Democrats urge military to disobey orders.....

byke wrote:

Kind of, like if you went into an severely overweight person's house and threw out all their bad food for a week and they lose a...

Kind of, like if you went into an severely overweight person's house and threw out all their bad food for a week and they lose a  few pounds and then you tout that as a major success, but unless you actually address the root problems, it's just a temporary bandaid and things go right back the moment you leave. 

There are two angles to reducing crime, proactive and reactive. Proactive would be adding various programs for kids, or having various job programs for adults, basically all the stuff you do to stop crime before it happens. Reactive is everything to do with law enforcement and the judicial system etc., all the things you do to handle crime after it happens. All Trump did was temporarily throw money at the reactive side while doing nothing for the proactive side. Take the SF Bay area for example, they could cut crime in half by doubling law enforcement and adding more prisons/jails, but.....nobody wants to pay for it. That's what Trump did, he paid for it with Federal dollars and it's not sustainable. 

We're going to add nearly two trillion to debt this year and we're going to add nearly two trillion to debt next year. Something better and smarter than "eff the Dems lololol" is needed to actually change numbers. If debt were measured in feelings currency, we'd be crushing it, but since we measure in USD, he's just another two-trillion-a-year president like all the others. 

R66 wrote:

So it is the democrat mayors of these cities fault for not instituting these programs before crime got out of control. Thank goodness for President Trump...

So it is the democrat mayors of these cities fault for not instituting these programs before crime got out of control. Thank goodness for President Trump to step in and save lives. Even if he only saved one life, it would be worth it. Murders are down by 50%, that is a lot of lives saved. I like your analogy though. Arresting the bad guys and getting them off the street to reduce crime  is just like taking food away from a fat, lazy, snap recipient  person and they lose weight because of it. Good one!

Zycki11 wrote:

Now that we can agree upon. The simple truth is that we, The USofA are not responsible for the world. With the issues within our own...

Now that we can agree upon. The simple truth is that we, The USofA are not responsible for the world. With the issues within our own walls, stop catering to immigrants for votes. Get back to a merit system and honor. Handouts need to stop unless proven a necessity. 

Last2Stroke wrote:

"Get back to a merit system and honor."If only your leaders had honor!

"Get back to a merit system and honor."

If only your leaders had honor!

TeamGreen wrote:

Psssst…

Maybe you should fix your own before running your mouth about someone-else’s government.

I’m jus’ knowin’…

El_Rayo wrote:

Damn 😂 the republicans in this forum are getting cooked ngl. Some of these old guys in here really give them a bad name..I know a lot...

Damn 😂 the republicans in this forum are getting cooked ngl. 

Some of these old guys in here really give them a bad name..I know a lot of republicans who are stand up guys who will happily have reasonable sound conversations, even when in disagreement and try to understand the other person. But when you resort to deflecting , saying“ the dems!” , finger pointing, yelling insults , or posting cringe memes targeted towards the other party or people. You just end up making yourself look slow 

El_Rayo wrote:

Damn 😂 the republicans in this forum are getting cooked ngl. Some of these old guys in here really give them a bad name..I know a lot...

Damn 😂 the republicans in this forum are getting cooked ngl. 

Some of these old guys in here really give them a bad name..I know a lot of republicans who are stand up guys who will happily have reasonable sound conversations, even when in disagreement and try to understand the other person. But when you resort to deflecting , saying“ the dems!” , finger pointing, yelling insults , or posting cringe memes targeted towards the other party or people. You just end up making yourself look slow 

vet323 wrote:

Thank God you showed up to tell all the "old, slow guys" not to call people names!

Gworm wrote:

They are implying that what is happening with the National Guard is illegal. They are trying to cause confusion and dissent in the ranks.It’s funny that...

They are implying that what is happening with the National Guard is illegal. They are trying to cause confusion and dissent in the ranks.

It’s funny that they made that video, but none of them can identify even one illegal order that has been given. 

whethefakawe wrote:

Yip. The poison dwarf Kelly is sticking his tortoise neck way out, best wind it in a little. I laugh every time I see his mug...

