Do you agree with Trump new executive order targeting gang violence?

1. 81

   jackclee lmposted 7 years ago

   With all the focus on the immigration and foreign travel this past week, another Trump's executive order focused on reducing gang violence in inner cities...
   Who could be against this?
   I wonder what the liberal left will object to this common sense action?
   Will the ACLU be on top of this defending the rights of criminal gangs?
   Just wondering?
   Please weigh in especially those who see race in everything...
   Is this a law and order issue or black and white issue...
   Remember, most gang and drug activities are in the inner cities minority areas...

   replyreport
   1. 81

      jackclee lmposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Here is link to story -
      https://www.bustle.com/p/trump-signs-th … cops-36852

      replyreport
      1. 81

         jackclee lmposted 7 years agoin reply to this

         Message to credence2, I would like you to weigh in...
         Is this just smoke screen, empty talk, or window dressing... or is this real attmpt to reduce crime in inner cities?
         I value your opinion on this.

         replyreport
         1. 78

            Credence2posted 7 years agoin reply to this

            Thanks, Jack, I will look into it and let you know...

            replyreport
         2. 78

            Credence2posted 7 years agoin reply to this

            These are excerpts from the article you provided. If his so called Exceutive Orders do not take into account the points made in the paragraphs below seriously, it is just another ruse from the Trump administration. He has no viable plan, nothing but minority bashing and BIG talk.
            
            So my answer is an emphatic NO, I am not impressed.
            
            ----------
            However, as Adam Serwer, senior editor at The Atlantic, pointed out on Twitter, although officer deaths rose in 2016, they are down overall compared to the last 10-plus years. Moreover, it is already illegal to attack an officer, so, as Serwer noted, it remains to be seen what Trump's executive orders would change. Unless, of course, the orders targeted nonviolent crimes against law enforcement, but that doesn't seem likely, given Trump's rhetoric at Sessions' ceremony
            
            In a time when there have been near-constant public outcry after police shootings of civilians (particularly black civilians), it's interesting that President Trump didn't mention that side of law enforcement reform. In 2016 alone, 1,153 people were killed by police, according to KilledByPolice.net.
            
            ----------------

            replyreport
            1. 89

               GA Andersonposted 7 years agoin reply to this

               ... and there you go again! Credence2, one of us has the wrong Executive Order, (EO). I thought his topic was about this one:
               "Presidential Executive Order on Enforcing Federal Law with Respect to Transnational Criminal Organizations and Preventing International Trafficking"
               *I hope I wasn't wrong, but I can't see his title applying to the EO you seem to be referring to;
               "Presidential Executive Order on Preventing Violence Against Federal, State, Tribal, and Local Law Enforcement Officers"
               
               Even so, after reading the second EO, I don't see the cause for you to so quickly criticize it for not addressing an aspect of an issue that wasn't the issue of the EO.
               
               An initial response that they are two sides of the same coin jumps to mind, and seems right, except that then his EO could be seen as a judgement of the two sides. You wouldn't want that would you?
               
               Instead, considering the actual text of the order, (as you read it), and not someone's interpretation of that text, and, that the stated purpose was not exclusionary, but clearly directed; couldn't you consider the intent and merits, (or demerits), of the EO on the face value of its stated purpose and contents? I could see at least a little wobble of 'maybe...' on your way to your conclusion. Did you feel it, or was it a steady partisan leap?
               
               GA

               replyreport
               1. 78

                  Credence2posted 7 years agoin reply to this

                  I am only responding to the question that he put before me using the article reference that he provided. No, I had not read the EO as there was no direct link in the article to do so.
                  
                  Trump is generally no good, consequently my instincts in regards to his Real Objective in issuing such a order are usually good. I do not need to be terribly prescient to surmise his agenda based on his clearly stated political objectives stated before.
                  
                  Are we all confused as to what is the actual order and what is in it? Am I missing something? I will be delighted to read his EO regarding Jack discussion points on the topic., but unless there is bombshell within, I am not likely to change my attitude in its regard
                  
                  Your second hyper seems more on target as to what we are talking about, I will have a look.
                  
