Leftist Violence in Chicago....Again

[User]

4 hours ago, Hodad said:

Cities aren't distancing themselves for political purposes. It's for entirely practical purposes.

You keep pushing this lie. I have refuted it several times, but you cowardly hide from me. 

YOU and others like you push this lawlessness on us, Biden opened the floodgates. Now you say that because they are here you have to live with them. Its the worst kind of circular reasoning. You create the problem, support the problem, want the lawlessness... then turn around and argue that ignoring what you created is the practical thing to do. 

 

The latest news is that ICE agents were being attacked this last week, they called for help from Chicago PD and Chicago PD ignored them. 

 

[CdnFox]

4 hours ago, Nationalist said:

And look how you turned out...

Cannot.... upvote.... enough.....

[robosmith]

5 hours ago, Nationalist said:

And look how you turned out...

So you have no idea what you're talking about, IGNORAMUS.

[CdnFox]

25 minutes ago, robosmith said:

 

Quote

 

  5 hours ago, Nationalist said:

And look how you turned out...

 

 

So you have no idea what you're talking about, IGNORAMUS.

LOL 

Ahhh robo.   Unintentionally proving the point since 1976  

[CdnFox]

15 hours ago, LinkSoul60 said:

Sure, whatever a horse puckey is...  I'll look up who came into office when Obama left. The name escapes me.

Hardly matters, if it was the most divided in history when obama left, then it's not the fault of the guy who came after is it

[robosmith]

18 hours ago, miketx said:

Right wing don't do that stuff. Stop lying.

PROVE they didn't do it. I posted STRONG EVIDENCE THEY DID.

https://www.instagram.com/reel/DPcRw51DP1m/

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, robosmith said:

PROVE they didn't do it. I posted STRONG EVIDENCE THEY DID.

https://www.instagram.com/reel/DPcRw51DP1m/

That's very weak evidence.  And its up to you to prove your case, and that doesn't come close. 

[Hodad]

13 hours ago, Venandi said:

Sanctuary cities exist for a single purpose and that's to systemically ignore federal immigration law and inter-agency cooperation. It's also a double edged sword IMO, if you support the idea in principle you should have no issue with other incarnations of the same thing... say second amendment sanctuaries that openly ignore (meaning defy) any future gun control efforts you might support.

Like others, I may have my own views on a case by case basis but across the board I can't see it being a good thing. If nothing else, I think it makes a country difficult to govern and it might be wise to consider the unintended consequences of doing it for short term political gain.

I guess we can agree to disagree here... my point stands though, don't be surprised if (actually when) that very argument gets thrown back in your face at a later date. 

I see nothing "fun" in this and nothing fun about the predictable future backlash (in both directions) either. I do think you're right about the gleeful aspect of it for some voters though and it speaks to my continued fear of election outcomes becoming an inducement to political violence if (when) things don't go in the direction that people prone to endorsing politically motivated violence hope for.

IMO again, it's one of those "be careful what you wish for" things that people unwisely leave to the see-saw to decide... based on what I've seen of the world I think that's a bad idea because it usually comes with a laundry list of unintended consequences.

You're seeing that right now and you don't like it. Just imagine how much you won't like what comes next...  it's still a long voyage to Crazy Island IMO and we haven't crossed the PNR line yet. But I think we may be getting close and that gleefulness I mentioned above always adds a few shaft  revolutions to the engine room telegraph. 

Eh, I think we're already on crazy island. January 6? Third term? Department of War practicing on Democratic cities? 

 

At any rate, this lack of cooperation is just part of the tension inherent in a federal system, and it happens, perhaps, a lot more than you may realize. 

Marijuana is legal in 24 states now, but still a schedule one drug generally--still a federal crime. There is no state enforcement assistance for that which is legal in the state.

Some states have stricter gun laws on the books that federal laws, but the ATF isn't out enforcing state standards.

The 10th amendment says that's fine--the federal government can't force state or city LEOs to do federal enforcement--and we've lived that way for a couple hundred years. 

Because immigration has been hyped into a hot-button issue at the moment, people seem to have forgotten that a lack of cooperation on points of legal disagreement between state and federal government is our status quo. That's our normal. Not some kind of escalation. 

Some states have determined that their citizens are safer and better off if pot is regulated and visible instead of being driven into the criminal underground. Some jurisdictions have similarly decided that their citizens are safer and better off if undocumented immigrants are visible and compliant rather than being driven into the criminal underground. They want these people to stop for the police, not run from them. They want witnesses to share information and testimony when they are investigating a crime, rather than hiding. They want people to send their kids to school rather than forcing them into the streets for gang recruitment.

Surely that makes sense from the state and city perspective, no? It's not to spite the federal government, it's simply to govern more effectively. To do what is best for the people living there. 

 

Edited October 7, 2025 by Hodad

[Venandi]

11 hours ago, Hodad said:

At any rate, this lack of cooperation is just part of the tension inherent in a federal system, and it happens, perhaps, a lot more than you may realize. 

Admittedly, you're probably right about it extending to more issues than I realize but it seems to me that sanctuary issues have evolved into more than a simple lack of cooperation, it's now active and deliberate obstruction that extends to areas I wouldn't have expected... like ignoring officer assistance requests in an emergency. That's breaking new ground and I'd be surprised if we don't see pushback on it from police services within the sanctuary jurisdiction itself.

I don't have time to pursue this now and I'll be away for a bit but in the mean time here's a link to a "Congressional Research Service" overview that takes a condensed dive into some of the legal issues and machinations on both sides of the issue.

I thought it was interesting but that might just be me.

Cheers

 https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/LSB/PDF/LSB11321/LSB11321.1.pdf

Ya... it's a naked link Robo, cover your eyes.