Politics

[Brent in Az]

Nobody is giving up rights by having the National guard on hand. I imagine the average (Normal) citizenry would be glad to have that extra layer of protection.
It's not like they are a bunch of KGB going door to door and pulling people out of their homes.
Outside of D.C, or protecting federal resources, i dont think Trump has the authority to send in the troops willy nilly to blue cities, except in the event of a national emergency?
I personally don't have a problem with anything that makes my community safer. Hell, I'll even buy them a coffee.

The real question, and serious issue, in all of this, is why do democrats embrace crime and lawlessness so much, and protect criminals?

 

[Hank2211]

No one has suggested giving up rights for security. Washington DC is not sovereign state and president Trump is well within his legal authority to clean it up.

I don’t thing there’s anything controversial about the federal government cleaning up a federal jurisdiction. In Los Angeles, he deployed the national guard to support ICE in the legal performance of their duty, again within his federal powers.

No one wants Trump to send the marines in to normal cities to do police work. Both instances have had very narrow deployments in very specific circumstances.

When you see the National Guard performing stop and frisk searches in Manhattan, then your concerns may be justified but that isn’t likely to happen.

To paraphrase Queen Gertrude in Hamnlet, methinks you doth protest too much.

I never said anything about Washington or President Trump. I am a guest in the US (of my wife) at the moment, and polite guests don’t comment on things which are none of their business. And I try to be a polite guest (I’m Canadian, after all).

 

[RLD]

The real question, and serious issue, in all of this, is why do democrats embrace crime and lawlessness so much, and protect criminals?

I don't believe they do. They just believe in different means to solve the problem, and a different balance of power between the state and the individual. Whether they are right is a big question (it doesn't look like their policies work) but I don't think Democrats want crime or lawlessness any more than anyone else.

 

[PARA45]

I don't believe they do. They just believe in different means to solve the problem, and a different balance of power between the state and the individual. Whether they are right is a big question (it doesn't look like their policies work) but I don't think Democrats want crime or lawlessness any more than anyone else.

Then why do the Dems are softer on punishing crime? Why do they promote sanctuary cities, and uncontrolled illegal immigration?

 

[RLD]

Then why do the Dems are softer on punishing crime? Why do they promote sanctuary cities, and uncontrolled illegal immigration?

I expect it is because they don't believe that longer jail sentences will solve the crime problem in the long term, and they believe that illegal immigrants are an essential part of the American economy. I have the impression that Democrats like money and don't want to be mugged just like everyone else. Many of them believe that reform of criminals is the better approach and that solving underlying economic problems is the way to really reduce crime.

The idea that economic issues are the main cause of crime is not a new one, it goes back a ways:

"Poverty is the mother of crime." - Marcus Aurelius.

I don't suggest they are right on those issues, but I think that saying Democrats support crime and lawlessness is just inaccurate demonizing of one's political opponents that doesn't lead anywhere useful.

 

[PARA45]

Just look at every Democrat ran city and see how the crime rate is there compared to one ran by a Republican. That right there should tell you something.

 

[Flipper Dude]

Not every Democrat is a gang banging POS thug, but every gang banging POS thug is a Democrat. ( Only a very slight tilt to hyperbole, if a tilt at all). I’m thinking that they are all for crime and lawlessness.

 

[Brent in Az]

I don't believe they do. They just believe in different means to solve the problem, and a different balance of power between the state and the individual. Whether they are right is a big question (it doesn't look like their policies work) but I don't think Democrats want crime or lawlessness any more than anyone else.

Spoken like a true leftist

 

[steve white]

I consider one metric of a country "going down the toilet" to be gun ownership in the general populace. Extra points if that is a result of government confiscation. I sure think about the statistics concerning dictatorial regimes in the past who have "disarmed the populace for their own good" before holocausting them.
YMMV

 

[Aaron N]

Spoken like a true leftist

How is someone stating how he thinks the left views things, and ALSO stating that he doesn’t believe their policies are working, being a true leftist?

