The 2020 USA POTUS election politics, the civil war, and the world war (Part 1)

781

I can’t help that the current situation is disturbing. And of course I put some obvious cartoon-ish hyperbole. But maybe that’s what makes it rough - it’s not as cartoon-ish as it should be… but instead it’s much closer to reality than is comfortable.

I clearly and carefully did not say all trump voters have that viewpoint (That would be a false characterization. The majority of people voting for trump are just anti-“anyone with a D next to their name”, “my team!” voters. Plus some I’ve personally seen that are deranged vicarious “vice” voters. That’s why the misogny and other “character” issues are all “A-OK”. But overall most trump voters are not inherently bad people. Even if many are a bit misguided…). But that is where the primary outrage is from relating to primarily black football players daring to express any “political” views instead of just being the entertainment. And that is also part of the “core” support group that is directly pandered to at “rallies”.
Unless you have a different rational hypothesis for why the Trailer Park Boys (r) get so upset about the players taking a knee?

782

You twist and turn claiming you didn’t say what you did, but you did say it. I don’t think there is much point to this as you are not interested in learning anything and have an automatic response to anything Trump, a response which you project falsely on others.

Everything you use in your personal attacks is false.

1 Like
783

Well… Actually any funds funnelled to Trump properties (SS paying to stay at them) is clearly corrupt and in violation of the emoluments clause. But the Senate is impotent, so who cares.

For comedic effect, go look up videos of Trump railing against previous presidents’ incurring SS expenses for “trips”. Not to mention for rare golfing. It’s the illustrious Trump who says it’s corrupt and not allowed.

3 Likes
784

Where the hell did I claim i didnt say what I said?!?!?!?

Explaining and elaborating is not “twisting and turning”, it’s explaining and elaborating. It’s called having a discussion.

But by all means, keep pounding on that one little nail of yours, hoping no one notices you’re pounding with a paper hammer. Because God forbid you actually have to answer the question of how protection the secret service is required by law to provide equates to corruption.

785

I’ve long said that the BS goes both ways. I think the crap Trump has called out was as stupid as what’s being called out about him now. Doesn’t make it any less stupid.

1 Like
786

I did not support Trump during the 2016 Republican primary. There are many things about Trump I wish I could change. For example, Trump arrived in DC with quite a reputation. That he was no choir boy was well known to anyone who followed him over the years. I do believe he has behaved honorably toward his wife since assuming office, which is more than can be said for some earlier presidents (JFK, FDR).

What some refer to as Trump’s “messaging” is too often catastrophic. He has all the lack of awareness you would anticipate from the typical New Yorker. I have known many of them. They are a breed all their own.

OK, so why support him regardless such flaws?

It’s a binary choice in my view. And the alternative is completely unacceptable for someone like myself who:

Wants borders and does not want my country overrun with Central American peasants and MS-13 wannabees. I support legal immigration only. I oppose amnesty for those who enter the U.S. illegally (illegal immigrants). Those who break the law by entering the U.S. illegally should not have the same rights as those who obey the law and enter legally.

Believes ALL black lives matter, including the 95% of black murder victims who are murdered by their fellow blacks. You never hear about that 95% because telling that story serves no political purpose.

Believes the SCOTUS should not legislate, and believes courts up and down the line should interpret the law and not make law.

Believes in rugged individualism and promotion and taking of personal responsibility in all things.

Believes the USA promises a right to life, and believes the Holy Bible commands “Thou Shalt Not Kill”.

Believes the role of government should be to provide people the freedom necessary to pursue their own goals. Limited government works best. Perhaps the most laudable aspect of the Constitution of the United States of America, and the one most detested by the left, is that it severely limits government.

Believes the free market system, competitive capitalism, and private enterprise create the greatest opportunity and the highest standard of living for all persons.

Believes school vouchers create competition and therefore encourage schools to improve performance.

Believes oil and natural gas are good sources of energy, are abundant in the U.S., and should be used for at least the next 100 years or until feasible and sensible alternatives can be found.

Believes the Second Amendment gives American citizens the right to keep and bear arms. Individuals have the right to defend their persons and their homes.

