Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
www.cbsnews.com
thehill.com
Trump has made it quite fashionable for conservatives to openly support state control over peopleI'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?
I’m not Naïve enough to think that we can get rid of all crime but we can certainly prevent some of it by thinking about the big picture. Understanding where it comes from helps identify root causes and address them before actual events develop. Much of it is socioeconomic but education and community resources and parenting are all huge elements that can only be improved by understanding the roots causesI 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 differYou’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 causesIntelligent 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 incidentsI 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 partisanThe 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?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?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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I think you are underestimating the situation many of these city gvts are in and are overly optimistic of the power of the national guard....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?
Trump has made it quite fashionable for conservatives to openly support state control over peopleI'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?
View attachment 385376
Your party.
7. We demand that the State shall above all undertake to ensure that every citizen shall have the possibility of living decently and earning a livelihood. If it should not be possible to feed the whole population, then aliens (non-citizens) must be expelled from the Reich.Trump has made it quite fashionable for conservatives to openly support state control over peopleI'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?
View attachment 385376
Your party.
I think you are underestimating the situation many of these city gvts are in and are overly optimistic of the power of the national guard....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?
These are cities coming out of lockdown with some as high as 40% of the citizens in inner city, laid off....unemployed, without jobs....with all the time in the world, on their side....
This isn't one of our typical situations with protests..... there is no short term solution, no twinkle the nose, all's good, bewitched solution....imo.
I’m not Naïve enough to think that we can get rid of all crime but we can certainly prevent some of it by thinking about the big picture. Understanding where it comes from helps identify root causes and address them before actual events develop. Much of it is socioeconomic but education and community resources and parenting are all huge elements that can only be improved by understanding the roots causesI 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 differYou’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 causesIntelligent 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 incidentsI 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 partisanThe 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?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?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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Trump has made it quite fashionable for conservatives to openly support state control over peopleI'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?
View attachment 385376
Your party.
Pictures don't lie, go ahead if you don't raise your fist. You will be considered racist. Look at blm's slogan, one hand raised. Also liverals are the most intolerant people alive.Trump has made it quite fashionable for conservatives to openly support state control over peopleI'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?
View attachment 385376
Your party.
I think if your experience for the job, is better than the other person. Than that person should get the job, no matter what color they are. It seems that liberals think that color should get you the job. No matter the experience of the person. That's the problem, see which party is the problem?Trump has made it quite fashionable for conservatives to openly support state control over peopleI'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?
View attachment 385376
Your party.
View attachment 385398
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?
I'll vote for the candidate (Biden) that didn't have convicted criminals all around him every step of the way. Thanks.
And thank you for chiming in with deflection. Try sticking to the topic please.
The topic is crime. Its in the title of your thread doofus.
Your blob surrounded himself with convicted criminals.
No thank you.
Obama/Biden weaponized the CIA, FBI and IRS. That is the ultimate corruption and the quickest way to destroy a country from within.
Yet your blob is the one who surrounded himself with convicted felons.
The leftist always throw a hissy fit and prosecute anyone on the winning side when they lose.
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?
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?
I'll vote for the candidate (Biden) that didn't have convicted criminals all around him every step of the way. Thanks.
I think you are underestimating the situation many of these city gvts are in and are overly optimistic of the power of the national guard....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?
These are cities coming out of lockdown with some as high as 40% of the citizens in inner city, laid off....unemployed, without jobs....with all the time in the world, on their side....
This isn't one of our typical situations with protests..... there is no short term solution, no twinkle the nose, all's good, bewitched solution....imo.
There is no reason for the protests or the riots. A police officer kneeled on some guy who died partly because of it. Mostly he was doped up on deadly narcotics. In any case, the officer was immediately arrested and charged, even before an investigation started yet alone completed.
So what more did they want? Nothing. Using that situation to act like uncivilized animals. Excuses are like assholes, everybody has one. However there are tens of millions out of work today, and they find better things to do with their time than cause problems.
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?
I'll vote for the candidate (Biden) that didn't have convicted criminals all around him every step of the way. Thanks.
You mean hunter biden...the convicted criminal kicked out of the military because of illegal drugs...who got a 1.5 billion dollar deal from the communists in China...flying on his dad's Air Force 2 public transportation to get the deal?