 

[deewayne2003]

I expect it is because they don't believe that longer jail sentences will solve the crime problem in the long term, and they believe that illegal immigrants are an essential part of the American economy. I have the impression that Democrats like money and don't want to be mugged just like everyone else. Many of them believe that reform of criminals is the better approach and that solving underlying economic problems is the way to really reduce crime.

The idea that economic issues are the main cause of crime is not a new one, it goes back a ways:

"Poverty is the mother of crime." - Marcus Aurelius.

I don't suggest they are right on those issues, but I think that saying Democrats support crime and lawlessness is just inaccurate demonizing of one's political opponents that doesn't lead anywhere useful.

Because modern Democrats are the party of the perpetual victim and criminals are the victims of the military industrial complex, alt right, fascist regime, patriarchy, racist, oppression monster that only the Democrats can save society from...... This is the foundation of the savior complex seen in many leftists especially those who are over educated and born into wealth.

These are the people who think that every criminal can be reformed - This is false, some commit crimes out of desperation, addiction or just flat out screwed up in life. Others are stone cold predators and have no intention of ever rehabilitating what so ever.

The savior complex is actually rooted in racism, but your average leftist cannot wrap their head around it; they simply believe that all these poor (insert minority/under privileged class) can only be saved by them...... The often white and overly educated(largely liberal arts) saviors of the poor that are oppressed by the evil conservatives.

But this is false - Just look at the state of Louisiana, a Democrat strong hold for generations that raised one of the biggest ghettos(New Orleans wards) in the western hemisphere, has a deep culture of political corruption and has for generations, not to mention one of the most brutal prisons in America - Angola.

 

[RLD]

I consider one metric of a country "going down the toilet" to be gun ownership in the general populace. Extra points if that is a result of government confiscation. I sure think about the statistics concerning dictatorial regimes in the past who have "disarmed the populace for their own good" before holocausting them.
YMMV

On that metric Canada has some significant problems.

It's been quite a bit of a clown show in that regard recently. There is "in theory" a new mandated government buy back program for certain types of firearms in Canada, but the federal government, despite several tenders, has not been able to find any company capable of carrying out the program.

Then some brainiac decided, "oh we can just have the post office carry out the collection of the firearms" to which the union of postal employees said "get stuffed we won't do that!" They didn't much like the idea of thousands of angry gun owners being forced to bring their guns to the post office to turn them in. "Going postal" indeed.

So, for the moment, the plan is just a mess and pretty much stuck in neutral.

 

[Rocked and Loaded]

To paraphrase Queen Gertrude in Hamnlet, methinks you doth protest too much.

I never said anything about Washington or President Trump. I am a guest in the US (of my wife) at the moment, and polite guests don’t comment on things which are none of their business. And I try to be a polite guest (I’m Canadian, after all).

I based my response on this comment of yours.

“Oddly, at least to me, is that it used to be the left which suggested that people should give up some personal freedom in exchange for security, and the right which resisted that.”

If I misinterpreted what you were referring to with that comment, then I apologize.

 

[RLD]

Because modern Democrats are the party of the perpetual victim and criminals are the victims of the military industrial complex, alt right, fascist regime, patriarchy, racist, oppression monster that only the Democrats can save society from...... This is the foundation of the savior complex seen in many leftists especially those who are over educated and born into wealth.

These are the people who think that every criminal can be reformed - This is false, some commit crimes out of desperation, addiction or just flat out screwed up in life. Others are stone cold predators and have no intention of ever rehabilitating what so ever.

The savior complex is actually rooted in racism, but your average leftist cannot wrap their head around it; they simply believe that all these poor (insert minority/under privileged class) can only be saved by them...... The often white and overly educated(largely liberal arts) saviors of the poor that are oppressed by the evil conservatives.

But this is false - Just look at the state of Louisiana, a Democrat strong hold for generations that raised one of the biggest ghettos(New Orleans wards) in the western hemisphere, has a deep culture of political corruption and has for generations, not to mention one of the most brutal prisons in America - Angola.

I think you are pretty much right on all of that.

