Minnesota Officer Who Shot Daunte Wright Meant to Fire Taser

19,668 Views | 660 Replies | Last: 12 days ago by hokiewolf
IseWolf22
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Civilized said:

Fo sho, and what I was trying to say albeit with awkward grammar. Edited mine for clarity.

Dems are what they are (taxers and spenders) but Pubs need a return to more fiscal conservatism. A party of compassionate fiscal conservatives would crush it in this country over the next 20 years as *more* liberal ideologies on topics like LGBTQ rights clearly tip towards broad mainstream acceptance. Pubs can't be George Bush's family values party from 2004 for the next generation.

There are a ton of people in this country that aren't Puritans socially but also with whom the identity politics of the left don't resonate. The right needs to stop defining themselves as anti-woke and anti-immigration and really drive home what they believe in in "pro-" whatever terms from a marketing standpoint.

They bring back women and the majority of independents if they can figure that out.
Eh, I think Republicans actually need to return to the "compassionate conservatism" espoused by Bush. Bush was awful on debt and Iraq was mismanaged at virtually every level of leadership. However, Bush was very pro-immigrant and continues to be one of the few voices on the right really sticking up for immigration. He was also the champion of PEPFAR, possibly one of the most successful foreign aid programs of all time, estimated to have saved ~19 million lives. He's still extremely popular in Africa.
wilmwolf80
How long do you want to ignore this user?
It's shocking to me, though it shouldn't be, the number of celebrities tweeting who don't think a person wielding a knife should justify deadly force. I don't care if knife fights were common where you grew up (which I've seen multiple people indicate, we are trying to normalize ****ing knife fights now, ***?), a knife is a deadly weapon, and shooting someone who is trying to stab another person is totally justified. If that girl hadn't been trying to stab the other girls, she would be alive today. Plain and simple. Systemic racism, police brutality, no other buzz word had anything to do with her death. Perhaps if the other people around had been proactive in stopping her instead of standing around, the police would've never even been there.
Just A Guy
cowboypack02
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Packman1970 said:

The athletes here at NCSU should really read these forums....
Actually I'm all for them reading what I write. I'd also love to sit and debate with any of them who are interested in a conversation
ncsualum05
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I think we can all agree that most of these police shooting cases that make news over the last few years have turned out to be the police doing their job and being forced to act. They're not targeting and gunning down black people like that idiot Lebron and all the celebrities and media want you to believe. I think most of us also believe that Chauvin was guilty and out of line. It was beyond obvious. I feel like justice is served in these case more often than people realize.

BUT.... we can never have a good conversation in America outside of this message board. Because idiots like Lebron and Alyssa Milano and thousand others including media figures, politicians, etc want to perpetuate this lie that we are some kind of irredeemable racist country that targets people of color. Nothing could be further from the truth.

On top of that you have one side advocating for the rioting so we can't even come to a consensus in this country that it's bad to burn businesses to the ground and hurt people.
cowboypack02
How long do you want to ignore this user?
James Henderson said:

Packchem91 said:

^BTW, so in the Columbus case, using James' solution...a white cop drives up on the situation...and stops, backs away, and waits for a black cop to show up? And if someone gets killed by the suspect, well, thats just the risk we take to avoid having Lebron and Biden call us racist?


No in James scenario a white cop never shows up. A black cop does and if someone gets shot than no one thinks it's because of skin color.
You guys have it all wrong.....we won't have anything but black cops eventually.

What will happen is that the same people who are yelling about white cops being racist will start to tell that white people are racist because they don't allow the black cops to police them....and that will be without understanding the irony of the situation and what they are complaining about
Civilized
How long do you want to ignore this user?
packgrad said:

The right isn't anti immigration. False narrative.

So they're proudly pro-immigration? What Republican legislators are championing that stance?

Again this is a marketing issue.

George Bush, a former president that's not very active in politics, has gotten more headlines in the last week for his smart immigration push than any politician on the right since...well, since himself when he was president 13 years ago. Bush's recent push is newsworthy because nobody else on the right is publicly saying the things he's saying and hasn't for years.

Who else on the right is really hammering home smart immigration policies?

Trump pushed the conversation in the direction of the wall, Mexican criminals and rapists, and a Muslim ban. He was proud of his hard-line stances and inflammatory rhetoric.

In contrast Bush is stepping up and telling Congress to tone down the divisive Trump-era rhetoric, respect immigrants with their words and policies, and create pathways to citizenship via bipartisan immigration reform.

There's a leadership vacuum on the right with immigration. Bush may have to take on the role of reluctant leader of the right's smart immigration push. Nobody else seems to be willing to deviate from the immigration trajectory Trump established.
packgrad
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Civilized said:

packgrad said:

The right isn't anti immigration. False narrative.

So they're proudly pro-immigration? What Republican legislators are championing that stance?

Again this is a marketing issue.

George Bush, a former president that's not very active in politics, has gotten more headlines in the last week for his smart immigration push than any politician on the right since...well, since himself when he was president 13 years ago. Bush's recent push is newsworthy because nobody else on the right is publicly saying the things he's saying and hasn't for years.

