Politcal Ramblings

[Aslan]

Disclaimer (at the start this time):
http://jacquelinegum-com.toddlahmanllc.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/disclaimer.jpg
Anything Aslan says is neither supported nor endorsed nor otherwise paid attention to by this site, it's affiliates, it's past affiliates, nor it's future affiliates. Aslan's use of language or fart noises or any other type of ridiculousness should be ignored. If you have a heart condition, you may not want to read this. If you're pregnant, nursing, or expecting to be pregnant or nurse in the not too distant future...you might be a ****....but if not, you may also not want to read the following. If you're experiencing any discomfort...or even a slightly runny nose...stop reading and consult your weed guy.

All that aside...below is a continutation of a discussion that was somewhere else hijacking something regarding towels. This'll be in 3 parts...first what I said (to provide backstory), then a response (to provide backstory to the next post), then my last post....then I'm sure we'll have pages upon pages of interesting and family friendly banter in between talking about how bad we stink at bowling. Enjoy.

Posted by Aslan:
To intentionally get off on a tangent....since this is a political year...it's like when conservatives talk about how more regulations or health insurance or an increased wage...how those things will all lead to layoffs because companies can't afford those things. That would be TRUE....if we assume that said companies have no ability to lower profit expectations to accommodate for these increased costs. And that's what they want you to think....but it's simply not true.

Example:
You have a bowling center, we'll call it the Iceman Center of Bowling Gifted Excellence for lack of a better name.

You make $3000/day in gross profit.
Your labor costs are $800/day.
Your utilities/business costs are $350/day.
Your cost of goods/materials are $700/day.

So, you NET $1150/day. That's $418,600/year net profit.
The OWNER has decided that based on his annual investment of $673,400, his expectations are to make 60% ($404,040) annually on this establishment.

Now lets say a minimum wage goes up significantly and a $100/month/person healthcare tax is added. That brings the annual costs up say $219.40/day in increased wages and $32.88/day in new healthcare costs. The center still makes money, but not 60%. It instead makes $324,678 annually on an annual investment of $767,322. So, instead of making 60%, the center makes nearly 42%.

Now, in the OLD DAYS...you could generally make about 2.5% in a savings account, about 8% in real estate, and about 8-15% in the stock market. So a business owner would see the profit number fall < 8% and decide there are better investments than a bowling alley. But in our CURRENT society....banks pay 0.5%...real estate is a coin flip...and the stock market is currently just struggling to break even on the year.

So...I ask the question every Republican hates (or simply can't comprehend)....what is "ENOUGH". Enough profit, enough money....what is "enough"? If you own a bowling alley and it's making you $50,000/year...in an economy where most other investments are offering no better than a break even scenario...isn't it a viable investment? Sure...it was a BETTER investment making $418,600 versus $324,678...but its still making you money.

And this is an EXTREME example because we're talking about a truly small business when we're talking bowling alleys. Most of the time when this discussion comes up...it's multi-million or billion dollar companies that are talking the difference between making 15.6% versus 14.8% or something along those lines.

The pressure we see in California is a little different than most areas...but probably compareable to New York City. It isn't that the centers aren't profitable...it's that the value of the land those centers sit on is extremely high. So if you're an owner wanting to make $200,000 annually and it's looking more like $147,000 annually....and along comes a real estate investor offering you 4 million dollars for the facility....you sell. That's what happened to TWO centers in Orange County since 2012. Both privately owned, both making money, but both in areas where the land was just too expensive. And as the proprietors get older and older...eventually they just want to cash out.

But I wanted to make this point simply because it's a common misconception when we hear about places closing or laying people off....that they are doing so to make money...as if NOT doing that will cause them to lose money. That's rarely the case...especially the bigger the company. In the vast majority of these situations it's about what the owner WANTS to make in profit versus what they can reasonably make in profit.

And this ties even into the immigration debate in the country. You hear companies say, "those workers do jobs Americans won't do". That's actually not really true...and is a way of circumventing simple capitalistic, economic principles of supply and demand. For example, I would hate to have a job cleaning hotel rooms. I'd hate it...with a passion. But if Hilton came to me and said, "we really need maids...what would it take to get you to join our team and clean hotel rooms for a living....my price would be rather high. Probably $60/hour minimum with benefits. But see....not everyone is going to give that high a number. You can probably find a legal American who would LOVE to clean hotel rooms for $17/hour. But the hotels claim that's "too high". Is it? Is it not what the market dictates? And in a society where cheap, illegal labor is eliminated....hotels simply would pay $17/hour and charge more and make less profit. But that's not what they "want" to do. It's easier to hire illegal aliens and pay them virtually nothing. Do you honestly think the Marriot would lose money if they doubled their wages? Probably not. They make billions of dollars a year. But see...that's the rub. They don't want to make "millions"...they want to make "billions"....and higher wages would limit that.

Now, the smaller the company, the smaller the profit margins, the harder wage increases are on the company. Like, small farmers. If they only make a 5-10% profit....they could see that evaporated hiring legal, American workers. But hey, right now a banana costs 50 cents. Maybe with legal workers, a banana costs $1. That's capitalism....that's how economics works. Illegal workers shortcut the system and allow companies to circumvent the laws of supply and demand.

[Aslan]

Part 2: Response by FTLoB:

What is enough money or enough profit?? Funny how you Cali liberals love to give away other peoples money. If you have extra money at the end of the month why don't you give it away? As long as you pay your bills and have money for recreation that should be enough right?

[RobLV1]

Bored? LOL

[Aslan]

My point with the "tangent" conversation was that I'm sick of hearing about how Obamacare and regulations and the EPA and FDA and all these things are causing job losses because "owners can't afford...X, Y, Z". That's NOT ACCURATE. It's a very tricky way to scare people into opposing things. The TRUE statement would be, "...owners would see less profit due to X, Y, or Z..." See, they SOUND similar. But they are very very different.

One of the more blatent "lies that isn't technically a lie"...is the "Death Tax". You do realize there is no such thing right? Actually, prior to the Newt Gingrich congress...that term didn't even exist. What the republican Congress did was call the "Estate Tax" the "Death Tax". Why would they do that? Well, because most people don't have "estates" and thus don't care about a tax on estates. But EVERYONE dies. So if some mental midget hears there is a tax on death....they figure someday they'll die and their family will have to pay a huge tax. That's unfortuanately how our devisive government works now. They "trick" people and scare people into voting against their best interests.

And I am NOT a Cali liberal. I would most accurately describe my political beliefs as a "left-leaning populist independent". I actually vote straight ticket Republican in all state California elections because the Democratic super majority in this state makes living here almost unbearable. If you want to see what unchecked liberalism results in...move to California. And Democrats are no better than Republicans. One of the worst governors in the US...Jerry Brown....has used the proposition system to get so much nonsense passed...by "tricking" people...that it makes me sick.

Case in point: "The Safe Kids and Neighborhoods Proposition" that the Governor put forth last year. One would read the title and think, "Hmmm....I like safe kids and safe neighborhoods...maybe I should vote yes". But see, here's what the proposition does...it lets out non-violent offenders from prisons...because the prisons are over-crowded and building another one is almost impossible due to the prison unions. So...what was the result of this "safer kids and neighborhhods" proposition? Well, crime rates in almost every city/area of California are up double-digit %s. It turns out, when you let people out of prison....most of them tend to go back to doing what they did before they left for prison. Who'd a thunk it?

So, ftlob....who apparently is not a Cali liberal...but we don't know for sure where he/she is from....the question is the same. How much is "enough"? And you do realize the "Well, that's MINE!" argument tends to lose effectiveness unless it's toddlers arguing over a toy. Remember one of the first lessons we learn in kindergarten? How to share? See, Republicans tend to "forget" that lesson...and get locked into this, "well....that's mine...and it doesn't matter if I have 30 million of those....I want 30 million + 1!" If we saw a toddler carrying 5 Barbie dolls...and her little sister was crying because she doesn't have any....we would try to convince the toddler to maybe share one of the Barbies. Yet...then we all grow up...and suddenly "sharing" = "socialism". And don't get me started on the over-used (and inaccurately used) term: "Socialism". What most refer to as "socialist"....is not. Of matter of fact...most things deemed "socialist" are actually more in line with "communism" than "socialism"....at least in the purest sense.

And before you use the "I worked harder than everyone else so I DESERVE more" argument...remember...the difference between you sitting on a couch watching cable and going to a nearby bowling alley to bowl a few games....and you dying of hunger in some African desert....is you where you were born. Just by being BORN...in the United States...you have an advantage. And if you were given an advantage...it's not as "fair" to say it was all about your vision and courage and work ethic concerning your eventual success. And the same can be said about people born into good situations versus bad situations. A kid born to a single mom in the inner city...is at a disadvantage compared to Paris Hilton. Paris does nothing...except look pretty and make an occasional stag film...and she has more money and wealth than all the people on this site put together. Yet...in some inner city...there's a bright young kid that...in a different situation...might grow up to be something. I'm not saying people can't change their lot in life...they certainly can and should. But if you're running in a race...and somebody makes you carry a person on your shoulders and kicks you in the knee before yelling "Go!"...you probably are going to lose the race.

Again...not a "Cali liberal"...I'm far to right of Democrats on many issues including gun control, race relations, foreign policy, defense, crime and punishment, and immigration. But I have no party anymore. I'm a "moderate" and my two best choices in 2016 are a libertarian Rand Paul or a socialist Bernie Sanders. Talk about the best of two evils....that's like having to vote between Stalin or Charles De Gaulle...you end up voting De Gaulle because...well, at least he's not Stalin. More accurately...it's like the WWII alliance with Stalin to battle Hitler. Stalin was horrible....but a great deal less horrible than Stalin...who was also horrible. Politics tends to be choosing between two idiots and trying to figure out which one will do the least harm rather than the most good. :mad:

[Aslan]

Bored? LOL

Yeah. Kinda.

Life is boring when you're bowling badly and not getting laid. It's like having cable...but nothing to watch. Yesterday night I fell asleep watching MacGyver reruns. I can't remember the last time I watched MacGyver. That dude is always getting captured.

Besides...we have a whole thread...for non-bowling talk....and we never use it!! Granted...this'll probably get locked...if not immediately on principle.....later when someone calls someone a "poo poo head" or something. Hey...if Donald Trump can say the things he says...and is a leading candidate for President...then I think folks should cut ole Aslan some slack, right?

[Aslan]

If you have extra money at the end of the month why don't you give it away? As long as you pay your bills and have money for recreation that should be enough right?

Also, to answer the question...it usually doesn't apply. I'm a unique case in that I make far more money than I should...but have far more bills than I should...so I break even or thereabouts every month. When I DO have a little extra at the end of the month...that's usually when my car decides to conk out and eats up any extra money to get it fixed.

[Aslan]

It would be closer to say unions attempt to circumvent the laws of supply and demand by pushing the wage higher than would it would otherwise be, using the market.
Correct. That's why under an Aslanian Administration....we would eliminate illegal immigration, the minimum wage, and labor unions. And it's a far, far simpler and more humane plan that what "The Donald" proposes.

1) Set entering wage for a full-time employee at $35,000/year (about $12/hr).
2) Institute National Health Care (also called single-payer) as much of the rest of the World already has so businesses aren't responsible for paying for healthcare costs for their workers (like most of our international competition doesn't).
3) Increase enforcement and penalties for any person or company that hires/employs illegal aliens. First offense is 5% of the companies gross earnings in the last fiscal year. Penalty for a second offense is 10% of the companies gross earnings that year. A third offense is 15% of the companies gross earnings in the last fiscal year, possible criminal charges of up to 15 years in prison, and the temporary loss of your liscences to operate in the United States.
4) The highest ranking CEO, COO, board member, founder, owner, or executive has a salary "capped" at 95x the wage of the lowest paid worker (minimum of $35,000). This is also done in some EU countries and has been successful.

Why? And what good will it do?

Well,
1) Chrysler makes cars. They pay people to build cars. Chrysler spends roughly $6000 per automobile to pay for health insurance coverage for it's workers. Countries with nationalized healthcare or no healthcare...they do are not burdened with that uncompetitive cost. Our companies should focus on innovation and quality and profitability...NOT providing healthcare. The government already does it just fine with Medicare....no sense to why I can't have the government handle it until I'm 55.

2) Unions drive up costs. Should a maintenance worker in a factory with no education, just a high school diploma make $75,000/year? Probably not. But can I FAULT the worker for wanting $75,000/year when the CEO makes more than that on the 1st day of that year? No, I can't.

A minimum wage is counter-productive and not in line with capitalist principles. So we eliminate it. However, to avoid exploitation, we'll just set it at $35,000 across the board. But to keep that $12/hour from becoming a defacto minimum wage...we link it to CEO pay. So if Iceman opens his Gifted Bowling Institute and pays his workers $35,000....he cannot make more than 95x $35,000 (3.325 million)/year total compensation. And that's NOT A CAP...because lets say Iceman wants to make 10 million dollars....well, then he has to raise the lowest wage paid at his institute to $105,263.15/year.

That takes care of the minimum wage and healthcare and CEO pay. That just leaves immigration. Easy fix.
1) Secure borders.
2) Tie legal immigration rate to the unemployment rate. The less unemployed we have, the more immigrants we let in.
3) If you're illegal....you should go home now. If you don't, your employer could face extremely high penalties for continuing to pay you. And if folks can't illegally work....they will deport themselves.

Problems solved.

No? Well, what if the company doesn't KNOW the person is illegal?? Isn't 5% gross earnings a high penalty to pay for a mistake or some worker deceiving you?

Yes. It's a very, very high price that will almost certainly result in industries devoting a massive effort to ensure no illegal aliens slip through the cracks...which is exactly what businesses SHOULD be doing...and aren't...and are profiting by it.

See how easy these tough problems are to solve....when you're looking at it from a non-devisive, non-political point of view? Under the scenario above...EVERY American wins. The rich stay rich....the poor get richer...the middle class gets strengthened...health care gets taken care of....unemployment is addressed...and immigration takes care of itself. Sure, there are probably 700 pages of text to make the above proposals actually work...but that's why we have so many lawyers....so they can take my great ideas and write them down in a useable way.

Also, for solving these problems, "you're welcome."

Aslan
2016 Independent Presidential Candidate
Write him in on election day!!

P.S. At least 35% of my motivation to be President is to live in a house with it's own bowling alley.

[RobLV1]

Life is boring when you're bowling badly and not getting laid.

Look at the bright side... at your age the bowling will improve, and you will undoubtedly start getting laid sometime in the future. When you get to my age, not so much on either account! LOL

[Tony]

See how easy these tough problems are to solve....when you're looking at it from a non-devisive, non-political point of view? Under the scenario above...EVERY American wins. The rich stay rich....the poor get richer...the middle class gets strengthened...health care gets taken care of....unemployment is addressed...and immigration takes care of itself. Sure, there are probably 700 pages of text to make the above proposals actually work...but that's why we have so many lawyers....so they can take my great ideas and write them down in a useable way.

, for solving these problems, "you're welcome."

Aslan
2016 Independent Presidential Candidate
Write him in on election day!!

P.S. At least 35% of my motivation to be President is to live in a house with it's own bowling alley.

If you have any sense at all, you would remove the idea that having a lawyer write 700 pages of mostly loopholes and grey area to complete your document, they are the same people that comprise most of our current political leaders (AKA the ruling class) They write the rules for us , but have another set of rules for themselves. They will insert language that needs interpretation, they will add poorly defined exceptions, they will do there best to make sure your document is anything but clear organized and simple to follow, after all how would that provide clients that need litigation and interpretation by the lawyer. In short lawyers are why things don't work, they're just good at convincing people that they are the solution, when actually they created the problem !

[Aslan]

Look at the bright side... at your age the bowling will improve, and you will undoubtedly start getting laid sometime in the future. When you get to my age, not so much on either account! LOL

I hope thats true. Well, the first part anyway. But I completely agree.

[billf]

Should a maintenance worker in a factory with no education, just a high school diploma make $75,000/year? Probably not. But can I FAULT the worker for wanting $75,000/year when the CEO makes more than that on the 1st day of that year? No, I can't.



Given that factory maintenance technicians are licensed plumbers, licensed electricians and some, like myself master auto technicians, they are hardly uneducated, high school diploma only having unskilled labor employees. Other than this poor example I agree with more of what you said than I originally thought I would.
-Lowly Freshway Foods factory maintenance technician-

[Aslan]

Given that factory maintenance technicians are licensed plumbers, licensed electricians and some, like myself master auto technicians, they are hardly uneducated, high school diploma only having unskilled labor employees. Other than this poor example I agree with more of what you said than I originally thought I would.
-Lowly Freshway Foods factory maintenance technician-

Well, the maintenance worker was probably the worst example I could use because you're correct...that would be a skilled position at one of the higher starting pay grades. A better example would have been just an auto worker on a line. Having grown up in that area, I knew plenty of high school classmates that skipped college or trade school and got into the UAW. Nowadays, I think thats more difficult. But my neighbor back in Michigan worked on the line and had been working there for about 15 years, just a high school diploma. But I also knew a great many classmates that went off to college and to this day probably aren't making $75,000.

It used to be a good situation in this country because going to college was just a choice based on what you wanted to do...not necessarily what you needed to make. But as those jobs evaporated, all those classmates that would have went from high school to the factory...were suddenly taking out massive loans trying to go to college because it was either that or work minimum wage jobs and live in a trailer.

But it sounds like you got the just of what I was trying to say.

[Timmyb]

Well, the maintenance worker was probably the worst example I could use because you're correct...that would be a skilled position at one of the higher starting pay grades. A better example would have been just an auto worker on a line. Having grown up in that area, I knew plenty of high school classmates that skipped college or trade school and got into the UAW. Nowadays, I think thats more difficult. But my neighbor back in Michigan worked on the line and had been working there for about 15 years, just a high school diploma. But I also knew a great many classmates that went off to college and to this day probably aren't making $75,000.

It used to be a good situation in this country because going to college was just a choice based on what you wanted to do...not necessarily what you needed to make. But as those jobs evaporated, all those classmates that would have went from high school to the factory...were suddenly taking out massive loans trying to go to college because it was either that or work minimum wage jobs and live in a trailer.

But it sounds like you got the just of what I was trying to say.

There are still plenty of good paying non-college required jobs available in this country, if any of these molly-coddled kids would want to get their hands dirty. My son-in-law just started his pipefitter apprenticeship. I've been a machinist for 32 years, and it's never failed to provide me with a living. Schools either don't have vocational programs anymore, or the counselors aren't pushing it. College isn't for everyone.

[RobLV1]

There are still plenty of good paying non-college required jobs available in this country, if any of these molly-coddled kids would want to get their hands dirty. My son-in-law just started his pipefitter apprenticeship. I've been a machinist for 32 years, and it's never failed to provide me with a living. Schools either don't have vocational programs anymore, or the counselors aren't pushing it. College isn't for everyone.

As a retired school teacher, I can tell you with certainty that you are 100% correct, and virtually every school teacher would agree with you. When the government(s) chooses to base a schools success totally on high stakes test scores, schools have no choice but to focus totally on teaching the test to every student, regardless of his/her apptitudes and interests.

[Jessiewoodard57]

I worked for both Dominoes Pizza and McDs as a manager for a total of 31 years. In the process of my job I was responsible for the profit and loss statements done monthly. These companies would be lucky if everything went well that month to do 5% profit on the bottom line. Every time there was a federal wage increase the price of the product had to go up to cover the cost and keep us in business. Everything or service that minimum wage touches has to go up to cover the wage increase. Now let's look at it from the political stand point every time wages go up so does the amount of taxes the IRS can collect therefore our congress gets more to spend ...in the end our senior citizens are the ones hurt the most since they do not get a cost of living increase. Also the higher the wages go the more business send the jobs off shore to a lower wage country. Automobiles are a prime example Mexico and Canada now build many of our "American" cars. McDonalds is already working on reducing it's labor force needed in preparation for the wage increase by installing self serve order takers at the front counter. Yes 15 dollars an hour may very well end up passing. when it does many less will be working many more will be living on the welfare system. Wage increase is not the answer A balanced federal budget with a smaller more efficient government taxing the people less is the answer . This is one problem throwing money at will not fix it.

[fortheloveofbowling]

I worked for both Dominoes Pizza and McDs as a manager for a total of 31 years. In the process of my job I was responsible for the profit and loss statements done monthly. These companies would be lucky if everything went well that month to do 5% profit on the bottom line. Every time there was a federal wage increase the price of the product had to go up to cover the cost and keep us in business. Everything or service that minimum wage touches has to go up to cover the wage increase. Now let's look at it from the political stand point every time wages go up so does the amount of taxes the IRS can collect therefore our congress gets more to spend ...in the end our senior citizens are the ones hurt the most since they do not get a cost of living increase. Also the higher the wages go the more business send the jobs off shore to a lower wage country. Automobiles are a prime example Mexico and Canada now build many of our "American" cars. McDonalds is already working on reducing it's labor force needed in preparation for the wage increase by installing self serve order takers at the front counter. Yes 15 dollars an hour may very well end up passing. when it does many less will be working many more will be living on the welfare system. Wage increase is not the answer A balanced federal budget with a smaller more efficient government taxing the people less is the answer . This is one problem throwing money at will not fix it.


Best post ever for anyone anywhere on any site.

[NYMIKE]

I worked for both Dominoes Pizza and McDs as a manager for a total of 31 years. In the process of my job I was responsible for the profit and loss statements done monthly. These companies would be lucky if everything went well that month to do 5% profit on the bottom line. Every time there was a federal wage increase the price of the product had to go up to cover the cost and keep us in business. Everything or service that minimum wage touches has to go up to cover the wage increase. Now let's look at it from the political stand point every time wages go up so does the amount of taxes the IRS can collect therefore our congress gets more to spend ...in the end our senior citizens are the ones hurt the most since they do not get a cost of living increase. Also the higher the wages go the more business send the jobs off shore to a lower wage country. Automobiles are a prime example Mexico and Canada now build many of our "American" cars. McDonalds is already working on reducing it's labor force needed in preparation for the wage increase by installing self serve order takers at the front counter. Yes 15 dollars an hour may very well end up passing. when it does many less will be working many more will be living on the welfare system. Wage increase is not the answer A balanced federal budget with a smaller more efficient government taxing the people less is the answer . This is one problem throwing money at will not fix it.

Well said, if wages go up to $15 an hour, I won't be able to eat at these fine food establishments. Automation is installed at supermarkets, pharmacies, parking facilities, etc and it slows down service and cost human jobs. I'm working for free about 5 months of the year. Small government is the answer.

[NewToBowling]

I worked for both Dominoes Pizza and McDs as a manager for a total of 31 years. In the process of my job I was responsible for the profit and loss statements done monthly. These companies would be lucky if everything went well that month to do 5% profit on the bottom line. Every time there was a federal wage increase the price of the product had to go up to cover the cost and keep us in business. Everything or service that minimum wage touches has to go up to cover the wage increase. Now let's look at it from the political stand point every time wages go up so does the amount of taxes the IRS can collect therefore our congress gets more to spend ...in the end our senior citizens are the ones hurt the most since they do not get a cost of living increase. Also the higher the wages go the more business send the jobs off shore to a lower wage country. Automobiles are a prime example Mexico and Canada now build many of our "American" cars. McDonalds is already working on reducing it's labor force needed in preparation for the wage increase by installing self serve order takers at the front counter. Yes 15 dollars an hour may very well end up passing. when it does many less will be working many more will be living on the welfare system. Wage increase is not the answer A balanced federal budget with a smaller more efficient government taxing the people less is the answer . This is one problem throwing money at will not fix it.

Lost me at bolded part :)

[Aslan]

Best post ever for anyone anywhere on any site.


I worked for both Dominoes Pizza and McDs as a manager for a total of 31 years. In the process of my job I was responsible for the profit and loss statements done monthly. These companies would be lucky if everything went well that month to do 5% profit on the bottom line. Every time there was a federal wage increase the price of the product had to go up to cover the cost and keep us in business. Everything or service that minimum wage touches has to go up to cover the wage increase. Now let's look at it from the political stand point every time wages go up so does the amount of taxes the IRS can collect therefore our congress gets more to spend ...in the end our senior citizens are the ones hurt the most since they do not get a cost of living increase. Also the higher the wages go the more business send the jobs off shore to a lower wage country. Automobiles are a prime example Mexico and Canada now build many of our "American" cars. McDonalds is already working on reducing it's labor force needed in preparation for the wage increase by installing self serve order takers at the front counter. Yes 15 dollars an hour may very well end up passing. when it does many less will be working many more will be living on the welfare system. Wage increase is not the answer
While I don't share NTB's enthusiasm...you had me right up until here....


A balanced federal budget with a smaller more efficient government taxing the people less is the answer . This is one problem throwing money at will not fix it.
So your assumption is that we should reduce taxes and cut spending and make government smaller? All things that the modern day tea party would agree with. The "problem" with that logic is:
1) It's called "trickle down economics" and has been proven time and time again not to work.
2) We tried it under G.W. and it CERTAINLY didn't work.

Here's my reasoning why...and hopefully this makes sense;

See, in the old days pre-global economy...trickle down economics was a viable option. If I gave Henry Ford a tax break...he'd take a good portion of that money and re-invest it in new equipment and new factories...providing jobs, and at the same time increasing his own wealth and the wealth of his shareholders. At THAT TIME...such policies were at least feasible.

Fast forward to G.W....and we now have a situation where if you give money to the top....half goes into their wealth and trust funds....the other half gets invested in a new plat...in India....or China...or Vietnam....and eventually, Africa.

So, how do we fix that? Well, there are numerous ways to back-track on free trade policies...and make it a more "fair" trade. The problems are, you now have a global macro economy...and if the US were to implement a less than global-free-trade policy...markets globally would collapse overnight. Those citizens within range of retirement would see their savings completely emptied. In essence, they would have to pay now, for the hope of a stable future for their grandchildren. Many of them don't have grandchildren and are far more concerned with losing their life savings.

I totally agree with you that simply taxing people more and then spending more is not the answer. That's why I'm not a Democrat. But it's not as easy as tea partiers make it seem...to just "make government small". Realize, that Republicans also like to spend taxpayer money...but they like to spend it in terms of tax breaks to the wealthy and increases in defense spending. The last President to actually reduce the debt was Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich congress. But since then, the two parties have simply decided to NOTHING...and many of the most right wing presidential candidates will BRAG about how little they've done...as if that's a badge of honor. How come we can't get a gig like that? The less you do, the more you're rewarded?? But I digress.

You used the example of McDonalds and Dominos. The owner of a McDonalds restaurant in the early 90s made 1 million dollars profit per year per restaurant. I know, because a knew a guy that owned 13 of them. The profit margin may have been low....but the sales volume is massive. And that's common in almost every industry....the more demand for a product, without supply limitations, you will often see the margins get lower. "Niche" products, the profit margin is much higher.

As I mentioned, historically 8% has been used by most businesses as the cutoff between investing and saving. The problem is, in a 0 interest wate environment...savings accounts don't pay 2%. That leaves the stock market or real estate or commodities. Most commodities are falling and that can be a risky choice. Real estate used to always net you 8-11%...but after the housing market crash...it's much more of a gamble now. And the stock market historically gets 8-15%...but we're in a very stagnant recovery right now and the global markets are under pressure...and we're on the verge of WWIII...and most investment houses/hedge fund managers are actually struggling to break even for 2015 after that huge collapse in August.

Why? Well...

[Aslan]

...

And before I forget, the Dominos example was actually a really bad example. Dominos used to charge $12.50 for a pizza. They now charge $5.99. Competition has driven their prices and profits down...mostly due to Little Caesars making a marginal large pizza for $5.00. That put a lot of tiny pizza places out of business and drove down prices at the chains across the board.

So how did Dominos go from selling a $12.50 pizza...to selling the same pizza (actually an improved version) for $5.99? How did they NOT go out of business!!? If they were making razor thin profit margins of 5%...they'd have never been able to eat that profit.

Now, a quick conversation about the MACRO economy.

You have essentially 4 regions: Europe, Asia, South America, and the U.S.

Europe does a lot of things right, but are always at risk because there are many states in the EU that don't do so well...and the ones that do have to prop them up. So for every Germany, there's a Greece. And due to size/geography, they are far more affected by security issues like we've seen in France, Belgium, and Turkey. In my opinon, most of that is the result of the very high unemployment rate throughout the EU.

South America was the "vogue" place to open a factory back in 2005-2010 because those states tend to have more stable regulatory environment than latin America but wages are still lower than US/Canada/EU. The problem is these states are poltically unstable (Argentina, Chile, Columbia, etc...) and Brazil is not as cost competitive as other area in Latin/South America. So that little experiment thus far gets a "C-" Grade.

The next "big thing" was China. Lots of business folks with fancy MBAs decided China was not only cheap labor...low regulations...but ALSO a huge potential market of 1-2 billion consumers. However, they're models predicted China would develop faster and create a middle class. They didn't. The consumers showed up, but not 1-2 billion. Many of the Chinese are still living in total poverty and there's little sign a middle class will emerge anytime soon, if ever. In addition, many companies immediately ran into regulatory problems operating in China because of the communist government. Many, many instances of intellectual property being simply stolen...and then a Chinese national company will open up supplying the same products...often times luring their citizens away from the original company. So, I give this little Chinese endeavor a "C-" because I think the market may be there eventually...but thus far has been a failure. That led to the crash in August.

So in terms of "grades":
Asia/China: C-
S. America: C-
E.U. : B
U.S. : B+

The issues facing the US economy (in no particular order) are:
1) High cost of labor.
2) High cost of regulation.
3) Political entrenchment.
4) Collapsing middle class.
5) National debt.

Long term, #4 is the biggest issue on that list...same as #5...with catastrophic consequences. But with the best middle class in the world; that'll take time to truly unravel.

#2 is a pain...especially in California or New Jersey. But as I tried to point out to Iceman about the FDA...there are benefits to regulations. For example, we don't need to bribe a police force to have our trucks move across the highway. We have a strong legal system that protects corporations and workers...making it very difficult to exploit people or resources. Would you want to eliminate the Department of Education and then find out you have to may $3500/year to send your kid to school? What if the school didn't want your kid? Or black kids? Or white kids? Or non-Christian kids? "Free education for all" is difficult when the schools are driven by profit. Do we want an EPA? Some would say "no". Okay...then whats stopping companies from contaminating water wells and drinking water? If it's simply a matter of being sued...a big enough company could bankrupt any private citizen(s) making claims...or at least block the trial long enough for the plantiffs just to die. All these "departments" were initially created for a REASON. And that REASON is usually = corporate greed leading to some disaster.

#5, #3, and #1...are all failings of our elected officials. How come we have numerous congressmen running for President when the Congress has a 13% approval rating? They can't do their regular job...so we reward them with the Presidency?? Does that make sense to ANYONE??

You worked at MCDonalds. A store manager...could make $35,000-$60,000/year. That's not bad. But the workers...they make slightly less than $20,000 annually. Well below the poverty line. Now, in the OLE DAYS....only kids and retired people took those jobs as "extra income". NOW...we have people supporting families that are taking those jobs because they can't find better ones. Someone brought up that they could be a machinist or journeyman. Okay...off the street with no knowledge? No way. They'd have to go back to school for at least 6 months to a year to learn those skills...and then HOPE the economy is still strong...because who are the first people in the unemployment line when the economy tanks...construction workers, pipe fitters, etc... Look at the oil industry....more than half the wells are capped...those folks are out of work.

And sometimes...we have to just give something the "eye test". If it "seems" wrong...sometimes it is. If the first day of work...the CEO makes more money than the union worker makes in an entire year....MOST people would say, "Nah...that's not right." The problem (and Micheal Moore...although I'm not a huge fan...did a great job describing this in one of his movies) is; we all psychologically think they we have a chance to someday be rich. So as long as we feel we could someday be in the top 1-2%....we don't want to limit that group...because "someday that will be us"....no matter how absurd that is.

Hypothetically, will a raise in wage raise the price of a cheeseburger at McDonalds? Maybe. A chocolate bar used to cost me 25 cents and now it's $1.50. That's how things work. McDonalds will find a way...just like Dominos did when they lowered their prices (and probably made less profit) to compete. Will it lead to job losses? Maybe. But why are we concerned NOW about job losses? Why weren't we concerned when the bicycle manufacturers left, or the appliance makers, or the furniture makers, or the textile industry? We've let every industry leave for cheaper wages overseas...and now we're going to draw the line and bail out the auto industry and keep low-income workers as low-income as possible? Because God forbid the owner of the McDonalds restaurant has to buy an Escalade instead of a Range Rover. I mean, times are tough and all...but lets not get too extreme.

[Timmyb]

"Someone brought up that they could be a machinist or journeyman."

