Weak. Pathetically weak. Stop rationalizing her privilege.
2 Likes
I’m not. It’s how govt. works in this country. Curtail her security and she takes a bullet. Then what?
BLM and Antifa don’t use guns. They have a right to protest.
Somebody a lot closer to the situation than you or I determined that the risk was real, and I’m giving them the benefit of the doubt. I don’t believe this thread is about the protests, I think it’s about hatred for Lori Lightfoot. People have been salivating for a reason the shut BLM and antifa down lol. Now they get a partial success and are up in arms. It doesn’t ring true.
Yes, Americans tend to dislike politicians who take away the means for self-defense while surrounding themselves with a palace guard. Especially when children are being slaughtered in the streets the politician purports to control.
Business owners watch their shops looted and burned while the police they pay for are guarding the enabler of the looters and arsonists.
5 Likes
Amazing!
Libs here went nuts when Trump got two scoops of ice cream, but when the mayor of a major city is shown to be an egotistical hypocrite, their response is “meh”.
1 Like
I want them all to be able to defend themselves by whatever means necessary. I cheered the guy defending his business standing out front with an AR 15 against rioters. What I don’t want is to provide half ass security to officials that actually need it, whether I like them or not. It’s a slippery slope.
Her life is worth 100 police more than a child’s. Got it.
The part you are ignoring is her enabling the public disorder.
2 Likes
You want her to take a bullet, got it. That’s a fun game but it gets old fast.
Not sure how my OP morphed into this discussion about Lightfoot’s personal security. It was started to highlight her hypocracy in pulling 100 CPD officers to protect and arrest protesters in her neighborhood leaving the rest of her city to fend for themselves.
1 Like
The REASON they moved to her block is due to credible threats against her life.
No, I don’t. Don’t be insulting. That was beneath you.
She enabled this situation. She doesn’t have the right to take security away because of a situation she enabled.
2 Likes
She moved them.
If they voted for them, maybe they like it.
It would be my version of hell but who knows what goes on in the mind of libs? 
It was simple tit for tat.
And again, her failure to do her job is not cause to allow her security to be compromised.
Then you should have no problem providing a link showing an official policy doing this.
1 Like
When you’re losing the argument, go personal.
1 Like
I never accused you of wanting someone to die. It was beneath you, there was no tat.
But it is reason to allow the security of the citizens of Chicago to be compromised. A situation she in part created? Her constituents have been living under a credible death threat for years. Where are there 100 police to secure their neighborhoods?
1 Like
I simply replied in kind when it was asserted I valued some lives over others, specifically hers over that of children. I ain’t playing that game.
Right in your OP article they give the reason for the actions taken. Another article early in the thread talked about credible threats. I can’t help it if you didn’t read them closely enough.
