Stacey Abrams adviser said burning police car, smashing windows isn't 'violence' after anti-cop chaos

[quip]

This is little more than putting words in my mouth so you can construct your strawman argument.

Sure. No more than your own strawman characterization of the left.

My conclusion is that you are just trolling. Have fun with that, but leave me out of it, you can do that on your own, if you feel that you must.

If by leisurely "trolling" you mean exposing your partisan nonsense for what it is...then I'm guilty as charged. Else, you seem to be grasping at exit strategies.

 

[OrphanSlug]

This "advisor" is a complete dipshit, perhaps it is not so bad that Abrams lost in GA... again.

 

[eohrnberger]

Sure. No more than your own strawman characterization of the left.

Except the left is constantly redefining language to their political advantage and / or their idiotic 'woke' ideology.

The most recent example:

Updated: The AP Stylebook says the word 'the' is 'dehumanizing' -- and tries to slink away from its tweet

That virtue-signaling paragon of writing excellence, the AP Stylebook, recently tweeted: “We recommend avoiding general and often dehumanizing ‘the’ labels such as the poor, the mentally ill, the French, the disabled, the college-ed...

www.americanthinker.com

Further support of their stupidity:

Stylebook change: capitalize 'black' but not 'white' when referring to race

The AP Stylebook is the standard for writing news articles, professional articles, and term papers. It addresses capitalization, punctuation, headlines, grammar, formatting, and so on. Apparently, it also influences the culture war. On Friday, Juneteenth, the Associated Press announced on...

www.independentsentinel.com

Safe to say that it is a fact that the left is constantly redefining language to their political advantage and / or their idiotic 'woke' ideology.

If by leisurely "trolling" you mean exposing your partisan nonsense for what it is...then I'm guilty as charged. Else, you seem to be grasping at exit strategies.

To my mind it's more a case of making inflammatory assertions and statements without the inability, or even attempt, at supporting them with any citations. Basically just trash talk.

If you've got a point to make, being a political discussion board, you should at least be able to back them up, support them, with citations. You've given none. The conclusion that you are just a trash talking troll is not unfounded.

 

[ElChupacabra]

For people new on the force, they are probably afraid of incurring the wrath or enmity of a more senior officer during a particular apprehension of a suspect.

Yep, but we've seen this dynamic with experienced officers as well.

If a criminal wants to acquire a gun, from what I have read, if you have enough money to get one illegally, you can get one easily.
Out thousands of gun laws around the country cannot prevent criminals get getting guns illegally for illegal purposes.

It's not just about having enough money, but being able to acquire one at retail cost from a neighboring state with laxer laws than others. There will always be some kind of black market around banned items, but we're not even close to that alone being the way someone can acquire a weapon fairly easily. The most optimistic I can get about national gun laws is that it will make it less easy to go to bordering states to acquire firearms, but that's far from the solution.

National federal gun control laws are nothing more than a band aid or simply a way to shut up the gun control zealots who really believe the federal government can do something about mass shootings in a country with 400 million guns (estimated).

Now I wait for the poster to come back with:
"So, we're supposed to just stand back and let mass shootings continue?".

What's challenging is trying to communicate a solution to a problem that's multifaceted. Outside of accessibility, the core problem is that so many people opt to resolve conflicts using firearms, and that requires a much more complex solution(s) that are not as simple as just banning guns. From my perspective, reducing the access to weapons just tries to weed out the obviously problematic people and limits the kind of weapons the public as a whole can access. This does not address the people who are perfectly fine mentally when they purchase a weapon, but then at some point in their life have a situation that has them trying to kill people with their firearms. There isn't a one size fits all solution, but that seems to leave people who want to maintain the gun access status quo with little else than just "thoughts and prayers" when firearm deaths occur.

 

[quip]

Except the left is constantly redefining language to their political advantage and / or their idiotic 'woke' ideology.

