The lefts movement towards removing deterrents to crime

I've been thinking about this for some time now. The left have called themselves progressives in the past, but now this is evident more than ever. They keep progressing towards removing deterrents to crime. Let's look at it:

*The left consistently tries to remove (or restrict) firearms in the hands of law abiding citizens.

*They have taken the stance that ICE should be dissolved.

*They have created sanctuary cities, and after Trump's election, sanctuary states.

*These riots could have been stopped, or even prevented by liberal Mayors asking the state for National Guard aid, but didn't. Nor did any of them accept the Presidents generous offer to help. Some of these disorders have been going on for months.

*They've long stood against the death penalty. They are fine with killing babies, but not killing murderers or mass murderers.

*They are now trying to defund, or even eliminate their police departments.

*They (Soros) have started organizations to provide bail to rioters who were arrested so they can get out to continue their crime spree.


*They shutdown the government for the longest time in history to prevent the President from building a wall.

So what do all these leftist policies have in common? They are all designed to weaken or remove deterrents to crime. While I understand the left is pretty much void of logic, the question is, what would weakening or removing these deterrents accomplish? The answer is, to promote more illegal activity.

Now that an election is coming up, do you vote for a candidate who's party is for getting rid of deterrents, or do you vote for a candidate that's for deterrents, and even stronger deterrents to help slow down or stop illegal activity?
Youve been thinking on this for a while and that’s all you can come up with?? Can I ask a serious question... have you even tried to consider the other perspective? The reasons why the Left takes the positions that they do? or are you only capable of seeing it through a one sided partisan lens?

It's just the way they think and have for some time now. Between good and evil, the Democrats usually side with evil, and the Republicans with the good. It should be no surprise they want to lessen or remove deterrents for their own people.

What do you mean that's all I could come up with? I gave you eight examples, and there are others. How many more do I need in your opinion to support my point?
The problem is you frame it up like there is good and evil and dems just support evil. Why do you think they support evil Ray? Do you think they are just mentally ill people that in it for themselves or just out to get you?

Why are you asking me why they support evil? Ask them. They're the ones who do. Liberal think:

Law abiding gun owners vs criminals with guns--criminals with guns.
Police vs criminal--criminal.
US military vs foreign enemies--foreign enemies.
ICE vs illegal immigrants--illegal immigrants.
Killing murderers vs killing babies--killing babies.

So like I said, you'll have to ask them why they take these stances.
I dont think they see it as evil. I’m asking you because it’s healthy to try and understand the other perspective when engaging in debate so you can accurately frame your arguments. You don’t display understanding of the other side so your arguments don't sound real they sound partisan

There is nothing to explain. There is a good side and bad side, and the Democrats choose the bad side almost every time. There is nothing to understand about bad except that it is. If somebody rapes a woman walking down the street, why do you need to understand how he feels? He committed a terrible crime and should rot in jail over it.
Intelligent people always seek understanding. Simple minded people get angry and emotional when questioned. To address your example, why not try and understand what drove somebody to rape a woman? Don’t you think understanding the reasoning might help prevent and protect from future incidents

No, but I think a strong enough deterrent can, deterrents Democrats are trying to reduce or eliminate. If somebody has a knife and going to steal my wallet, I don't need to understand why. I just pull my gun and put a few rounds into him. Of course if he suspects that's what I'm going to do, he leaves me alone in the first place.
You’re a simple thinker... nothing wrong with that but you like to address issues as they arise instead of understanding the underlying causes. To fix the larger problem you need to understand the root causes

For what? I don't need to understand anything. I need to stop the action. Even if I understand one persons reason, it doesn't stop the next, or the next after him. You can't extrapolate what might work on one person to the next. They all have different reasons for committing crimes.
I understand that. You address the events in front of you. You don’t like thinking about the bigger picture. That’s fine. That’s also where we differ

It's just that thinking about the bigger picture doesn't do anything. Crime isn't new in this country or most others. We've lived with crime all of our lives. The only thing we can do with crime is fight it.
 
Rittenhouse was looking for trouble
That is total bullshit

giphy (76).gif
 
RADDATZ: I want to go to some specifics on Ukraine. Aug. 20 comes a key conversation you had with President Trump about the security assistance. What exactly did the president say to you?

BOLTON: Well, he directly linked the provision of that assistance with the investigation. My objective here, people in the aftermath, in light of the impeachment investigation thought that those of us like Pompeo and [Mark] Esper and myself should have been sort of junior woodchuck FBI agents looking for evidence of impeachable offenses
 
Trump kneels to Putin
That not advancing American interests. I mean, it's better than sustaining the injury. But it's certainly not advancing the interests. Then, of course, we had the famous press conference. And the equivalency that the president ascribed, he says, because he was misunderstood, to what our intelligence was saying about Russian interference in American elections and Vladimir Putin's denial. It was a stunning moment.

RADDATZ: You said you were frozen in your seat watching that.

BOLTON: I -- I -- I -- I -- I thought I wouldn't get up. I didn't know what to do. And it was -- I describe in the book, we went through a lot of gyrations. And I say -- to try and explain it -- I thought Dan Coats, then the director of national intelligence, was close to resignation
 
MAGA Bomber” Cesar Sayoc was sentenced to 20 years in prison on Monday for sending 16 mail bombs to 13 people around the United States last year, including leading critics of President Donald Trump such as former President Barack Obama, ex-Vice President Joe Biden, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, actor Robert De Niro and financier George Soros.

“I am beyond so very sorry for what I did,” Sayoc said before he was sentenced in U.S. District Court in Manhattan by Judge Jed Rakoff, according to the Courthouse News Service
 

Forum List

Back
Top