Yip. The poison dwarf Kelly is sticking his tortoise neck way out, best wind it in a little. I laugh every time I see his mug, he looks like a CGI-generated dwarf from the recent Snow White movie disaster..... pointy ears, egghead, crooked mouth, 120-year old Galapagos Tortoise neck, the lot. Put a pointy hat on his egghead and you can use him as a garden gnome.   🤣🤣 

To settle the NG issue for once and all -- here is a clear and simple explanation from the former AZ National Guard Commander.

https://youtu.be/tCo8SdvF5ts

The two "talkshow" muppets are local idiots, ignore them. "Talking" for a living is like giving handjobs behind dumpsters for a living.  

Start watching at 11:00, pay attention to what the ex-General says about "Title 32" and "Title 10". Go ahead, watch the 2 or 3 minutes starting at 11:00, and learn something. I did! 

Basically, NO Governor or NG commander can send their NG troops to other states..... but the President can.  DAS ENDE. 

Re. the drug boats -- lotsa provincial flatlanders around here, who've never seen the ocean, eh? (Ref. Jimmy Buffet's Who's the Blonde Stranger")🤣

If you can't tell the difference -- even in a grainy CCTV video -- between a fishing boat and a cheap, low-brow cigarette boat doing something nefarious -- you really shouldn't be mouthing off, Gilligan! . You have ZERO valid input about anything maritime. What makles you think you have better intelligence than the US Navy, Coast Guard and military command structure? What makes you think they're going to "share" it with plebs who don't know what a fishing boat looks like? 🤣

If you  STILL think they're fishing for flounder and cod, read this: 

  Exclusive | ‘Deliver or Die’: Inside the Drug-Boat Crews Ferrying Cocaine to the U.S. - WSJ

And to the Arsetralian, German, Belgian, British, and especially Canadian poofs who like to jerk themselves off around here -- go yap somewhere else, because:

1) you don't have a say, interest, valid opinion, or anything else about any of these issues. ALL of you have MUCH bigger fish to fry where you live. Try protecting your women and daughters from rape gangs, for a start. 

2) opinions are like assholes, everybody has one, especially opinionated assholes.   

 

Has anybody found the MUTE button for Trump's mike yet?? Geezus H....the man clearly has never read Sun Tzu, or Macchiavelli.....

 

byke wrote:

The analogy was clearly about the temporary nature of the "fix" and he did it by bypassing the processes in place for spending. Law enforcement is...

The analogy was clearly about the temporary nature of the "fix" and he did it by bypassing the processes in place for spending. Law enforcement is supposed to be local at the city level, the county level, and the state level. We do it that way because you don't want to pay for policing problems in some city in California and I don't want to pay for policing problems in some city in Georgia. 

It's not going to bother me to point the finger at Dems, especially when it comes to crime, because their method of trying to hug the crime out of people is absurd, but this is not a right/left problem, because there are tons of Republican mayors and governors and on and on, that suffer from the exact same problems. 

It usually comes down to spending, because if you really want to police big cities, you'd need to introduce something like a 10-30% tax to pay for it. Nobody wants to pay it, nobody wants to pay for the ongoing policing/programs needed to truly reduce crime, doesn't matter if they're right or left. Trump performed zero magic, all he did was throw money at it and send the bill to the entire country instead of the local people that refuse to fix their own problems. If you want to expand the Federal government into your city, that's great, but pay for it yourself. 

byke wrote:

Kind of, like if you went into an severely overweight person's house and threw out all their bad food for a week and they lose a...

Kind of, like if you went into an severely overweight person's house and threw out all their bad food for a week and they lose a  few pounds and then you tout that as a major success, but unless you actually address the root problems, it's just a temporary bandaid and things go right back the moment you leave. 

There are two angles to reducing crime, proactive and reactive. Proactive would be adding various programs for kids, or having various job programs for adults, basically all the stuff you do to stop crime before it happens. Reactive is everything to do with law enforcement and the judicial system etc., all the things you do to handle crime after it happens. All Trump did was temporarily throw money at the reactive side while doing nothing for the proactive side. Take the SF Bay area for example, they could cut crime in half by doubling law enforcement and adding more prisons/jails, but.....nobody wants to pay for it. That's what Trump did, he paid for it with Federal dollars and it's not sustainable. 

We're going to add nearly two trillion to debt this year and we're going to add nearly two trillion to debt next year. Something better and smarter than "eff the Dems lololol" is needed to actually change numbers. If debt were measured in feelings currency, we'd be crushing it, but since we measure in USD, he's just another two-trillion-a-year president like all the others. 