Believes in a right to personal property and who believes eminent domain (seizure of private property by the government–with compensation to the owner) in too many cases is wrong. In particular, eminent domain should not be used for private development.

Believes the phrase “separation of church and state” is not in the Constitution. The First Amendment to the Constitution states “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” This prevents the government from establishing a national church/denomination. However, it does not prohibit God from being acknowledged in schools and government buildings.

Believes lower taxes and a smaller government with limited power will improve the standard of living for all.

Believes long-term welfare is wrong. Opportunities should be provided to make it possible for those in need to become self-reliant.

OK, given all the above and again, given it is a binary choice, do I support Trump warts and all or do I come out for Biden?

My finding is that President Trump is more likely to promote my beliefs than is Mr. Biden. Period.

And by the way, Biden is clearly (to me, anyway) no choir boy either!!

5 Likes
787

Thank you very much. That was very clear and effectively answered my questions. I appreciate you taking the time.

As promised, I will seriously consider what you have written.

788

[citation needed… the 95% number is a “myth” to be generous]

It’s a little funny, your statement here is supportive of the current calls to “defund the police.” The “defund” argument is that crime is way down but police budgets have continued to bloat with large increases every single year, not to just get rid of all police funding and all policing activity and convert to anarchy. The line of reasoning of the “defund the police” slogan is that much of that funding should be going to social programs to address the root of the problems rather than (for example) killing someone for sleeping in their car (which arguably could have been resolved with no police involvement whatsoever to start with).

1 Like
789

I have been a basketball enthusiast for many years. I remember sitting in the arena many years ago when Rashid (Kings player) refused to stand for the National Anthem. At that time if a player refused to stand he would stay in the locker room. It worked then.

Now I know it’s a different situation. I also remember (maybe 7-8+ yrs ago) a night when the Kings played Golden State. Most of the players on both sides had t-shirts saying Black Lives Matter. I sat & wondered “what’s going on”, now I know.

Times are changing… But for me, I love the USA & I do not agree with “take a knee” when the Anthem is played. Maybe I’m old fashioned but those folks can “take a knee” for some other proposition… :rage:

790

Well sure. The sports players are not just hired “help”. The players’ associations now have a say in the way things are run. Most people see this as a sign of progress. Individuals are free to disagree and can always boycott the sport if they don’t want to watch people (with some control over their own actions) but just “things” perform for them.

They now have a voice if they want to use it and don’t have to be solely entertainment and not people with a right to express any opinions.

And you’re free to boycott the sports. The players are not “owned” by the team owners, so it’s not solely up to a subset of the fans or the team “owners”(not to mention many or most of the team owners disagree with you). The team owners must negotiate with the Players’ Associations. Because there’s no sports business without any players willing to perform.

791

Oh, you went there? The drunk who was passed out in the Wendy’s drive through, failed a sobriety test, resisted arrest, forcibly took the officer’s taser, started running away with the taser, then turned and actually fired the taser at the cop before being shot?

Yes, clearly we should just call it “shot for sleeping in their car.”

The “defund” argument is that crime is way down but police budgets have continued to bloat with large increases every single year,

I dont know where you live, but anywhere I’ve been for decades, budget cuts are an annual thing, with police resources continually stretched thin. Plus, your comment ignores the relation to officers on the streets with the reduction of crime on those streets. Just because crime decreases doesnt mean the cops are no longer needed.

And of course, we’ll just overlook the ever-prevalent lack of basic english skills - when you say “defund the police”, there is absolutely no reason for anyone to think you mean anything other than defunding the police. If the intent is something else, then use a word that means what you want it to mean. You might as well claim that by “defund police” you are just saying that you think it’s going to rain tomorrow, it’d make as much sense.

5 Likes
792

But when “on the job”, any employer can have a standard of conduct that is expected of the employees. Of course a player cant be forced to do anything, but when wearing the uniform at a game, they are an extension of the team. The players are trying to play both sides of the fence, expressing their own opinions while still getting those huge paychecks. It’s hugely arrogant to insist they be allowed to do as they want while on company time. I’ll respect any player that quits, otherwise they’re hypocrites.

