When will Democrats admit the Police aren't the Problem?

[AnalHamster]

The police have not in fact been defunded. Minor point when seeking to blame something for something, but it kinda has to have happened already.

One factor may be petulance on the part of police not doing their jobs as effectively as a go slow protest against being held accountable for what they do, but it's one of a set. The surge in gun purchasing, the pandemic causing massive job losses and economic freefall, and the general perception that US society and institutions are breaking down into anarchy under the clown presidency. Then there's more speculative potential factors, just pulled from my ass here, but did your thriving and entrepeneurial drug dealing community manage to hold them corners during lockdown? Some fool try to take yo corner, yo knows yo gotta throw down.

I'd go with the surge in gun sales and the economic disaster as the prime movers behind the surge in gun violence, but it'll be a while before the evidence is in. One thing's for sure, no surge in gun violence in countries with proper gun control.

Because job loss necessarily leads to gun violence. You're a bright one. You know, because losing your job somehow means you are required to start shooting people.

You don't think there's a link between poverty and crime?

Of course there's a link. Criminality tends to lead to poverty. But poverty is not a causation for crime. It's not like being poor means you have to turn to crime. There are things called "jobs" that are remarkable solutions to poverty. The problem is that lazy and stupid people dont want to work, so they instead turn to crime.
Poverty doesnt lead to crime. Laziness and stupidity do.

I see, so all the people who go or are born into poverty were criminals first. Makes a lot of sense.

do you know what the word "all" even means?

Yes. If you need help with tricky words you only have to ask, you poor moron .

[Deathproof]

The police have not in fact been defunded. Minor point when seeking to blame something for something, but it kinda has to have happened already.

One factor may be petulance on the part of police not doing their jobs as effectively as a go slow protest against being held accountable for what they do, but it's one of a set. The surge in gun purchasing, the pandemic causing massive job losses and economic freefall, and the general perception that US society and institutions are breaking down into anarchy under the clown presidency. Then there's more speculative potential factors, just pulled from my ass here, but did your thriving and entrepeneurial drug dealing community manage to hold them corners during lockdown? Some fool try to take yo corner, yo knows yo gotta throw down.

I'd go with the surge in gun sales and the economic disaster as the prime movers behind the surge in gun violence, but it'll be a while before the evidence is in. One thing's for sure, no surge in gun violence in countries with proper gun control.

Because job loss necessarily leads to gun violence. You're a bright one. You know, because losing your job somehow means you are required to start shooting people.

You don't think there's a link between poverty and crime?

Of course there's a link. Criminality tends to lead to poverty. But poverty is not a causation for crime. It's not like being poor means you have to turn to crime. There are things called "jobs" that are remarkable solutions to poverty. The problem is that lazy and stupid people dont want to work, so they instead turn to crime.
Poverty doesnt lead to crime. Laziness and stupidity do.

I see, so all the people who go or are born into poverty were criminals first. Makes a lot of sense.

Not even remotely what I said. I cant tell if you're being deliberately stupid or if you just lack basic reading comprehension skills.

[Animal]

Go to the 7:00 mark to see these peaceful protesters engaging the police that came out to investigate a multiple shooting.

[AnalHamster]

The police have not in fact been defunded. Minor point when seeking to blame something for something, but it kinda has to have happened already.

One factor may be petulance on the part of police not doing their jobs as effectively as a go slow protest against being held accountable for what they do, but it's one of a set. The surge in gun purchasing, the pandemic causing massive job losses and economic freefall, and the general perception that US society and institutions are breaking down into anarchy under the clown presidency. Then there's more speculative potential factors, just pulled from my ass here, but did your thriving and entrepeneurial drug dealing community manage to hold them corners during lockdown? Some fool try to take yo corner, yo knows yo gotta throw down.

I'd go with the surge in gun sales and the economic disaster as the prime movers behind the surge in gun violence, but it'll be a while before the evidence is in. One thing's for sure, no surge in gun violence in countries with proper gun control.