                  Upon review, this is the EO that reiterates protection for law officers ad nausuem and it is just what I expected and just what I told Jack as to my opinion of its content without even having to read it. So, based upon the excerpt paragraphs of the article above, Trump's Edict  just so much more bulls***!!!

                  replyreport
                  1. 89

                     GA Andersonposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                     I see it was a steady leap. No worries, I was only offering a nudge, I thought you had read the EO before deciding what was in it?
                     'Holy cow Batman, its deja vue all over again!
                     
                     But here is another thought, in another direction...
                     
                     From my readings of the orders, they could be as innocent, (or at least argued as innocent), as the actual text appears. Or, their apparent innocence could be masking legal loopholes.
                     
                     For instance; One thing the EOs had in common - each included the authority to seek funding for the areas being addressed. Would that worry a Progressive perspective, such as yours - that the orders establish presidential authority to seek additional funds; possibly without legislative oversight? Or is just the reality that orders ordering action must also supply the needs of the action?
                     
                     But that may be a stretch. It was just a thought. Just like the thought that Trump supporters might be concerned after reading the orders, (not just articles about them), and see that they were just more of the same old political machinations, (more reviews, more task forces, more studies, and symbolic declarations), that Pres. Trump was supposed to be against. But I just let that thought go.
                     
                     GA

                     replyreport
                     1. 78

                        Credence2posted 7 years agoin reply to this

                        "For instance; One thing the EOs had in common - each included the authority to seek funding for the areas being addressed. Would that worry a Progressive perspective, such as yours - that the orders establish presidential authority to seek additional funds; possibly without legislative oversight? Or is just the reality that orders ordering action must also supply the needs of the action?"
                        
                        GA,
                        
                        I am hardly a scholar in this area, but working under so many EOs in Federal Contracting and Financial Assisstance for so many years, it is understood that we were never able to consider them an authority to justify the obligating of money unless a specific law and associated funding were provided by Congress. It would not necessarily just have an problematic effect on me as a progressive. We all need to ask, where is he going to get the money? He can't just shuffle around money that has been appropriated and apportioned to the Executive branch by Congress. In my experience, there have been plenty of EOs issued by Presidents that were policy statements only, without any real teeth. The Trump administration should be aware that the 'authority to seek funding' has to begin and end with Congress

                        replyreport
                        1. 89

                           GA Andersonposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                           Hey bud, you went a little deeper than I was thinking, concerning the funding authority. I was thinking in terms of authorization for shuffling or re-allottment of funds. Or that the added weight of Presidential authority might help facilitate funding requests. But I wasn't thinking too deep about it because I think this EO was more of a political or policy document, (as you mentioned), than a specific action directive; like maybe using the National Guard to wipe out inner-city gangs.
                           
                           GA

                           replyreport
            2. 81

               jackclee lmposted 7 years agoin reply to this

               We will see. Numbers don't lie. Shooting was up 60% in Chicago last year. We have stats. Let's see what happens going forward next 4 years. If the number goes up or stayed the same, Trump would have failed. If the number comes down, does it matter who gets the credit? I am rooting for the law and reduced violence. As Trump said, the carnage must stop.

               replyreport
               1. 78

                  Credence2posted 7 years agoin reply to this

                  We all say that the carnage must stop. But there is difference between a plan to do that and Donald Trump's rhetoric.

                  replyreport
                  1. 81

                     jackclee lmposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                     No one else in politics have said it until Trump in his Inaugural speech. Please look it up...I would be interested to know who else is saying it?

                     replyreport
   2. 89

      GA Andersonposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Thanks for the prompt Jackclee, I hadn't read the text of his 'Law and Order' Executive Orders yet.
      
      But now that I have, your comment radiates an understandable personal bias. It looks like you have already formed an opinion, and are just waiting for the flies.
      
