Page #1
Pages: #1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #7 #8 #9 #10 ...#45
New Comment Rating: -9 Similar topics: 1.Does it actually matter? 2.SYD is a great place 3.Trump/Pence or Biden/Harris...Which do you feel will prevail??? 4.Kneeling before the American Flag during the National Anthem... 5.༼☯﹏☯༽ Comments: | ||
You must be logged in to post here. Log in
ALL LIVES MATTER...ALL LIVES MATTER...
Hey, ALM anyone.
Trump is blowing up boats in open waters, without any evidence of a crime.
Trump is randomly arresting people on the streets and disappearing them.
He had ICE just clear out a whole apartment block and arrest everyone.
He's assigning the National Guard to American cities.
He's putting snipers on rooftops during demonstrations.
If the government starts killing American citizens, would it matter to you?
You damn well know the four boats deserved what they got.
Wait for the evidence to surface idiot. You sure as hell know that anyone with any brain cell that intelligence reports do not get disclosed during an investigation.
How they know will not be disclosed to a socialist like you.
Are they diving for the evidence?
If a government kills people, they need to show on what evidence they did that.
They don't need an investigation, they should show the investigation that resulted
in their action.
By the way, even if they find 100 tons of cocaine, it's STILL no justification to kill them
in international waters. You're the one who should know better. It's your own law, idiot. Better protect it, or your legal protections will be violated at some point.
Correction, your legal protections are already violated. Trump is ignoring your elected representatives in Congress every single day.
"How they know will not be disclosed to a socialist like you."
They better will, because they are bringing lots of people to my camp, this way.
Trump's approval ratings are atrocious. He's the least popular president ever.
He knows he has no chance to win the midterms, so he is already working on ways
to steal the election, or not have elections at all. He's a traitor.
Everyone who supports Trump is a traitor too.
Do you want laws to protect you, when your side loses,
or will you accept what the other side thinks you deserve?
You are telling on yourself; if you think that the KKK would be damn hypocrites, if they voted for Obama and Kamala Harris, that's you saying that they should vote for Trump, because their ideas match with Trump's ideas. You are destroying your own point.
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
the facts are there. the democrat voters are just to fucking dumb to read them.
"1856 †
As our Republican fathers, when they
had abolished slavery in all our national
territory, ordained that no person shall
be deprived of life, liberty, or property"
"1852
The Democratic Party will resist all
attempts at renewing – in Congress or
out of it – the agitation of the slavery
question [i.e., will oppose all efforts to
abolish slavery ]"
The South supported slavery, states’ rights, while the North wanted to stop it.
The rural conservative South favored the Democrats back then
and the progressive North favored the Republicans.
Obviously that has now completely flipped. It took almost a century.
There are now Republicans saying to bring back slavery of some sort.
Actually, you yourself supports something very close to slavery.
You certainly don't support human rights, the basis for rejecting slavery.
Why does your party still Pledge Allegiance to "Liberty, EQUALITY, and Justice For All"?
It was written in 1892 by Francis Bellamy, a Baptist minister and Christian socialist.
YOU SHOULD FUCKING HATE IT!! But, it's part of your Republican LIBERAL heritage.
(The 'under god' part was added by Dwight Eisenhower in 1954, gutting the secularism)
Still, the rural conservative South supports and defends the side of slavery
and that side is still flying the Confederate flag. Southern Democrats were
the backbone of secession and the Confederacy.
Now why would the current Republican party support the flag of the Southern Democrats, as important part of their history, while the current Democratic party wants to ban it?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Signs of the Democrats’ Southern / rural past:
- The Democratic donkey dates back to Andrew Jackson (a Southern Democrat, 1820s
–30s). Jackson’s populist, agrarian base was deeply Southern and rural. The symbol stuck, even after the party’s base shifted.
- State Democratic parties long held fundraising dinners named after Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson, both icons of the party’s rural, Southern, agrarian roots.
(In recent years, some states renamed them because of the association with slavery.)
- In parts of the Deep South, older voters and local politics still have Democratic
“family traditions” going back generations, even though most white Southerners shifted Republican after the 1960s.
- Some Southern local offices (sheriffs, judges, county clerks) stayed Democratic for decades after the national shift, only recently becoming Republican.
- Even today, Democrats sometimes invoke themes of “the little guy vs. the elites” —
a populist tone that echoes their 19th-century rural base, even though the “little guy”
is now imagined as an urban worker or minority voter rather than a small farmer.
