Dallas Mayor Flips to GOP: 'Cities Need Republicans'

[hollodero]

(09-22-2023, 05:07 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: As for why Dino thinks this is a farce, that's an easy question to answer, Hollo.  Liberals absolutely hate it when black people don't toe the Dem party line.  One need only look how black conservatives are routinely treated.  Hell, even the current POTUS demanded the black vote or the person in question isn't really black.

As for the gentleman in question, he seems very sincere in his reasons and beliefs.  Hopefully this will be the start of a change in the permissive attitude towards criminals that so many Dems expound as some sort of twisted virtue.

Yeah, I do not think this explanation is actually true. To large exents in the bigger picture, but particularly in this specific instance. I do not think Dino just hated it that this is a black person dissenting with Democrats. I don't think that is a fair assumption to make, not for me anyway; I find it rather prejudiced really.

Also, I am not all that enthusiastic about this move honestly. He could just leave the party and be an independent, that should carry the message well enough. Going to the Republicans, however, certainly comes with its own severe issues, this party collectively bending down to Trump's will being among them. Even if you don't see it that way, most of his voters certainly were. It feels like betraying one's own voter base and if I were a constituent, I'd be angry no matter the sincerity of his motives.

Since I am not, I am still curious about the reasons and don't find them to be farcical. And these are issues certainly not just raised by isolated individulas, there's certainly a common theme. 

Edit, just saw that Dill made the same point about constituents being rightfully angry. With him on that one.

[Dill]

(09-22-2023, 09:16 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: I guess it makes sense when you look at the big picture.

Texas attorney general was indicted in 2015 for securities fraud facing 99 years. He still hasn’t gone to trial for it. Years of corruption. Still under investigation by the FBI. Took a shit on democracy and was a leading mouth piece to throw out America’s presidential vote in 2020.

And the “law and order” party let him off the hook after they impeached him.

Brilliant move by this guy for changing parties. You can be as big of a POS as you want as long as you claim you play for the red team in Texas.

My guess is he has his sights set on a more powerful position.

That's the take here:
https://www.dallasnews.com/news/politics/2023/09/22/how-dallas-mayor-eric-johnsons-switch-to-gop-could-impact-political-career/

The "law and order" party is still the surest route to power in Texas.

Apparently it gives the best chance of staying IN power too, as rule of law is set aside for the "conservative" agenda there.

"Toughest and best AG in the country" as Trump put it, and apparently swinging the vote decisively against impeaching Paxton.
RINOs trying to hold their elected officials accountable still don't get it.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2023/09/16/texas-attorney-general-ken-paxton-not-guilty-acquitted-impeachment-trial-verdict-vote-results/70877278007/

The scorecard: Law and order 1
                      Rule of law      0

[Dill]

(09-22-2023, 08:01 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Perhaps if they actually cared about the every day citizen and weren't intolerably smug they'd actually get their point across.  Unfortunately, this is not the case.  It's not just Trump supporters who care about law and order and the rule of law, as this very thread should illustrate to you.  Sadly, you cannot explain what the color blue looks like to a blind person.

Why doesn't the bolded apply to you?

Since your "easy answers" can never be the problem, people who don't agree with your law and order take are "blind" by definition.

You tell them what's what, yet they remain "sadly" beyond reach.

And Trump supporters don't care about Rule of Law any more than Trump does if they are still voting for him.

[Luvnit2]

(09-23-2023, 09:32 AM)Dill Wrote: Why doesn't the bolded apply to you?

Since your "easy answers" can never be the problem, people who don't agree with your law and order take are "blind" by definition.

You tell them what's what, yet they remain "sadly" beyond reach.

And Trump supporters don't care about Rule of Law any more than Trump does if they are still voting for him.

What has Trump been convicted of in his almost 80 years on this planet? As a conservative, I believe in innocent until proven guilty. I believe if a jury finds you guilty, you have the right to appeal it.

It will be a long time before any Trump indictments are finalized. Until Trump is convicted and runs out of appeals, your rule of law comments are void of truth.

