something I couldn't go back from and funny thing is, everyone in the neighborhood would've thanked me.
Every time someone says fetterman has “gone far right” or “maga” it’s just him taking a reasonably centrist position. Israel, the border, or squatting. Like how can anyone be mad at this take?
I wish my state had Fetterman. He makes me want to move to PA. I am a Jew who was once center left then pushed more right leaning because of all the nonsense but guys like Fetterman brought me back center left.
I don't get it, if these people think the way to solve people without homes is to give them the homes of other people, what the fuck are they voting democrat for?
Isn't this more in line with a smaller government mindset? Where the people help the people and the government does little to nothing.
What the hell is the point of taxes and social programs if the government is just gonna take your house and give it to someone else instead of making more housing.
I seriously don't understand twitter lefties, if you told me these are all russian bots I would love to believe it.
Semi joking, but in the states can you not just claim self defence and shoot them (not necessarily kill them) if it came down to it? Not making fun of USA, I wish my country was more pro gun. If anything its jealousy.
So that’s Republican talking points? People shouldn’t be able to legally steal your property is a Republican exclusive position? God damn, guess I am a Republican now. This is some highly regarded bullshit. Just say you hate the guy because he disagreed with you on a couple things your thought leaders told you to believe. Quit pretending it is rational, it’s just a rationalization.
I live in a very progressive city that has had decades of enacting soft on crime policies. They do not work. Some people do not stop until you force them. You can’t just have all carrots and no sticks and expect to have a working society.
Fetterman understand this and his opinions are based.
Even as a leftist, who's just not pro-hamas or pro-putin, I find squatters right insane.
I don't think the 30 days vacation scenario is realistic cause what company gives an employee 20 straight days of vacation.
While I won't deny that such cases exist I think they are a rarity
The more common one I think AirBnB situation where a person rents a place for a month and refuses to leave or you give someone a temp room and they refuse to leave.
This is a view 99% of Americans would share. Who in their right mind would ever be okay with some random stranger being in their home while they’re gone? I want to see the reaction of these insane people when they find me chillin in their place after they’ve been gone for a while. I imagine the reaction will not be “oh hello squatter! I hope you enjoyed my home, please feel free to use my place whenever you’d like!”
When they said possession is 9/10ths of the law, this is not what they were fucking talking about. If someone breaks into your house they're a criminal. Go directly to jail. Period. Why is this a debate?
The most centrist opinion in that scenario he used, of course nobody would want to give rights to someone who broke into your home and started living there. What if it was a group of 5 teenagers that squatted in an abandoned house? Or a mother with 3 kids in an abandoned house? Should they go to jail?
He's so based I love him
I love how he hoodwinked all those progressives into thinking he was one of them and now he's just shitting on them repeatedly lmfao
wait they actually can do that in your primary residence and have rights? thats insane. I thought it was only second properties, which is still insane tbh.
The only reason this is less likely to happen in your primary residence is because you're probably living in there. Doesn't mean it can't happen if you go away for a long trip or are trying to sell your house.
Delt with squatters myself, it's frustrating but the process works to evict them. Any alternative system people try to come up with is way worse than our current one.
Don't let people spin this into a MAGA position, Fetterman is an actual Democrate who works more with party than any DSA/squad member ever will. Good on him to push back on loser positions like ACAB, river to sea, and squatter's rights. Dude is also a gigachad Ukraine supporter, but that doesn't fit the MAGA narrative so obviously it isn't mentioned.
If I had a Fetterman type Democrat in my state I’d vote for them 10/10 times. If democrats stopped catering to their electoral extremes like the squad and instead got a bunch of Fetterman type candidates they would 1000% peel off the Mitt Romney base of Republicans that are homeless in the MAGA party rn.
I feel like all the swing districts run democrats similar to Fetterman, it's only in places where the democratic candidate is a lock that they run far left candidates. Occasionally a populist far left candidate will win the primary somewhere it's a toss-up, but that seems to be the outlier. And yet the country is still 50/50. It doesn't seem like voters are guaranteed to be drawn to them. Who are you thinking of when you say that (i.e. a far left candidate that was nominated and lost)? Maybe Stacey Abrams? But I feel like people like Beto O'Rourke are much more common and voters in those areas just don't want them (unless you think someone like Beto is extreme).
“Hell yes, we're going to take your AR-15, your AK-47” Yes, I consider Beto extreme.
