• 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

The one where he said he is sure that poster longs for the days when police ignored lynchings.

Police ignoring lynchings was NOT a good thing and I am sure no decent person would do anything but condemn such things that happened.

I still don't get the phrase RACE CARD. What does that supposedly mean?
 
Police ignoring lynchings was NOT a good thing and I am sure no decent person would do anything but condemn such things that happened.

I still don't get the phrase RACE CARD. What does that supposedly mean?

He said, that he was sure said poster longed to returned to those days, a bad faith post implying he was racist.
 
Bubbabgone? No - Bubba-b-wrong!

th
 
He said, that he was sure said poster longed to returned to those days, a bad faith post implying he was racist.

I still don't get the phrase RACE CARD. What does that supposedly mean?
 
your theory is bogus. Trump and gangs are different aspects of the same degradation of civility.

Then why are you so concerned with one organization's violence more than the other's?

Technically, the local, state, and Federal Government's have often tried to claim a monopoly on violence. Not my opinion, look it up in philosophical discussion. For the typical right leaning libertarian the various levels of governments would lose more and more of their disproportionate slice claim in the violence pie. Presumably, the right to bear arms laws in the USA empower more individual Americans with a right to a slice in that violence pie. As opposed to say... the UK or Australia.

I'm not a libertarian, I think ultimately their views are impractical. The most "purest" form of the right leaning libertarian would leave all road construction, fire response, and security to the individual and/or their contractual agreements they arrange with others they voluntarily form a community with and/or contract (capitalism) services with (e.g., private security companies [no need for tax payer funded, government police forces]).

Why might I have a problem with some libertarian views? Well... for example issues of security (which ultimately brings up issues related to has the right to use force and deadly force). Have you heard of the term "failed state"? If not, then look it up. It's not a term nor concept I invented. So, don't penalize me for knoing about, rather ask yourself the introspective honest question why you don't?

I'm confident under the right leaning libertarian model, the "purest" of them, those that achieve good means and wealth will do just fine in forming voluntary communities with strong systems of security. However, in my view those that are poor will fall into a situation like the Brazilian favelas and Colombian and Venezuelan slums. Which became symbols of failed states. Because if you look at Brazil the armed gangs became the security and law in the favelas. The Brazilian police have been for some years now military style invading the favelas and one by one occupying them, freeing them from the violent hoodlums. Although, some left leaning peace activist in Brazil don't think so.

Which brings me back to you and your concern about the police as one organization using violence and less concern about an NGO organization like MS-13 use of violence on civilian Americans. Like for example, if MS-13 soldiers crack a 14 year-old girls head open throwing her into the back of a van they stole.





Brazil was not the only country to become a "failed state." A country you know as Russia was during the 1990s after the fall of the Soviet Union. Do you think either you or Obama would have strolled into Russia during the 1990s, gave a speech from a podium of, "lets all get along," and pulled that nation from out of the violent vice grip of rough and ruthless mafia men? But you all curse the name of Putin but he delivered for Russia what 100 million of you combined have not and can not deliver for the singular City of Chicago. And trust... arguably multiple neighborhoods throughout the USA confirm the United States is a failed state.

One purpose of Government is to ensure the saftey of its citizens, that includes domestically. Which Brazil failed at. Which Russia in the early '90s failed at. Which the United States has failed at in all too many neighborhoods of blacks and Latinos.

An American giving first hand account of what it was like when his college class visited Russia during the 1990s.



Compared to say.... Moscow today:



Compared to what happens when the government allows criminal outfits to become the law, security, in a poor area of a city, then asks the police to battle against them. This movie was taken from a book co-written by a former officer member of BOPE and a Brazilian sociologist. It is true, it is gritty. You know how the armed gangs sentenced you to death in a Brazilian favela? They threw tires around you and lit you on fire. Brazil has tough gun laws by the way. Some how only the gangs, cops, and rich peoples security guards seem to be armed to the teeth.

 
The battle between who claims the right to own a monopoly on violence. Played out in Chicago. Apparently, it would seem, or the impression given, is the video is recorded from a Chicago cop car.