That would have been me. My point was that I started learning my trade WHILE I was in high school. They had a strong vocational program that offered kids classes in welding, machining, sheet metal, and foundry, along with woodworking. Those options are gone nowadays. My school had one of the best equipped machine shops in the state of Wisconsin. It's gone, largely in part to the fact that schools refuse to offer that type of training. It's a "college only" mentality. If a kid wants to get his hands dirty, the opportunities are out there. They only need two thing. The nerve to go after it, and the wilpower to stick with it once they start. Most apprenticeships (by that I mean electricians, fitters, etc.) start paying in the mid-teens., far better than minimum wage. If we don't turn this around, the skills gap in the country will just continue to grow.

[Jessiewoodard57]

I was going to do a rebuttal but we shall have to agree to disagree

I will just say this Big government like big business have this in common, way too top heavy.

[Amyers]

I will say I consider myself a fiscal conservative but the big problem with the smaller government argument is that neither side ever does it more than just window dressing. They both want to spend the money just a question of where and how your going to get more of it. Their is no smaller government party in this country.

[Aslan]

I will say I consider myself a fiscal conservative but the big problem with the smaller government argument is that neither side ever does it more than just window dressing. They both want to spend the money just a question of where and how your going to get more of it. Their is no smaller government party in this country.

Agreed.

Nowadays, with Conservative talk radio and FoxNews; everybody gets "buzzwords" stuck in their head like "Big Government". What does that mean? They never define it. It's like "small business". They use a definition that would include Google as a small business. But I can guarantee < 2% of the population thinks Google is a "small business". Likewise, what is "smaller government"? Conservatives use Obamacare as an example of "Big government" interfering in people's lives. Yet, they almost universally stop short of calling for getting rid of Medicare....even though, Medicare and Medicaid are actually run by the government and Obamacare not as much. So, if you're a "small government" guy...I'd be interested to hear what parts of government you would shut down to make it smaller?

For example;
Department of Education? Maybe...I could see that being run better by the states so long as there are some minimum standards.
Homeland Security? Probably not a good idea.
Defense? Maybe. I mean, we do spend exponentially more than any other nation...but that also allows us to project our ideals globally.
Department of Justice? Definitely a 'no' on that one.
Interior? I don't even know what they do. I'm assuming Interior decorating of the White House but I doubt it. Phone a friend on that one.
Supreme Court? No...sorry Gov. Huckabee...that's a very important 3rd leg of the government...even when you disagree with them.
Department of Energy...ughh...probably not. Especially if we move to nuclear power plants.
The Fed? Probably a no on that one.
Housing and Urban development? Okay, that one can go.
Verteran Affairs? Definitely a no with all the wounded verterans we have.
FDA? If you know the history...you'd say no. Granted, it's fairly corrupt the way it's handled now...but this is a baby with the bathwater situation.
EPA? If you believe that corporations can self-police...and will look out for the good of their communities...you're an idiot, so no.
FBI? nope
NSA? nope
Secret Service? I'd like to see their fraud guys moved to the IRS...but I can't see where they aren't needed.


See...when politicians talk about making government smaller, they rarely tell you how they'd accomplish that other than just cutting their budgets....which doesn't get rid of them. Some politicians HAVE talked about getting rid of things and how they'd get to a smaller government and some of their ideas are decent. But most are just nonsense. Yet the biggest applause they get...is for the more radical proposals. Carly Firorina said the US tax code should be one page long. ??? My apartment lease is like 17 pages long. Is she writing the tax code on that scroll that Santa Clause uses for the nice/naughty list?

Another silly example...Flat tax. Everybody LOVEs that idea because it sounds perfect and fair. And it IS. The problem is, life isn't fair. Think of taxes like a see-saw on a playground. If you flatten that see-saw...making it level (flat)...the people in the bottom half will have to pay more while the people in the upper half will pay less. The mathematical problem with that proposal...and some debate moderators touched on it in the last debate...is raising the tax rate from 0-15% on poorer Americans does NOT come CLOSE to making up the revenue lost by lowering the top 50% down to 15%. We'd need a flat tax of probably 35-40% to even come CLOSE. Conservatives respond by saying, "well, we'll cut spending". On what? Last time they cut spending on school lunches. Really? With all the waste and nonsense and bridges to nowhere and pork spending....you're telling me the best way to cut spending is poor kid's food?? And they wonder why they (the Republican party) have a bad "image". :confused:

[Aslan]

Here's what I suggest.

Next time there is a "government shutdown" because our elected officials can't even do their job long enough to propose and pass a budget...we should shut down EVERYTHING in the federal government. Military, post office, IRS, FBI, NSA, park rangers, TSA/airports, etc...

Why?

Because the problem with government shutdowns is they don't affect the congress. I GUARANTEE if one of those Senators had to park is car on the street or take the subway to work....because the government employee working the parking garage in the capital building was no longer there to let them in...we'd have a budget well ahead of when it was due...every time.

But instead, those political cowards shut down monuments and national parks and then point at each other regarding who's fault it is. It's time Congress learned a lesson they should have learned in grade school...."I don't care who started it, you're both getting punished".

[Aslan]

And remember small government lovers...there are a LOT of countries with small, practically non-existent governments...very, very small...and most of those countries are not places you want to go.

Take Mexico for example. Nearby. Good hookers (non-5280 kind). Nice beaches. Nice historical monuments.

BUT....you have a 5% chance of being murdered by a drug cartel. If you get stopped by the cops, you will likely have to bribe them or risk rotting away in a Mexican jail, and you can't drink the water. Conservative paradise?? :rolleyes: Probably not. ;)

[Jessiewoodard57]

By smaller government I mean things like congressional staff. Do we really think they need a payroll of 1.2 million each on average? That's just salaries. Office expenses Average another 3.5 million each? The problem is our elected representatives are the ones that set these "allowances" Then you add the pork that they apply to every bill passed. I don't care what party we are talking about they all do it. By small I was referring to the cuts that could and should start in their own public accommodations. Since when do they need to live like and be served as you would a king? I'll bet their office furniture alone could pay off many of our homes. Why even their wage increases are voted on by themselves . All this extravagance yet our vets go homeless and don't receive the healthcare in time to save some of their lives. Vacations, how much has been spent on the Obama's vacations. Many of us get maybe one vacation a year but the "king" gets as many as he wants. This is the small government I speak of not scaling it back to the something out of the 30s. The "servants" should have working conditions like those being served. Is there a way to fix it? NO unless the spoiled decide to fix it the problem it won't be done.That is insane giving a crock the keys to the bank. If I touched on the entitlements that are handed out to those who could but won't work we would be here all day. all these items left unchecked we are headed for another depression that will make the 30s seem like a weekend picnic. It's not any one person's fault but all of them. If they ran this country like it were their own personal checkbook I'll bet things would come in line quick.

[Tony]

...


The issues facing the US economy (in no particular order) are:
1) High cost of labor.
2) High cost of regulation.
3) Political entrenchment.
4) Collapsing middle class.
5) National debt.

Long term, #4 is the biggest issue on that list...same as #5...with catastrophic consequences. But with the best middle class in the world; that'll take time to truly unravel.

#2 is a pain...especially in California or New Jersey. But as I tried to point out to Iceman about the FDA...there are benefits to regulations. For example, we don't need to bribe a police force to have our trucks move across the highway. We have a strong legal system that protects corporations and workers...making it very difficult to exploit people or resources. Would you want to eliminate the Department of Education and then find out you have to may $3500/year to send your kid to school? What if the school didn't want your kid? Or black kids? Or white kids? Or non-Christian kids? "Free education for all" is difficult when the schools are driven by profit. Do we want an EPA? Some would say "no". Okay...then whats stopping companies from contaminating water wells and drinking water? If it's simply a matter of being sued...a big enough company could bankrupt any private citizen(s) making claims...or at least block the trial long enough for the plantiffs just to die. All these "departments" were initially created for a REASON. And that REASON is usually = corporate greed leading to some disaster.

#5, #3, and #1...are all failings of our elected officials. How come we have numerous congressmen running for President when the Congress has a 13% approval rating? They can't do their regular job...so we reward them with the Presidency?? Does that make sense to ANYONE??



Looking at your list of items having a detrimental effect on the economy of the US, I see one huge glaring item missing that some consider to be the number one item.
That is money spent on health care, this single item estimated at close to 18% of GDP is causing huge damage to our economy. Lets for a second look at the economy in general and consider that the 18% of money spent on health care cannot be spent on something else, so it takes away from everything.
Lets quickly look at the other industrialized nations and you would see that they spend around 11 % of GDP on Health care
So what does that come out to a 7% difference, at 2013 GDP that comes to 1.2 trillion dollars wasted on health care that leaves us last in infant mortality and last in life expectancy of the industrialized nations of the world.
Think for a second what that amount of money could have been used for instead ? There you have the reason some economists consider this to be the number one item killing out economy.

[Tony]

And remember small government lovers...there are a LOT of countries with small, practically non-existent governments...very, very small...and most of those countries are not places you want to go.

Take Mexico for example. Nearby. Good hookers (non-5280 kind). Nice beaches. Nice historical monuments.

BUT....you have a 5% chance of being murdered by a drug cartel. If you get stopped by the cops, you will likely have to bribe them or risk rotting away in a Mexican jail, and you can't drink the water. Conservative paradise?? :rolleyes: Probably not. ;)

Lets take a quick look at the current big government and big business effect on our country. The current politicians, lets call them the "Ruling Class" have developed a system where the people mean very little to them but big business means a lot to them, who funds them and provides them with services, money and other amenities ? Why of course , big business, and does BB do this out of the kindness of their hearts...of course not, they expect favors and votes to allow them to do the things that will bring them big profits and in turn the politicians get a cut ( in various ways) of that money. They lie, cheat and steal, telling us anything to get our vote and then do none of the hings they promised.
Was this the intention of the founding fathers when this country was formed ? Certainly not, they were trying to get out from under the ruling class at that time the king of England and hid cronies. Our politicians have slowly but surely duplicated much of that system by making up one set of rules for the peons and a separate and highly beneficial set of rules for themselves.
The solutions are not simple or easy and the ruling class has no incentive to make any of these changes, term limits, political contribution reform , one set of rules and laws that apply to everyone. Think how much difference it would make if the politicians relied on Social Security or Obama care for themselves instead of having their own posh plans. The bottom line is we start at the top electing non lawyers and non politicians to the White House and every office below it, and see if changes can be pushed through, if not the only way to change things is to throw out the government and start over... I for one am not looking forward to that.

[fordman1]

Many good and bad points have been made here by some very knowledgeable people. Now let me give a few.

If I were ruler of the world everyone would have free health care. It is a human right.

I read earlier about a skilled tradesman in 6 mo. to a year. Not going to happen it takes 4 to 8 years. You also have to know someone or forget it.

Make unions stronger not weaker give the workers a choice.

Why can't we put tariffs on the stuff coming into this country? Make it just as cheap to make stuff here.

Powerful wealthy people don't want a middle class.

When in history has there been a middle class except in the last 70 years?

OK lets get rid of a few things. Number one is the stock market. Stock holders look at workers as blood suckers. If they cut into their greedy pockets it is a bad thing.

No more wars unless they are total and final. No more police actions. War means kill the enemy not help civilians if you go to war with say a third world country create a parking lot.

Great President FDR. Not so great GWB and union busting Reagan.

[Aslan]

Looking at your list of items having a detrimental effect on the economy of the US, I see one huge glaring item missing that some consider to be the number one item.
That is money spent on health care, this single item estimated at close to 18% of GDP is causing huge damage to our economy.
In my original ramblings I address this. You are correct. We are the only industrialized country that treats health care as a luxury rather than a right. And not only does it hurt the poor, and ultimately the taxpayer...but it kills businesses that have to be forced into providing healthcare to their employees. Since when did my choice of doctor become my company's decision/responsibility?


I read earlier about a skilled tradesman in 6 mo. to a year. Not going to happen it takes 4 to 8 years. You also have to know someone or forget it.

Make unions stronger not weaker give the workers a choice.

The problems with unions are too numerous to list...but I'll take a stab at it...
1) They were designed to look out for the worker back when companies were very corrupt and unregulated. So much so, that President Roosevelt (one of my favorites as well) used the national guard to actually protect union protestors during a strike. Unfortunately, unions now serve to protect those that should have been kicked out of their roles long ago. I've worked in union shops as a supervisor and in other capacities...I once had a grievance filed against me because on a Friday night, I helped the two young guys sweep the floor...because they got stuck with mandatory overtime for like the 5th straight Friday (seniority...lowest on the totum pole) and I felt bad for them...next day, grievance. I was "taking a union job" despite the fact that none of the union guys wanted to work that Friday, they all declined it. And God forbid I "miss" asking one guy...he can then claim that he deserves pay for that overtime because he never got asked and you needed to ask based on seniority. It took me 2 hours to walk around the facility and ask every person in order of seniority.

And it's that kind of ridiculous, outdated nonsense that give unions a bad name. And you mentioned the tradesmen...you're right, those are skilled jobs. But there are people making $70,000 a year working the line or driving a forklift...definitely not skilled jobs. Compare that to the person getting out of college with a 4-year teaching degree that in most states is lucky to see half that in year one. I had to work 14 years with a Bachelor's degree in the sciences before I ever saw $70,000/year. I had a couple next door to me that had a house, cabin, 2 new cars, 2 snowmobiles, and I think a fishing boat. That guy knew a guy and got into General Motors out of high school. But you're right...nowadays...you gotta know somebody.

A buddy of mine...a complete screw up that faked an injury at a previous employer...ended up getting a UAW job...but not for a car company...he got a job as a janitor at the UAW facility (they have their own buildings and stuff)...made better money than his previous job...union worker...but he only got the job because his dad was a lifelong union guy and got him in.

So, I'm not hating on unions...as I've said before...I can't say unions are hurting businesses when the CEO makes more on January 1st than the 70,000/year guy makes the entire year. I also acknowledge the argument that, "hey...you wanna work the line? Go ahead." Because honestly...I'd HATE that job. They can have it. I'd rather make $50,000 at a desk than showing up at 6:00AM, punching a clock, and standing on the line all day. But the unions currently ARE a problem when they articficially hold up wages and put impediments in place to keep less productive workers in positions and protect union workers that do bad things. I knew of a cop in my hometown that got drunk, drove to a bar, got more drunk, pistol whipped a guy he had an argument with, then got pulled over driving drunk on the way home. He was suspended for 2 weeks without pay, but the union argued and eventually he got back pay for the time he was off on suspension. What?? :confused:

[5280 Hooker]

Ill stick to my day job......5280 Hooker...lol

Gotta love Aslan!

[fordman1]

Why do we spend so much money on the military and never use it. We spend 10 times more than the next 10 countries and no one is afraid of us. Maybe we should totally take over some place and not rebuild it. Why are we playing around with Syria? Tell them to stand down or we will knock them down. When Isis attacks a city what do the do go in by bus. There must be some where we could catch them in the open and take them out. Maybe if Muslims took care of their own problems we would not have to.
I am basically a liberal. So imagine how the right wing nuts feel. ;) Maybe I exaggerated a little.

[Tony]

Many good and bad points have been made here by some very knowledgeable people. Now let me give a few.

If I were ruler of the world everyone would have free health care. It is a human right.

I read earlier about a skilled tradesman in 6 mo. to a year. Not going to happen it takes 4 to 8 years. You also have to know someone or forget it.

Make unions stronger not weaker give the workers a choice.

Why can't we put tariffs on the stuff coming into this country? Make it just as cheap to make stuff here.

Powerful wealthy people don't want a middle class.

When in history has there been a middle class except in the last 70 years?

OK lets get rid of a few things. Number one is the stock market. Stock holders look at workers as blood suckers. If they cut into their greedy pockets it is a bad thing.

No more wars unless they are total and final. No more police actions. War means kill the enemy not help civilians if you go to war with say a third world country create a parking lot.

Great President FDR. Not so great GWB and union busting Reagan.

I agree we have to take action to reverse the trade deficit, there is no reason for us to be at the mercy of China except our political leaders stupidity. We are the leader by far of world consumption, so everyone needs our market to sell their products, we need to slowly take back the 'free" trade and convert it to fair trade for us. Why the heck do we want to put ourselves in a position where we are competing with third world countries, it can only bring us down toward their level.
"Get rid of the stock market" Really ? So exactly how would you do that ? Keep in mind our current gov has proven to be inept and corrupt at nearly every level. Are you suggesting we convert from capitalism to socialism ? The current system has some problems, but the solution of switching to a system that has been proven time after time to be unsuccessful seems like a poor idea. If you think the Scandinavian EU countries using this practice are a better place to live and offer more than the US, you have been misled. Look at Sweden and it's claims, none of them are actually correct or can be proven, if you get right down to it.
I agree reforms on trading and restrictions on some activities must be made but the basic problem is big business owns the politicians and nothing will be done if that remains the way it is now.
Our health care system is horrible, while not everyone might agree healthcare is a God given right we can certainly revamp the entire system to provide much more care for much lower cost. This would provide millions, it not trillions more dollars to the other items on the GDP curve.
A tiered system of basic care for all with considerable weight on prevention and healthy lifestyle would be a good start. Lets not try to totally reinvent the wheel from day one, lets look at the countries with a centralized system of care and use all of the best idea's and concepts from all of them to create our system.

[fordman1]

I agree Tony I was just throwing some stuff against the wall to see whose head would explode. I know we could never get rid of the Market but is part of the problem. Drug patens are a problem too. The tax system is broken. Maybe we need government paid for political campaigns. Keep the big contributors from donating. I don't wont my government beholden to G.E. or big oil or coal.

Get our troops out of the middle east. Get them out of Asia. Get them out of Europe.

[Aslan]

I am basically a liberal. So imagine how the right wing nuts feel. ;) Maybe I exaggerated a little.

You're not the only one that leans liberal but feels that way. I consider myself fairly far to the right on Defense and Foreign Policy while remaining fairly liberal regarding domestic economics. Unfortunately, most conservatives would sacrifice every issue for a tax cut...so no matter how far to the right we may be on other issues...we're ultra-left-wing liberals until we acknowledge and blindly embrace trickle down economics. :(

[fordman1]

Has anyone noticed how hard the media and government have been trying to make the latest (yesterday) mass shooting not be from a radical Muslim. They say they don't know the motive yet. Let me go way out on a limb and guess it is because they are Muslim nut jobs.

[Aslan]

Has anyone noticed how hard the media and government have been trying to make the latest (yesterday) mass shooting not be from a radical Muslim. They say they don't know the motive yet. Let me go way out on a limb and guess it is because they are Muslim nut jobs.

I think they are being cautious because the place being attacked was a county building and a lot of times when you're dealing with incidents like these at places like child protective services or courthouses...there's a strong possibility that it's a person who feels 'wronged' by a judge or the government.

But, it'll come out eventually.

To be honest, I don't really care anymore. I've officially joined the ranks of the people that are numb to it at this point. Idiots keep acting like idiots and we keep watching it on TV...and then more and more idiots are inspired. First it was 24/7 coverage of the race riots in Missouri...which in part encouraged further riots and demonstrations every time a black person gets arrested. Every 3-4 months, some marginal mental patient living in mommy's basement next to mommy's arsenal of firearms that she bought in preparation for the 2K crash...decides he's gonna get 'famous' by shooting some random place up. And, like moths to a flame...suddenly everyone is clogging the internet trying to get the details.

It's ridiculous. And nobody seems capable of doing anything about it. They keep wanting to take away my guns...but at the same time cops are afraid to shoot criminals and start a riot. And at the SAME time, Governor Brown in his infinite stupidity decided to let all the criminals loose because the prisons are too full and he doesn't want to build more...so now crime is up double digits in every county in California.

So a criminal breaks into your house and steals your tv, the cops show up but since he's running away...he's not a threat so they aren't going to shoot him. I can't shoot him for fear that me owning a gun will somehow turn me into a crazy mass murderer. So, I guess I need to get a new TV. But hey, if it's that easy...maybe I should just steal one. Except...I'm white....so...I'd probably get shot...because shooting white guys that commit crimes isn't gonna lead to a riot.

Redunkulus.

[Jessiewoodard57]

Idiots keep acting like idiots and we keep watching it on TV...and then more and more idiots are inspired. First it was 24/7 coverage of the race riots in Missouri...which in part encouraged further riots and demonstrations every time a black person gets arrested. Every 3-4 months, some marginal mental patient living in mommy's basement next to mommy's arsenal of firearms that she bought in preparation for the 2K crash...decides he's gonna get 'famous' by shooting some random place up. And, like moths to a flame...suddenly everyone is clogging the internet trying to get the details.

.

I agree 100% the media says hey its news we have to cover it which in turn creates copy cats. Why not try something new like a media blackout of the event. The more it's televised and talked about the more these morons want their moment of fame. Personally I think everyone that legally owns a gun should take a CCW course and start carrying when people start shooting back these cowards might think twice about attacking "unarmed" citizens. Even in church we have some that carry you never know when some idiot is going to walk into a "gun free zone" and open up on people.

[fortheloveofbowling]

I think they are being cautious because the place being attacked was a county building and a lot of times when you're dealing with incidents like these at places like child protective services or courthouses...there's a strong possibility that it's a person who feels 'wronged' by a judge or the government.

But, it'll come out eventually.

To be honest, I don't really care anymore. I've officially joined the ranks of the people that are numb to it at this point. Idiots keep acting like idiots and we keep watching it on TV...and then more and more idiots are inspired. First it was 24/7 coverage of the race riots in Missouri...which in part encouraged further riots and demonstrations every time a black person gets arrested. Every 3-4 months, some marginal mental patient living in mommy's basement next to mommy's arsenal of firearms that she bought in preparation for the 2K crash...decides he's gonna get 'famous' by shooting some random place up. And, like moths to a flame...suddenly everyone is clogging the internet trying to get the details.

It's ridiculous. And nobody seems capable of doing anything about it. They keep wanting to take away my guns...but at the same time cops are afraid to shoot criminals and start a riot. And at the SAME time, Governor Brown in his infinite stupidity decided to let all the criminals loose because the prisons are too full and he doesn't want to build more...so now crime is up double digits in every county in California.

So a criminal breaks into your house and steals your tv, the cops show up but since he's running away...he's not a threat so they aren't going to shoot him. I can't shoot him for fear that me owning a gun will somehow turn me into a crazy mass murderer. So, I guess I need to get a new TV. But hey, if it's that easy...maybe I should just steal one. Except...I'm white....so...I'd probably get shot...because shooting white guys that commit crimes isn't gonna lead to a riot.

Redunkulus.

I must apologize to you based on this post and parts of your others in this thread. You are only about 20% Cali Liberal and the rest i agree with.

[fordman1]

I don't own a gun and haven't for about 45 years. I have no problem with anyone owning a gun. They don't need a gun that fires every time you pull the trigger and holds 30-40 rounds.
Double barrel shot gun will take care of you at home. Revolver also. AK's with huge clips are crazy.

The only people who should be out side of their home with a gun is a police officer at work. This isn't 1880 we should be a little more civilized.

What about the bad guys you ask? Put a mandatory 20 years for walking around with a gun would stop a lot of the nuts.

I think hunters should own bolt action rifles with no scope.

Why do they train police officers to shoot people 16 times. Of course it keep the prison population down.

[Jessiewoodard57]

The only people who should be out side of their home with a gun is a police officer at work. This isn't 1880 we should be a little more civilized.

What about the bad guys you ask? Put a mandatory 20 years for walking around with a gun would stop a lot of the nuts.

.

If I came upon a situation where I had to rely on the police arriving or the guy next to me reaching for his Glock I would rather he pull his gun. Yes it's not the 1880 but as to civilized the bad guys still don't play by the rules. If the government took away all our guns the bad guys would still be able to get them. As to 20 years it won't matter they still carry the illegal guns. Seems the tighter gun control gets the worst the shootings are look at Chicago no guns allowed and still one of the highest firearm murder rates in the country. Like it or not guns are a necessity anymore. I remember growing up the doors never being locked but now it home invasion after home invasion. Our civilized world has regressed.

[Tony]

I think they are being cautious because the place being attacked was a county building and a lot of times when you're dealing with incidents like these at places like child protective services or courthouses...there's a strong possibility that it's a person who feels 'wronged' by a judge or the government.

But, it'll come out eventually.


Redunkulus.

It would be a pretty good bet that political pressure is a huge part of the " we don't want to accuse Muslim Radicals, we are not fighting a religion"
The sad truth is the person who started this so called religion, was none other than Mohammad, the founding radical muslim, they have been doing these same things
from the beginning going back over 1000 years. The focus and goal have never changed, so lets not think they will be stopping anytime soon.
All muslims are not terrorists but in recent history the vast majority of terrorists are muslims. The only way to stop it and preserve the non violent membership is for those people to unite against the radical members and provide intelligence to root out those who would kill in the name of Allah.

This was a terrorist act, no doubt about it, watch as Obama does everything he can to deny it ....

[fordman1]

The non radicals are cowards. We armed the Iraqi's an they dropped the guns and ran.

[Aslan]

The non radicals are cowards. We armed the Iraqi's an they dropped the guns and ran.
Careful Bill Maher.


All muslims are not terrorists but in recent history the vast majority of terrorists are muslims. The only way to stop it and preserve the non violent membership is for those people to unite against the radical members and provide intelligence to root out those who would kill in the name of Allah.
Yeah. I mean, if we want to make it a competition, please list the last 250 terrorist attacks on civilians and we'll see how many are Christian, Hindu, Buddhist, or Jewish. I'm not saying Zero....but come on. If it wasn't for Timothy McVeigh's dumb a**...it wouldn't even be a fair contest.


This was a terrorist act, no doubt about it, watch as Obama does everything he can to deny it ....
I'll tell you what I tell my conservative coworkers...WHO CARES? He's President for one more year and has a Congress that will do absolutely nothing during that year. His opinion on World events is slightly lower in importance than Paul McCartney's or Usher at this point. I mean, the same people that yell at me for still brining up how horrible a President George Bush Jr. was are the same people that will throw a canary fit if Obama's shoes are untied.

Perfect example: Obamacare. Democrats opposed the individual mandate in Congress. Republicans refused to consider it if the individual mandate wasn't part of it, and they were absolutely right in my opinion, because without it nobody would be forced to get insurance and you'd have the same problem. Then, fast forward, Obamacare gets passed...and the Republicans sued over the individual mandate claiming it was unconstitutional. Then why did you insist it be added!!? Just so you'd have something to sue over!!!??


Seems the tighter gun control gets the worst the shootings are look at Chicago no guns allowed and still one of the highest firearm murder rates in the country.
Agreed. The problem with tightening gun laws is the only people that follow laws, aren't the ones we necessarily are worried about. I mean, whenever I hear some blow hard over-dramatically calling for tighter gun laws to end all the inner city shootings....all I can think is...well, that guy is a felon...so him having the gun in the first place violated his parole...so adding more laws for him to refuse to follow is probably not an A+ strategy.

Same thing with Immigration. So you'll make laws that illegal aliens have to follow to stay in the country?? Yeah, because they were really good at following the multiple laws they broke when sneaking into the country or over-staying their VISAs and then working and not paying income taxes....that I'm sure now that amnesty is on the table...they'll all just come wandering to the nearest courthouse to pay a bunch of fines with the mucho dinero they've earned cutting grass. Are politicians really this stupid? Or are they just rolling out a massive April Fools joke?


What about the bad guys you ask? Put a mandatory 20 years for walking around with a gun would stop a lot of the nuts.
I don't know. Life sentences for murder don't seem to stop them from using the guns...I doubt a 20-year sentence is going to scare them. Not to mention, the liberal side of the party I will probably be forced to vote for in November (unless I move to Canada) wants to close prisons and let people out. They claim it's unfair and we have too many people locked up. Awww....those poor criminals. I mean, ya pistol whip a clerk, steal merchandise, punch a cop....and then, PURELY DUE TO THE COLOR OF YOUR SKIN...you get a 15-year sentence?? Where's the justice in that?

We should just put everyone in prison at 18...and only let them out after they go 10 years without committing a crime. Screw it. Lets make the World into Hunger Games or something. This current reality doesn't work anymore.



Why do they train police officers to shoot people 16 times. Of course it keep the prison population down.
They train anyone in firearm training that if you draw the gun, you aim center mass and continue firing until the suspect drops. The simpler answer is, because they don't want to fire just 15 times...and get shot because they didn't fire a 16th. The cop in that video just happened to be a horrible shot...hit the guy all over the place, arms, hand, feet...he might have had his eyes closed. :confused:

The more important question is...if it were YOU...and there was a 6'2" black man walking toward you drugged out of his mind on PCP...with a rap sheet longer than your arm...apparently not willing to follow even the simplest of instructions....carrying a knife....in the most dangerous area of the country... See, I already shot him. Because if you're a felon high on PCP not listening to me and you have a knife...I'm assuming you're not coming over to me to ask for directions to the nearest Best Buy.

Listen...I've never had police issues. I've had police pull me over. I even once had one ask me to get out of my car. You'd be amazed how completely non-violent that interaction can be if you simply do as you're told and don't act like a complete ****. Does it always end with a tip of a hat and a smile. Nope. Once cop even yelled at me when he gave me the ticket. That was unsettling. But I didn't get out of my car, chase him down, and try to wrestle away his pistol. That would be a HORRIBLE decision. OR...we can assume if I was black...he'd have just shot me in the head. As if we have a rash of cops just driving around neighborhoods gunning down black children on their way home from Sunday school. Again...society needs a reboot. Get on it God.


Even in church we have some that carry you never know when some idiot is going to walk into a "gun free zone" and open up on people.

I used to carry when I lived in Michigan. I voted against the law simply because I felt the way it was written, it would turn to many law abiding citizens into criminals because it was so ridiculous. You couldn't carry in bars, stadiums, theatres seating more than 2500 people, schools, churches, government buildings, college campuses, or anywhere privately owned where they have a sign posted. It was so ridiculous that at the Michigan/Ohio border I had to take my gun out and where it in a should holster...then when I get back to the Michigan border....put it in the glove box...because in Ohio the cops wanted you wearing it so they can see it if they stop you. In Michigan, having it out in the open like that would be considered "brandishing" and result in loss of your permit and possibly your firearm.

So every place I'd WANT/NEED to carry a gun....bars, sporting events in downtown Detroit, churches where some idiot might go nuts, etc... I had to leave it in the car. And I just have a feeling...that would be the ultimate kick in the gonards...to FINALLY NEED IT....and you left it in the car because you're not allowed to carry it in a restaurant where 60% or more of it's income comes from liquor sales....uh oh...that might exclude some bowling centers...granted, that law assumes every place with a liquor liscence posts their balance sheet outside their building so you know their % of sales due to liquor...

Ughh...
http://www.susanthatcher.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/IMG_1004.jpg

[Ptnomore]

I don't own a gun and haven't for about 45 years. I have no problem with anyone owning a gun. They don't need a gun that fires every time you pull the trigger and holds 30-40 rounds.
Double barrel shot gun will take care of you at home. Revolver also. AK's with huge clips are crazy.

The only people who should be out side of their home with a gun is a police officer at work. This isn't 1880 we should be a little more civilized.

What about the bad guys you ask? Put a mandatory 20 years for walking around with a gun would stop a lot of the nuts.

I think hunters should own bolt action rifles with no scope.

Why do they train police officers to shoot people 16 times. Of course it keep the prison population down.


Who are you to tell ANYONE what they need and don't need? Your opinion, I get it. So here's mine.

You say a double barrell will take care of me, and my family, at home? Against what? A single person with a knife? If I'm lucky, two guys with a knife? At least where I live, home invasions occur quite often and normally with more than one intruder each with a gun with a capacity larger than 1. If there's only two guys, each with a 6 shot revolver (rare in today's society) there's 12 possible shots coming at me and my family, and you want me to have 2?

Hunters with no scopes... So, you are against improving shot accuracy, increasing the suffering of the animal? That's a nice thought.

And you don't think anyone except police should have a gun outside their house? Really? Police response to a call outside the home is easily double that of a domestic call. Know why? How accurate are most folks under pressure with telling the dispatcher exactly where they are at any given time? It's laughable. And that's IF you have the opportunity to call. Next time you are out driving with your wife or kids, or girlfriend, whatever, at a random place that you are familiar with along the way ask them. " If you had to call the police right now, where would you tell them we are?" See how fast the response is, and truly listen from a dispatchers standpoint to see how helpful it is. Don't forget. The second question the dispatcher will ask you after they say "911, what is your emergency?" is "What town are you in?". And on most phones, once you are on a call, you can't look at your phone and google maps to see where you are. Hopefully, you have a good navigation system. Still, most folks don't.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/10/03/do-civilians-with-guns-ever-stop-mass-shootings/

I won't let ANYONE tell me that I don't have the right to protect myself or my family outside my home. Whether we are traveling by car, in our boat, at a restaraunt, the bowling ally, movie theater, even kids sports function, I carry. I carry EVERYWHERE. I even carried when I coached kids soccer. NO ONE knew. Ever. Not my wife, the other parents, friends, and certainly not the kids, not even my own. That's the point of conceiled carry. It was there for protection and protection only. If it's not needed, no one well ever know. No conversation about it, no show and tell. And that's' the beauty of the concept.