Because job loss necessarily leads to gun violence. You're a bright one. You know, because losing your job somehow means you are required to start shooting people.

You don't think there's a link between poverty and crime?

Of course there's a link. Criminality tends to lead to poverty. But poverty is not a causation for crime. It's not like being poor means you have to turn to crime. There are things called "jobs" that are remarkable solutions to poverty. The problem is that lazy and stupid people dont want to work, so they instead turn to crime.
Poverty doesnt lead to crime. Laziness and stupidity do.

I see, so all the people who go or are born into poverty were criminals first. Makes a lot of sense.

Not even remotely what I said. I cant tell if you're being deliberately stupid or if you just lack basic reading comprehension skills.

Well let's walk you through it. You concede a link between poverty and crime, but deny poverty is a cause of crime because you assert the crime comes first and leads to poverty. Can you follow that?

[Deathproof]

Because job loss necessarily leads to gun violence. You're a bright one. You know, because losing your job somehow means you are required to start shooting people.

You don't think there's a link between poverty and crime?

Of course there's a link. Criminality tends to lead to poverty. But poverty is not a causation for crime. It's not like being poor means you have to turn to crime. There are things called "jobs" that are remarkable solutions to poverty. The problem is that lazy and stupid people dont want to work, so they instead turn to crime.
Poverty doesnt lead to crime. Laziness and stupidity do.

I see, so all the people who go or are born into poverty were criminals first. Makes a lot of sense.

Not even remotely what I said. I cant tell if you're being deliberately stupid or if you just lack basic reading comprehension skills.

Well let's walk you through it. You concede a link between poverty and crime, but deny poverty is a cause of crime because you assert the crime comes first and leads to poverty. Can you follow that?

I said crime tends to lead to poverty. Nowhere did I say that poverty is caused by crime. And nowhere did I say that all poverty is the result of crime.

[AnalHamster]

You don't think there's a link between poverty and crime?

Of course there's a link. Criminality tends to lead to poverty. But poverty is not a causation for crime. It's not like being poor means you have to turn to crime. There are things called "jobs" that are remarkable solutions to poverty. The problem is that lazy and stupid people dont want to work, so they instead turn to crime.
Poverty doesnt lead to crime. Laziness and stupidity do.

I see, so all the people who go or are born into poverty were criminals first. Makes a lot of sense.

Not even remotely what I said. I cant tell if you're being deliberately stupid or if you just lack basic reading comprehension skills.

Well let's walk you through it. You concede a link between poverty and crime, but deny poverty is a cause of crime because you assert the crime comes first and leads to poverty. Can you follow that?

I said crime tends to lead to poverty. Nowhere did I say that poverty is caused by crime. And nowhere did I say that all poverty is the result of crime.

So poverty is linked to crime but the only way you can link them is to say the crime comes first and causes the poverty because it can't be the other way around?
Takes us back to my first mocking comment.

[Deathproof]

Of course there's a link. Criminality tends to lead to poverty. But poverty is not a causation for crime. It's not like being poor means you have to turn to crime. There are things called "jobs" that are remarkable solutions to poverty. The problem is that lazy and stupid people dont want to work, so they instead turn to crime.
Poverty doesnt lead to crime. Laziness and stupidity do.

I see, so all the people who go or are born into poverty were criminals first. Makes a lot of sense.

Not even remotely what I said. I cant tell if you're being deliberately stupid or if you just lack basic reading comprehension skills.

Well let's walk you through it. You concede a link between poverty and crime, but deny poverty is a cause of crime because you assert the crime comes first and leads to poverty. Can you follow that?

I said crime tends to lead to poverty. Nowhere did I say that poverty is caused by crime. And nowhere did I say that all poverty is the result of crime.

So poverty is linked to crime but the only way you can link them is to say the crime comes first and causes the poverty because it can't be the other way around?
Takes us back to my first mocking comment.

