• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

LAPD DELIBERATELY shoots an Aussie Reporter with a rubber bullet

That cop will now be promoted and will be the next head of security in Washington.
They will put on desk duty with a hearing before IAD. Their fate will be determined at that time.

Most likely demoted or fired.
 
so good, you agree
I don't agree with that statement without a modifier to make clear what is meant, for the reasons I've already described. But if you have to lie about my position to buttress yours, perhaps you should reconsider where you stand.

she was shot by the police.
Possibly the worst thing about the Washington Post's cessation of tracking police shootings is the fact I can't point to the lack of an entry in their database for this incident. THe database is still available, however, so perhaps you can show us where they have a listing of a person who was "shot by police" and the "shooting" was actually a less-lethal round.

because of course if some kid aims a bb gun at you pulls the trigger and hits you, you would complain about being shot.
"...with a BB gun."

you wouldn't put quotes around the word because you were, in fact, shot. duh.
I wouldn't have to because I would always append "with a BB gun" afterward because I want to convey accurate information in a way people will understand what happened. I'm not looking for melodrama.

But you are. Duh.
 
On the other hand, we value her being there and don't ask that she be given special rights other than to be left alone to do her job.
As her job is not standing in the middle of the street, no one was preventing her from doing her job.
 
California cops suck, as a general rule.
 
You see this is the actual problem.

Whether or not there are agitators, it is on the protestors to police themselves or they will be policed.
To simply wave your hands and claim agitators, is an excuse. Excuses aren't a great place to hide, nor do they absolve the responsibility being on those there when trying to promote the 'peaceful' part of a protest.

So it damns the entire protest because the protestors are too (something) to police those who they agree with. Same problem with criminal acts done in public. People would rather grab their camera and film a woman getting beat by her husband than to stand up to the husband.

We are raising and have become a nation full of ******s.
There's policing, and there's overkill-flexing to prove a point. The LA police force is one of the biggest in the US. They are quite capable of policing events like this themselves, without bringing in the NG and Marines-the chief of police has made that clear. For a few hundred demonstrators that is 100% overkill and an entirely unnecessary show of force.

 
There's policing, and there's overkill-flexing to prove a point. The LA police force is one of the biggest in the US. They are quite capable of policing events like this themselves, without bringing in the NG and Marines-the chief of police has made that clear. For a few hundred demonstrators that is 100% overkill and an entirely unnecessary show of force.

Apply that to Jan 6th ...
or CHAZ in Seattle.

The above opinion is all based in subjective feels, and likely bias, based in the fact that you support the stated goals of the 'protestors/rioters'.

The LAPD may very well be the biggest. They are the also still the biggest WITHOUT an additional 100 arrests a day due to these protest/riots. 100 arrest in a day, over and above their normal might very well be overwhelming.

Granted, I would still likely listen to those on the ground. Chief, officers, business owners etc.
 
Like I said, I support deporting illegal aliens, including people with outstanding deportation orders or who agree to be deported. We did that before Obama became president and lit the fire under a migrant invasion by offering humanitarian parole to hundreds of thousand of Latin Americans. So if that’s 10% of LA, then 10% of LA should be deported until we change the law. Because we have limited resources, we should start with the illegal criminal aliens LA refuses to hold on immigration detainers. I mean, is it really that hard for liberals to understand that we’re a supposed to be a nation of laws and should follow them?
Maybe, in your fervour to deport people, you might stop to consider and ask yourself why Trump thinks it's fine to employ illegal immigrants; to build Trump tower, to work at his golf resorts, Mar-a-Lago. No double standards there, right?



 
Apply that to Jan 6th ...
or CHAZ in Seattle.

The above opinion is all based in subjective feels, and likely bias, based in the fact that you support the stated goals of the 'protestors/rioters'.

The LAPD may very well be the biggest. They are the also still the biggest WITHOUT an additional 100 arrests a day due to these protest/riots. 100 arrest in a day, over and above their normal might very well be overwhelming.

Granted, I would still likely listen to those on the ground. Chief, officers, business owners etc.
Oh, you mean like the brain-dead redneck thugs Trump pardoned?
 
Oh, you mean like the brain-dead redneck thugs Trump pardoned?
Yep. And also like the ones the Democrats/Harris was stumping for and funding to get out on bond.

You might not realize it, but you are proving my point that it all comes down to who side you are one. The hypocritical actions are all the same, from either side, all attempted to be justified or excused.
 
Yep. And also like the ones the Democrats/Harris was stumping for and funding to get out on bond.

You might not realize it, but you are proving my point that it all comes down to who side you are one. The hypocritical actions are all the same, from either side, all attempted to be justified or excused.
Explain the "Democrat/Harris" thing please.
 
Maybe, in your fervour to deport people, you might stop to consider and ask yourself why Trump thinks it's fine to employ illegal immigrants; to build Trump tower, to work at his golf resorts, Mar-a-Lago. No double standards there, right?




Okay, I considered it. If, in fact, a handful of the Trump Organization’s 22,450 workers in the construction trades are in the country illegally, which wouldn’t be unusual, they still need to be deported. Instead of blaming a business unit of his company for hiring them, they should have stayed home and gotten in line like everyone else.
 
Okay, I considered it. If, in fact, a handful of the Trump Organization’s 22,450 workers in the construction trades are in the country illegally, which wouldn’t be unusual, they still need to be deported. Instead of blaming a business unit of his company for hiring them, they should have stayed home and gotten in line like everyone else.
Maybe, just maybe, President Double-Standards shouldn't have employed them in the first place? Or was he too stupid to know they were undocumented? Nah, cheap labour was all he cared about. Probably never paid them anyway, as is his habit.
 
Maybe, just maybe, President Double-Standards shouldn't have employed them in the first place? Or was he too stupid to know they were undocumented? Nah, cheap labour was all he cared about. Probably never paid them anyway, as is his habit.

I would excuse him for not knowing the backgrounds of all of his 22,450 workers or personally vetting them. It isn’t unusual for companies in the construction trades to hire illegal workers. But American companies that try to play by the rules are placed at a decided disadvantage, which isn’t right. Do you think that companies that follow the law should just suck it up or go out of business? That American workers who were born here should just accept lower wages, since they have to compete with immigrants who came from nations where people are paid a pittance? I don’t.
 
I would excuse him for not knowing the backgrounds of all of his 22,450 workers or personally vetting them. It isn’t unusual for companies in the construction trades to hire illegal workers. But American companies that try to play by the rules are placed at a decided disadvantage, which isn’t right. Do you think that companies that follow the law should just suck it up or go out of business? That American workers who were born here should just accept lower wages, since they have to compete with immigrants who came from nations where people are paid a pittance? I don’t.
I have yet to find out how the left reconciles its demand for “living wages” with its demand that we retain a permanent illegal underclass that is paid next to nothing because they want cheap labor and goods.
 
I have yet to find out how the left reconciles its demand for “living wages” with its demand that we retain a permanent illegal underclass that is paid next to nothing because they want cheap labor and goods.

Apparently, we’re all hypocrites because we eat vegetables picked by illegal aliens. Maybe the vegetables should be raised hydroponically in a controlled setting, like they do in the Netherlands, where they can be raised with no soil using less pesticide and water but still produce higher crop yields. We may eventually be forced to do that, since many vegetables in the United States are grown in regions were water resources are coming under increased strain, such as the Imperial Valley of Southern California.

 
Back
Top Bottom