      While it is very true that a trip to the basement of this particular "Law and Order" EO would find efforts against inner-city gangs, that is only because the stated thrust of the EO is to "transnational" cartels, (and such - which would include international gangs like M13(?)), would have tendrils in the inner-city gangs. It is not my intention to split-hairs or offer semantics as a critique, because you are right in the point that the EO will reach the inner-city gangs, but your presentation of that fact reeks. Your purposeful spin describing it as an EO that "...focused on reducing gang violence in inner cities..." becomes closer to an alternative fact in the context you present.
      
      
      So, you mis-characterize the EO's primary purpose, mention inner-cities, drug gangs, and the ALCU, and then asks who will be the first to play 'the race card'. In effect you have predefined the issue in a manner that puts the 'race card'  right on top. Followed by an unsurprising ACLU inference.
      
      The question now becomes why, not who.
      
      ps. following your example of sources, here is mine:
      Presidential Executive Order on Enforcing Federal Law with Respect to Transnational Criminal Organizations and Preventing International Trafficking
      
      GA

      replyreport
      1. 81

         jackclee lmposted 7 years agoin reply to this

         Ok, I'll admit I have a bias. I am for law and order. Trump did not have do anything did he?
         He could have done what many past politicians have done and that is pay lip service to reducing crime...
         Yet, he chose to issue this executive order which set the priority for law enforcement...
         
         We will see over the next year if it had any effect.

         replyreport
         1. 89

            GA Andersonposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            I was thinking of a more partisan bias Jackclee, and I did not mean to be read as criticizing or supporting the EOs. Well, yes, I did criticize them for being just more political mish-mash, but I didn't support or criticize that mish-mash. Or Pres. Trump's authority to issue it.
            
            My response was to your presentation of the facts of the "Law and Oder" EO. You spun them, misrepresented them, (based on something you read?), tied them to racial stereotypes, and then implied any disagreement was racist, or at least tinged with racism.
            
            On reading about combating international drug cartels and gangs in the EO, I would have suspected the first bias to be against Latin Americans - Drug Lords and such. Yet you read the same prominent "International" adjectives and specifiers and your bias saw a black vs white issue involving black folks and inner-city gangs and crime.
            
            I support law and order too, and I think Pres. Trump was certainly sending a clear message. I just think your failed spin attempt, coupled with your "race card" challenge, rises to the level of an impeachable offense. We can get Wilderness and Credence2 to co-chair the impeachment committee.
            
            But... if you agree to  write an addendum to your OP, supporting the EO's message of support for law enforcement - without any racial constructs, and your support for the EO's specific targeting that will include inner-city gang violence; then I might be able to swing a couple committee votes to go for simple censor, instead of impeachment. <|;-)
            
            GA

            replyreport
            1. 81

               jackclee lmposted 7 years agoin reply to this

               GA, you should know me by now. I don't spin and never have. I was merely pointing out what I expected to be the response from the left on this order. They are so predictable. It is like child play for me. My predictions about the ACLU is the truth... look up their recent activities... They are going to use all their legal talents to obstruct Trump, which they did little under Obama... talk about bias.

               replyreport
               1. 63

                  PhoenixVposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                  Whats the aclu up to now? Suing baby Jesus nativity scenes? Encouraging protests? They oughta encourage voting and take your civics test.

                  replyreport
               2. 89

                  GA Andersonposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                  Hello again Jackclee,I'm not buying it, and considering that I think the proof I offered against your spin should have given you pause, but didn't, might make it look like you are just holding firm. Facts be damned!
                  
                  Come on buddy, go read the text of the EO, then consider your own interpretation of what it says - not what someone else says it says. Summarize it for yourself. Then go read the text of the 9th court's decision and see that the facts are the court only made a ruling on whether the government was likely to prevail in its appeal of the original TRO. They ruled on a 'Stay' request - not some determination of constitutional authority. There was no "violating of the Constitution" because they did not rule on anything to do with the Constitution. Those are the facts.
                  
                  If you do chase down those two reads, and still believe your spin is the fact, then so be it. But it would probably be wise to resist the temptation to consider yourself an adult among children. The only child's play I see is a trait of stubbornness.
                  
