-
Please be sure to read the rules and adhere to them. Some banned members have complained that they are not spammers. But they spammed us. Some even tried to redirect our members to other forums. Duh. Be smart. Read the rules and adhere to them and we will all get along just fine. Cheers. :beer: Link to the rules: https://www.forumsforums.com/threads/forum-rules-info.2974/
Chicago vs Trump
- Thread starter waybomb
- Start date
I honestly hope he does NOT send in the National Guard to clean up crime.
I'm 100% in favor of him sending in ICE to haul out the illegals. In a city of 2.5 million people, there are roughly 450,000 illegal aliens in Chicago. Send in ICE and Border Patrol and start rounding up the criminal illegals.
The ONLY way I would favor sending in the N.G. to BLUE Chicago, located in BLUE Cook County, located in BLUE Illinois, would be to PROTECT the members of ICE and Border Patrol. Illinois is a "sanctuary" state, and Cook County declared the county as a "sanctuary" county. And Chicago declared the city as a "Sanctuary" city. So let them enjoy their sanctuary status.
On the other hand, if there was a RED state with a big BLUE city and the RED state governor called the White House asking for help, then I would support the N.G. going into the BLUE city that is in a RED state under an 'emergency' action called by the governor for a limited time period. But I would also expect that the RED state would come up with a plan to take control of the BLUE city police department, and to take control of the BLUE city prosecutors so that the N.G. is not taking up long term presence in the OBVIOUSLY failed BLUT city. But rather the RED state's governor comes in to "fix" the problems created by the BLUE city council and BLUE city mayor and BLUE city justice system and the N.G. is only there as a temporary stopgap to help.
JUST MY HUMBLE OPINION. Y.M.M.V.
All that said, I love Chicago. It is really a great city. Under the FATHER Richard Daily and SON Richie Daily and during a few other terms, the city was truly a great place. The shell of that great place still exists. It is decaying. But there is hope. And much of the hope lives in the black community that is fed up with the illegal influx. But for the past dozen years, not so much. I was not a big fan of "tiny dancer" Rahm Emmanuel, but he was a much better mayor than these last 2 clowns.
I'm 100% in favor of him sending in ICE to haul out the illegals. In a city of 2.5 million people, there are roughly 450,000 illegal aliens in Chicago. Send in ICE and Border Patrol and start rounding up the criminal illegals.
The ONLY way I would favor sending in the N.G. to BLUE Chicago, located in BLUE Cook County, located in BLUE Illinois, would be to PROTECT the members of ICE and Border Patrol. Illinois is a "sanctuary" state, and Cook County declared the county as a "sanctuary" county. And Chicago declared the city as a "Sanctuary" city. So let them enjoy their sanctuary status.
On the other hand, if there was a RED state with a big BLUE city and the RED state governor called the White House asking for help, then I would support the N.G. going into the BLUE city that is in a RED state under an 'emergency' action called by the governor for a limited time period. But I would also expect that the RED state would come up with a plan to take control of the BLUE city police department, and to take control of the BLUE city prosecutors so that the N.G. is not taking up long term presence in the OBVIOUSLY failed BLUT city. But rather the RED state's governor comes in to "fix" the problems created by the BLUE city council and BLUE city mayor and BLUE city justice system and the N.G. is only there as a temporary stopgap to help.
JUST MY HUMBLE OPINION. Y.M.M.V.
All that said, I love Chicago. It is really a great city. Under the FATHER Richard Daily and SON Richie Daily and during a few other terms, the city was truly a great place. The shell of that great place still exists. It is decaying. But there is hope. And much of the hope lives in the black community that is fed up with the illegal influx. But for the past dozen years, not so much. I was not a big fan of "tiny dancer" Rahm Emmanuel, but he was a much better mayor than these last 2 clowns.
Patriot
Well-known member
I agree mostly with that, but just wonder how Chicago residents living in crime ridden areas of the city feel about it. If American citizens, who have lived in a city for generations, are suffering due to soft-on-crime policies, and would actually like some help with that, then why not give it to them? Now, one could argue that they voted for the mayor, etc., and its their bed to lay in, but what if they were just outvoted by others in the city who live in safer neighborhoods, like the mostly white liberals who don't see the same level of crime in their neighborhoods, and who belong to the woketard brigade that just hates everything Trump, including sensible policies like fighting crime?
In order to find out, I'd hold a referendum in the city, detailed by community area, to have the residents answer the following question:
Would you like the federal government to deploy federal assets, to include the national guard as needed, to your neighborhood, in order to clean up crime and make the city safer? Yes or No.
If any community area votes no by a majority, then no assets to those areas. If any vote yes, then that is a mandate for the federal government to move in to those areas. Bottom line: Don't expend federal resources if they're not wanted by the people who would stand to benefit. But let's see the mayor and governor oppose the will of the majority if those people do want the help.