R66 wrote:

So it is the democrat mayors of these cities fault for not instituting these programs before crime got out of control. Thank goodness for President Trump...

So it is the democrat mayors of these cities fault for not instituting these programs before crime got out of control. Thank goodness for President Trump to step in and save lives. Even if he only saved one life, it would be worth it. Murders are down by 50%, that is a lot of lives saved. I like your analogy though. Arresting the bad guys and getting them off the street to reduce crime  is just like taking food away from a fat, lazy, snap recipient  person and they lose weight because of it. Good one!

byke wrote:

The analogy was clearly about the temporary nature of the "fix" and he did it by bypassing the processes in place for spending. Law enforcement is...

The analogy was clearly about the temporary nature of the "fix" and he did it by bypassing the processes in place for spending. Law enforcement is supposed to be local at the city level, the county level, and the state level. We do it that way because you don't want to pay for policing problems in some city in California and I don't want to pay for policing problems in some city in Georgia. 

It's not going to bother me to point the finger at Dems, especially when it comes to crime, because their method of trying to hug the crime out of people is absurd, but this is not a right/left problem, because there are tons of Republican mayors and governors and on and on, that suffer from the exact same problems. 

It usually comes down to spending, because if you really want to police big cities, you'd need to introduce something like a 10-30% tax to pay for it. Nobody wants to pay it, nobody wants to pay for the ongoing policing/programs needed to truly reduce crime, doesn't matter if they're right or left. Trump performed zero magic, all he did was throw money at it and send the bill to the entire country instead of the local people that refuse to fix their own problems. If you want to expand the Federal government into your city, that's great, but pay for it yourself. 

R66 wrote:

So it is the democrat mayors of these cities fault for not instituting these programs before crime got out of control. Thank goodness for President Trump...

So it is the democrat mayors of these cities fault for not instituting these programs before crime got out of control. Thank goodness for President Trump to step in and save lives. Even if he only saved one life, it would be worth it. Murders are down by 50%, that is a lot of lives saved. I like your analogy though. Arresting the bad guys and getting them off the street to reduce crime  is just like taking food away from a fat, lazy, snap recipient  person and they lose weight because of it. Good one!

byke wrote:

The analogy was clearly about the temporary nature of the "fix" and he did it by bypassing the processes in place for spending. Law enforcement is...

The analogy was clearly about the temporary nature of the "fix" and he did it by bypassing the processes in place for spending. Law enforcement is supposed to be local at the city level, the county level, and the state level. We do it that way because you don't want to pay for policing problems in some city in California and I don't want to pay for policing problems in some city in Georgia. 

It's not going to bother me to point the finger at Dems, especially when it comes to crime, because their method of trying to hug the crime out of people is absurd, but this is not a right/left problem, because there are tons of Republican mayors and governors and on and on, that suffer from the exact same problems. 

It usually comes down to spending, because if you really want to police big cities, you'd need to introduce something like a 10-30% tax to pay for it. Nobody wants to pay it, nobody wants to pay for the ongoing policing/programs needed to truly reduce crime, doesn't matter if they're right or left. Trump performed zero magic, all he did was throw money at it and send the bill to the entire country instead of the local people that refuse to fix their own problems. If you want to expand the Federal government into your city, that's great, but pay for it yourself. 

mvd61 wrote:

The google says local and state law enforcement costs $140 billion annually. Do you think the govt could cut back on some other programs to cover...

The google says local and state law enforcement costs $140 billion annually. Do you think the govt could cut back on some other programs to cover this?

R66 wrote:

So it is the democrat mayors of these cities fault for not instituting these programs before crime got out of control. Thank goodness for President Trump...

So it is the democrat mayors of these cities fault for not instituting these programs before crime got out of control. Thank goodness for President Trump to step in and save lives. Even if he only saved one life, it would be worth it. Murders are down by 50%, that is a lot of lives saved. I like your analogy though. Arresting the bad guys and getting them off the street to reduce crime  is just like taking food away from a fat, lazy, snap recipient  person and they lose weight because of it. Good one!

byke wrote:

The analogy was clearly about the temporary nature of the "fix" and he did it by bypassing the processes in place for spending. Law enforcement is...

The analogy was clearly about the temporary nature of the "fix" and he did it by bypassing the processes in place for spending. Law enforcement is supposed to be local at the city level, the county level, and the state level. We do it that way because you don't want to pay for policing problems in some city in California and I don't want to pay for policing problems in some city in Georgia. 

It's not going to bother me to point the finger at Dems, especially when it comes to crime, because their method of trying to hug the crime out of people is absurd, but this is not a right/left problem, because there are tons of Republican mayors and governors and on and on, that suffer from the exact same problems. 

It usually comes down to spending, because if you really want to police big cities, you'd need to introduce something like a 10-30% tax to pay for it. Nobody wants to pay it, nobody wants to pay for the ongoing policing/programs needed to truly reduce crime, doesn't matter if they're right or left. Trump performed zero magic, all he did was throw money at it and send the bill to the entire country instead of the local people that refuse to fix their own problems. If you want to expand the Federal government into your city, that's great, but pay for it yourself. 

mvd61 wrote:

The google says local and state law enforcement costs $140 billion annually. Do you think the govt could cut back on some other programs to cover...

The google says local and state law enforcement costs $140 billion annually. Do you think the govt could cut back on some other programs to cover this?

byke wrote:

The analogy was clearly about the temporary nature of the "fix" and he did it by bypassing the processes in place for spending. Law enforcement is...

The analogy was clearly about the temporary nature of the "fix" and he did it by bypassing the processes in place for spending. Law enforcement is supposed to be local at the city level, the county level, and the state level. We do it that way because you don't want to pay for policing problems in some city in California and I don't want to pay for policing problems in some city in Georgia. 

It's not going to bother me to point the finger at Dems, especially when it comes to crime, because their method of trying to hug the crime out of people is absurd, but this is not a right/left problem, because there are tons of Republican mayors and governors and on and on, that suffer from the exact same problems. 

It usually comes down to spending, because if you really want to police big cities, you'd need to introduce something like a 10-30% tax to pay for it. Nobody wants to pay it, nobody wants to pay for the ongoing policing/programs needed to truly reduce crime, doesn't matter if they're right or left. Trump performed zero magic, all he did was throw money at it and send the bill to the entire country instead of the local people that refuse to fix their own problems. If you want to expand the Federal government into your city, that's great, but pay for it yourself. 

R66 wrote:

The cities with the worst crime rates are run by democrats. Period. More money is not the answer. Have zero tolerance and enforce the law. Arrest...

The cities with the worst crime rates are run by democrats. Period. More money is not the answer. Have zero tolerance and enforce the law. Arrest the criminals and take them off the street. Put them in jail or deport them or execute them if warranted.  Make it where doing the crime is not worth the time. 

soggy wrote:

What is a neutral source?  One of the RW tricks is to say anything they don’t agree with is compromised by LW influence. 

matt.3150 wrote:

A good source I like is ground news , we see what right, central, and left news sights say. Then you can get a clear picture...

A good source I like is ground news , we see what right, central, and left news sights say. Then you can get a clear picture of how each is trying to influence the agenda and see what are the facts. Router, BBC, NPR. The RW will say the left is doing something that the RW is actually doing.  RW will try and take credit for thing the left did right.

LoudLove wrote:

Let’s face it: the last 10 years have been built in labeling anything that doesn’t fit the narrative as “fake news”. Dig around long enough and...

Let’s face it: the last 10 years have been built in labeling anything that doesn’t fit the narrative as “fake news”. Dig around long enough and you’re sure to find data to support an argument. Or vice versa. 

A claim was made that 60%+ of SNAP benefits were paid to immigrants. A counter argument was made, and rather than support the original thesis, the counter’s source was questioned.  That might work in the world of fake news, but doesn’t work in the real world. 

matt.3150 wrote:

Dunning–Kruger–Defense Mode
 Someone with low knowledge overestimates their understanding.
 When confronted with actual expertise, they insult the expert instead of evaluating the information.

 

 

matt.3150 wrote:

Dunning–Kruger–Defense Mode
 Someone with low knowledge overestimates their understanding.
 When confronted with actual expertise, they insult the expert instead of evaluating the information.

 

 

R66 wrote:

Who opened the border up and told us it was ok? Democrats. Who embraces cashless bail? Democrats. 

R66 wrote:

So it is the democrat mayors of these cities fault for not instituting these programs before crime got out of control. Thank goodness for President Trump...