Who else on the right is really hammering home smart immigration policies?

Trump pushed the conversation in the direction of the wall, Mexican criminals and rapists, and a Muslim ban. He was proud of his hard-line stances and inflammatory rhetoric.

In contrast Bush is stepping up and telling Congress to tone down the divisive Trump-era rhetoric, respect immigrants with their words and policies, and create pathways to citizenship via bipartisan immigration reform.

There's a leadership vacuum on the right with immigration. Bush may have to take on the role of reluctant leader of the right's smart immigration push. Nobody else seems to be willing to deviate from the immigration trajectory Trump established.


Ok. Using your logic, the left is defund the police then. You can stop your grandstanding saying it is a minority opinion in the party. The loudest people are for defund the police. It's a marketing problem.

Trump wasn't anti immigration either, but please continue perpetuating leftist myths.
pineknollshoresking
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Glasswolf said:

I really don't think race played a part in George Floyds killing. I think it was a bad cop on a power trip. Once Floyd was cuffed and on his face he could have placed his knee 18" to the right in the middle of his back. George Floyd would have lived another day and Chauvin would be free today.

And yes I have family that are cops. Both have said what Chauvin did was out of line
Glass, I agree with most of what you are saying. I don't think moving the knee is necessary if he doesn't keep the damn thing on him so long.

I wish the police were able to carry feet shackles. Chauvin could get him down, place a knee wherever necessary, another police officer could shackle the feet, then get the hell off him.

Floyd wouldn't be able to go anywhere and the police could handle the situation differently. Thats the same with the Timpa video.
Civilized
How long do you want to ignore this user?
IseWolf22 said:

Civilized said:

Gopack80 said:

Civilized said:

Gopack80 said:

When are we going to stop talking about the issues of policing and talk about the deep-rooted cultural issues that perpetuate the behavior of many of these people? Or is talk about personal accountability and responsibility still off limits?

Why wouldn't we keep talking about both of them until their status is satisfactory?

We can have concurrent conversations but there's no reason to condition one based on the status of the other.

I don't know anyone on the left talking about the latter. That discussion is completely one sided.



No it's not. That discussion just doesn't make MSM headlines. That doesn't mean it's not out there.

Decreasing gang violence, decreasing gun violence, increasing mentorship, reducing poverty, increasing educational and job opportunities all get discussed politically, in academia, and in the community.

They're definitely not the blaring MSM headlines though.
Solving crime and poverty is something that every government in the world wishes they had an answer to. There are lots of activists that work on these issues as their life's work, including in places like Chicago. Just because mainstream media ignores this type of stuff, it doesn't mean it's not also a major issue that people work to address.
Very much agree.

The disconnect to overcome, as evidenced by the societal microcosm that this message board is, is that many folks feel like the responsibility for solving crime and poverty falls to the impoverished and the criminals, and that they can overcome these challenges via "personal responsibility."
James Henderson
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Staff
pack95 said:

James Henderson said:

pack95 said:

Packchem91 said:

James Henderson said:

Packchem91 said:

^BTW, so in the Columbus case, using James' solution...a white cop drives up on the situation...and stops, backs away, and waits for a black cop to show up? And if someone gets killed by the suspect, well, thats just the risk we take to avoid having Lebron and Biden call us racist?


No in James scenario a white cop never shows up. A black cop does and if someone gets shot than no one thinks it's because of skin color.
Well chalk me up as not wanting to live in your town. The day I have to be exposed to further danger because I have to wait for a white cop is sad beyond belief.

Just clean up the policing of people. Quit busting heads because you can. And for god's sake, don't endanger even more people to build in your layer of segregation

And for the record, I don't know if race played a part in the Floyd case or not. Only one person can say whether Chauvin would have treated me or you the same way he did Floyd given otherwise similar circumstances. I tend to agree it was just a powerhungry cop who acted badly. But I do believe with all my conviction, that there are tremendous examples of black people being singled out by police for no good reason....and believe that is likely much more prevalent than the other way around.


Ditto on not wanting to live in James' town. That may be the most asinine scenario I have ever heard. I'm in danger, but don't send a cop of another color.
Brother, my scenario is trying to protect you from racist cops.

Hire more cops, make them readily available. Try to figure out what to do with non-white/black citizens. This is IMO the easiest way to eliminate racism that's supposed to lead to police brutality.


So, how many black cops are you going to have to employ in Chicago and Detroit to make this happen? How you going to pay for it?
You employ enough and you make it worth it financially. Cops should be making a lot more money as is given everything they have to deal with.

If you increase pay, you likely increase the pool of cops.

I guess my question for you would be how many black cops do you employ in I guess cities you'd perceive to be more "white" than Chicago/Detroit?
pineknollshoresking
How long do you want to ignore this user?
IseWolf22 said:

Eh, I think Republicans actually need to return to the "compassionate conservatism" espoused by Bush. Bush was awful on debt and Iraq was mismanaged at virtually every level of leadership. However, Bush was very pro-immigrant and continues to be one of the few voices on the right really sticking up for immigration. He was also the champion of PEPFAR, possibly one of the most successful foreign aid programs of all time, estimated to have saved ~19 million lives. He's still extremely popular in Africa.
Republicans are compassionate conservative!!!!!