I don't recall 1 Republican on the side of defunding the police, but it was a Democratic mantra not long ago. It is Democrats who carry the burden of applauding efforts to defund the police in order to buy the black vote. Of course, it is backfiring as it the black community that does not feel safe in their own neighborhoods. It is black children being shot and killed in their neighborhoods.

But hey, tell us smugly how conservatives are against the rule of law and law and order? The actions of the left caused harm and crime to spike. The actions of the left to not prosecute criminals and using catch and release resulted in more crime. The actions of Joe Biden refusing to enforce our immigration laws is causing crime to spike as illegal immigrants flock freely into our our open borders, get released into our country and then kill US citizens. The illegal immigrants are not vaccinated, the health of Americans is at risk as now close to 5 million illegal immigrants have entered our country in since January 2022. The lack of the border is 100% on Joe Biden's policies, he admitted this week as much and is seeking to give work permits to 1 million illegal immigrants, meanwhile many worthy people from other countries go to the back of the line attempting to use the proper method to enter the US.

The Joe Biden failure to secure our border is the biggest failure in US history of lack of law and order. JB is blatantly refusing to follow the immigration law Congress enacted a long time ago. It is only Congress that can change immigration law, not the POTUS. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(09-22-2023, 11:34 PM)hollodero Wrote: Yeah, I do not think this explanation is actually true. To large exents in the bigger picture, but particularly in this specific instance. I do not think Dino just hated it that this is a black person dissenting with Democrats. I don't think that is a fair assumption to make, not for me anyway; I find it rather prejudiced really.

You know what, in terms of this site alone I will concede that.  It was not a fair statement to make.  In general terms in this country it's an absolutely accurate statement to make.  It occurs all the time, and the Dems clearly feel entitled to the black vote.  As I stated, and no one addressed, Biden literally said if you didn't vote for him you "aren't black".  This was merely saying out loud what her Democratic party believes in private.  And the treatment black conservatives get is often beyond appalling.

Quote:Also, I am not all that enthusiastic about this move honestly. He could just leave the party and be an independent, that should carry the message well enough. Going to the Republicans, however, certainly comes with its own severe issues, this party collectively bending down to Trump's will being among them. Even if you don't see it that way, most of his voters certainly were. It feels like betraying one's own voter base and if I were a constituent, I'd be angry no matter the sincerity of his motives.

I've scoured news stories and can't find anything about his constituents being angry.  Twitter/X seems about 60-40% in favor, although I certainly concede that is hardly scientific.  But we have an equal dearth of evidence that they are angry, only speculation.  I disagree about the switching parties move.  If it was done for the reasons he gave, and we have no real reason to doubt him, then switching to the GOP sends the exact message he intends to send, that the far left is deliberately making urban centers unsafe with their horrific criminal justice policies.

Quote:Since I am not, I am still curious about the reasons and don't find them to be farcical. And these are issues certainly not just raised by isolated individulas, there's certainly a common theme. 

Edit, just saw that Dill made the same point about constituents being rightfully angry. With him on that one.

I think it's also important to not look at this move in a vacuum.  This is the second high profile Democrat to leave the party of late, along with numerous lesser known ones, and Machin will likely make it three.  There is a serious rot inside the Democratic party right now on this issue, and it's an issue that is important to every single person in this country.  It's not a niche issue like abortion, or gun control.  Not that either of those aren't concerns for millions of Americans, but public safety is a concern for 100% of Americans, and the Dems are failing on this issue as badly as you can fail.  Not only that, but they keep inventing excuses for why it's not their policies that are to blame and then doubling down on said policies.  Illinois recently abolishing cash bail being the latest example.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(09-23-2023, 09:32 AM)Dill Wrote: Why doesn't the bolded apply to you?

Maybe it does?  Could tou provide me some examples of my being smug on the issue of public safety and the actual enforcement of the penal code?

Quote:Since your "easy answers" can never be the problem, people who don't agree with your law and order take are "blind" by definition.

I actually really haven't advanced many answers, as we've never gotten past you actually acknowledging there's a problem that needs any.  I certainly could, and surprisingly, some of them are actually not very complicated.

