It's right there. I linked you the facts.

The interviewer cited statistics. That is called reporting. To be crystal clear, I am opposed to Trump sending National Guard into anywhere. I support Prisker, Newsom and Moore! But, if you are afraid of a journalist asking questions, then I can't help you.

I’m sure crime was really low during the holocaust too! Why do people act as if siting statistics is somehow a rhetorical technique free from opinion? Pritzker should’ve called him out. But I feel like he was so stunned by the utter absurdity of the claim

Might I suggest he's asking the WRONG questions? Because we must have a conversation about the cost of this occupation. What is the cost of national guard deployment? Who pays for it? What is the cost to the community? To local businesses? To the people who are harmed? What is the cost of this?

Will add if crime decreases, what's the cost & plan for sustainability? And a response to D.C. citizens where crime is a real concern & haven't seen NG. Why is bothsidesism pushing back on Dems while accepting lies from Repubs?

Good points! And I agree. Journalism isn't always perfect. But it is necessary and that's why Trump wants to destroy it. I just don't agree with the outrage over asking any questions.

Because nothing he is doing is neutral. His facts are selected to tell the story he wants and are not neutral. His questions are leading and designed to only tell the story he wants. It's all designed and determined before the interview.

I believe your complaint is that the interviewer isn't talking about the cost of this occupation, the lost revenue for small businesses and restaurants when people are afraid to go out shopping or to eat. Both decreases in crime and economic activity should have been mentioned.

No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying the questions were leading - based on the reporter's assumption that the occupation is successful in reducing crime and is a success. I then outline several questions I would ask.

But let's be clear, there are many questions we all should be asking before making the assumption that occupation of US cities by the military is a public good. This is a serious change in our military and it's relationship with the public. It deserves serious questions.

OK you don't understand what a journalist's job is? That is obvious. If Trump has his way and journalists are eventually banned, that will seem like the good old days when you could actually ask a question.

A good journalist asks good questions That's not what's happening here I realize that American media has been almost entirely garbage for decades, and perhaps you've never seen what decent television journalism looks like, but I assure you, it is not this

You think journalism is opinion and slant, and you are wrong

No. You are very confused. That is the polar opposite of what believe and have said.

Yes. O'Keefe's questioning that "crime is down due to turning U.S. Military on its citizens, that's a good thing, right?" brazenly OMITS that such an act is, with few exceptions, not only illegal but extremely un-American. It's a defining feature of authoritarian regimes. The Q reeks of bad faith.

The outrage comes because it is lazy reporting. Don't quote simple statistics quote them all. What is the cost, how long can it be sustained, what the cost for even larger cities?

29 days, legally, but we shall see. Costs are good question! Naturally, Trump admin. would not have that information.

I'm sorry but no. The state of emergency must be defendable. The legality should be in question.

Unfortunately, the justice system works slower than the dictator. Almost everything he does can be challenged in court. It is legal until some judge says it isn't and then he appeals and appeals again.

No it's not 'legal' until the courts disagree. It's not legal to murder someone until you are found guilty in a court. That's not how the law works. It's being allowed by people who should be defending our freedoms but it's not fucking legal.

Look I don't like out or support it! But, the premise used by Trump (and sadly he happens to be Pres.) is that it is "legal". Until a co-equal branch rules otherwise it effectively is. I don't set the rules, I can only observe.

State of Emergency needs to be declared by the governor and backed by statistics and neither of these things happened

Argue that in court on behalf of D.C. If you win, I'll be the first to applaud.

The stats are not relevant because this is an illegal occupation that violates the Constitution. Even if you do take them into account, they ignore that prior to this occupation, crime stats were declining. There is no justification for these agencies occupying this or any other city.

I oppose the occupation, but it is legal, for just 29 days. The stats do matter however because they are reality. Again though, it shouldn't be happening without consent in an ideal world, no matter the stats.

How is it legal? What is the reason for the state of emergency?

Yes. The very fact that he presents the idea of our military occupying a US city (s) as one of only two options - occupation or no occupation - with no comment on the legality of it should be shocking to any American. This is not a balanced set of questions.

That is how Pritzker should answer. The question sets up a fallacy—one that a lot of conservative people think is true, and is therefore worth addressing—for him to dismantle

Personally, I think he did fine. It's difficult to refute the questions - the press hates it and will shut you down/talk over you. Pritzker focused on his message which is what mattered here.

