Quote:
Originally Posted by Why_Yes_I_Do
As a show of good faith: I'll answer the question you put on the table:
New Orleans: Democrat mayors since 1872
St. Louis: Democrat mayors since 1949
Washington DC: Democrat mayors since 1961
|
Yes, on average Republicans make better mayors and governors than Democrats. And that extends to policing. Look at New York City under Giuliani and Bloomberg. Many people realize that, which is why from time to time you see Republicans elected governors in deep blue states like Massachusetts, Vermont and Maryland. Not California though. They drank the Kool Aid and there's no antidote.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Why_Yes_I_Do
Between Afghanistan and the USA: Which country are all the following considered capital offences, i.e. deterrents for recidivism? - Adultery
- Apostasy
- Arson
- Blasphemy
- Espionage
- Fornication
- Homosexual intercourse
- Murder
- Perjury
- Terrorism
In appealing to efficiency: Which of the two countries offers same day service for malcontents? That is; arrest, adjudication and disposal of the corpse - in public?
Tell ya what Imma do, just for you? Ye olde layup. Which of the two countries offers Stoning, amputation, and flogging for lesser crimes?
(kind of a trick question, considering some of the J6 prisoner treatments)
So while I can see why many would want to get "out", I'm not seeing the "in" to the USA as an exclusive option. But make no mistake; the shooter come from an environment, knowing full well, he would get the same-day service (maybe 1 hour delivery) back home.
I would think we could agree that deterring crime is desirable, i.e. using the NG (US) versus same day service (Afghanistan) - clearly effective, but a tad bit barbaric for most people's taste. |
Agreed. There are big problems with the criminal justice system in the USA, but it is far superior to Afghanistan's under the Taliban.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Why_Yes_I_Do
So the question remains: Why not utilize the National Guard to help local LE avoid (deter) much of the Victim Industrial Complex (VIC) schtuff and related harms, processes and outcomes in the first ding-dang place?
|
That's fine,
in Washington D.C. Congress has ultimate control over D.C., and the president has the right to call out the national guard for up to a month in order to execute federal laws, including immigration laws. Washington D.C. is a second home for Congressmen, and the murder rate there is far higher than, say, Medellin, Colombia, which used to be the murder capital of the world.
I do not agree in calling up the guard in other blue cities, in blue states. Government should be closest to the people where practical. If the people in a city want to defund the police and welcome undocumented immigrants with open arms, let them. Why waste our tax dollars?
Now, there is a kink in my argument. As you know, apportionment of Congressional districts is based on residents, not citizens. And illegal immigrants congregate in greater numbers in blue cities. From Roosevelt up through Obama's first two years in office, Democrats managed to out-gerrymander Republicans and get more Congressional seats than they deserved. When the courts put an end to that, immigration was their trump card.
Is it worth sending in the National Guard to fix that? I think not. I can think of two more elegant ways to solve the problem. I don't have time to write about that now but will be back with more.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Why_Yes_I_Do
POP Quiz: How many here have seen military carrying machine guns in airport terminals overseas?
|
Of course! As well as machine gun nests spotted around a major city. People in my community are free to carry semiautomatic long guns around in public as long as they don't enter bars, government buildings, etc. with them.
Do you have a problem with that? (lol)
Reply to WYID, to avoid taking bb1961's thread off topic. About party affiliation of mayors and governors, Afghan justice, National Guard, Congressional apportionment, and machine guns and semiautomatic weapons in public places