You're in no position to mock. The only way to link them is to say the crime comes first. Because while crime often -- not always, but usually -- leads to poverty as an unavoidable result, poverty does not lead to crime.

The difference is in the chain of events. In scenario 1, a moron commits a crime and goes to jail. If he had a job, he likely loses it. Then, when he is released, he now has a criminal record and it is harder for him to get a job, and thus he likely earns no money and becomes pov. Ergo, crime led to poverty.
In scenario 2, a man in poverty doesnt have to turn to crime. He can instead go get a fucking job, which is the better response to poverty.

[AnalHamster]

I see, so all the people who go or are born into poverty were criminals first. Makes a lot of sense.

Not even remotely what I said. I cant tell if you're being deliberately stupid or if you just lack basic reading comprehension skills.

Well let's walk you through it. You concede a link between poverty and crime, but deny poverty is a cause of crime because you assert the crime comes first and leads to poverty. Can you follow that?

I said crime tends to lead to poverty. Nowhere did I say that poverty is caused by crime. And nowhere did I say that all poverty is the result of crime.

So poverty is linked to crime but the only way you can link them is to say the crime comes first and causes the poverty because it can't be the other way around?
Takes us back to my first mocking comment.

You're in no position to mock. The only way to link them is to say the crime comes first. Because while crime often -- not always, but usually -- leads to poverty as an unavoidable result, poverty does not lead to crime.

The difference is in the chain of events. In scenario 1, a moron commits a crime and goes to jail. If he had a job, he likely loses it. Then, when he is released, he now has a criminal record and it is harder for him to get a job, and thus he likely earns no money and becomes pov. Ergo, crime led to poverty.
In scenario 2, a man in poverty doesnt have to turn to crime. He can instead go get a fucking job, which is the better response to poverty.

Poverty does lead to crime. This is really not a controversial statement.

Your declaration that you know crime leads to poverty but poverty does not lead to crime is political dimwittery, not an evidence based assertion. A man in poverty doesn't have to turn to crime, he's just more likely to.

[Deathproof]

Not even remotely what I said. I cant tell if you're being deliberately stupid or if you just lack basic reading comprehension skills.

Well let's walk you through it. You concede a link between poverty and crime, but deny poverty is a cause of crime because you assert the crime comes first and leads to poverty. Can you follow that?

I said crime tends to lead to poverty. Nowhere did I say that poverty is caused by crime. And nowhere did I say that all poverty is the result of crime.

So poverty is linked to crime but the only way you can link them is to say the crime comes first and causes the poverty because it can't be the other way around?
Takes us back to my first mocking comment.

You're in no position to mock. The only way to link them is to say the crime comes first. Because while crime often -- not always, but usually -- leads to poverty as an unavoidable result, poverty does not lead to crime.

The difference is in the chain of events. In scenario 1, a moron commits a crime and goes to jail. If he had a job, he likely loses it. Then, when he is released, he now has a criminal record and it is harder for him to get a job, and thus he likely earns no money and becomes pov. Ergo, crime led to poverty.
In scenario 2, a man in poverty doesnt have to turn to crime. He can instead go get a fucking job, which is the better response to poverty.

Poverty does lead to crime. This is really not a controversial statement.

Your declaration that you know crime leads to poverty but poverty does not lead to crime is political dimwittery, not an evidence based assertion. A man in poverty doesn't have to turn to crime, he's just more likely to.

Except poverty doesn't lead to crime. The choice to turn to crime is what leads to crime. That's all. That's just a fact. To say otherwise is to imply there is no other option.

[AnalHamster]

Well let's walk you through it. You concede a link between poverty and crime, but deny poverty is a cause of crime because you assert the crime comes first and leads to poverty. Can you follow that?

I said crime tends to lead to poverty. Nowhere did I say that poverty is caused by crime. And nowhere did I say that all poverty is the result of crime.

So poverty is linked to crime but the only way you can link them is to say the crime comes first and causes the poverty because it can't be the other way around?
Takes us back to my first mocking comment.