The most recent example:

Updated: The AP Stylebook says the word 'the' is 'dehumanizing' -- and tries to slink away from its tweet

That virtue-signaling paragon of writing excellence, the AP Stylebook, recently tweeted: “We recommend avoiding general and often dehumanizing ‘the’ labels such as the poor, the mentally ill, the French, the disabled, the college-ed...

www.americanthinker.com

Further support of their stupidity:

Stylebook change: capitalize 'black' but not 'white' when referring to race

The AP Stylebook is the standard for writing news articles, professional articles, and term papers. It addresses capitalization, punctuation, headlines, grammar, formatting, and so on. Apparently, it also influences the culture war. On Friday, Juneteenth, the Associated Press announced on...

www.independentsentinel.com

Safe to say that it is a fact that the left is constantly redefining language to their political advantage and / or their idiotic 'woke' ideology.

Likewise, the right chronically ignore inconvenient facts which beget the relentless need to be awakened.

To my mind it's more a case of making inflammatory assertions and statements without the inability, or even attempt, at supporting them with any citations. Basically just trash talk. If you've got a point to make, being a political discussion board, you should at least be able to back them up, support them, with citations. You've given none. The conclusion that you are just a trash talking troll is not unfounded.

You've made my point for me, then doubled down on it. Nothing's left to demonstrate or discuss.

 

[eohrnberger]

Likewise, the right chronically ignore inconvenient facts which beget the relentless need to be awakened.

LOL. You've made a joke.

You've made my point for me, then doubled down on it. Nothing's left to demonstrate or discuss.

Continue your trolling without me, by all means, you be you.

 

[quip]

LOL. You've made a joke.

Wow! You keep making my case. Carry on.

Continue your trolling without me, by all means, you be you.

Where's the enjoyment in that?

 

[jaypatriot]

Yep, but we've seen this dynamic with experienced officers as well.


It's not just about having enough money, but being able to acquire one at retail cost from a neighboring state with laxer laws than others. There will always be some kind of black market around banned items, but we're not even close to that alone being the way someone can acquire a weapon fairly easily. The most optimistic I can get about national gun laws is that it will make it less easy to go to bordering states to acquire firearms, but that's far from the solution.


What's challenging is trying to communicate a solution to a problem that's multifaceted. Outside of accessibility, the core problem is that so many people opt to resolve conflicts using firearms, and that requires a much more complex solution(s) that are not as simple as just banning guns. From my perspective, reducing the access to weapons just tries to weed out the obviously problematic people and limits the kind of weapons the public as a whole can access. This does not address the people who are perfectly fine mentally when they purchase a weapon, but then at some point in their life have a situation that has them trying to kill people with their firearms. There isn't a one size fits all solution, but that seems to leave people who want to maintain the gun access status quo with little else than just "thoughts and prayers" when firearm deaths occur.

"thoughts and prayers" along with "we are grieving along with the victim's families' and "we're waiting from a call from Biden" to tell us what the federal government is going to do about mass shootings.
For those who follow Meet the Press and are familiar with Chuck Todd's 'gotcha' questions, he tried to get Jim Jordan (House Investigations Committee) to say something about new Federal Laws to help the mass shooting problem. Jordan did not bite. He said that is up to the states. After all, just what can the Federal Govt do to stop mass shootings? Take illegal guns away from criminals? With 400 million guns in the country does anyone thing the government going to come in and confiscate weapons? That's the states' job to enforce the thousands of gun laws already on the books.
People foolishly think the government can pass laws to stop mass shootings.
Well, everyone needs hope in one form or another.

 

[ElChupacabra]

"thoughts and prayers" along with "we are grieving along with the victim's families' and "we're waiting from a call from Biden" to tell us what the federal government is going to do about mass shootings.
For those who follow Meet the Press and are familiar with Chuck Todd's 'gotcha' questions, he tried to get Jim Jordan (House Investigations Committee) to say something about new Federal Laws to help the mass shooting problem. Jordan did not bite. He said that is up to the states. After all, just what can the Federal Govt do to stop mass shootings? Take illegal guns away from criminals? With 400 million guns in the country does anyone thing the government going to come in and confiscate weapons? That's the states' job to enforce the thousands of gun laws already on the books.
People foolishly think the government can pass laws to stop mass shootings.
Well, everyone needs hope in one form or another.

Thinking laws alone will stop mass shootings is way too optimistic, but doing as much as can be done to vet the people obtaining weapons is something that might help, though it's hardly a fool proof system. Funding more mental care is also something that can be done legislatively, so it's not entirely out of the government's ability to do something to help.

