Comments by "Tx240" (@Texas240) on "ABC7" channel.

@ryelor123 - MOST gun violence involves 1 or 2 victims, or suicide. Those rarely make the news, and never if it's in a poor, especially black, area. It's absolutely sensationalism by the media. How often do we hear about car crashes on the news? Cars are involved in as many deaths each year as guns, are a leading cause of death among people under 18, and nobody is blaming cars or calling for more car control in order to prevent 30,000 completely avoidable deaths each year due to driving negligence. If we, and the news and politicians, were really interested in saving lives it would be with the low hanging fruit of "don't smash into stuff while driving." Maybe there's an app that people could use to remind them not to smash into stuff while they're driving... since they're holding and looking at their phone anyway.
9
DOGE IS government waste. There are ALREADY TWO agencies that do what DOGE is supposedly doing. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and Government Accountability Office (GAO) already do what DOGE says it's doing...except without the stupidity of a super wealthy eccentric and a bunch of hacker kiddies accessing classified, secure, and sensitive information and systems.
8
In the USA, as people die on car crashes (not "accidents") as in gun violence, not counting suicides. Cars are a leading cause of death for people under 18. When was the last time you heard someone call for more car control or blame cars for 30,000 or so COMPLETELY AVOIDABLE deaths every year? As far as gun violence goes most of it, that involving single victims or victims in poor primarily black areas, doesn't make the news. Why is that?
8
There's no military equipment in an apartment block..except, possibly the air defense systems you mention. These buildings aren't like modern western or European buildings where they have parking garages under them where equipment could be hidden. Even if there was military equipment hidden in civilian areas of Ukrainian cities...thst equipment is no danger to Russia if Russia simply GOES HOME. No, Russia is hitting civilian targets because they have absolutely horrible intelligence (Putin, as a KGB man really should be ashamed) as to where strategic or tactically important targets are located. Plus, Ukraine has done an excellent job of decentralizing and disseminating its equipment and personnel. Regardless of that last point, any Russian soldier near Kherson or the LPR can point to where the Ukrainian military is. Putin, so amazingly like Hitler, is simply choosing to attack population centers instead of military targets.
7
@iwatcher69 - Russia's newest equipment and best troops are already in Ukraine. You can see T-90 tanks and BMP 3 IFV. The fact of the Russian army is that it's much like the German Luftwaffe near the end of WWII. They have a few very well trained and equipped troops and then the bulk of the army is poorly trained conscripts. Plus, you have to remember that Russia must hold back its very best troops and equipment at home to protect against a counterattack. However unlikely that is, it must be planned for at a strategic level. What we're seeing in Ukraine is the best that Russia can do. That's why they've taken to indiscriminately shelling areas that they can't break through with troops and vehicles. What you also need to realize is that this is the first time that we're seeing a modern armored and mechanized war. Russia isn't able to to control the skies because of the proliferation of man portable anti air missiles. Likewise, they aren't able to just push through with armor and mechanized units because of anti tank missiles, drone strikes, and defensive tank and artillery fire. The Russians didn't meet such modern resistance in Georgia or Syria. The US didn't see such modern resistance in Afghanistan or Iraq 1 or 2. Plus, unlike the the US in the Middle East, Russia can't maneuver off road in Ukraine due to the soil and damp time of year after winter freeze and snow melt. This is a double edged sword for Russia. On the upside, Russia doesn't have to worry about cross country counter attacks because Ukraine can't drive off road either AND, more importantly, Russia only has to secure the roads. As Russia moves into Ukraine, it's not securing the entire region, it's merely controlling the roads. The advantage is that it requires less troops to provide security over a roadway than a region. Every kilometer Russian troops move into Ukraine, the Russian force strength thins out as troops have to be left behind to provide security and try to prevent ambush and counterattack. The downside is that Ukraine knows exactly where Russia will be going and how they'll be heading there. That makes it much easier to set up defensive positions and ambushes as Russia tries to move in. The fact that Putin selected THIS time of year to accept the trade offs in pros and cons tells us that he doesn't have enough troops to secure the entire regions that they are try to push through. This makes sense. Ukraine is large. Troops left behind to provide security can't help the frontline fight. Again, regarding size, Russia is also huge. Russia may have a large army, but they can't just send all their troops into Ukraine. From a strategic level, that would be foolish to expose all of Russia to counterattack and leave the dictator exposed without an army to quell potential unrest.
7
@jonathanlindsey8864 - most car crashes are absolutely not accidents. Someone, on purpose, decided to not focus on the task of driving, not drive defensively, or was driving in an unsafe manner. Very few car crashes are accidents any more than the shooting in this news story was an accident. Whatever else you said after that first bit, I didn't read because you already lost credibility by defending the status quo and saying it's OK for 30,000 people to die every year in car crashes as long as we call them accidents. This mass shooting was an accident. There you can sleep better.
5
And training. Russia doesn't have training and is still using Soviet era tactics.