So it is the democrat mayors of these cities fault for not instituting these programs before crime got out of control. Thank goodness for President Trump to step in and save lives. Even if he only saved one life, it would be worth it. Murders are down by 50%, that is a lot of lives saved. I like your analogy though. Arresting the bad guys and getting them off the street to reduce crime  is just like taking food away from a fat, lazy, snap recipient  person and they lose weight because of it. Good one!

byke wrote:

The analogy was clearly about the temporary nature of the "fix" and he did it by bypassing the processes in place for spending. Law enforcement is...

The analogy was clearly about the temporary nature of the "fix" and he did it by bypassing the processes in place for spending. Law enforcement is supposed to be local at the city level, the county level, and the state level. We do it that way because you don't want to pay for policing problems in some city in California and I don't want to pay for policing problems in some city in Georgia. 

It's not going to bother me to point the finger at Dems, especially when it comes to crime, because their method of trying to hug the crime out of people is absurd, but this is not a right/left problem, because there are tons of Republican mayors and governors and on and on, that suffer from the exact same problems. 

It usually comes down to spending, because if you really want to police big cities, you'd need to introduce something like a 10-30% tax to pay for it. Nobody wants to pay it, nobody wants to pay for the ongoing policing/programs needed to truly reduce crime, doesn't matter if they're right or left. Trump performed zero magic, all he did was throw money at it and send the bill to the entire country instead of the local people that refuse to fix their own problems. If you want to expand the Federal government into your city, that's great, but pay for it yourself. 

mvd61 wrote:

The google says local and state law enforcement costs $140 billion annually. Do you think the govt could cut back on some other programs to cover...

The google says local and state law enforcement costs $140 billion annually. Do you think the govt could cut back on some other programs to cover this?

matt.3150 wrote:

Dunning–Kruger–Defense Mode
 Someone with low knowledge overestimates their understanding.
 When confronted with actual expertise, they insult the expert instead of evaluating the information.

 

 

R66 wrote:

Who opened the border up and told us it was ok? Democrats. Who embraces cashless bail? Democrats. 

byke wrote:

The analogy was clearly about the temporary nature of the "fix" and he did it by bypassing the processes in place for spending. Law enforcement is...

The analogy was clearly about the temporary nature of the "fix" and he did it by bypassing the processes in place for spending. Law enforcement is supposed to be local at the city level, the county level, and the state level. We do it that way because you don't want to pay for policing problems in some city in California and I don't want to pay for policing problems in some city in Georgia. 

It's not going to bother me to point the finger at Dems, especially when it comes to crime, because their method of trying to hug the crime out of people is absurd, but this is not a right/left problem, because there are tons of Republican mayors and governors and on and on, that suffer from the exact same problems. 

It usually comes down to spending, because if you really want to police big cities, you'd need to introduce something like a 10-30% tax to pay for it. Nobody wants to pay it, nobody wants to pay for the ongoing policing/programs needed to truly reduce crime, doesn't matter if they're right or left. Trump performed zero magic, all he did was throw money at it and send the bill to the entire country instead of the local people that refuse to fix their own problems. If you want to expand the Federal government into your city, that's great, but pay for it yourself. 

mvd61 wrote:

The google says local and state law enforcement costs $140 billion annually. Do you think the govt could cut back on some other programs to cover...

The google says local and state law enforcement costs $140 billion annually. Do you think the govt could cut back on some other programs to cover this?

byke wrote:

They could, but it could also be zero sum, meaning that every $1 you reduce from X program means you need to add $1 to law...

They could, but it could also be zero sum, meaning that every $1 you reduce from X program means you need to add $1 to law enforcement, plus you have to think about the ongoing expenses the more people you house in prison. But, if you think about our history as a timeline over the last 250 years, the idea of spending on crime prevention began just 100 years ago in one city and it would take many decades for it to slowly expand. That means we've had 150 years of working on crime from the reactionary side only, in reality more like 200+ years in most of the country, and it's not like the budget was much to speak of. Really only in the last 40 years or so has that spending been turned up nationally, but guess what? Crime has been in slow decline for the last 35 years. 

Crime prevention seems to be working, but it's not working fast enough to keep pace with our societal development and we're losing our patience for it. Was crime going to start going down regardless of that spending due to other factors? Would it have improved at a faster rate had that crime prevention spending simply gone entirely into law enforcement? Is there a proactive/reactive imbalance and taking a little from the proactive side to give to the reactive side the answer? I don't know. I also hate crime and especially can't stand violent scumbags harming decent people, so I definitely feel the temptation to use a bigger hammer, but I do know that historically when people give into those feelings, bad things can happen. 