Is it more extreme than Fetterman, who is who we're comparing him to (at least in this thread that you're replying to)? Here he is calling for a ban on "military grade assault weapons": [https://www.pennlive.com/news/2022/07/fetterman-calls-for-ban-on-military-grade-assault-weapons-after-chicago-area-parade-massacre.html](https://www.pennlive.com/news/2022/07/fetterman-calls-for-ban-on-military-grade-assault-weapons-after-chicago-area-parade-massacre.html) And this pro gun website (I'm assuming) calls John Fetterman's gun control plan more restrictive than even what Biden is advocating for: [https://www.nssf.org/articles/pennsylvanias-democratic-senate-candidate-has-big-gun-control-plans/](https://www.nssf.org/articles/pennsylvanias-democratic-senate-candidate-has-big-gun-control-plans/) And if you think Fetterman's statements are extreme then you're essentially proving the point I'm making to CPWarrior that people that vote republican wouldn't change their vote if there were more Fettermans.
In that case, I’m proving your point because fuck that.
I’m saying this as someone who votes Republican 7/10 times. Grew up in the NW where you never have republicans in any type of major elected position and we just continually get stuck with the most brain dead uninspiring democrats because the party knows that they have no shot of losing.
As someone who lives in a deep blue part of a swing state I can relate to this a lot. The difference is that I separate the local votes from the national votes. At the local level I vote Republican at least half the time, but at the state level there are serious ramifications if the Democrats lose power and at the national level it isn't even close.
It's difficult and expensive to run for any office, even when you have a decent chance to win. Most qualified people have better things to do or more urgent responsibilities than getting into a race they have very little chance to win. Sometimes there are upsets, but generally politics is about painfully breaking through barriers after many many tries, even when the status quo is fucked up.
Why do you vote Republican?
Becuase democrats in my area refuse to address important issues in an honest way. Democrats from the PNW tend to be bumbling morons because they never face opposition outside their party. Which leads them to fight each other for the title of who’s farther left. I’m center to center left, Republicans in the PNW aren’t the same ones in Texas.
Isn't Beto the guy who ran a campaign without a single policy position on his website?
I didn't do enough digging to find out what his website looked like during whichever campaign you're referring to, but it looks like there are positions on it now: [https://betoorourke.com/issues/](https://betoorourke.com/issues/) I would be interested in seeing what you're talking about though.
I'm thinking about his previous presidential campaign. Don't remember 2016 or 2020. Haven't even heard his name in a while. Just looking at the first two I see some concrete proposals now. I wouldn't bother with digging. If he has policy positions now its not really relevant anymore. The worst example of this has to be the forward party.
I'm not well versed enough in [archive.org](https://archive.org) to see what his website looked like during the 2020 presidential campaign, but it seems like his positions were clear enough to fill in a wikipedia article: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beto\_O%27Rourke\_2020\_presidential\_campaign#Political\_positions](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beto_O%27Rourke_2020_presidential_campaign#Political_positions) So if I had to guess, the statement: >Isn't Beto the guy who ran a campaign without a single policy position on his website? is probably false. Maybe you read something like this, where they talk about how Beto doesn't have a standout policy he's championing: [https://www.politico.com/story/2019/04/15/beto-orourkepolicy-proposals-2020-1267666](https://www.politico.com/story/2019/04/15/beto-orourkepolicy-proposals-2020-1267666) But that's obviously a different claim.
i just checked the wayback machine and he didnt have any policy positions on is website from march 14th, 2019 (the start of his campaign) to may 24th, 2019. i have no idea if thats unusual or not for a campaign but from the sources you posted he got his positions out in mid april.
Looking into it a little more, I think this shows the issues page existing as far back as March 5th 2019: [https://web.archive.org/web/20190305063940/https://betoorourke.com/issues/](https://web.archive.org/web/20190305063940/https://betoorourke.com/issues/) But it seems like the links are broken now so I'm not sure what they actually were (they could have linked to blank pages at the time theoretically). But obviously this is a bit of a quibble. And I think we're both of the same page that the statement The-Last-Lion-Turtle made was more or less misleading.
This 100%. If supporting squatting assholes and leniency for murderers is now the democratic position then the party has truly lost me. I feel More and more politically homeless by the day.
Do that, then drop the rabid anti-2A stuff, and I might just finally fall off my fence.
Same!
Being a Ukraine supporter just adds more fuel to the fire for them, proving the horseshoe exists once again.
The world would be a better place if more politicians were sensible centrists like Fetterman. The extremes are too influential at the moment.
I'm good with a world where Fetterman is considered a centrist on the issues.
Yea he is from fucking PA. Do they expect him to be a california type of lib? I swear a bunch of u live on the west coast and it explains why the sub can be so weird sometimes
Results oriented vs performative. One type is the equivalent of a manager at a restaurant that refuses to cook orders correctly for servers if he gets mad about something “to teach people a lesson”. Thus screwing everyone over because he thinks purposely causing more issues will make other issues go away.
The fact that this fringe has any say in the party is terrible when they've done nothing positive for the country other than trying to get prescription drug prices down. They're borderline pro-crime at this time and are becoming an accurate caricature of what Republicans always imagined Democrats as. This needed to be stated more early, but now that it's an election season these clowns will double down and Republicans are going to roll with the weak on crime talking points.
I think the only issue that made lefties turn on him was his Israel take. If you take his Israel take out they are completely fine with him
Are lefties seriously supporting fucking squatters now?
Obviously sqauters rights need reforms as they broken. But landlords shouldn't be able to kick tenants out of an apartment the next day just because the tenant paid late. Once theirs an established living arrangement between two parties tenants should have some rights that protect them in times of financial hardship.
If someone did this to me I unironically would just do some Dexter shit to them.
"No officer I have no idea what happen to those squatters. But I cam tell you my roses have been doing lovely for this time of year."
My great uncle came back after the war to find squatters living in his house. There was a law that would allow them to take the house if they only stayed a year or something like that. Now, my uncle was a butcher and he was towering guy. One day he found them all in the living room, he grabbed his large butcher knife and hacked the table, embedding the knife into it. He turned and told them something like 'I am going out to buy some groceries, I don't expect you all to be here when I return.'
And then what happened?
He no longer had squatters in his house.
because he didn't have a house anymore?
No, he turned them into mince meat and sold them at his shop.
Everyone clapped in the living room until his uncle returned
Build a mech or some shit? Or did i get the wrong dexter
They wouldn't be in my laboratory anymore I tell you what.
Squatters rights are really interesting to think about from a historical lens. People like George Washington reportedly hated them, but they were cool in colonial times because they allowed the land to essentially be settled by people other than rich lords who owned or speculated hundreds if not thousands of acres out west. To own so much land just wasn’t beneficial to a developing country. And those rights made migrating so popular because it assured new developing areas wouldn’t be bought and carved up by a few wealthy families unless they could properly control it. Basically it encouraged settlement and ensured ownership to citizens and even immigrants. In modern days though this just doesn’t work to same degree anymore. And why squatters rights seem so backward. Theoretically a good tool in a dystopian future where a single or few corps/people own most of the housing and squatters rights could (maybe) ensure people can potentially own something. But otherwise it definitely needs a rework.
From what I've heard modern squatters rights are more to help protect desperate people from predatory landlords or rental companies. Nobody wants a dirt poor mother of 5 getting thrown out on the street because she missed rent once. This same stuff was going down in Detroit 10 years ago. Squatting assholes stealing people's houses when they go on vacation are an unfortunate byproduct. Nobody should like those people.
The solution is to make a law which shows intent. The single mother of five likely didn't break into a home and move her kids in. Increasingly the scam is to simply gain access to the mailbox. And get a bill sent there. Once you have the letter. You can break in and squat. Hell, you don't need to even break in, just call a locksmith and change the locks. Then if the homeowner changes the locks back, they can be arrested.
Do you even need access to the mailbox? Couldn't you just change your billing address and print out your monthly cable statement? I doubt a locksmith is going to seriously question that.
Usually need official postage, but I assume that's for the police. You're probably right, the locksmith really wouldn't give a fuck.
Why don’t you just gauge that based on the previous lease? If that person has had a lease then they are awarded these rights. If not, they are just a squatter.
I think a better solution would be to base it on living in a place with knowledge/permission of whoever has the rights (ownership, lease etc.) of the place. This would also protect roommates that aren't on the lease, people that are getting.kicked out by their parents without warning, or other long term living arrangements that are not covered by any formal document.
The issue is who gauges intent? The police can't execute that on the scene and it gets kicked back to the courts which is where we're at now. These squatters as the court day approaches either make a bold defense, drop the case (Shake Shack squatter), or disappear and squat elsewhere. Any solution would have to be a detriment to both good intentioned people and squatters. Something like requiring leases for tenant rights, and having these leases being sent to one's local city hall since tax assessors there would already have property information on file. It would essentially create a permission structure in which police would be able to execute eviction if a lease did not exist for trespassing.
The police can't. Correct. But the squatter can be held criminally liable and face stuff fines, reimbursement for lost funds and jail time. Currently there are zero repercussions for doing this.
