JDHillFan Posted August 19 Posted August 19 5 minutes ago, Big Blitz said: Everyone knows that crime in (checks notes) WASHINGTON DC was already statistically insignificant. Therefore: 2
ChiGoose Posted August 19 Posted August 19 "[Their] rhetoric is explicitly meant to divide citizens into two classes: those of the chosen nation, who are lawful by nature, and those who are not, who are inherently lawless." 1
JDHillFan Posted August 19 Posted August 19 4 hours ago, ChiGoose said: "[Their] rhetoric is explicitly meant to divide citizens into two classes: those of the chosen nation, who are lawful by nature, and those who are not, who are inherently lawless." So much FASCISM!! OH NO!!! How we all yearn for a uniting force! 1 2
LeviF Posted August 19 Posted August 19 8 hours ago, ChiGoose said: "[Their] rhetoric is explicitly meant to divide citizens into two classes: those of the chosen nation, who are lawful by nature, and those who are not, who are inherently lawless." When all the statistics bear out the fact that one segment of the population is particularly lawless, it is logical to focus your enforcement efforts there rather than on those who tend to follow the law. Which is the opposite of what Americans have dealt with for the last sixty years, something closer to this: ”Your punishment for having a knife when they searched you would be very different from the thief’s. For him to have a knife was mere misbehavior, tradition, he didn’t know any better. But for you to have one was ‘terrorism.’” 1
B-Man Posted August 20 Author Posted August 20 More on the fraudulent crime numbers. (for those who were objecting) 1
ChiGoose Posted August 20 Posted August 20 (edited) This whole DC thing presents a good example of the intellectual bankruptcy of the MAGA movement. The claim is that the Feds are moving into DC because the crime is so bad. If one wanted to evaluate this plan, they would ask, "Is DC the most dangerous city in the US?" in order to determine if the action is justified. The answer is a clear no. Not only is DC not the most dangerous city, the violent crime rate has declined to a 30 year low. If one was willing to give Trump the benefit of the doubt, they could say "well, the Feds can't deploy in other cities like they can in DC. Maybe this can prove to be the a model for supporting local law enforcement and other cities will see this and ask for assistance." If that was the case, one would expect to see the Fed deployments to focus on the areas of DC with high crime rates, patrolling the streets in dangerous neighborhoods to deter crime, allowing the local police force to focus on bringing criminals to justice. The deployment would be focused on getting criminals into custody. But the deployment has mostly ignored the dangerous areas in favor of wealthy and high profile areas like Georgetown and the Federal Mall. And they are arresting people without criminal records. Those they do arrest often face trumped up charges. A guy who throws a sandwich at a cop is arrested and charged with several crimes (Say what you will about a cop being hurt by bread, you don't throw things at cop if you don't want to be arrested), but then the feds later bring in a camera crew to record themselves breaking into his home to charge him with additional crimes, something they could have done with paperwork. They wanted the theatrics. So if they aren't going into the most dangerous cities, and they aren't focusing on people with criminal records, and they aren't patrolling high crime areas, and they are using their actions for theatrics, what the hell are they doing there? You can break the MAGA understanding of this into three buckets: The Ignorant: Most people don't follow news closely. They see the Feds are coming in to combat crime and assume that is the truth The Stupid: People who follow politics closely, know the Feds are focusing more on high visibility spaces instead of the high crime areas and somehow believe this is effective The Authoritarian: People who know this isn't about stopping crime in the traditional sense, but punishing those who they view as equal to criminals simply for disagreeing or opposing their ideology. When they say they are fighting crime, they mean fighting libs. You cannot support this action as fighting crime unless you believe not being MAGA is the equivalent to a crime. Edited August 20 by ChiGoose 1 1 2
B-Man Posted August 20 Author Posted August 20 1 hour ago, ChiGoose said: You cannot support this action as fighting crime unless you believe not being MAGA is the equivalent to a crime. 1
AlBUNDY4TDS Posted August 20 Posted August 20 6 hours ago, ChiGoose said: This whole DC thing presents a good example of the intellectual bankruptcy of the MAGA movement. The claim is that the Feds are moving into DC because the crime is so bad. If one wanted to evaluate this plan, they would ask, "Is DC the most dangerous city in the US?" in order to determine if the action is justified. The answer is a clear no. Not only is DC not the most dangerous city, the violent crime rate has declined to a 30 year low. If one was willing to give Trump the benefit of the doubt, they could say "well, the Feds can't deploy in other cities like they can in DC. Maybe this can prove to be the a model for supporting local law enforcement and other cities will see this and ask for assistance." If that was the case, one would expect to see the Fed deployments to focus on the areas of DC with high crime rates, patrolling the streets in dangerous neighborhoods