I agree -- getting into a discussion about "crime" is just lose-lose. I think the best way to frame this is about crushing local sovereignty, a continuation of Jim Crow efforts to ensure Black residents could not govern themselves as they saw fit.
I agree -- getting into a discussion about "crime" is just lose-lose. I think the best way to frame this is about crushing local sovereignty, a continuation of Jim Crow efforts to ensure Black residents could not govern themselves as they saw fit.
Yes, totally. As usual Texas is one of the blueprints and our local reps were very clear that it was about local sovereignty vs state control.
Exactly. Cities cannot even give workers extra water breaks.
Think of it as "pre-crime" since they are criminalizing anything they think will remove them from power. You know, like felony assault with a breadly weapon.
I think it should be pretty clear why he is not sending troops into red states that have some of the highest crime rates in the country. Seems like a simple question for press to ask. And ask it every day.
I also think that grounding this in actual standards (how are they choosing these cities, what are the parameters, when will they leave) would also be a way of shifting the discussion from the “problem” of crime to the chosen “solution” of sending the military to occupy politically dissenting cities
I literally think it's just being racist.
Oh I know; my area of focus is white supremacy. What I’m saying is that disrupting racism can very often start by asking the questions that would arise if white people were the targets of the harassment. *Then* we move into asking why non-white people are being treated differently.
That's a good point; I realized that about your writing and didn't mean to sound dismissive.
There is probably a smart way to do it and I hope someone smart does write it (you?).
But yeah, it feels like vibes. I think it's actually Stephen Miller behind this.
"Oh, they're fighting crime? By doing what, exactly -- strolling around tourist spots and getting their pictures taken?"
The cities in red states are blue, that’s where he’s deploying them
As soon as you start making arguments about "crime" and how "crime is down" etc you lose the plot. Trump and his advisors are positing that "crime stats" are wrong, so this is all a stupid, circular argument.
People need to understand this is all an effort to crush local sovereignty, which is also what puts "sanctuary city" laws in danger.
Yes, exactly.
It should be regarded as a foreign invasion and treated as such.
It literally happens in the clip going around. She follows up his "distraction" answer with, but Americans are worried about crime. He walked right into it because Democrats repeatedly think the press cares about reality, data, numbers & truth. I'm so fucking tired.
Same, same. Democrats are afraid to cede the ground on crime, imho, because they think people will vote for "racist-lite." Like, no, people will vote for Original Racism if you make that the choice.
Every "journalist" I've seen so far has just repeated Trump's narrative.
laws have always existed for picking up actual criminals, undocumented or otherwise 🇺🇸👀 this is #HeritageFoundation #Project2025 #Fascism
💯 Destroying state sovereignty is the primary objective. This would be the biggest challenge for an authoritarian that already controls all branches of govt.
Exactly
📌
Black mayors like Brandon Johnson have demonstrated how to actually reduce crime, by the society supporting people rather than endless policing and punishment!
They want to erase Chocolate City and make it Vanilla only because that's what they want for the whole country.
get his ass
It’s a pretext and they want you talking about a crime wave that doesn’t exist instead of how this is taking away freedoms.
When they want to argue semantics, they’re trying to hide something and it’s a good indication you should look for a totally different frame.
What is the bigger picture they are trying to get you to ignore by arguing semantics?
Unfortunately, it may be impossible to fully escape or ignore the “crime” discourse. Even the people in my mentions who think journalists need to do a better job calling out authoritarianism are saying reporters should be writing about how crime is down.
screams into the void
Here's the thing -- "crime is down" sounds good but it is weak and will not persuade anyone of anything (even if they do believe stats). First, the GOP is arguing that stats are wrong (they prob aren't complete). Second, it just reifies the argument that there are "crime-committers" and "victims"
and that these are different groups. When people live a life of violence and deprivation, that is bad. Interpersonal violence, which is what people mean when they say "crime," is also bad for people and is connected to other material conditions.
Trump's coalition is arguing both that the stats are wrong and that the stats don't matter because they are concerned about "disorder." Like, yeah, people are suffering because there is entrenched poverty, racism, not enough housing, etc. Sorry I will end my rant.
It seems like the fact that the US public is fatally confused about crime is no longer something we can work around. It’s a problem that needs to be fixed - as soon as possible. And I have no idea how we do that.
And it's all a ruse anyway to distract from his military occupation of blue states. It has a strong psychological effect knowing fed troops are patrolling your city's streets.
It's horrible.
it's the mirror image of reconstruction