Trump wants to invade.....

[Jaskalas]

*shriek! Don't touch our homicide rates! /Dems
As if Chicago has something to be proud of and protect on this subject.

The only "help" he has thus far promised is to allow authorities to conduct policing that most likely violates the constitution.

Promise to... maybe... that most likely... Signal to noise ratio still needs work.
Wait til there's a fire (violation) before screaming smoke.
Only thing I'm confident of is Chicago needs help, and the plans to do so are not set in stone.

 

[K1052]

*shriek! Don't touch our homicide rates! /Dems
As if Chicago has something to be proud of and protect on this subject.



Promise to... maybe... that most likely... Signal to noise ratio still needs work.
Wait til there's a fire (violation) before screaming smoke.
Only thing I'm confident of is Chicago needs help, and the plans to do so are not set in stone.

Well he is "like a smart person" so maybe he knows something everyone else doesn't.

Or addressing complex historical socio-economic issues and policing issues that have been a problem for decades will require something a little more thoughtful than "send in the Feds". The current surge in violence is largely attributed to a pullback by the police after they got caught doing a bunch of shit they shouldn't be doing. For a long time the force, prosecutors, and the government were content to look the other way on police crimes which can only be described as murders but that time has ended.

 

[justoh]

A leader making decisions that is within their discretion is not authoritarian.

What about authoritarian leaders who make decisions within their discretion? Surely authoritarian leaders cannot all be non-authoritarian.

Anyway, his tweet was him (vaguely and arbitrarily) demanding obedience from Chicago, instead of using the institutions and processes the people have put into place, whatever they may be.

"Authoritarian leaders often exercise power arbitrarily and without regard to existing bodies of law"

https://www.britannica.com/topic/authoritarianism

You could argue that it's not a formal exercise of power, but it doesn't have to be formal. It's an exercise of power necessarily because it's a (belligerent) threat from a head of state, implying future action.

Also,

" of, relating to, or favoring blind submission to authority<had authoritarian parents>"

It's demanding blind submission, since no basis for legit intervention in il was being offered.

 

[realibrad]

What about authoritarian leaders who make decisions within their discretion? Surely authoritarian leaders cannot all be non-authoritarian.

Anyway, his tweet was him (vaguely and arbitrarily) demanding obedience from Chicago, instead of using the institutions and processes the people have put into place, whatever they may be.

"Authoritarian leaders often exercise power arbitrarily and without regard to existing bodies of law"

https://www.britannica.com/topic/authoritarianism

You could argue that it's not a formal exercise of power, but it doesn't have to be formal. It's an exercise of power necessarily because it's a (belligerent) threat from a head of state, implying future action.

Also,

" of, relating to, or favoring blind submission to authority<had authoritarian parents>"

It's demanding blind submission, since no basis for legit intervention in il was being offered.

This is the tweet.

If Chicago doesn't fix the horrible "carnage" going on, 228 shootings in 2017 with 42 killings (up 24% from 2016), I will send in the Feds!

He is not telling anyone to submit, unless you are saying submitting is stopping carnage. I read it as if Chicago cannot stop the violence in Chicago, then Trump will exercise his office's power and send in federal agents. That context is not exercising arbitrary authority as its well within the scope of the president. Now, that does not mean I agree doing that before doing simple things like responding the the Mayor, or contacting with the governor. Trump is trying to signal how "tough" he is by tweeting this. Its a dumb thing to do, but expected. What it is not is an authoritarian because its well within the scope of his power and it is not taking away any rights. Forcing blind submission would be taking away rights in this country.

I am not sure what obedience you think he is demanding from Chicago.

 

[agent00f]

Authoritarian -

1. favoring complete obedience or subjection to authority as opposed to individual freedom.

2. of or relating to a governmental or political system, principle, or practice in which individual freedom is held as completely subordinate to the power or authority of the state, centered either in one person or a small group that is not constitutionally accountable to the people.

3. exercising complete or almost complete control over the will of another or of others

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/authoritarian

See the theme there Agent? A leader making decisions that is within their discretion is not authoritarian. Tweeting about it is stupid, but its not authoritarian.

Everyone already knows you can do word association, ie authoritarian = no freedom, I = smart, hurr durr.

I imagine someone telling you their boss is a real authoritarian for the usual reason of rash decisions not subject to better reason, and you predictably arguing that's not true because the boss isn't violating their individual freedom. Quite unfortunate for the world that understanding anything is beyond your sort.

 

[justoh]

I am not sure what obedience you think he is demanding from Chicago.

 

[realibrad]

 

[brandonbull]

Obama and his DoJ had no problem sending in "the Feds" several times. The last 8 years seemed to set the precedent of sending in "the Feds" if the local authorities are not doing their job properly.

 

[Brainonska511]

Obama and his DoJ had no problem sending in "the Feds" several times. The last 8 years seemed to set the precedent of sending in "the Feds" if the local authorities are not doing their job properly.

Link?
---

And how would Trump "send in the Feds"? What Federal laws is he going to have them enforce? The president can't unilaterally send in federal forces to enforce state laws.

 

[realibrad]

Link?
---

And how would Trump "send in the Feds"? What Federal laws is he going to have them enforce? The president can't unilaterally send in federal forces to enforce state laws.