I think EVERY legal and sane person should carry EVERYWHERE. Even if you carry where you aren't supposed to, if done the way it's intended, no one will ever know. Carrying where you aren't supposed to might help ya make better decisions to keep you out of trouble and being found out about. But it's there if you need it.

If EVERYONE assumes that EVERYONE else is carrying, I think we'd be a much more polite society. I bet the shootings in the "Gun-Free" zones would stop completely.

Criminals, as history shows, more times than not tend to be cowards. They strike when and where they know, or think, they will face zero opposition. When faced with opposition, they run. Many mass murderers kill themselves rather that face opposition or come to grips with reality and pay for their mistakes.

Do I NEED a 30-40 round clip? Nope. But that's just me. However, a law Limiting a clip or magazine to 10 rounds would make my wife's personal 9mm illegal. I want you to personally deliver that message to her that you don't think she needs it, or that the law makes it illegal. Let me forewarn you though...

She carry's because her ex has verbally threatened her life as well as mine, too many times to count. Prior to the sheriffs deputies physically removing him from the house prior to their divorce, he had the muzzle of his .45 pressed against her head so hard it split it open...numerous times. He is not in jail. He is not restricted from purchasing another gun (his was confiscated by the Sheriff). He left the state to avoid being thrown in jail for child support and Protection Order Violations, and promptly purchased another .45, told the kids about it, and sent them pictures of he and his new wife (who is 2 years older than his oldest daughter) shooting it. And there's NOTHING anyone can do about it. It's actually illegal for us to keep our home address hidden from him, because of the kids. He's not restricted from seeing or contacting them. Judges are great, arent they? But we don't know where he is, ever. Numerous creditors and others, still call us looking for him.

You have your opinions. More than likely, like myself, yours were developed from years of life experiences. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. I have mine. I'll live by mine. And I also will never support taking away anyone else's right to decide what is right for themselves, so long as they are legally, physically and mentally stable enough to do so.

[Aslan]

I had this conversation with a coworker and while I am not a proud member of the NRA due to their over-the-top belief that we should all be allowed to own mortars, bazookas, claymores, gattling guns, tommmy guns, etc... I am also much further to the right than my liberal counterparts on the issue.

Four things are usually the root cause of violence (gun or otherwise):
- poverty
- population density
- radicalization
- mental health issues

Therefore...in a rational democracy...we would start a bipartisan effort to address those root causes and AT THE SAME TIME look at some unreasonable and unnecessary issues with our current gun laws (tightening background checks, closing loopholes, etc...). But this issue is like immigration...it has to be a compromise. If you're going to put more restrictions on gun ownership...we need real efforts to deal with those 4 root causes.

But here's the real problem...should this issue and these root causes be brought up in a congressional committee...the response would be:

On point A; poverty...
Democrats: More spending on the poor and taxation of the rich.
Republicans: No new taxes, trickle down economics.

Point A dead in the water.

On point B; population density...
Democrats: Ease housing restrictions so low income families can purchase homes with little chance of paying their mortage and a high chance of default and make it easy to default and let the banks eat the loans.
Republicans: Same as above, but make it much harder to walk away from the mortage to protect banks.

Point B dead in the water, especially after easing housing restrictions in part led to the 2008 collapse that almost brought down our entire economy.

On point C; Radicalization.
Democrats: Limit the hate speech and rhetoric coming from right wing radio and Fox News that is stirring up domestic terrorists and state militias, but leave Muslims, PETA, Black Lives Matter folks alone because they are just exercising their freedom of speech and freedom of religion.
Republicans: Close down mosques, attack Muslim countries militarily, arm civilians to combat potential threats, but protect domestic terrorists who are just trying to fight a corrupt big government and organizations like Planned Parenthood that condone and profit from murder.

Point C dead in the water.

On point D; mental health
Democrats: Provide more domestic spending to house the homeless and provide jobs and money and drug treatment and halfway houses. Build more state hospitals to house mental patients. Focus on removing guns from society to limit the damage done by those crazies that act up.
Republicans: Leave mental health to private facilities. Arm citizens to fight off crazy whack jobs.

Point D, dead in the water.

So...unless our government actually learns to govern...the only chance to do ANYTHING is if one party wins both houses and the Presidency. But that's unlikely and unlikely to last...because the country tends to go in the wrong direction rather quickly when one side or the other has complete control (i.e. liberal California or conservative Texas).

[Timmyb]

Who are you to tell ANYONE what they need and don't need? Your opinion, I get it. So here's mine.

You say a double barrell will take care of me, and my family, at home? Against what? A single person with a knife? If I'm lucky, two guys with a knife? At least where I live, home invasions occur quite often and normally with more than one intruder each with a gun with a capacity larger than 1. If there's only two guys, each with a 6 shot revolver (rare in today's society) there's 12 possible shots coming at me and my family, and you want me to have 2?

Hunters with no scopes... So, you are against improving shot accuracy, increasing the suffering of the animal? That's a nice thought.

And you don't think anyone except police should have a gun outside their house? Really? Police response to a call outside the home is easily double that of a domestic call. Know why? How accurate are most folks under pressure with telling the dispatcher exactly where they are at any given time? It's laughable. And that's IF you have the opportunity to call. Next time you are out driving with your wife or kids, or girlfriend, whatever, at a random place that you are familiar with along the way ask them. " If you had to call the police right now, where would you tell them we are?" See how fast the response is, and truly listen from a dispatchers standpoint to see how helpful it is. Don't forget. The second question the dispatcher will ask you after they say "911, what is your emergency?" is "What town are you in?". And on most phones, once you are on a call, you can't look at your phone and google maps to see where you are. Hopefully, you have a good navigation system. Still, most folks don't.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/10/03/do-civilians-with-guns-ever-stop-mass-shootings/

I won't let ANYONE tell me that I don't have the right to protect myself or my family outside my home. Whether we are traveling by car, in our boat, at a restaraunt, the bowling ally, movie theater, even kids sports function, I carry. I carry EVERYWHERE. I even carried when I coached kids soccer. NO ONE knew. Ever. Not my wife, the other parents, friends, and certainly not the kids, not even my own. That's the point of conceiled carry. It was there for protection and protection only. If it's not needed, no one well ever know. No conversation about it, no show and tell. And that's' the beauty of the concept.

I think EVERY legal and sane person should carry EVERYWHERE. Even if you carry where you aren't supposed to, if done the way it's intended, no one will ever know. Carrying where you aren't supposed to might help ya make better decisions to keep you out of trouble and being found out about. But it's there if you need it.

If EVERYONE assumes that EVERYONE else is carrying, I think we'd be a much more polite society. I bet the shootings in the "Gun-Free" zones would stop completely.

Criminals, as history shows, more times than not tend to be cowards. They strike when and where they know, or think, they will face zero opposition. When faced with opposition, they run. Many mass murderers kill themselves rather that face opposition or come to grips with reality and pay for their mistakes.

Do I NEED a 30-40 round clip? Nope. But that's just me. However, a law Limiting a clip or magazine to 10 rounds would make my wife's personal 9mm illegal. I want you to personally deliver that message to her that you don't think she needs it, or that the law makes it illegal. Let me forewarn you though...

She carry's because her ex has verbally threatened her life as well as mine, too many times to count. Prior to the sheriffs deputies physically removing him from the house prior to their divorce, he had the muzzle of his .45 pressed against her head so hard it split it open...numerous times. He is not in jail. He is not restricted from purchasing another gun (his was confiscated by the Sheriff). He left the state to avoid being thrown in jail for child support and Protection Order Violations, and promptly purchased another .45, told the kids about it, and sent them pictures of he and his new wife (who is 2 years older than his oldest daughter) shooting it. And there's NOTHING anyone can do about it. It's actually illegal for us to keep our home address hidden from him, because of the kids. He's not restricted from seeing or contacting them. Judges are great, arent they? But we don't know where he is, ever. Numerous creditors and others, still call us looking for him.

You have your opinions. More than likely, like myself, yours were developed from years of life experiences. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. I have mine. I'll live by mine. And I also will never support taking away anyone else's right to decide what is right for themselves, so long as they are legally, physically and mentally stable enough to do so.


This is, by far, the best example as to why people should be allowed to carry. A member of my family, who I see often, has been in the same situation as you and your wife for the better part of 10 years. Her ex has been frequently warned, by the law and otherwise, to stay away from her. He knows damn well that if he comes over to her house, and I'm there, he will look down the barrel of my XDM. The law simply does not matter to certain people, and therefore it is incumbent upon the general society to be able to defend themselves. I will not be put in an undefended situation by someone else who thinks I don't need a gun. I too have carried for as long as it's been legal in my state. No one has ever known they're standing next to an armed man. I will guarantee though, that if I ever do have to use that weapon to defend myself, my family, or anyone else put in harms way, they'll be happy I was. You can live on your feet, or die on your knees. I'll take the first.

[fordman1]

I had this conversation with a coworker and while I am not a proud member of the NRA due to their over-the-top belief that we should all be allowed to own mortars, bazookas, claymores, gattling guns, tommmy guns, etc... I am also much further to the right than my liberal counterparts on the issue.

Four things are usually the root cause of violence (gun or otherwise):
- poverty
- population density
- radicalization
- mental health issues

Therefore...in a rational democracy...we would start a bipartisan effort to address those root causes and AT THE SAME TIME look at some unreasonable and unnecessary issues with our current gun laws (tightening background checks, closing loopholes, etc...). But this issue is like immigration...it has to be a compromise. If you're going to put more restrictions on gun ownership...we need real efforts to deal with those 4 root causes.

But here's the real problem...should this issue and these root causes be brought up in a congressional committee...the response would be:

On point A; poverty...
Democrats: More spending on the poor and taxation of the rich.
Republicans: No new taxes, trickle down economics.

Point A dead in the water.

On point B; population density...
Democrats: Ease housing restrictions so low income families can purchase homes with little chance of paying their mortage and a high chance of default and make it easy to default and let the banks eat the loans.
Republicans: Same as above, but make it much harder to walk away from the mortage to protect banks.

Point B dead in the water, especially after easing housing restrictions in part led to the 2008 collapse that almost brought down our entire economy.

On point C; Radicalization.
Democrats: Limit the hate speech and rhetoric coming from right wing radio and Fox News that is stirring up domestic terrorists and state militias, but leave Muslims, PETA, Black Lives Matter folks alone because they are just exercising their freedom of speech and freedom of religion.
Republicans: Close down mosques, attack Muslim countries militarily, arm civilians to combat potential threats, but protect domestic terrorists who are just trying to fight a corrupt big government and organizations like Planned Parenthood that condone and profit from murder.

Point C dead in the water.

On point D; mental health
Democrats: Provide more domestic spending to house the homeless and provide jobs and money and drug treatment and halfway houses. Build more state hospitals to house mental patients. Focus on removing guns from society to limit the damage done by those crazies that act up.
Republicans: Leave mental health to private facilities. Arm citizens to fight off crazy whack jobs.

Point D, dead in the water.

So...unless our government actually learns to govern...the only chance to do ANYTHING is if one party wins both houses and the Presidency. But that's unlikely and unlikely to last...because the country tends to go in the wrong direction rather quickly when one side or the other has complete control (i.e. liberal California or conservative Texas).

I think we could work with A) and D). C) Not to sure how to work with the Believers, As Bill Maher puts it, its nice to believe in fairy tales. B) Maybe more jobs and less guns would help. Yea the rich could live with a little less wealth.

[Tony]

The non radicals are cowards. We armed the Iraqi's an they dropped the guns and ran.

The major problem was we pulled out all out our troops that were providing leadership and intelligence because Obama decided upholding a foolish uninformed promise he made was more important that keeping the middle east under control, and preventing the radical muslims from coming into power filling the vacuum of power we left open.

[Jessiewoodard57]

In the media I hear a lot about let's ban guns and take away everyone's guns. The truth is if every gun in the world just miraculously disappeared today murder would not stop. It has been going on ever since Cain picked up a rock and killed his brother. Bad guys would just pick something else to use. It's not a gun problem but a heart and moral issue. A gun is a tool no more no less it's use is up to the morals of the person carrying it.

[Tony]

In the media I hear a lot about let's ban guns and take away everyone's guns. The truth is if every gun in the world just miraculously disappeared today murder would not stop. It has been going on ever since Cain picked up a rock and killed his brother. Bad guys would just pick something else to use. It's not a gun problem but a heart and moral issue. A gun is a tool no more no less it's use is up to the morals of the person carrying it.

It's just an attempt by gun control advocates to do something, anything to control something that can't be controlled. I was in the service, hunted and know 100's if not 1000's of people that own guns, not a single one of them have walked into a party / office / church / school / theater or store and shot someone.
The guns are to preserve our freedom, the writers of the Declaration of Independence and Constitution were keenly aware that having weapons was important because government tends to become overbearing and self serving over time. This was true of the King of England then and is true of the president and congress now. Having guns gives the people an opportunity to force changes in the system if needed. The current administration understands this and has sought to remove weapons from the people, this is not a good sign, we must preserve our right to protect ourselves from anyone who shall try to harm us, including terrorists and our own government.

[Jessiewoodard57]

Why quote me? as I said in a few words it's not a gun issue.

Like you I agree the 2nd amendment is not negotiable that needs to stand as is or all our rights will leave right behind it. Every country in the past when guns where taken away opposition to the administration was murdered by the millions.

[fordman1]

Where did you guys get that cool aid. the 2nd amendment was for an armed militia. Not every citizen walking around schools, malls and churches strapped. Guns sure make it easy for crazies and punks to act tough. "what are you looking at MFer" I'll shoot you..... Make sure you post here before you start your revolution I can get away to Canada.

[Jessiewoodard57]

wow I never said anything about starting a revolution. Where do you think an armed Militia would come from? The minute men were farmers and shop keepers ...the punks as you call them will have guns even if everybody else does not. Look at it this way we outlawed drugs but still have a problem with them. Again it's not a gun problem it a moral issue. For the record I donot own a gun but the way the times look it time to get a few. (last post on this thread)

[Tony]

There are several different interpretations of this amendment.
A Militia : a military force that is raised from the civil population to supplement a regular army in an emergency.

a military force that engages in rebel or terrorist activities, typically in opposition to a regular army.

Intent is also part of the interpretation, the Supreme Court has ruled on this :
:In Miller, the Court affirmed a median interpretation holding that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to bear arms, but only if the arms in question are those that would be useful as part of a citizen militia.

According to that ruling the intent is fairly clear, the citizens should have the right to bear arms specifically to form a Militia if deemed necessary.

You must judge for yourself based on the conditions at any given time if that time is drawing near.

[fordman1]

What would you say the supreme court got right or wrong? Roe vrs. Wade, citizens united or maybe Obama care?

[Aslan]

What would you say the supreme court got right or wrong? Roe vrs. Wade, citizens united or maybe Obama care?

Roe v Wade was imperfect not because of the decision but because we haven't done a better job as a country of coming together to truly define "life". That's what it all comes down to. Nobody is "Pro-Abortion"...I don't know of any young girls that "can't WAIT to get an abortion!" But the Church and other churches have taken a very extreme stance on where life begins. A stance that would be impossible to allow as 'law'.

For example, if the debate in court was about whether or not a mother had the right to kill a 2-year old child....there's no way that would be allowed. Same thing for a baby. And the argument can go back quite a ways...even into the womb. Had both sides worked together...we could have federal abortion laws that prohibit any abortions after 6 months unless the mother's life is at risk. The problem is, it's a "religious" issue which means there's ZERO support from the other side for anything but Zero Abortions....and that cannot be the law...right or wrong.

Citizens United was a bad call but again...if both sides work together to limit both unions and corporations....they'd have majority support from the country. But instead....liberals want to limit corporate contributions but refuse to apply those same limits to unions. That's not "fair". And the Court is going to be very careful at limiting free speech concerning elections.

Obamacare is simply bad legislation. It's the opposite of FDR type politics. It was a desperate attempt to at least accomplish something on the health care front, hoping it would eventually pave the way to nationalized health care. The same failed ideological attempts as Bill Clinton's Nafta and pro-China policies. The far left that has taken over the Democratic party has lost all interest in Nationalism and consider this "Global Community". And they continue to make rather large bets on a very cloudy future. But the court did get most of the decisions correct on Obamacare with one notable exception.

Their ruling that companies like Hobby lobby can skirt the legislation by claiming they are a company built on certain moral values, etc... That was a horrible ruling that could have very serious consequences. It's wrong based on what the definition of a "corporation" is. And it sets a horrible precedent that if people/companies disagree with something...and truly disagree with it for moral reasons....the rules don't apply to them. That could have unplanned consequences later. Even with abortion...why does Hobby Lobby not have to follow the rules regarding Obamacare....but still has to pay corporate taxes...some of that money going to fund Obamacare and Planned Parenthood? Could they not argue that paying those taxes violates their religious freedoms? Could anyone be able to decline to pay for things they object to? If it's a moral objection? We can't function as a Democracy if rules are only enforced on those that specifically support them.

[fordman1]

About the constitution, didn't Jefferson want to take a fresh look at every 20 yrs. or so? Do you really think the founding fathers had Islam in mind when they said freedom of religion? Beheadings, stoning and woman as slaves?

[Aslan]

About the constitution, didn't Jefferson want to take a fresh look at every 20 yrs. or so? Do you really think the founding fathers had Islam in mind when they said freedom of religion? Beheadings, stoning and woman as slaves?

Absolutely. It's history repeating itself again and again. Nobody wanted to confront the Nazis, and nobody wanted to believe they were doing what they were doing...until he was on the doorstep of France. Nobody wants to confront human rights issues because then the World gets bogged down in conflicts in areas that nobody really cares about like Africa or some Middle East desert. And the people we want to police that area (middle east) like Turkey, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Pakistan, Turkey, Iran, and Egypt...they are all almost as bad as the places we want dealt with.

To link the discussion to bowling, if I were good enough to be a Pro...I'm not sure I'd be willing to travel to places like the United Arab Emrites...where there are still laws on the books and being enforced where a man and woman can't kiss in public or a muslim and non-muslim cannot hold hands, etc... I think our country needs to be more assertive regarding human rights rather than get in bed with countries that are 'slightly' better versions of the ones we "don't like". And I don't think we need to take tolerance of other beliefs to the point of allowing people's human rights to be violated just because we want to "respect cultural differences".

In the old days, if your neighbors were cannibals...you either destroyed your neighbors or ultimately you'd be their dinner. Then everybody became a hippie sometime between the late 1800s and late 1900s...and now countries could eat their young and we'd all sit around in some global committee discussing economic sanctions. I mean, how many years did China have a policy that ended up in the murdering of tens or hundreds of thousands of children with their one child policy?? But are we going to war with China because we think thats cruel? Probably not. But I don't think we get in bed with them and become economic partners while they are behaving in that manner.

We've given away our leverage. We're not the sole global economy anymore and we have no military will to fight and we have a government that can barely agree to pay their bills. The World knows they can do what they want...nobody is guarding the fort. Putin invaded Ukraine. Then he put troops in Syria and started attacking our puppet warriors in Northern Syria. Turkey shot down their plane. Did Russia attack Turkey? Nope. Because the leader of Turkey knows how to deal with Putin. Putin respects strength and exploits weakness. Turkey should a will to fight and Russia said, "oh, never mind then..." The US said not to put troops in Turkey and within a year Putin couldn't wait to put troops there. China holds our debt. Russia is led by a man with an itchy trigger finger. Our allies were tricked into going into Iraq last time and aren't happy about our NSA bumblings. Donald Trump wants to force our Southern neighbor to build a wall. And our Northern neighbor wants an oil pipeline and we're such a fractured country we can't even agree on that.

I don't really care anymore. I'm starting to become numb to it. Without a strong, moderate, 3rd party...it's just more of the same voting for the best option of two horrible options.

[fordman1]

Great points. Just one thing what is wrong with one child per Chinese family? That might be a good idea for a lot of places. The planet isn't getting any bigger.

[Aslan]

Great points. Just one thing what is wrong with one child per Chinese family? That might be a good idea for a lot of places. The planet isn't getting any bigger.

Personally, I'd like to see technology advance to the point that female babies could be temporarily sterilized at birth and then unsterilized after the age of 18 given they meet certain minimal requirements such as being able to care for a child, support a child, etc... That technology would all but eliminate unwanted pregnancy, teen pregnancy, fatherless children, and abortion. But such a proposal would be killed immediately, probably get overturned in the court system, and label me as a "Nazi-esque" person that wants to create some kind of weird utopian society.

Where you're slightly incorrect is that most modernized countries have the opposite problem of over-crowding. Most secular, modern countries in Europe and parts of Asia are struggling to get their birth rates up because their populations are dwindling. The incentive to produce offspring isn't there and the ways to avoid pregnancy are so successful that most people pass on it.

Unfortunately, and I'll probably get heat for this comment from the 1-2 female members of the community...but women make the problem worse because they are generally unrealistic by nature...especially in California. As I am now in my 40s and dating...my pool of women (not quite a binder full of women per se) are mostly in their 40s. And you would be SHOCKED at how many women 39-45 are very interested in "starting a family". In other words, they put off a family for 4 decades...and are now at the point where it's more dangerous to and far less likely they can conceive...but they read about a 55-yr old woman in Utah that just gave birth (National Enquirer) and spend their evenings watching Kate + 8...and all common sense goes out the window. And I blame "Sex in the City"...because a LOT of these women grew up watching that show and pretty much learning that the 20s and 30s are for wild fun and career building and shoe collecting and drinking wine and traveling to places to take selfies....then they hit 40 and it's like the car engine light suddenly lights up and suddenly "they're ready"...granted a decade late...and exponentially less likely to conceive...with a far, far greater likelihood of birth defects, Down Syndrome, miscarriage, etc... but ladies think differently...and most often...not in the most logical way. If they did, the Bravo network would cease to exist.

[Tony]

The idea that Islam is even considered a religion is an error, it was a come along later self declared prophet who declared the prior religious books flawed and invalid, insisting only his was preserved and was the truth. Even if you look at the cleaned up version the religion presents currently you will still find that all the examples of prophecy are wars and battles where he predicts the number and manner of people they will kill in the name of allah.
It should be reclassified as the cult it is.

[Tony]

What would you say the supreme court got right or wrong? Roe vrs. Wade, citizens united or maybe Obama care?

Obama-care only made it through because they manipulated it and called the fee's and penalties taxes and even then they violated the constitution.
The issue is simple: When the Senate adopted its own bill, installed it inside the shell of a separate and unrelated House bill, called it the Affordable Care Act and passed it, it created a long list of “fees” and “penalties” for Americans to pay.

But the John Roberts-led Supreme Court, recognizing the Constitution doesn’t allow the government to force people to buy consumer products, turned the “fees” and “penalties” into “taxes.”

However, the Constitution requires all tax measures be initiated in the House, not the Senate.

The senate just passed a bill that repeals obama-care and de-funds planned parenthood......undoubtedly Obama will veto it.

[Aslan]

But the John Roberts-led Supreme Court, recognizing the Constitution doesn’t allow the government to force people to buy consumer products, turned the “fees” and “penalties” into “taxes.”

However, the Constitution requires all tax measures be initiated in the House, not the Senate.

The senate just passed a bill that repeals obama-care and de-funds planned parenthood......undoubtedly Obama will veto it.

If you're correct, then I shouldn't have to pay car insurance. But I do. I also shouldn't have to pay a motor vehicle fee. Or tolls.

And of course he's going to veto it. That's why John Boehner spent the last 4 years trying to tell people there was no point to it...but I guess the lesson learned is that even if something is pointless and ridiculous and has no chance of success...if we can waste millions of dollars just to prove a point or quiet the 18% of Republicans in the 'freedom' caucus....it's worthwhile money well spent.

Don't think so? Hello Benghazi. It took 9 investigations and not one charge...not one ounce of wrongdoing...and finally two Republicans even admitted it was a political exercise to defame Hillary Clinton because she was likely the Democratic front-runner.

Now, if I was a left-wing liberal...which I'm not...and I got control over the house and senate...maybe I do 9 investigations into those 9 investigations regarding improper use of taxpayer funds....using them to essentially 'play politics'.

You can tell the right wing is scrambling regarding Obamacare because they know there's nothing...absolutely nothing...that can be done about it other than control of both houses and the Executive office. That's why there's been every little challenge of every single word...ad nausea. And each time the court just shakes their head...like the law or not...and essentially says, "Okay...AGAIN....it's the law. Now please go back to governing." And then here comes challenge #7....the Affordable Care Act was missing a period and therefore created a run-on sentence and thus should be over-turned. Here we go again. You lost. They won. Move on. Or are we still recounting the 200 hanging Chads? Are we going to open yet another Kennedy investigation? Maybe Iran Contra? How bout Whitewater? I mean, the people have spoken...it's time to move on. The senators and congressmen that STILL don't get that...aren't going to have jobs for very long...I think people are getting tired of it...on the right AND on the left.

But we're skirting the real issue here. Lets say Obama has a nervous breakdown and lets the Affordable Care Act get overturned. Literally a 0% chance of that....but lets play. Then what? Back to the old system where everyone pays for the uninsured with increased premiums? See....Republicans don't "get it" and it's really costing them in the National elections. They have spent years and years...pledging to block anything and everything Obama wants. He makes a trade deal, they appose it. He tried to improve heathcare, they oppose it. He even went to them a couple years ago asking for authorization to use force against SYRIA for violating chemical weapons agreements....and they refused to vote on it. And they 'think' that their supporters LIKE that they are blocking everything...and some do. But most...do NOT.

The public tried to send that message in the midterms. But, right on cue, the Republicans misread it. They thought it was a vote for them and a mandate to keep opposing, and keep fighting. But it wasn't a vote FOR them; it was vote AGAINST incumbants...who are more and more seen as worthless, time wasting, non-idea having, children. If you don't like Obamacare....offer a better option. The country would love to hear it. But so far, all I'm hearing is "we're against whatever....ummm....whatever the President says!" That's not a winning strategy...and those that find Fox News as laughable as MSNBC (we're the silent majority by the way)....we're not amused anymore. If you can't govern....if you can't compromise for the good of the country (on both sides of the aisle)...maybe it's better if you step aside and let somebody else give it a try.

[fordman1]

Republican debates tonight 12/15. Wonder what nonsense will come out of that tonight.

[Ptnomore]

Republican debates tonight 12/15. Wonder what nonsense will come out of that tonight.

I'll be recording it, as my Men's League bowls at the same time.

I'm hoping to see Rand Paul make a jump ahead of the usual 3. IMHO, Rand IS the only truly qualified one and knowledgeable enough and far enough out of the lobbyists pockets to get this country turned around. He did awesome at the last one, and has been gaining more and more support ever since. you just never hear anything about him on the news, cuz he doesn't fill a room saying dumb **** that creates media frenzies that sell advertising spots for the broadcast companies.

Fingers Crossed. :cool:

[Aslan]

Agreed PTNomore.

My current leader-board is:
- Bernie Sanders
- Rand Paul
- George Patacki
- Hilary Clinton

After that it's a huge dropoff before I get to Ben Carson. And then everyone is sort of bunched up except for Carly Fiorina and Ted Cruz who I have so far down the list that if they win I might move to Canada.

It's a shame, because the only true moderates in the race are Lindsay Graham and Jim Webb and Webb already dropped out and Graham probably has or will. Neither were great candidates...but now moderates are left with the best of two evils. Socialist leaning Democrats that have no control on spending, poor foreign policy initiatives, and are more concerned with criminals and illegal aliens than most Americans. And then on the right you have either TV evangelists like Huckabee/Santorum, Congressman that have shown no ability to govern like Cruz, Paul, and Rubio...about 4 Governors that can't speak coherently enough to inspire anyone, and 3 outsiders that are either friend stabbing liars, failed corporate CEO/secretary, and a man more concerned with Twitter fighting Rosie O'Donnell than anything else.

It's a CIRCUS...but a circuses are hilarious and fun to watch so I'll be watching and during commercials cleaning my apartment and putting up Christmas decorations on the off chance I have my date back to my place tonight.

[fordman1]

Maybe the question everyone should be asking is What would President Trump do? :rolleyes:

[Aslan]

Maybe the question everyone should be asking is What would President Trump do? :rolleyes:

I have to say his performance on Tuesday was encouraging. He toned it down a bit, was almost overly gracious, and he let his competition go at each other. I'm not saying he's my new favorite...but I'd probably (at this one moment in time) vote for him over Hillary. But again...I'd LOVE it if I had better options than that.

My current (Pre-Dem Debate) Leaderboard is:
1. Bernie Sanders
2. Rand Paul
3. George Patacki
4. Donald Trump

Tuesday also allowed me to separate what used to be a logjam of candidates all packed into the middle of the list:

- Trump was solid and left the 'pack' behind.
- Rubio, Graham, and Kasich I thought helped themselves a "little".
- Ben Carson, Rick Santorum, and Jeb Bush did nothing positive nor negative...so they kinda just stayed irrelevant.
- Mike Huckabee and Chris Christie continued to FALL down my standings.
- Cruz and Fiorina are my "Canad-a-Ates" because if they win I'm probably leaving the country. I can't find common ground with them politically and I can't stand Carly.

I'm disappointed in Christie. He had a shot to unite the moderates but just seems to be out of his element on stage. He's trying so hard to convince people that he's a conservative that it almost comes off as desperation.

My most significant observation of the debate is in regards to Trump. Rand Paul completely tore him apart about the targeting of ISIS family members, making concise points about constitutionality and treaties. But Trump responded the same way most Americans would respond to that, "So we have to follow the Geneva convention but those trying to kill us do not?" So, Rand Paul was totally correct...made great points...but Trump won the argument because he simply said what most Americans are saying/thinking.

[Tony]

If you're correct, then I shouldn't have to pay car insurance. But I do. I also shouldn't have to pay a motor vehicle fee. Or tolls.


To clarify, they can't require you to purchase a consumer product from the Government. Motor vehicle license / tolls are not consumer products.

Obama care should be repealed as it has accelerated the already out of control health care costs that are crippling our economy.
What should be done ? We should use the best of the solutions already in place in other countries, for example the UK, they have vastly superior treatment in every single measurable area and substantially lower cost , the cost savings would be in the 1.5 trillion area. They have universal coverage and also a supplementary elective insurance system of private clinics for those that want to and can afford extra coverage.
Is it perfect, doubtful, is it far better in terms of cost and in terms of care than our current system YES ! If we had actual regular people in office instead of the ruling class corrupt worthless people it would probably be possible to get this type of system implemented. With the current ruling class, we have to figure what's in it for them to approve something like this and increased "donations" from the medical / drug companies to keep something similar to the current system will likely prevail.

[Tony]

Rand Paul completely tore him apart about the targeting of ISIS family members, making concise points about constitutionality and treaties. But Trump responded the same way most Americans would respond to that, "So we have to follow the Geneva convention but those trying to kill us do not?" So, Rand Paul was totally correct...made great points...but Trump won the argument because he simply said what most Americans are saying/thinking.

I think you hit the nail on the head, people are freaking sick of everyone trying to be politically correct, why should small groups of people be accommodated with some right that impedes the rights of millions of people, it's stupid.
Trump is saying what average people think and that's why he has such a following. Sure there are some issues with things he says he wants to do but with a little help from intelligent advisers many of these idea's are workable.

[Aslan]

The problem is when we look at our current situation in historical context. Usually when we've seen horrible tyrants become leaders of countries and then do terrible things...it seems like it's always at a time of crisis when some charismatic outsider starts voicing what a nationalist majority feels.

Adolf Hitler came to power when Germany's economy collapsed, unemployment was terrible, and they were hampered by WWI restrictions. He used that populist angst to drive out opposing politicians, strip the rights and lives of Jews, and essentially annex his neighbors. Had he not went "too far" and taken over Belgium, Denmark, and the Netherlands...France and Britain probably would have just let sleeping dogs ly.

Trump is right about immigration and terrorists...but it's a slippery slope from being non-politically correct and telling it like it is...and pretty soon we're looking back at history thinking, "why did we elect such a terrible President?"

And how bad have the choices become that even a liberal leaning moderate is thinking..."well Donald Trump is horrible...but he's slightly less horrible than the other options." I mean, both Clinton and Trump are leading the polls...yet every single poll about their likeability and trustworthiness shows that MOST Americans consider them lying, untrustworthy individuals. Something ain't working as intended!!