Signs of the Republicans’ Northern / progressive past:
- The Republican symbol of the elephant was popularized by cartoonist Thomas Nast,
a Northern progressive Republican, in 1874 and stuck through repeated use, eventually becoming the party’s enduring symbol. Back then, it was still the party of the Union victory, civil rights for freedmen, and Northern progressives.
- The Republican Party branded itself as the party of Union victory and progress after the Civil War. Even though it’s now dominant in the South, the GOP still calls itself “the party of Lincoln.”
- Abraham Lincoln, the first Republican president, is still celebrated by Republicans, even though he was the leader of the anti-slavery, Northern-based party. The annual “Lincoln Day Dinners” at GOP events are a direct tie to those Northern progressive origins.
- Through the mid-20th century, the GOP still had a liberal/progressive wing based in the Northeast (e.g., Nelson Rockefeller of New York). While diminished today, some of that tradition survives in moderate Republicans from states like Maine (e.g., Susan Collins).
- Republicans historically pushed protective tariffs, banking reform, railroads, and infrastructure to grow the industrial North. Echoes of this “pro-business, pro-modernization” stance remain in the GOP’s emphasis on free markets, trade, and corporate growth.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Democrats KNOW their history, but you are just too fucking dumb to understand
that the parties flipped sides.
Are you denying that it was the SOUTH that wanted to keep slavery
and that it was the NORTH who wanted to abolish it?
Are you denying that the NORTH won the civil war and the SOUTH lost?
It's as simple as 1+1=2, but you keep denying the obvious.
No you are denying democrats wanted slavery, you keep saying partys flipped, no, democrats to this day want illegals doing their dirty work for low wages, why do you think they are against ice!?
No conservative right-winger would EVER write secular 'classical liberal' laws, that provide people with EQUAL human rights, criminals with a legal process and the government with Checks and Balances. They would write GOD in every other sentence and put the power solidly in the hands of an authoritarian, like your side is doing now.
Either the Democrats and Republicans flipped or the North and the South flipped.
Which is it?
In any case, what ever the Republican party was back then, it was the complete opposite of what it turned into now. It can now only be described as "authoritarianism", with a wing that clearly supports "totalitarianism", which you belong to. I copy-pasted one of your posts into ChatGPT and asked it to identify the ideology behind it. It replied with the term "totalitarianism" and a full description of it.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The democrats have proposed many bills to legalize illegal workers and crack down on employers who exploit illegals. Republicans have blocked most of these bills or at least didn't support them in high numbers. That's because they support exploitation of illegals. They only pretended to be against illegal employment. It's cheap labor,
which your side loves.
They can LIE to you, because you don't check these things.
I'm live in another country and I check these things.
The DREAM Act (multiple Congresses; notable votes 2010, 2017, 2019, 2021 re-introductions) — creates conditional lawful status / path to permanent residence for people brought to the U.S. as children (DREAMers). Repeatedly failed to get 60 votes in the Senate.
Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act / “blue card” / CIRA (S.2611, 2006) — a Senate comprehensive reform bill that would have created legalization pathways (blue-card program) and also had employer/verification provisions. Never became law because the House and Senate were not reconciled. Only some Republicans supported it in the Senate.
Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act (S.744, “Gang of Eight”, 2013) — large, bipartisan comprehensive reform that included earned-adjustment paths (legalization), E-Verify/ employer provisions and penalties for hiring unauthorized workers, and worker protections in some sections. 14 Republicans joined ALL Democrats, but the House never acted and it died at the end of that Congress.
U.S. Citizenship Act (introduced 2021 — H.R.1177 / S.348; reintroduced 2023 versions such as H.R.3194 in later Congresses) — a Biden-administration/Democratic bill proposing an earned path to citizenship for many undocumented immigrants and other immigration system reforms. Did not pass. The bill was a Democratic priority but did not secure the bipartisan support needed in the Senate.
American Dream and Promise Act (H.R.6, 2021 and re-introductions in later Congresses) — explicitly grants a pathway to permanent residence for DREAMers and certain TPS holders. With a small number of Republicans joining — e.g., nine Republicans joined in 2021. The bill stalled in the Senate and did not become law. In short: passed with mostly Democrats voting for it; Republicans in the Senate blocked further progress.