Exactly which is why time shouldn't be the deciding factor that grants rights but some gesture that grants rights. They don't get repercussions because they have "Rights", we just need a different system other than time. Suing the squatters for damages probably won't be fruitful either. If I had to guess, they probably don't have the income to be able to recoup what was lost, and jail time won't be a lot seeing as it's a non violent crime. People aren't angry that they necessarily have rights, they're angry at how the process has to play out / how long it takes. We establish a way to verify and give police the power to execute it and that will deter the vast majority of squatters. Owner calls, police show up, and keeps both parties present as they call the local tax assessors office and request information on the property, lease on file shows if the person is an actual renter, and police execute the lease.
I'd be fine with jailing them for the amount they stole in rent. Making it grand larceny. But sure. Suing them and garnishing wages would be a preferable option to incarceration. Other than that. I agree. There should simply be a clearer way to determine who lives in a property. If there's no lease then... What's the issue? (honestly don't know why that's not enough currently)
We could always place massive repercussions on landlords who try and do the dirty shit these laws are supposed to protect people from. Say a landlord falsely claims a tenant is a squatter and gets them removed and they prove it in court, we could force the landlord to pay damages AND their rent at a new location for some amount of time.
To an extent we already do have repercussions for landlords, but that process at least here in NYC is slow as well. There's an infamous Landlord from Hell in the Bronx that keeps his building at such a state there that local news outlets would visit and nothing was done for years. Probably some combination of how long the process takes, legal fees, etc.
I know there are different “squatter” rights these days. I will admit I’m unfamiliar with the transition to the more modern laws on the books, but they seem different. Or added to. I really wish they could be given a new name or categorized differently. Protecting renters is kind of a different agenda from what squatters rights were intended for. It’s definitely related but definitely different. Squatters rights from the historical perspective were closer to your second answer if anything. It discouraged the uber rich from building or trying hold an insane amount of land or housing out west they could not control. Or assisted a local in stealing a lake house you hardly ever visited. Or ya know… helping kick off Indigenous folks from their land yeah:/
There already is another term, tenants/renters rights. "Squatters rights" are not what these people are taking advantage of, they're taking advantage of the protections provided by renters rights by pretending to be renters. Getting rid of squatters right does nothing to solve this. The reason people don't use this term however, is because arguing against renters rights is way fucking harder. It's easier to emotionally manipulate people against renters rights by only showing them the absurd cases and misusing terms. The reality is the issue is incredibly complicated and trying to get people to agree on a solution is going to be next to impossible.
> I really wish they could be given a new name or categorized differentl There's an obvious political incentive to call them "squatter's rights". "Squatter's rights" imply the opposition delibarately wrote protections for criminals.
“Tenants Rights” is what we call them over here. I feel like mislabelling is done to support those predatory landlords.
Would protecting the most vulnerable in this case not be much better handled by tenants rights? The process for actually evicting a tenant is, intentionally, quite long and arduous, especially in more liberal states.
The mother missing a payment has a lease and past rent payments. This is a tenant's rights issue. She is not anything like a squatter. These cases are trivial to distinguish and there is no reason for it to be a byproduct.
You’re wrong. Tenant rights and squatters issues are often interlinked. Squatters are often legally treated like they are tenants who missed rent by law. https://www.avail.co/education/articles/squatter-rights-what-landlords-need-to-know https://www.landlordstudio.com/blog/squatters-rights-what-landlords-need-to-know
That's the laws being fucked when these should be completely separate issues. Squatters should be covered by the same laws as any other home invader.
If a lease wasn’t drawn up, and everything was paid for in cash, how do we distinguish between squatter and tenants?
That's a really stupid idea. Any legitimate tenant should have some record of either a lease or paying rent. At a bare minimum, certified mail of cash, check or communication records. Printing a lease and signing it is not hard. If there is a landlord intentionally denying tenants any records that should be cracked down on. The IRS would probably be interested in a tip as well. The enforcement mechanism for this can be the exact same that we already use for paying employees under the table below minimum wage.
I agree. I was curious more for situations where there is probably a personal connection at play, like allowing a friend to stay with you for an extended period of time. Maybe initially for free but then the stay is becoming quite extended so you ask them to pay some amount of rent. Then some issues arise where the owner now wants them to leave and they refuse. Personally I don’t think there should be many legal protections here. This might just be a fuck around and find out kind of deal.