But I don't think you can discount the role of a healthy economy, and good job and educational opportunities being critical to long term crime reduction. If you look at say, drug use and associated crime amongst formerly stable populations in the rust belt, you see those problems getting much worse as economic conditions worsened.

I also think that "victim culture" is a road to tragedy for everybody. It is self defeating and creates entitlement mindsets. But that problem is longer just a problem of the left. The MAGA movement dons the sacred mantle of "victimhood" just as much as The Squad, just for different people. It is a destructive political tool no matter who wields it.

Despite current dislike for "neocons" I mourn the loss of Reagan-Thatcher conservatism with a strong intellectual foundation built by people like George Will.

 

[mdwest]

Despite current dislike for "neocons" I mourn the loss of Reagan-Thatcher conservatism with a strong intellectual foundation built by people like George Will.

The issue with people associated with being neocons is similar in my opinion to the issue associated with the left..

to the earlier point.. no one, left or right, wants unsafe streets or wants a broken economy, etc.. the issues are often a matter of where does a groups focus lay (far left folks are far more focused on DEI, LBGTQ+, and a host of other things and have limited concern about the economy, crime, etc.. those "core" issues are often an afterthought), or they are a matter of "how" a group intends on getting to the common goal (safe streets, good educational opportunities, strong economy, etc)..

Foundationally, what a modern day / current time frame neocon wants is very, very similar to what we saw from the common conservative during the Reagan-Thatcher time frame (Reagan himself being an early "neocon", or at least very heavily supported by early neocons)...

neocons want a strong national defense... they want interventionalist foreign policy for the purpose of promoting democracy.. they want a very proactive approach to international affairs... a neocon favors free market economics, traditional values, and very limited government in domestic affairs..

Where the groups (old school neocons vs current) diverge in the methodologies used to obtain those goals.. Id guess most modern neocons believe they are still trying to achieve the same things Reagan wanted to achieve, and that if Reagan were President today, that he'd still be a "neocon" (I on the other hand am not so sure that would be true)..

20 years ago I was a direct report to one of the most recognized "neocons" in US politics at that time.. he actually studied directly under Strauss at the Univ of Chicago, who is often associated as someone foundational to the neocon movement .. and completed his dissertation under Albert Wohlstetter, another academic that is considered foundational to the neocon movement.. (not too terribly hard to figure out who this person is if you do some googling or know much about US politics in the 80's, 90's, and early 2000's)..

as a neocon, he very much believed he was in pursuit of the same things Reagan wanted for the US.. In fact this person entered into US politics during the Carter Administration and had been a registered democrat his entire life... after seeing the failures of the Carter Administration from the inside, and getting a much better view of the direction the D party was going, he switched sides and became an extreme Reagan loyalist... he however also believed that many of methodologies used by the Reagan administration were flawed, and that new direction was needed to achieve the things that Reagan and his team envisioned for our country.. which led him down the 90's - 2000's version of the neocon path..

 

[RLD]

The issue with people associated with being neocons is similar in my opinion to the issue associated with the left..

to the earlier point.. no one, left or right, wants unsafe streets or wants a broken economy, etc.. the issues are often a matter of where does a groups focus lay (far left folks are far more focused on DEI, LBGTQ+, and a host of other things and have limited concern about the economy, crime, etc.. those "core" issues are often an afterthought), or they are a matter of "how" a group intends on getting to the common goal (safe streets, good educational opportunities, strong economy, etc)..

Foundationally, what a modern day / current time frame neocon wants is very, very similar to what we saw from the common conservative during the Reagan-Thatcher time frame (Reagan himself being an early "neocon", or at least very heavily supported by early neocons)...

neocons want a strong national defense... they want interventionalist foreign policy for the purpose of promoting democracy.. they want a very proactive approach to international affairs... a neocon favors free market economics, traditional values, and very limited government in domestic affairs..

Where the groups (old school neocons vs current) diverge in the methodologies used to obtain those goals.. Id guess most modern neocons believe they are still trying to achieve the same things Reagan wanted to achieve, and that if Reagan were President today, that he'd still be a "neocon" (I on the other hand am not so sure that would be true)..