They care about Americans first!!!!

Sorry, your misguided view on the world doesn't understand what true Republicans are. Not the retail Republican! The true Conservative Republican!!!

You are not one, so, you wouldn't know. I suggest asking questions of True Conservatives, in order to get the real understanding of the views.
James Henderson
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Staff
pack95 said:

James Henderson said:

pack95 said:

Packchem91 said:

James Henderson said:

Packchem91 said:

^BTW, so in the Columbus case, using James' solution...a white cop drives up on the situation...and stops, backs away, and waits for a black cop to show up? And if someone gets killed by the suspect, well, thats just the risk we take to avoid having Lebron and Biden call us racist?


No in James scenario a white cop never shows up. A black cop does and if someone gets shot than no one thinks it's because of skin color.
Well chalk me up as not wanting to live in your town. The day I have to be exposed to further danger because I have to wait for a white cop is sad beyond belief.

Just clean up the policing of people. Quit busting heads because you can. And for god's sake, don't endanger even more people to build in your layer of segregation

And for the record, I don't know if race played a part in the Floyd case or not. Only one person can say whether Chauvin would have treated me or you the same way he did Floyd given otherwise similar circumstances. I tend to agree it was just a powerhungry cop who acted badly. But I do believe with all my conviction, that there are tremendous examples of black people being singled out by police for no good reason....and believe that is likely much more prevalent than the other way around.


Ditto on not wanting to live in James' town. That may be the most asinine scenario I have ever heard. I'm in danger, but don't send a cop of another color.
Brother, my scenario is trying to protect you from racist cops.

Hire more cops, make them readily available. Try to figure out what to do with non-white/black citizens. This is IMO the easiest way to eliminate racism that's supposed to lead to police brutality.


And racism is not the problem! Send a black cop to my defense any time; I welcome it.
To you racism isn't a problem. It seems a lot of people tend to think racism is why cops are shooting/killing citizens so I think they believe it is an issue.
Civilized
How long do you want to ignore this user?
packgrad said:

Civilized said:

packgrad said:

The right isn't anti immigration. False narrative.

So they're proudly pro-immigration? What Republican legislators are championing that stance?

Again this is a marketing issue.

George Bush, a former president that's not very active in politics, has gotten more headlines in the last week for his smart immigration push than any politician on the right since...well, since himself when he was president 13 years ago. Bush's recent push is newsworthy because nobody else on the right is publicly saying the things he's saying and hasn't for years.

Who else on the right is really hammering home smart immigration policies?

Trump pushed the conversation in the direction of the wall, Mexican criminals and rapists, and a Muslim ban. He was proud of his hard-line stances and inflammatory rhetoric.

In contrast Bush is stepping up and telling Congress to tone down the divisive Trump-era rhetoric, respect immigrants with their words and policies, and create pathways to citizenship via bipartisan immigration reform.

There's a leadership vacuum on the right with immigration. Bush may have to take on the role of reluctant leader of the right's smart immigration push. Nobody else seems to be willing to deviate from the immigration trajectory Trump established.


Ok. Using your logic, the left is defund the police then. You can stop your grandstanding saying it is a minority opinion in the party. The loudest people are for defund the police.


Defunding the police is demonstrably unpopular politically, even on the left. You hear about it a lot though.

Are you saying reducing inflammatory rhetoric on immigration and creating a path to citizenship is actually popular on the right, and the MSM just doesn't pick up on it?

How popular is it then?

What legislators are currently supporting it?
Civilized
How long do you want to ignore this user?
pineknollshoresking said:

IseWolf22 said:

Eh, I think Republicans actually need to return to the "compassionate conservatism" espoused by Bush. Bush was awful on debt and Iraq was mismanaged at virtually every level of leadership. However, Bush was very pro-immigrant and continues to be one of the few voices on the right really sticking up for immigration. He was also the champion of PEPFAR, possibly one of the most successful foreign aid programs of all time, estimated to have saved ~19 million lives. He's still extremely popular in Africa.
Republicans are compassionate conservative!!!!!

They care about Americans first!!!!

Sorry, your misguided view on the world doesn't understand what true Republicans are. Not the retail Republican! The true Conservative Republican!!!

You are not one, so, you wouldn't know. I suggest asking questions of True Conservatives, in order to get the real understanding of the views.

What proportion of self-identified Republicans are True Conservatives?
pineknollshoresking
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Civilized said:

IseWolf22 said:



Solving crime and poverty is something that every government in the world wishes they had an answer to. There are lots of activists that work on these issues as their life's work, including in places like Chicago. Just because mainstream media ignores this type of stuff, it doesn't mean it's not also a major issue that people work to address.
Very much agree.

The disconnect to overcome, as evidenced by the societal microcosm that this message board is, is that many folks feel like the responsibility for solving crime and poverty falls to the impoverished and the criminals, and that they can overcome these challenges via "personal responsibility."
You guys are smoking your pipes, pontificating on the next academic way to solve all of America's ills...