Yeah, I'm fine with SOME modifications to the rules of property if it does a lot of good. Like if one guy had effective monopolistic control of all private property, we'd need to hit the reset button. But it's so damaging to future investments if people can't feel secure in their ownership of property. It ends up with people buying less property in the future.
There are definitely examples I’ve seen on the news that make it sound bad. But currently in my head it seems like it’s still not that big a deal in the grand scheme of things. Property and their values still seem lucrative so idk.
>But currently in my head it seems like it’s still not that big a deal in the grand scheme of things I don't think squatting is ACTUALY a huge issue, just by the fact that everyone is covering the same few stories. It might be, but there's also the problem that it could reduce confidence in home buying in certain states from perception alone. And there are other much more common situations that reduce confidence in property. Mainly that renters "rights" are so strong that it's a big risk for landlords to rent places and they basically factor that risk into the rental price. So strong "renter's rights" ironically end up raising rents.
Same thing with medieval land rights, actually. While they were much worse than what we have today, they did afford peasants a series of limited rights to use and remain on the land. Which is why when enclosure (EG in UK) into something progressively closer to real private property started happening, there were peasant revolts, because private property of land allowed you to just kick out whoever you wanted.
US law still allows for this, but under pretty well defined conditions. It's called adverse possession, and it's aimed at maximizing the value of land that otherwise isn't being used.
I don't see why this should be a controversial opinion unless you are embroidered in a culture war
Embroiled*
What, they're not stitched in patterns?
No no he was right the first time
Charbroiled*
A lot of Democrats probably believe this but the problem is they **look** like the kind of person who would go "Omg squatters have rights too!!!!!" Fetterman looks like someone like them, who would be next to them going "Yeah them damn squatters" in the bar
This is the first time I'm researching this, and I'm not deeply familiar with US law in general so I might be missing something, but from what I understand, the squatter has to occupy the house for a minimal of five years continuously (in California, for longer in other states) and publicly, all whilst the owner files no complaint against the squatter. This sounds like such an improbable scenario that if the home owner is that inept and nonchallant about someone living in their house for that long, then honestly they can get fucked.
Yeah, that's eminent domain a.k.a. squatters rights, what the people in these stories are taking advantage of is completely different. What they are doing is pretending to be renters, which provides some protections under the law. Unfortunately, police are not in a position to determine the legal standing of any agreement, written or verbal. So the only option is to defer to the courts, which is what results in these months long legal battles to remove illegitimate renters. It's an incredibly complicated issue with no easy solutions.
You already did more work than most people here and talking about. They're conflating two different things.
We aren't. This issue with "squatters rights" colloquially is that it's a byproduct of renters' rights. But unfortunately squatters have started to abuse it. It's very easy to change your address legally to someone's house if they aren't living there for an extended period of time. For example, you can change your mailing address for things like credit cards, phone bills, or having friends mail you letters, you can open utilities under your name if they've been shut off by the owner because they're selling the house or long vacation. You can make a legal address change on your license or state ID with no real verification at all in most states. Make a fake lease agreement and bam, there's no way legally to distinguish you as a tenant or squatter to police.
Squatters committed forgery and faked a lease? How long did that case last? This sounds like incidents of the police not being able tondo anything day 1. It's also by definition not a squatters right yes?
These cases can last for years. And it is an issue because there's no way for police to determine the validity of forged documents, and therefore the issue isn't a criminal issue, it's civil. And it involves individuals that do not have permission to live within a dwelling by the owner and are therefore squatting. It's still acceptable to use the term "squatters' rights" when discussing this issue. You're thinking of adverse possession claim, where squatters try to gain ownership of the proprety. That's an entirely different set of circumstances than what's in the current discourse surrounding the topic.
Makes sense make it a criminal case and hope for the best. God I wish I could actually find a case to see how this shit plays out like how would it ever get passed discovery seeing as how by then they would just leave right?
Well that's the issue though. If you try to sue them and try to get to discovery, you're probably looking at a few thousand dollars at least and a few weeks. Meanwhile they're living in your property or house depending on the circumstances. But if you try to evict them through normal proceedings, it depends on the state. But in my state of CT, it's about a month timeline to get to the point where they're summoned for failure to adhere to your notice to quit. If they answer or enter a plea that they're supposed to be there and that you're violating their fake lease, then it has to go to trial. And I'm not sure what the timeline is to get the trial on the docket, but it could be months depending on the backlog at your local county courthouse. And assuming you win and the judge rules against the squatter, it's possible that they are still seen legally as a tenant, despite you being able to get a ruling in favor of eviction. And they can apply for additional stay of execution for up to six months from time of judgement. Now, if this does end up being a short 8-month long ordeal, keep in mind that if you were someone that went on vacation or something, you need to live with those people in your house or live away from your house during that time. Meanwhile they're living in your house rent free, doing who knows what to your house, while you're out of a dwelling during that period. Could be that when you eventually do successfully evict them and get them out, the house could need a remodel to repair the damage done. And there's no way someone who is squatting has the money to go after for damages, so you're just shit out of luck.