You're in no position to mock. The only way to link them is to say the crime comes first. Because while crime often -- not always, but usually -- leads to poverty as an unavoidable result, poverty does not lead to crime.

The difference is in the chain of events. In scenario 1, a moron commits a crime and goes to jail. If he had a job, he likely loses it. Then, when he is released, he now has a criminal record and it is harder for him to get a job, and thus he likely earns no money and becomes pov. Ergo, crime led to poverty.
In scenario 2, a man in poverty doesnt have to turn to crime. He can instead go get a fucking job, which is the better response to poverty.

Poverty does lead to crime. This is really not a controversial statement.

Your declaration that you know crime leads to poverty but poverty does not lead to crime is political dimwittery, not an evidence based assertion. A man in poverty doesn't have to turn to crime, he's just more likely to.

Except poverty doesn't lead to crime. The choice to turn to crime is what leads to crime. That's all. That's just a fact. To say otherwise is to imply there is no other option.

Do you think people in poverty are more or less likely to turn to crime?

[Animal]

Do you think people in poverty are more or less likely to turn to crime?

since they were likely raised by criminals that ended up in poverty, yes.

[Deathproof]

I said crime tends to lead to poverty. Nowhere did I say that poverty is caused by crime. And nowhere did I say that all poverty is the result of crime.

So poverty is linked to crime but the only way you can link them is to say the crime comes first and causes the poverty because it can't be the other way around?
Takes us back to my first mocking comment.

You're in no position to mock. The only way to link them is to say the crime comes first. Because while crime often -- not always, but usually -- leads to poverty as an unavoidable result, poverty does not lead to crime.

The difference is in the chain of events. In scenario 1, a moron commits a crime and goes to jail. If he had a job, he likely loses it. Then, when he is released, he now has a criminal record and it is harder for him to get a job, and thus he likely earns no money and becomes pov. Ergo, crime led to poverty.
In scenario 2, a man in poverty doesnt have to turn to crime. He can instead go get a fucking job, which is the better response to poverty.

Poverty does lead to crime. This is really not a controversial statement.

Your declaration that you know crime leads to poverty but poverty does not lead to crime is political dimwittery, not an evidence based assertion. A man in poverty doesn't have to turn to crime, he's just more likely to.

Except poverty doesn't lead to crime. The choice to turn to crime is what leads to crime. That's all. That's just a fact. To say otherwise is to imply there is no other option.

Do you think people in poverty are more or less likely to turn to crime?

More likely. However, that isnt because they're pov. More than likely, they turn to crime because they're fucking lazy, which is probably how they became pov as well.

[Cassandros]

Those raised in a culture that puts crime before education tend to live the "thug life".

Funny how that works...

[Who]

https://www.tampabay.com/news/pinellas/ ... -reckless/

Feelings Were Hurt

[CHEEZY17]

Remember that Democrat HQ that got burned down and everybody blamed conservatives? Turns out it was a former volunteer staffer that worked there. WHOOPSIE!

Phoenix Police Make Arrest in Connection With Fire at Democratic Party Headquarters
https://www.phoenix.gov/newsroom/police/1428

"The Phoenix Police Department has​ arrested a man in connection with a fire at the Maricopa County Democratic Party office building.

Matthew Egler was arrested Wednesday morning on arson charges. The 29-year-old was a former volunteer at the office but had recently been banned from continued volunteer service"

[CaptQuint]

Gee, wonder why he was banned

[Charliesheen]

Another example of the Democrats and the Taliban being on the same page.

[Charliesheen]

Fighting racism just became a little more difficult:

Samsung Television Block works as follows:

A TV blocking system has been activated on Samsung television sets stolen from our warehouse
The blocking will come into effect when the user of a stolen television connects to the internet, in order to operate the television
Once connected, the serial number of the television is identified on the Samsung server and the blocking system is implemented, disabling all the television functions

[Animal]

I wonder why this story didn't get more coverage?