                  GA

                  replyreport
                  1. 81

                     jackclee lmposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                     What is it that you are niot buying?
                     I ask a question if you agree with this order?
                     I claim the groups like ACLU will object and obstruct anything Trump does or try to do.
                     What's your beef?
                     
                     If you agree, we have no issue. If you disagree and side with the ACLU, then you and I are on opposite of this issue. End of story.
                     Who could be against reducing crime?

                     replyreport
                     1. 89

                        GA Andersonposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                        Ok, I do agree groups like the ACLU will do all they can to challenge Pres. Trump's initiatives. That would indicate it was the rest of your OP that I disagreed with. And that disagreement was not a Liberal vs. Conservative issue. So there is no 'side' to be on.
                        
                        GA

                        replyreport
   3. 0

      promisemposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      The ACLU website:
      
      "For almost 100 years, the ACLU has worked to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed by the Constitution and laws of the United States."
      
      Should conservatives be in favor of an organization that defends the Constitution?

      replyreport
      1. 94

         wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

         I suspect that J Hoover said much the same thing.  Who could not be in favor of such a man?

         replyreport
         1. 0

            promisemposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            Point well taken. The ACLU does its work in the public eye. Hoover did his in secret.

            replyreport
      2. 81

         jackclee lmposted 7 years agoin reply to this

         That may be true in some cases but unfortunately it is not all it does. It is ant- christian anti-religion and anti family and it supports underage sex by child molesters... They use the law to gain advantage buy bring lawsuits to intimidate groups they don't like. Look up the founder of the ACLU and his history...

         replyreport
         1. 81

            jackclee lmposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            Here is the hidden agenda of the ACLU -
            http://www.wnd.com/2013/04/real-agenda- … d-at-last/

            replyreport
            1. 0

               promisemposted 7 years agoin reply to this

               WND is a propaganda site. Please feel free to post something about the ACLU's hidden agenda from a credible source.

               replyreport
         2. 0

            promisemposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            "it supports underage sex by child molesters."
            
            If what you say is true, the entire organization would be in jail by now and sued out of existence. I certainly would support both jail and lawsuits.
            
            Otherwise, yes, it opposes laws that favor one religion over others. Freedom of religion is an essential part of the Constitution.

            replyreport
            1. 81

               jackclee lmposted 7 years agoin reply to this

               Here is one story-
               https://aclj.org/us-constitution/why-do … n-children
               They are staffed by very good atheist lawyers that knows how to work the system.

               replyreport
2. 59

   terra gazelleposted 7 years ago

   If it were not for his lying  so much I might believe him..but as it is NO. He makes a  claim that crime has gone up..when it is at a 47 year low...Chicago crime is  half of what it is was. BUt Trump has to lie.
   Gang violence? Its nothing to what it used to be.
   Violence is  down not up..
   The surge in violence came during a year when the Chicago Police Department received harsh national attention for shootings by officers, highlighting its sordid history of police misconduct.
   People are angry..I would be too. With Trump there will not be any Justice Reform, and things will only get worse. Trump  does not think about the people..he thinks about getting his way. He is a tyrant..a thoughtless one.
   
   Neither Trump nor his admin has any idea of what they will be unloosing.

   replyreport
   1. 81

      jackclee lmposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Do you live in Chicago? Are you ok with the random shootings? What is it that make you think crime is going down? What you said about policing is true. Ever since the Ferguson shoots, more cops have been shot in recent years. Police around the country have chose to stand down to avoid conflict and the average citizen living in these areas have suffered as a result,
      Trump is one of the few politicians willing to address this problem? By the way, this problem is happening in a Democratic city run by democrats for 50 years. They have given up on these people but Trump is trying to reverse the trend. Why don't you want to help? What is your agenda by opposing him? If you can point to actual policies that hurt people, I will be glad to listen. If not, give the guy a chance. At least he is trying, more than I can say for Obama, his own home town and not a peep. He is relocating to Georgetown, the bastion of liberlism elites. In 8 years, the black people have suffered worse than under the Bush years. Why is that? Could it be liberal policies that cuddle BLM and OWS?

      replyreport
      1. 59

         terra gazelleposted 7 years agoin reply to this

         I live in Louisiana..
         Ok California, a very liberal state has very low crime form the population..and it is one of the most prosperous and liberal states in the nation.
         https://oag.ca.gov/crime
         
         Did You Know?
         