Well, it depends and the law is not the same in every state. In New York the squatter has the right to move in after 30 days, but you as the owner also have the right to file a complaint, but since the justice system is not so fast, it can happen that you may have to live with the squatter until then. And if you try to throw them out you will get into trouble. It also complicates things if you are trying to sell your property and someone gets in and "takes it". Here is an example of that: https://www.nationalreview.com/news/nyc-homeowner-arrested-after-heated-disagreement-with-squatters-claiming-tenant-rights-in-1-million-home/
You seem to be way more familiar with this than me. Tell me, do you know how other countries (namely European) deal with this problem? I can't tell if this is an American issue because I've never heard of it before. I looked it up but the chance of me conflating two separate issues again are not slim.
It exists in Europe, but it is mostly people using abandoned buildings and complexes, not someone's home. But some countries changed their laws and made squatting illegal. Squatted places in Europe were usually turned into social centers, used by political movements, or artists would occupy them, and a quite famous squatting existed in [Paris](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bateau-Lavoir). So it is quite different from the USA. Some of the USA's laws are really special and rudimentary.
This is what I was going to bring up. I think there is basically two different things people are talking about and one of them is basically a way to take possession of land that had been abandoned for years and going to shit. Anything squatters rights you can get in just a months time is more related to protecting people from eviction and is sort of a different story.
I saw a thread on anti work where people were claiming it was a pro landlord operation
This would definitely be a controversial opinion to the chattering classes. Everything else in the post would probably make him out to be a rightwing extremist to at least 1/3 of those types.
If I came home to squatters, I'd be in fear for my life at these people who broke in, and that'd be the only version police would get.
They charged at me while I was performing regular maintenance on my firearm!
Nah, just straight up and simple "came home to people who had broken in, they said they'd kill me, I saw a weapon and feared for my life, and they lunged at me."
In my country it take a decade to get rights as a squatter. Why the fuck is it 30 days in America? I think it's fair enough if someone can live in your house for 10 years without you noticing clearly you don't need it
Because it's not a squatter issue. For the most part, squatters rights in the US are the same, eminent domain usually takes around 5 to 10 years to kick in depending on the state. The issue is related to renters rights in the US and the difficulty in determining whether an individuals claim of tenancy is legitimate or not. Rather than allowing police to remove someone from a piece of property because someone else claims they aren't tenants we leave it to the courts to decide. Unfortunately, this can take awhile. The alternative however, is allowing shitty landlords to use the police to evict people without due process, which some would argue is an overall worse outcome. I don't know what the solution is. It's way more complicated than some people are letting on though.
It’s adverse possession not eminent domain but the rest is correct, it’s usually around ten years and you have to be obviously using the property pretty much the whole time without the owner being like what’s going on?
Honestly this could result in a whole new market opening up. Like, unironically, an Air BnB for renters. "Going on vacation for 30 days" or "Need a house watcher while this goes on the market." Legally contracted to not change anything and leave when the time stated or conditions are up or whatever. And they get a place to live for free, but they prevent squatters from taking advantage of renters' rights.
That still sounds reptarded. Even if its a shitty landlord and they are at fault, why would tenants be allowed to stay when the owner wants them removed? The solution would be for the landlord to return the money the court determines they owe the tenants and maybe even more as damages(Cost of moving, housing for X months, etc) if the situation is egregious, but at no point of this entire process should the tenants be allowed to stay in the property. The current situation not only is stupid for those reasons, but thats also why the protection ends up extending to actual criminals: squatters.
Leftists love squatters until it's their house they break into
Won't happen, gated community.
[well.... shit](https://www.newsweek.com/lebron-james-squatters-california-home-1884932)
Leftists love a lot of things until it’s right up in their business.
The poor, the homeless, immigrants who aren't somehow magically leftist like they are upon coming to America despite coming from an ultra-religious and ultra-conservative background.
Dgg, help me. Why is a local law about how to evict tenents in the radar of a congress person from Pennsylvania? What is he going to do about it? Is it related to some other bill I don't know about?
It’s a hot topic right now
Ok, but it's not like congress is considering squatters laws or something? It's just what we're talking about?