Seven people were murdered in Chicago over the Labor day weekend. That is not unusual because it happens just about every week there. And yet, the City Mayor and the State of Illinois Governor claim there is no emergency. How many murders per weekend would it take to declare an emergency???? 10,15, 100?
With President Trump in office offering assistance, maybe 100 would turn the tide. It should wake up the voters and frankly I imagine they are. However, IMHO, it would appear those voters are helpless in changing their government at the ballot box. Perhaps with some honest assistance from the federal government that could change.
Which is why the leadership in Illinois don't want his people there.
With President Trump in office offering assistance, maybe 100 would turn the tide. It should wake up the voters and frankly I imagine they are. However, IMHO, it would appear those voters are helpless in changing their government at the ballot box. Perhaps with some honest assistance from the federal government that could change.
Which is why the leadership in Illinois don't want his people there.
Last edited:
And apparently President Trump has decided to go into Chicago . . .
justthenews.com
Trump on sending National Guard to Chicago: 'We're going in'
"I'm very proud of Washington. It serves as a template," he said.
justthenews.com
Trump on sending National Guard to Chicago: 'We're going in'
"I'm very proud of Washington. It serves as a template," he said.
President Donald Trump on Tuesday confirmed that he planned to send federal forces to Chicago, Ill., to crack down on crime in the same manner as he did in Washington, D.C., last month.
"Well, we're going in. I didn't say when [but] we're going in," he told reporters. "This isn't a political thing. I have an obligation when we lose when 20 people are killed over the last two and a half weeks, and 75 are shot with bullets. So let me tell you a little story about a place called DC, District of Columbia, right here where we are. It's now a safe zone."
He further suggested that he would love to work with Gov. J.B. Pritzker, D-Ill., on the issue, saying "if the governor of Illinois would call up, call me up, I would love to do it now. We're going to do it anyway. We have the right to do it because I have an obligation to protect this country."
"I'm very proud of Washington. It serves as a template," he said.
Trump also expressed a willingness to work with Gov. Wes Moore, D-Md., to clean up crime in Baltimore.
Ben Whedon is the Chief Political Correspondent at Just the News. Follow him on X.
Can't wait for LaScarolla. Maybe a night stay at the Virgin Hotel, rooftop drinks, and some entertainment at The House Of Blues.
Please hurry up before it gets cold out Mr. President.
Or, per the 50 paid morons this weekend at the side of the road in our little town, King Trump!
Please hurry up before it gets cold out Mr. President.
Or, per the 50 paid morons this weekend at the side of the road in our little town, King Trump!
And a judge ruled, I believe rightly, that the President cannot mobilize the national guard without being invited in. The question is, can he find an alternate route? Or simply work with states that invite him to show how badly the other states are run by their governors?
Judge rules Trump can't act as national police chief
The president broke the law when he deployed troops to Los Angeles, Judge Charles Breyer ruled.
09/02/2025 05:45 PM EDT
A member of the National Guard stands outside a federal building in Los Angeles on June 12, 2025. | Etienne Laurent/AP
A federal judge has declared President Donald Trump’s use of military troops in Los Angeles illegal, barring the Pentagon from using National Guard members and Marines from performing police functions, like arrests and crowd control.
In a 52-page ruling, U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer warned that Trump appears intent on “creating a national police force with the President as its chief.”
Trump billed his deployment of troops to Los Angeles, starting in early June, as a way of bolstering immigration enforcement efforts amid protests in the city against the president’s deportation agenda. Though Trump has now withdrawn all but 300 of those troops, he is mulling sending troops to other major cities, such as Chicago. He has also deployed the National Guard in Washington, D.C., under a separate legal authority from the one he used in Los Angeles.
What if President Obama had done this? Would these same courts have intervened????
It is a sad shame that so much energy and resources are being used, wasted, in the President's attempt to keep a promise. IE; reducing crime and violence in our major and very troubled cities, 99% of which are blue Democratic strongholds.
To a person, each mayor combatting Trump has asked for more money. Unless I am mistaken, that has yet to work anywhere Democrats are in control. And yet, there are judges pulling any legal trick imaginable to perpetuate the corrupted system.
It is quite likely, and I don't disagree, that the POTUS is overstepping what is his intended power here. Perhaps someone could explain what, besides more corruptible funding, a President could exercise.
It is a sad shame that so much energy and resources are being used, wasted, in the President's attempt to keep a promise. IE; reducing crime and violence in our major and very troubled cities, 99% of which are blue Democratic strongholds.
To a person, each mayor combatting Trump has asked for more money. Unless I am mistaken, that has yet to work anywhere Democrats are in control. And yet, there are judges pulling any legal trick imaginable to perpetuate the corrupted system.