to deter crime, allowing the local police force to focus on bringing criminals to justice. The deployment would be focused on getting criminals into custody. But the deployment has mostly ignored the dangerous areas in favor of wealthy and high profile areas like Georgetown and the Federal Mall. And they are arresting people without criminal records. Those they do arrest often face trumped up charges. A guy who throws a sandwich at a cop is arrested and charged with several crimes (Say what you will about a cop being hurt by bread, you don't throw things at cop if you don't want to be arrested), but then the feds later bring in a camera crew to record themselves breaking into his home to charge him with additional crimes, something they could have done with paperwork. They wanted the theatrics. So if they aren't going into the most dangerous cities, and they aren't focusing on people with criminal records, and they aren't patrolling high crime areas, and they are using their actions for theatrics, what the hell are they doing there? You can break the MAGA understanding of this into three buckets: The Ignorant: Most people don't follow news closely. They see the Feds are coming in to combat crime and assume that is the truth The Stupid: People who follow politics closely, know the Feds are focusing more on high visibility spaces instead of the high crime areas and somehow believe this is effective The Authoritarian: People who know this isn't about stopping crime in the traditional sense, but punishing those who they view as equal to criminals simply for disagreeing or opposing their ideology. When they say they are fighting crime, they mean fighting libs. You cannot support this action as fighting crime unless you believe not being MAGA is the equivalent to a crime. Imagine taking the time to type this out thinking you're on the right side of things. Not surprised, he's from Chicago. He will try and normalize violence. 1
Buffarukus Posted August 20 Posted August 20 7 hours ago, ChiGoose said: This whole DC thing presents a good example of the intellectual bankruptcy of the MAGA movement. The claim is that the Feds are moving into DC because the crime is so bad. If one wanted to evaluate this plan, they would ask, "Is DC the most dangerous city in the US?" in order to determine if the action is justified. The answer is a clear no. Not only is DC not the most dangerous city, the violent crime rate has declined to a 30 year low. If one was willing to give Trump the benefit of the doubt, they could say "well, the Feds can't deploy in other cities like they can in DC. Maybe this can prove to be the a model for supporting local law enforcement and other cities will see this and ask for assistance." If that was the case, one would expect to see the Fed deployments to focus on the areas of DC with high crime rates, patrolling the streets in dangerous neighborhoods to deter crime, allowing the local police force to focus on bringing criminals to justice. The deployment would be focused on getting criminals into custody. But the deployment has mostly ignored the dangerous areas in favor of wealthy and high profile areas like Georgetown and the Federal Mall. And they are arresting people without criminal records. Those they do arrest often face trumped up charges. A guy who throws a sandwich at a cop is arrested and charged with several crimes (Say what you will about a cop being hurt by bread, you don't throw things at cop if you don't want to be arrested), but then the feds later bring in a camera crew to record themselves breaking into his home to charge him with additional crimes, something they could have done with paperwork. They wanted the theatrics. So if they aren't going into the most dangerous cities, and they aren't focusing on people with criminal records, and they aren't patrolling high crime areas, and they are using their actions for theatrics, what the hell are they doing there? You can break the MAGA understanding of this into three buckets: The Ignorant: Most people don't follow news closely. They see the Feds are coming in to combat crime and assume that is the truth The Stupid: People who follow politics closely, know the Feds are focusing more on high visibility spaces instead of the high crime areas and somehow believe this is effective The Authoritarian: People who know this isn't about stopping crime in the traditional sense, but punishing those who they view as equal to criminals simply for disagreeing or opposing their ideology. When they say they are fighting crime, they mean fighting libs. You cannot support this action as fighting crime unless you believe not being MAGA is the equivalent to a crime. So what happened during "Operation Legend"? Thats a pretty dangerous city goose of the chi. How about when he sent them into portland when they were trying to lock people in and burn them alive. How about california when people were tossing giant blocks of concrete off of highway over passes. Let us know exactly what parts of a city and which crimes being committed its ok to have federal backup for. I know youve grown accustomed to wrist slapping but having a show of force and harsh federal penalties puts idiots on notice across ENTIRE cities that liberal touchy feely revolving door policies might not be the next punishment....thats called a deterrent. 1
Tommy Callahan Posted August 20 Posted August 20 6 hours ago, BillsFanNC said: ⬆️ The Friggin King! 😂 I just stuck it in an AI test and it's like 60 percent AI. The king is toast.