[fordman1]

I honestly don't think Trump want to win. He has it made. Why would any sane person want to take on such a draining job? As to being trustworthy I don't think the American people need or should know everything that the government knows or does. What if there really is "aliens" and not the kind from Mexico. What would happen to religion if little green men started walking around the white house? What if we did have secret agreements with some of our enemies that saved lives but would make many people's head explode. Would you want to have known about the Cuban missile crisis when we were only minutes from world war III. Maybe we need a sneaky B like Hillery.

Don't forget about the Vatican helping Hitler Catholics don't even want to hear about that now.

[Tony]

The problem is when we look at our current situation in historical context. Usually when we've seen horrible tyrants become leaders of countries and then do terrible things...it seems like it's always at a time of crisis when some charismatic outsider starts voicing what a nationalist majority feels.

Adolf Hitler came to power when Germany's economy collapsed, unemployment was terrible, and they were hampered by WWI restrictions. He used that populist angst to drive out opposing politicians, strip the rights and lives of Jews, and essentially annex his neighbors. Had he not went "too far" and taken over Belgium, Denmark, and the Netherlands...France and Britain probably would have just let sleeping dogs ly.

Trump is right about immigration and terrorists...but it's a slippery slope from being non-politically correct and telling it like it is...and pretty soon we're looking back at history thinking, "why did we elect such a terrible President?"

And how bad have the choices become that even a liberal leaning moderate is thinking..."well Donald Trump is horrible...but he's slightly less horrible than the other options." I mean, both Clinton and Trump are leading the polls...yet every single poll about their likeability and trustworthiness shows that MOST Americans consider them lying, untrustworthy individuals. Something ain't working as intended!!

We currently have a horrible tyrant in office, and he is using political correctness and working on his own personal agenda. We currently have an arrogant president who acts on his own through executive order, illegal agreements, and illegal activities. I think most American do think " why did we elect such a terrible president" He is Obama !
There is little chance he is done, watch for him to attempt to take away more of our rights, he will almost certainly enact by executive order gun regulations in the next couple of months. The worst possible thing that could happen in the next election is electing Hillary ......

[Tony]

I honestly don't think Trump want to win. He has it made. Why would any sane person want to take on such a draining job? As to being trustworthy I don't think the American people need or should know everything that the government knows or does. What if there really is "aliens" and not the kind from Mexico. What would happen to religion if little green men started walking around the white house? What if we did have secret agreements with some of our enemies that saved lives but would make many people's head explode. Would you want to have known about the Cuban missile crisis when we were only minutes from world war III. Maybe we need a sneaky B like Hillery.

Don't forget about the Vatican helping Hitler Catholics don't even want to hear about that now.

I don't think Trump originally wanted to be president but he like many Americans see a government that is totally out of touch with the people, both parties are out for themselves and the people that pay them, and those people are not the citizens of this country. He is the only one who doesn't owe anyone any favors and if he gets elected will push to reverse all the stupid things done over recent years that handicap our country. People are sick if the political correctness crap! Why do we give more rights to the criminal than to the victims of crime ? PC that's why.
Why should we owe China millions of dollars, why is there a huge trade deficit, why do we spend nearly two times more as a percentage of GDP on health care for sub par results. The reason for all of it was stupid legislation. It goes back at least to NAFTA where we sent billions of dollars in manufacturing to Mexico. Why?
Hillary, we need hillary like a bullet to the head.
Is Trump perfect, certainly not, but he knows enough to surround himself with people who are experts in there fields, and he unlike hillary and obama wants to see our country prosper.

[fordman1]

I don't think Trump originally wanted to be president but he like many Americans see a government that is totally out of touch with the people, both parties are out for themselves and the people that pay them, and those people are not the citizens of this country. He is the only one who doesn't owe anyone any favors and if he gets elected will push to reverse all the stupid things done over recent years that handicap our country. People are sick if the political correctness crap! Why do we give more rights to the criminal than to the victims of crime ? PC that's why.
Why should we owe China millions of dollars, why is there a huge trade deficit, why do we spend nearly two times more as a percentage of GDP on health care for sub par results. The reason for all of it was stupid legislation. It goes back at least to NAFTA where we sent billions of dollars in manufacturing to Mexico. Why?
Hillary, we need hillary like a bullet to the head.
Is Trump perfect, certainly not, but he knows enough to surround himself with people who are experts in there fields, and he unlike hillary and obama wants to see our country prosper.

NAFTA was a terrible deal for the factory workers of America. No argument there, Totally a Republican backed plan...
Why the deficate? Because Rep's won't raise taxes on the rich and do what they should "oh I forgot you can't bite the hand that feeds you"
I agree Obama is a woose.
He should have made Obama care cover everyone same as every where else in the world. Please don't say who is going to pay for it. I will do my share. Will you and Trump?

[Aslan]

@Tony-

I think maybe switch from Fox News to CNN or ABC news or something. I'm not saying "go liberal" and watch MSNBC or PBS...but the idea that Obama is a "tyrant" is silly. Our system of government wouldn't allow "tyranny". Like any President in these modern times, he is forced to try and get things done "despite Congress" rather than working WITH Congress. And if you want to blame someone for that...look no further than the Newt Gingrich congress that worked well with President Clinton...but also started the whole "demonizing rhetoric" that has gotten worse and worse since then.

I know it's both sides of the aisle...but Bush could get nothing done as the liberals wouldn't budge. Then Obama could get nothing done with conservatives that wouldn't budge. We're seeing extremely conservative people like John Boehner and Mitch McConnell being thrown out of office for not being tougher. We're constantly on the verge of a government shutdown. And we have a President that tries to legislate from the White House only to have some of those get overturned in the Supreme Court.

Governing is about compromise. Fox, Rush, the freedom caucus....these groups not only refuse to compromise, but IF THEY DO, they risk losing their seat to a challenger that will paint them as "too compromising". It's an endless spiral downward. Ronald Reagan was less conservative than John Boehner...he'd have never won the Republican primary nor been re-elected if he was running today. How sad is that, the poster boy for new age conservatism...would be too far left to even bother running for the Republican nod?

It's going to take a real tragedy, like 9/11...a large war like WWIII...or a legitimate 3rd party to fix the system. Now that we've started not only condoning, but REWARDING congress for refusing to govern...we're done. And it's so childish...that I fear how history will remember this. The House just sent a bill to the White House to get rid of Obamacare and undo many of Obama's orders. There's a 0% chance he'll sign that. So why send it? Answer: Because then they can say they did it...and get re-elected by their base. It's not about governing anymore.

And it's why Republicans are starting to really decline. They are losing touch with the values of the country and the non-wealthy. The social issues are turning against them, which is their only real selling point to the lower classes. Without opposing gays and abortion...what can they "sell" to a person in the bible belt that is living off social security benefits? They used to sell trickle-down ecomonics...but after Newt, Clinton, and G.W....the world is now a global marketplace...so trickle down economics no longer works. Give a tax cut to a businessman...he closes his factory in Illinois and opens a new facility in India....pockets the remainder. But the argument is...those rich folks will spend "some" of that money on luxury items...so those making $12,000 watches and 2 million dollar yachts...it might them out.

[Tony]

NAFTA was a terrible deal for the factory workers of America. No argument there, Totally a Republican backed plan...
Why the deficate? Because Rep's won't raise taxes on the rich and do what they should "oh I forgot you can't bite the hand that feeds you"
I agree Obama is a woose.
He should have made Obama care cover everyone same as every where else in the world. Please don't say who is going to pay for it. I will do my share. Will you and Trump?

They should have modeled the health care plan on the UK system, it's ranked number one in most area's and even in choice the big sticking point it's better than our current plan. If we spent the same percentage that they do on health care for everyone that is a citizen we would save 1.2 Trillion dollars a year, so do I get a percentage of the savings ?
The big money is being wasted / spent by insurance / pharmaceuticals / and other medical factors that spend millions of dollars to support political leaders....its the power of money.

Don't peg me as favoring one party, they are both despicable, I am looking for people outside of politics that are not lawyers, we already know all the politicians are corrupt, there is not one who I would trust.

[Tony]

@Tony-

I think maybe switch from Fox News to CNN or ABC news or something. I'm not saying "go liberal" and watch MSNBC or PBS...but the idea that Obama is a "tyrant" is silly. Our system of government wouldn't allow "tyranny". Like any President in these modern times, he is forced to try and get things done "despite Congress" rather than working WITH Congress. And if you want to blame someone for that...look no further than the Newt Gingrich congress that worked well with President Clinton...but also started the whole "demonizing rhetoric" that has gotten worse and worse since then.

I know it's both sides of the aisle...but Bush could get nothing done as the liberals wouldn't budge. Then Obama could get nothing done with conservatives that wouldn't budge. We're seeing extremely conservative people like John Boehner and Mitch McConnell being thrown out of office for not being tougher. We're constantly on the verge of a government shutdown. And we have a President that tries to legislate from the White House only to have some of those get overturned in the Supreme Court.

Governing is about compromise. Fox, Rush, the freedom caucus....these groups not only refuse to compromise, but IF THEY DO, they risk losing their seat to a challenger that will paint them as "too compromising". It's an endless spiral downward. Ronald Reagan was less conservative than John Boehner...he'd have never won the Republican primary nor been re-elected if he was running today. How sad is that, the poster boy for new age conservatism...would be too far left to even bother running for the Republican nod?

It's going to take a real tragedy, like 9/11...a large war like WWIII...or a legitimate 3rd party to fix the system. Now that we've started not only condoning, but REWARDING congress for refusing to govern...we're done. And it's so childish...that I fear how history will remember this. The House just sent a bill to the White House to get rid of Obamacare and undo many of Obama's orders. There's a 0% chance he'll sign that. So why send it? Answer: Because then they can say they did it...and get re-elected by their base. It's not about governing anymore.

And it's why Republicans are starting to really decline. They are losing touch with the values of the country and the non-wealthy. The social issues are turning against them, which is their only real selling point to the lower classes. Without opposing gays and abortion...what can they "sell" to a person in the bible belt that is living off social security benefits? They used to sell trickle-down ecomonics...but after Newt, Clinton, and G.W....the world is now a global marketplace...so trickle down economics no longer works. Give a tax cut to a businessman...he closes his factory in Illinois and opens a new facility in India....pockets the remainder. But the argument is...those rich folks will spend "some" of that money on luxury items...so those making $12,000 watches and 2 million dollar yachts...it might them out.

You were the one who compared Trump as president to the Nazi regime, then you say our government wouldn't allow it. (tyranny)
Keep in mind that the politicians are really united in keeping control of things and keeping the ruling class in power, the current politicians have largely elevated themselves to be above the law and entitled to a higher level of benefits, outsiders are not welcome, by accepting all the money both legal and other from big business, PACs of all kinds, foreign interests they have become more interested in their personal welfare than that of the country.

It's in our best interest to elect non politicians and non lawyers to office. You pick on the Republicans as losing touch and not understanding the non-wealthy , you should be including all politicians, do you see anything but wealthy people running for office ? There is not a good guy to root for. The system of government has been bastardized over the years until it has reached this level, it is badly in need of being shaken up and change the path while it's still possible.

Was free trade a smart option to take, did we and do we have the ability to change things, can we enact legislation where companies are rewarded with employing US workers and paying US taxes, can we enact legislation that rewards the politicians for acting in the best interest of the people and limit the ability to sit in office for 30 years, yes we can do all of these things, but not with the people in control right now. It's probably time to do away with weasels who are running things now and get a new guy in at the top to shake things up.

Trump would not be nearly as bad as you think he would be, he's a loud mouth who talks about things people are thinking, that doesn't mean he's going to try to do all of those things, he's also not politician so he says non PC things. Just think about the crap Obama, Hillary and the other politicians say behind closed doors, probably pretty bad.

It's a good sign that the establishment is afraid of Trump and in the end I think the people will be better served by getting more and more of the career politicians out of office, even if it's forced term limits by executive order that makes it happen.

[Aslan]

I certainly agree that comparing Trump to a Nazi is unfair. But as a history buff...you start to wonder how certain people actually came into power like Hitler and Mussolini and all these other guys that eventually become lunatics...and it just makes you nervous. It's one thing to call for better border security and increased deportation efforts. It's a bit of a reach to start talking about deportation squads and banning certain religion immigrants.

I don't think Trump is all bad...and I'd vote for him over many of the other options...some on both tickets...but I don't trust him, I don't like him, and he's one of the least Presidential candidates for President I've ever seen. George W. wasn't the worst President in history. There were definitely worse Presidents. BUT...GW was SO bad that he at least makes the "short list". Thats pretty bad. Obama won't even come close to that bad...but also will be nowhere near the legacy of a Bill Clinton or Ronald Reagan.

I'd feel better about a "President Trump" if Congress was functioning. A functioning Congress can keep the Executive office in line. But with the Congress we have right now....forget about it. I mean, remember when we used to laugh at English monarchs....and their tabloid nonsense. Their House of Commons yelling at each other? We used to think the American democracy was above that....but we're now seeing 11 investigations into Benghazi....at a cost of millions and millions in taxpayer dollars...just to lower the likelihood that Hillary makes a successful run for President? Threats of government shutdown every month or so? A socialist hippie running on the Democratic primary ticket and a libertarian on the other? Who's laughing at whom now?

[Tony]

I certainly agree that comparing Trump to a Nazi is unfair. But as a history buff...you start to wonder how certain people actually came into power like Hitler and Mussolini and all these other guys that eventually become lunatics...and it just makes you nervous. It's one thing to call for better border security and increased deportation efforts. It's a bit of a reach to start talking about deportation squads and banning certain religion immigrants.

I don't think Trump is all bad...and I'd vote for him over many of the other options...some on both tickets...but I don't trust him, I don't like him, and he's one of the least Presidential candidates for President I've ever seen. George W. wasn't the worst President in history. There were definitely worse Presidents. BUT...GW was SO bad that he at least makes the "short list". Thats pretty bad. Obama won't even come close to that bad...but also will be nowhere near the legacy of a Bill Clinton or Ronald Reagan.

I'd feel better about a "President Trump" if Congress was functioning. A functioning Congress can keep the Executive office in line. But with the Congress we have right now....forget about it. I mean, remember when we used to laugh at English monarchs....and their tabloid nonsense. Their House of Commons yelling at each other? We used to think the American democracy was above that....but we're now seeing 11 investigations into Benghazi....at a cost of millions and millions in taxpayer dollars...just to lower the likelihood that Hillary makes a successful run for President? Threats of government shutdown every month or so? A socialist hippie running on the Democratic primary ticket and a libertarian on the other? Who's laughing at whom now?

While I would agree GW was not a particularly smart guy who surrounded himself with guys no smarter than himself and was not a good leader. I disagree about Obama, yes he is a much smarter guy who generally seems to run off anyone who's not a yes man / woman. He has done some things that have significantly weakened our economy and our position in the world. He has promoted heavily bringing in millions of people while deporting few ( Bush and Clinton deported millions of people). He has also made many behind the scenes changes to our public aid systems to include millions of NON citizens and suspended many of the rules used to screen applicants sending the number of recipients and dollars spent to higher levels than ever. This was largely the reason for his re-election, he kept giving and promising the welfare community more and more.
Do you realize he promoted millions of people to bring their elderly parents here and pays them SSI out of the social security system that they never paid a dime into and should not be entitled to draw from.
We spend millions of dollars to raise the standard of living in other countries and reduce the standard of living here, drawing us closer and closer to the 3rd world countries. This socialistic behavior will and has cost the country more than GW ever caused because GW was doing things because he was an idiot, Obama is intentionally weakening and damaging our country.

[fortheloveofbowling]

But as a history buff...

What does it take to be a "Buff"? Is it at least a Bachelors Degree in any given field or just the ability to string together a few paragraphs of opinions with a few facts mixed in?

[Tony]

What does it take to be a "Buff"? Is it at least a Bachelors Degree in any given field or just the ability to string together a few paragraphs of opinions with a few facts mixed in?

Here are the requirements, in nine easy steps from Wikihow !

http://www.wikihow.com/Be-a-History-Buff

Be careful it involves graph paper !

[Jessiewoodard57]

In Aslan's defense to be a "Buff" one needs only to have an interest in any subject . In school I hated history but as I get older and people seem to want to rewrite our US history I have become interested myself.

[Hot_pocket]

If i touch on anything already said, oh well because im not starting at the beginning of this thread haha. It blows my mind how much of a tyrant Obama is....says every concervative. Maybe not all of them but everyone who swears ,to whoever they believe in, think he is in office because the liberals have the majority. Just like they believe obama is brain & VP Biden is pinky and planning to take over the world. You can't win an election without the majority of votes by all who make the decision to vote unless you're GWB. So there were conservatives who believe Obama was the right choice is what I'm lead to believe, right? I'm not the sharpest tool in the shed but I'm pretty sure Obama didnt hurt the economy as bad as people think. Just one thing to not give him credit for, Job production has soared, is that bad or good? Obama was suppose to be a 1 term president according to a republican, who stated, that was their main goal for him when he was first elected. That was said in an interview after was re-elected for his second term, the resistence or hate as I'll call it was real. I have to agree though about congress, as we say when doing a raid in destiny, we should wipe now.

[Aslan]

Guide to the 2016 Elections:

I've seen enough coverage now to sort of simplify the primaries for the voters out there who have minimal interest and don't really care that much.

1) The Moderates
I picked this section because it's the simplest. There aren't any. The closest we had was Jim Webb who was running as a Democrat but used to be a Republican. The next closest options are probably Donald Trump and Chris Christie...maybe a Lindsay Graham who has now dropped out.

2) The Democrats

This field is now down to 3 and really it's down to 2 and a question mark about whether O'Malley would be a Vice Presidential pick. Hilary has been a victim of partisan politics since her days as Secretary of State and it has been surprisingly effective at at least making the Democratic Primary "sort of" a race. Hilary is the more moderate of the two candidates and the overall frontrunner to become President, but is left of Obama who is quite a bit left of the Bill Clinton administration.

There are no "big differences" between Bernie and Hillary even though they try to make it seem like there is. Hillary is more establishment, will essentially just try to further Obama type initiatives and will generally be led by her party and following the polls. Bernie is further left on just about every issue except guns. He's an establishment candidate but is sort of running a Dennis Kusinich/Ralph Nader style "outsider" campaign and has tapped into the populist movement which is one of the more exciting political movements since the tea party. The populist movement, championed by Elizabeth Warren, is simply a "socialist light" style of capitalism where as the wealthy are pressured with more of the burden of the country...but hopefully not so much so that the capitalist/democratic system collapses. The populist movement has been born (like all political movements are usually born) out of a social outrage regarding the growing disparencies between the top 10% and the rest of the country and the shrinking middle class and loss of good paying, less skilled jobs. It is a bit of a backlash against the "trickle down economics" policies of the Bush administration that failed miserably.

3) The Republicans
This could be a post of it's own, so lets try to put the candidates into groups to more easily figure this out...it's not as hard as the circus would hint to.

1. The Tea Party/Freedom Caucus
2. The Governors
3. The Outsiders
4. The Religious Right

1. The Tea Party/Freedom Caucus are the ultra-Right of the party that has for the most part spent the last 8 years blocking everything and anything Obama tried to do while at the same time making life a living hell for John Boehner and the establishment Republicans. Candidates consist of Rand Paul, Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, and Carly Fiorina.

Why Carly? Even though she tries to paint herself as a Trump-like outsider...she's politically a tea party/freedom caucus candidate...she just lacks the experience of having held office. Of the 3 other candidates listed, HUGE differences between them. Ted Cruz is as far right as one can go on every issue. Marco Rubio is like a "Ted Cruz light" and the "light" is on immigration. Cruz has always followed the Republican party and LOVED immigrant workers (because it's cheap labor) but has hated legalized immigration (most immigrants become Democrats). Marco, being from Florida, has had to taken a more "Amnesty Approach" which was in style before Donald Trump reminded everyone that most people aren't big fans of illegal immigration. Rand Paul is the most conservative candidate in the race, but is SO conservative that he's more of a libertarian than a republican. What's the difference? Libertarians essentially believe in an Aristocracy/sharecropping type of existence where a few people have massive amounts of land and they do as they wish with very little government interference. Rand, unlike his father, is more in line with the party...BUT...had been crippled recently with heightened foreign policy issues...because his only achilles heel is libertarians do not believe in the Marshall Plan where as the United States uses puppet states to provide a buffer between ourselves and our true enemies (Russia and China).

2. The Governors
John Kasich, Jeb Bush, George Patacki, Chris Christie. These candidates are all very similar with some right wing ideals and some more moderate views based primarily on the States they were governors of. For example, Jeb Bush is more liberal on immigration as a former governor of Florida. Chris Christie has take some liberal positions as a Republican governor of a very blue, East Coast state...as has Patacki. This group usually is where the nominee comes from, but this year is struggling to get right of the tea party crew and aren't "non-establishment" enough to move into that lane.

3. The Outsiders
This is essentially Donald Trump. Ben Carson is more of a religious right candidate pretending to be an outsider. Dr. Carson has been a right wing radio talk show host for years. Donald is doing well simply because people are tired of the current climate. It's Ross Perot all over again...except this time people are actually upset. The downside is outsiders tend to eventually fail. They say something terribly stupid, the establishment goes after em hard, and/or they get exposed in some other way. I still think eventually Donald will fail to this scrutiny...once the general election is underway.

4. The Religious Right
These candidates are always in the primary and never seriously considered. Our country gets very, very weary of electing candidates that hint towards a country where freedom of religion is defined as "one faith over another". Many of us absolutely despise Islam since nearly every terrorist attack tends to be from Islamic groups...BUT...we're very, very cautious about electing our own "Ayatollah". These candidates are Mick Huckabee, Rick Santorum, and Ben Carson. These guys play very well to the bible belt but usually can't get much ground anywhere else. The bottom line is, America is becoming more and more a secular state...like Europe...and the same old religious hate mongering...even when well intentioned...just doesn't hold the same magic it once did. Of these candidates, Rick Santorum is interesting given his more middle class focused message...and Ben Carson is interesting as a "half outsider" kinda of candidate. But once we leave Iowa...these candidates will he hoping for a Vice President gig or a better TV/Radio contract.

Summary:
As terrible as it sounds...this election is relying on two horrible things:
1) Can Hillary Clinton survive the political gauntlet of pretend investigations and politically motivated attacks and charges...enough so to hold off the populist Bernie Sanders? And, can she emerge as a likable enough candidate that moderates will support her in the general election?

2) Can Donald Trump keep walking the line between a straight talking voice of the people yet not say something "Trump-Like" that could end his run almost immediately?

And whomever DOES emerge from the Republican circus...can they find a candidate that can convince the general electorate that they will be able to work with the other party, eliminate the ultra-liberal nonsense from 8 years of Obama, yet still try to actually solve the problems Obama was attempting to solve? Or, will this simply be another reboot of George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Karl Rove, Donald Rumsfeld...where the government gives away the money to the rich and the rich move their business overseas? Thats gonna be the toughest part. Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz don't have answers the general electorate want to hear. Neither does Jeb Bush. The general electorate might be able to support a Lindsay Graham or a Chris Christie or a Rand Paul on SOME issues...but MOST of the country wants solutions to income inequality, mental illness, health care costs, student loans and college costs, etc... The tax cut message isn't going to work again. We don't want a $425 tax rebate. We want good paying jobs. We don't want a repeal of Obamacare where we all go back to paying for the uninsured...we want a better solution than Obamacare. And we're generally tired of being told that if we just get rid of ONE MORE tax....all those rich 1% or 2%...they will FINALLY use those tax cut windfalls to rebuild the country. That age is over. This is the global age...jobs go to the country with the lowest wages. Headquarters move to the place with the lowest taxes. Job cuts are deemed as "good for the economy" as they boost stock prices by limiting overhead costs.

So it really doesn't matter who faces who in the general election. If it's Sanders...the Republicans have to hope they can paint him as a crazy left wing lunatic. If it's Hillary, they have to keep driving the message that she can't be trusted and is evil. What you don't see in either sentence is how the Republican candidate provides an answer to the problems most Americans are worried about. They (Republicans) continue to try to win elections with a platform of "the other guy stinks"...and that doesn't work as well in the general election as it does in the primary election. Thats why Mitt Romney seemed like such a strong candidate and then got hammered by an unpopular 2nd term candidate in Obama. Trump is probably their best bet...and I can almost assure you that makes the RNC even more nervous than it makes you and I.

[Perrin]

so our options come down to dumb, dumber, bad, and crazy.... yay for the two party political system.... :(:mad:

[fordman1]

You really didn't read all of aslan's post did you. Where did you get the time?

[Aslan]

so our options come down to dumb, dumber, bad, and crazy.... yay for the two party political system.... :(:mad:

It'll come down to:

A) Same as Obama but worse.
B) Same as George W. Bush except worse.
or
C) The Donald...which could be a refreshing change to a candidate no beholden to Washington lobbyists who has his finger on the pulse of the American people....OR...it could turn out to be the next Adolf Hitler...where an egotistical maniac starts wars with Mexico over fences and uses the office to triple the value of Trump Enterprises.

I can't seen any other options at this time. They are all just really, really bad versions of the same bad, bad thing. I still like Bernie. I like his reformist approach and his populist stances. But I really struggle to see how he can actually enact anything he claims to want to do...when you have a Republican controlled Congress that can't even agree on the easy stuff. So they've spent 6 years trying every possible backdoor way of killing Obamacare...yet somehow Bernie thinks he can get Nationalized Health Care past Congress?? How's that gonna work. Hillary pitched that idea under the Bill Clinton administration and almost cost him a second term. Even Congressional Democrats ran away from that back when Obamacare was being negotiated.

[fordman1]

Maybe we could get a law to get rid of gerrymandering.
Maybe we could get a law that says no person, organization or corp. can donate more than $100 and all must be sign and open to the public.
Get rid of lobbyist.

[Tony]

Maybe we could get a law to get rid of gerrymandering.
Maybe we could get a law that says no person, organization or corp. can donate more than $100 and all must be sign and open to the public.
Get rid of lobbyist.

Those would be great things but like term limits there is not a chance that any career politicians would vote those resolutions into law, there is a possibility Trump or Bernie would take executive action to limit both of these area's that promote widespread corruption. Hillary and the others no way.

[Aslan]

They already tried what you're suggesting and the Supreme Court over-ruled it in the Citizens United case.

Essentially, for those that don't know, McCain/Feingold limited certain attack adds leading up to an election. David Bossie (the conservative version of Paul Begala) was upset that Michael Moore was able to release Farenheit 9/11 that painted George W. Bush in a bad light leading up to elections so he made a film about Hilary Clinton and wanted to release it. So, fight ensued, and the court narrowly decided in favor of a more hands off approach to campaign finance.

And that is where we are now. There are no real limits on campaign finance...there's just a lot of reporting that has to be done to expose where the money is coming from. But even that doesn't really work because most PACs, instead of calling themselves "PAC supporting Bob Dole" or "Liberals for Environmental Extremism"...they label themselves things like "Citizens United" or "The Freedom Fund". It makes it sound like they're standing up for the people and for freedom....but also attempts to cover up who really is controlling the purse strings...whether it's the Koch brothers or Glenn Beck or some left-wing hippie group or trade unions...they can all hide behind a fictitious name. California does the same thing when naming propositions. They recently made a proposition to let out criminals from jail because jails are over-crowded and they don't want to build more. They called that the "Safer Schools and Neighborhoods Proposition". :confused:

The only way around Citizen's United is to go to a publically funded system...but I doubt the supreme court would find it constitutional and there's really no way to get Congress to enact meaningful regulations on campaign finance...much less amend the constitution. Unfortunately.

[fordman1]

Can't argue with what you say because the system is broken. One question how can you compare the Koch Biro's and trade unions? One is a group of people fighting for fair treatment the others are Robber Barron's. Who are the Left wing Hippies?

[Aslan]

HOW CAN EACH CANDIDATE WIN??

I figured I'd post this, because now that the field is a bit paired down, it's a bit easier. And when I saw Trump parade out Palin at a rally recently...I thought, "Hmm...could a Palin VP candidacy be in the cards?" Could a female VP pick for the Republican change the outcome? It didn't work for McCain...but the competition is weaker this time. Hmmm......

Assumptions:
Lets assume the candidates for this exercise are:
- Donald Trump (R)
- Bernie Sanders (D)
- Hilary Clinton (D)
- Ted Cruz (R)
- Marco Rubio (R)

So, what scenario(s) could lead to each of them becoming President? And REMEMBER....winning a primary is MUCH different than winning a general election. And that's why this is such an historic election...because there are no "moderates" in this field. Trump is the closest thing to a moderate and he's further right than any candidate in recent times excluding perhaps George W. Bush.

So lets start at the top:
"The Donald"
Trump needs to continue to use his appeal with angry, non-party-liner, conservatives and folks that see him as an "outsider". If he can paint his Republican challengers as out of touch with the realities most American's face (despite him flying around in a jet with golden bathroom fixtures)...he might be able to continue to the general election...where he can use the same rhetoric to attack either Sanders or Clinton who many moderates are going to see as "too liberal, too socialist". Look for Trump to try and find a black, latino, or female running mate (Palin?) to try and get some support from those groups in the general election.

So how does Trump win?
1) He has to avoid saying "Trumpisms". He's been getting by like he's made out of Teflon...he'll get a lot more pushback with the general election crowd.
2) He has to win back some of the Cruz/Paul type extreme conservatives by picking a conservative running mate...like a Palin, Coulter, or Bachman. Maybe even a Firorina. A female VP will negate some of the edge that Hilary has with female voters.

"FeeltheBurn" (Bernie Sanders)
Bernie uses the same technique as Cruz when it comes to his primary voters. He paints Hilary as the establishment/administration candidate who is going to continue Obama's generally unpopular 2nd term. In a primary race, that is easier...but still difficult given the Clinton dynasty. Now, in the General Election...that's where Bernie gets the edge...because he has a populist message that speaks to most Americans. With so much of the Nation's wealth in the hands of 20% of it's population, the populist message has really taken root and moderates can and will get on that ship. Bernie also may choose a black, latino, or female running mate to try and give those a groups a feeling of inclusiveness and if it's a woman...get some votes from those that are only voting for a female candidate because they want to see a female "make it".

How does Bernie win?
- He has to avoid drifting too far to the left. It's not penalizing him now, in front of a left-wing voting block...but most voters in the general election aren't registered Democrats or registered Republicans. Gun control is a good example. Bernie's stance on guns is hampering him in the primary but will be a positive in the general election.
- Elizabeth Warren

Hilary Clinton
I'd have never thought Hilary could lose this election if someone asked me a year ago. And I hate to see her fail in large part because of all the ultra-conservative attacks about Benghazi and all that other nonsense. But Hilary has a like-ability problem. Her base loves the idea of a female President and loves her husband. But very few people "like HER". That was a problem for John Kerry and a problem for Al Gore.

How does Hilary win?
1) She has to paint Bernie as a mad scientist type of socialist that will be so far to the left that Washington will get nothing done.
2) She has to stop defending and go on the offensive regarding the attacks on her. She has tried an approach where she just doesn't talk about it and tries to "ignore it and it'll eventually disappear with another news cycle. But it's not going away until the election is over...so she needs to expose the conservatives and their motives to the American people rather than defend herself by essentially saying, "Well, it's overblown, and I'm not going to talk about it." That makes her seem "superior" and even less likeable.
3) Elizabeth Warren

The reason I'm listing Elizabeth Warren (for both Bernie and Clinton) is that she is actually the "darling" of the Democratic party and of the populist movement. She'd be leading the polls for President right now. A Biden/Warren ticket would have been hard to beat. If she were the VP for Bernie...he could get some of the female vote and many of the more moderate Democrats. Warren on Hilary's ticket would further cement the female vote and give her some legitimacy with the party populists.

The Canadian (Ted Cruz)
Ted should be a lock to secure his party's nomination because he's as conservative as any politician with the exception of Rand Paul...but Cruz is not as far "out there" as Rand Paul on some of the libertarian type issues like drugs and the military.

But Cruz has a problem. He's far, far more conservative than the country is. In a primary, he fares very well. In a general election he is very vulnerable. He's pushing much of the same failed policies that George W. pushed...but too many Americans have realized GW's (actually Karl Rove's) policies were essentially a failure.

Cruz's best bet would have been to moderate his message and add another strong candidate to his ticket like Trump or Carson or Fiorina or Rubio or Paul or Kasich or Scott Walker or Paul Ryan. His problem is, a moderate VP hurts him in the primaries where he's behind. And a pick like Fiorina could help him in the primaries but kill him in the general election.

How does Cruz win?
- Continued unrest and turmoil. The middle east, Iran, Russia, China, North Korea...as long as there is unrest (or worse), he can take the baton from George W and convince the American leader that they might WANT a better candidate...but they NEED him.
- Same as Trump, a female VP candidate will get some female votes away from Hilary.

The Cuban (Marco Rubio)
Marco's problem is, he's a combination of Cruz and Jeb Bush. But, he's running against both Cruz and Jeb Bush. He'd make a great VP choice for Cruz or Jeb....and they'd make a good VP choice for him...but after tearing each other apart...I doubt that's happening.

How does Marco win?
- Trump needs to self destruct
- Cruz needs to be painted as too conservative to be viable
- Cruz could benefit from a female VP choice (Firorina, Palin, etc..)
- And in the general election...he'll need to moderate his message and paint himself as a moderate reformer who isn't George W. Bush...but also is opposed to Obama's policies.

[Aslan]

I had make two posts because of a 10,000 word limit.

What else could change the dynamic??
- Wars/Conflicts (very bad leaders are usually born out of chaos and war and poverty. GW would not have won a second term if it weren't for 9/11.
- Economy collapse (same as above)
- Black lives matter
- Immigration

Now, the bottom two are interesting because they are new (the top 2 have always been possible game changers throughout history). Immigration is an issue most Americans are torn on. We are a nation of immigrants with a Statue of Liberty that asks other nations to send us their poor, tired people who yearn to be free. Yet, we also as a country are starting to see our entire middle class collapse...where most new jobs created in the last 8 years in California going to illegal immigrants. Each side THINKS they know what America wants concerning immigration; but even most Americans aren't quite sure.

And Black lives matter...but not in the way you think. I'd love to support Bernie. He's my guy. He's the best of 5-15 evils. BUT....in an earlier debate when asked if Black Lives Matter or All Lives Matter. He and Hilary both said "Black Lives Matter". And they, as well as the President, as well as numerous liberal bloggers...have tried to explain that by pointing out what they meant....but their explanations make a couple assumptions that I don't think most Americans agree with.
1. That most Americans are racist.
2. That blacks are being hunted for sport by police officers on a regular basis.

Those SEEM very, very far fetched to most of us...but those ARE the assumptions used to explain why "All Lives Matter" is wrong. Who started black lives matter? It started after the Trayvon Martin killing/trial. But guess what....George Zimmerman was found not guilty in a court of law. Look at the list below:

1) Trayvon Martin- Gunned down by an idiot....but only after said idiot was attacked, punched, and pushed to the ground.
2) Ferguson, MS- Micheal Brown...shot by a cop AFTER Mr. Brown roughed up a convenience store clerk, stole merchandise, then tried to get a cop's firearm.
3) Guy in New York. A record a mile long....illegally selling cigarettes...dies of a heart condition while resisting arrest.
4) Man shoots at a van of black teens during an altercation at a gas station about their music.
5) Baltimore- Guy dies in a van after resisting arrest and carrying a knife.
6) Kid shot by cops because the kid was carrying a toy gun but had removed the parts on the toy gun that make it appear to police as a "toy".

The "problem" is...MOST AMERICANS....(i.e. the ones voting for you in the general election)...would look at the above list and probably not charge ANY of those white/latino men with murder. The general public has very little compassion for criminals, regardless of skin color. It's possible, that Black Lives Matter will cause such a stink during this election cycle that it'll backfire and people like me...will vote for Trump, because he's saying All Lives Matter and Blue (police) Lives Matter...and meanwhile Black Lives Matter is blocking freeways, irritating people, and generally making the same mistakes as were made during Occupy Wall Street. The Democratic candidates are out of touch on this issue...and if Black Lives Matter continue to force them left...they will suffer for it in the general election.

[JasonNJ]

Congrats Bowling God!!!! I know you have some problem being called that but it doesn't mean anything, just think of it this way, without your post a lot of entertainment value on the board would be gone and you would be sorely missed.

[fordman1]

Aslan maybe if you broke that up into 15 posts rather than 2 more people would read and respond to it.

[Aslan]

Thinning the Herd: Who drops out first?

For Democrats it's easy. O'Malley at this point is just spending the rest of his campaign money to promote himself and audition for wither a VP gig, a cabinet gig, or maybe a fun in the future (since he's relatively young).

For Republicans it's a bit more difficult. If I had to guess or I was a betting man...I'd say;
1) Rick Santorum- A solid 1-4 finish in Iowa could propel his campaign into New Hampshire and maybe South Carolina...but his stances are really more designed to excite the middle of the country (the red area, evangelicals, bible belt, etc...) and he's going to be very irrelevant if he can't get traction in Iowa or South Carolina.

2) Mike Huckabee- My favorite "person" in the race...but his crazy religious platforms are not going to get as little traction on the east coast as Santorum's will. He also needs a #1-#4 finish in Iowa...and a good showing in South Carolina to keep trucking along.

3) Jim Gilmore- "Who?" Exactly.

Now it gets trickier;
4) Ben Carson- He likely will stay in past Iowa...but his campaign has completely eroded and he really doesn't have a good "lane" other than the evangelical lane...and again, that lane doesn't start playing well until a little later. A strong finish in Iowa (#1-#4) would likely push Santorum and Huckabee out and those votes will not all go to Ben Carson...and even if they did...he's still about tied with Rubio for 3rd right now. Once Trump took his "outsider" lane away from him and Fiorina...Carson has really struggled. I think he'll finish 5th or 6th in Iowa and be out after South Carolina.

5) Carly Fiorina- At this point even she isn't egotistical enough to see a relevant shot. She'll probably finish < 4% in Iowa...and without any momentum at all is likely just pulling a Martin O'Malley and hoping for a VP nod or some other political relevance she can use to get a political gig of some kind or entertainment gig. She had momentum early, but she's simply a less experienced Ted Cruz clone and can't play the outsider card because Carson stole her thunder early and Trump is now dominating that lane. I predict, IF Trump falters...she would be a strong contender for the VP nod from the remaining candidates; especially Ted Cruz. The RNC knows that there is just too much excitement about a female President and to quell that...a female VP is almost mandatory...despite the horrible result of pairing Palin with McCain last time around.

The it gets really tricky;
6) Chris Christie- My Republican favorite going into this whole thing...but all he's been is a loud, obnoxious guy from New Jersey that is perpetually trying to convince a party that sees him as a moderate...that he in fact a very conservative governor. Very poor strategy. Had I been advising him, I'd have had him focus on his ability to get things done as a conservative in a blue state. I'd have had him constantly talk about police and how they're being treated unfairly due to this racial divide...and instead of going after Hillary Clinton every 6th word...which is just an easy applause line in the primaries...have him go after some of the really unpopular decisions by Obama and Eric Holder and whoever replaced him. It'll cost him the liberal black vote...but guess what? He wasn't getting that anyway!! His attempts to "out Trump Trump" and "out conservative Ted Cruz" have failed miserably. He can't stick around until June and hope that New Jersey gives him a bump. He'll be out sometime in March. He doesn't need the attention because he's already well-known...and he's not on any VP short lists unless maybe Bloomberg runs.

Bathroom break/Post Break for easier reading/digestion....

[Aslan]

Post Bathroom Break (continued);

Now it gets tougher but also easier. Tougher, because this could change depending on momentum. Easier because we know the primary schedule and where these guys are going to get their support (or lack there of).

7) Rand Paul- Big bummer for me as he's my pick for Republican candidate. I think after last night's solid performance, he'll surprise people in Iowa...I predict maybe a #4 finish (see below). But he'll at least let things play out until Kentucky holds their caucus March 5th...but he's just too radical and really...this terrorism focus killed his campaign.

That being said, my advanced prediction of the Iowa results (just to see how close I get vs. the polls) area as follows:
Republicans:
Trump; 33%
Cruz; 19%
Rubio; 8.9%
Paul; 8.2%
Carson; 8.1%
Bush; 6%
Huckabee; 5%
Santorum; 4.6%
Fiorina; 3.3%
Kasich; 3%
Christie; 0.8%
Gilmore; 0.1%

8) John Kasich- March 15th is when Ohio primaries occur. If he doesn't have momentum by mid-March, then he'll wait for Ohio to vote and then hope he gets picked up as a running mate given he's popular in a swing state.

9) Jeb Bush- He'll hold out until Florida votes March 15th...he has the money to let things drag out...but his best shot was to convince Rubio to join him as his VP...an all-Florida ticket would have been great for that key swing state...but instead, in this bizarre-world-election...he got sick of Trump making him look stupid and took it out on Marco...and there ended that bromance.

10) Marco Rubio- Marco's problem is he's soft on the ONE issue that Donald Trump has used to define this primary; immigration. He and Jeb have tried to appeal to conservatives and their sense of welcoming immigrants...but the anger over border security has bubbled over to a point...it really doesn't give Marco a lane to run in. He can't out conservative Ted Cruz...he's definitely not an outsider...and much of his would-be supporters are split between him and Bush. I don't see him sticking it out much into April...the writing will be on the wall by then.

That should make it a 2-way race between Trump and Cruz...officially. It already kinda is...

And that race will depend on a lot of things. Mainly, can Teflon Trump continue to say anything and everything about anyone and any person...twitter wars, going after conservative staples like right wing radio and Fox News...yet not go "just a bit too far". If Trump does suddenly exit...the race would become wide open for whomever is left. And to some extent...That's why I think a lot of these folks may ride things out until late March...because the country knows a meltdown is coming...we're waiting for it...we're waiting for that Ross Perot moment where Trump tells some fantastic story about the NSA and FBI threatening his family or something like that. He's already said he could shoot somebody on 5th avenue in broad daylight and still win...don't put it past him to test that.

Theres LOTS of conservatives I know...that are really not liking Trump as their candidate...some even threatening to vote for Hillary instead...which I doubt they will...but they may want to reconsider that. If Rand Paul loses...and John Kasich can't get traction...and Marco trailing Cruz by a fairly sizeable margin...Trump is easily the RNC's best shot at winning the general election. Cruz looks way, way better to primary voters...a Cruz/Fiorina ticket would excite them to no end! But that ticket has almost 0% chance in a general election against Hillary or Sanders.

Why? The tea party and far right of that party are selling something the majority of Americans are not buying. And whats sad is...they don't see it. They are on some kind of island...listening to podcasts of Mark Levin and Sean Hannity and Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh and ignoring every single piece of evidence. Each election they claim their candidate is a lock to win...yet their party was only able to win the popular vote once since 1992. Once in over two decades. And rather than moderate their policies...they actually are doing the reverse strategy...attacking their own. John Boehner, Mitch McConnell, Jeb Bush, Ronald Reagan, George HW Bush, George W Bush, etc... Right wing radio has taken an approach...that if you just elect a guy like Ted Cruz...a TRUE conservative...the country will throw a ticker tape parade. Nothing could be further from the truth.

1) The country doesn't believe in trickle down economics anymore. Karl Rove and George W...they failed at it...BIG time. Government got bigger, the debt went up, the economy collapsed to it's worst point since the great depression and the rich got richer and the poor got poorer. The ole fashion Reagan-esque Republicans could always run on tax cuts and usually win. Then they got rid of a lot of the taxes...now people don't care as much. The idea that if you give a billionaire 100 million dollars and he uses it to build a plant and put people to work...that era is dead. Global trade made it irrelevant.

2) Most people want affordable health care. The Republicans keep attacking Obamacare. What is "Obamacare"? It's the "Affordable Care Act". People don't like it, it's not perfect...but while simply making fun of it is good radio and good for Fox News ratings...the general electorate want an alternative solution. The Republicans don't have one. And even worse...their critique of it as an "entitlement" program ONLY works if seniors don't connect the dots to Medicare. Medicare is also, an entitlement program...it just happens to be the only one the Republicans won't touch...because old people vote.

3) The countries stance on social issues like Gay Rights and fair pay and closing the income gap...these are issues Republicans used to be able to either ignore or make fun of...with no consequences. The country's acceptance levels have changed over the last 20 years. We're a more secular country. The Supreme Court has already ruled on abortion and gay rights and Obamacare. Attacking these things now is not as popular as it would have been in 1990.

How does the "Grand Ole Party" convince young people to vote for their guy over Bernie Sanders? Bernie promises them healthcare, promises them affordable college, promises to close the income gap. And somehow do all of this AND stop global warming. The Republicans need something to sell. And it can't be tax cut, that well ran dry. Trump could win. It's a scary concept...but this country doesn't want the bull-poo right wing radio is shoveling...and once the entire country gets to vote (general election)...uh oh. No more applause from the peanut gallery when you say Benghazi. Your leading candidates are a millionaire investor who has said SO many arsanine things....that he's on the edge of electability...and a congressman from Texas who is part of a Congress with an 18% approval rating. The general electorate doesn't think 18% is something to be proud of...the way Cruz does.

Not sure how I'll vote. I like Bernie...but he's kinda cooky...and like Hillary I'm pretty sure as a white male...me getting gunned down by a homeless black ex-felon who Jerry Brown let out of prison early...will probably be looked at as my fault. And Hillary's foreign policy record is abysmal...and that's the nice way to say it. Rand Paul would be a welcome option, but that ain't likely to happen. Could I bring myself to vote for Trump? My head is starting to hurt just thinking about it.

[fordman1]

It looks like god has spoken. Cruz has won in Iowa. Evangelicals would vote for a chipmunk if he prayed with them.

Iowa is a joke with their caucuses. One vote one person. You go to a caucus and get bullied into voting for someone who you don't like or just leave and go home.

[Aslan]

It looks like god has spoken. Cruz has won in Iowa. Evangelicals would vote for a chipmunk if he prayed with them.

Iowa is a joke with their caucuses. One vote one person. You go to a caucus and get bullied into voting for someone who you don't like or just leave and go home.
Yeah. It's kinda a cool process...but some people have anxiety issues and such an event would be a nightmare!

It's gonna be interesting.

The DNC wants Hillary. The RNC wants Rubio.

The PEOPLE...are not happy with Obama and his second term and are not happy about illegal immigration. Hillary and Rubio are the weakest on immigration (other than perhaps Sanders) and Hillary defends Obama's record and wants to further it. Thus, they have not been doing as well as their organizations would have hoped.

For the Republicans...it's a choice of the establishment Rubio, the outsider Trump, or the tea party Cruz. As a Republican voter, Cruz wins on conservative values and Christianity...but is a distant 3rd in electability in a general election.

Cruz is a product of the tea party and right wing radio and Fox News. Like Frankenstein, they've created this monster...and now have no idea to deal with it. Those people on that end of the spectrum see every conservative failure as an example of the candidate not being conservative enough. McCain; not a true conservative. Romney; not a true conservative. Meanwhile...those are two VERY conservative men. Boehner; not a true conservative. McConnell; not a true conservative. Reagan; not a true conservative. Trump; not a true conservative. And maybe....maybe they're right. But that ISN'T why they are losing the general election.

Trump is the backlash by moderate conservatives...that want straight talk back in the process. On electability...not "good"...due to a pleuthara (no idea how to spell that) of personality faults that most are surprised haven't sunk him long ago. He's personally the least electable person imaginable. BUT...he can sway the conservative moderates in a general election. If he stays strong, tries to limit his Twitter activity, and picks a solid VP candidate...he could win a general election against an unpopular Clinton and socialist leaning Sanders. And that scares the entire World; not just the US.

Rubio/Bush was the biggest mistake of this election. Two guys from a swing state...friends, mentors...similar politics...it could have been a dream ticket for the RNC to have Bush/Rubio. It would have gotten them at least some Hispanic voter support...plenty of money in the coffers...and Rubio still appeals at least somewhat to the tea party and both to evangelicals. But instead, they've attacked each other viciously. I think Rubio feels that if Trump implodes...and as other candidates start bowing out...he could get back near the top of the leaderboard. Before this started I predicted Clinton/Rubio and I still think that's where it's headed...no matter ho much moderates hate it.

On the left...Sanders is the real deal. And whats funny is...BOTH sides have failed to deal with him. Hillary has only now started to see him as a legitimate threat. The DNC is scrambling to "fix this". Obama reached out to him last week; probably trying to get him to ease up a little on Obama's legacy. I imagine the white house made some sort of deal that if he softens his attacks; maybe Obama stays out of the way and doesn't rally support to Clinton.

The right is making an even sillier mistake. They are actually trying to push him as a candidate. They WANT Bernie as the opposition. They still fear Clinton and her political machine...and are ignoring the current societal undertones. Some societal undertones SHOULD be ignored. The biggest threat to the Democrats taking the Presidency in 2016 is #blacklivesmatter. Most voters aren't black. They condone #blacklivesmatter the same way they condoned illegal immigration. They see it as a joke of a movement; much like OccupyWallStreet...and most moderates will stand my law enforcement over some career criminal that may or may not have been going for a cop's gun in an altercation. Here's a quick hint....don't do that!! I'm white...but if I steal things from a liquor store or cell cigarettes illegally...I may get a lesser sentence...maybe...than a black man committing the same crime...maybe...but if I go for a cop's gun...I'm just as shot no matter what color I am. This infatuation with race reform and prison reform...this infatuation with trying to solve every problem with gun control...these are winning issues in the primary...but could be devastating in a general election.

But the right doesn't think Bernie is a threat. Why not? He's a Socialist. Okay, define Socialist. "A man that believes the government should own everything and distribute wealth among it's citizens." Nope. That's close; that's communism. Socialism, in it's purest sense, if more like hippie communes where everyone shares everything equally. It doesn't involve government much at all. What Bernie is, and should have never used the term socialist to describe, is a "populist". That's the equivalent of being a "bigger government" kinda democrat. That's all it is. And Republicans think it's an easy KO...because "socialist = bad" and "big government = bad". The problem is....those are only "bad" in right wing media. Everywhere else, those are considered rather progressive, yet positive things depending on the discussion:

"School Lunch"; big government. Most people want school lunches left alone.
"Medicare"; big government entitlement. Neither party will touch it...old people vote.
"lower college tuition"; big government. Most people support college loan and tuition reform and free college.
"universal health care"; socialism. Most people want a solution to the rising health care costs other than "anything but...insert Obamacare reference".

And there's a lot of issues like that. The country is becoming more secular, more progressive, more populist. As long as that's seen as a "good thing" by most people...it doesn't matter what Sean Hannity thinks. And if the RNC doesn't start bridging some gaps...then they simply sit back and wait...until the Democrats screw up (or embrace the wrong hippie initiatives like blacklivesmatter or amnesty or sweeping gun controls, etc..)...and the country shifts in a different direction.

And you're right...the evangelicals have always been a problem. The abortion debate was settled 40 years. The gay marriage issue is a lost cause. Yet any candidate can win Iowa by just pounding on those issues and making promises. Huckabee was ranting about overturning the Supreme Court's decision on Roe vs. Wade. What!?? Even in a massively one-sided super majority...where most of the country is leaning that way...overturning a supreme court decision essentially takes a constitutional amendment. Not always, it depends on the issue whether a new law will solve it...but with abortion, it would take a constitutional amendment. That's 2/3 of both houses PLUS 75% of the individual state legislatures.

Whats silly is, in essence, the PRESIDENT has the LEAST to do with that process. The Executive Branch can't really do anything about abortion or gay marriage. If evangelicals TRULY wanted those things changed...they'd prefer to keep Cruz in the office he's in. They'd want to elect Huckabee to congress...not to be President. The President's only real involvement is Supreme Court Justice selection...which still needs to clear Congress. It's a lie. It's a lie that evangelicals choose to believe...that a President Huckabee on Day 1 will throw RoevWade in the garbage can. It's not a law...it can't be vetoed. The Executive branch has no jurisdiction. It's simply people in this country...not understanding the basics of what one would learn in high school Civics.

[fortheloveofbowling]

Aslan, have you ever owned a business or are you aware of how consumer and employer confidence works? Bernie sanders mere presence in the white house would make job creation come to a grinding halt. Also, you think there is gridlock in congress and senate now..... Wait till the vote comes up for the wack job ideas he has. It is like the kid in high school running for class president saying this week Van Halen will play during lunch and next week the Rolling Stones will be here if you vote for me.:rolleyes:

18 TRILLION in new taxes over 10 years..... OK there are roughly 122 million people employed full time. If you increase the taxes on the top 10% (12 Million) that would be 1 Million 5 hundred thousand extra taxes over 10 years. In 2014 there were only 10 Million households with investable assets of 1 Million dollars. So how much do you tax the very upper % and how much does his pie in the sky ridiculousness going to cost the everyday job creators and middle class workers? Those are the questions that lead to consumer purchase drop offs and employer lay offs.

[fordman1]

I could have sworn that I heard we were the greatest country in the world? Then why don't we have free health care? Everybody else does and with us being so great we would not have to raise taxes that much. Maybe if we quit fighting wars for everyone and cut the military in half.

[Hot_pocket]

Aslan i don' think standing behind the blacklivesmatter group will hurt them that much because it wont just gain the few black voters, but those who sympathize with the movement. There are plenty of people out there that understand the inequality, that most people refuse to except is real, in this day and age. No-one knows what happen to Travon martin because he's dead and the only credible story is Zimmerman's. The same guy who has now been arrested for different assault charges an hasn't done jail time. Based on opinion he sort of premeditated his use of force because he continued to follow Travon to a point where he caused the confrontation, even after being told not to follow him by dispatch. What happened in Baltimore was a the outcome of poor judgment regardless of what he was said to have. The other incidents you can't really argue. Those aren't the only incidents though. Another black man was shot in the staircase of his building by an officer because the officer was startled by him. Then a man was shot because the cop asked him for ID and he reached in the car to get it. Then a man was shot while in his car for trying to pull off from a traffic stop. Then the icing on the cake the guy shot in the back while running away because of an arrest warrant for child support. The worse part of that was he tried to lie an say he had his taser, when you can clearly see him throw it on the ground next to him in the video. Some will not agree of course because they believe a "criminal" deserves what they get, regardless of what they did, even though racially it seems only black criminals receive harsher punishments for same or lesser crimes. ( hope that made sense). I look at it this way, everyone swears Bernie will raise the debt even higher with his "crazy" ideas, But people had no problem/ gave 2 damns when it was being raised for a meaningless war. We also have the funding for his idea once we end war based on the numbers. I can't vote for trump because he's just too wild. He's like Frank Underwood from House of Cards. I think he will cause us to end up in another war due to his ignorance alone. People also don't realize while he talks all crazy, he is making those he talks about hate AMERICANS, not just himself because we let it happen and some support him.

[fordman1]

Why don't we train Police officers how to (if Necessary) shoot without using an entire 16 round clip and not stop shooting until they are sure the peep. DEAD.
Why don't parents teach their kids to not argue, fight or run from Police officers?
Would it be possible to get Donald Trump to negociate trade agreements for the USA? That I would trust him to do. The rest of being Pres. No NO NO!

[NewToBowling]

I just love how DeMarcus Cousins found the monkey t-shirt offensive when they were celebrating the Chinese New Year. Yes, it's the year of the monkey. They were celebrating another culture. But somehow if it's offensive to you it must be removed. It's not always about YOU. It wasn't derogatory but celebratory. Talk about hyper sensitivity.

[Jessiewoodard57]

At this point the American public does not have a chance. No matter what party occupies the Whitehouse and congress they will be ONLY for themselves. What does a rich man care about the middle class? They are all in it for what they can bleed their fellow man out of. They promise us the moon and then once they have our vote they give us the shaft. If you where to compare the modern day United States to colonial England you would not see much of a difference. We fought the revolutionary war partially because of taxation without representation and now our "representatives" (and I use that word lightly) dream up new ways to reach even deeper into our pockets. Government for the people by the people has become all but none excitant. Our fore fathers would be shocked at the total misuse of power by all 3 blanches. Every branch now writes laws. Executive orders should not be a norm but it is! I wonder how many dead or undocumented people will be casting votes this election? Lord help us the foxes have the hen house.

[Aslan]

Aslan, have you ever owned a business or are you aware of how consumer and employer confidence works? Bernie sanders mere presence in the white house would make job creation come to a grinding halt...So how much do you tax the very upper % and how much does his pie in the sky ridiculousness going to cost the everyday job creators and middle class workers? Those are the questions that lead to consumer purchase drop offs and employer lay offs.
Again; this is all about assumptions you are making...

You are working off the trickle-down economics model that tax cuts and less regulation will (WILL...or at least "Probably Will") lead to job growth. That is one of the biggest lies many people believe. It simply doesn't work in a global economy:
1) Any business owner (who is honest) will admit that "taxes" rank well behind demand in terms of the decisions they make regarding expansion of their business. If I own a pizza store, and it's packed, and a building is for sale down the road that could better accommodate my growing business...I will look at all the financials, then determine if it makes sense. Taxes are a small, tiny part of that decision. Remodeling, land purchase, start-up costs, additional employees, etc...these far outweigh taxes financially speaking.

2) If you are a business owner, the profitability target is usually around 8% because it was always the logic that bank accounts (savings) and/or real estate could offer 2-5%...and the stock market 6-7%...so it makes sense to be an entrepreneur if you can get 8% or better. Larger businesses aim for more in the 10-12% range but have a "cushion" should they fail. (They may miss their target, but are still profitable) Smaller businesses have a target on par with both demand and their own expectations.

For example; If I make 35,000/year and decide I want to open my own bowling pro shop....I need to make probably $75,000/year in profit in order to maintain my current standard of living and pay the mortage on the place or the fee to the bowling center...and I need to cover my own benefits.

But here's where conservatives try to "trick us". They say things about taxes crushing their business...then claim they have to lay people off or downsize...then take a trip to Tahiti. They NEED to make lets say $75,000...and lets say they WANT to make...$150,000. If one year, they make $120,000....they cry FOUL! Regulations and taxes are KILLING them!! Are they? So, you used to make $35,000....you could maintain that same lifestyle on $75,000 profit....you make $120,000 profit...??????

And this is the problem with the Republican party and why Bernie Sanders is resonating with folks. It's not that business owners are going under due to Obamacare or the EPA or any other "socialist" thing Ted Cruz hates. It's the question Republicans HATE more than any question in the World....What is ENOUGH? What amount of money is "enough". At what point, can you AFFORD taxes? Conservatives HATE that question...corporations hate that question.

The reason why populists are becoming more POPular is because of the failed policies of George W. Bush. I know conservatives want to pretend he doesn't nor ever did exist....but this a guy who ran on the Karl Rove platform...the RNC platform. The government had our money (surplus, thanks Bill Clinton) and GW was going to give it all back! He sent us all checks for like $400 or something. And the rich and corporations (job creators?) got even more. And, if trickle down economics WORKS....those JOB CREATORS should have created jobs....but they didn't.

And I can attest to this better than anyone. Without naming names...the company I worked for was a large, large corporation and was buying up smaller corporations pre-2008 market collapse. What they were also doing, was taking all those wonderful tax cuts...and opening some brand new, beautiful, big factories...in China. Then, market collapses...the company started closing down every US plant they could. All over the country...New Jersey, Mississippi, Michigan...but not China. China was going to be the next superpower....cheap, ample supply of labor....billions of potential consumers. And the US plants paid the bill. They made the goods, sold em, made profit....profit went to enhancing their holdings in South America and Asia.

3) Trickle down economics has FAILED...because in a global society...with no restrictions on tax breaks (Bill Clinton actually cut taxes but had requirements that domestic job creation be part of the deal...much to the shagrin of corporations back then). If you gave Henry Ford a tax cut, he built a plant in Indiana. You give Ford a tax cut now, they build a plant in India or Shanghei or eastern Europe. Anywhere labor costs are low. I'm not saying it never worked, but it can't work now. Now all it does is redistribute wealth to the top 9%.

4) A strong economy needs consumers. Consumers need "discretionary income". That comes from wages and wage growth. The biggest mistake corporate America makes (over and over again) is to celebrate companies that "cost cut" by laying off thousands and thousands of workers. It's seen as a "strength" of a manager...that he/she can make those tough decisions. But what is the macro effect of laying off 1000 people. Those 1000 people have lost their income and now have virtually no discretionary spending. That means...profits for the corporations sink further....more layoffs. It's a viscious cycle. And the more people left jobless and homeless...the more wealthy the top 2% get....because their money is based on perception....by the stock market. Then one day, even some of the top 6-9% start getting hurt as markets take a tumble. Want an example? Henry Ford made a car (Model T) that he wanted affordable enough that those making it could also buy one. On the flipside, Tesla makes cars most people can't afford....and Tesla, with it's soaring stock price....darling of the stock exchange...is not a profitable company. It only makes money because it is subsidized by the government....heavily subsidized. Why are our tax dollars going to prop up a company that makes products 98% of Americans can't afford?

So, NTM (who I sorta think is Iceman...like an alias we wouldn't figure out....but I sorta don't think that....posts are too short and properly spelled....hmmmm...), to answer your question...I support Bernie's populist ideas economically speaking because he is simply trying to get rid of wealth inequality that globalization has led to in this country. And not to be an alarmist, but if wealth inequality gets too much worse...you'll have far more serious problems. Our solid middle class is the bedrock of our country...it's what makes us better than China and other countries. If we lose that...and it's been eroding for decades...we're done. US power is not it's military...it's the US consumer. We dictate terms because if we don't buy their stuff...even though we are just one country of many...it cripples the other country. And, that's another lie that gets told....that we can't embargo China or they will embargo us back. That's a valid argument when both countries are 50/50 importers/exporters...otherwise...not a solid argument at all. China stops buying our goods, we go into a recession. We stop buying Chinese goods...China collapses upon itself and starves to death. Russia already showed what happens when you have a strong military and no economy....you can't support the military.

What is really going to hurt Bernie is the social stuff. He's already seen as a left-wing nut job...but moderate white males are willing to buy in....barely. But as soon as he starts pushing prison reform and starts aligning himself with extremists from the left (like blacklivesmatter)....many moderates will just hold their nose and flip a coin...and either vote for Hillary, Trump, or Rubio. Rubio wants open borders. Hillary is also in bed with blacklivesmatter....uh oh, that leaves Trump. How tempted will I be to stay home if that's the only option I have? Very tempted. I won't....but I'll be very tempted.

[Aslan]

Aslan i don' think standing behind the blacklivesmatter group will hurt them that much because it wont just gain the few black voters, but those who sympathize with the movement.
What sane white person would support a group with relatively no actual "things they want" who essentially are mad because either they can't commit crimes without a cop shooting them or if they already committed a crime and didn't get shot (the VAST majority of them)....that they are in prison. When you commit a crime...what 'should' happen?

Mike Brown....assaulted a gas station clerk, stole things, and attacked a cop. In "Black Candy Land" (where I assume most blacklivesmatter protestors live)....what SHOULD the sentence be? What about repeatedly, illegally selling cigarettes? Like the fat guy in New York? What about homeless black men threatening people with knives and hopped up on drugs? Are we as a society being unfair in some way....by expecting citizens to abide by the laws of the land? Should we decriminalize assaults and theft and cigarette tax stamps?

[Aslan]

There are plenty of people out there that understand the inequality, that most people refuse to except is real, in this day and age. No-one knows what happen to Travon martin because he's dead and the only credible story is Zimmerman's. The same guy who has now been arrested for different assault charges an hasn't done jail time. Based on opinion he sort of premeditated his use of force because he continued to follow Travon to a point where he caused the confrontation, even after being told not to follow him by dispatch.
If Trayvon WAS concerned for his safety, he should have went to a neighbor, called 911, etc... He did NONE of that. Instead, he texted his girlfriend bragging that he was going to beat up some white fool that was following him. No, we weren't there. Yes, it was a tragedy that didn't need to happen. Yes, George Zimmerman should bring about reforms of neighborhood watch groups all over the country. I would even support some type of "Trayvon's Law" where strict provisions are established for neighborhood watch groups. But to claim a teenage thug who had a chip on shoulder...and DECIDED to physically assault someone....is probably innocent. Well, we had a trial...the facts were discussed. In my opinion, they got the criminal call right and the neighborhood watch group should have been forced to pay all funeral expenses and legal fees as a civil penalty.

But again, we "assume" George Zimmerman just up and decided to "hunt a black kid" that evening. That's just not what happened. An overzealous idiot...with self esteem issues...decided to play "hero"....got his *** kicked by a teenager....and in the course of the altercation...a young man lost his life. That's tragic. No more or less tragic than any of the thousands of other young men who have lost their lives...unless you're racist...then I guess it is more tragic. I don't know...not racist.


What happened in Baltimore was a the outcome of poor judgment regardless of what he was said to have.
I think, and the trial isn't over so I hate to speculate on limited information; but I think the cops were very negligent by not strapping the guy in. But this wasn't a "choir boy" who was trying to cooperate and got hurt by racist police. This was an unstable individual with a weapon...that was not cooperating. It's also possible...be beat himself to death in the back of the van. Doesn't excuse negligence...but does it excuse a riot? Whenever we disagree with something we're allowed to just take over some women's clinic or some state park in Oregon or burn down a neighborhood? Blacklivesmatter is playing a dangerous game...hoping that most Americans will tolerate their lawlessness because it's "in fashion".

What happens if on the way home tonight...BLM decided to pull another stunt where they lay out in the freeway to block traffic. And lets say, I'm not in a good mood....which is what California traffic generally results in....but I KNOW....I can't just drive through them. I'll get killed or arrested...and it's not in line with my values. BUT...lets say I get out of the car and start (in a not nice way) tell them to get out of the to road so traffic can move? And what if...that isn't a very popular position among this large group of protestors? What if they decide to attack this white male who is "keeping them oppressed"? Will the death of one innocent white person cause the country to suddenly say, "Okay....it was cute in the beginning...but it's gotten out of hand." How many white people and cops have to die before BLM loses it's "shine"? Because it's coming. It's already almost happened many times from malls to streets. White people have too much to lose....so they retreat into their houses, they call the police, they avoid shopping where BLM is protesting....but once those two groups clash...well, a minority group is a scary thing right up until the point the majority decides to do something about it. And God help us when that day comes. And God help the Democrats if it happens during the 2016 election cycle. Now that both Bernie and Hillary have openly defined their allegiance to BLM...they are now very vulnerable should that group continue away from peaceful protest and instead move towards being generally a violent public nuisance. We've watched many conservatives win in landslides on the "law and order" platform.



Another black man was shot in the staircase of his building by an officer because the officer was startled by him.
I almost got shot outside a police precinct in Detroit by two cops when I was trying to report my car stolen. If your job involves getting shot at...you tend to not be the perfect person to approach suddenly. Tragic, but it happens...and being startled has nothing to do with race.

[Aslan]

Then a man was shot because the cop asked him for ID and he reached in the car to get it. Then a man was shot while in his car for trying to pull off from a traffic stop. Then the icing on the cake the guy shot in the back while running away because of an arrest warrant for child support. The worse part of that was he tried to lie an say he had his taser, when you can clearly see him throw it on the ground next to him in the video. Some will not agree of course because they believe a "criminal" deserves what they get, regardless of what they did, even though racially it seems only black criminals receive harsher punishments for same or lesser crimes. ( hope that made sense).
All valid points....but the problem with basing a case on "examples"; is I can find 5 contrary examples to each of those points. Easily. For every guy shot by a cop for reaching into his glove box to get papers....(sounds fishy)...there's at least 3 cops gunned down at traffic stops. What about the woman who died in custody after refusing to cooperate during a traffic stop? That's a "tragedy"? The "tragedy"....is she was that stupid not to comply with the armed police officer and supply her liscence and registration like 99.997% of other people would do. You're right HP...I have very little tolerance for people who break laws and figure if they turn their back and run...they get to get away free. What if someone murders? Or rapes? Or burns a families house down? At what point would cops be allowed to shoot said person...even if they turn their back and run the other direction?

I face that question myself sometimes. If someone breaks into my place...I'm probably going to shoot them. I don't want to. I don't have a sign outside my apartment asking people to come in and steal stuff and then I jump out of a closet and yell "Gotcha!" and gun them down. But, if you're going to break into someone's home....what else are you capable of doing? And do I want to take the chance that you're just a foolish person who broke in accidentally or was just trying to steal my Xbox to sell it and buy a loaf of bread? I'm guessing statistically....the excuses said person could give me for breaking into my apartment that would cause me to take pause (in shooting them)....about 0.0003% of break ins occur accidentally or for "good" reasons. The rest are criminals who make a living stealing things. That their job...that's the profession they've CHOSEN. Okay, one serious risk of that profession...you could get shot. That's part of the gig.


I can't vote for trump because he's just too wild. He's like Frank Underwood from House of Cards. I think he will cause us to end up in another war due to his ignorance alone. People also don't realize while he talks all crazy, he is making those he talks about hate AMERICANS, not just himself because we let it happen and some support him.
Maybe. I don't buy the idea that Americans cause people to hate us. It's the same as the crime/punishment argument. Sure, economic factors are the root cause of why young black me (especially) often choose a path of crime. Absolutely opportunity can go a LONG way in solving a lot of crime/punishment issues. But that doesn't give a person the right to break laws...and there a LOT...a LOT of very bright, successful, admirable black men and women...that have fought those odds...and won. We see racial progress all around us. We have a 1/2 black President....as few as 10 years ago....most people would say that could never happen in their lifetime. We are seeing progress. So this idea that because things are "harder"....I'm just gonna kill a guy and take his stuff....to accept that is okay...is not only wrong, but it's a slap in the face to great black men and women that have succeeded and that ARE succeeding.

Same thing with the middle east. They don't hate us because we're in Saudi Arabia. They don't hate us because of the Iraq war. They don't hate us because of people like Trump. They 'hate' us...because they are jealous. They live under a rock in a desert and believe that everyone should follow their religion. Like a blacklivesmatter....but instead of sitting in a mall cussing at white people...they chop people's heads off in front of their families. Definitely not on the same 'level' by any means. If you're not a Muslim...they hate you. Trump doesn't change that. 9/11 happened BEFORE the Iraq war (the 2nd one)...not as a response to it. So, are we just going to 'leave'? Say, "okay...you hate us...you hate President Trump (yuck!)....we're going home...we're leaving Israel...we're abandoning our bases in Saudi Arabia and Turkey...we're done!" What do you think will happen? They all just come together like the last scene in "The Grinch Who Stole Christmas" and sing songs and hold hands? Is that what is going on in Iraq now?

If I were running for President, my foreign policy would be simple; walk softly, but carry a big stick. The post WWII philosophy. For example, ISIS. Here's a solution. We have hundreds and hundreds of nuclear missles. A gigantic, crazy amount. We haven't actually used one....ever. The bombs in WWII were tiny and very early models...nothing like today. I would simply "test" a few of them to ensure they work properly. Tell Turkey, Russia, Syria, Iran, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia to pull their troops back...give em 5 days or so...then in a matter of 45 minutes...you can drive 3 missles into the center of their strength. Try to limit casualties of innocents as much as possible...but this is a war...and living under ISIS rule ain't no vacation...so lets actually do something foreign to our government....something.

Now, will people be mad? Sure. People always get mad about one thing or another. Countries will claim it violates the Geneva convention...etc, etc, etc...whine festival...blah blah blah....who cares?? That's right...who cares? What, they're going to unite against the US in a WWIII? Not likely. Unless the missles are duds... Sanctions?? Please. Any country that enacts sanctions against the US would see their stock market collapse the next day. And our stance, much like China's illegal stance that they can create an island in the ocean and claim it and the surrounding waters as theirs, is that the Geneva accords don't apply to states that wear no uniforms, have no recognized country they are associated with, and continually violate the Geneva accords on a regular basis.

After the nuclear strike...we join the other nations and force ISIS back into the radiation zone. Once they are defeated, we go in and (with the other players in the region), we divide up Syria and Iraq between the players...just like we did with Germany...when Germany decided the entire World belonged to them and were putting people in ovens. And, bonus...it does five rather good things:

1) The missles work. Great, live test demonstation. Wonderful. If they don't work as well as we thought....we can learn from the experience.
2) No Americans die in an initial ground assault.
3) It's far less expensive ($$$) than a 6-12 year ground invasion fighting house to house.
4) It sends a very strong message that America is "leading" again. And we are willing to do everything in our power to protect American lives and property.
5) It sends a message to North Korea and Iran...that simply defying the Geneva Accords...means those protections are invalidated. If countries are going to refuse to comply with the Geneva convention...the interpretation of the United States is that any requirements or protections granted under the Geneva Accords to not apply to you.

We then re-build, with our allies, the entire Iraq/Syria region...just as we did post-WWII. We commit to a long-term rebuilding....we do everything we can to clean up any radiation issues resulting from the missles. Each country (US & allies, Turkey, Russia, Iran, Saudi Arabia) will be responsible for a certain region. The Saudi's, Turkey, and the US will split Iraq into 3 Sunni regions and help to rebuild it. The US will help give birth to a strong, peaceful Kurdistan. Russia will assist Assaad and Syria. And Iran will help with a 4th region of Iraq/Syria which is mostly Shi-ite.


Why don't we train Police officers how to (if Necessary) shoot without using an entire 16 round clip and not stop shooting until they are sure the peep. DEAD.
Standard firearms combat training dictates that IF deadly force is required, you never shoot to maim or injure. If the gun needs to be drawn, and fired...the goal is to kill and eliminate the threat...not to "wing him" so he's easier to apprehend.


Why don't parents teach their kids to not argue, fight or run from Police officers?
Mine did. Which is one of the leading reasons I haven't been shot by a cop yet...regardless of my race.


Would it be possible to get Donald Trump to negociate trade agreements for the USA? That I would trust him to do. The rest of being Pres. No NO NO!
No way. With HIS ego? Not to mention...I have a feeling "Trump Enterprises" would get a LOT of contracts and kickbacks. Donald claims he's a business whiz...but he's also a guy that created "Trump University"; which was a scam to trick people into giving him money. They thought it was to meet Trump and learn his strategies, but all they got was to get their picture taken next to a cardboard cutout of Trump...and a presentation on how to borrow a bunch of money and max out credit cards to pay for Trump University. Trump would be a stronger candidate if we could trust him. And even though "TRUst" and "TRUmp" seem similar....not so much. :(

[Aslan]

This has been a bad day politically. Rand Paul was my only Republican choice I could realistically see myself voting for...now he's gone...dropped out.

Next best options....Trump or Rubio....neither of which would make me happy.

If Bernie doesn't win...and I gotta choose between Hillary and either of those 2 clowns...I don't know...maybe I'll write my own name in or something.

[fortheloveofbowling]

Again; this is all about assumptions you are making...

You are working off the trickle-down economics model that tax cuts and less regulation will (WILL...or at least "Probably Will") lead to job growth. That is one of the biggest lies many people believe. It simply doesn't work in a global economy:
1) Any business owner (who is honest) will admit that "taxes" rank well behind demand in terms of the decisions they make regarding expansion of their business. If I own a pizza store, and it's packed, and a building is for sale down the road that could better accommodate my growing business...I will look at all the financials, then determine if it makes sense. Taxes are a small, tiny part of that decision. Remodeling, land purchase, start-up costs, additional employees, etc...these far outweigh taxes financially speaking.

2) If you are a business owner, the profitability target is usually around 8% because it was always the logic that bank accounts (savings) and/or real estate could offer 2-5%...and the stock market 6-7%...so it makes sense to be an entrepreneur if you can get 8% or better. Larger businesses aim for more in the 10-12% range but have a "cushion" should they fail. (They may miss their target, but are still profitable) Smaller businesses have a target on par with both demand and their own expectations.

For example; If I make 35,000/year and decide I want to open my own bowling pro shop....I need to make probably $75,000/year in profit in order to maintain my current standard of living and pay the mortage on the place or the fee to the bowling center...and I need to cover my own benefits.

But here's where conservatives try to "trick us". They say things about taxes crushing their business...then claim they have to lay people off or downsize...then take a trip to Tahiti. They NEED to make lets say $75,000...and lets say they WANT to make...$150,000. If one year, they make $120,000....they cry FOUL! Regulations and taxes are KILLING them!! Are they? So, you used to make $35,000....you could maintain that same lifestyle on $75,000 profit....you make $120,000 profit...??????

And this is the problem with the Republican party and why Bernie Sanders is resonating with folks. It's not that business owners are going under due to Obamacare or the EPA or any other "socialist" thing Ted Cruz hates. It's the question Republicans HATE more than any question in the World....What is ENOUGH? What amount of money is "enough". At what point, can you AFFORD taxes? Conservatives HATE that question...corporations hate that question.

The reason why populists are becoming more POPular is because of the failed policies of George W. Bush. I know conservatives want to pretend he doesn't nor ever did exist....but this a guy who ran on the Karl Rove platform...the RNC platform. The government had our money (surplus, thanks Bill Clinton) and GW was going to give it all back! He sent us all checks for like $400 or something. And the rich and corporations (job creators?) got even more. And, if trickle down economics WORKS....those JOB CREATORS should have created jobs....but they didn't.

And I can attest to this better than anyone. Without naming names...the company I worked for was a large, large corporation and was buying up smaller corporations pre-2008 market collapse. What they were also doing, was taking all those wonderful tax cuts...and opening some brand new, beautiful, big factories...in China. Then, market collapses...the company started closing down every US plant they could. All over the country...New Jersey, Mississippi, Michigan...but not China. China was going to be the next superpower....cheap, ample supply of labor....billions of potential consumers. And the US plants paid the bill. They made the goods, sold em, made profit....profit went to enhancing their holdings in South America and Asia.

3) Trickle down economics has FAILED...because in a global society...with no restrictions on tax breaks (Bill Clinton actually cut taxes but had requirements that domestic job creation be part of the deal...much to the shagrin of corporations back then). If you gave Henry Ford a tax cut, he built a plant in Indiana. You give Ford a tax cut now, they build a plant in India or Shanghei or eastern Europe. Anywhere labor costs are low. I'm not saying it never worked, but it can't work now. Now all it does is redistribute wealth to the top 9%.

4) A strong economy needs consumers. Consumers need "discretionary income". That comes from wages and wage growth. The biggest mistake corporate America makes (over and over again) is to celebrate companies that "cost cut" by laying off thousands and thousands of workers. It's seen as a "strength" of a manager...that he/she can make those tough decisions. But what is the macro effect of laying off 1000 people. Those 1000 people have lost their income and now have virtually no discretionary spending. That means...profits for the corporations sink further....more layoffs. It's a viscious cycle. And the more people left jobless and homeless...the more wealthy the top 2% get....because their money is based on perception....by the stock market. Then one day, even some of the top 6-9% start getting hurt as markets take a tumble. Want an example? Henry Ford made a car (Model T) that he wanted affordable enough that those making it could also buy one. On the flipside, Tesla makes cars most people can't afford....and Tesla, with it's soaring stock price....darling of the stock exchange...is not a profitable company. It only makes money because it is subsidized by the government....heavily subsidized. Why are our tax dollars going to prop up a company that makes products 98% of Americans can't afford?

So, NTM (who I sorta think is Iceman...like an alias we wouldn't figure out....but I sorta don't think that....posts are too short and properly spelled....hmmmm...), to answer your question...I support Bernie's populist ideas economically speaking because he is simply trying to get rid of wealth inequality that globalization has led to in this country. And not to be an alarmist, but if wealth inequality gets too much worse...you'll have far more serious problems. Our solid middle class is the bedrock of our country...it's what makes us better than China and other countries. If we lose that...and it's been eroding for decades...we're done. US power is not it's military...it's the US consumer. We dictate terms because if we don't buy their stuff...even though we are just one country of many...it cripples the other country. And, that's another lie that gets told....that we can't embargo China or they will embargo us back. That's a valid argument when both countries are 50/50 importers/exporters...otherwise...not a solid argument at all. China stops buying our goods, we go into a recession. We stop buying Chinese goods...China collapses upon itself and starves to death. Russia already showed what happens when you have a strong military and no economy....you can't support the military.

What is really going to hurt Bernie is the social stuff. He's already seen as a left-wing nut job...but moderate white males are willing to buy in....barely. But as soon as he starts pushing prison reform and starts aligning himself with extremists from the left (like blacklivesmatter)....many moderates will just hold their nose and flip a coin...and either vote for Hillary, Trump, or Rubio. Rubio wants open borders. Hillary is also in bed with blacklivesmatter....uh oh, that leaves Trump. How tempted will I be to stay home if that's the only option I have? Very tempted. I won't....but I'll be very tempted.

So the answer is no, you have never owned a business or managed a business and have no clue what you are talking about is my take from that uneducated ramble. Uneducated from the standpoint of business ownership and management obviously based on your ability to post multiple paragraphs of seemingly knowledgeable rederick.

[Hot_pocket]

Aslan i feel as if you missed my point. The point of my examples were to show the why BLM, nice abbreviation, has the momentum it has. In my opinion it is logic like yours as to which leads people to say, wtf. How is it travon was a thug? He was a teenager with skittles and ice tea. He was being followed by a grown man and if he shot him in self defense would it have gone the same way? I know thugs...he wasn't one. I feel People based that notion of his "thug life" off of Facebook pictures with him flipping the camera off, which has been done by rockstars decades ago. As for the contrary examples being asked to reach for your ID or registration should not end in you being shot, period. If you don't do it then you're disobeying the law, which you just said shouldn't happen, but a fear of it possibly happening leads to people freezing up. Don't get me wrong I know the dangers of law enforcement. I'm a LEO, not a cop but a C.O. I deal with the thugs. One thing I've learned though is not all criminals are the same. However if you let the media paint the picture a rapist, killer or person who doesn't pay child support are all the same. There is no point where you should be able to shoot someone who is fleeing because of what they might do in the future. You aren't a fortune teller and a criminal doesn't always remain a criminal. The BLM protesters that are shown on TV aren't all the BLM protesters, just the ones who can boost ratings and if you ask me allow the media to continually flame the racial tention. I really don't think it will hurt either of them in the end, not in this day and age.

[Hot_pocket]

I just love how DeMarcus Cousins found the monkey t-shirt offensive when they were celebrating the Chinese New Year. Yes, it's the year of the monkey. They were celebrating another culture. But somehow if it's offensive to you it must be removed. It's not always about YOU. It wasn't derogatory but celebratory. Talk about hyper sensitivity.
This was extreme ignorance on his behalf. They should have continued with it anyway if you ask me

[Hot_pocket]

What sane white person would support a group with relatively no actual "things they want" who essentially are mad because either they can't commit crimes without a cop shooting them or if they already committed a crime and didn't get shot (the VAST majority of them)....that they are in prison. When you commit a crime...what 'should' happen?

Mike Brown....assaulted a gas station clerk, stole things, and attacked a cop. In "Black Candy Land" (where I assume most blacklivesmatter protestors live)....what SHOULD the sentence be? What about repeatedly, illegally selling cigarettes? Like the fat guy in New York? What about homeless black men threatening people with knives and hopped up on drugs? Are we as a society being unfair in some way....by expecting citizens to abide by the laws of the land? Should we decriminalize assaults and theft and cigarette tax stamps?

Once again thats the logic of someone who see's one side of it. There are sane white people out there that can see the inequality you seem not to be able to see. It's about equal treatment, that's what they want. I don't live in blackcandyland as you call it, just like you dont live in white utopia, unless you feel you do. I shouldn't have to fear being stopped an search because I'm black, that's the issue. That fat black guy was named Eric, illegal chokehold for illegal cigarettes? Seems fare to you I guess. It wasn't OK. He could have been restrained other ways. They aren't arguing for cops to stop shooting those who deserve it they argue that cops need to be held more accountable for bad judgment calls, only when necessary of course.

[fordman1]

There has to be a better way to arrest people than shoot them. Are we a society of brutal dictators. What has happened to humanity. There has to be some way to do it rather than shooting hundreds of bullets into a car. One incident had a cop jump up on the hood and empty his clip into dead people who had already been shot like Bonnie and Clyde. Issue more taxers or any thing but shoot until they are mutilated.

My advice to any young white or black person is to not resist at all and kiss their *** to stay alive.

[fordman1]

Since this a political post I will state that the more a candidate mentions their faith or religion the less likely I would vote for them. It is more of a disqualifier than a plus.

[Aslan]

So the answer is no, you have never owned a business or managed a business and have no clue what you are talking about is my take from that uneducated ramble. Uneducated from the standpoint of business ownership and management obviously based on your ability to post multiple paragraphs of seemingly knowledgeable rederick.

Please enlighten me then. I'd love to see a business open their books and show how tax increases/decreases were the leading reason they choose not to expand their business despite a market of increasing demand and decreasing supply.

You don't have to own your own business to understand simple economics. And every business owner I've ever heard speak on the subject, when truly pressed on the issue, will admit that the demand for their product is a far, far, far more important factor in whether they expand or invest more in the business than taxes could ever be.

To prove the point, would you open a business where there is no demand for and oversupply of the product you are offering? Assuming the government agreed you pay zero taxes...would you open the business...with no customers...no demand for your product...but hey, at least the taxes column in QuickBooks is a $0??? Really??

It's like capital gains or the lottery. You have to pay 49% on lottery winnings. You spent $2 and won $200 million. The government asks for 100 million in taxes. You can decline because you feel the tax rate is unacceptable. Or, you can do what just about 100% of the population would do and collect your 100 million and walk away a happy man/woman. Is capital gains double dipping? Sometimes. Depends on the person I guess. But you don't need to invest in the stock market if you have another way of making 6-12% on your money. Nobody has a gun to your head forcing you to invest in shares of Google, WalMart, and Tesla. Feel free to put your money in a cookie jar or in your mattress or in a safe 1% interest bearing account. Buy some gold or some real estate. Maybe some collectible or something. Nobody forces you to pay capital gains tax. But the simple math of the equation is if you can net more money in the stock market...than you can elsewhere...even after capital gains is taken out...that's what you'll do.

Is it fair? I dunno. Who cares? Life isn't "fair". What did Paris Hilton do to become a billionaire? College? Innovation? Cured a disease? Nope. She just was born. Others are also born...but maybe into a less "Hilton-esque" environment. Is that "fair"? Is it some buddist religion thing where it's fair because in a past life Paris Hilton was mother Teresa and the rest of us were *^holes? Maybe. I dunno. I don't really care about 'past lives'.

So, "yes" I have managed a business. But "No" I have never owned a business. But, I've never failed at owning a business. Would I be a better person to comment had I opened a pizza parlor next to 3 other pizza parlors and then went bankrupt? Or is it only if I could find a way to blame taxes for my failure? I'm confused.

[Aslan]

How is it travon was a thug?
Definition of Thug:
- Bowling ball by DV8.
or
- a violent person; usually a criminal.

According to the accounts believed by a majority of his peers (jury); he attacked a man, knocked him to the ground, and smashed his head repeatedly into the pavement. That would meet the definition of "battery", which is a crime...and is a violent act. Therefore, by simple definition....he is/was a "Thug".


He was a teenager with skittles and ice tea.
What if he wasn't? Mike Brown wasn't. He was walking through a neighborhood he didn't live in, a neighborhood that had experienced recent break-ins. Do we 'know' why he was walking through that neighborhood. I don't care what stuff he bought at the convenience store or his favorite candy....I'm more interested in what he was doing there...and Zimmerman was too. That's how neighborhood watches work. Granted, at least he didn't man handle the cashier and steal the skittles and iced tea (ie M. Brown)...but still. Why do we give him a 'automatic pass' that he was some choir boy with candy and tea?


He was being followed by a grown man and if he shot him in self defense would it have gone the same way?
Probably. Hard to say for sure. But the law in Florida does allow one to stand their ground and given the circumstances, the irony is, that he could have shot Zimmerman and got away with it using the same law Zimmerman used. Do you have any (non racist) reasons for assuming it wouldn't go the same way?


I know thugs...he wasn't one. I feel People based that notion of his "thug life" off of Facebook pictures with him flipping the camera off, which has been done by rockstars decades ago.
Why do you automatically assume he is not a thug? What would someone have to do to meet that definition according to you?


There is no point where you should be able to shoot someone who is fleeing because of what they might do in the future. You aren't a fortune teller and a criminal doesn't always remain a criminal.
Statistically speaking, most criminals remain criminals. White, black, Hispanic, Asian....doesn't matter. The rehabilitation rate for criminals is astronomically low.

I was having this conversation with a co-worker this morning. If a person breaks into your home, and is attempting to steal your (insert anything like a TV, IPod, IPhone, Xbox, etc...); SHOULD you have the right to shoot them? The law says, only if you feel your life is in grave danger. So could I break into your house, announce that I am simply there to steal your stuff....and am no threat to you or your family....I'll be out of your hair in 4 minutes...and I'm too big for you to detain physically...should you be able to shoot me?

What if I committed a violent crime? I don't want to get graphic...but use your imagination. I break into your house, take a break from stealing stuff to do something horrible to your family, but immediately afterwards announce "I apologize for that! I will never, ever do that again....I am NOT a threat to you and your family...I am just going to leave peacefully with your stuff." Can you shoot me? I'm leaving. Are you gonna shoot me in the back as I'm leaving your house?

What things play into this determination of 'right' versus 'wrong'? If I decide to let the man go with my Xbox because hey, I can was going to get a new Playstation 4 anyways....no sense killing a person over. What if that person goes to my neighbor's house and murders him and his family because they resisted? Is that my fault? Should I have stopped him when I had the chance? Or am I "predicting" things that won't happen?

My take is this. When you DECIDE/CHOOSE (it's the criminal's choice) to enter a person's home...when you've entered uninvited with intent to commit a crime (violent or non-violent doesn't matter)...you have CHOSEN (remember, it's their CHOICE) to risk your life. You're right, I can't predict what that criminal will or won't do. I have to work with the knowledge and facts I have:
1) This person is willing to break the law.
2) This person is desperate enough to risk his/her life to commit a crime.
3) This person does not respect me nor what is mine.
4) This person has questionable moral judgement.
5) There is zero indication that should I allow this person to leave, he/she will not commit additional crimes.

So yes. I would kill them. Entering, leaving, sitting around smoking a blunt, climbing over my balcony, taking a bath in my bathtub....it doesn't really matter what their intentions are. It doesn't matter their 'justification'. They CHOSE that life. Now, do we need someone like Bernie Sanders to start to close the income gap and give more opportunity to minorities and those that are vulnerable to get into a life of crime....absolutely....100%. I support that whole heartedly. But will I cry a tear for a person that doesn't even respect me enough not to steal from me? No. And I will answer for that. In California...I'll end up in prison for God's sake. But I don't care. I don't answer to Jerry Brown. I will have to answer for my choices, someday. And when I stand before God and St. Peter...I have to hope that God sees my actions as protecting myself, my home, my family, and my community...not as a careless act of violence against God's children. And my faith prohibits me from assuming what that judgement will be. But there's right and there's wrong. We can tolerate the wrong or we can oppose it.


It's about equal treatment, that's what they want.
If I go for a cop's gun in Chipotle while they are eating lunch....I'm just as dead as a black man going for a cop's gun. It's not even a debate. Is affirmative action "equal" treatment? Are reparations for slavery "equal" treatment? I once had a coworker that was abusive towards me in the office. Many a day I had to either go home early...or stay and take the abuse. Don't get me wrong...I could have easily "dealt with" him. He was older and handicapped from a stroke he had before I knew him. He did stuff that you hear and think, "Really? No he didn't. Really?" He stole my corporate credit card number and bought stuff at a smoke shop. He had my phone pranked called 100s of times. He even had brothels and massage parlors send me appointments to my work email. He even physically abused me....hitting me with a golf club and throwing ice cubes at me. Do you know why I can't make a workplace harassment claim against him with the State? Because I'm a male and I'm white. See, in order to claim workplace harassment, I have to be in a "protected class". Unfortunately, white, male, and Christian....are the 3 non-protected classes. Where is my "equal treatment"?



I don't live in blackcandyland as you call it...I shouldn't have to fear being stopped an search because I'm black, that's the issue. That fat black guy was named Eric, illegal chokehold for illegal cigarettes? Seems fare to you I guess. It wasn't OK. He could have been restrained other ways. They aren't arguing for cops to stop shooting those who deserve it they argue that cops need to be held more accountable for bad judgment calls, only when necessary of course.
You do remember that said 'Eric' had a rap sheet a mile long and was twice the size of the cops who arrested him right? So you think selling illegal cigarettes isn't a crime that a person should be harassed about? See, that's what I meant by "black candyland"....this belief that some laws we have to follow and some laws we don't. This belief that a person should only be shot...if they have a gun out, loaded, pointed at a cop, and have no other excuses for their actions...such as they are poor or from a bad area, or an immigrant, or homeless, or drug addicted, or abused....insert any excuse.

The events you brought up....every single one...could have been prevented by the person who died. Black parents, please stop telling your kids white people and cops are out to get them.. Please stop chipping the shoulder of our minority youth so that as soon as some idiot white guy asks them what they are doing...they don't feel that it is 'okay' to just punch the guy. Mike Brown could have NOT stolen things....NOT roughed up a clerk...NOT been walking in the middle of the road...NOT responded violently to the cop...and NOT went for the cop's gun. Multiple bad decisions. Eric (Gardner or Garner?) could have chose a LEGAL profession versus an illegal one. He also could have surrendered to police when confronted. He also didn't need to be 450 pounds and in such bad physical shape that wrestling with cops is a fatal activity. Lots of bad decisions. And even the kid that got shot with the toy gun. Toy guns have inserts in them to stop the very thing that happened from happening. If your kid removes those...then takes said gun out in public....that's questionable parenting.

I guess my point is, as much as you think there is some bias against other races, which I absolutely admit exists...you seem very comfortable with the concept of excusing every type of lawlessness. It's like, you want criminals to be brought to justice...but only if they do something really, really, really bad...and even then...only if they turn themselves in or can be brought in alive versus shot. And you seem to excuse their behaviors as being normal.

[Aslan]

There has to be a better way to arrest people than shoot them.
Meanwhile, that's the BEST way to arrest someone. It costs less and is 100% effective at getting them to stop committing crimes. Just saying.


My advice to any young white or black person is to not resist at all and kiss their *** to stay alive.
Maybe even go one step further and just agree not to commit crimes? I have a FAR less likely chance of getting shot by a cop by NOT committing a crime than I do because I happen to be white. Believe it or not. White people DO get pulled over too...again, believe it or not. And it's not any less of an inconvenience and is no less scary. It's not like the cop gets out of his squad car, walks over, and looks in the window and says, "Hmm....I thought you were black. My bad." Believe me, it doesn't work like that.

H***....I even had to get out of the car once and put my hands on the hood and get patted down. I did something that I never do...and haven't done since...I parked in a handicap parking space in front of a pizza joint while I ran in and grabbed my order. It was maybe 90 seconds. And in that time, someone walked by my car and keyed it end to end...then the cop showed up as I started to leave. I was so "nervous", I forgot to tell the cop when he initially came over...that "I had a permit to carry a firearm and had said firearm on my person." That's a big "no, no" when you carry a firearm concealed...you always, always have to tell a cop that pulls you over about the gun. Even if I didn't have it with me, I errored on the side of caution and would often tell them I had a permit to carry concealed but was not presently carrying.

Well, lets just say he didn't find my accidental omission very cute and I got to stand behind my car and get patted down in front of like 15 bystanders. The only good news is I think he felt so bad for me that I didn't actually get the ticket....which was significant, like $300-$400 or something. Never even considered parking in a handicap spot again...I'll park 2 blocks away and walk if I have to. But did I get off easy because I was "white"? I don't think so. I was smart....I was cooperative...I was pleasant. I knew that the cop was in a bad spot because he has to look out for his own safety and doesn't know me from Adam. So I didn't do anything stupid.

[Tony]

Please enlighten me then. I'd love to see a business open their books and show how tax increases/decreases were the leading reason they choose not to expand their business despite a market of increasing demand and decreasing supply.

You don't have to own your own business to understand simple economics. And every business owner I've ever heard speak on the subject, when truly pressed on the issue, will admit that the demand for their product is a far, far, far more important factor in whether they expand or invest more in the business than taxes could ever be.



To assume that a basic understanding of simple economics would enable you to decide that the demand for product would support expansion is one of biggest mistakes you could make.

For one thing what is the profit made on the product, what kind of a product is it, what resources does it take to make it, do you make it or source it out, whats the break-even quantity, what's the future projected demand. if the product is low margin and you are already producing to capacity of plant and equipment it's unlikely that expansion is a smart business decision.

It would be wise to have an in depth knowledge of cost accounting, first of all there are many factors the average person would not think to consider for example, What is the opportunity cost associated with reallocation of scare resources from one product to another product ? What about plant capacity and allocation of production space, consider equipment costs, What if your machine can make 1000 parts a day, what is your cost to expand to make 1200 parts, you have to allocate more space, more employees, capitol, and will the added output of 200 units payback the cost of a 100,000 for machine and setup. Certainly taxes, labor cost, energy costs, potential shift in demand, competing supply are all factors that would need to be considered.

While rising demand begs to look into the opportunity of increasing production, rising product demand in itself is certainly not the most important factor in expanding and investment in a business. Lets not pretend a basic knowledge of economic principles will provide you with the expertise required in these situations to determine what the best course of action will be.

As far as the issue of taxes compared to demand the answer is not as clear cut as it might seem, there are many factors and many different type of businesses. Making general statements as if they are fact or apply to every business based on limited actual knowledge are simply uneducated opinion and are generally of little value.

Yes, I have owned businesses and ran businesses and believe me there is a difference. I have a strong feeling you would be quite surprised at some of the factors driving business management that seem on the surface contradictory of basic logic, but that's what you get with many of the regulations and tax laws that companies deal with.

[Hot_pocket]

This was the account of Zimmerman because a dead man can't tell his side of the story. Yes he had bruises but did he not instigate the situation? As you said there is no argument about that he should have obeyed the order to not follow, simple as that.
I do know why he was walking through that neighbor and now i can assume you followed the coverage of the case very lightly. It was known he was coming from a store going home. When has it become a crime to walk in a neighborhood that is not yours? Do you not drive through neighborhoods other than your own? Once again to assume someone is going to commit a crime is not based on recent crimes in the area doesn't make it ok. Call the cops and let them handle it.


I don't have a non-racist reason. The same state jailed a black women, where you can stand your ground, for firing a shot in the air to scare off her abusive boyfriend. So tell me again how it seems oh so equal? No-one was killed or hurt but they made sure they charged her with something.

You are 100% right about that, I never said what happen with mike brown was wrong either so there is no point in that statement. Affirmative action is very equal if you understand the reason behind it, which i'm sure you dont because you're questioning it. Statistically minorities were less likely to be hired than whites, even if they possess the same or even greater skill level. It was also a way of undoing years of inequality, but most don't see it that way because they think in the now. What reparations for slavery are you speaking of? I really don't see us receiving land as the native Americans have. Let's get real about what you're saying. You can report it if you want. There is a thing called lawsuits, where if an employer takes disciplinary action against you for reporting any kind of workplace misconduct, you can sue the bank accounts off of them.
Once again you have missed my point. I did not say people should not be punished for their crimes. I said you should meet force with force in police sense. I know the difference as iv'e stated my career has taught me correct use of force and its a huge part of my job. Don't get me wrong a person breaks into my house and I'm most likely shooting them, but I'm also trained to possibly arrest someone without firing my weapon. A person should be allowed to defend their home without fear of consequence, obviously. What ifs however, don't hold up in the court of law so i'm assuming serving a life sentence for murder in the defense of stopping a possible future crime, is ok with you ?
I am beginning to believe you read to critique instead of understand. The term black candyland by the way is very racist and explains alot. I never once said they should not be held accountable. If you believe every situation calls for a gun to be used because the person is a criminal then you don't understand anything about the law.

You brought up the events, I gave my side about them. We don't teach our children that contrary to belief, society does. Just as based on your response I know society has taught you some really half way explained and one sided things. Tamir rice had a toy gun and it was a good shoot by the officer. Mike brown fought the cop it was a good shoot by the officer Eric Garner was chocked, bad decision by the officer. black kid defending himself is a thug but the shooter who started it all and wanted to avoid losing so he claims self defense. Last time i checked kids make their own decisions and lie to do things. The bad decision was whoever bought him the gun know the difference.
It seems as if you believe officers should never be responsible for their actions when they are wrong.

[fordman1]

Easy fix No one is allowed to have a gun out side of their home unless it locked up and in the trunk or rear of the vehicle. If a person getting arrested or stopped doesn't have a gun you can not shoot them. Sure there will be a few years to get through to the gun nuts but in the end I will feel safer going to the mall or a ballgame.

[fortheloveofbowling]

Easy fix No one is allowed to have a gun out side of their home unless it locked up and in the trunk or rear of the vehicle. If a person getting arrested or stopped doesn't have a gun you can not shoot them. Sure there will be a few years to get through to the gun nuts but in the end I will feel safer going to the mall or a ballgame.

ATTENTION ATTENTION ALL HARDENED CRIMINALS: You must leave your gun in the trunk of your vehicle from now on.:rolleyes: What if the guy JUST has a knife, crowbar, or basically is just going to beat you to death? At what point does a police officer or anyone have the right to save his or her life? There are police officers and instances that are just criminal like the guy unloading 16 shots or whatever it was on the guy wandering down the middle of the road for example. But if anyone is threatened with what they perceive in good conscious as a life threatening situation then it comes to what it comes to and hopefully the good side wins.

[fordman1]

If a police officer sees you out side of your house he has the right to shoot you. Leave your guns at home son, leave your guns at home. Having a gun on the street is an admission of guilt!!!

[Hot_pocket]

Easy fix No one is allowed to have a gun out side of their home unless it locked up and in the trunk or rear of the vehicle. If a person getting arrested or stopped doesn't have a gun you can not shoot them. Sure there will be a few years to get through to the gun nuts but in the end I will feel safer going to the mall or a ballgame.

This is like walking around the ally during a rainy day with no shoe cover, pointless. Who spends $400 on a gun to not be able to use it if necessary. I'm no gun nut but the saying goes its better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it. You should want someone who is conceal carrying around, they can protect themselves and you in a bad situation. Remember the bad guys don't follow laws so this would just be allowing them to commit crimes more freely.

[Hot_pocket]

If a police officer sees you out side of your house he has the right to shoot you. Leave your guns at home son, leave your guns at home. Having a gun on the street is an admission of guilt!!!

WHAT? so you walk outside an officer shoots you, you say, "what was that for?" he says "it's my right" you say "oh ok, hunny call 911 i've been shot, its all a big misunderstanding? concealed carry is not an admission of guilt its the admission that there are ******** that might shoot you in this world.

[fordman1]

If it is against the law to go out with a gun why would you have one concealed? You are a criminal. You don't need a gun in
the greatest country in the world.

[Tony]

Easy fix No one is allowed to have a gun out side of their home unless it locked up and in the trunk or rear of the vehicle. If a person getting arrested or stopped doesn't have a gun you can not shoot them. Sure there will be a few years to get through to the gun nuts but in the end I will feel safer going to the mall or a ballgame.

How is that even remotely close to an easy fix, it's not easy, and it fixes nothing.

The folks carrying guns that you need to worry about are the criminals and gang members, they are not about to leave there guns in the trunk or follow any laws in general.

You can probably find an incident or two on legal permitted gun owners doing something wrong but you can find more where they saved innocent people.
How many legal gun holders are likely to hold you up ? Probably very few.

Why this would make you feel safer going to the mall or a ball game, I don't know? Do you expect the criminals to follow this gun law of yours?

There aren't many things the average criminal with a gun is afraid of but one is running into a trained and armed person.

The constitution gives us the right to bear arms, we should not give that up under the false guise that it will reduce crime. Look at gun related crime in Chicago with very restrictive gun laws, it doesn't work.

There are better ways to reduce gun crime, what about increasing the points ( federal crime ) by a significant amount or making any person using a gun in a crime automatically tried as an adult, making any crime where criminal has possession of a gun a class B felony ( 25 years to life) ... those are some significant penalties that have a better chance of making a difference.

[Timmyb]

If it is against the law to go out with a gun why would you have one concealed? You are a criminal. You don't need a gun in
the greatest country in the world.


And you, my friend, are a stone cold anti-gunner. This is the only way to explain a statement like this.

[fordman1]

If you ever get to stand over a dead body of a young child shot with their parents gun tell me how you feel. If you think it is easy to shoot someone do it. No matter if you actually think it is justified. Even shooting and not knowing if you hit anyone. Go ahead be a cowboy.

[classygranny]

If you ever get to stand over a dead body of a young child shot with their parents gun tell me how you feel. If you think it is easy to shoot someone do it. No matter if you actually think it is justified. Even shooting and not knowing if you hit anyone. Go ahead be a cowboy.

This is poor gun management and parental error - has nothing to do with gun laws.

[Timmyb]

If you ever get to stand over a dead body of a young child shot with their parents gun tell me how you feel. If you think it is easy to shoot someone do it. No matter if you actually think it is justified. Even shooting and not knowing if you hit anyone. Go ahead be a cowboy.

I stood next to the body of a friend shot with his own gun, by his own hands. That doesn't change my opinion. A gun is a tool. No more or less dangerous than a hammer, depending on the hands they're in. Your irrational fear of them does not trump my Second Amendment rights.

[Tony]

If you ever get to stand over a dead body of a young child shot with their parents gun tell me how you feel. If you think it is easy to shoot someone do it. No matter if you actually think it is justified. Even shooting and not knowing if you hit anyone. Go ahead be a cowboy.

I feel the parents are at fault, but we weren't talking about young kids playing with guns anyway, we were talking about concealed carry and the right to have a gun. I have done considerable hunting and learned to shoot a gun in the service, I'm not afraid to shoot a gun and am a responsible gun owner.
If threatened or attacked I will use whatever means necessary to protect me and my family, if someone pulls a gun on me and I have the opportunity I will use my gun and fire until they are no longer a threat or I'm out of ammo.

[Tony]

If it is against the law to go out with a gun why would you have one concealed? You are a criminal. You don't need a gun in
the greatest country in the world.

About two weeks ago in a town near me that I often visit there was a series of incidents, four teenagers 14-17 committed 19 armed robberies in less than 9 hours. Seems the same kids were arrested last summer in a similar string of robberies, and they being minors were released to terrorize the community again. It's too bad that they didn't run into a concealed carry permit holder, could have put a stop to it.

Those are the criminals, it is not illegal to carry a concealed weapon if you are authorized and trained to do so. It's possible that were you live there is no reason for anyone to need a gun for protection, that's not how it is everywhere.
I don't currently have a permit, so I don't carry a gun but I do carry a good sized container if pepper gel for personal protection, the bowling center I bowl at has had people robbed in the parking lot twice in the last year..... I don't plan to be the next victim !

[Timmyb]

I don't currently have a permit, so I don't carry a gun but I do carry a good sized container if pepper gel for personal protection, the bowling center I bowl at has had people robbed in the parking lot twice in the last year..... I don't plan to be the next victim !


The center I bowl at is literally next to the police department. Strangely, we don't seem to have any issues......

[fortheloveofbowling]

This is poor gun management and parental error - has nothing to do with gun laws.

Parental error is a very kind way of putting it, i would describe that a little more harshly.

[Hot_pocket]

i think fordman1 is trolling...i cant accept the fact that he would be that naive.

[Aslan]

As far as the issue of taxes compared to demand the answer is not as clear cut as it might seem, there are many factors and many different type of businesses. Making general statements as if they are fact or apply to every business based on limited actual knowledge are simply uneducated opinion and are generally of little value.
So I make the assumption, based on knowledge of economics, that demand and other factors are far more impactful on business decisions than taxes. You list all those factors and then claim the tax issue is unclear but obviously I have no clue since I've never ran a business of my own. You did nothing but prove my point...and make me wonder if your business owning experience might not have been that great because if you think tax increases are the part of your balance sheet you need to focus most of your effort on...that calls into question your business ownership skills.

I'm not trying to be mean, but it's not even CLOSE. You're making one statement that taxes are a huge part of business owners making their business decisions...yet other than a gas tax affecting transportation companies....it's an absurd premise.


I am beginning to believe you read to critique instead of understand. The term black candyland by the way is very racist and explains alot.
My term "black candy land" was used to illustrate that blacklivesmatter is not living in "reality". Like many african Americans, there is this "chip on the shoulder" that has been passed on to them by their family and community and lack of diversity growing up. Just like redneck hillbillies that grow up hating black people even though they've never met one. It's reverse racism...but in this country we allow and in some ways celebrate reverse racism. As long as Al Sharpton, one of the most racist individuals in the country, has his own talk show on MSNBC...that speaks volumes.

The REALITY....is that 99.5% (or more) of cops preserve and protect. They provide a valuable service and every one of us that finds ourselves in peril....hope that we can count on them to respond and assist us. It is not REALITY...to assume that because a handful of people with cell phones have taken video of occasional events...that cops are generally on some mission to gun down every innocent black person in the country is ABSURD. It's NOT reality.

Did anyone ever apologize to Darren Wilson for ruining his career and screwing up his life due to the Ferguson incident? Doesn't Obama and Eric Cantor (also one of the most reverse-racist people to ever hold office) owe him an apology? Doesn't the continuing chanting of "Hands Up, Don't Shoot" only serve to make the overall message/point ridiculous? Chanting a slogan born out of a lie? Why were no people prosicuted regarding making false statements and filing false police reports during the M. Brown shooting? Why was his father/father-in-law not prosecuted for inciting a riot by screaming into the microphone that people should burn the city to the ground? Why is it Martha Stewart lied about a stock deal and goes to jail, but Brown's hooligan friend that was an accomplice to theft, assault on a police officer, fleeing the scene of a crime, then making false statements to police....yet he's never been arrested and charged with anything.

See, you live in "black candy land" because you don't see any of that as a problem. To you, the problem will always be white people and the raw deal blacks got dealt due to slavery. And there's now way out of that...no way for the country to move forward....because no matter how much progress we make (i.e. 1/2 black President)....there will still be people claiming the MAN is out to get them...telling their kids if a white person disrespects you, feel free to put him in his place (and hope he doesn't have a gun). If you don't get a job, it's racism. If you have no money, it's racism. If a cop pulls you over, it's racism. Must be nice to always have a good excuse for every single thing that goes wrong.


Easy fix No one is allowed to have a gun out side of their home unless it locked up and in the trunk or rear of the vehicle. If a person getting arrested or stopped doesn't have a gun you can not shoot them. Sure there will be a few years to get through to the gun nuts but in the end I will feel safer going to the mall or a ballgame.
100% agree given that criminals tend to immediately change their gun policies when new gun laws are passed. :confused:

[fordman1]

Aslan I agree with what you said to Hot Pockets. Add one thing. We must stop the police from covering up things the do wrong. That thin blue line must be ended. If a cop is a scumbag get rid of him and back up the 99.5%.

[Aslan]

Aslan I agree with what you said to Hot Pockets. Add one thing. We must stop the police from covering up things the do wrong. That thin blue line must be ended. If a cop is a scumbag get rid of him and back up the 99.5%.

I was thinking about this yesterday. You are absolutely right. Much like we call on Muslims to stand up against radical Islam...we need more cops standing up to their racist and/overly abusive officersand say, "enough".

I defend Officer Wilson due to his circumstance...but if I had to "guess"....I'm not so sure Officer Wilson didn't do something to encourage what happened. The way I see that exchange going was;

Officer: "Hey (n-word)!! Get out of the middle of the ******* road! Learn to use a sidewalk."

Now, that is simply a fictional storyline and I have no evidence of what happened...like the Trayvon Martin issue...we will never know the absolute truth. BUT...if it's a cop in a department that has "issues" dealing with the minority community...that's my best guess.

However, that doesn't excuse what M. Brown did. It's that simple. And this BLM narrative that because cops are sometimes racist or profile or whatever....that it justifies unrest, violence, and civil disobedience....that is NOT what Martin Luther King fought and died for and BLM should be ashamed of itself.

That's my opinion.

But, who cares? I'm not black. I'm not a cop. I got enough problems of my own so...I'll let other people figure that mess out. As long as BLM doesn't get in my way at a mall at Christmas time or doesn't lay down in the freeway blocking traffic while I'm trying to get somewhere....I'm good. BUT! If they DO get in my way....and it's been a long and bad day...and I haven't smoked any weed to help "mellow" me....I'm not saying I'll just drive through the crowd....but I'm not saying I won't. It could go either way. And if I DID...I'd get charged, I'd go to jail....life ruined, etc... And the people responsible for the incident to begin with?? Probably celebrated as heroes...I dunno....seems unfair. But I'm white and male....I can't claim "unfair".

NH Primary Predictions:

Sanders 52%
Clinton 48%

Trump 29%
Kasich 16%
Rubio 11%
Cruz 11%
Bush 11%
Christie 9%
Carson 9%
Fiorina 4%

If the above happens; bad news for Republicans. It'll keep Jeb in the race. Bad news for Christie and Carson as well...they are losing their path to the Presidency. And Fiorina is just an evil non-factor hoping for the VP gig.

[fordman1]

What about the cops in Chicago who all swore in their reports that their fellow officer shot and emptied all 16 rounds into a guy who was just walking home from doing nothing more than breaking into a few cars?

[Tony]

So I make the assumption, based on knowledge of economics, that demand and other factors are far more impactful on business decisions than taxes. You list all those factors and then claim the tax issue is unclear but obviously I have no clue since I've never ran a business of my own. You did nothing but prove my point...and make me wonder if your business owning experience might not have been that great because if you think tax increases are the part of your balance sheet you need to focus most of your effort on...that calls into question your business ownership skills.

Yes the tax issue is unclear, so you want to expand your business , of course you are aware of things like Tax Incentives. they are TAX advantages promised to companies to expand. How might that have a huge influence on your plans more potentially that only demand...

I didn't say all companies are focused on taxes nor are the focused on demand, I just said it depends because that is the correct answer ......

I did not prove your point because as usual your answer was finite. As most people would agree answers to more complex questions often have exceptions.

I like how you call into question the skills of anyone who dares to call you out. I guess trying to belittle others makes you feel better about yourself ......

I recall a time when name calling was a viable way to win an argument, I think I was ten .....

BTW every business I have owned or run has made money ......

[Tony]

What about the cops in Chicago who all swore in their reports that their fellow officer shot and emptied all 16 rounds into a guy who was just walking home from doing nothing more than breaking into a few cars?

Obviously an officer shooting someone 16 times for breaking into a car, is way beyond a reasonable reaction and that officer has some serious problems and people like that should not be police officers.

[fordman1]

I'm talking about the other officers who backed his story.

[Tony]

What about the cops in Chicago who all swore in their reports that their fellow officer shot and emptied all 16 rounds into a guy who was just walking home from doing nothing more than breaking into a few cars?

It says they swore he shot 16 rounds into a guy who was walking home from breaking into cars? Was that what they swore? Was that what the officer did ?

I take it from your other comment that the other offices swore to a false account of the incident, if so then they should face some disciplinary action. No question that is we are to obey and give respect to the officers they should act in a way that deserves it.

It's human nature to stick together but in events like this there is no question that they went way further than a slight bending of the facts....

[Timmyb]

i think fordman1 is trolling...i cant accept the fact that he would be that naive.


That's what I'm going with.

[Aslan]

That's what I'm going with.
I don't think so. If he's a troll, he's a rather good troll. Or a very bored troll. Trolls feed on more action than a bowling site can often offer. IMO


Obviously an officer shooting someone 16 times for breaking into a car, is way beyond a reasonable reaction and that officer has some serious problems and people like that should not be police officers.
How many times SHOULD a person be shot for breaking into a car?

Am I the only one that has ever taken combat training or even seen movies where combat training is being discussed? Even a Western?? C'Mon...bowling isn't on TV near enough for that to be the excuse. It's very simple:
1) Decision to use deadly force.
2) Shoot to kill.

Those are #1 and #2 and there's no #3. If you aren't going to use a gun to kill someone, you should NEVER take it out. You take out the weapon AFTER you've made the decision to use deadly force. Once that decision is made...you ALWAYS...ALWAYS shoot to kill.

The reason behind that is that usually #1 is justified by a fear ones own safety. So if an officer were trained to just maim a person...and they missed (because it's harder to maim than to kill...you have to aim for targets that are harder to hit)...their could be killed...because the opposition is not going to live by those same rules and guidelines.

Now, your response could be, "Why use deadly force for car burglary?" I would assume, without reading the article, that the officer felt the person was a threat to his or someone else's safety...maybe the officer was alone and the assailant larger. I don't have the details. But my first question in cases like these have nothing to do with the police officer. My first question is, what was the person doing before getting shot? If the answer is more towards "murdering someone" and less towards "attending Sunday school"....then I'm going to have a much different view.

Stop breaking into cars. I've never been shot even once by a cop. I've also never broken into a car. I bet there is a good correlation between not breaking into cars...and not being shot by police. How many times you are shot, is irrelevant. Cops are trained to shoot center mass and throw as much lead down field as it takes to completely incapacitate the assailant. He shot him 16 times, because he didn't have 17 shots.


Yes the tax issue is unclear... How might that have a huge influence on your plans more potentially that only demand...most people would agree answers to more complex questions often have exceptions.
So your first premise was that taxes affect business decisions a great deal....then when challenged you avoid the question and claim the other person has no business knowledge and thus their opinion should be marginalized...then when further challenged with real economic principles...you claim the other person is being mean and that everything is too complex for there to be an actual answer...so I guess your answer on taxes is still a 'good' answer.

1) Supply and Demand principles are the foundation of free market economics. They supersede what you believe, your political motivations, or how much experience you have as a shift manager at a restaurant. They are the FOUNDATION of economic principles. Anyone with actual business training or a degree in that field would understand this.

2) A person would NEVER...open a business in an area where the demand for their product is low, but the supply of competitor products is high. To do so, would require not just tax policies, but actual tax incentives. And if you are arguing for tax incentives, then you are not arguing for limited government...you arguing for a very expanded government that uses taxpayer money to circumvent the free market by "picking winners and losers". If I sell bicycles...and there's a town that wants bicycles and the town has a low supply of bicycles...it is a NO BRAINER that such a place would be a business opportunity. The only way tax policies would come into play is if we're talking about an extreme, almost despot type of scenario where the area had few laws, was high in corruption, low in security, and 'tax collectors' run a muck essentially 'stealing' from the businesses. That is a FAR cry from the scenario most companies face in the United States.

3) Again, you've never answered the original question. If a person makes a 1 billion dollars a year profit...and Obamacare reduces that profit to 500 million...a profit return that cannot be duplicated in the stock market, bond market, or real estate speculation...why does that same billionaire have the moral high ground? It's the essential question Republicans can't answer. What is "enough"? Just like Democrats struggle when asked about the 'fairness' of the progressive tax system...Republicans never seem to be able to accept the notion of being "rich enough".


I like how you call into question the skills of anyone who dares to call you out. I guess trying to belittle others makes you feel better about yourself .....I recall a time when name calling was a viable way to win an argument, I think I was ten .....
So, I offer a political opinion. YOU CALL ME OUT...as someone who obviously has questionable business skills and has never owned a business. I DEFEND my opinion....call YOUR skills into question....and I'm the 'bad' guy.

Tony...people that live in glass houses should not throw rocks. I'm not a bully, so I will refrain from responding to you from here on out. You are out of your league in this debate and it's not a fair debate for that reason AND for the reason that apparently I have to follow certain rules or I am behaving like a 10-year old...meanwhile you break those rules and it's perfectly acceptable. Difference between a primary election and a general election. In the primaries...you can be Joe the Plumber and repeat stuff you heard on the O'Reilly Factor and everyone cheers. In a general election, those myths get exposed and challenged.


BTW every business I have owned or run has made money ......
Obviously not 'enough' money. Otherwise you'd be more like Warren Buffet and less like Joe the Plumber.


...who was just walking home from doing nothing more than breaking into a few cars?
Really?? That's all? That poor, poor man. What kind of America do we live in where a person gets gunned down after an innocent and happy day of raping, pillaging, murdering, and stealing??

Oh wait....this is where I get told why some laws we are allowed to break and some laws we are not. Cheating on taxes, okay. Speeding, okay. Illegal entry into the United States, okay. Breaking into cars or homes, okay. Shooting a knife wielding drugged up maniac or a 280lb Mike Brown who is going for you gun..."burn this city to the ground"!!

Note: Regarding the city burning....also added to the list of "okays", blocking freeway traffic and rioting as well as making false statements to police officers.

[fordman1]

"GOOGLE" There is a video of the cop pulling up on scene. There are already 2 cars there. Middle of a 5 lane street.
The kid is walking away fairly slow ignoring the cops. The new arrival gets out of the car and empties his clip 16 rounds. Half after the guy is down and not moving. That's why he is charged with murder.

The guy in N.C. shot a guy for running away after a traffic stop. He owed back child support. Also shot dead.

The Brown shooting seemed justified it just got blown out of proportion by a-holes like Sharpton.

No one is saying that the training doesn't tell the officers to shoot to kill. Maybe just maybe the training needs to be looked at.

[Aslan]

Just for those that are still not quite sure what BLM is really after...

1) They have a plan put forward (good). The (bad) is; included in that plan are such things as "broken windows policing".
2) There are some vocal civil rights folks in that organization that are trying to use it's visibility to re-open the "reparations" debate.

For those not up on these issues, the summary is this:

1) There's a big push right now to let criminals out of jail who haven't committed violent crimes. This has already been done in California and we're already (< a year later) seeing double-digit increases in violent and non-violent crimes as a result. The next stage in this "broken window policy" is to not arrest people for non-violent crimes. The person most likely to run for Barbara Boxer's soon to be vacant seat in the Senate is Kamala Harris who has been on record suggesting that perhaps a person breaking into a business or home should just receive a ticket.

2) "Reparations" is the worst case for Democrats. I KNEW when BLM got traction, we'd eventually get to this. Reparations are monetary payouts to anyone who is black. These monetary payouts are designed to compensate them for the time of slavery. Every attempt to even address this issue has failed miserably. Legally, it's a complete losing effort. And even in regions where blacks make up a larger percentage of the electorate...this issue can't get traction. Recently, Bernie Sanders was shouted down at a town hall my a couple African Americans about reparations. He quickly, and smartly, said he does not support reparations.

The trick will be, what will Hillary do in that situation. So long as she doesn't see Bernie as a real threat...she can ignore the issue...or try to deflect the question. But if Bernie keeps momentum going...and she's cornered...she may agree on reparations to get the black vote...and that would be HORRIBLE for the Democrats in the general election. While some states in the South have up to 70% of their Democratic base African American...blacks make up only 13% of the US population, less than 40% of any one state, and participate (vote) at about the same rate as other races (66%, 2/3).

Since over half the electorate is moderate, and the general election will pit a democrat against a republican...and the republican will definitely oppose reparations...an issue like reparations could easily tip the balance in favor of Republicans. With the primaries being so polarized and everyone is pushed to the extremes, this is probably the first election where a moderate 3rd party candidate could win.

When this nightmare started I predicted Rubio would defeat Clinton in the general election. I currently think it'll be John Kasich beating Clinton instead. I think Rubio lost the election when he and Bush split from one another. But the New Hampshire debate also kinda killed him. He's now being seen as an establishment candidate in a party that bitterly hates establishment anythings. It's ironic that FoxNews and right ring AM radio has pushed the party so far to the right...that they are rejecting establishment candidates.

And it really doesn't matter at this point. With Congress so divided...nothing major is getting through. They can't overturn Obamacare. They can't agree on Supreme Court justices. There's really no chance to get anything done with the filibuster in play...so it's more entertainment than anything.

[Aslan]

The kid is walking away fairly slow ignoring the cops.

The guy in N.C. shot a guy for running away after a traffic stop. He owed back child support. Also shot dead.


I would highly recommend NOT ignoring cops and NOT running from police.

I know it sounds crazy in this time we live in...but back in "the day" we tried our best to listen to officer instructions and never flee the police.

[Jessiewoodard57]

I would highly recommend NOT ignoring cops and NOT running from police.

I know it sounds crazy in this time we live in...but back in "the day" we tried our best to listen to officer instructions and never flee the police.

The way people are just gunning down our police officers does anyone blame them for being jumpy??? Easiest way around this is like Aslan said OBEY the officer he has your safety and his at heart. You make a sudden or wrong move that officer has a split second to decide if you are going for a weapon or for reinforcements. So easy STOP LISTEN AND OBEY then everyone goes home! Start backing the criminals (even the ones just out burglarizing cars) and we have a lawless society where the law of the gun rules and we have the old west all over again.

Evil is fast becoming the law of the land. Einstein once said Evil wins only if good men do nothing ....He is so right

[Tony]

I would highly recommend NOT ignoring cops and NOT running from police.

I know it sounds crazy in this time we live in...but back in "the day" we tried our best to listen to officer instructions and never flee the police.

For once we agree ! It's pretty simple the way a cop put it, if you didn't do anything wrong, why are you running ..... even if you did you'll have your day in court.

[Aslan]

Two Stories to liiustrate where most people stand on criminal justice...and this also shows the difference between these times we live in and the times I grew up:

1) Two years ago, a motorcycle cop came to an elementary school to give a talk. While he was inside the school, some little kids were looking at his motorcycle and of course saw the tactical rifle attached to the bike. At some point (probably on a dare), one of the kids walked up and pulled the trigger of the rifle. The rifle went off. Nobody was injured.

Afterwards, the parent of the child was very upset and talking about suing the police department.

2) Also a couple years ago, a young woman (college age or thereabouts) was completely intoxicated and picked up by police. She was put in the back of the patrol car and taken back to the police station. On the way there, the woman found a way to kick out the window of the back of the police car and then jumped out of the window while the car was moving. She survived but was hurt.

Afterwards, her parents were also talking about suing.

Now, in BOTH of these cases...the child and young woman did something wrong. In both cases, the officers also did something wrong (leaving a loaded gun locked on a motorcycleat an elementary school and not securing the woman in the back of the car).

But lets look back on our own lives. Had I been in either of those two unfortunate situations...I would not have touched the police officer's gun nor would I kick a window out in a police cruiser. BUT...lets say I did. My parents would NEVER...EVER...have immediately started talking about suing the police.

First off, I'd have been in BIG trouble. BIG trouble at home.

Second, my parents would have been making apologies to the police, in both situations, for my actions.

Most of the people on this site....I bet your parents would have reacted like mine. Some of us may have preferred staying in jail to going home and getting what was coming to use at home.

How can teachers do their job when every time some kid acts up, the parents blame the teacher. You had that one girl refusing to cooperate with teachers, the principle, the school security officer...and when she finally pushed that to the limit...she was forceably removed from the classroom. Someone took a cell phone video, she happened to be black, and suddenly the media was "disgusted" and the security officer suspended.

How can those tasked with enforcing the law actually do their jobs if every single time they do their jobs, there's an at least 25% chance that someone will think they over-reacted and they'll be fired, suspended, or there will be race riots?

I'm disgusted with our entire society. Such a great country with such great promise and the people right now are just making it intolerable. I can't walk to the corner 7 Eleven without bringing pepper spray or a knife...because there's a gang of homeless people riding bicycles and camping out around the 7Eleven...and sometimes they just sit there...most times they ask for money...and sometimes, they get rather agitated and violent if you ignore them. I'd love to carry a sidearm...but I don't have a permit in California and even if I did...if I gun down a homeless person just because they are "acting violent towards me"...and God FORBID they are black...suddenly I'm George Zimmerman. Not as bad given the people are over 18...and probably not black...but still. Would I rather just get beat up and stabbed? Or risk 3 years in court and in and out of jail defending myself in court? Maybe I should just give them money right? It's cheaper to just give them my wallet than it is to deal with the court system. But why is this even the thought process? How far has our country fallen that we can't live with the expectation of being able to walk to the corner store without calculating the sick of our premature death?

[fortheloveofbowling]

Have you complained to the management about the loitering around the 7-eleven? That is a pathetic situation to not be able to walk down the street safely.

[fordman1]

Call 7-11's corp. headquarters. Man up and don't be intimidated because you don't have a gun. What kind of gated community did you grow up in? Are you one of the Cleavers?
Don't you have any police in your area?
What kind of a police officer leaves a loaded rifle on a motorcycle out side of a school?
The drunk girl should be prosecuted.

[Tony]

Two Stories to liiustrate where most people stand on criminal justice...and this also shows the difference between these times we live in and the times I grew up:

1) Two years ago, a motorcycle cop came to an elementary school to give a talk. While he was inside the school, some little kids were looking at his motorcycle and of course saw the tactical rifle attached to the bike. At some point (probably on a dare), one of the kids walked up and pulled the trigger of the rifle. The rifle went off. Nobody was injured.

Afterwards, the parent of the child was very upset and talking about suing the police department.

2) Also a couple years ago, a young woman (college age or thereabouts) was completely intoxicated and picked up by police. She was put in the back of the patrol car and taken back to the police station. On the way there, the woman found a way to kick out the window of the back of the police car and then jumped out of the window while the car was moving. She survived but was hurt.

Afterwards, her parents were also talking about suing.

Now, in BOTH of these cases...the child and young woman did something wrong. In both cases, the officers also did something wrong (leaving a loaded gun locked on a motorcycleat an elementary school and not securing the woman in the back of the car).

But lets look back on our own lives. Had I been in either of those two unfortunate situations...I would not have touched the police officer's gun nor would I kick a window out in a police cruiser. BUT...lets say I did. My parents would NEVER...EVER...have immediately started talking about suing the police.

First off, I'd have been in BIG trouble. BIG trouble at home.

Second, my parents would have been making apologies to the police, in both situations, for my actions.

Most of the people on this site....I bet your parents would have reacted like mine. Some of us may have preferred staying in jail to going home and getting what was coming to use at home.

How can teachers do their job when every time some kid acts up, the parents blame the teacher. You had that one girl refusing to cooperate with teachers, the principle, the school security officer...and when she finally pushed that to the limit...she was forceably removed from the classroom. Someone took a cell phone video, she happened to be black, and suddenly the media was "disgusted" and the security officer suspended.

How can those tasked with enforcing the law actually do their jobs if every single time they do their jobs, there's an at least 25% chance that someone will think they over-reacted and they'll be fired, suspended, or there will be race riots?