5
I agree with the use of "alleged" in these types of vids, because in the USA, a person is "innocent until proven guilty in a court of law." It's not "guilty by social media until proven innocent." So, until there is a conviction, a crime is only alleged. However, "attempted" is an odd choice. The legal implication of "attempted" is "didn't succeed". Yet, the dude carried off the girl. It is a successful alleged kidnapping. Remember when you see something, you don't have all the details from a 30 second short. That could be the guy's mentally ill sister who's off her meds again and trying to escape her legally responsible guardian and caregiver. I'm not saying that IS what's happening just that it's a possibility to highlight that it's never a good idea to assume guilt, especially from a 30 second short. Imagine your daughter gets mad at you for not buying her something and she screams, "RAPE!" in a public place within earshot of police. You're probably getting arrested, detained at the least, and you'd probably rather not have passersby determining your guilt or innocence merely by your daughter's scream.
3
I agree with the use of "alleged" in these types of vids, because in the USA, a person is "innocent until proven guilty in a court of law." It's not "guilty by social media until proven innocent." So, until there is a conviction, a crime is only alleged. However, "attempted" is an odd choice. The legal implication of "attempted" is "didn't succeed". Yet, the dude carried off the girl. It is a successful alleged kidnapping. Remember when you see something, you don't have all the details from a 30 second short. That could be the guy's mentally ill sister who's off her meds again and trying to escape her legally responsible guardian and caregiver. I'm not saying that IS what's happening just that it's a possibility to highlight that it's never a good idea to assume guilt, especially from a 30 second short. Imagine your daughter gets mad at you for not buying her something and she screams, "RAPE!" in a public place within earshot of police. You're probably getting arrested, detained at the least, and you'd probably rather not have passersby determining your guilt or innocence merely by your daughter's scream.
3
Most modern racism is caused by actions, behaviors of the group complaining of racism.
2
@manuelzay6503 - which makes me think it's not a "kidnapping", unless the alleged kidnapper was driving her home.
2
Estimates are that Russia has used up about 75% of its pre war cruise missile stockpile. They had the capability to produce 2 per month, before 2022 sanctions (while using shell companies to get around 2014 sanctions for high tech components that they can't make themselves).
2
Regardless, most shootings don't even make the news. It's not news if it's a single victim, a suicide or in a poor area.
1
@vmambaa723 - if you remove all the guns, cars are a deadly weapon with cars in more households than guns. Remove all cars? Then what, kitchen knives? Then what, forks? I mean, cutting a steak with a spoon isn't easy. Especially after being exhausted from having to walk to the store and back.
1
@Llano754 - morals are electrical signals in your brain. Cause something to go wrong with your wiring and you wouldn't have morals either. If someone becomes dissociated from society, no friends or family or mobility in society, and they don't participate in the contract of society which includes norms and morals.
1
@hulkster4374 - it's a polarizing issue that can be used to keep the population arguing, fighting with each other, instead of holding politicians as a whole accountable for a productive government that benefits the majority of people. Gun violence benefits politicians on both sides.
1
@vmambaa723 - Yes, absolutely. As many people die in car related incidents each year as in gun related violence and that's with very few actually trying to hurt people. Cars and knives have both been used as mass murder weapons in European countries that don't have gun proliferation. Knives are easier to defend against? You watch too much TV. Be a pedestrian hit by a car and let me know how that works out for ya. You are missing the point that guns aren't the problem. If you removed every gun from America tomorrow, people who have brains or psyches that are out of whack and with violent tendencies will find a weapon. I've just pointed out a couple that are in every home. You don't want to admit it because you don't want someone arbitrarily taking away your car or kitchen utensils. You aren't willing to make a sacrifice to save lives. Yet, you ask others to give up their Rights and blame am inanimate object for violence.
1
Karma
1
@Llano754 - when you're dealing with someone who isn't right in the head, everything else is secondary. It's like if you cross up your spark plug wires in your car. You can't say it isn't running correctly because it's not using premium fuel. Your morals are electrical signals in your brain. Cause damage to a part of the brain or the nueral pathways involved in morals and YOU wouldn't have any morals...because those electrical signals aren't functioning correctly. Brain trauma can have a physical, chemical, or societal cause. If a person becomes removed from society, dissociated, they end up not operating under the norms and morals of that society. What you're suggesting is along the lines of "depressed people just need a pick me up."
1
Just say no to King Elon.
1
1:24 1. They went to bed at midnight or at 12: 03? 2. They went to bed or they decided to go to bed? If you're going to lie, keep it simple. Don't volunteer details. Giving details (that you made up) will end up tangling up on each other. People telling the truth won't usually remember specific details of the situation because they didn't know they needed to have a clear story. Deciding that you need clear details is only something you realize in hindsight after you do something that makes you feel you're going to need a clear story. So, if you're trying to pull off a lie, just say, "We went to bed at midnight. That's the last time we saw him."
1
@brianlowell7408 the one thing wealthy people want is more money. It sounds counterintuitive, but that's their drive. There is never "enough". The one thing powerful people want is more power. You can guess what a wealthy, powerful person wants most. Aside from that, the point is that none of the DOGE hacker kiddies have security clearances. They have not been vetted or trained in security risk management. In other words, they don't understand the severity of risk related to the material they are accessing AND they aren't subject to oversight such as lie detector and background checks to ensure they aren't mishandling classified or secure information.
1