Nancy has been waiting because she wants more than just impeachment-JAIL!!

Your problem is as a resident you don't see things like visitors do.

I was a visitor once, too. There's a reason I became a resident.

Even with the reduction in crime your city is still much more dangerous than the larger cities in the south.

Off the top of my head, some of the largest cities in the South (assuming we aren't counting the southern part of the West Coast), are Houston, Phoenix, San Antonio, Dallas, Austin, Jacksonville, Charlotte, Fort Worth, Atlanta, Memphis, St. Louis, Kansas City, and New Orleans. Their murder rates are 11.50, 9.55, 8.15, 12.48, 2.47, 12.18, 9.40, 8.02, 16.41, 27.73, 66.07, 30.93, and 39.50. As you can see, in that list, only liberal Austin has a lower murder rate than NYC's 3.39. Most of those cities have much higher murder rates -- nearly 20 times as high, in one case.

That's all the more remarkable when you look at how cities are defined differently. NYC is one of those big old eastern cities where the "city" is defined as just the core urban area, and so the crime stats don't get diluted with the stats from distant suburbs and surrounding rural areas, as happens with a lot of southern cities. For example, the population density of Austin and Houston are 3,182 and 3,660/sq mile, respectively, which is practically suburban, because they're each drawn with city lines that stretch way out into the boondocks. New York city, by comparison, has a population density of 27,751/square mile -- nearly eight times as dense as Austin. With NYC stats, you're looking just as the urban core, not the urban area, its wealthy suburbs, and distant rural areas. Yet, even zoomed in to focus just on the city itself, it's remarkably safe. Imagine what it would be if we were counting the multi-millionaire suburbs like Scarsdale and Greenwich. A third of the richest communities in America are NYC suburbs, but they don't count in NYC's stats, the way they would if its borders were drawn the way, say, Houston's are.


Most tourist are easy to spot which makes them a prime target

As a reminder, even property crime is unusually low in NYC. As for the tourists, most of them aren't traveling to the parts of NYC that generate most of the crime (poorer parts of Brooklyn, Queens, and the Bronx). Mostly they come to wealthy Manhattan, where there's very little crime, and the worst you're likely to face is a pick-pocket. That said, I know there are tourists who feel unsafe in NYC simply because of the diversity. They see a lot of brown faces and hear countless languages and accents, as well as seeing ethnic attire, and they start to freak out -- they'd rather be in Nashville, Tulsa, or Dallas, where they feel safer, even if they're actually at much greater statistical danger.
 
I do? So now you have a degree in criminal investigative psychology?
Don't worry asshole, I won't use my expertise with a firearm to harm any
innocent people and I greatly resent the accusation from a loser like you.

When you've been on message boards as long as we have, you start to recognize the same, repetitive patterns.
 
Manaforte broke no laws and rules regarding the campaign

So you are admitting he did collude with Russia by sharing them polling data for months.

Whether or not that collusion is illegal isn't really the point, is it?

Your narrative has been "no collusion", not "collusion is not illegal".

So that's the goalpost shift.

When Manafort colluded with Russia, he was Trump's campaign chairman.

So the collusion was done for the express benefit of helping Trump win in 2016.
 
Some Russian tech companies were indicted, why?

Because they attacked our election.

They did it while getting polling data from Paul Manafort.

So Paul Manafort colluded with Russia by sharing polling data from PA, WI, MI, and MN with them so they knew where to target and whom to target.
 
Some Russian tech companies were indicted, why? I don't know because they will never have to show up in court.

Maybe you should read the indictments of them so you can learn why they were indicted.

if you're asking this question, it just means you're too lazy to be informed on this...or you are acting in bad faith simply because that is your personal nature and you don't know any other way to act.
 
Some other folks were jailed for perjury having nothing to do with collusio

Wait a second...

What did they lie about to earn them a perjury charge?

What were the specific lies?

You seem to be admitting that the people you're defending are liars.

That makes you a liar too.
 
Some other folks were jailed for perjury having nothing to do with collusion. You are being dishonest by half and I think you know it.