I'm actually okay to try whatever, because that's how we learn, or in this case more like re-learn, but the right-vs-left programming is fatal to problem solving. It means that none of it will be well thought and everything will be weaponized, which means nobody actually cares about these problems. When people simply blame the Democrats or Republicans particularly for such broad and complex problems like crime, which by the way we have yet to solve in 250 years no matter who is in charge, they're expressing the exact same corruption that we see from politicians.

soggy wrote:

What is a neutral source?  One of the RW tricks is to say anything they don’t agree with is compromised by LW influence. 

matt.3150 wrote:

A good source I like is ground news , we see what right, central, and left news sights say. Then you can get a clear picture...

A good source I like is ground news , we see what right, central, and left news sights say. Then you can get a clear picture of how each is trying to influence the agenda and see what are the facts. Router, BBC, NPR. The RW will say the left is doing something that the RW is actually doing.  RW will try and take credit for thing the left did right.

LoudLove wrote:

Let’s face it: the last 10 years have been built in labeling anything that doesn’t fit the narrative as “fake news”. Dig around long enough and...

Let’s face it: the last 10 years have been built in labeling anything that doesn’t fit the narrative as “fake news”. Dig around long enough and you’re sure to find data to support an argument. Or vice versa. 

A claim was made that 60%+ of SNAP benefits were paid to immigrants. A counter argument was made, and rather than support the original thesis, the counter’s source was questioned.  That might work in the world of fake news, but doesn’t work in the real world. 

matt.3150 wrote:

Dunning–Kruger–Defense Mode
 Someone with low knowledge overestimates their understanding.
 When confronted with actual expertise, they insult the expert instead of evaluating the information.

 

 

R66 wrote:

Who opened the border up and told us it was ok? Democrats. Who embraces cashless bail? Democrats. 

byke wrote:

I know why you got downvotes, but I'm liking this because we should all support posts that are factually correct and your post is factually correct.

mvd61 wrote:

The google says local and state law enforcement costs $140 billion annually. Do you think the govt could cut back on some other programs to cover...

The google says local and state law enforcement costs $140 billion annually. Do you think the govt could cut back on some other programs to cover this?

byke wrote:

They could, but it could also be zero sum, meaning that every $1 you reduce from X program means you need to add $1 to law...

They could, but it could also be zero sum, meaning that every $1 you reduce from X program means you need to add $1 to law enforcement, plus you have to think about the ongoing expenses the more people you house in prison. But, if you think about our history as a timeline over the last 250 years, the idea of spending on crime prevention began just 100 years ago in one city and it would take many decades for it to slowly expand. That means we've had 150 years of working on crime from the reactionary side only, in reality more like 200+ years in most of the country, and it's not like the budget was much to speak of. Really only in the last 40 years or so has that spending been turned up nationally, but guess what? Crime has been in slow decline for the last 35 years. 

Crime prevention seems to be working, but it's not working fast enough to keep pace with our societal development and we're losing our patience for it. Was crime going to start going down regardless of that spending due to other factors? Would it have improved at a faster rate had that crime prevention spending simply gone entirely into law enforcement? Is there a proactive/reactive imbalance and taking a little from the proactive side to give to the reactive side the answer? I don't know. I also hate crime and especially can't stand violent scumbags harming decent people, so I definitely feel the temptation to use a bigger hammer, but I do know that historically when people give into those feelings, bad things can happen. 

I'm actually okay to try whatever, because that's how we learn, or in this case more like re-learn, but the right-vs-left programming is fatal to problem solving. It means that none of it will be well thought and everything will be weaponized, which means nobody actually cares about these problems. When people simply blame the Democrats or Republicans particularly for such broad and complex problems like crime, which by the way we have yet to solve in 250 years no matter who is in charge, they're expressing the exact same corruption that we see from politicians.

mvd61 wrote:

Lots of good questions Byke. I don’t have any answers. Maybe that’s why I’m just a vehicle repair man. I put the bolts in the holes...

Lots of good questions Byke. I don’t have any answers. Maybe that’s why I’m just a vehicle repair man. I put the bolts in the holes and hopefully tighten them up. 

byke wrote:

They could, but it could also be zero sum, meaning that every $1 you reduce from X program means you need to add $1 to law...

