Political Posts

[cubsfan]

Just now, cwericb said:

Methinks the real crimes and crimianls in Washington ain't all in the streets.

 

And you would be correct!

[Eng12345]

3 minutes ago, cubsfan said:

 

Oh man if that's your way of saying they are keeping Chicago safe, you're out of your mind. Chicago has been Democratically controlled for 80 years now. The last 10 have been an absolute disaster.

 

55 shot over the weekend - and you make excuses for them?

No I'm just here for a smaller federal government and don't think federal intervention is good! 

 

We the people want a smaller federal government. Stop the federal overreach! 

[thepupil]

11 minutes ago, Gregmal said:

Lawlessness is not acceptable maybe? If you have areas running rampant with violent criminals why would anyone have an issue fixing that. If the locals are too stupid to fix it, I’m perfectly fine with someone else getting it done.

 

One must balance the short-term visceral need for physical security, with the long-term desire to live in a free society / non-police state. 

 

I imagine if the federal government 

 

1) seized all guns from civilians

2) prohibited the sale thereof 

3) enacted a zero tolerance policy on all illegal drugs with extremely strict sentencing . death penatlt for possession of dealer like quantities. 

4) death penalty for all violent crime 

 

the murder rate would likely decline in this scenario, but would society be better off?

 

now I'm clearly engaging in a bit of reducto ad absurdum here but surely the issue is more nuanced than "crime bad / send in troops good"

 

china is safe. do you want to live there?

 

 

 

 

Edited September 2, 2025 by thepupil

[Eng12345]

If the federal government can't get the Canadian drug trafficking problem under control, why would they be able to get Chicago under control? 

[cwericb]

1 minute ago, Eng12345 said:

If the federal government can't get the Canadian drug trafficking problem under control, why would they be able to get Chicago under control? 

 

WTF are you talking about?

[cubsfan]

3 minutes ago, Eng12345 said:

No I'm just here for a smaller federal government and don't think federal intervention is good! 

 

We the people want a smaller federal government. Stop the federal overreach! 

 

Somewhere you missed this:  Chicago is loaded with children being shot every week. Keeping children alive is a very noble cause when your local government continues to fail the community.

 

We will know the stats later from this past weekend of 55 shot, but in the first week of August - 7 children were shot.

[cubsfan]

3 minutes ago, Eng12345 said:

If the federal government can't get the Canadian drug trafficking problem under control, why would they be able to get Chicago under control? 

 

Easy - they got Washington, DC under control in 1 week.

 

Chicago will be no easy feat at all - but the locals have failed for 10 years.

[Castanza]

4 minutes ago, thepupil said:

 

One must balance the short-term visceral need for physical security, with the long-term desire to live in a free society / non-police state. 

 

I imagine if the federal government 

 

1) seized all guns from civilians

2) prohibited the sale thereof 

3) enacted a zero tolerance policy on all illegal drugs with extremely strict sentencing . death penatlt for possession of dealer like quantities. 

4) death penalty for all violent crime 

 

the murder rate would likely decline in this scenario, but would society be better off?

 

now I'm clearly engaging in a bit of reducto ad absurdum here but surely the issue is more nuanced than "crime bad / send in troops good"

 

china is safe. do you want to live there?

 

 

 

 

The bitch about statistics is you can pretty much get as vague or granular as you want to justify any method of action or outcome. Both sides engage in this 

[Gregmal]

25 minutes ago, Eng12345 said:

At what level of crime do we define lawlessness? How should we measure when federal intervention is okay? Surely we shouldn't have federal troops patrolling Hilton Head, SC because the crime rate does not match and an MRAP would mess with the vibes. But what is the numerical difference? 

 

I think being able to articulate this is /important/ else you run the risk of it all just being some political theatre not aimed at fixing the actual problem. 

 

50-100+ shootings a month in a non war zone would be my line

[cwericb]

15 minutes ago, Eng12345 said:

If the federal government can't get the Canadian drug trafficking problem under control, why would they be able to get Chicago under control? 

 

Lets just set the record straight ...............

 

"The trade in fentanyl takes place in both directions. In the first 10 months of 2024, the

...Canadian border service reported seizing 10.8lb (4.9kg) of fentanyl entering from the US,

while

....US Border Patrol intercepted 32.1lb (14.6kg) of fentanyl coming from Canada."

 

To put this in perspective..."Last year,

CBP seized more than 27,000 pounds of fentanyl making its way into the U.S"

 

 

 

[dwy000]

Its really easy to reduce crime in any area if you want to flood it with soldiers and police. The question is who pays for that and who gets to decide the right levels.

 

What we have now is nothing more than theater. The local populations, local businesses, local politicians and local police forces dont want the federal military running around - especially when crime rates were already dropping to multi year lows.  The fact that its not focused on the cities with the highest crime rates tells you its nothing more than theater. And theater paid for with our tax dollars. 

Edited September 2, 2025 by dwy000

[dwy000]

3 minutes ago, Gregmal said:

50-100+ shootings a month in a non war zone would be my line

Which is why you dont live or vote there. The crime rate is higher in many cities that aren't being targeted. Leave it to the locals to police themselves with their own tax dollars. 

[cubsfan]

13 minutes ago, dwy000 said:

Which is why you dont live or vote there. The crime rate is higher in many cities that aren't being targeted. Leave it to the locals to police themselves with their own tax dollars. 

 

Only one problem - way too many people being killed and the locals say "no problem here!"

[dwy000]

2 minutes ago, cubsfan said:

 

Only one problem - way too many people being killed and the locals say "no problem here!"

Which is exactly why its a local problem for locals to deal with. If they need or want federal support they can ask for it. Thats not happening. 

[Gregmal]

5 minutes ago, dwy000 said:

Which is exactly why its a local problem for locals to deal with. If they need or want federal support they can ask for it. Thats not happening. 

Well, maybe it's because these local people are largely the reason for these problems. And then you factor in TDS.....you think they'd ask for help? Which is de facto admitting that everything theyve stood for is/was a failure? Have any of them even admitted something as basic as "cashless bail was a retarded idea" yet.......

[dwy000]

4 minutes ago, Gregmal said:

Well, maybe it's because these local people are largely the reason for these problems. And then you factor in TDS.....you think they'd ask for help? Which is de facto admitting that everything theyve stood for is/was a failure? Have any of them even admitted something as basic as "cashless bail was a retarded idea" yet.......

Which, once again, is why you dont have to live there.  Let the locals make their own beds and live with the results. Why should my tax dollars be used on it?  Especially when they dont want the help.

 

Theater. 

[Castanza]

7 minutes ago, dwy000 said:

Which, once again, is why you dont have to live there.  Let the locals make their own beds and live with the results. Why should my tax dollars be used on it?  Especially when they dont want the help.

 

Theater. 

 

How did Chicago get rid of the mob? Federal enforcement....

 

Drug trafficking and gangbangers is not a local issue...its a federal issue that has hubs in major cities because they are "import export hubs" for drugs. The FBI (I know a bunch) spends a significant amount of time dealing with dur dealers, traffickers and gangs that operate across state lines and on interstates. If you think some local PD regardless of tax base is going to take care of a drug or gang issue in a major metropolitan area you should probably turn yourself in; because you're clearly smoking some of whatever those "local gangs" are selling. 

[Sweet]

1 hour ago, Gregmal said:

For all the “cult” talk, I think it’s simpler and that liberalism in certain sects is a mental disorder. I mean how else does one become pro violence of that caliber? I can barely even wrap my head around violence of that frequency and magnitude outside of times of war; meanwhile these people are like “nah, it’s good, only 1200 shootings thru the summer” lmfao 

Certain parts of liberalism - I agree.  No coincidence that mental health of young lefties is terrible.

[dwy000]

5 minutes ago, Castanza said:

 

How did Chicago get rid of the mob? Federal enforcement....

 

Drug trafficking and gangbangers is not a local issue...its a federal issue that has hubs in major cities because they are "import export hubs" for drugs. The FBI (I know a bunch) spends a significant amount of time dealing with dur dealers, traffickers and gangs that operate across state lines and on interstates. If you think some local PD regardless of tax base is going to take care of a drug or gang issue in a major metropolitan area you should probably turn yourself in; because you're clearly smoking some of whatever those "local gangs" are selling. 

Then why not focus on cities with higher crime rates?  Why use the National Guard when there are federal agencies already operating there?

 

Yes you can reduce crime by flooding the streets with the military but thats not a long term solution, is not what the locals want and is a waste of taxpayer money.  And its not being focused on the highest crime areas. And why not 5 years ago when crime was higher?  

Edited September 2, 2025 by dwy000

[Spekulatius]

12 hours ago, Parsad said:

Trump gives Presidential Medal of Freedom to another fallen politician and pedo:

 

https://www.cnn.com/2025/09/01/politics/rudy-giuliani-trump-presidential-medal-of-freedom

 

Cheers!

He just had a traffic accident in NH under dubious circumstances. Maybe similar to those:

 

 

 

[73 Reds]

1 hour ago, thepupil said:

 

yea, I agree. I think murders and carjackings are reliable though

 

1) you gotta report when your car gets stolen

2) tough to hide murder

Yeah but no one really needs crime statistics to know there is a problem.  I mean they can talk about how crime in DC has fallen all day long but did anyone in DC notice or feel safer - at least up until very recently?  And the most telling crime "statistic" as to any specific location is whether you would choose to live there.  I don't know what the answer is, but the answer is certainly not LESS law enforcement.  That is one of many issues I have with the Left.

[Castanza]

13 minutes ago, dwy000 said:

Then why not focus on cities with higher crime rates?  Why use the National Guard when there are federal agencies already operating there?

 

Yes you can reduce crime by flooding the streets with the military but thats not a long term solution, is not what the locals want and is a waste of taxpayer money.  And its not being focused on the highest crime areas. And why not 5 years ago when crime was higher?  

 

Crime rate is not equivalent to crime volume....Beyond that it's difficult to answer, but I'm sure the FBI is well acquainted with key trafficking routes, gang territories, key individuals and where they live, etc. You act like this is some cut and dry issue and that there is not some deep analysis needed from a strategic standpoint. 

 

I'm not saying I agree with the Nat Guard being called, I'm just saying you're not tackling this issue in AMERICA without the aid of Federal agencies. These issues are extremely complex and have more variables to account for than anyone on this forum can probably think of. 

 

Sometimes the real world is more complex than your charts and numbers. 

 

Not much different than the bullshit gun debate arguments liberals like to make with regards to the United States. "Ban guns and the problem goes away! Look this other homogenous culture halfway across the world did it and they have zero issues!" But lets ignore, gangs, statistical counting issues, suicides, police shootings, drugs, gangs, cultural issues, unprosecuted failed background checks, repeat offenders, corrupt judges, police response time in rural areas, firearm types and which ones are most commonly used, easy access to weapons that aren't used, lack of mental health funding, lack of ability to report issues at an early age, FBI prevented crime numbers by civilians WITH firearms etc. 

 

All to say there is more to these issues than you think...This isn't stock picking and there isn't some balance sheet to read. 

[dwy000]

4 minutes ago, Castanza said:

 

Crime rate is not equivalent to crime volume....Beyond that it's difficult to answer, but I'm sure the FBI is well acquainted with key trafficking routes, gang territories, key individuals and where they live, etc. You act like this is some cut and dry issue and that there is not some deep analysis needed from a strategic standpoint. 

 

I'm not saying I agree with the Nat Guard being called, I'm just saying you're not tackling this issue in AMERICA without the aid of Federal agencies. These issues are extremely complex and have more variables to account for than anyone on this forum can probably think of. 

 

Sometimes the real world is more complex than your charts and numbers. 

 

Not much different than the bullshit gun debate arguments liberals like to make with regards to the United States. "Ban guns and the problem goes away! Look this other homogenous culture halfway across the world did it and they have zero issues!" But lets ignore, gangs, statistical counting issues, suicides, police shootings, drugs, gangs, cultural issues, unprosecuted failed background checks, repeat offenders, corrupt judges, police response time in rural areas, firearm types and which ones are most commonly used, easy access to weapons that aren't used, lack of mental health funding, lack of ability to report issues at an early age, FBI prevented crime numbers by civilians WITH firearms etc. 

 

All to say there is more to these issues than you think...This isn't stock picking and there isn't some balance sheet to read. 

Nobody is ever going to argue that crime isnt an issue.  At any level. But to your point, some analysis and strategic direction is needed to deal with it longer term on a coordinated basis. But that's not even close to what's happening.

 

Whats happening now is not helping because its just theater.  The locals dont want it.  Businesses dont want it.  Local government doesnt want it. And local law enforcement doesnt want it.  The irony is, all those groups would openly welcome dealing with crime on a sustained long term basis.  But that's not what's happening because that requires thought, strategy and time. This is theater. 

[Sweet]

11 minutes ago, dwy000 said:

Nobody is ever going to argue that crime isnt an issue.  At any level. But to your point, some analysis and strategic direction is needed to deal with it longer term on a coordinated basis. But that's not even close to what's happening.

 

Whats happening now is not helping because its just theater.  The locals dont want it.  Businesses dont want it.  Local government doesnt want it. And local law enforcement doesnt want it.  The irony is, all those groups would openly welcome dealing with crime on a sustained long term basis.  But that's not what's happening because that requires thought, strategy and time. This is theater. 

Hasn’t crime dropped in D.C.?  Why isn’t that considered important.

[Castanza]

6 minutes ago, dwy000 said:

Some locals dont want it.  Some Businesses dont want it.  Some Local government doesnt want it. And Some local law enforcement doesnt want it.

 

I agree it's theater but that doesn't mean some don't welcome it....

 

Society today is overly obsessed with having bleeding heart agencies and charities try to solve all of these systemic issues. I'm not sure this solution has every worked...If this were the FBI or some other heavy hitter Fed agency, the pundits would still complain...