Why would it mean enforcing laws? Obama sent in the FBI many times. There is nothing wrong with doing so either. He also sent in the Justice department to look into things.

 

[momeNt]

Since it's mostly gang violence, it probably can fall under FBI jurisdiction for organized crime.

 

[realibrad]

Since it's mostly gang violence, it probably can fall under FBI jurisdiction for organized crime.

No because its an authoritarian decision to invade. It has to be Trump taking over Chicago, it just hasta.

 

[justoh]

My bad. I thought sapranos was set in chicago. I only watch good drama, so I wasn't sure (assuming that pic was from sapranos).

 

[TeeJay1952]

I am so foolish, I cannot remember Obama sending in the Feds. Please elaborate.

 

[brandonbull]

Link?
---

And how would Trump "send in the Feds"? What Federal laws is he going to have them enforce? The president can't unilaterally send in federal forces to enforce state laws.

Kinda sounds like he is sending DoJ personnel. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qm63vgBBPDw

 

[Brainonska511]

Kinda sounds like he is sending DoJ personnel. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qm63vgBBPDw

So it looks like that case you linked was the President using existing authority over enforcement of Federal civil rights laws (and investigating whether they were violated). What statutes would Trump be able to use to unilaterally act in Chicago?

 

[K1052]

Kinda sounds like he is sending DoJ personnel. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qm63vgBBPDw

To do what exactly?

Keep in mind the DOJ was just here to do a review of CPD and the report is already out.

Based on Trump's comments I can only conclude that his actual intent is to send Federal Agents to Chicago in order to help CPD violate the constitution in the name of "law and order". This would be a stunning (and impeachable) abuse of power.

 

[brandonbull]

To do what exactly?

Keep in mind the DOJ was just here to do a review of CPD and the report is already out.

Based on Trump's comments I can only conclude that his actual intent is to send Federal Agents to Chicago in order to help CPD violate the constitution in the name of "law and order". This would be a stunning (and impeachable) abuse of power.

Why would you conclude that Trump is only to sending in "the Feds" for nefarious reasons but Obama did it in a constitutional manner? Maybe a lot of the people involved in the homicides were/are violating the RICO Act?

 

[DrunkenSano]

I am really surprised people would be against cleaning up the crime in certain parts of Chicago, shocking really. Of course people will say that it is up to the city to do it. Well, Chicago hasn't done anything, in fact they have made it harder since it is apparently racist to try to clamp down on the murders that are being perpetrated by African American thugs there. I certainly see no issue with the President cleaning up the mess in Chicago, it is apparent that the city and the state are unable to do so.

 

[cubby1223]

....Chicago

http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/24/politics/donald-trump-chicago-carnage/

Despite the ""carnage"", he seems unaware that Chicago is Per Capita one of the safest Cities in the US.

So you're saying you don't care about helping the poor, innocent minorities living in high-crime areas on the basis that the rich white neighborhoods are relatively safe?

 

[cubby1223]

Based on Trump's comments I can only conclude that his actual intent is to send Federal Agents to Chicago in order to help CPD violate the constitution in the name of "law and order". This would be a stunning (and impeachable) abuse of power.

Other people conclude different things. You'll have to make a stronger argument than "I believe I am right, therefore I am right."

 

[cubby1223]

Link?
---

And how would Trump "send in the Feds"? What Federal laws is he going to have them enforce? The president can't unilaterally send in federal forces to enforce state laws.

There are virtually endless possibilities for the Feds to take over, as we've seen previous administrations take actions. As one example, the crime dis-proportionally affects minorities, therefore it's a federal civil rights issue.

DHS recently made the declaration that state-run elections are critical national infrastructure, therefore the feds and the Department of Homeland Security can step in. You don't think an argument can be made for sending the feds to Chicago?

 

[realibrad]

To do what exactly?

Keep in mind the DOJ was just here to do a review of CPD and the report is already out.

Based on Trump's comments I can only conclude that his actual intent is to send Federal Agents to Chicago in order to help CPD violate the constitution in the name of "law and order". This would be a stunning (and impeachable) abuse of power.

What comments make the only possible conclusion that? I know of no such comments about violating the constitution for law and order. He says a lot of dumb shit, but that is absurd.

You literally know of times when the Feds have been sent in to do a legitimate job, but what has been said that this time it would be to take away rights to reduce crime?

 

[K1052]

Why would you conclude that Trump is only to sending in "the Feds" for nefarious reasons but Obama did it in a constitutional manner? Maybe a lot of the people involved in the homicides were/are violating the RICO Act?

To quote ABC's interview of Trump:

Now if they want help, I would love to help them. I will send in what we have to send in. Maybe they're not gonna have to be so politically correct,” Trump told Muir. “Maybe they're being overly political correct. Maybe there's something going on.

In the context of his litany of speeches on stuff like stop and frisk, profiling, etc the only conclusion I can come to is that he would either direct Federal Agents to do those things or help the CPD to do those things.

 

[K1052]

I know of no such comments about violating the constitution for law and order.

He's proposed stop and frisk nationwide, profiling, and chided companies for not opening their encryption to authorities (part of the "close up the internet talk").

That's also just the tip of the iceberg of blatantly unconstitutional things he's proposed.