So you're admitting that Trump's campaign did collude with Russia.

You are moving the bar on whether or not that collusion is illegal.

Before, your narrative was "no collusion"...now, your narrative is "collusion isn't illegal because no one got indicted for collusion".

Is that the defense you're going to go with now? That, sure they colluded with Russia, but it's not illegal to do so.

Remember, before you said "no collusion".

That was a lie, wasn't it?
 
But my statement that you haven’t read the report hasn’t been proven wrong.

Sure it has.

I've been citing the report throughout this thread; you're the ones who refuse to do that.

You won't even read the report, because doing so would undermine your personal judgment and instincts.

You simply cannot handle the revelation that you're not as clever as you want people to think.
 
And neither can you legitimately say there was collusion according to the redacted Mueller report. Again it was inconclusive.

Then why would Manafort share polling data for months with Russian spies?

There is only one possible answer to that question...you know what it is, don't you...you just don't want to say it because it would mean the destruction of the "no collusion" narrative.
 
Yes he did!

Were you not paying attention when Mueller spoke?

Did you not read the March 27th letter Mueller wrote to Barr expressing concern over the "misrepresentation" Barr did?

Then we have this.
https://www.redstate.com/bonchie/20...ller-criticized-barrs-summary-theres-problem/

"But there’s a problem with how the media are reporting this.

Buried in the Post report and absent from the headline is this pretty important line way down in the body.

“When Barr pressed him whether he thought Barr’s letter was inaccurate, Mueller said he did not, but felt that the media coverage of the letter was misinterpreting the investigation, officials said.”

In other words, Barr pushed back on Mueller’s silly complaints and got him to admit that Barr hadn’t misrepresented anything. Then we see Mueller fold and say he’s actually just upset with the media for misrepresenting the matter."

Again Mueller needs to testify in front of Congress
 
Then why would Manafort share polling data for months with Russian spies?

There is only one possible answer to that question...you know what it is, don't you...you just don't want to say it because it would mean the destruction of the "no collusion" narrative.

If it was only One possible answer... Then why is there only 58 of 435 members of the House supporting impeachment?
 
Then we have this.
https://www.redstate.com/bonchie/20...ller-criticized-barrs-summary-theres-problem/

"But there’s a problem with how the media are reporting this.

Buried in the Post report and absent from the headline is this pretty important line way down in the body.

“When Barr pressed him whether he thought Barr’s letter was inaccurate, Mueller said he did not, but felt that the media coverage of the letter was misinterpreting the investigation, officials said.”

In other words, Barr pushed back on Mueller’s silly complaints and got him to admit that Barr hadn’t misrepresented anything. Then we see Mueller fold and say he’s actually just upset with the media for misrepresenting the matter."

Again Mueller needs to testify in front of Congress
Indeed.
 
Hello RAMSinLA,

Mueller through a spokesperson said the rule forbidding a president to be indicted did not come into play and had no bearing on the investigation and the report.

Mueller said in his own words the President can't be indicted. It's in the Mueller Report.

I wish someone that is so adamant that Trump needs to be impeached or go to prison would take a second and tell us why. Everyone says he is guilty, guilty of what? I think this smacks of desperation by the dems.

Look at it this way. What if:

a) Hillary had won.

b) There were stories that Russians helped her win, and she might have been in on it.

I'll tell you what would happen if that was the case.

Conservatives would want her impeached. And I don't see how that could be called desperation.
 
Hello RAMSinLA,



Mueller said in his own words the President can't be indicted. It's in the Mueller Report.



Look at it this way. What if:

a) Hillary had won.

b) There were stories that Russians helped her win, and she might have been in on it.

I'll tell you what would happen if that was the case.

Conservatives would want her impeached. And I don't see how that could be called desperation.

funny you feel this way, because fact is Hillary did get help from Russia, and still lost, she also got help from the media, from the Obama DOJ, and still lost.
I don't know how many different ways you can lose and still have supporters saying you didnt
 
Back
Top