The [English released title] Elite Squad 2 is drawn from--inspired by--real "pacification" that went on in Rio's favelas. It's a fictional movie drawing from elements of real life in Rio. The protagonist has a conversion of heart and philosophy towards the end of the movie (kind of like that ex-cop from Baltimore who also served in US Marine Corps FAST Company). Produced in part by his battle with corruption in the Brazilian political system and within its police force. BOPE is military police but a special unit within the Brazilian military police of Rio. Fast Company is somewhat akin to them (somewhat) but hands down BOPE is superior and arguably the best urban fighters on earth. They see more combat than the LAPD or the Navy SEALs I'm sure. Certainly more than FAST. And almost all--if not all--BOPE's combat is had in not just urban terrain but some of the most intimidating urban terrain on earth (steep, narrow, winding passage ways).

Violence is like say... HIV or the United States opioid epidemic. Particularly with predatory organizations. They won't get smaller, become less a problem if you ignore them. Both Brazil's and the USA's violence problem (actually, it goes back to slavery in both nations and wiping out Amerindians) can be traced back to the crack cocaine wars of the 1980s and early 1990s. In both cases. More specifically with their criminal gangs becoming so murderous. Brazil's also grew out of their apocalyptic prisons (e.g., the "Red Command" gang).



 
Haven't read all the comments in this post, so forgive if this repeats what others have said. When a head of any state suggests that law enforcement should be more violent to those in custody, that is a bad sign, even if said in jest. It should be universally condemned. This applies especially to conservatives who are sensitive to government overreach when it comes to regulation of business, as they should not be indifferent to the arbitrary use of power against private citizens. Law and order applies to the police as well, and to you, Donald.

Thank goodness we have police who are more mature and knowledgeable than our president.
 
To inappropriately inject racial issues into a conversation, closely related to Godwins law. Often used to derail conversation.

To "pull" the race card.

Who decides what is appropriate or inappropriate use of race in an issue?

And where does this so called race card get its power?
 
Who decides what is appropriate or inappropriate use of race in an issue?

And where does this so called race card get its power?

When it is pulled from thin air and was not part of the topic? Innapropriate.
Second question? Appeal to emotion, assuming answer one is the case.
 
When a head of any state suggests that law enforcement should be more violent to those in custody.......

Only........you lie.

He didn't say "those in custody," he said vicious gang members who murder the rest of us.

Big difference.

Stop lying about it. It just makes you look stupid and desperate.

America is getting great again. You better choose whether you're siding with the criminals or with the rest of America.
 
The cops smiling and applauding it was just as disturbing.

Many cops didn't applaud. Some of hose who did applaud looked uncomfortable and may not have meant the polite response they were giving.
 
Only........you lie.

He didn't say "those in custody," he said vicious gang members who murder the rest of us.

Big difference.

Stop lying about it. It just makes you look stupid and desperate.

America is getting great again. You better choose whether you're siding with the criminals or with the rest of America.

You listened selectively. Makes you look stupid and desperate. He also spoke about cops generally when handling people under arrest.
 
You listened selectively. Makes you look stupid and desperate. He also spoke about cops generally when handling people under arrest.

No, he didn't.

You're just taking him out of context to make it seem that way.

You are fake news.
 
I think the real issue is with a sleazy scumbag Trump is
"what" so are you expecting a rash of suspects with bumps on their heads from doorjambs? I revealed my felonious past as an x con here on the forum and I was mercilessly ridiculed by liberals, spare me the BS. Take that crap on the hop.
 
"what" so are you expecting a rash of suspects with bumps on their heads from doorjambs? I revealed my felonious past as an x con here on the forum and I was mercilessly ridiculed by liberals, spare me the BS. Take that crap on the hop.


Trying to defend the president that incites violence would be embarrassing to most people
 
When it is pulled from thin air and was not part of the topic? Innapropriate.
Second question? Appeal to emotion, assuming answer one is the case.

Again, I ask you, this supposed RACE CARD that you claim exists, where does it originate and what exactly gives it powers that its use has impact and effect?

Can you provide me with an example of where you believe this RACE CARD was played here in a discussion and it was "pulled from thin air and was not part of the topic"?
 
So how many cops do you think will be moved to violence by his words? lol

No way to know. Lol. Would be nice to have a President who understood the difference between a "criminal" and a suspect. Lol.
 
Back
Top Bottom