ChiGoose Posted August 20 Posted August 20 You gotta love it when they get triggered and rush in to prove you right.
Wolfgang Posted August 20 Posted August 20 8 hours ago, ChiGoose said: This whole DC thing presents a good example of the intellectual bankruptcy of the MAGA movement. The claim is that the Feds are moving into DC because the crime is so bad. If one wanted to evaluate this plan, they would ask, "Is DC the most dangerous city in the US?" in order to determine if the action is justified. The answer is a clear no. Not only is DC not the most dangerous city, the violent crime rate has declined to a 30 year low. If one was willing to give Trump the benefit of the doubt, they could say "well, the Feds can't deploy in other cities like they can in DC. Maybe this can prove to be the a model for supporting local law enforcement and other cities will see this and ask for assistance." If that was the case, one would expect to see the Fed deployments to focus on the areas of DC with high crime rates, patrolling the streets in dangerous neighborhoods to deter crime, allowing the local police force to focus on bringing criminals to justice. The deployment would be focused on getting criminals into custody. But the deployment has mostly ignored the dangerous areas in favor of wealthy and high profile areas like Georgetown and the Federal Mall. And they are arresting people without criminal records. Those they do arrest often face trumped up charges. A guy who throws a sandwich at a cop is arrested and charged with several crimes (Say what you will about a cop being hurt by bread, you don't throw things at cop if you don't want to be arrested), but then the feds later bring in a camera crew to record themselves breaking into his home to charge him with additional crimes, something they could have done with paperwork. They wanted the theatrics. So if they aren't going into the most dangerous cities, and they aren't focusing on people with criminal records, and they aren't patrolling high crime areas, and they are using their actions for theatrics, what the hell are they doing there? You can break the MAGA understanding of this into three buckets: The Ignorant: Most people don't follow news closely. They see the Feds are coming in to combat crime and assume that is the truth The Stupid: People who follow politics closely, know the Feds are focusing more on high visibility spaces instead of the high crime areas and somehow believe this is effective The Authoritarian: People who know this isn't about stopping crime in the traditional sense, but punishing those who they view as equal to criminals simply for disagreeing or opposing their ideology. When they say they are fighting crime, they mean fighting libs. You cannot support this action as fighting crime unless you believe not being MAGA is the equivalent to a crime. Your crybaby nonsense won't change current trends... This will spread to even more cities... Sanctuary cities invited this process... I suspect 14 to 17 US cities will be under federal control going into the 2026 election cycle... It's going to be great fun... 1
JDHillFan Posted August 20 Posted August 20 49 minutes ago, Wolfgang said: Your crybaby nonsense won't change current trends... This will spread to even more cities... Sanctuary cities invited this process... I suspect 14 to 17 US cities will be under federal control going into the 2026 election cycle... It's going to be great fun... Now you’ve done it! Chigoose will be along shortly to describe how sanctuary cities are statistically safer. He will cite an old paper from U of Texas. He will not acknowledge that it was written long before the Biden Border Disaster (that he believes can be solved only by new legislation - ignore what’s taken place in 2025, that’s not progress on controlling the border). Sanctuary cities are good and did not sh*t all over themselves simply to virtue signal as it relates to politics. 3 2
4th&long Posted August 20 Posted August 20 If this was about crime and pretentious the city they would actually have the guard in the worst parts of the city which they don't. So as always Maga is a bunch of ***** idiots. 1 1
JFKjr Posted August 20 Posted August 20 4 minutes ago, 4th&long said: If this was about crime and pretentious the city they would actually have the guard in the worst parts of the city which they don't. So as always Maga is a bunch of ***** idiots. There's quite a few more blue cities ("sanctuary cities") that need help. 1
Recommended Posts