 

[Variant]

"thoughts and prayers" along with "we are grieving along with the victim's families' and "we're waiting from a call from Biden" to tell us what the federal government is going to do about mass shootings.
For those who follow Meet the Press and are familiar with Chuck Todd's 'gotcha' questions, he tried to get Jim Jordan (House Investigations Committee) to say something about new Federal Laws to help the mass shooting problem. Jordan did not bite. He said that is up to the states. After all, just what can the Federal Govt do to stop mass shootings? Take illegal guns away from criminals? With 400 million guns in the country does anyone thing the government going to come in and confiscate weapons? That's the states' job to enforce the thousands of gun laws already on the books.
People foolishly think the government can pass laws to stop mass shootings.
Well, everyone needs hope in one form or another.

If the government can do nothing, then why isn't this a problem everywhere?

The problem is of course is the folks like Jim Jordan who pretend they can do nothing because they don't want to do anything.

It's exactly what you want to see out of people who fight like rabid animals to obtain positions of power and responsibility.

Blaming others, saying there's nothing to be done and calling problems intractable messes that they don't have the first idea how to deal with.

What you are describing is incompetence and corruption.

 

[jaypatriot]

What you are describing is incompetence and corruption

You are suggesting there is incompetence and corruption in our government? '
Well, here's our chance to be in agreement.

Jim Jordan is a political animal. It's called fighting for political power. Pelosi was good at it. How good will McCarthy be?

Are you surprised at what is going on now between the two parties?

 

[Variant]

You are suggesting there is incompetence and corruption in our government? '
Well, here's our chance to be in agreement.

Jim Jordan is a political animal. It's called fighting for political power. Pelosi was good at it. How good will McCarthy be?

Are you surprised at what is going on now between the two parties?

No, I'm not surprised, but rather numb to this sort of thing.

I'm just saying that the exchange you cited was an example of a craven political animal doing what he can to not do his job, which is why I think our problems in this sphere are much worse than they ought to be.

There isn't "nothing to be done" though, that is simply a lie to escape responsibility, clearly all of this can be done better, but we might not have the right ideas, or the people in leadership, in place to actually do it.

 

[jaypatriot]

No, I'm just saying that the exchange you cited was an example of a craven political animal doing what he can to not do his job, which is why I think our problems in this sphere are much worse than they ought to be.

You could be right. It really depends on who (or which party) has the political power, right?
Mr. Bipartisan and the Compromisor in the White House is already showing he is a craven political animal by telling everyone he is not willing to negotiate on the debt limit.
Who is the more craven animal? Biden, Jordan, or McCarthy?

That's a rhetorical question without an answer.

 

[Variant]

You could be right. It really depends on who (or which party) has the political power, right?

It doesn't seem to depend on that to me. Both parties have been in power over the course of this problems evolution and neither has changed it's course.

Mr. Bipartisan and the Compromisor in the White House is already showing he is a craven political animal by telling everyone he is not willing to negotiate on the debt limit.
Who is the more craven animal? Biden, Jordan, or McCarthy?

That's a rhetorical question without an answer.

In terms of the debt limit it is already an exercise in craven politics for folks who don't want to pass difficult budgets using the main power of congress but rather an attempt to hold the entire economy hostage to bleed concessions.

 

[jaypatriot]

It doesn't seem to depend on that to me. Both parties have been in power over the course of this problems evolution and neither has changed it's course.



In terms of the debt limit it is already an exercise in craven politics for folks who don't want to pass difficult budgets using the main power of congress but rather an attempt to hold the entire economy hostage to bleed concessions.

Looks like you are indicting both political parties.
Which makes sense in times like these.

 

[Variant]

Looks like you are indicting both political parties.
Which makes sense in times like these.

I might lay blame more on individuals or parties as being more responsible, but I'm not going to pretend that overall failures on this don't fall on everyone involved.

Nor is it correct to say that people who are trying to "do something" about a problem necessarily have all the answers, or even the right ones, are making the best arguments to convince people, have done their best not to alienate potential allies, or are not simply engaging in bad politics themselves.

If actual improvements are the goal and thus the product of virtue, and If I thought people I tend to agree with on policy were so virtuous, then where is the evidence of all that virtue?

At the end of the day things are as they are, and if I don't like them, it doesn't make sense to simply blame everything on the "other". That kind of lazy lack of self awareness is part of the problem too.