Quote:You tell them what's what, yet they remain "sadly" beyond reach.

And Trump supporters don't care about Rule of Law any more than Trump does if they are still voting for him.

Yeah, here is why you fail on this issue, entirely.  Like it or not, there are some vagaries about Trump's level of involvement in 01/06.  Also, if one is inclined to believe there was election fraud, and there are tens of millions that do, then his actions cannot be viewed as criminal, but just.  You disagree, and guess what, so do I.  But that doesn't change the fact that millions do.  So those people aren't against the rule of law, they just view what law was actually broken here differently than we do.

There is no such wiggle room or vagaries when it comes to street level crime.  Everyone except actual criminals loathes it.  There is no subjectivity about prosecuting criminals, especially recidivists, to the fullest extent of the law.  You assert that being concerned with this has to be on equal terms to being concerned about Trump's actions.  It doesn't and it's not even close to it.  A person can fully believe that Trump was in the right on the '20 elections and still want street level criminals rightfully prosecuted as prescribed by the penal code.

Day to day concerns are always going to trump (no pun) those occurring out of sight, no matter how significant you believe those to be.  And it doesn't get much more day to day than rampant criminality, and those enabling this criminality, the Dems, are going to rightfully pay the price for allowing it.

[Bengalion]

He is against the far left agenda. The left of the past is now republican, and to think that Clinton’s plans would be considered far right by todays standards. The Dallas' communist population got punched in the face after that move, some red rats are implying republicans paid him and that his bank accounts should be checked by FBI. Fantastic move for the city. He has a real chance to set a major city up as an example of how it should be ran across the county, not just in investments but crime. Sadly, I don’t think a GOP mayor in Dallas County will last beyond the next election cycle. The county (because of Dallas) overwhelmingly re-elects communists.

[GreenDragon]

"Cities need Republicans" 

DO they? Seriously. Do we need a party that wants to make things worse? 

[hollodero]

(09-23-2023, 12:59 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You know what, in terms of this site alone I will concede that.  It was not a fair statement to make.  In general terms in this country it's an absolutely accurate statement to make.  It occurs all the time, and the Dems clearly feel entitled to the black vote.  As I stated, and no one addressed, Biden literally said if you didn't vote for him you "aren't black".  This was merely saying out loud what her Democratic party believes in private.  And the treatment black conservatives get is often beyond appalling.

Yeah Biden should not have said that. Same is true for many things he says. I wouldn't say though that Democrats feel so much entitled to the black vote as that they are just taking it for granted. Which is somewhat justified, since black people indeed overwhelmingly vote for Democrats. That's nothing to blame Democrats for though, it's more of an issue for Republicans, who are just utterly unappealing to black voters. And while I certainly can not talk on black people's behalf, I can see some clear reasons for that. Starting with Trump, who just is too integral to the GOP these times to ignore the overwhelming presence of this man who is seen as kind of a racist by many people, and to large parts that includes me.

That black conservatives receive appalling treatment, well that might be true and I can very well imagine that. Many fierce liberals aren't exactly angels, for sure. In the case of this mayor though, I find this aspect to be of little importance. I guess the outrage would be quite similar if this were a white lady instead of a black man, like it was with Tulsi Gabbard.

(09-23-2023, 12:59 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I've scoured news stories and can't find anything about his constituents being angry.  Twitter/X seems about 60-40% in favor, although I certainly concede that is hardly scientific.  But we have an equal dearth of evidence that they are angry, only speculation.

It is speculation at this point, probably. What I can say for sure is that I would be angry. I can not prove that this sentiment is shared by many, but I'd be utterly surprised if this wasn't so.

(09-23-2023, 12:59 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I disagree about the switching parties move.  If it was done for the reasons he gave, and we have no real reason to doubt him, then switching to the GOP sends the exact message he intends to send, that the far left is deliberately making urban centers unsafe with their horrific criminal justice policies.

