It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Trump will propose nationwide stop-and-frisk to address violence 2nite on Hannity

page: 3
20
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 21 2016 @ 03:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: TinfoilTP


If we deported every Social Justice Warrior to the backstreets of Mexico City to live the US would improve overnight but he is not proposing that either.


And some people say that Trump supporters have authoritarian fantasies. Crazy!


You don't like a strawman example to point out their strawman? Oh that's right you take things literally when it suits your agenda.




posted on Sep, 21 2016 @ 03:49 PM
link   
a reply to: TinfoilTP

No my side doesn't hate the Second but speaking for myself, I support it. Regardless, is it okay to trash the Fourth? This is why our elections have devolved into WWE level entertainment. "You don't like the Second so screw all the amendments." Good grief.



posted on Sep, 21 2016 @ 03:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: TinfoilTP

It's not a strawman because I'm not suggesting that he did say it.

It's an analogy based of your statement.

Funny that you support stop and frisk nationwide but you're worried about SJW's. You're priorities are all out of whack.


Let's see...one (stop n frisk) disarms street thugs, the other (SJW's) enables street rioting arsonists. I get the picture perfectly clear and it is all too obvious which one is for good and which one is for violence.



posted on Sep, 21 2016 @ 03:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: TinfoilTP

It's not a strawman because I'm not suggesting that he did say it.

It's an analogy based of your statement.

Funny that you support stop and frisk nationwide but you're worried about SJW's. You're priorities are all out of whack.


To be fair Trump isn't attracting the best and brightest among us.



posted on Sep, 21 2016 @ 03:52 PM
link   
a reply to: imsoconfused

Making America Great Again. one freedom at a time.



posted on Sep, 21 2016 @ 03:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: TinfoilTP

No my side doesn't hate the Second but speaking for myself, I support it. Regardless, is it okay to trash the Fourth? This is why our elections have devolved into WWE level entertainment. "You don't like the Second so screw all the amendments." Good grief.


They legally did it in New York, go ask them.



posted on Sep, 21 2016 @ 03:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: WilburnRoach


Is Trumps own words good enough for you people?


I missed the part where he proposed "nation wide" stop and frisk.

Is there more footage?

Or was the dishonest headline made up?
edit on 21-9-2016 by Deny Arrogance because: (no reason given)

edit on 21-9-2016 by Deny Arrogance because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 21 2016 @ 03:56 PM
link   
a reply to: TinfoilTP

Stop and Frisk also removes Probable Cause and Violates the constitution.

SJW don't enable rioting or arsonists. They are still illegal to do just like always. SJW's don't enable anything. If you don't believe me go start a riot and claim SJW as your defense.



posted on Sep, 21 2016 @ 03:59 PM
link   
a reply to: TinfoilTP

Actually the policy was ruled a violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments in 2014.



posted on Sep, 21 2016 @ 04:02 PM
link   
a reply to: imsoconfused

He's also not fond of the First Amendment's Freedom of the press... And promises to make some changes to abolish that protection.

Source



“One of the things I’m going to do if I win,” Trump said Friday during a rally in Fort Worth, Texas, “I’m going to open up our libel laws so when they write purposely negative and horrible and false articles, we can sue them and win lots of money.”
...
“We’re going to open up those libel laws so when The New York Times writes a hit piece, which is a total disgrace, or when The Washington Post, which is there for other reasons, writes a hit piece, we can sue them and win money instead of having no chance of winning because they’re totally protected,” he said. “We’re going to open up libel laws and we’re going to have people sue you like you’ve never got sued before.”


He's also not happy with our Freedom of Expression


“We should arrest the people that do that because they’re participating in crime,” Trump continued. “We should arrest them. Instead they say, ‘Oh no, you can’t do anything, that’s freedom of expression.”


Yes, people being "totally protected" by the first amendment just pisses Trump off. What other constitutional changes will he make - or guarantee with an appointment to the Supreme Court?



posted on Sep, 21 2016 @ 04:03 PM
link   
Just wanted to go on record here...

Assuming of course that this is a legit story, I absolutely oppose this policy.

