I would think you're very wrong on that.
97 missing children found in Memphis
- Thread starter TheDawg-Pound
- Start date
- Status
I have them all on milk cartons. You have to get there when the dairy guy is there to get the rare ones.
I think there was confirmed over 90 children found in Memphis. Sex traffic may be involved. So thankful they were found and there may be more. Thank God for this. I've heard around 300k children are lost nationwide. I also hope the perps who do this are found and imprisoned.
Yeah, but Trump Admin. has "turned loose" these professional government agencies" to do their job to the fullest. Previous admin. was too busy letting in millions upon millions through our southern border. They didn't want ANYBODY being held against their will to be found.
Fully agree- I want anyone who sex trafficked children to be found and imprisoned.
I havent read anything that gives details though. How many are alleged to have been missing due to sex trafficking? And how many people have been arrested in connection with the 100+ that have been found, or are believed to be responsible for the children missing?
A year? So 1 in 250 children go missing? I don’t see how that is possible. To Johnson’s point I guess it could be because I don’t live in socioeconomic areas where this number is so high, but it seems highly unlikely that 10 times more children go missing a year than murders in the United States.
I’m not a huge fan of surveillance everywhere but one thing it has done is made it harder for the Wayne Williams’ and John Wayne Gacy’s of the world, Thank God.
Over 400,000 go missing each year, but that stat is misleading because there’s no real reporting on how many are returned which I imagine is a lot of of them.
If “we” really cared about such things we wouldn’t keep voting for dumb policies that don’t help!
I could see it. Mental illness, kids meeting strangers they find on the internet, sex predators, domestic kidnappings after divorce, short term runaways, etc. That's less than half a percent of children ending up somewhere they don't need to be and being reported. Now I doubt those staying missing more than a handful of hours or days, but half a percent or percent seems right - maybe even low.
If the media reported that 100 kids were missing in Memphis then nobody would believe it because it’s the media reporting it!
Dude - I think we know this already. That’s the point of this thread.
The debate is what the number actually means.
Okay. That and what DCD said I could see. I read it as staying missing.
Sending the national guard is a bit different than sending the regular army.
I recall a time that seems like just yesterday when there was a bi-partisan bill that was widely supported by both parties as they foolishly thought that attempting to reform immigration was a serious matter that Congress should be trying to improve, only see the Republicans turn cowardly when the wannabe dictator wanted to keep immigration terrible as a campaign toy so he killed the bill...call me when he supports smart policies. I am regretful that I voted for him the first time around but impressed when he fixed immigration the first term of office...
It is, but it still makes me uncomfortable. I’m not saying good won’t come from it. I’m not out in the streets protesting it. But I still don’t like the president having that kind of power, whether I agree with him or not. I put small central government above everything else. The ends can’t justify the means. And yes, I am aware this isn’t the first time the national guard has been sent to cities by presidents. The other times the mayors / governors welcomed the assistance due to horrible situations. I don’t like the president overruling local legislators, whether I agree with them or not.
stfu up "former republican"
There was never a bipartisan common sense bill regarding immigration that made logical sense. EVER.
Want republicans to listen to a bill like that?
Eliminate all loop holes for illegals getting benefits. ALL OF THEM.
Agree to cap legal immigration at a certain percentage yearly. That percentage should be tied to overall population growth. If less births, more immigration. If more births, less immigration.
Agree to stop illegal immigration.
Voter ID
Make it hard as 17 for illegas to vote and be on board with checking it
Cut all snap benefits for anything unhealthy (snacks, sodas, sweets, etc.)
Agree to cut snap by 10% per year until we get down to about 6% of the population. Maybe 8%.
I don't either but you know what i don't like more? Is nice cities turning to cesspools bc leadership is so GD terrible.
I know, but what is to stop President AOC from sending national guard troops to wherever she wants? Not saying it’s going to happen, but Trump’s ability to consolidate power may be a curse down the road.
I can disagree with the way Trump is doing things without disagreeing with what he is doing. His blowing through the systems of checks and balances scares the **** out of me
I understand what you are saying. Chill. We are having a convo.
But trump didn't start the consolidation of power by the exec.
oh, I agree with that. And I didn’t like it when the guys before him did it either. And I didn’t take any offense to what you said. Quite the opposite. An honest to god civil political conversation is such a rare thing.
ETA: I’m very naive when it comes to the American government and people in general. I want people to do their job and do what is best for their constituents and the country. I value the actual system above politics. Unfortunately it broke a long time ago
We have to all come together on the common ground things.
Term limits
Cutting junk food out of snap
Cutting all waste
Fixing social security - ITS EASY AF
There is zero logical reason that government spending has increased 50% after adjusting for inflation since the mid 90s. ZERO.
I tend to do that when people lie boldly or are just dumb AF and pretend like they are smart.
Exactly. If you don't want a President AOC doing something, or using a means to an end. it's better not to let your guy do it either.
This is good logic, but only if both sides are equal. What I mean is that it is entirely possible that one side could be using power to solve actual problems (like, say, jailing gangmembers who are running around the streets threatening people), while the other side could use that same power to do evil, bad, stupid, or wasteful things.
But my pie in the sky/will never happen solution to this problem would be for everyone to use common sense and only elect people who would use it for good. As I said, I know this will never happen again at this point. We've passed the point of no return on that.
It's like saying Superman and Doomsday have equal power, but Doomsday uses his for evil, so we should strip them both of their powers. No, the answer is to elect Superman to office, not Doomsday. One is in this case, clearly better for humanity than the other, so we should collectively have enough sense to vote him in. But I am 100% certain we have some people around here that would vote for Doomsday because of his stance against Kryptophobes.
You can damn well bet the next time the Dems are in office you will see the NG deployed over guns, among other things.
Made me wonder how many of those kids had a damn good reason to go "missing" ? You know many of them were just attempting to escape a really bad situation at "home" .
sir, this is the nerdiest political analogy I have ever heard. I salute you for it.
**
I am totally on board and fully support the concept of junk food not qualifying for SNAP benefits.
In practice though?…I am skeptical and think the juice would not be worth the squeeze.
First, how much is actually spent on junk food? I would bet that the amount spent would require at least six zeros after a decimal point if the amount were converted to the percentage of our budget.
it just is not a financial savings. I don’t have the numbers and I don’t think anyone has the numbers, but simply knowing our budget, that would be like a raindrop in the ocean.
Second, the cost and burden to implement and oversee such a policy seems like it would be very burdensome.
Cigarettes and alcohol are currently banned from snap eligibility right now, but those are easy to manage because all products that have alcohol or tobacco are in eligible.
There is no similar product in junk food that would allow for easy management of qualifying and disqualifying products.
If you say a certain amount of sugar is the limit, manufacturers will switch to any number of alternative sweeteners or adjust serving size to qualify.
Third, if the argument is that SNAP must be used to purchase the most cost effective products that are nutritious(and what other reason would there be to regulate it somuch?), then any name brand products that also have generics or house brands should only allow the house brands to qualify.
Additionally, only specific cuts of meat or types of meat would qualify.
Administering and managing such a program would be overly burdensome. You could push it off to the retailers to manage and comply with, but that would require additional costs on their side...which will be passed to consumers, obviously.
Tldr, I am sure.
Last edited:
Based on one side’s views on immigration, regardless of how much good he had done or how long he lived here peacefully, Superman would be forcefully removed from this country and sent God knows where. So, Superman is not a great example to explain your stance.
In all seriousness, if you truly believe one political party is always using common sense and working for the greater good while the other is always doing things that are “wasteful”, “stupid”, and “evil”, then you’re either wildly naive or willfully ignorant.
- Status