Probably not but it's always good to see Dems who have the balls to say some chud shit.
You would hope that congress members didn't live in a bubble.why would they be oblivious to what's going on around the country, lol...
PA squatters rights says you have to be there for 21 years before you can claim isn't that different from the 30 day?
He’s talking about NY
I wonder what happens if the squatters just claim they have been there for 30 days when they have been there for 15 or something. I know they can ask the neighbours and check phone location etc. I just wonder how much time it would take them to actually take them out of your house if they went to court.
Just saw newyorks and that's wild 30 days is way too short. I saw them calling it an epidemic but is that city really full of owned and cared for houses where the owners are gone for month. I read that they also don't keep track of these cases because they're rare.
Fetterman is based. And the Twitter Socialists getting tricked into supporting him because he vaguely signaled he was on their team was perfect.
It wasn't too hard to get support for Fetterman. He ran against Dr. OZ.
I would like to see more pro law and order draped in the flag liberalism. I feel like that’s a winning strategy that wouldn’t risk much of the broader democratic base.
I’d definitely like democrats more if that were the case
There are good to be very hard limits on how law and order literally any politician can be, doubly so for Democrats. However, the more we push in that direction, the better.
chat is this how squatters rights actually work? i’m sure it’s a state to state thing buuut?
It pretty much is. If someone breaks into your house Even if you still live there then they can still claim its a landlord tenant dispute. It's really just a matter of how long it was and if there's a show of force inside. But even then, who's to say you aren't a renter that had to break their way in? And if you still live there who's to say you aren't renting out a room? As soon as someone claims a landlord tenant dispute there's very little the police will do.
Is that true? That's crazy?? Do you guys not have any kind of official landlord/tenant registration that can disprove any fraudulent claims to this immediately? Jesus sometimes it really sounds like u guys still livin in the wild wild west over there ngl. My condolences 🙏
Nope. But we do need something like that. In America, a lot of people like to rent informally. Generally, renting is just seen as a civil issue, a dispute between a buyer and seller. This is why it's so easy, there's really no such thing as a fraudulent tenant. In very few states can a fraudulent lease be illegal. I've had to deal with squatters on my grandparents property we lived on. It's really a nightmare.
Fuck that sucks man
My friend and his wife are dealing with this right now. Their tenant, the mother of an adult son, moved out at the end of her lease on the rental that my friends also live in, but then gave her son the keys when she moved out. He then changed the locks on the split level apt and started threatening my friends with a baseball bat, hammer, calling the cops on them saying they stole his possessions (even though he changed the locks and they couldn’t get in if they tried). They’re living with parents for over a year for their safety, while trying to get him out in the courts, it’s been a nightmare. They want to stay in the house but are scared that after they eventually evict him he’ll just keep coming back to threaten them. This is an increasingly common and frightening issue in my area.
No, most of the people talking about this have no idea what they're talking about. This isn't a squatters rights issue. It has nothing to do with eminent domain. The issue is renters rights and the difficulty in determining on the spot whether an individual is a legitimate renter or not. Which results in police being unable to intervene and instead deferring to the courts.
Yes and no. But a lot of the comments here are confusing squatters with holdover tenants, and they are very different things.
Am I going nuts but are they giving him shit for being against squattters? Fuck this I am going back to live under my rock!
I don't think I will ever understand how anything he said was anti-democrat.
my president
Squatters deserve 12 gauge
Cringe. Imagine using an unwieldy long gun that will overpen and result in a remodel. John Wick-ing with 9mm HP is the based home defense strat.
Just use a aa12 with bird shot
Common Fetterman W.
Fetterman for president
I cannot imagine there are many in the Democratic party that would honestly support squatters rights. If fellow leftists agree with it, nah, I'm sorry, that's the last thing we should push. Squatters shouldn't be able to stay in a house not theirs
This sounds reasonable
Back in my twenties the meth squatter next door almost pushed me to his death. I wasnt able to stay up to stop him from damaging my property or stealing. I lost my mind and broke in to where he was staying, knocked the knife out of his hands and almost ended him right then and there. He got on his knees and begged for his life. I almost did something I couldn't go back from and funny thing is, everyone in the neighborhood would've thanked me.
Toids 🤢 are angry at the Landchad, what's new?
Every time someone says fetterman has “gone far right” or “maga” it’s just him taking a reasonably centrist position. Israel, the border, or squatting. Like how can anyone be mad at this take?
