Things that made you laugh today (Political Version)

[Parkbandit]

Its down from what it was 5 years ago. But thats not the point.

You STILL can't answer a simple question.

Pathetic.

The army isn't recruited to do policing of citizens. Thats not what it's for. Cities and states deal with local policing.

When the cities and states aren't doing their jobs, it's time for the Federal government to step up.

I'd ask the enlisted and veteran members of this board their opinions on federal forces policing day to day crime in America?

Look what it's done in Washington DC.

Normal people: "Having extra people here to deter crime and safeguard lives is a good thing"

Backlash: "OMG TRUMP IS BEING A HITLER NAZI DICTATOR! HE CAN'T DO THIS! HE HAS NO RIGHT TO STOP CRIME!"

You. Fucking. Retard.

[Back]

When the cities and states aren't doing their jobs, it's time for the Federal government to step up.

Thats why I said we should have the conversation. Do we the people want it as an option? Do the states? Does the military? Do all the branches agree?

If we come to some consensuses I'm all for making it work for a safer America. In my opinion it would have to include as much money for crime prevention as it would enforcement.

Look what it's done in Washington DC.

I'm not arguing that at all.

Normal people: "Having extra people here to deter crime and safeguard lives is a good thing"

Backlash: "OMG TRUMP IS BEING A HITLER NAZI DICTATOR! HE CAN'T DO THIS! HE HAS NO RIGHT TO STOP CRIME!"

This is called "projecting". You have a real talent for it. But its not realistic.

[Parkbandit]

Thats why I said we should have the conversation. Do we the people want it as an option? Do the states? Does the military? Do all the branches agree?

Special news for special little Backlash: IT DOES NOT MATTER IF YOU AGREE OR NOT. IT'S NOT UP TO YOU. IT'S NOT UP TO THE STATES. IT'S NOT UP TO THE MILITARY. IT'S NOT UP TO ANY BRANCH OF THE MILITARY.

It's at the sole discretion of the President of the United States.

If we come to some consensuses I'm all for making it work for a safer America. In my opinion it would have to include as much money for crime prevention as it would enforcement.

You STILL don't get it.

Election happened. You lost. Normal people won.

We're not looking for consensus. We elected Donald J Trump to make a difference and to do the things we wanted him to do.

MISSION ACCOMPLISHED SO FAR!

Elections have consequences. In 2020, the consequences were runaway inflation, runaway government spending, runaway illegal immigration, social media censorship, increased cost of living, housing crisis, mental health crisis among youth due to retarded pandemic measures, declining public trust of news and politicians, etc...

Sorry, you are going to have to endure lower crime, lower cost of living, lower inflation, lower government spending, a closed southern border, freedom, etc... It'll be a tough few years for you.. but don't worry, the American public are a stupid lot and they will somehow forget the damage the Democrat Party has done to this country for the past 150 years and elect them again.

I'm not arguing that at all.

No, you are arguing that the President can't do that.. which is factually incorrect.

This is called "projecting". You have a real talent for it. But its not realistic.

You clearly have no idea what projecting is. I said it to you.. and suddenly you want to use it.

SPOILER: You're using it wrong.

[Methais]

Its down from what it was 5 years ago. But thats not the point.

This means literally nothing.

The army isn't recruited to do policing of citizens. Thats not what it's for. Cities and states deal with local policing.

I didn't ask about this.

I'd ask the enlisted and veteran members of this board their opinions on federal forces policing day to day crime in America?

I didn't ask about this either. But since you suggested it....hey Gelston, Back wants you to chime in.


Anyway back to the actual question for a 3rd time:


What is the current state of Chicago as far as crime is concerned?

If it helps you answer, you can choose one of the following:

- Good
- Bad
- Terrible


Or just say you don't want to answer the question because you know how answering it honestly would make you look. That would be more respectable than your usual nonstop deflection and regurgitating MSNBC lines like a gigantic loserface while you sit around being like "Why won't anyone take me seriously?"

TLDR: Stop being a weasel

[Methais]

Thats why I said we should have the conversation. Do we the people want it as an option? Do the states? Does the military? Do all the branches agree?

If we come to some consensuses I'm all for making it work for a safer America. In my opinion it would have to include as much money for crime prevention as it would enforcement.

Here's the thing: What you think doesn't matter. The country already voted. Your retard input isn't part of the equation.

This is called "projecting". You have a real talent for it. But its not realistic.

You clearly don't understand what "projecting" is if you think that's projecting.

The silver lining for you is that nobody is surprised by you not knowing what you're talking about.

[Gelston]

I didn't ask about this either. But since you suggested it....hey Gelston, Back wants you to chime in.

Several thoughts one it. Overall, it amounts to crime prevention, which is a good thing, but you never see the benefits personally. Joe blow doesn't know that he wasn't mugged due to crime prevention efforts, because it just never happens. People often lash out at proactive measures, because you don't physically see immediate results, you can just say things didn't happen.

Now, as a veteran who later went into law enforcement, I can 100% say the vast majority of the military isn't trained to handle civilian arrests and crime fighting. I wasn't taught about preservation of scenes or chain of custody and my knowledge of Miranda Rights was purely based on TV. I haven't followed it too heavily, so I'm not sure if they have military making arrests, but without the training on just the things I mentioned, their conviction rate will be very, very low.

That being said, I was talking to another officer who consistently gets awards from MADD for most DUI arrests in the state. They don't always go to conviction, sometimes they are plead down, sometimes they get a great lawyer and get nothing. He said that doesn't matter to him. He is happy to get them off the street for that night, because you don't know what they were on their way to do and at least everyone is safe for that night.

So, to reiterate, reduction in crime = good.

[Tgo01]

The city of LA has already stopped providing Kamala Harris with police security protection.

I guess the Democrat mayor of LA is getting her "revenge" against Kamala and wants to "put her life in danger."

[Back]

[Parkbandit]

Several thoughts one it. Overall, it amounts to crime prevention, which is a good thing, but you never see the benefits personally. Joe blow doesn't know that he wasn't mugged due to crime prevention efforts, because it just never happens. People often lash out at proactive measures, because you don't physically see immediate results, you can just say things didn't happen.

Now, as a veteran who later went into law enforcement, I can 100% say the vast majority of the military isn't trained to handle civilian arrests and crime fighting. I wasn't taught about preservation of scenes or chain of custody and my knowledge of Miranda Rights was purely based on TV. I haven't followed it too heavily, so I'm not sure if they have military making arrests, but without the training on just the things I mentioned, their conviction rate will be very, very low.

That being said, I was talking to another officer who consistently gets awards from MADD for most DUI arrests in the state. They don't always go to conviction, sometimes they are plead down, sometimes they get a great lawyer and get nothing. He said that doesn't matter to him. He is happy to get them off the street for that night, because you don't know what they were on their way to do and at least everyone is safe for that night.

So, to reiterate, reduction in crime = good.

They aren't there to make arrests. They are their as a visual presence and to assist the local law enforcement with things like manning checkpoints, patrolling streets, traffic control, crowd control, protecting key infrastructure like government buildings and monuments, etc..

[Parkbandit]

You are literally defending city crimes... bro, you are on the wrong side of every issue.

Congratulations on being a sub-human scumbag.