Pritzker did fine in this clip. He’s usually pretty great with the media. But my point is the host asking the question as he did was also fine imo. He’s not trying to force Pritzker to say that military occupation is good—he’s giving him the opportunity to respond to that talking point

Exactly! Glad someone else is able to see through the haze of contempt and mistrust for the "media" that foreign bots working for Putin and Zi, plus Trump himself have obviously very successfully used to undermine all truth. Cynicism and skepticism are a fascist tool that is obviously working here.

Correct. And of course crime will be down when there are people wearing camouflage military uniforms standing on every corner. That doesn’t mean it’s right. It doesn’t mean that some narcissistic authoritarian asshole gets to put military on every corner of every city.

Exactly. And it doesn't solve the core issues that cause crime. Does that mean the military needs to continue to occupy cities forever? Do we create (goodness forbid) a new force trained specifically to occupy and control the "homeland"?

Another question is what is the impact on the Gaurd themselves? Apparently their activation is only for 29 days so they dont receive benefits. Im sure for most of them its not what they want to be doing

This is the general problem

Yep.

Allegedly a million dollars a day for the national guard pick up trash. $1,000,000 a DAY. On food programs? Homelessness/gang intervention? -No. On soldiers standing around & occasionally picking up trash. Where else has low street crime? Dictatorships. Because all the crime is at the top.

And what crime prevention programs (which are evidenced based) could have been done for that kind of money? Programs that would increase people’s sense of community and efficacy rather than just terrine them to say home.

Yes. This is crime reduction by fear. Of course crime is down when people are literally afraid to leave their homes.That's the thing the mayor and the media aren't talking about. Nor are they admitting the costs to local businesses when people don't shop, dine, or are afraid to come to work.

Fair points. Legally it lasts 29 days. Ideally, it should never have happened. But we have an autocrat in charge so what did we expect?

Please stop saying this is legal. That hasn't been proven. I can't fucking believe a so-called progressive is claiming it is.

Please reread what I said. If it helps, put legal in quotation marks.

Excuse me for being pedantic but what exactly does legal in quotation marks mean exactly?

You evidently didn't understand the word goodbye either. Here you go. Quotation marks can be used to signify sarcasm. More specifically, they are used to mean 'alleged' or 'so-called' or to show that a word is not being used in its literal sense. Getting it finally?

I get what you're saying about stats. The current administration controls the stats. There's no way of verifying them. They provide no credible data. They can make it all up. The people put in control are not experts or professionals. They're mouthpieces. You're in the age of a propaganda gov.

So how many brought up that occupying American cities with military is illegal and against the Constitution?

Crime was already down. Big percentage drops mean nothing without context (did 3 carjackings go to 1?). CBS already paid their ransom to Dear Leader trump in exchange for his control

Right they could be using the highest number and say it’s down 70% from that - like what’s the data set?

The journalist is cherry picking bullshit statistics. Why doesn’t he point out the high crime rates in red states all over the country? Of course crime is down in DC! People are afraid to leave their homes. I hear crime is really low in North Korea and Moscow too!

1. Are the statistics true? If they're from the Trump administration they probably aren't. 2. Are the statistics essentially taking credit for trends that were already underway? 3. In a complete police state w/ a curfew, crime statistics would be lower. Does that prove a police state is better?

No the statistics were not from the Trump admin. The statistics are there. Anyone can take credit for them. Or as the various Governors did, argue why even so the deployment of the National Guard is not a good idea. PS> I am opposed, but not afraid of statistics or hard questions.

These were statistics that cover 18 days, and compare those 18 days to an average of the past 5 years. Violent crime was already down over 20%, so to some degree these stats are just showing that trend. Restaurants have seen a 30% drop in patronage because people don't like the militarization.

Of course! But for some folks they matter bigly.

As CBS - the source of the stats- said: "Identifying the specific causes of changes in criminal activity is complex because it can be driven by many factors – and local police data was already showing that reported crimes were trending downward in Washington prior to the president's action."

So essentially the statistics were essentially meaningless.

To some they are, to some they are not. And so the world goes. It all depends on one's angle of view.

Two uses of "essentialy" for the price of one!

Economy of speech.

Exactly my questions. Where are these statistics coming from?

Bro- what the fuck are you talking about? This is some straight up blue maga level ignorance.

Watch the goddamned video.

You are afraid of a journalist citing statistics and asking probing questions? You shouldn't be. Because that is democracy in action. Prisker handled himself just fine.

Only if you promise to take off your glass onions when you do.