It is quite likely, and I don't disagree, that the POTUS is overstepping what is his intended power here. Perhaps someone could explain what, besides more corruptible funding, a President could exercise.
The political leadership of Chicago, like so many blue cities, either won't control crime, or the simply cannot do it. Either way the citizens, and the city itself, suffers. To whom can the citizens look for an answer?
I don't believe it is possible, in most of these Democratically dominated cities, that the will of the people can be expressed at the polls . This because the elections there are contaminated. I cannot find proof of this but there is little else that would explain how or why suffering citizens would keep electing the same incompetence.
Or is it incompetence?
Because if the corrupted politicians want to keep themselves in power, and out of prison, they have to win the elections.
Name a major US city under persistent GOP control that has a serious crime problem. I double dog dare ya!
I don't believe it is possible, in most of these Democratically dominated cities, that the will of the people can be expressed at the polls . This because the elections there are contaminated. I cannot find proof of this but there is little else that would explain how or why suffering citizens would keep electing the same incompetence.
Or is it incompetence?
Because if the corrupted politicians want to keep themselves in power, and out of prison, they have to win the elections.
Name a major US city under persistent GOP control that has a serious crime problem. I double dog dare ya!
tiredretired
The Old Salt
Trump could put 100,000 troops in the shit hole rats nest some call a city and I would never step foot there. Fuck Dem run cities. They never get my money.
Well today Trump said, during a press conference, that maybe New Orleans would be next.
All mayors of New Orleans since 1872 have been Democrats.
Governor Jeff Landry is a Republican.
Meanwhile in Washington DC, Mayor Bowser, a Democrat, has issued an order mandating that the local police and other agencies will work with the federal authorities to reduce crime in the city. This seems like good governance, but I'm sure that Chicago's Mayor Johnson would consider this surrender to the tyrant, or something like that.
PRESS RELEASE:
The ACTUAL order:
All mayors of New Orleans since 1872 have been Democrats.
Governor Jeff Landry is a Republican.
Meanwhile in Washington DC, Mayor Bowser, a Democrat, has issued an order mandating that the local police and other agencies will work with the federal authorities to reduce crime in the city. This seems like good governance, but I'm sure that Chicago's Mayor Johnson would consider this surrender to the tyrant, or something like that.
PRESS RELEASE:
Mayor Bowser Provides Update on the Federal Surge | mayormb
(Washington, DC) – Today, Mayor Muriel Bowser provided an update on the District’s response to the federal surge in Washington, DC.
mayor.dc.gov
The ACTUAL order:
Last edited:
Patriot
Well-known member
Deploying federal assets to New Orleans removes the talking point some Dems have been using that Trump won't "send troops to red states." Trump is doing right by objectively assessing major crime problems in all cities, and taking action without regard for politics. Although I still suggest a referendum in Chicago before committing forces there, even in the face of possible popular opposition there will no doubt be a sharp decline in crime once they're deployed, which is hard to argue is a bad thing, and will reduce disagreement to "well, it's only temporary, because when the feds pull out, crime will go back up." However, that will only prove that being tough on crime works, regardless of who does it. In addition, just like in DC, federal law enforcement can empower local law enforcement in a way that becomes long term after the feds leave, thus at least mitigating any future resurgence of crime.
tiredretired
The Old Salt
One could do very well by simply shutting all 120 pumps off in New Orleans and let the water seek it's own level.
What kind of a special damn fool would build a city 6.5 feet below sea level right next to a salt water lake that is connected to the Gulf of America?
What kind of a special damn fool would build a city 6.5 feet below sea level right next to a salt water lake that is connected to the Gulf of America?
Apparently a city has been chosen!
In a press conference today, President Trump stated that he has picked the next city that will be cleaned up, but he also stated he is not publicly announcing the name just yet.
My guess is first the legal issues may have to be worked out, and then maybe some resources and various agents will move into place in advance of a public announcement so that when he does announce and formally deploy then the effect will be swift and visible? Legally there are all sorts of roadblocks to send troops into a city outside of Washington DC. DC is under federal authority, but cities are under state authority.
In a press conference today, President Trump stated that he has picked the next city that will be cleaned up, but he also stated he is not publicly announcing the name just yet.
My guess is first the legal issues may have to be worked out, and then maybe some resources and various agents will move into place in advance of a public announcement so that when he does announce and formally deploy then the effect will be swift and visible? Legally there are all sorts of roadblocks to send troops into a city outside of Washington DC. DC is under federal authority, but cities are under state authority.
Capone has history here in StJoe. He had an apartment at the top of the Whitmore with a private elevator that also led to a an escape door at the end of a tunnel on the bluff. A few blocks from me was the neighborhood called Little Italy with only a few buildings still standing, one being one of Al's speak easy. Many of his cohorts had places around here.