Trump Says He Will 'Send in the Feds' if Chicago Doesn't End 'Carnage'

originally posted by: Daughter2
Why don't they go to the root of the REAL problem in Chicago - which is massive corruption and nepotism in local and State government.

A gang member isn't going to change their behavior because they might get 20 instead of 10 years. A stay in prison is pretty much accepted as part of the normal process of life.

Long prison sentences and "law and order" approach has already been tried and it failed.

That could be part of the problem, something that will hopefully be looked at and corrected as well!

About time the Feds go in and handle business

Wait, I thought the government was evil and worthless and should be cut to shreds??

Besides getting rid of gun control in Chicago was supposed to have fixed this already??

a reply to: Snarl

A problem that took decades to create cannot be solved overnight.

Even if Trump did send in federal forces, the educational, societal, judicial systems that created this would still be in place.

Trump would just be treating the symptoms, not the disease.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Snarl
A problem that took decades to create cannot be solved overnight.

We've yet to see how far he's really willing to go.

I have to say ... I was surprised to see him take this on early in his Presidency.
Big ... yuuuuge ... balls!!

a reply to: Snarl

I applaud him for taking the problem on. I just hope focus is on the right elements.

a reply to: Snarl

Trump does not need the feds. All he needs to do is officially legalize certain drugs that should NOT have been schedule 1 in the first place or end the war on drugs period.

This will cut fundings to the cartel/Gangs as well as break their monopoly. Organized crime is very similar to small buisnesses, and he should know that the best way to counter them is by cutting off their prime source for money. Starve the gang members in other words, similar to sanctions.

There are many ways to combat criminals effectively and that is by ending their buisnesses. This has been debated for many years, and it will drop the crime rate in those cities.

If Cannabis (for example) was fully legalized in both Detroit AND Chicago the crime rate will drop and people will have legal jobs instead of relying on unlawful ways to earn a living. (the two major cities have been effected by those crime waves, poverty as well as being effected by Gun free zones; which disallows citizens the right to defend themselves. (another reason why the crime rate is so high)This too also needs to be reworked and perhaps the two cities will be prosperous once more.

Edit: another plus side on legalizing Cannabis is that it will also reduce the support the left currently has since after all, Cannabis advocates would praise Trump for being the first president to legalize it since it became illegal in the 1930's through reefer madness propaganda. It is a win win if Trump pulls through on this.

However I don't think the feds is the correct answer. Only as a Last resort.

Trump Says He Will 'Send in the Feds' if Chicago Doesn't End 'Carnage'

How many will he have to send and how long will they survive?

originally posted by: DerBeobachter
Trump Says He Will 'Send in the Feds' if Chicago Doesn't End 'Carnage'

How many will he have to send and how long will they survive?

I lived in AZ for a couple of years, Gilbert to be exact. Nice little town. One morning I got a call from my neighbor to look out my front window. I was shocked to see task force members coming in front of my house; unbeknownst to me, they were positioned behind my bushes, the other side of my side wall; and I didn't hear a peep. The only reason my neighbor knew, was his wife was out walking the dogs and ran into them.

Turns out we had a neighbor who tried to kill his wife or gf, and after she fled, he was roaming the neighborhood with a rifle so he could finish the job.

We didn't have lawns, we had crushed rock. I was in awe at how good these guys were, and yes they got the guy.

My bet is with the Feds!

a reply to: grey580

What happened to States Rights?

Didn't matter too much when it comes to gun control, immigration law, and the 'Afforabable' Care act.

Now suddenly State rights mean something.

a reply to: reldra

Because Chicago is constantly in the news for it. Do you really need that explained to you? And it's no small problem, so just be happy someone is willing to do something about it somewhere. What a twat.

Well the first thing that will need to stop is the crates and unlimited supply of guns and ammo that seemingly just show up in a damn alley.

Second we need to get to the younger kids first and stop the growth. It's like killing a weed at it's root to stop it from spreading.

The hardest will be to reform those that are well entrenched in gang life. Some want to change and others have no desire. They love the thug life. So educational platforms need to be made.

originally posted by: dawnstar
I imagine that there's been plenty of FBI agents and such there all along trying to help out...
so what's he planning on doing declaring a state if emergency and sending in the national guard??
the national guard isn't actually federal though it is?

Theres always NORTHCOM!
2

a reply to: PistolPete

This post should get 100 stars, it's the needle in the haystack.

