• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • 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!

Pritzker: "It breaks my heart to report that we have been told ICE will try to disrupt community picnics and peaceful parades. Let's be clear...

Hello My Son said:
Pritzker is upset about picnics being disrupted? Go figure.

Technically, I think Pritzker's heart has been broken by too many picnics NOT being disrupted.
Click to expand...


How to reduce something to the inane and ridiculous.

Obviously you have no real argument, no come back for what is essentially a racist practice; deflect to an insignificant issue while spewing opinion without even trying to address the issue of freedom of speech and freedom of assembly.

This is not a new tactic, in fact it is detailed rather significantly in a book called "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich"!

Debasing basic human rights is a key plank in the platform of Nazis around the globe.

So very, very predictable.
 
Sandy Shanks said:
Trump intentionally speaks in terms that can be interpreted in different ways. The best way to understand Trump is to pay attention only to what he says, and not interpret what he did not say.

The media has a hard time understanding that simple concept.

Trump wants the media to add meaning to what he says. The media adds controversy to Trump's simple phrases. Trump loves it. There is built-in denial.

Take, for example, the simple phrase, "We're going in," as in “We’re going in. I didn’t say when. We’re going in,” Trump said.

The media interpreted that to mean Trump will deploy the national guard to Chicago.

Trump did not say that.

Politico reports, "President Donald Trump on Tuesday reiterated his administration was “going in” and would deploy the National Guard to Chicago — but did not specify when."

Trump did not mention the national guard during the Q and A today.

Politico explains their interpretation in this way. "Trump has for weeks indicated he was considering Chicago as a future location for his crackdown on crime. His definitive indication Tuesday he would deploy the National Guard is an escalation of past statements.

Politico then repeats "His definitive indication."

“We’re going in. I didn’t say when. We’re going in,” Trump said.

No mention of the national guard, but Trump wanted the media to think Guard. Trump is sending in the predominantly masked ICE cops.
Click to expand...


Americans, all of us, I think give Trump to much credit for intelligence.

If you back up and allow for the possibility he has Alzheimer's-like symptoms AND is very stupid to begin with...everything neatly falls into place. His vocabulary is no more than grade four, his geography is a joke. He has no sense of humor beyond finding other's short comings hilarious.
Further, his speech patterns show a distinct lack of organization, suggesting he cannot maintain a continuous stream of consciousness.
 
The Brad Dad said:
You can tell Pritzker is owning them, Ted Cruz of all people was making fat jokes on Fox.
Click to expand...

Ted Cruz: I don’t want to get between JB Pritzker and the Domino’s pizza line, but I’ll tell you what I am willing to get between: It is him and his open doors for every human trafficker, every drug trafficker, every MS-13 and Tren de Aragua gang member.

JB Pritzker: And I would never want to get between Ted and a trip to Cancun when there’s an emergency in Texas.
 
Lycanthrope said:
Ted Cruz: I don’t want to get between JB Pritzker and the Domino’s pizza line, but I’ll tell you what I am willing to get between: It is him and his open doors for every human trafficker, every drug trafficker, every MS-13 and Tren de Aragua gang member.

JB Pritzker: And I would never want to get between Ted and a trip to Cancun when there’s an emergency in Texas.
Click to expand...
ROFLMAO
 
NolanVoyd said:
Trump is the king of childish insults.

You know that right?

There are like two dozen cities with worse murder rates than chicago and you cant see that this is political?

Astounding.
Click to expand...
Which should be considered worse, a higher murder rate, or sheer number of murders for an area? I'm gonna go with more dead people is worse than less dead people but at a higher rate.
 
Maidenrules29 said:
Which should be considered worse, a higher murder rate, or sheer number of murders for an area? I'm gonna go with more dead people is worse than less dead people but at a higher rate.
Click to expand...
That is a sign of mathmatical illiteracy.

What is worse? 10 murders among 100,000 people, or 50 murders among 2 million people?

Do the math

Ill wait.
 
NolanVoyd said:
That is a sign of mathmatical illiteracy.

What is worse? 10 murders among 100,000 people, or 50 murders among 2 million people?

Do the math

Ill wait.
Click to expand...
I can do math just fine. Would you rather that 2 of your friends were murdered or would you prefer 50? Highlighting rates of crime always comes in handy when we are simply trying to make a particular area look bad or dangerous. Two people were murdered last year in the area I live in. Population around 9000. Is that worse or better than your 50?
 
Maidenrules29 said:
I can do math just fine. Would you rather that 2 of your friends were murdered or would you prefer 50? Highlighting rates of crime always comes in handy when we are simply trying to make a particular area look bad or dangerous. Two people were murdered last year in the area I live in. Population around 9000. Is that worse or better than your 50?
Click to expand...
2 in a population of 9000 is way worse then 50 in a population of 2 million.

You really dont get the math do you?
 
NolanVoyd said:
2 in a population of 9000 is way worse then 50 in a population of 2 million.

You really dont get the math do you?
Click to expand...
The rate is worse. You still dont get it. Do you care about math, or do you care about lives? Let me break it down for you "Barney style". Two scenarios:
1. You live in a town with a population of 9000. In this town you have 100 friends. 2 of them are murdered.
2. You live in a large city of 2 million. 200 friends. 50 are murdered.
Which scenario do you prefer?
 
Maidenrules29 said:
The rate is worse. You still dont get it. Do you care about math, or do you care about lives? Let me break it down for you "Barney style". Two scenarios:
1. You live in a town with a population of 9000. In this town you have 100 friends. 2 of them are murdered.
2. You live in a large city of 2 million. 200 friends. 50 are murdered.
Which scenario do you prefer?
Click to expand...
Lol.

Oh my god you really dont get it.

If you live in a city of 2 million people that had 50 murders chances are you wouldnt know a single one of them.

On the other hand two murders in a town of 9000, chances are you would at least casually no one of them if not both.

To compare apples to apples.......2 murders in a population of 9000 is about 22 per 100,000. 50 in two million is about 2.5 per 100,000


There is a reason that per calita is used if you want to compare apples to apples instead of apples to oranfes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom