Anonymous wrote:This happens every year.

Don’t buy brands with logos. So many other brands exist that are luxury and don’t have names plastered all over them. If you are dumb enough to wear Canada Goose or Moncler in DC that’s on you.

You wouldn’t wear fancy clothes, watches, and jewelry in Venezuela would you? So why do it in DC? They’re basically the same 3rd world, crime infested cesspits. Use common sense.

+1

No more free sh*t.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These poor Jean Valjeans are just trying to clothe their families.

Have pity for them. They need the coats more than you do. These poor people don’t have access to any help.

I can't tell if this is sarcasm or not. That's how insane leftists are.

NP. While I find PP's tone a little odd considering the fact that there was a gun(!!!) involved, I do think that if this person truly did this out of a need for a coat, they deserve pity. Hopefully they can get a warm blanket and a hot meal in jail, and hopefully people at risk of freezing can get some kind of help.

Y'all are just plain idealistic, naive and stupid.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These poor Jean Valjeans are just trying to clothe their families.

Have pity for them. They need the coats more than you do. These poor people don’t have access to any help.

/s

+1

Big time /s. GTFOH. How much is enough??

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These poor Jean Valjeans are just trying to clothe their families.

Have pity for them. They need the coats more than you do. These poor people don’t have access to any help.

I can't tell if this is sarcasm or not. That's how insane leftists are.

NP. While I find PP's tone a little odd considering the fact that there was a gun(!!!) involved, I do think that if this person truly did this out of a need for a coat, they deserve pity. Hopefully they can get a warm blanket and a hot meal in jail, and hopefully people at risk of freezing can get some kind of help.

Spoken like someone who has never been a victim of violent crime.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How did DC get cleaned up in the past , what is the current barrier to getting crime down

Most progressives are critical theorists so they view the poor as oppressed. To them, street crime is justice. That's why this won't be solved as long as leftists are in charge. We need good moderate liberals and conservatives to come in and implement solutions that work in the real world, not just the world of make-believe that progressives live in.

You are wrong. I am a progressive that believes that the poor are clearly oppressed in our society. The flaw in your nasty assumption is that I don’t think these kids are criminals because they are poor. Poor people are not “more criminal” in nature than wealthy people. You are not a serious person and would rather tilt at windmills than discuss these issues reasonably.

This is just empirically untrue. Do you really believe this?

NP. How on earth could you believe this??? You think their brains are predisposed to criminal behavior??? If nothing else have you never heard of white collar crime??

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These poor Jean Valjeans are just trying to clothe their families.

Have pity for them. They need the coats more than you do. These poor people don’t have access to any help.

I can't tell if this is sarcasm or not. That's how insane leftists are.

NP. While I find PP's tone a little odd considering the fact that there was a gun(!!!) involved, I do think that if this person truly did this out of a need for a coat, they deserve pity. Hopefully they can get a warm blanket and a hot meal in jail, and hopefully people at risk of freezing can get some kind of help.

This is socialism in action. Isn’t this what democrats want? Wealth redistribution? I honestly see absolutely no difference at all when democrats mug you through taxes for their socialist agenda versus these guys in the street who deserve a piece of your wealth (e.g. nice coat). TBH, I think the muggers on the street have more integrity than Dems in office, because at least they’re honest about their intentions. Dems mug you for your wealth and pretend like they’re doing you a favor.

This happens every year.

Don’t buy brands with logos. So many other brands exist that are luxury and don’t have names plastered all over them. If you are dumb enough to wear Canada Goose or Moncler in DC that’s on you.

You wouldn’t wear fancy clothes, watches, and jewelry in Venezuela would you? So why do it in DC? They’re basically the same 3rd world, crime infested cesspits. Use common sense.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How did DC get cleaned up in the past , what is the current barrier to getting crime down

Most progressives are critical theorists so they view the poor as oppressed. To them, street crime is justice. That's why this won't be solved as long as leftists are in charge. We need good moderate liberals and conservatives to come in and implement solutions that work in the real world, not just the world of make-believe that progressives live in.

You are wrong. I am a progressive that believes that the poor are clearly oppressed in our society. The flaw in your nasty assumption is that I don’t think these kids are criminals because they are poor. Poor people are not “more criminal” in nature than wealthy people. You are not a serious person and would rather tilt at windmills than discuss these issues reasonably.

This is just empirically untrue. Do you really believe this?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How did DC get cleaned up in the past , what is the current barrier to getting crime down

Most progressives are critical theorists so they view the poor as oppressed. To them, street crime is justice. That's why this won't be solved as long as leftists are in charge. We need good moderate liberals and conservatives to come in and implement solutions that work in the real world, not just the world of make-believe that progressives live in.

You are wrong. I am a progressive that believes that the poor are clearly oppressed in our society. The flaw in your nasty assumption is that I don’t think these kids are criminals because they are poor. Poor people are not “more criminal” in nature than wealthy people. You are not a serious person and would rather tilt at windmills than discuss these issues reasonably.

You've clearly never been poor. I have and poor people are far more prone to criminal activity than middle and upper class folks. Any crime map or crime statistics will tell you this. As a progressive, you are living in the land of make-believe where "data is white supremacy" so you're not allowed to use it. So you are incapable of solving this issue.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How did DC get cleaned up in the past , what is the current barrier to getting crime down

Most progressives are critical theorists so they view the poor as oppressed. To them, street crime is justice. That's why this won't be solved as long as leftists are in charge. We need good moderate liberals and conservatives to come in and implement solutions that work in the real world, not just the world of make-believe that progressives live in.

You are wrong. I am a progressive that believes that the poor are clearly oppressed in our society. The flaw in your nasty assumption is that I don’t think these kids are criminals because they are poor. Poor people are not “more criminal” in nature than wealthy people. You are not a serious person and would rather tilt at windmills than discuss these issues reasonably.

Anonymous wrote:How did DC get cleaned up in the past , what is the current barrier to getting crime down

Most progressives are critical theorists so they view the poor as oppressed. To them, street crime is justice. That's why this won't be solved as long as leftists are in charge. We need good moderate liberals and conservatives to come in and implement solutions that work in the real world, not just the world of make-believe that progressives live in.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is the rationale behind a person in their teens and early 20s walking around with thousands of dollars of branded clothing? Especially after at least one university (GWU) told them they were at risk and to stop wearing them. It can’t be status; it’s not their money.

This sounds a bit too much like “what is the rationale behind a young woman in her teens and early 20s walking around wearing tight skirts and low-cut tops and heels? Especially after they were told that are at risk of being raped so they should stop wearing them….”

Maaaybe just maaaaaybe the responsibility of not being ROBBED should not be placed onto the VICTIM of the robbery.

Right… because showing off $2000 coats is liberating for these kids and might as well be an extension of their identity. My apologies for suggesting we stifle such a pure form of expression

They obviously have a right to wear them and not get robbed. The line of what coat is “too expensive” is completely arbitrary anyway and as ever, DCUM provincials just use their own economic band as a proxy for morals.

Do you think women who wear short skirts are asking for it?

dp.. absolutely not, but it's the reality, like walking at night alone.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is the rationale behind a person in their teens and early 20s walking around with thousands of dollars of branded clothing? Especially after at least one university (GWU) told them they were at risk and to stop wearing them. It can’t be status; it’s not their money.

This sounds a bit too much like “what is the rationale behind a young woman in her teens and early 20s walking around wearing tight skirts and low-cut tops and heels? Especially after they were told that are at risk of being raped so they should stop wearing them….”

Maaaybe just maaaaaybe the responsibility of not being ROBBED should not be placed onto the VICTIM of the robbery.

Right… because showing off $2000 coats is liberating for these kids and might as well be an extension of their identity. My apologies for suggesting we stifle such a pure form of expression

They obviously have a right to wear them and not get robbed. The line of what coat is “too expensive” is completely arbitrary anyway and as ever, DCUM provincials just use their own economic band as a proxy for morals.

Do you think women who wear short skirts are asking for it?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These poor Jean Valjeans are just trying to clothe their families.

Have pity for them. They need the coats more than you do. These poor people don’t have access to any help.

I can't tell if this is sarcasm or not. That's how insane leftists are.