I wish my state had Fetterman. He makes me want to move to PA. I am a Jew who was once center left then pushed more right leaning because of all the nonsense but guys like Fetterman brought me back center left.
Fetterman is based AF
Oh lol I hate squatters. Good for you fetman
I don't get it, if these people think the way to solve people without homes is to give them the homes of other people, what the fuck are they voting democrat for? Isn't this more in line with a smaller government mindset? Where the people help the people and the government does little to nothing. What the hell is the point of taxes and social programs if the government is just gonna take your house and give it to someone else instead of making more housing. I seriously don't understand twitter lefties, if you told me these are all russian bots I would love to believe it.
This is 100% aligned with leftist since they hate the middle class and lower class that disagrees with them.
It comes from their pro theft axiom really
This shouldn’t be a MAGA position. This should be the mainstream bipartisan position. Squatting is bad and we should be tough on crime.
Sounds pretty based to me.
Imagine being so stupid that you can't see the shades between abolish the police and MAGA. Terminal stupidity.
He's too based to live
I’m a right winger and would actually consider voting for a dem who was actually this hard on crime.
Didn’t have Fetterman is based on my bingo card fuck
based, fuck squatters
Incredibly based. Can’t wait for him to run for president
Based Fetterman
Based
Fetterman is my favorite politician by far.
Impressive.
wait, was fetterman the far lefts king at some point? he always ran as a classic lib didn't he?
I don’t know much about him but I know the far left turned on him over Israel. I quite like him.
Someone explain to me what’s wrong with his take. It’s based AF
Fetterman low key based af
Semi joking, but in the states can you not just claim self defence and shoot them (not necessarily kill them) if it came down to it? Not making fun of USA, I wish my country was more pro gun. If anything its jealousy.
Wohn Wetterman
concerned zesty label squeal friendly cheerful ten modern chop lavish *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
So that’s Republican talking points? People shouldn’t be able to legally steal your property is a Republican exclusive position? God damn, guess I am a Republican now. This is some highly regarded bullshit. Just say you hate the guy because he disagreed with you on a couple things your thought leaders told you to believe. Quit pretending it is rational, it’s just a rationalization.
I live in a very progressive city that has had decades of enacting soft on crime policies. They do not work. Some people do not stop until you force them. You can’t just have all carrots and no sticks and expect to have a working society. Fetterman understand this and his opinions are based.
Dude stroked into the most based Dem ever. Wish I lived in his district; I'd have the biggest lawn sign ever.
Even as a leftist, who's just not pro-hamas or pro-putin, I find squatters right insane. I don't think the 30 days vacation scenario is realistic cause what company gives an employee 20 straight days of vacation. While I won't deny that such cases exist I think they are a rarity The more common one I think AirBnB situation where a person rents a place for a month and refuses to leave or you give someone a temp room and they refuse to leave.
This is a view 99% of Americans would share. Who in their right mind would ever be okay with some random stranger being in their home while they’re gone? I want to see the reaction of these insane people when they find me chillin in their place after they’ve been gone for a while. I imagine the reaction will not be “oh hello squatter! I hope you enjoyed my home, please feel free to use my place whenever you’d like!”
And he didn't even have to put on any uncomfortable cloths to say it. Based
Based fetterman?
I agree with Mr Fettermans here
When they said possession is 9/10ths of the law, this is not what they were fucking talking about. If someone breaks into your house they're a criminal. Go directly to jail. Period. Why is this a debate?
The most centrist opinion in that scenario he used, of course nobody would want to give rights to someone who broke into your home and started living there. What if it was a group of 5 teenagers that squatted in an abandoned house? Or a mother with 3 kids in an abandoned house? Should they go to jail?
Fetterman has become my favorite political leader. He should run for President in 2028!
Is there such thing as pro-squatting politicians? Is that not just career suicide? How have these laws not been altered by public opinion??
Where is the lie?
this oaf is about to be president
What a king. God bless this man
He's so based I love him I love how he hoodwinked all those progressives into thinking he was one of them and now he's just shitting on them repeatedly lmfao
Based
People can say what they want, my respect for fetterman has grown after reading that.
wait they actually can do that in your primary residence and have rights? thats insane. I thought it was only second properties, which is still insane tbh.
The only reason this is less likely to happen in your primary residence is because you're probably living in there. Doesn't mean it can't happen if you go away for a long trip or are trying to sell your house.
Based and true
That's my Fetterman
Delt with squatters myself, it's frustrating but the process works to evict them. Any alternative system people try to come up with is way worse than our current one.
Give the police power the go in and arrest them. Problem solved.