793

Yes, someone running away is a capital offence. And holding a taser out of range is a capital offence, warranting shooting someone in the back. Someone holding a taser out of range of even reaching me is clearly an immediate threat to my life? (Despite being used by police under guidelines that it is NOT lethal force and there is no requirement to meet the requirements for lethal force to tase someone. So, even if he were in range with the taser it would be an illogical argument to make. If he were running towards with the taser rather than running away then the officer would be at risk of incapacitation… But even so, there was ANOTHER officer there, so his life would still not be in danger.) YOU are the one bringing up the other issue of incompetent officers where two officers were unable to restrain a suspect and unable to maintain control of their equipment. They should not have access to lethal equipment if the training and abilities are so poor. Clearly the “officer” was embarrassed and angry at his own incompetence and that’s why he killed the man rather than letting the harmless and unarmed man get the best of him and run away.

That’s not where I went, though. The initial situation is where I went. Does sleeping in a car really warrant the intervention of multiple lethally-armed police force as a preferred and primary route to resolution? The US pretty much stands alone in the first world with this go-to procedure.

794

HE WASNT SLEEPING IN HIS CAR! He was passed out drunk in the Wendy’s drive thru!

Quit trying to imply he was quietly minding his own business out the way, and was rousted for no reason. There was absolutely nothing inappropriate about that interaction, until he fought the cop and took his weapon. And even then, he wasnt shot until after he turned and actually fired it. If you take a cop’s weapon from him, then turn it on him, getting shot should be at the top of the list of what you’re expecting.

The lack of personal responsibility is mind boggling.

2 Likes
795

I wasn’t implying that at all. But it doesn’t seem to necessitate the intervention by multiple lethally armed police force to resolve a situation where someone is passed out and needs to be moved… (My opinion. Plus the actual circumstance in many countries where police rightfully do not have firearms unless the situation might warrant it)

Not everyone agrees. But that’s partly where the argument is. Some people would rather we move to an armed police state, others like freedom and some personal responsibility.
Do we really need large numbers of poorly trained police wielding lethal force for everyday duties where the lethal force is unlikely to be required?

+1

796

Give up Bend3r, YOU lost here !! :relaxed:

1 Like
797

I was never playing. And it’s not a game anyways. The authorities also already ruled it a homicide. The initial complaint was also for sleeping in the car, there is/was no “implying” a different situation than actual. That was the complaint.

798

I think this argument cannot be made blindly from the circumstances of possession of firearms in the various countries.

Taking the case of Japan for example where it’s very difficult to own a firearm (various exams, mental health checks, background checks, shooting accuracy exam, etc … every 3 years and cannot purchase anything but air rifles or shotguns - no handguns, let alone assault weapons). The assumption for the police is completely different. Basically virtually nobody owns a gun so the police does not need to be armed either to resolve most situations while also protecting themselves.

The reality is that it’s a chicken-and-egg issue. If citizens are militarized with ability to purchase assault weapons, the police will be even more armed/militarized. When the police respond to a call, it’s a very real possibility that they will face lethal threats, so they’ll understandably consider using lethal force more readily, which will make citizens more fearful of the police and less trusting, and thus may decide to arm themselves more. On and on.

1 Like
799

In the drive thru. His car was parked in. the. drive. thru. Not just “sleeping in his car”. Context is important. He was clearly where he wasnt allowed to be, doing something he wasnt allowed to do. And then he clearly escalated the matter, not the cops.

The fact they’ve already ruled it a homicide is in itself troubling, there’s no way a proper investigation could’ve been completed in less than 2 days. It’s all about pacifying the public regardless of what happened, and regardless of who gets thrown under the bus.

1 Like
800

Of course, because he was killed by another person - that’s just the definition of the word (kinda like “defund”). The designation does not imply that was/will be a punishable act by the cop - that will be decided by the lawyers if/when he gets charged with anything. I’m not an Atlanta jury, but I’d be surprised if they couldn’t find at least 1/12 jurors who thought getting shot at by a criminal during an arrest didn’t justify shooting back. FWIW tasers have been considered “less lethal” weapons, rather than “non-lethal” weapons, for a while now both by the manufacturer and the police.

2 Likes