I don't think he needed to switch parties to send this message. Being done with the Democrats would have sufficed and imho would have given his reasons more weight. This way, party politics somewhat superseed the message, even more so if my assumption of many angry constituents is correct. But alas, we probably just have a different view on this and it's fine.

(09-23-2023, 12:59 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I think it's also important to not look at this move in a vacuum.  This is the second high profile Democrat to leave the party of late, along with numerous lesser known ones, and Machin will likely make it three.  There is a serious rot inside the Democratic party right now on this issue, and it's an issue that is important to every single person in this country.  It's not a niche issue like abortion, or gun control.  Not that either of those aren't concerns for millions of Americans, but public safety is a concern for 100% of Americans, and the Dems are failing on this issue as badly as you can fail.  Not only that, but they keep inventing excuses for why it's not their policies that are to blame and then doubling down on said policies.  Illinois recently abolishing cash bail being the latest example.

I agree with that. As I said, there's certainly an overarching theme here and Democrats imho would be well advised to listen to these concerns, that get raised plenty by folks that are far from extreme right wingers or Trump supporters. This method of discrediting and ignoring and laughing away all those voices is quite disconcerting for me too.

[hollodero]

(09-23-2023, 01:11 PM)Bengalion Wrote: The county (because of Dallas) overwhelmingly re-elects communists.

Communists? Really? It's honestly tough to take anyone seriously who uses this term to describe Democrats.

Even more so in this context. One thing communists are usually not is lenient towards real or perceived criminals. A Gulag wasn't summer vacation.

[basballguy]

(09-23-2023, 01:11 PM)Bengalion Wrote: He is against the far left agenda. The left of the past is now republican, and to think that Clinton’s plans would be considered far right by todays standards. The Dallas' communist population got punched in the face after that move, some red rats are implying republicans paid him and that his bank accounts should be checked by FBI. Fantastic move for the city. He has a real chance to set a major city up as an example of how it should be ran across the county, not just in investments but crime. Sadly, I don’t think a GOP mayor in Dallas County will last beyond the next election cycle. The county (because of Dallas) overwhelmingly re-elects communists.

I voted against him back in 2019.  I also thought between he and Clay Jenkins, that completely botched the pandemic.  So many long standing local businesses never recovered.  The way he handled the George Floyd protests (riots) through downtown and into Deep Ellum was ***** pathetic.  

If i get past that and go back and look at what he's done in terms of policy....it's honestly not terrible.  He's stuck to his guns on backing police as far as I can tell.  He seems focused on taking action against violent crime so the city doesn't turn into another Chicago....So after spending a few hours thinking about this, he honestly hasn't been all that bad.  My initial reaction was a bit of an eye roll but it doesn't really matter.  He sucks at crisis management but isn't all that bad for policy.  Maybe he'll be successful like you're implying.

I think the only people that are really upset are the liberals that drown themselves in identity politics.  The Dallas subreddit is seething with ignorance right now calling for a recall.  

I still don't get where you are going with the communist talk though.  

(09-23-2023, 02:06 PM)hollodero Wrote: Communists? Really? It's honestly tough to take anyone seriously who uses this term to describe Democrats.

Even more so in this context. One thing communists are usually not is lenient towards real or perceived criminals. A Gulag wasn't summer vacation.

I've never met a communist in Dallas

[Dill]

(09-23-2023, 01:11 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Maybe it does?  Could tou provide me some examples of my being smug on the issue of public safety and the actual enforcement of the penal code?

Sure posts #97 and 100 on your NM governor thread. Not to mention the post I just responded to, in which you cast those who don't agree with you as "blind" and so unworthy of engagement. I can rally some from the Rittenhouse thread too, and others. The smugness involves your quick dismissal of others ideas, belittling them, policing threads to keep people on what you've decided is the topic. None of that is limited to "the issue of public safety" etc. But you don't see any of it as being smug, simply handing out what you've decided are others' just deserts.

(09-23-2023, 01:11 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I actually really haven't advanced many answers, as we've never gotten past you actually acknowledging there's a problem that needs any.  I certainly could, and surprisingly, some of them are actually not very complicated.

I was alluding to the "easy answer" you just advanced on this thread regarding Dino's problem with the Dallas major. In any case, whether you do or not "advance answers" is not dependent upon whether I acknowledge a problem. You have advanced answers and, as you intimate, they are "not very complicated."
 

(09-23-2023, 01:11 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Yeah, here is why you fail on this issue, entirely.  Like it or not, there are some vagaries about Trump's level of involvement in 01/06.  Also, if one is inclined to believe there was election fraud, and there are tens of millions that do, then his actions cannot be viewed as criminal, but just.  You disagree, and guess what, so do I.  But that doesn't change the fact that millions do.  So those people aren't against the rule of law, they just view what law was actually broken here differently than we do.

Trump's challenge to rule of law isn't limited to his actions on 1/6: recall the swathes of DoJ staff ready to resign should he command them to produce false statements about the election or to accept a clearly incompetent AG to simply do Trump's will, or go all the way back to his interference in the Russia investigation. The first impeachment was driven by Trump's flouting rule of law--enabled by his party's prevention of any accountability, thereby endorsing continued bad behavior.

Even before 1/6, his handlers had their hands full keeping him within bounds. You missed the continual flouting of rule of law, which is why, on my Esper thread in the summer of 2020, you smugly dismissed my concerns that Trump might not leave office peacefully.

The claim is not that Trump's misguided millions were "against rule of law," it's that they don't see a difference between that and "law and order"--i.e., they don't recognize rule of law when it is violated, or if they do, will set it aside in favor of someone who can "drain the swamp" without legal constraints. If they see Trump holding a Bible on a street cleared of rioters, with top military brass beside him, they perceive that violation of rule of law as law and order--which is what they want more of when thousands protest a police murder.  And it doesn't matter if someone on MSNBC or with the NYT explains what was wrong with that picture, they still want more of it.

The willingness to believe Trump's Big Lie on such flimsy evidence doesn't justify mis-recognizing the criminality of his actions on 1/6 and before. If I believe the car you are driving was stolen from me, it's still not ok if I decide to jack it back--especially if my attempts to recover it in court have failed for lack of evidence. No one's going to excuse that as you and I just disagreeing on which law was broken.

(09-23-2023, 01:11 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: There is no such wiggle room or vagaries when it comes to street level crime.  Everyone except actual criminals loathes it.  There is no subjectivity about prosecuting criminals, especially recidivists, to the fullest extent of the law.  You assert that being concerned with this has to be on equal terms to being concerned about Trump's actions.  It doesn't and it's not even close to it.  A person can fully believe that Trump was in the right on the '20 elections and still want street level criminals rightfully prosecuted as prescribed by the penal code.

Day to day concerns are always going to trump (no pun) those occurring out of sight, no matter how significant you believe those to be.  And it doesn't get much more day to day than rampant criminality, and those enabling this criminality, the Dems, are going to rightfully pay the price for allowing it.

You are comparing the phenomenon of many crimes--street crime--to one when you say that unlike the Trump case, street crime has no wiggle room. I'm betting there is plenty of wiggle room in at least some street crimes. And I'm betting that some street criminals think what they are doing is not criminal either. Which is why they cannot be allowed to decide that for themselves. We are in agreement about that. I'm just not willing to relax that standard when it comes to Trump and his co-conspirators, or to those Capitol insurrectionists he wants to pardon.

I am not saying that street crime should be on "equal terms" with concern for rule of law. I am saying the rule of law should always be the prior concern, at least if we want to retain liberal democracy. Anymore, though, I'm not sure that's what all Americans want. I don't think a Trump regime will appreciably lessen street crime, but even it did, I wouldn't trade rule of law for lower crime rates.  And rule of law IS at stake in the 2024 election.

[Dill]

(09-23-2023, 01:11 PM)Bengalion Wrote: He is against the far left agenda. The left of the past is now republican, and to think that Clinton’s plans would be considered far right by todays standards. The Dallas' communist population got punched in the face after that move, some red rats are implying republicans paid him and that his bank accounts should be checked by FBI. Fantastic move for the city. He has a real chance to set a major city up as an example of how it should be ran across the county, not just in investments but crime. Sadly, I don’t think a GOP mayor in Dallas County will last beyond the next election cycle. The county (because of Dallas) overwhelmingly re-elects communists.