  • Stop the Globalist agenda of any money is good money as expressed by most on Wall Street (they vote for Democrats)
  • Get China's money out of America (seize the assets if you have too)
  • Constantly communicate a role of responsibility for all, including your example above in Chicago
  • Build the wall - America First (real Compassionate Conservatism)
  • Re-work the immigration system to allow for quicker and easier citizenship. Control the numbers coming in
  • Lower taxes and regulation

Doing those things, America will start (this will take 10+ years) to see a positive outcome for all people... A financial change for the impoverished will lead (will take time) lower crime. We just started that in 2016 and you guys (and your MSM cohorts) ran his ass off...
packgrad
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Civilized said:

packgrad said:

Civilized said:

packgrad said:

The right isn't anti immigration. False narrative.

So they're proudly pro-immigration? What Republican legislators are championing that stance?

Again this is a marketing issue.

George Bush, a former president that's not very active in politics, has gotten more headlines in the last week for his smart immigration push than any politician on the right since...well, since himself when he was president 13 years ago. Bush's recent push is newsworthy because nobody else on the right is publicly saying the things he's saying and hasn't for years.

Who else on the right is really hammering home smart immigration policies?

Trump pushed the conversation in the direction of the wall, Mexican criminals and rapists, and a Muslim ban. He was proud of his hard-line stances and inflammatory rhetoric.

In contrast Bush is stepping up and telling Congress to tone down the divisive Trump-era rhetoric, respect immigrants with their words and policies, and create pathways to citizenship via bipartisan immigration reform.

There's a leadership vacuum on the right with immigration. Bush may have to take on the role of reluctant leader of the right's smart immigration push. Nobody else seems to be willing to deviate from the immigration trajectory Trump established.


Ok. Using your logic, the left is defund the police then. You can stop your grandstanding saying it is a minority opinion in the party. The loudest people are for defund the police.


Defunding the police is demonstrably unpopular politically, even on the left. You hear about it a lot though.

Are you saying reducing inflammatory rhetoric on immigration and creating a path to citizenship is actually popular on the right, and the MSM just doesn't pick up on it?

How popular is it then?

What legislators are currently supporting it?


Are you back pedaling from saying the right is anti immigration? Using your logic, the right is against ibuprofen because they are against illegal drugs. For someone who wants "good faith arguments" you lack intellectual honesty in your partisan rants.
pineknollshoresking
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Civilized said:

pineknollshoresking said:

IseWolf22 said:

Eh, I think Republicans actually need to return to the "compassionate conservatism" espoused by Bush. Bush was awful on debt and Iraq was mismanaged at virtually every level of leadership. However, Bush was very pro-immigrant and continues to be one of the few voices on the right really sticking up for immigration. He was also the champion of PEPFAR, possibly one of the most successful foreign aid programs of all time, estimated to have saved ~19 million lives. He's still extremely popular in Africa.
Republicans are compassionate conservative!!!!!

They care about Americans first!!!!

Sorry, your misguided view on the world doesn't understand what true Republicans are. Not the retail Republican! The true Conservative Republican!!!

You are not one, so, you wouldn't know. I suggest asking questions of True Conservatives, in order to get the real understanding of the views.

What proportion of self-identified Republicans are True Conservatives?
Well, if 74M voted for Trump in 2020, then I would say north of 50%. BTW, that's the best question you have...
pineknollshoresking
How long do you want to ignore this user?
packgrad said:

Civilized said:

packgrad said:




Ok. Using your logic, the left is defund the police then. You can stop your grandstanding saying it is a minority opinion in the party. The loudest people are for defund the police.


Defunding the police is demonstrably unpopular politically, even on the left. You hear about it a lot though.

Are you saying reducing inflammatory rhetoric on immigration and creating a path to citizenship is actually popular on the right, and the MSM just doesn't pick up on it?

How popular is it then?

What legislators are currently supporting it?


Are you back pedaling from saying the right is anti immigration? Using your logic, the right is against ibuprofen because they are against illegal drugs. For someone who wants "good faith arguments" you lack intellectual honesty in your partisan rants.
packgrad, the bolded statement above speaks volumes about Civ and really most liberals.

Who gives a rats ass if something is unpopular politically. Either a person supports it or not. Its their core belief!! Screw Politics!!!
packgrad
How long do you want to ignore this user?
More abolition and defunding of the police cries from the left.



I wonder how the right's position would be "marketed" by the media and the left if there were protests, sit ins, and lines of cars honking horns in protest of the border crisis created by Biden's immigration platform.
TheStorm
How long do you want to ignore this user?
packgrad said:

More abolition and defunding of the police cries from the left.



I wonder how the right's position would be "marketed" by the media and the left if there were protests, sit ins, and lines of cars honking horns in protest of the border crisis created by Biden's immigration platform.
They would call it racist.
hokiewolf
How long do you want to ignore this user?
pineknollshoresking said:

Civilized said:

IseWolf22 said:



Solving crime and poverty is something that every government in the world wishes they had an answer to. There are lots of activists that work on these issues as their life's work, including in places like Chicago. Just because mainstream media ignores this type of stuff, it doesn't mean it's not also a major issue that people work to address.
Very much agree.

The disconnect to overcome, as evidenced by the societal microcosm that this message board is, is that many folks feel like the responsibility for solving crime and poverty falls to the impoverished and the criminals, and that they can overcome these challenges via "personal responsibility."
You guys are smoking your pipes, pontificating on the next academic way to solve all of America's ills...

  • Stop the Globalist agenda of any money is good money as expressed by most on Wall Street (they vote for Democrats)
  • Get China's money out of America (seize the assets if you have too)
  • Constantly communicate a role of responsibility for all, including your example above in Chicago
  • Build the wall - America First (real Compassionate Conservatism)
  • Re-work the immigration system to allow for quicker and easier citizenship. Control the numbers coming in
  • Lower taxes and regulation

Doing those things, America will start (this will take 10+ years) to see a positive outcome for all people... A financial change for the impoverished will lead (will take time) lower crime. We just started that in 2016 and you guys (and your MSM cohorts) ran his ass off...
I disagree with your point on controlling the numbers coming in. There should be no control other than the process for legal immigration, otherwise you will continue to see a black market that creates the issues you are now seeing on the boarder.
TheStorm
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Numbers have always been controlled... otherwise you get what you have now. Chaos.
hokiewolf
How long do you want to ignore this user?
No, what you have now is because US immigration policy has been geared towards limiting the amount of people who are allowed to immigrate legally into the country and therefore also trying to regulate a black market at the same time. You can't regulate black markets. Therefore you have to open up more legal avenues without a controlling cap.

If you did that, you would choke off the black market and you would also most likely reduce the number of persons trying to immigrate into the US.

I used to have your thinking, but I've changed my stance. I have zero issue with anyone wanting to come here legally to try and improve their quality of life.

For example when there was less control in legal immigration, someone could cross illegally with a coyote for around $800. Today, with the numbers of legal immigration tightly controlled, it costs $10,000 to cross illegally.

It's simple supply and demand.
IseWolf22
How long do you want to ignore this user?
pineknollshoresking said:

IseWolf22 said:

Eh, I think Republicans actually need to return to the "compassionate conservatism" espoused by Bush. Bush was awful on debt and Iraq was mismanaged at virtually every level of leadership. However, Bush was very pro-immigrant and continues to be one of the few voices on the right really sticking up for immigration. He was also the champion of PEPFAR, possibly one of the most successful foreign aid programs of all time, estimated to have saved ~19 million lives. He's still extremely popular in Africa.
Republicans are compassionate conservative!!!!!

They care about Americans first!!!!

Sorry, your misguided view on the world doesn't understand what true Republicans are. Not the retail Republican! The true Conservative Republican!!!

You are not one, so, you wouldn't know. I suggest asking questions of True Conservatives, in order to get the real understanding of the views.
Compassionate conservatism is a niche philosophy within conservatism and has not been mainstream on the right since Bush.

There is no such thing as a "True Republican", "True Conservative", "True Democrat", etc. The definitions of each change over time as evidence by Trump changing core parts of Republican orthodoxy.
Civilized
How long do you want to ignore this user?
packgrad said:

Civilized said:

packgrad said:

Civilized said:

packgrad said:

The right isn't anti immigration. False narrative.

So they're proudly pro-immigration? What Republican legislators are championing that stance?

Again this is a marketing issue.

George Bush, a former president that's not very active in politics, has gotten more headlines in the last week for his smart immigration push than any politician on the right since...well, since himself when he was president 13 years ago. Bush's recent push is newsworthy because nobody else on the right is publicly saying the things he's saying and hasn't for years.

Who else on the right is really hammering home smart immigration policies?

Trump pushed the conversation in the direction of the wall, Mexican criminals and rapists, and a Muslim ban. He was proud of his hard-line stances and inflammatory rhetoric.

In contrast Bush is stepping up and telling Congress to tone down the divisive Trump-era rhetoric, respect immigrants with their words and policies, and create pathways to citizenship via bipartisan immigration reform.

There's a leadership vacuum on the right with immigration. Bush may have to take on the role of reluctant leader of the right's smart immigration push. Nobody else seems to be willing to deviate from the immigration trajectory Trump established.


Ok. Using your logic, the left is defund the police then. You can stop your grandstanding saying it is a minority opinion in the party. The loudest people are for defund the police.


Defunding the police is demonstrably unpopular politically, even on the left. You hear about it a lot though.

Are you saying reducing inflammatory rhetoric on immigration and creating a path to citizenship is actually popular on the right, and the MSM just doesn't pick up on it?

How popular is it then?

What legislators are currently supporting it?


Are you back pedaling from saying the right is anti immigration? Using your logic, the right is against ibuprofen because they are against illegal drugs. For someone who wants "good faith arguments" you lack intellectual honesty in your partisan rants.

No.

I'm asking you to tell me which Republican legislators are championing paths to citizenship the way George Bush is.
Packchem91
How long do you want to ignore this user?
packgrad said:

More abolition and defunding of the police cries from the left.



I wonder how the right's position would be "marketed" by the media and the left if there were protests, sit ins, and lines of cars honking horns in protest of the border crisis created by Biden's immigration platform.
This is the exact challenge the right faces in many of its "human-focused" battles. The L controls the narrative (for most part) and more importantly most of its views are "for the protection of people" --- with one amazingly different exception that I can think of

Just think about it:
Immigration -- R hates foreigners, wants none of them here. L loves people of all colors, backgrounds, so let them all in, and heck, let them stay here even when they've done bad, so lets never tell the INS about them.

Gay marriage -- R hates gay people. L loves everyone, love who you want, where and how you want, and then for sure tell us all about it, and put it in a commercial

Police strength / action -- R hates people of color ,and so one acting up should be shot (nevermind that more white people get killed by police every year -- I mean, realistically who even knows that); L thinks we should just listen to Lebron and let people be people. Never harm a criminal (except Chauvin, whom we should harm very much).

Abortion -- R -- they are live, we should keep them so. L -- its ok to kill them right up to the 9th month, and then lets go have a parade to "celebrate our rights".


Sure...I've exaggerated the points here, but ultimately, its much easier, and more marketable, to just let people do anything they want. To do otherwise, would be to offend someone. Or limit them....and we can't have people being limited from acting any way they want (as long as it is similar to what I believe)
IseWolf22
How long do you want to ignore this user?
hokiewolf said:

No, what you have now is because US immigration policy has been geared towards limiting the amount of people who are allowed to immigrate legally into the country and therefore also trying to regulate a black market at the same time. You can't regulate black markets. Therefore you have to open up more legal avenues without a controlling cap.

If you did that, you would choke off the black market and you would also most likely reduce the number of persons trying to immigrate into the US.

I used to have your thinking, but I've changed my stance. I have zero issue with anyone wanting to come here legally to try and improve their quality of life.

For example when there was less control in legal immigration, someone could cross illegally with a coyote for around $800. Today, with the numbers of legal immigration tightly controlled, it costs $10,000 to cross illegally.

It's simple supply and demand.
Yep, people come here because there is demand, both our businesses seeking their labor and their desire to start over in a more stable country. Immigrants are great and we should make legal immigration as easy as possible so that we have full record of everyone. We have a slowly aging population and the only way to keep things like SS from completely imploding is brining in more young workers.
Packchem91
How long do you want to ignore this user?
IseWolf22 said:

hokiewolf said:

No, what you have now is because US immigration policy has been geared towards limiting the amount of people who are allowed to immigrate legally into the country and therefore also trying to regulate a black market at the same time. You can't regulate black markets. Therefore you have to open up more legal avenues without a controlling cap.

If you did that, you would choke off the black market and you would also most likely reduce the number of persons trying to immigrate into the US.

I used to have your thinking, but I've changed my stance. I have zero issue with anyone wanting to come here legally to try and improve their quality of life.

For example when there was less control in legal immigration, someone could cross illegally with a coyote for around $800. Today, with the numbers of legal immigration tightly controlled, it costs $10,000 to cross illegally.

It's simple supply and demand.
Yep, people come here because there is demand, both our businesses seeking their labor and their desire to start over in a more stable country. Immigrants are great and we should make legal immigration as easy as possible so that we have full record of everyone. We have a slowly aging population and the only way to keep things like SS from completely imploding is brining in more young workers.
Do you know, do they displace lower-skilled white/black workers who then are dependent upon government assistance?

I've related this before, but have been going to HHI for 30 years now -- when first started going, most of the work crews i saw -- groundskeepers, maintenance, cleaning -- were black. Likely descendants from the slaves who were brought to that area. Now...its changed to almost all Hispanic workers. Good for them.
But where did all the black workers go? Did they move to other locations and take on similar low-skilled jobs?

I'm not against immigration at all....I'm a fan of it. Have been to Central America about 10x on mission trips, so I know why people there want to come here...but there are tradeoffs and should be controls. And its not a bad thing to suggest so (unfortunately, its become popular to make it an anti-human thing to suggest controls -- granted, in great part because Trump was an idiot in communications)
packgrad
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Civilized said:

packgrad said:

Civilized said:

packgrad said:

Civilized said:

packgrad said:

The right isn't anti immigration. False narrative.

So they're proudly pro-immigration? What Republican legislators are championing that stance?

Again this is a marketing issue.

George Bush, a former president that's not very active in politics, has gotten more headlines in the last week for his smart immigration push than any politician on the right since...well, since himself when he was president 13 years ago. Bush's recent push is newsworthy because nobody else on the right is publicly saying the things he's saying and hasn't for years.

Who else on the right is really hammering home smart immigration policies?

Trump pushed the conversation in the direction of the wall, Mexican criminals and rapists, and a Muslim ban. He was proud of his hard-line stances and inflammatory rhetoric.

In contrast Bush is stepping up and telling Congress to tone down the divisive Trump-era rhetoric, respect immigrants with their words and policies, and create pathways to citizenship via bipartisan immigration reform.

There's a leadership vacuum on the right with immigration. Bush may have to take on the role of reluctant leader of the right's smart immigration push. Nobody else seems to be willing to deviate from the immigration trajectory Trump established.


Ok. Using your logic, the left is defund the police then. You can stop your grandstanding saying it is a minority opinion in the party. The loudest people are for defund the police.


Defunding the police is demonstrably unpopular politically, even on the left. You hear about it a lot though.

Are you saying reducing inflammatory rhetoric on immigration and creating a path to citizenship is actually popular on the right, and the MSM just doesn't pick up on it?

How popular is it then?

What legislators are currently supporting it?


Are you back pedaling from saying the right is anti immigration? Using your logic, the right is against ibuprofen because they are against illegal drugs. For someone who wants "good faith arguments" you lack intellectual honesty in your partisan rants.

No.

I'm asking you to tell me which Republican legislators are championing paths to citizenship the way George Bush is.


" As the son of a Cuban immigrant, Sen. Cruz celebrates legal immigration."

https://www.cruz.senate.gov/?p=issue&id=33

Are you saying if someone disagrees with your methodology for immigration reform that they are "anti-immigration"? That's a bit inflammatory and closed minded.
hokiewolf
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The current theory is that the affect on jobs by new immigration is largely on the past immigrant population. With the exception of meat packing plants and janitorial services, there is little or now affect on native born population
Civilized
How long do you want to ignore this user?
packgrad said:

Civilized said:

packgrad said:

Civilized said:

packgrad said:

Civilized said:

packgrad said:

The right isn't anti immigration. False narrative.

So they're proudly pro-immigration? What Republican legislators are championing that stance?

Again this is a marketing issue.

George Bush, a former president that's not very active in politics, has gotten more headlines in the last week for his smart immigration push than any politician on the right since...well, since himself when he was president 13 years ago. Bush's recent push is newsworthy because nobody else on the right is publicly saying the things he's saying and hasn't for years.

Who else on the right is really hammering home smart immigration policies?

Trump pushed the conversation in the direction of the wall, Mexican criminals and rapists, and a Muslim ban. He was proud of his hard-line stances and inflammatory rhetoric.

In contrast Bush is stepping up and telling Congress to tone down the divisive Trump-era rhetoric, respect immigrants with their words and policies, and create pathways to citizenship via bipartisan immigration reform.

There's a leadership vacuum on the right with immigration. Bush may have to take on the role of reluctant leader of the right's smart immigration push. Nobody else seems to be willing to deviate from the immigration trajectory Trump established.


Ok. Using your logic, the left is defund the police then. You can stop your grandstanding saying it is a minority opinion in the party. The loudest people are for defund the police.


Defunding the police is demonstrably unpopular politically, even on the left. You hear about it a lot though.

Are you saying reducing inflammatory rhetoric on immigration and creating a path to citizenship is actually popular on the right, and the MSM just doesn't pick up on it?

How popular is it then?

What legislators are currently supporting it?


Are you back pedaling from saying the right is anti immigration? Using your logic, the right is against ibuprofen because they are against illegal drugs. For someone who wants "good faith arguments" you lack intellectual honesty in your partisan rants.

No.

I'm asking you to tell me which Republican legislators are championing paths to citizenship the way George Bush is.


" As the son of a Cuban immigrant, Sen. Cruz celebrates legal immigration."

https://www.cruz.senate.gov/?p=issue&id=33

Are you saying if someone disagrees with your methodology for immigration reform that they are "anti-immigration"? That's a bit inflammatory and closed minded.


Thanks for the direct answer to my question. (Serious thanks, not being smarmy).

But when you click on your link and explore Cruz's stance here's what you find:

....secure the border, reform the legal immigration system, and uphold the rule of law.
Obama...drug smugglers...child abusers...murderers...other dangerous [immigrant] criminals...
Obama...illegal amnesty...Democrats...
Strengthen border security...green cards...H1B...prevent illegal aliens from getting benefits...more law and order

Doesn't sound very much like supporting a pro-immigration, viable path to citizenship. Sounds like a rebadging of Trump's Law and Order mantra, immigration style.

This stance directly contradicts what George Bush is pushing. It's full of rhetoric about how many drug smuggling, child abusing, murdering immigrants are here already or coming here, and how that's Democrats' fault, and lacks any substance regarding a path to citizenship. The tone and message is all about strengthening security and keeping bad immigrants out.

Full text from website:

Sen. Cruz celebrates legal immigration. He has championed measures to secure the border, reform the legal immigration system, and uphold the rule of law.

Americans, and particularly Texans, have witnessed the harmful effects of an unsecure border, endangering the lives both of citizens and those who enter illegally. President Obama's policies have encouraged drug smugglers, child abusers, murderers, and other dangerous criminals to traffick immigrant children into our nation under life-threatening conditions. In the summer of 2013 we witnessed a humanitarian crisis at our Southern Border, propelled by promises of amnesty from the White House. Immigrants deserve a better system in which they will be welcomed to the United States safely and with dignity.