Farm Workforce Modernization Act (H.R.1603, 2021) — creates certified agricultural worker status (a legalization pathway for many long-term agricultural workers) and also contains labor standards and provisions affecting the H-2A program intended to reduce employer abuses in agriculture. It had some Republican cosponsors and some GOP votes in the House, but it did not become law, it stalled in the Senate.
Various state and federal worker-protection / wage-theft bills and amendments (e.g., Wage Theft Prevention and Wage Recovery Act proposals; state laws protecting immigrant workers from retaliation) — these are not single national legalization bills, but are Democratic-backed measures to strengthen penalties on employers who exploit immigrant/undocumented workers or to make worker-protections easier to enforce. Some passed at the state level (e.g., New York protections) and some House measures addressing wage theft or enforcement were passed or reported out of committee, but many federal proposals to expand protection and enforcement have faced partisan obstacles or been bundled into larger packages.
Short bottom line / takeaway:
Democrats have repeatedly introduced (and sometimes passed in the House) bills to (1) create legalization/earned-status pathways (DREAM Act variants, American Dream & Promise Act, U.S. Citizenship Act, Farm Workforce bills) and (2) add worker protections or employer accountability measures. Most of those bills either stalled in the Senate or never became law because they could not get the bipartisan Senate support or 60 votes to overcome the filibuster — i.e., Republican opposition in the Senate (or House obstacles in some Congresses) prevented enactment in many cases.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Democrats are against ICE, because they are breaking THE LAW.
The are fucking over clear constitutional rights:
- First Amendment – Free Speech and Legal Access (applies to detainees)
- Fourth Amendment – Protection Against Unreasonable Searches and Seizures
- Fifth Amendment – Due Process
- Fourteenth Amendment – Equal Protection and Due Process
And you have shown already that you don't give a rat's ass about those
"illegals doing their dirty work for low wages".
I think you would even find a way to justify gas chambers for them, if Trump proposed it or started doing it. How much difference is it from putting them in tents in crocodile and mosquito infested swamps? That cruelty is celebrated by your whole cult.
the only folks i see fit to make a path to citizen ship for that are here illegally are the folks brought here under the age of 18. But you would have to be careful with that law and write it in a way that would be difficult to use to the illegals advantage, such as coming over the border on the eve of your 18th birthday.
babies and 2-3 year olds toted over the border can't help their location so their illegal status is not their fault.
That's why blowing up a boat with suspects of drugs trafficking in international waters is anti-constitutional. Since the Supreme Court made trump basically immune to the law, he cannot be arrested, but this should be ground for impeachment. There is just no use to it, because there is no 60% of congress supporting his impeachment, because Republicans are just now part of the MAGA cult and don't care at all about The Constitution.
You really need to learn about your own Constitution.
You didn't even ask Grok, or check ANYTHING, you just spouted your IGNORANCE.
I asked Grok: "which of the following amendments to the US constitution do not apply to illegal immigrants?
- First Amendment – Free Speech and Legal Access (applies to detainees)
- Fourth Amendment – Protection Against Unreasonable Searches and Seizures
- Fifth Amendment – Due Process
- Fourteenth Amendment – Equal Protection and Due Process"
This is the answer:
The question of which U.S. Constitutional amendments apply to illegal immigrants (or undocumented non-citizens) is complex, as it depends on judicial interpretations, context, and the specific rights in question. Below, I’ll analyze each listed amendment based on legal precedents and principles, particularly focusing on whether they apply to undocumented immigrants.
1. First Amendment – Free Speech and Legal Access
Overview: The First Amendment protects freedoms of speech, press, religion, assembly, and petition. The query notes it "applies to detainees," suggesting its application to undocumented immigrants in custody.
Application to Undocumented Immigrants: The First Amendment generally applies to all persons within U.S. jurisdiction, regardless of immigration status. Courts have consistently held that non-citizens, including undocumented immigrants, have First Amendment protections for activities like free speech and religious exercise. For example, cases like Bridges v. Wixon (1945) and American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee v. Thornburgh (1991) affirm that non-citizens enjoy First Amendment rights. For detainees, this includes access to legal counsel or the ability to petition for redress, as seen in cases like Zadvydas v. Davis (2001), where access to legal processes was upheld.
Conclusion: The First Amendment APPLIES to undocumented immigrants, including detainees, for free speech and legal access.
2. Fourth Amendment – Protection Against Unreasonable Searches and Seizures
Overview: The Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures and requires warrants based on probable cause.