What will/can he do now that he wouldn't/couldn't when he was a Communist?

[Dill]

(09-23-2023, 11:27 AM)Luvnit2 Wrote: What has Trump been convicted of in his almost 80 years on this planet? As a conservative, I believe in innocent until proven guilty. I believe if a jury finds you guilty, you have the right to appeal it.

It will be a long time before any Trump indictments are finalized. Until Trump is convicted and runs out of appeals, your rule of law comments are void of truth.

I don't recall 1 Republican on the side of defunding the police, but it was a Democratic mantra not long ago. It is Democrats who carry the burden of applauding efforts to defund the police in order to buy the black vote. Of course, it is backfiring as it the black community that does not feel safe in their own neighborhoods. It is black children being shot and killed in their neighborhoods.

Well so far he hasn't been convicted of a criminal charge. He has lost suits for grift (Trump foundation, Trump University), discrimination in housing, and other unsavory activities. That's the five-times bankrupted, twice-impeached Vulgarian you want back in office so badly.

Strange tack on criminal law you have, which I guess you have to adopt to absolve Trump of criminality. No one thinks a murder was not committed until an accused murderer is convicted and runs out of appeals. Someone coordinated a mob before the Capitol to coincide with pressure on the VP with forged lists of electors, then did nothing as he watched a riot in Capitol for two hours. Dear American voter--We won't know who did that or even whether any laws were broken until Trump is convicted and runs out of appeals. 

Joe Biden?  Fox smoke = FIRE!!  IMPEACH NOW!

DJT?   FIRE WE ALL SAW = just smoke  until we know for sure which Commander in Chief was watching the Capitol insurrection on WH tv doing nothing for two hours as the mob he sent there blocked certification. Could take years before the law determines that was Trump we saw. If he is innocent until proven guilty, then for the next election American voters must disregard what they saw. Think of it like jury instructions.

His impeachments were a continuation of his contempt for law, but unfortunately not tried by a jury. Rather, your party refused to hold him accountable. That's why I say it's not just Trump who scoffs at rule of law. Republicans who uphold rule of law are voted out of office. That is they Trump supporters want it.

A BLM mantra =/= a Democratic party mantra. I recall Republicans--party leaders--calling to defund the FBI, and promising to carve it up if they ever regain power. Isn't that the Heritage Foundation plan? That will teach them what it means to politicize government.

(09-23-2023, 11:27 AM)Luvnit2 Wrote: But hey, tell us smugly how conservatives are against the rule of law and law and order? The actions of the left caused harm and crime to spike. The actions of the left to not prosecute criminals and using catch and release resulted in more crime. The actions of Joe Biden refusing to enforce our immigration laws is causing crime to spike as illegal immigrants flock freely into our our open borders, get released into our country and then kill US citizens. The illegal immigrants are not vaccinated, the health of Americans is at risk as now close to 5 million illegal immigrants have entered our country in since January 2022. The lack of the border is 100% on Joe Biden's policies, he admitted this week as much and is seeking to give work permits to 1 million illegal immigrants, meanwhile many worthy people from other countries go to the back of the line attempting to use the proper method to enter the US.

The Joe Biden failure to secure our border is the biggest failure in US history of lack of law and order. JB is blatantly refusing to follow the immigration law Congress enacted a long time ago. It is only Congress that can change immigration law, not the POTUS. 

LOL I saw what you did there. I don't believe I have ever said "conservatives," as you strangely call Trump voters, are against law and order. The claim is they 1) don't understand rule of law or 2) don't care. I.e., they will vote for Trump order over rule of law if there is a conflict.

Double LOL if the right thinks the unvaccinated are a threat when it comes to undocumented immigrants. Vaccines work on them.