         For every 100,000 people, there are 10.55 daily crimes that occur in Chicago.
         Chicago is safer than 6% of the cities in the United States.
         In Chicago you have a 1 in 26 chance of becoming a victim of any crime.
         The number of total year over year crimes in Chicago has decreased by 4%.
         
         Chicago, last year was high in crime..But still half of what it was 40 years .
         The Chicago metropolitan territory, frequently called as Chicagoland, is home to about 10 million people and is the third-biggest in the U.S.
         So...When you talk about  the population and crime and the factor of the police and  the harrassment.... you have to take it all into  the basket..That there has been more Republican Governors then Dem...that the cities get less for education and   for housing then the berbs.
         Hopefully with the new Democrat as Mayor, it will start to hel[p. Still you can not ake one year that crime raised and say that is what the City and its people are.
         
         Here in Louisiana the crime rate is higher then almost any other state per  percentage of population. And it is a Red, red state...Jindal put us 2 billion in debt..which he tried to cover by taking from  education..leaving our new Gov with a mess. Which is hwhat  Repubs do.
         http://www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf/201 … e_aga.html

         replyreport
         1. 81

            jackclee lmposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            I'm not sure I follow your logic... you are claiming because the percent of population in Chicago is much higher, the amount of crime is acceptable? And the Republican Governor is somehow responsible and the city mayor who is democrat is doing his best...Wow what planet do you think we live on?
            The fact is, this city is a disaster, no amount of sugar coating by you is going to change it.
            The same happened in NYC in the early 1990s... when mayor Dinkins was in charge. He made the claim that we were just too big and some level of crime is inevitable... when Guliani came to office, he proceeded to clean up the city with very strict control and proactive policing. It worked and crime went way down and the city came alive. Chicago could take a lesson from this playbook.
            You have misplaced the blame. It is the Democrats who has been controlling Chicago for the last 50 years who is responsible for the crime and the drugs and the shootings and the sactuary city policy. They have no one to blame but themselves who continue to vote for the corrupt government.

            replyreport
         2. 94

            wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            Wait.  Are you saying that fear of police makes Chicago residents kill or steal from each other?  That having less free housing makes them do that?  What, are they having "range wars" over who gets to live in that house?
            
            Don't know that I'd brag about a city that is in the bottom 7% in the nation for safety, either.

            replyreport
3. 0

   ahorsebackposted 7 years ago

   Chicago violence - Latest news -one  11 and one  12 year old girl  shot on the streets of Chicago this weekend , one on a playground and one in the back of an SUV,  to bring the yearly total to  400  shooting deaths !   But DOES THAT BOTHER THE ANTI-TRUMP  PEOPLE OF THE LEFT ?   Nope!
   
   Anything  to fight the system .

   replyreport
4. 81

   jackclee lmposted 7 years ago

   WND is a conservative site but they are not propaganda as the way it is defined. All you need to do is search at some of the lawsuits they engage in and you will see a pattern...
   Do you deny the ACLU is anti religion and anti Capitalism?

   replyreport
   1. 0

      promisemposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      ACLU is supposed to be against laws that favor one religion over another. That doesn't make them anti-religion. It just makes them pro-Constitution.
      
      For the record, I don't like a lot of what the organization does. But I understand their intent.

      replyreport
   2. 0

      promisemposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      "On June 11, 2013, the ACLU filed a lawsuit challenging the legality of the National Security Agency’s mass collection of Americans’ phone records. The complaint argues that the dragnet violates the right to privacy protected by the Fourth Amendment as well as the freedoms of speech and association protected by the First Amendment."
      
      Agree or disagree?

      replyreport
      1. 81

         jackclee lmposted 7 years agoin reply to this

         I agree. As I said they do some good...

         replyreport
         1. 0

            promisemposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            OK, thanks for the discussion.

            replyreport