Application to Undocumented Immigrants: The Supreme Court has extended Fourth Amendment protections to all persons within the U.S., regardless of citizenship status. In Almeida-Sanchez v. United States (1973), the Court held that non-citizens are protected from unreasonable searches. However, there are limitations near the border or during immigration enforcement. For example, in United States v. Martinez-Fuerte (1976), the Court upheld brief stops at border checkpoints without individualized suspicion, which can affect undocumented immigrants. Still, once within the U.S., undocumented immigrants generally have Fourth Amendment protections against arbitrary searches of their homes or persons.
Conclusion: The Fourth Amendment APPLIES to undocumented immigrants, though its scope may be limited in immigration enforcement contexts.
3. Fifth Amendment – Due Process
Overview: The Fifth Amendment guarantees due process of law and protects against self-incrimination, double jeopardy, and deprivation of life, liberty, or property without due process.
Application to Undocumented Immigrants: The Fifth Amendment’s due process clause applies to all “persons” within U.S. jurisdiction, not just citizens. In Wong Wing v. United States (1896), the Supreme Court explicitly held that undocumented immigrants are entitled to Fifth Amendment due process protections in criminal proceedings. This includes fair treatment in deportation hearings or detention, as reaffirmed in Zadvydas v. Davis (2001), which limited indefinite detention of non-citizens. However, due process in immigration proceedings (which are civil, not criminal) may be less robust, as seen in Department of Homeland Security v. Thuraissigiam (2020), where the Court limited habeas corpus review for certain expedited removal cases.
Conclusion: The Fifth Amendment APPLIES to undocumented immigrants, particularly for due process in criminal proceedings and detention.
4. Fourteenth Amendment – Equal Protection and Due Process
Overview: The Fourteenth Amendment guarantees equal protection under the law and due process to all persons within a state’s jurisdiction.
Application to Undocumented Immigrants: The Supreme Court has consistently held that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections extend to all persons, including undocumented immigrants. In Plyler v. Doe (1982), the Court ruled that undocumented children are entitled to equal protection, striking down a Texas law denying them public education. The due process clause also applies, ensuring fair procedures in legal proceedings involving undocumented immigrants. For example, Yick Wo v. Hopkins (1886) established that equal protection applies to non-citizens. However, certain benefits (e.g., federal welfare programs) may be restricted based on immigration status, as seen in Mathews v. Diaz (1976).
Conclusion: The Fourteenth Amendment APPLIES to undocumented immigrants for both equal protection and due process.
Final Answer
Based on legal precedents and constitutional interpretations, all listed amendments—the First, Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth—apply to undocumented immigrants within the United States to varying degrees, depending on the context. None of these amendments are categorically inapplicable to undocumented immigrants. However, the scope of protections may be limited in specific situations, such as immigration enforcement (Fourth Amendment) or expedited removal proceedings (Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments). If the question implies a specific context (e.g., detainees or border enforcement), the First Amendment explicitly applies to detainees, as noted, and the others generally apply as well, with nuanced exceptions.
I wonder what could be found in history books? Our history and such is rewritten everyday.
And i will say I doubt our forefathers were expecting 1000's of people just to walk in and not even try to be citizens, they probably thought folks had more decency and honor about them than to just come over as bums.
as for blowing up a boat full of dope and dope dealers, only some one like you would be more concerned for the criminals than the victims, drugs destined to harm Americans were on the boat and now gone. I wouldn't trust the Venezuelans governments word about nothing.if our intel said there was dope on that boat, i believe them in this case moreso and I am glad it is gone.
Aks whatever you want to know about it. Your Founding Fathers were pretty damn clear about it.
I said "suspects of drugs trafficking". You assume that Trump is speaking the truth, I don't.
For a President to take that chance, he had to have some good intel.
He could just follow them, wait until they are in US waters and arrest them.
Then he should have a boat full of evidence, to put them in prison
and show the world what is happening.
Now he has blown up all the evidence and some low ranked criminals
who could tell you all about the crime bosses.
Nothing gained from doing this, but my solution does gain a lot.
This is an act of war too. Arresting them in US waters is not.
I don't trust it. I know he is stupid, and this would be very stupid,
but he is also a massive liar.
they will will very quickly not care about proving ANYONE's guilt in court.
They then can accuse anyone of everything and jail them without due process or execute them on the spot.
Americans are already being arrested by ICE, just for looking 'South American'.
You, with your white face, will be next, soon enough. They'll find a reason.
Maybe they'll ask you to carry around your “loyalty pledge”.
That's the whole reason for Constitutional rights.
Did they present the evidence that you are referring to?
who didn't vote for them. He's not just your president.
I know you trust Trump. There is no amount of lying that he can do
to lose your trust. How did he deserve that?
Pissing on The Constitution is the opposite of trying to save your country.
Our President doesn't need to answer to anyone but Americans. I trust Trump much more than i did biden.
than in my country, because of YOUR IDEOLOGY, not mine.
He's not answering to Americans, he is fucking them over.
If your trust wasn't this blind, you would see the reality of it.
Americans are taking drugs, because they are sick and hopeless.
Your president is making that worse by the day.
He's turning the billionaires into trillionaires, on the working class's
Blood, Sweat & Tears. Wake up, people!
so you can't blame it on Trump
Americans are taking drugs because sick bastards give them to them to get them addicted then rob them of everything to pay for them until they die. If you would jail the drug user, the dealer would go away, and you could help the user while you held him captive in jail and FIX the situation. but no, your kind wants to leave people roaming the streets stealing to pay for dope. it is profitable for the liberal lawyers and government
2015 52,404
2016 63,632
2017 70,237
2018 67,367
2019 70,630
2020 91,799
2021 106,699
2022 107,941
2023 105,007
2024 80,391 (provisional estimate)
Biden started in 2021.
The drugs OD death increased more under Trump.
Neither are responsible for that, but Covid made people desperate.
It's of course possible to restrict the access to drugs so much that
OD deaths go down, but you will only see an uptick in alcohol deaths and suicides instead.
The only way to reduce actual suffering, is increasing public health and livelihood security, and Trump isn't doing anything positive on that front.
You would love to see the USA destroyed.
Go ahead tell us how you feel about the USA.
Waiting...
In 1940-1945, the world was not at war with Germany,
the world was at war with the NAZIS.
I don't blame the country, I blame the ideology supporters.
--------------------------------------- added after 70 hours
Waiting...
Why do democraps always forget they were for slavery. I am just sorry they fooled the all those people.
SOCIALISM is a lost cause and always fails. Someone will be an oligarch or 'king'.
It's not even clear what you are TRYING to say.
DO they get no bail? SHOULD they get no bail?
Are they just locked up? Are they just allowed to go free?
WHAT?
They KNOW that the party with the same name was the pro-slavery side at that time, dumb-ass. They also know that the party had YOUR ideology back then and not THEIRS.
Good luck with your king then.
Thomas Jefferson: “All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent.”
That's not you, but it's still applicable. He meant that it requires constant effort
to prevent an oligarch or 'king' taking power. You are just giving in, because it will happen anyway. It didn't for 250 years, but when there are this many people who want it, there's a good chance it will happen.
It's still the dumbest reason I have ever heard, to not have socialism.
--------------------------------------- added after 166 hours
Waiting...
“ the Democratic Party of today is radically different from the one in 1850. While the party is the oldest in the United States, a major ideological reversal known as "realignment" has shifted its core platform and voter base over time.
Democratic Party in 1850
In the mid-19th century, the party was dominated by agrarian interests, states' rights, and a limited federal government. Its core positions included:
Slavery: The party supported or tolerated slavery, and it opposed abolitionist efforts to interfere with "domestic institutions".
States' Rights: It advocated for a strictly limited federal government, with states holding the sole power to judge their own affairs.
Westward Expansion: The party favored acquiring new territories and expanding agricultural lands.
Limited Government: It opposed a national bank, high tariffs, and federal funding for internal improvements, arguing against the exercise of "doubtful constitutional powers".
Voter Base: The party was a coalition of Southern slaveholders, Western farmers, Northern artisans, and immigrants.
Democratic Party today
In the mid-20th century, the party underwent a dramatic ideological realignment, especially regarding civil rights, reinventing itself as a party supporting organized labor, social justice, and progressive reforms. Its modern positions include:
Civil Rights: The modern party champions civil rights for minorities and women, and works to expand protections for various groups, including the LGBTQ+ community.
Social Safety Net: It tends to favor a larger federal government that supports a strong social safety net, including programs like Medicaid and social welfare initiatives.
Economic Regulation: Since Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal, the party has generally favored greater government intervention and regulation of the economy.
Voter Base: The party's coalition now includes urban voters, college graduates, ethnic and racial minorities, women, and younger, secular, and LGBTQ+ voters.
The great reversal
The most striking difference is the party's complete reversal on racial issues. After the Civil War, the Democrats continued to oppose civil rights reforms, cementing their dominance in the "Solid South" by resisting efforts to give African Americans political power. However, the New Deal, the Civil Rights Movement, and the passage of landmark legislation in the 1960s ultimately alienated many white Southerners, who began to shift their support to the Republican Party.
This realignment caused the parties to essentially swap positions over the 20th century, leaving the Democratic Party of 2025 almost unrecognizable from its 1850s predecessor.”
not much difference between them using illegals or buying them if you ask me
Sure, Phart, you are so right. It's funny because you bring up what happened 170 yrs ago as SO enlightening and refuse to see what's happening now. Go tell if to someone that cares.
The democrat party is so divided with loons. Yeah, fetterbum is slowly coming around.
The blm crap led to just about all of this...
You don't have any common sense, you're just indoctrinated.
To have common sense, you first need common knowledge. You have NONE.
You have no idea what those terms mean.
only registered users can see external links
He says he hates liberals.
It is not a police problem, but the idiot lunatic libtards that will not support the law.
No bail law...GIVE ME A FUCKING BREAK.
All any sane person needs to do is look at the FREAK b*den regime.
"Defund the police" doesn't mean "Get rid of police", it means getting back all the tasks that were dropped onto them, which could be done better by civil servants, and give them to civil servants.
The police spends 70%+ of their time on issues like mental health, homelessness, substance abuse, and low-level disputes. That is a waste of money and also has very negative effects on citizens, because cops SUCK at those tasks.
Those tasks should be handled by specialized services (social workers, crisis intervention teams, traffic safety units).
This would free up police to focus on the 5–10% of cases that are actually violent crime.
When they are that much more efficient, some of the police budget can be reassigned
to the civil servants, which is the "defunding" people talk about.
People are also tired of having to fear police almost just as much as criminals.
You have a strange idea of freedom, if you want to replace crime with a police state.
Go look up what people actually mean with "Defund the police", instead of doing
your stupid straw-manning.
"No bail law"? There are only TWO countries in the world with a commercial bail bond systems (private, for-profit), the U.S. and the Philippines. Do you think that's working well? GIVE ME A FUCKING BREAK!
put dope heads in jail and detox them and then release them. if the buyers are in jail, the dealers are out of a job and will disappear.
but it is more profitable to jail the dealers and take their money,cars,guns, than it is to jail the users and heal them. follow the money in regards to drugs.
I fear police, not because of their violence but because of their quotas they swear they don't have but do.if they don't issue enough tickets to make the boss's happy they get a ass chewing, so they write a bunch of tickets to people that a warning would be a plenty or like the last 1 i got , not even valid, but had to go to court anyway to get it chunked out.
In any case, you're not willing to fund mental healthcare a cent more,
so what are you talking about?
Trump's 2026 discretionary budget proposes over $28.6 billion in cuts
to mental health-care and mental-health-related spending:
NIH: nearly $18 billion cut.
CDC: approx. $3.6 billion cut.
HRSA: about $1.7 billion cut.
SAMHSA: more than $1 billion cut.
AHRQ: $129 million reduced
Your police is not dealing with crime, your police is mostly an intimidation force.
The more unsafe you are feeling, the more intimidation you are asking for.
That doesn't work. Policing is more than driving around looking for people to bother.
The same with your stupid National Guard. They are just there to remind people to behave. That does nothing to deter real criminals, but it's FUCKING EXPENSIVE.
It's just stupid messaging, from a stupid president, and you're stupid to like it.
Here's what my police does: They saw a stolen car somewhere, of the type that criminals like to use as getaway car (Audi S4). Instead of taking it in, they bugged it with microphones and GPS. That's how they found a criminal garage. So they went in there and bugged that whole place and all the cars in there. It was called "Operation Buzzard". That's how they identified a boss, more criminals, killers-for-hire and hit-dealers. Then they arrested the boss (Anouar T.), who was sentenced to 26 years, and 8 associates who got between 208 days and 7 years. They also found leads about the murder of lawyer Derk Wiersum, which was a notorious case, linked to the killing of crime journalist Peter R. de Vries. That's policing, and your National Guard cannot do that.
New Comment Go to top