Fine if you want to argue border policies or dislike how Joe handles the problem for which he cannot ever get bi-partisan support. But that's separate from the question whether a vote for Trump now is vote for rule of law or against it. Lumping the border problem into this question just looks like more conflation of rule of law with law and order--exactly the problem I was addressing.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(09-23-2023, 06:21 PM)Dill Wrote: You are comparing the phenomenon of many crimes--street crime--to one when you say that unlike the Trump case, street crime has no wiggle room. I'm betting there is plenty of wiggle room in at least some street crimes. And I'm betting that some street criminals think what they are doing is not criminal either. Which is why they cannot be allowed to decide that for themselves. We are in agreement about that. I'm just not willing to relax that standard when it comes to Trump and his co-conspirators, or to those Capitol insurrectionists he wants to pardon.

I am not saying that street crime should be on "equal terms" with concern for rule of law. I am saying the rule of law should always be the prior concern, at least if we want to retain liberal democracy. Anymore, though, I'm not sure that's what all Americans want. I don't think a Trump regime will appreciably lessen street crime, but even it did, I wouldn't trade rule of law for lower crime rates.  And rule of law IS at stake in the 2024 election.

You'll forgive me for skipping over yet another diatribe about Trump and the "big lie".  You added nothing you haven't repeated at least a hundred times before in other posts, so please forgive me for moving past it.

What you, and many far leftists, can't seem to grasp is that there is no comparison here.  A street criminal may feel justified in what they do, although I can tell you regardless of their excuses they give the vast, vast majority of them know they're doing wrong and don't care.  I shared the story of the woman who was stealing groceries to "feed her kids" but had a cart loaded with hundreds of dollars of king crab legs and numerous bottles of liquor.  So, it's more a case of telling stories they know will garner sympathy in far left ideologues and the terminally gullible than it is believing what they're doing is justified.  Criminals play the far left like a violin, they see you as convenient marks, a sucker they can run game on.  And in the far left's rush to appear as virtuous as possible they eagerly fill this role to the detriment of everyone else.

You can try as you might to make people view Trump's actions on the same level as the guy who put a gun in their face and demanded their wallet or car.  Or the smash and grab theft ring that just looted their business.  Or the person who randomly assaulted them for "disrespecting them".  Or the person who punched an elderly woman in the face, took her purse and threw her down on the ground, breaking her hip.  Or the person whose house was broken into, robbed and ransacked with the thieves spray painting over their artwork and on their hardwood floors, leaving graffiti that said they were easy to rob.  And these are just a few examples of cases I have directly seen this month.

You can try all you like, and you will continue to fail in that regard, because street level crime, that actually affects people's day to day lives, will always matter more than what Trump did or did not do on 01/06, no matter how much righteous indignation you muster over the issue.

[GMDino]

So are we still discussing the Mayor who lied to voters during his campaign and switched parties?

(I mean you guys could get back to telling me what I really mean, that I don't like black's who don't fall in line with the Democrats...that was at least *mentioning* the topic of the thread.   )

Or you two can continue the petty arguments.  I'm not a staff member.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(09-23-2023, 02:03 PM)hollodero Wrote: Yeah Biden should not have said that. Same is true for many things he says. I wouldn't say though that Democrats feel so much entitled to the black vote as that they are just taking it for granted. Which is somewhat justified, since black people indeed overwhelmingly vote for Democrats. That's nothing to blame Democrats for though, it's more of an issue for Republicans, who are just utterly unappealing to black voters. And while I certainly can not talk on black people's behalf, I can see some clear reasons for that. Starting with Trump, who just is too integral to the GOP these times to ignore the overwhelming presence of this man who is seen as kind of a racist by many people, and to large parts that includes me.

I would certainly muster no argument that the GOP gave up on the black vote long ago, to their detriment and that of the black community.  But Dems absolutely do take the black vote for granted and absolutely give the impression that they are entitled to the black vote.

Quote:That black conservatives receive appalling treatment, well that might be true and I can very well imagine that. Many fierce liberals aren't exactly angels, for sure. In the case of this mayor though, I find this aspect to be of little importance. I guess the outrage would be quite similar if this were a white lady instead of a black man, like it was with Tulsi Gabbard.

