• 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!

Rough em' Up

Paperview said:
International Association of Chiefs of Police responds to Trump's remarks about police use of force:
DF2ZYmlXgAErl90.jpg
Click to expand...

Then what is Black Lives Matter complaining about or this former cop slash former Marine? (One thing he states is not entirely accurate, that FAST Company which he served in is "special ops." Albeit, he's intelligent enough that I know he could make a reasonable argument to me face-to-face that they, and in a sense he is right I suppose).


Ex Baltimore cop Michael Wood gives brutally honest interview on the Joe Rogan Experience 1/2
Click to expand...

Really, I think police brutality was a bigger problem--and more socially acceptable--back in the 1940s and '50s USA.

As for me I agree with much of the ex-cop former Jarhead in the video and simultaneously I agree with Trump to an extent (depending on context). In terms of setting an image and tone towards violent hoodlums I think Trump is not making a bad strategic move. He's kinder in his diction and tone towards the American predator than I would be. But you can't solve everything with violence. Helps to give people a better option, a reasonable reason to take a path towards less violence, something they can have gratitude for. Rather than option of being predators. Otherwise, violence, fear, brutality, and incarceration only works so long and comes back to bite you as eventually it makes a younger generation of your opponents meaner and more violent, and they won't be fearing prison.

#1 Like the ex-cop says is to end the Drug War. Secondly, you have to rebuild hope in peoples lives, improving infrastructure and taking a fiscally liberal policy like Northern European countries and Britain have. Possibly the best option is to slash welfare programs and to give everyone at x age (16 or 18 or 20) a Basic Income whether they are rich, middle-class, or poor. Maybe you stipulate if they are convicted of a violent felony crime they loose their Basic Income not only in prison but for x number of years after they are released from prison. You see... they have a little something to be grateful for then. Also increased levels of freedom to make a wider range of choices.

You have to set a a hard and firm tone with predators but more especially organizations of predators. There is nothing wrong as a Mayor of a City or President of a country making them think you are willing to erase any future genetic contribution they can make to the gene pool. That you are willing to amass so many of their bodies on the streets that the UN will demand you be brought up on genocide charges.
 
haymarket said:
The point being that you support an authoritarian mentally defective bully who is a great danger to the American people and their Constitutional rights.

Happy to make it. :2wave:
Click to expand...

So when all else fails, attack. SOP hay.

:violin
 
holbritter said:
No. He is not. Typical spin. He is talking about the gang members who are brutally killing people.
Click to expand...


your assertion that gang members needn't protect the heads of those they arrest when stuffing them is nutso.
 
haymarket said:
Yes -I got it right.

btw - you don't have a point other than your belief in an authoritarian who pisses in the face of our Constitution and our rights.
Click to expand...

IMO, a gang member who has just brutally raped and/or killed someone, like he was CLEARLY referring to, has no rights.

It's good to know you sympathize with these animals.
 
holbritter said:
Not at all. Learn the definition of a quote.
Click to expand...


you arent on topic and you are confused. the quote isnt mine, I just repeated it. reread the link this time for comprehension. this is about the dumbass in chief inciting police brutality boy are you off base.
 
SonOfDaedalus said:
Intellectually sound people understand that people who are arrested are SUSPECTS who have a right to DUE PROCESS.

A test of your rationality:

1. Are people taken into custody guilty?
2. Does it make sense to brutalized suspects BEFORE their trial?
3. Does it ever make sense to brutalize suspects?

Now it's time for you to reflect deeply on why you rare not rational or intellectually honest.
Click to expand...

Rational and intellectually capable people understand the Presidents comments were not a call to violate suspects rights, nor to "brutalize" them.

Those who can be triggered on command are demonstrably deficient in those measures, which explains why they are echoing what they have been told to think.
 
ocean515 said:
Rational and intellectually capable people understand the Presidents comments were not a call to violate suspects rights, nor to "brutalize" them.

Those who can be triggered on command are demonstrably deficient in those measures, which explains why they are echoing what they have been told to think.
Click to expand...


bullcrap
 
What if...? said:
I was referring to the campaign speech where he told attendees he'd pay their legal fees for roughing up protesters.

So it demonstrates his attitude toward people he doesn't approve of. That violence against them is appropriate.

So it is logical that he meant "be violent" in this latest speech.
Click to expand...

Only logical to those triggered to believe it so.

To the majority of people who can think on their own, no such call was made.
 
katzgar said:
your assertion that gang members needn't protect the heads of those they arrest when stuffing them is nutso.
Click to expand...

What? Do you read what you write before hitting the post button? That's a dishonest and asinine statement.
 
What if...? said:
Sorry.

I disagree. Sounds exactly like condoning brutality.

In a country that is proud of "innocent until proven guilty".

In context.

Preceded by gleeful disregard of due process.
Click to expand...

You are free to create your own reality, or the one created for you.
 
holbritter said:
IMO, a gang member who has just brutally raped and/or killed someone, like he was CLEARLY referring to, has no rights.

It's good to know you sympathize with these animals.
Click to expand...

Where in the Constitution do you find that language?
 
katzgar said:
bringing gangs into a thread about trump inciting police brutality is about as pointless as I have ever seen on these forums. stop digging!
Click to expand...

What you don't get is that is EXACTLY what he was referring to when he said what what he said.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom