Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Trump should not be advocating for police violence against criminals. Is that clear enough for you?Then call out your own damn candidate for saying this BS rather than inventing strawmen to argue with us about. Trump said, verbatim, that he wanted "one real rough, nasty day" and later "one really violent day … one rough hour, and I mean real rough" to deal with alleged shoplifters. That is your own candidate advocating for violence against alleged criminals. Stop dissembling for once and actually admit that it's your own damn candidate saying the thing you are now apparently conceding is ridiculous and contrary to everything our country stands for.
Yes. I just wonder why you spent a whole page of posts quasi-defending his statements rather than just saying that from the beginning?Trump should not be advocating for police violence against criminals. Is that clear enough for you?
1. How do you think fascist violence happens? You think the murderous dictators say, "hey, we're going to kill all the people we don't like"? Of course not. They claim they are fighting crime or some nonsense like that. Read about Duterte's Philippines below. 6000 "drug dealers" killed. 12-30K other people too. Remember, Trump praised Duterte and his violent reprisals in particular.I don’t watch every Trump speech but from a quick Google search, sounds like he was talking about ways to stop petty crimes and shoplifting.
Are you suggesting he was promoting a national day of violence against all liberals or something? Or are you acknowledging this was about shoplifting and other similar crimes and how he believes we should respond by actually doing something to stop them instead of letting the crimes go unpunished?
And yet Trump just did. So by your own standards, he's not rational. Do I have that right?Yes, getting rough with opportunistic criminals is more palatable than getting rough with random people who didn’t commit crimes. Beating people to death isn’t the answer in either scenario and not something anyone rational would endorse
Well and we have to remember our dear nycfan makes the sacrifices to see the red twitter smut every damn day...and so seeing that much awfulness can only turn one a bit more skeptical and negativeI respect your baseline optimism. I self flagellate at times over my baseline cynicism, and the defense mechanism I know it to be. I think preparing yourself for the nervous cynic’s outcome my be in order.
Best wishes to your people.
It amazes me that you actually post this shit on this board when there are posters here who know who you are.Correct, I agree with you. Criminals should be arrested and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, not beat to death by police and also not just ignored and allowed to steal with no consequences. All of the above should go without saying but I guess in this environment you never know what people may believe.
I’m sure Prairie du Chien (pop. 5,506) and Crawford County (pop. 16,114) have a stadium that can fit 50,000 people.
OTOH, small donors and crowd sizes were things Trump cited as evidence polls were wrong about him losing in 2020 and he was wrong.Harris has flipped the script on Trump with funds and with small donor contribution percentages compared to 2016 and 2020. THAT is a really key indicator that "dont trust the polls" alone has some strong validity
I remember him saying that in 2016 and he was very right.OTOH, small donors and crowd sizes were things Trump cited as evidence polls were wrong about him losing in 2020 and he was wrong.
But he was much closer than polls indicated.OTOH, small donors and crowd sizes were things Trump cited as evidence polls were wrong about him losing in 2020 and he was wrong.
NONE OF IT HAPPENS BUT I WON'T TELL YOU WHAT I WOULD HAVE DONE TO MAKE SURE IT DIDN'T HAPPEN BECAUSE I AM FULL OF CRAP!