I can't agree here.  A black person who is conservative is subject to abuse that the other groups, or people, you cite do not receive.  Being called a Uncle Tom or being accused of "cooning" is a common occurrence.  I've mentioned this before, but I heard more racial epithets directed at black, and to a much lesser extent Hispanic, officers during the "summer of love" from protestors than I had heard in my entire lifetime to that point.  For many there is a "correct way" to be black, and if you deviate from that you are guilty of an offense that justifies horrendous treatment.

Quote:It is speculation at this point, probably. What I can say for sure is that I would be angry. I can not prove that this sentiment is shared by many, but I'd be utterly surprised if this wasn't so.

It is indeed speculation.  But if I may posit a position, do you not think it possible that a significant number of those angry people will, once their initial reaction cools, give some thought to his stated reasoning and actually examine their own position on those issues?  If even a fraction of his constituents do so then I would think he'd consider that a win.  Again, acknowledging that this is just more speculation.

Quote:I don't think he needed to switch parties to send this message. Being done with the Democrats would have sufficed and imho would have given his reasons more weight. This way, party politics somewhat superseed the message, even more so if my assumption of many angry constituents is correct. But alas, we probably just have a different view on this and it's fine.

This argument rather runs contrary to your oft stated, and well argued, dislike for our two party system.  An independent does not have access to the extensive web of political contacts that being a member of either party provides.  Nor can you accrue and spend political capital as effectively.  This is different than Sinema, as a senator you have a large degree of autonomy and their relatively small number gives you political clout regardless.  Still, we'll see if she is reelected now that she is partyless.

Quote:I agree with that. As I said, there's certainly an overarching theme here and Democrats imho would be well advised to listen to these concerns, that get raised plenty by folks that are far from extreme right wingers or Trump supporters. This method of discrediting and ignoring and laughing away all those voices is quite disconcerting for me too.

Which is exactly why I think Johnson made the move he did, and in the way he made it.  He apparently believes, and I tend to agree, that you have to shock people out of deeply entrenched, and in this case awfully destructive, ideals.  We see examples of the deflection attempts in this very thread, with comparisons of everyday crime to Trump's "big lie".  They're not the same and shouting and flailing about Trump isn't going to distract someone from the fact they were just carjacked, nor will it make them feel better about the Dems being the "rule of law" party, all the while ignoring the rule of law when it comes to street level crime.

I've said I will never vote for a Dem again, despite being a lifelong Dem voter, and I have numerous friends who feel the same way.  But perhaps I should rephrase this and state I will never vote for a Dem again unless the party publicly and utterly repudiates their position on this issue and apologizes for the massive hurt and damage they've caused.  Not that I think this will likely ever happen, so maybe this is another distinction without a difference?

[Mike M (the other one)]

Why would his voters be pissed?
Don't they vote based on Policy? or are you saying they vote based on R or D next to the name?
If a D is getting results and or doing/saying the right things, i have no issues voting for one.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(09-24-2023, 12:28 PM)GMDino Wrote: So are we still discussing the Mayor who lied to voters during his campaign and switched parties?

Yes, we are actually.

Quote:(I mean you guys could get back to telling me what I really mean, that I don't like black's who don't fall in line with the Democrats...that was at least *mentioning* the topic of the thread.   )

Yeah, I already admitted that was a bridge too far when Hollo commented on it.  But feel free to continue to be aggrieved about it I guess.

Quote:Or you two can continue the petty arguments.  I'm not a staff member.

Interesting, who is engaging in the petty argument?  Me, Dill, both of us?  Regardless, the topic is very much in line with the thread, given that one of Johnson's major reasons for switching parties was the Dems horrible current policies related to the criminal justice system.

[basballguy]

(09-24-2023, 12:28 PM)GMDino Wrote: So are we still discussing the Mayor who lied to voters during his campaign and switched parties?

Which campaign and what did he lie about?  I wouldn't really call what happened leading up to the 2023 vote a campaign.  His only opponents were write-ins. 

If it's mentioned somewhere in this thread then I missed it.