Trump is switching it up and getting interviewed by Hannity tonight

jerseyhoya wrote:

drsmooth wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:
It's also none of the federal government's fucking business.

right because cities on fire is no big deal and state & local governments can handle it just fine, like FL & zika, where the Gila Monster Governor is ALL sorts of pissed the federal government hasn't solved his problem for him

You think it is within the purview of the federal government to mandate state and local police forces perform stop and frisk policing?

Of course not

But Federal gov't interest in local policing practice doesn't really boil down to that anyway, does it

drsmooth wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

drsmooth wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:
It's also none of the federal government's fucking business.

right because cities on fire is no big deal and state & local governments can handle it just fine, like FL & zika, where the Gila Monster Governor is ALL sorts of pissed the federal government hasn't solved his problem for him

You think it is within the purview of the federal government to mandate state and local police forces perform stop and frisk policing?

Of course not

But Federal gov't interest in local policing practice doesn't really boil down to that anyway, does it

It was, literally, the policy that was being discussed that I said was none of the federal government's fucking business, and you got all indignant.

jerseyhoya wrote:

drsmooth wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

drsmooth wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:
It's also none of the federal government's fucking business.

right because cities on fire is no big deal and state & local governments can handle it just fine, like FL & zika, where the Gila Monster Governor is ALL sorts of pissed the federal government hasn't solved his problem for him

You think it is within the purview of the federal government to mandate state and local police forces perform stop and frisk policing?

Of course not

But Federal gov't interest in local policing practice doesn't really boil down to that anyway, does it

It was, literally, the policy that was being discussed that I said was none of the federal government's fucking business, and you got all indignant.

I dunno, maybe I imagined you were suggesting fed gov't has no legit claim to a policy interest in local policing practices. My mistake

rye time

swishnicholson wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

td11 wrote:most republicans think broken windows and stop and frisk were effective, even jerz i think. the base will eat that shit up

I think it is effective in certain high crime environments attacking smaller problems and ultimately preventing bigger ones. Most places, thankfully more than 2-3 decades ago, are not high crime environments.

It's also none of the federal government's fucking business.

Silly jersey, thinking that policing methods have any effect on crime.

I know you were law enforcement, but this post made me sad. I don't think it's a topic to be glib or sarcastic about. you're talking about policies that specifically targeted young men in poor communities. follow them home, stalk them, harass them, and in some cases arrest them for carrying around the same amount of weed that is likely very comparable to the amount of weed every cargo short wearing Phillies fan on this board carried around at the same age. now these people are put into the system, where our justice system persecutes minorities much harsher than whites. then when you're in the system the repercussions can be severe. and it's motivation boils down to nothing more than a social experiment. an experiment that has the capacity to absolutely negatively affect and even ruin peoples lives, all because a bunch of people theorize it may have some net impact on other crimes. I think it's horrible and it sickens me to see people on this board celebrate ruining people's lives because of a tenuous at best connection to impacting other crime stats.

The Dude wrote:rye time

Say, what's that nibbling my ankle

also have no problem with the feds getting involved if it involves civil rights.

i had no idea swish was law enforcement

drsmooth wrote:

The Dude wrote:rye time

Say, what's that nibbling my ankle

think you mean what's dribbling your ankle. it's rye

Youseff wrote:also have no problem with the feds getting involved if it involves civil rights.

Oh c'mon locals have always respected the constitution

The 2nd amendment's in that thing,right?

/s

The Dude wrote:

drsmooth wrote:

The Dude wrote:rye time

Say, what's that nibbling my ankle

think you mean what's dribbling your ankle. it's rye

What do you imagine makes you such a dipshit? Is it your upbringing? Or is it something you accomplished all on your own?

The feds can recommend that police do or don't enforce or concentrate on various behaviors and laws. I wouldn't imagine the DOJ would be in the business of implementing stop and frisk nationwide (the Trump campaign has since said he *just* meant Chicago) because it's illegal.

Let's all be nice to each other or I will be downloading the ban hammer.

I can't help if the rye coursing through doc's veins makes him call names.

I did think youseff's post to swish was excellent, though

The Dude wrote:i had no idea swish was law enforcement

I'm pretty sure about that, and I have to say, he does a good job sharing that perspective. it's a perspective I don't think I give enough thought to at times.

Youseff wrote:

The Dude wrote:i had no idea swish was law enforcement

I'm pretty sure about that, and I have to say, he does a good job sharing that perspective. it's a perspective I don't think I give enough thought to at times.

smitty maybe?

Isn't swish a librarian?

by day

Swish is 007