20 years ago I was a direct report to one of the most recognized "neocons" in US politics at that time.. he actually studied directly under Strauss at the Univ of Chicago, who is often associated as someone foundational to the neocon movement .. and completed his dissertation under Albert Wohlstetter, another academic that is considered foundational to the neocon movement.. (not too terribly hard to figure out who this person is if you do some googling or know much about US politics in the 80's, 90's, and early 2000's)..

as a neocon, he very much believed he was in pursuit of the same things Reagan wanted for the US.. In fact this person entered into US politics during the Carter Administration and had been a registered democrat his entire life... after seeing the failures of the Carter Administration from the inside, and getting a much better view of the direction the D party was going, he switched sides and became an extreme Reagan loyalist... he however also believed that many of methodologies used by the Reagan administration were flawed, and that new direction was needed to achieve the things that Reagan and his team envisioned for our country.. which led him down the 90's - 2000's version of the neocon path..

That is so cool, we probably have some friends in common. You don't happen to know Karna Small Bodman do you? She worked in that Whitehouse for some time and her and her husband are two of the smartest, most gracious people you ever want to meet.

Knowing that a guy like you is repping them I now have to take a long hard look at Bos en Dal for my next Safari.

On the political side, I am very much a strong defense/interventionalist person. I think the world gets less safe as democracies retreat.

 

[Wheels]

I have a feeling there are going to be fires in a number of fireplaces across the DC metro during the middle of summer this weekend.

Exclusive | FBI raids ex-national security adviser John Bolton’s home in classified documents probe: ‘NO ONE is above the law’

Federal agents raided Bolton’s house in Bethesda, Md., from 7 a.m. in an investigation ordered by FBI Director Kash Patel.

nypost.com

 

[Wheels]

That’s a good thing, no question at all.

But . . . what would you trade - or give up - in exchange for that kind of safety?

I understand your sentiment and share it too.

Trump is the chief law enforcement officer of DC. So I have no problems. If this was unilaterally done in a city in a state I would have issues.

Federal law enforcement on the ground in LA a couple months ago is a bit different issue since the locals were stopping and physically attacking federal officers as they were trying to perform their duties. This becomes the grey area in my simple mind.

 

[mdwest]

That is so cool, we probably have some friends in common. You don't happen to know Karna Small Bodman do you? She worked in that Whitehouse for some time and her and her husband are two of the smartest, most gracious people you ever want to meet.

Knowing that a guy like you is repping them I now have to take a long hard look at Bos en Dal for my next Safari.

On the political side, I am very much a strong defense/interventionalist person. I think the world gets less safe as democracies retreat.

I met Karna once, but only briefly.. and I am 100% certain she wouldnt remember me at all.. I was likely the smallest player in the room at the time lol (while I was a direct report to a pretty "big fish".. my role was as a "support" player, best seen, but not heard in a public setting )...

I only spent a few years in DC.. but it was a pretty enlightening period of time... I definitely got a completely different perspective on politics by being able to be close to someone that was considered to be extremely influential to the party in power at the time... its definitely a weird, almost surreal environment most of the time.. the sort of stuff that you'd think only happened in hollywood creations, but is often "real" lol..

 

[Scott CWO]

I expect it is because they don't believe that longer jail sentences will solve the crime problem in the long term, and they believe that illegal immigrants are an essential part of the American economy. I have the impression that Democrats like money and don't want to be mugged just like everyone else. Many of them believe that reform of criminals is the better approach and that solving underlying economic problems is the way to really reduce crime.

The idea that economic issues are the main cause of crime is not a new one, it goes back a ways:

"Poverty is the mother of crime." - Marcus Aurelius.

I don't suggest they are right on those issues, but I think that saying Democrats support crime and lawlessness is just inaccurate demonizing of one's political opponents that doesn't lead anywhere useful.

Illegal immigration’s purpose was to stack the deck in the US Census population figures by which representation in Congress is realigned. Some idiots decided that non-citizens should be considered for the Congressional seats in the House of Representatives. Wake up, people.