They could, but it could also be zero sum, meaning that every $1 you reduce from X program means you need to add $1 to law enforcement, plus you have to think about the ongoing expenses the more people you house in prison. But, if you think about our history as a timeline over the last 250 years, the idea of spending on crime prevention began just 100 years ago in one city and it would take many decades for it to slowly expand. That means we've had 150 years of working on crime from the reactionary side only, in reality more like 200+ years in most of the country, and it's not like the budget was much to speak of. Really only in the last 40 years or so has that spending been turned up nationally, but guess what? Crime has been in slow decline for the last 35 years. 

Crime prevention seems to be working, but it's not working fast enough to keep pace with our societal development and we're losing our patience for it. Was crime going to start going down regardless of that spending due to other factors? Would it have improved at a faster rate had that crime prevention spending simply gone entirely into law enforcement? Is there a proactive/reactive imbalance and taking a little from the proactive side to give to the reactive side the answer? I don't know. I also hate crime and especially can't stand violent scumbags harming decent people, so I definitely feel the temptation to use a bigger hammer, but I do know that historically when people give into those feelings, bad things can happen. 

I'm actually okay to try whatever, because that's how we learn, or in this case more like re-learn, but the right-vs-left programming is fatal to problem solving. It means that none of it will be well thought and everything will be weaponized, which means nobody actually cares about these problems. When people simply blame the Democrats or Republicans particularly for such broad and complex problems like crime, which by the way we have yet to solve in 250 years no matter who is in charge, they're expressing the exact same corruption that we see from politicians.

mvd61 wrote:

Lots of good questions Byke. I don’t have any answers. Maybe that’s why I’m just a vehicle repair man. I put the bolts in the holes...

Lots of good questions Byke. I don’t have any answers. Maybe that’s why I’m just a vehicle repair man. I put the bolts in the holes and hopefully tighten them up. 

byke wrote:

You recognize problems, understand their systems, repair them, and verify the repair. That type of mindset combined with being genuine and ideologically driven, is really all...

You recognize problems, understand their systems, repair them, and verify the repair. That type of mindset combined with being genuine and ideologically driven, is really all there is to it. No individual is an expert in sociology, philosophy, political science, constitutional law, economics, biology, etc. etc. The job is just about problem solving and then you bring in experts to help understand the specifics. We could probably use more vehicle repair men in congress. It's the courage to get involved that's the hard part, especially today, because....enjoy ur death threats. 

Spooner wrote:

What is kinda funny is now that they are getting to see the unredacted files they are seeing that Trump obviously ordered a massive coverup (shocking...

What is kinda funny is now that they are getting to see the unredacted files they are seeing that Trump obviously ordered a massive coverup (shocking, I know).  Talk about illegal orders..

Kenny Banyan wrote:

Most, pretty much knew those indictments wouldn’t stick. Trump and  Pereiro probably knew they wouldn’t stick either. Just wanted to rattle their cages and it must...

Most, pretty much knew those indictments wouldn’t stick. Trump and  Pereiro probably knew they wouldn’t stick either. Just wanted to rattle their cages and it must have because they seemed to have shut up during the process. I had forgotten all about it. I personally do think what they did was wrong, and sets a precedent that this country shouldn’t go down.

Kenny Banyan wrote:

Most, pretty much knew those indictments wouldn’t stick. Trump and  Pereiro probably knew they wouldn’t stick either. Just wanted to rattle their cages and it must...

Most, pretty much knew those indictments wouldn’t stick. Trump and  Pereiro probably knew they wouldn’t stick either. Just wanted to rattle their cages and it must have because they seemed to have shut up during the process. I had forgotten all about it. I personally do think what they did was wrong, and sets a precedent that this country shouldn’t go down.

Kenny Banyan wrote:

Most, pretty much knew those indictments wouldn’t stick. Trump and  Pereiro probably knew they wouldn’t stick either. Just wanted to rattle their cages and it must...

Most, pretty much knew those indictments wouldn’t stick. Trump and  Pereiro probably knew they wouldn’t stick either. Just wanted to rattle their cages and it must have because they seemed to have shut up during the process. I had forgotten all about it. I personally do think what they did was wrong, and sets a precedent that this country shouldn’t go down.

Freddy99 wrote:

Mark Kelly hasn't shut up about it at all. Thankfully he's not afraid of the epstein party.