Back to earth, Donald...

TheRedneck



posted on Sep, 21 2016 @ 04:05 PM
link   
wheres that xuenchen guy with his typical "trump just got 100,000 more votes" post.



posted on Sep, 21 2016 @ 04:06 PM
link   
I'm not ok with stop and frisk, no not at all - gotta go by the constitution on this one. I'm not sure why politicians always come up with bad solutions to real problems. Dems and Reps both do that all the time. E.g., Obamacare is a solution that was worse than the original problem. Isis was a solution that was worse than the original issue (Syria).



posted on Sep, 21 2016 @ 04:06 PM
link   
I don't understand where the 'nationwide' stop & frisk is stated. I understood that he was specifically talking about Chicago's black on black crime. If they applied the stop and frisk like they did in New York, would this not possibly assist in saving many lives in South Chicago? I could see if it did severely reduce the black on black violence that such a tactic would be phased into other notorious sections of American cities. How is this considered a bad thing?

As far as another's comment on concealed weapons areas...my understanding is that individual will immediately tell an officer he has a concealed weapons permit. The officer may remove the weapon and verify that he has such a permit. Most law abiding concealed gun permit owners understand the need to follow the law to the letter.



posted on Sep, 21 2016 @ 04:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Kali74

So either Trump is truly a dumbass because he didn't know this, or he's just pandering to that basket of deplorables again to get their vote.

Either way, I'm thoroughly disgusted.



posted on Sep, 21 2016 @ 04:07 PM
link   
The perfect way to piss off Rep's and Dem's. Does he think he can win with just his own supporters?



posted on Sep, 21 2016 @ 04:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: TinfoilTP

Stop and Frisk also removes Probable Cause and Violates the constitution.



No it doesn't, go tell New York City that and ask why they were able to do it.

There are laws for carrying guns in public. Police enforce those laws.

If you want to carry in public, you get a permit and by signing the permit you agree that you can be checked and must show the permit. Now are you going to tell everyone that if you choose to not get a permit you cannot be checked but those with a permit can? That is preposterous.

Some cities do not allow civilians permits at all so nobody can carry in public. NYC was like that but gun violence on the streets were high so they did a stop a frisk policy and gun violence was drastically reduced. To a SJW that must be awful, how dare police do their jobs and reduce violence.
edit on 21-9-2016 by TinfoilTP because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 21 2016 @ 04:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: Deny Arrogance

originally posted by: WilburnRoach


Is Trumps own words good enough for you people?


I missed the part where he proposed "nation wide" stop and frisk.

Is there more footage?

Or was the dishonest headline made up?



He made his statement in response to an audience member's question about what the New York businessman would do to reduce crime in predominantly black communities across the nation, said the two people, Geoff Betts and Connie Tucker.


From the Reuters story posted at the top of page 2.



posted on Sep, 21 2016 @ 04:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: Deny Arrogance
I missed the part where he proposed "nation wide" stop and frisk.


Yeah, I don't think Trump said "nationwide". But implementing a violation of the Constitution ANYWHERE in the US is still a violation of the constitutional. Maybe he just means in the "black community".

The interview will air tonight.



Audience member: I had a question about, there’s been a lot of violence in the black community. I want to know, what would you do to help stop that violence — you know, black-on-black crime?

Trump: I would do stop-and-frisk. I think you have to. We did it in New York, it worked incredibly well, and you have to be proactive and, you know, you really help people sort-of change their mind automatically. You understand, you have to have, in my opinion, I see what’s going on in Chicago. I think stop-and-frisk. In New York City is was so incredible, the way it worked. Now, we had a very good mayor, but New York City was incredible, the way that worked. So I think that could be one step you could do.


Source


originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: Kali74

So either Trump is truly a dumbass because he didn't know this, or he's just pandering to that basket of deplorables again to get their vote.


I'm certain it's "A". There's so much he doesn't know and he's very quick to say that he'll violate the Constitution.
edit on 9/21/2016 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 21 2016 @ 04:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

The question was about the nation. Not a leap that the answer was too?




top topics



 
20
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join