As a critical step to protecting families and inviting more people to enter legally, in 2014, Sen. Cruz proposed legislation to prevent Obama from illegally expanding amnesty. The House acted to solve the ongoing crisis and passed bills that closely mirrored Sen. Cruz's proposals, but regrettably the Senate Democrats refused to allow a vote on the measures.

In 2013, Sen. Cruz proposed amendments to the "Gang of 8" bill that would strengthen border security, expand green card opportunities, increase high-skilled "H1B" visas, prevent illegal aliens from receiving welfare benefits, and enforce the rule of law.
hokiewolf
How long do you want to ignore this user?
That's the thing, you can never secure the boarder. A fence will never be tall enough. You've got to eliminate the black market demand by increasing the legal supply. Then you don't need a fence. Because right now it is easier to get in in stay by illegal means than it is by legal means. The policies of the last 20* years have created this issue.
pack95
How long do you want to ignore this user?
James Henderson said:

pack95 said:

James Henderson said:

pack95 said:

Packchem91 said:

James Henderson said:

Packchem91 said:

^BTW, so in the Columbus case, using James' solution...a white cop drives up on the situation...and stops, backs away, and waits for a black cop to show up? And if someone gets killed by the suspect, well, thats just the risk we take to avoid having Lebron and Biden call us racist?


No in James scenario a white cop never shows up. A black cop does and if someone gets shot than no one thinks it's because of skin color.
Well chalk me up as not wanting to live in your town. The day I have to be exposed to further danger because I have to wait for a white cop is sad beyond belief.

Just clean up the policing of people. Quit busting heads because you can. And for god's sake, don't endanger even more people to build in your layer of segregation

And for the record, I don't know if race played a part in the Floyd case or not. Only one person can say whether Chauvin would have treated me or you the same way he did Floyd given otherwise similar circumstances. I tend to agree it was just a powerhungry cop who acted badly. But I do believe with all my conviction, that there are tremendous examples of black people being singled out by police for no good reason....and believe that is likely much more prevalent than the other way around.


Ditto on not wanting to live in James' town. That may be the most asinine scenario I have ever heard. I'm in danger, but don't send a cop of another color.
Brother, my scenario is trying to protect you from racist cops.

Hire more cops, make them readily available. Try to figure out what to do with non-white/black citizens. This is IMO the easiest way to eliminate racism that's supposed to lead to police brutality.


So, how many black cops are you going to have to employ in Chicago and Detroit to make this happen? How you going to pay for it?
You employ enough and you make it worth it financially. Cops should be making a lot more money as is given everything they have to deal with.

If you increase pay, you likely increase the pool of cops.

I guess my question for you would be how many black cops do you employ in I guess cities you'd perceive to be more "white" than Chicago/Detroit?


If things continue at the current trajectory, it won't matter what you pay cops, we will see a decrease in the number willing to do it.

On your question, I guess you would need to find out the ratio of calls for whites versus blacks and staff accordingly. Again, this makes no sense to me but that is how I would do it.

How about routine traffic stops. If I am a white cop and I see someone going 100 in a 35, do I just ignore it?
packgrad
How long do you want to ignore this user?
It sounds very much like he's pro immigration. He's against illegal immigration. There is a difference. Rebranding illegal immigration to immigration does not allow you to misrepresent someone's viewpoints if you are arguing in good faith.
pack95
How long do you want to ignore this user?
James Henderson said:

pack95 said:

James Henderson said:

pack95 said:

Packchem91 said:

James Henderson said:

Packchem91 said:

^BTW, so in the Columbus case, using James' solution...a white cop drives up on the situation...and stops, backs away, and waits for a black cop to show up? And if someone gets killed by the suspect, well, thats just the risk we take to avoid having Lebron and Biden call us racist?


No in James scenario a white cop never shows up. A black cop does and if someone gets shot than no one thinks it's because of skin color.
Well chalk me up as not wanting to live in your town. The day I have to be exposed to further danger because I have to wait for a white cop is sad beyond belief.

Just clean up the policing of people. Quit busting heads because you can. And for god's sake, don't endanger even more people to build in your layer of segregation

And for the record, I don't know if race played a part in the Floyd case or not. Only one person can say whether Chauvin would have treated me or you the same way he did Floyd given otherwise similar circumstances. I tend to agree it was just a powerhungry cop who acted badly. But I do believe with all my conviction, that there are tremendous examples of black people being singled out by police for no good reason....and believe that is likely much more prevalent than the other way around.


Ditto on not wanting to live in James' town. That may be the most asinine scenario I have ever heard. I'm in danger, but don't send a cop of another color.
Brother, my scenario is trying to protect you from racist cops.

Hire more cops, make them readily available. Try to figure out what to do with non-white/black citizens. This is IMO the easiest way to eliminate racism that's supposed to lead to police brutality.


And racism is not the problem! Send a black cop to my defense any time; I welcome it.
To you racism isn't a problem. It seems a lot of people tend to think racism is why cops are shooting/killing citizens so I think they believe it is an issue.


We don't need to run our country based on what people think, but instead on facts.
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.