This is a little snippet from a four part series about a gangster cop named Ronald Watts who was sentenced for stealing money from a drug courier:


The Intercept
“The chief of internal affairs is the most powerful person in the Chicago Police Department,” Spalding observed. “They report only to the superintendent.” Yet because of Rivera’s failure to exercise that power, “it shifted to the corrupt officers.” Watts understood this, she said. She heard him on more than one occasion say in the presence of other officers at the station house, “You think the feds are ever going to come against me? If they come after me, I’m going to sing a song so loud it’ll crumble the department and bring all the bosses down with me.” This was not idle talk, she said. He was sending a message.


I don't think Trump is talking about sending the Army to the streets of Chicago, he's talking about cracking heads in the CPD so they actually do their jobs instead enabling the other gangs to prey on the public. They're both criminal organizations.

a reply to: reldra

Hi reldra, I don't mean to drag you back into this but I really want to hear your take on this now that you've had time to sleep and think about it.. Do you still feel the same way? I'm sure you want what is best for america? Although its 24 on the list we have been continuing to show you that Chicago in fact needs the most help.

Instead of critizing him for his choice why can't you just applaud him for sticking to his word and commiting to try and help a place really in need?

Or are you still too emotionally invested that you just have to go against anything Trump?

originally posted by: MysticPearl
a reply to: Snarl

Brings a tear to my eye.

Finally, backbone in the white house. The democrats have ruined Chicago. They've had years to address the issues and all we're seeing is an ever rising murder rate. About time the Feds go in and handle business.

Amazingly, it also shows how little Obama cares about his home town. Doesn't care if blacks are shooting each other every damn day. He only cares if he can blame whitey for it.

Thats just it, Chicago is not Obama's home town. Its where he made money and a name for himself.

His hometown is Honolulu. He grew up a privileged upper class white kid.

It would be fantastic if the feds help those people, because their local authorities are leaving them to die.

I wonder if the Chicago PD have already asked the Feds for assistance.
Legally the Feds would automatically have jurisdiction if they were invited by law enforcement who has jurisdiction.

The Chicago PD are overwhelmed. I think they would appreciate help.
They knew Obama would never have assisted - for political reasons.
Their local government seems to be failing them. - reasons could be lack of will, financial or corruption.

The feds could help with additional manpower.
It might even put a big dent in the problem if they started sending illegals in the area back to their home country.
Mayor Rahm Emanuel seems to be in denial that his proclaimed "sanctuary city" status could be attracting criminals.

originally posted by: reldra
Talk of 'sending the feds' to a US city when not in the middle of an active disaster, a persistent high crime rate is not an active disaster, is concerning. To say the least.

Detroit has the highest violent crime rate. Chicago comes up on the list at 24. The city I (live right outside of) is at 11, and we don't actually have a lot of crime. A murder of any kind makes big news.



He would have to 'send the feds' into 23 other cities first???

I live 25 miles north of Detroit and i see the website that has the statistics you are quoting.
www.worldatlas.com...

As of this past Monday, Chicago had 228 shootings for the year of 2017....that is only 3 weeks into the year for god's sake.
www.chicagotribune.com...

I would venture to say that is more shootings than some war zones have around the world, certainly a lot more than Detroit has...you might hear about 6-7 shootings a week around here, but i do not always watch the local news.
Chicago needs an crime intervention. Period. How they can do it, is anyone's guess.
But something needs to be done.

heyjackass.com...

Week in Progress (1/22 – 1/28)
Shot & Killed: 4
Shot & Wounded: 34
Total Shot: 38
Total Homicides: 5
2017 Stats

originally posted by: knowledgehunter0986
a reply to: reldra

Hi reldra, I don't mean to drag you back into this but I really want to hear your take on this now that you've had time to sleep and think about it.. Do you still feel the same way? I'm sure you want what is best for america? Although its 24 on the list we have been continuing to show you that Chicago in fact needs the most help.

Instead of critizing him for his choice why can't you just applaud him for sticking to his word and commiting to try and help a place really in need?

Or are you still too emotionally invested that you just have to go against anything Trump?

That is the biggest problem with those who oppose Trump. They are unwilling to acknowledge anything that may truly be good. They are afraid of him being successful which is downright blasphemy. I did not want Hillary in office but god bless it, if she were the one that was elected I would have supported her and her decisions that would help make America great.