I’m posting it here because it’s not really an elections topic. The “top cop”, who Trump won’t name, has a rapid cure for Chicago’s crime problem. Short of curfew and martial law, what could cops do do bring about, in one week, the end of violent crime in Chicago?
Personally, I don’t understand how Trump keeps people from laughing in his face when he comes up with this shit:
“Who was this cop?”
“I can’t say.”
“What was the plan?”
“I didn’t ask.”
ONE TRICK for eliminating violent crime in Chicago.
Swap city names with a small town in IL. Voila. No more violent crime in Chicago! Lot’s of violent crime in Bently, though.
I truly hope somebody out there has the patience to compile all of Trump’s dumbassery into one contiguous string of out-takes, and posts it for posterity on YouTube, with links going viral on all social media.
There ought not be a day in Trump’s asshat of a life when somebody somewhere isn’t reminding him of just how big of a shit-filled orange buffoon he really is.
The top cop thing, and “I know more about ISIS than the generals” are his greatest hits.
This reminds me of Trump’s secret ISIS defeating plan that he says he’ll implement as soon as he’s in office but until then he’s content to let our troops die so Obama doesn’t get credit for it.
an “end” to it? That’s impossible. Even with curfews and martial law, there’d still be some violent crime. Hell, you could bomb Chicago repeatedly with multiple nuclear bombs, every day for a week, and in some uncollapsed section of the subway, there’d still be a group of survivors trapped in a subway car, and one of those Chicagoans is still liable to assault / rob / rape / murder someone.
Could it be reduced drastically (to throw out a number, let’s say 90%)? It doesn’t seem probably to me, at least not while staying within Constitutional boundaries.
Well, legalize everything in Chicago, obviously.
I’m not sure which is worse; that Trump made up the story about meeting the top Chicago cop, or the idea that he did meet this cop who said he had a solution to an intractable problem, but Trump was so incurious that he didn’t ask the obvious follow-up question.
If you’re going to lie, at least don’t make yourself sound like an idiot.
His idiot supporters won’t know the difference.
It may not be PC to say out loud, but Trump (and his supporters) solution is basically to viciously clamp down on the civil right and human rights in minority neighborhoods. Turn minority neighborhoods into a police state with far less due process, civil rights, human rights, etc.
Black neighborhoods were already like this (brutal, unaccountable police and no civil rights) in the 1920s, 1930s, etc. Cops could even kill people and there was no accountability. It didn’t stop crime. It did help create a culture of corruption where bribery flourished, and the truly powerful criminals just bought the cops off.
But only minority neighborhoods. When Janet Napolitano said that right wing terror threats were becoming a serious threat, there was outrage from the right for even mentioning that fact. The right will not be calling for a brutal clampdown on human rights among fox news viewers the way they call for that to happen in black or muslim neighborhoods.
Point is that, right wingers will not experience the same level of human and civil rights restrictions they want to impact on muslims and blacks. Og forbid.
Basically when blacks or muslims act out or commit crimes, take away their civil and human rights. When right wing conservatives act out or commit crimes, bitch and whine if anyone even mentions it.
Of course the forced applause soon followed.
He will probably lose, but the fact that 50-60 million people will vote for this dangerous, deluded clown is a very bad sign for our democracy. 
In the interest of fighting ignorance, I’m pretty certain this statistic is out of date with the Orlando shooting, which, in Newsweek’s defense, happened after they wrote this article.
Valid point, it also excluded 9/11 which also would have reallllly skewed the numbers.
I did find this part of the article telling.
Curfew wouldn’t do it.
Many (most?) of the killings in Chicago are the result of domestic violence. Locking people at home together in a curfew would probably increase domestic violence.
No, most are gang related. Domestic violence here is bad, but gang violence is what’s driving the numbers. Ironically, law enforcement going after the gang leaders, and putting them away may have spiked these murder surges. The vacuum at the top means gang members fighting each other for control.
Did anyone mention that Trump said he talked to this top Chicago cop, and then recommended to the city that this top Chicago cop be hired?
Trump is the only guy who can’t keep track of the lies he tells while he’s telling them!!!
Is he wanting to avoid openly suggesting the Duterte Solution?
So, if Trump tells Obama this plan and Obama refuses to implement it, then your comfortable to say it is Obama who is content to let our troops die ?
or
Trump tell Obama his plan and Obama then announces it to the world. Now the enemy knows the plan and how to be more effective to counter it, therefore more of our troops die. Your comfortable saying that Obama is the responsible party ?
Just curious if so.
Or Trump’s plan is ignorantly terrible. Looking at his other “plans”, this is far more likely than any other result. It won’t stop certain people from crying, though.
The other day, he said that if elected, he would ask the generals for a thirty-day plan to defeat ISIS. Why would he need to ask them for this if he has this brilliant idea he is keeping secret?