I'm disgusted with our entire society. Such a great country with such great promise and the people right now are just making it intolerable. I can't walk to the corner 7 Eleven without bringing pepper spray or a knife...because there's a gang of homeless people riding bicycles and camping out around the 7Eleven...and sometimes they just sit there...most times they ask for money...and sometimes, they get rather agitated and violent if you ignore them. I'd love to carry a sidearm...but I don't have a permit in California and even if I did...if I gun down a homeless person just because they are "acting violent towards me"...and God FORBID they are black...suddenly I'm George Zimmerman. Not as bad given the people are over 18...and probably not black...but still. Would I rather just get beat up and stabbed? Or risk 3 years in court and in and out of jail defending myself in court? Maybe I should just give them money right? It's cheaper to just give them my wallet than it is to deal with the court system. But why is this even the thought process? How far has our country fallen that we can't live with the expectation of being able to walk to the corner store without calculating the sick of our premature death?

While I generally agree with you on the state of our country, we have evolved, if you can call it that into a what's in it for me, how do I get my share of free stuff society and it's sad.
The blame can certainly be shared by a number of people but as you mentioned the "parents threating to sue" or generally sue happy environment we now live in where people are willing to sue for the most insane reasons......this goes back to who is responsible for promoting this, lets again look at the most destructive group in all this, the lawyers .

It's a sad state that a person injured doing something illegal has any right to sue someone.....we have developed a nation of victims who are not held responsible for their actions. This idea that disconnects personal responsibility from the situation is one of the fundamental issues today.

repeat after me, when you reach legal are you become fully responsible for yourself, no exceptions.
You don't get to use the excuse you grew up in a rough area, had bad parents, didn't go to school, had a kid or whatever as the reason you should get special treatment.

It goes that was for crime also, "don't worry you're not responsible for X because you were distressed .......seriously ?

if we were do something silly like hold people responsible for their actions ( as Aslan said most of our parents did) then people might start
to decide that their life is what they make of it, it's not the schools, city's, your parents, neighborhood, skin color or sexual orientation that is the cause of everything. Sure those things have an effect, it would be foolish to say they didn't but using them as a lifelong crutch to justify your poor behavior is just making everything else responsible for what happens to you......and that's simply not the case.

So the solution is simple.

Get rid of 2/3 of the lawyers with clearly defined easy to understand rules and laws

Let all people know they are responsible for their own decisions.

It just might work......but of course we will never know....

[Aslan]

Have you complained to the management about the loitering around the 7-eleven? That is a pathetic situation to not be able to walk down the street safely.

I have not. But I imagine this place has had to call the authorities quite often. Most of the time the homeless around there are somewhat peaceful and just asking for money...which is what homeless people do...but I'd say every 2-3 weeks one of the homeless will be yelling at them or a customer or causing some type of disturbance. At one point, one of em set up some type of make-shift tent in the corner of the parking lot.


Call 7-11's corp. headquarters.
That's actually a good idea.


Man up and don't be intimidated because you don't have a gun. What kind of gated community did you grow up in? Are you one of the Cleavers?
Don't you have any police in your area?
1) I would NOT recommend confronting homeless people unarmed. They are erratic, usually on drugs, and usually mentally disturbed. You learn very early in "the gated communities I grew up in" that the most dangerous opponents are those with nothing to lose.

2) No, but I did grow up in a more rural area...all white...no latinos or blacks...very low crime even in college. However, since becoming somewhat of an adult...living on my own in much different places than where I grew up...you learn how to maximize your survival. And confronting homeless people...not a good impact on survival. Not saying I can't hold my own...but probably the main reason I haven't been attacked is that I am generally bigger than they are. Just like with wild animals, humans tend not to risk altercations with humans that are too big to easily defeat.

3) Yes, there are police. I know they are around because I hear sirens and helicoptors quite a bit...almost constantly. And usually, if I hear a scream...within 3-6 minutes I'll hear sirens and police will show up. I actually reported an incident where I was on my balcony smoking and some white truck stopped, some lady screamed and yelled, then the truck took off out of the parking lot and the lady was yelling for help. I couldn't see what happened...but I called the cops and they showed up...a fire truck showed up...an ambulance...then the cops were standing around taking pictures.

And what? You think if I call the cops and tell them a homeless person is loitering that they are going to do anything about it? They are going to risk showing up and having to possible subdue a homeless person...have it caught on camera...have it on national news...risk losing their job? And just for the record...blacklivesmatter wants loitering to be de-criminalized. They claim cops use it as a reason to harass black people. So...I guess I'm on my own.


What kind of a police officer leaves a loaded rifle on a motorcycle out side of a school?
The drunk girl should be prosecuted.

I admit in both cases there was negligence...but in one of my and Tony's rare cases of agreement...it's also fair to ask what type of parenting results in a kid that would touch a rifle on a cop's motorcycle or kick out the window of a cop cruiser. I mean, is it the cops fault if while they are chasing down a suspect...some kid opens the cop car door and takes the shotgun and shoots someone with it? Sure, they might have wanted to lock the door...but that's like saying it's your fault for getting robbed because your door was unlocked.

It's hard to explain to younger folks...but just realize that there was a time when you far more afraid of your parents than you were of the cops...and it was mostly a better time...with less of this garbage. Are you aware of the kid that got out of a drunk driving arrest where people were killed because he claimed he was so rich (affluent) and his parents taught him that wealth and privledge can get you out of anything and the rules don't apply to him? You can google it...Ethan Couch was his name. 10 years probation for what most people would get 20 years in prison for.

You read this and you think, "he's just making this up"...nope. I wish I was.

[Hot_pocket]

So I make the assumption, based on knowledge of economics, that demand and other factors are far more impactful on business decisions than taxes. You list all those factors and then claim the tax issue is unclear but obviously I have no clue since I've never ran a business of my own. You did nothing but prove my point...and make me wonder if your business owning experience might not have been that great because if you think tax increases are the part of your balance sheet you need to focus most of your effort on...that calls into question your business ownership skills.

I'm not trying to be mean, but it's not even CLOSE. You're making one statement that taxes are a huge part of business owners making their business decisions...yet other than a gas tax affecting transportation companies....it's an absurd premise.


My term "black candy land" was used to illustrate that blacklivesmatter is not living in "reality". Like many african Americans, there is this "chip on the shoulder" that has been passed on to them by their family and community and lack of diversity growing up. Just like redneck hillbillies that grow up hating black people even though they've never met one. It's reverse racism...but in this country we allow and in some ways celebrate reverse racism. As long as Al Sharpton, one of the most racist individuals in the country, has his own talk show on MSNBC...that speaks volumes.

The REALITY....is that 99.5% (or more) of cops preserve and protect. They provide a valuable service and every one of us that finds ourselves in peril....hope that we can count on them to respond and assist us. It is not REALITY...to assume that because a handful of people with cell phones have taken video of occasional events...that cops are generally on some mission to gun down every innocent black person in the country is ABSURD. It's NOT reality.

Did anyone ever apologize to Darren Wilson for ruining his career and screwing up his life due to the Ferguson incident? Doesn't Obama and Eric Cantor (also one of the most reverse-racist people to ever hold office) owe him an apology? Doesn't the continuing chanting of "Hands Up, Don't Shoot" only serve to make the overall message/point ridiculous? Chanting a slogan born out of a lie? Why were no people prosicuted regarding making false statements and filing false police reports during the M. Brown shooting? Why was his father/father-in-law not prosecuted for inciting a riot by screaming into the microphone that people should burn the city to the ground? Why is it Martha Stewart lied about a stock deal and goes to jail, but Brown's hooligan friend that was an accomplice to theft, assault on a police officer, fleeing the scene of a crime, then making false statements to police....yet he's never been arrested and charged with anything.

See, you live in "black candy land" because you don't see any of that as a problem. To you, the problem will always be white people and the raw deal blacks got dealt due to slavery. And there's now way out of that...no way for the country to move forward....because no matter how much progress we make (i.e. 1/2 black President)....there will still be people claiming the MAN is out to get them...telling their kids if a white person disrespects you, feel free to put him in his place (and hope he doesn't have a gun). If you don't get a job, it's racism. If you have no money, it's racism. If a cop pulls you over, it's racism. Must be nice to always have a good excuse for every single thing that goes wrong.


100% agree given that criminals tend to immediately change their gun policies when new gun laws are passed. :confused:

You missed my point again. I never said at any point people should not be charged for their crimes, did I? I do not live with a chip on my shoulder, I am not one of those black people that do because I know the difference you speak of. I don't live in the "black candy land" that you think exsit because you don't experience inequality on your end. The BLM does live in reality. They protest these unarmed shootings because they are not educated in law enforcement. People don't know that black men are truly harrased more ,than any other race, by police. I've experienced it so I can't speak on it. I agree about the passing of hate but I don't agree on reverse rascim. Its What people think based on perception is it racism. What they don't know is its about being pro-black not anti-white. Let's have a break down of everything you mentioned also. Raw deal because of slavery? No, inequality is real. Businesses ran by white men/ women tend to remain that way not always due to a form of rascim but because of letting those closes to them like family & friends get first dibs regardless of qualifications. Which is why affirmative action was created. That didn't just exist for the wall Street jobs but for government and Union jobs. If anyone disrespects you, you put them in their place is what we are taught, just as anyone else would. I'm not sure if you realise what you just said either " if a white man disrespects you feel free to put them in their place and hope he doesn't have a gun"....WHAT? So what I can take from that is, a white man can disrespect someone and knowone should put them in their place? See how that can be taken wrong? As for money, I'm not sure if you are aware blacks lost half of their wealth in 07 with the recession, hints why we are the slowest to recover till this day and this is a fact. As I said blacks are for a fact harrased by police more than any other race. So understand it ain't all excuses as you so think. As in regards for Obama being the most reverse racist person in office. I'm pretty sure your not the only person to believe that considering he is the first black president and speaking out against violence against blacks is not a bad thing. It's just seen that way because he's black. Nobody says anything about deblasio doing it because he's white. You see how it works? It's not fiction it's reality. Whether you choose to except it or not.

[Hot_pocket]

"GOOGLE" There is a video of the cop pulling up on scene. There are already 2 cars there. Middle of a 5 lane street.
The kid is walking away fairly slow ignoring the cops. The new arrival gets out of the car and empties his clip 16 rounds. Half after the guy is down and not moving. That's why he is charged with murder.

The guy in N.C. shot a guy for running away after a traffic stop. He owed back child support. Also shot dead.

The Brown shooting seemed justified it just got blown out of proportion by a-holes like Sharpton.

No one is saying that the training doesn't tell the officers to shoot to kill. Maybe just maybe the training needs to be looked at.

Training isn't shoot to kill it's shoot to disarm or until the subject is subdued.

[Hot_pocket]

The suing thing isn't something new actually. There was a story once of someone breaking into a home and they fell through the skylight and won a lawsuit against the home owners for injuring himself. I have tons of inmates looking for ways to get a lawsuit out of the county I work for. Aslan as for al sharpton most black people don't like him. He's a scumbag who gets rich off of the pain of others. There was a family who told him not to show up to show support for their son who was killed by police.

[Aslan]

As I said blacks are for a fact harrased by police more than any other race.
I'm not saying racism doesn't exist. I've seen it first hand and it's an embarrassment to me as a white person. I also am not 100% against affirmative action for many of the reasons you raised. I AM against the way affirmative action is being applied to graduate school admissions...but that's a minor issue.

But for every incident where a black person is being harassed unnecessarily, how many incidents occur where the officers 'harass' a black person and find out that they are breaking the law? I'm gonna say a lot. You can disagree....but look at nearly every case that has occurred...in each case where the person was shot, they were committing a crime. And I guess that's where the divide is for me. I have no problem with affirmative action bridging the gap between slavery and equality. I have no problem with reforming the justice system to ensure criminals who committed the same crimes are not sentenced differently. BUT...I completely disagree with BLM that we should decriminalize things like B&E, loitering, and drug possession....because those are just reasons white officers use to harass black people.

Trayvon Martin wasn't shot for being in a white neighborhood. He was shot for attacking and assaulting someone who happened to be armed.

Mike Brown wasn't shot because he was black. He was shot because he assaulted a store clerk, stole items from a store, was walking in the middle of the street, and when confronted attacked a police officer.

Eric Garner wasn't killed by police while innocently standing on a street corner. He died of medical complications while resisting arrest for a crime that he was committing and had committed multiple times before.

And that kid that died in the back of the police van...again...he wasn't some kid waiting for the bus. He, like the other guy gunned down, was high on drugs and had a knife.

See, it's not helpful to the 'cause' when Mike Brown is portrayed as "an unarmed black teen" as he was by CNN. It's more accurate to say he was a "robbery suspect". He got portrayed as some little black boy minding his own business gunned down for j-walking. And that's just not true. He was an 18-year old (adult) who committed and was commiting a crime. Even the little kid that got gunned down...he was carrying a toy gun with the orange safety device removed.

I guess it's just frustrating that we as a society have made such progress in race relations in the last 60 years...yet there are still people in "black candy land" that want to make it seem like it's still the 60s. And it's not. And any black man who lived through "real racism" will be the FIRST one to tell you that. There was a time...when white cops would TRULY harass blacks...and kill them...especially in the deep South. There was a time when you TRULY could not get a job...or ride a bus...or drink from a water fountain...etc...

If BLM wants to help...then lets talk about body cameras...lets talk about fair prison sentencing. But lets not turn this into a slavery reparations argument...because it's just going to kill any potential for true progress. IMO.

[fordman1]

BLM is a bunch of BS. My problem with most of what you say is you think the police have a right to be judge, jury and executor.

Now for Travon Martin he was killed because Florida lets any a-hole who has the money to walk around with a loaded gun and play like he is a cop.

[Aslan]

I guess I just wish that every time a police officer is shot by one of these lovely criminals you guys think are getting a bad rap...that actually would make the news and get as much attention as the relatively few times an African American is shot, unarmed, committing some type of crime.

People forget that many of these laws everyone is so quick to get rid of....that are too tough on folks...were put in place in the 90s when there were high crime rates all over the country. Now, thanks to short memories, everyone is in a hurry to go back to those times. California just let a bunch of criminals (non-violent of course...because most people that go to prison are some of the more docile members of society) :confused: ...out of the over-crowded prisons...and crime rates are up double-digits all over the State.

They close down mental hospitals to save money (Reagan/Bush Sr.) and now early release prisoners rather than build more prisons (Gov. Brown)...and the common effect on society is you're much more likely to get stabbed by either a hardened criminal or crazy lunatic.

And it's all political cowardice. If you want pot use/possession to not lead to prison...de-criminialize it. Problem solved. But see, that would take guts and bravery. If selling cigarettes on a street corner is such a minor crime....decriminalize it. Problem solved. But again...guts and bravery. And that leads to immigration....is it a crime or not? If it is, and you think it's a stupid thing to enforce...change the law. But see, that takes...well, you get the picture.

Our lawmakers are cowards...it's that simple. And there's no nicer way to put it.

How many people, if it was up for a vote, would adopt the "eye for an eye" sentencing? You murder, you die. You torture, you get tortured. Etc... I bet most people would vote for that.

And while George Zimmerman acted a bit 'foolishly'...you also have to consider 'why' he initially did what he did. He was part of a neighborhood watch. His 'job' was to monitor the neighborhood for "suspicious persons". There were problems in the neighborhood with people's houses being broken into. I'm not saying he acted appropriately, nor in a way I would have acted...but the details reported in the trial seem to point to Trayvon attacking him, not out of fear, but because he (Trayvon) thought he was some kinda bad ***. He wasn't running away when he was shot. And there's no reason to believe Zimmerman fired at him and then bashed his own face in to try and cover it up. There's a reason Zimmerman isn't in prison now...and that reason is, while he acted a bit foolishly, Trayvon likely led to his own demise. The call to his girlfriend just before the attack...where he was almost bragging that he was gonna fight with this "cracker"...the other photos and violent texts found on his cell phone...and the fact that Zimmerman passed a lie detector test...not to mention the eye witness accounts...it paints a picture that is NOT consistent with Trayvon's families version.

I mean, it's tragic. I don't think either person wanted that to happen. But given the entire body of evidence, the facts are what the facts are. Trayvon was a troubled youth...who probably wasn't doing anything wrong that night...but had a chip on his shoulder and wanted to be a bad***. He ran into a guy, likely with his own mental issues...feelings of inadequacy, etc... that happened to be armed and suspicious. That's a 'perfect storm' where somebody is bound to get hurt. And to say Zimmerman was lying...when so much evidence leads to the conclusion he wasn't...not to mention that the girl who testified turned out to by lying on the stand...it's just not accurate. Nobody WANTS to side with Zimmerman. Nobody wants teens shot for no reason. But the facts are what the facts are. Trayvon and M. Brown made the same mistake. Why? I dunno. We'll probably never know. But we should be able to be honest about it.

[Hot_pocket]

So what you're saying is because we have tackled race relations the past 60 years, there is nothing left to fix? just like ones bowling game, there is always area that need improvements. Most people who can't benefit from affirmative action don't agree with it. But whats crazy is it doesn't hurt anyone, so why be against it?

As for Mike Brown, I again will say, I never said officer Wilson was wrong. By my training and the creditable articles iv'e read, he did the right thing. Does the story have lack of creditable eyewitnesses? absolutely. Quick fact check though. It wasn't know to officer Wilson at the time he stopped or encountered Brown that he was in fact a suspect in a robbery. On top of that the store clerk never reported the "robbery", someone else in the store called the cops and reported what appeared to be a robbery, which is hearsay. Then there was another video released that shows Brown paying for the product he had "stolen". It was also alleged, like most of the details are, he only grabbed the clerk after the clerk but his hands on him. The video released by the media is the second half of the original recording. As someone stated if Brown was wanted for a strong arm robbery, officer Wilson wouldn't have just asked him to get out the street. However, he did fight with the officer and there was a possibility that he went for the gun and was shot because of it, no argument from me on that.

As iv'e explained before about Trayvon Martin, what you seem to miss is, Zimmerman instigated the altercation no matter how you look at it. He was told by dispatch he did not have to follow him but yet he chose to. You can not start a fight and claim self defense when you start losing. Trayvon was committing no crime, unless walking home on the phone with a hoodie on is a crime. Is the person with a weapon the only one allowed to stand their ground?, because it sure is hell seems that way from how you put it. If you ask me martin stood his ground because he was being followed, but he's wrong for that? He was from the south and was a kid influenced by society like most are. With that said cracker is a common term down there even for white people. That and pictures of him flipping the camera off doesn't make him a badass or has anything to do with the case at all. We don't know how trayvon felt at the time, he could have been scared, so don't act like we do based on what those who weren't there say. As for eyewitnesses, there are conflicting stories. No one clearly saw what happen that night from start to finish. So again it came down to persecution based on what he was tried for. My opinion is he isn't in jail because they tried him for second degree murder, instead manslaughter. It was more of negligence and recklessness on Zimmerman's behalf. Also the family accounts don't matter. The evidence also suggest that Zimmerman also lied a few times before getting his story straight. The lie detector test wasn't admissible in court and was said to have issues because the person giving the test asked weren't specific. One question in particular was " did you fear for your life?", in which he responded, yes. His choice to continue following travyon however, shows that that itself was possibly a lie due that answer.

As for blacklivesmatter, they aren't just people looting and rioting. The are protesting because it is there right to do so. Like we always say about officers, don't let the actions of a few determine how you see them all.

[Aslan]

Okay HotPocket....in this time of divisiveness....lets try something different. Lets see if we can't find some common ground. I totally, totally agree that race is still an issue...racism still exists....I've seen it...I hate it...and I've seen reverse racism as well.

But what are the ISSUES...what are some things that YOU feel aren't being addressed that we might find some common ground on? How can we fix some of the racism in the country if we don't even really know WHAT those issues are?

I think we agree on Mike Brown...and I think it's a shame that more african americans don't stand up and say, "Uhhh...no. That guy should NOT be the poster child of the black movement. Just like OJ Simpson isn't the poster boy." As to Trayvon...it's tragic...I can't say I wouldn't have done what Zimmerman did....I can't say I wouldn't have responded the way Trayvon did. It's just a tragedy. But it's not "racism". George Zimmerman, in my honest opinion, was just trying to keep his neighborhood safe and the situation got out of hand.

Personally, I kinda find myself liking Bernie Sander's message. On the other hand, his pandering to the black vote...as well as Clinton...makes me wanna vote Trump...as horrible and absolutely ashamed I am to say that...I'm tired of taking the blame for slavery. I'm tired of it being MY fault when some black person can't get a job. And I'm tired of feeling unsafe in my neighborhood...because the social agenda is to let more criminals out of prison. I don't think that makes me a bad person.

[fordman1]

I have been watching the primaries and wonder why dem get delegates for winning Geo. yet never win the state? their delegates should be worth half as much as states they will probably win. The whole thing looks silly.

[Hot_pocket]

I personally don't like how they have to cater to black and hispanic voters. That alone always creates a divide. My problem isn't racism. Racism is never ending, you can't get rid of it because its taught at home and in some ways in school through the history books. We can't get rid of history however so it will always be around. My issue is simple equality. I no longer face inequality, at least any that i'm aware of but there are others who do. In my opinion we need to fix police relations in poorer neighborhoods and continue to diversify the force. With that said, i also know the force can not be diversified if other races are not willing to become officers.

The second thing I think that needs to be fixed is the court system. The stand your ground law in particular needs to be specified because as I said Zimmerman was an instigator in the situation. To follow someone, call the cops and never get close enough to have any words with the person is one thing, but to make your presence known without any identification while following someone, you are asking for trouble. Once you get in trouble don't claim it wasn't your fault that you had to act. We do agree on mike brown, including the ridiculous chanting of "hands up don't shoot", even during peaceful protest, because that was proven to be a lie.

You shouldn't being taking the blame for anything. you know slavery wasn't your fault so why treat it as a burden? That is more of a way of how you think compared to what is true. As I stated before most black people are not anti-white just pro-black. They want many to succeed but unfortunately you also have a group that sometimes don't want anyone to. The idea of letting criminals out of prison is good and bad. It will raise the recidivism of criminals because now they will believe they will always be released for petty crimes. It will cause some to escalate from petty crimes to possible violent crimes. The good is it could cut crime because it will cause more people to fall under the 3 strike rule in states that have them, a-lot quicker due to being able to go back to the criminal life. What someone needs to talk about is getting rid of the questioning about arrest on job applications for jobs that don't need to know. It creates a biased hiring process in some events which causes that revolving criminal door because people can't get simple jobs, that they can't support themselves on anyway, after having any kind of record unless its creating their own business. I like Bernie also, don't agree with everything but he seems to have great plans for the country. I believe police should have riot gear and assault rifles but he wants to take that away, which is dumb. I think his pandering, even though it's truth, to the blacks about changing police relations will lead him to lose law enforcement votes.

[Aslan]

I saw an interesting statistic that shows the average weekly income by race.

You see that white is much higher than black or Hispanic (which are close). But there's a couple things in that data that people easily miss or gloss over:

1) ASIAN income FAR exceeds White. If you look at the data...(check CNBC)...Asians make far more as a race than whites. So if discrimination in the job market is so prevalent...how are Asians able to not only be equals in the workplace...but outperform their white peers?

2) Hispanics are slowly over-taking blacks.

And while I feel it's "politically incorrect" to say this...I have a theory as to why.

1) Asians are very racist. They are probably the most racist group (generalizing of course) of people I've known. And they admit that. They shop amongst their own communities....they hire their own ethnicity...and they tend do live in the same areas amongst themselves. Asians will pay more for things to buy them from other Asians. They have a different 'culture' in that way.

2) Asian children aren't usually given the same 'choices' as most children. It's not whether they will do good in school and go to college....it's will they get straight As and what college will they go to.

3) Asian children start working at an earlier age. While other races are out playing baseball in a vacant lot...they are bagging groceries in their uncle's grocery store or home doing chores. Again, different culture.

As to why Hispanics are over-taking blacks...this is where I really think (and hotpocket probably will agree on this) there's just far too much "woe is me" in the black community. I drive by home depot...30-50 immigrants hoping to get picked up to make less than minimum wage to paint or do odd jobs, etc... No black people. And what I've seen from living in black communities is this feeling that, "Well, the cards are stacked against me....so no sense in trying to get a job or go to college...because the World is racist." And unfortunately, it's a self-fulfilling prophecy.

And that's why I don't like all this recent "race stuff" because the real issue, as Bernie Sanders tried to articulate, is that there needs to be economic changes that give more people a pathway to a good life. Not JUST...for blacks...or Hispanics...or whites...but for everyone. As long as a black kid looks out his bedroom window and sees that his best chance at getting a new car is to deal drugs....because there's like an 8% chance he'll be the next Obama or Ben Carson...then the kid is going to get discouraged...head down the wrong path...and once down that path...it's very hard to get back on the right path.

And people like Al Sharpton and Spike Lee....I think they make things worse, not better. They try to drive a wedge between races...and convince minorities that there's really no point in trying to make their lives better....because the system is rigged against them. And while that may be true in certain situations...it's not a universal truth. If anything, it's more often NOT the case. Had I been born black...I'd have had more access to college scholarships...I'd have been given at least some slight benefit in getting hired by companies trying to increase diversity, etc..

And it's just a bad road to go down to tell police departments they MUST hire 75% black cops (regardless of qualifications) because the community is black. Or that the Oscars must be given to blacks...or a certain % of movies with black actors must get nominated. Because the message that sends to non-blacks is that racism is perfectly okay...so long as it's racism AGAINST them and not BY them.

Some of our best recent movie award winners (Halle Berry, Denzel Washington, Cuba Gooding Jr., Jamie Foxx, Will Smith) were black. Spike Lee is one of the most acclaimed directors in Hollywood/New York. Samuel Jackson and Morgan Freeman are actors that most white people I know think are amazing and why whenever they need a "trusted voice" for some commercial narration...those guys get the gig. I mean, Oprah Winfrey was the most popular talk show host since Ed Sullivan.

I mean, sure, if they cast a movie like Malcolm X or Selma and decide to use white actors to play black historic figures...that would obviously make people go, "what?" But it works the other way as well. The revenant was a semi-true story about a white person in a white country. The movie about the financial collapse is white actors playing white historic figures. The biggest movie of the year was Star Wars and one of the biggest new character roles was played by a black man.

And would I WANT...if I were a black actor...to be nominated for an Oscar and beat out other white actors for that award when everyone in the audience is thinking, "Well...he only won because Spike Lee and Will Smith protested." Heck No!! It cheapens the award when you do that kind of nonsense. I don't care...I don't watch the stupid award shows...they bore the living poo out of me and they never nominate movies anyone actually likes. All that nonsense does is make me think, "Well...if I'm trying to decide what movie to see in the future...unless it looks REALLY good...I think I'll pass on Spike Lee and Will Smith movies." And that's SO IRONIC...that the entire effort to minimize racism...only makes people more racist. I never cared about that stuff before...a lot of times I wouldn't even know Spike Lee directed a movie until the credits. But, reverse racism breeds racism.

[Aslan]

But...back to politics...

I found last night's debate interesting...

On the one hand...it kinda showed that Donald Trump is all bluster and no substance.

On the other hand...it didn't change anything. Ben Carson is still half asleep. John Kasich is still goofy. Ted Cruz still can't get anything he stands for to be popular with most Americans. And Marco Rubio is still the candidate that isn't conservative enough for Ted Cruz followers but too conservative for everyone else.

But...most entertaining debate ever!! Rubio and Cruz exposed Donald: "The Emperor with no Clothes". And Donald continued to just berate everyone and anyone that disagrees with him...including insulting both the Hispanic telemundo network and the ultra-conservative Hugh Hewitt.

Absolute TV Gold!!!

[Hot_pocket]

As some would put it Asian Americans are seen as the "model minorities". They stay quite and work hard with no complaints. As far as racism, i wouldn't know. Iv'e played golf with many Asians and have a few Asian friends an haven't experience it much, but i do believe they can be just as racist as the next group. But you do have to wonder where they got the image that a certain skin tone is not to be trusted or hated more than any other, since that's how most racist decide how they will treat someone. As you stated, its because of the "cultural" difference mixed with availability of good schools that have helped them excelled overtime. It took them years to catch up and i'm not sure if they have fully caught up yet based on this link, Couldn't find the cnbc article. http://www.nbcnews.com/news/asian-america/asian-americans-set-surpass-whites-median-family-wealth-n314341
Poor teaching and lack of availability of decent schools is what helped maintain that "woe is me" mindset in the black an Hispanic communities. The justice system even seemed to be against black and hispanics because they ,still till this day, have the highest incarceration rate in the U.S. I do however acknowledge the lack of motivation to make it out the hood by most blacks and hispanics. They love to talk about it and not be about it, is how we say it. They have no ambition unless it's instilled at a young age, as my parents did with me. My father grew up in the projects and my mother in a single parent home. They taught me value and showed me places other than NY, which motivated me to excel. Without the knowledge of anything other than living hood rich and new sneaker releases, I agree some will not eve make it out. The inequality I speak of however is that of which affirmative action was created for. For those who were motivated to get to the top through education and hard work, but couldn't get there because a friend of the ceo's child is looking for a job to start their career,and they choose them over someone who is already experienced. Just because Asians hire inside their own community doesn't make it right, it's just the Asian community didn't hold those high position jobs and correct me if i'm wrong they still don't. Plus there is a-lot of illegal activity that went on inside the Asian community that contributed to their success, ironically sounds like politicians haha. The term "keep it in the family" best describes a majority of businesses in the past which helped maintain the income inequality gap. African Americans have had a rough time recovering for years but as i said systematically, it seems the odds were stacked against them and the numbers, not to say proves, but definitely creates the feeling and ideas that most have.

As for the oscars.....they can complain, but quietly. I sure as hell don't care you didn't get nominated for that million dollar movie role. Them being mad about not receiving nominations for rewards while telling other African Americans don't let certain things define you, is pretty backwards. Don't let the lack of nominations define you because you still are a millionaire at the end of the day and will continue to be nominated at other award shows.

[Aslan]

Poor teaching and lack of availability of decent schools is what helped maintain that "woe is me" mindset in the black an Hispanic communities.
One of my pet peeves about the "Right" (politically speaking) is their pushing of school choice and vouchers. As a parent, I love school choice. But as a fellow American...all school choice does is take the kids who have parents that care about their education...and consolidate them. That leaves behind those students who don't have parents that care and/or have parents that cannot bear the burden of driving their kids to school outside the neighborhood. And at the same time...each student that leaves siphons money away from the 'bad' school. So you end up with a type of accidental segregation.

And vouchers are nothing more than tax cuts for the rich. The average private school costs $11,000/year and the average voucher is $2500. Rich people can afford to make up the difference...many of them already are paying the $11,000. But poor folks cannot afford the lab fees and activity fees...much less the tuition difference.

When I grew up, there was no school of choice. You went to school where you lived. And if your school sucked...parents had a vested interest in making it better. Now, when a school sucks, parents pull their kids out of that school and move them somewhere else. It sounds fair...except to the kids that can't get out as easily.


The justice system even seemed to be against black and hispanics because they ,still till this day, have the highest incarceration rate in the U.S. I do however acknowledge the lack of motivation to make it out the hood by most blacks and hispanics. They love to talk about it and not be about it, is how we say it.
I realize there is a problem with certain races being sentenced differently...but at the end of the day...if you don't commit a crime...you don't have to worry about it. This isn't 1959 where a black kid can be arrested for talking to a white woman or using the wrong bathroom. I challenge President Obama or anyone else...go to a prison...walk down a random cell block...and see if you can find a guy that is 'innocent'. It's a 1 in 10 million shot.

What we need...is hope. We need a system where black and latino kids from bad neighborhoods feel like if they do keep their noses clean...there's a carrot on the end of that stick. Because, if people feel their only way 'out' is to be an athelete or become the next Scarface...That's the problem.


The inequality I speak of however is that of which affirmative action was created for. For those who were motivated to get to the top through education and hard work, but couldn't get there because a friend of the ceo's child is looking for a job to start their career,and they choose them over someone who is already experienced.
You and I are in agreement on this. I've seen too much racism first hand...and too much "entitlement" mentality to truly endorse ending affirmative action. A guy I work with hates that...because he works off the premise that everyone has the same 'shot'. And they don't. His kids grew up in a big house, went to private school, never missed a meal, and had parents afford to pay their way through college. That is SO entirely different than a kid, who is just as motivated, who starts out in the ghetto living with his single mom who is strung out on meth. Imagine a swimmer wearing ankle weights...I'm not saying that they can't make it across the pool...but it sure is harder than it is for the other swimmers.


Just because Asians hire inside their own community doesn't make it right, it's just the Asian community didn't hold those high position jobs and correct me if i'm wrong they still don't. Plus there is a-lot of illegal activity that went on inside the Asian community that contributed to their success, ironically sounds like politicians haha.
That's absolutely true. There are many, many 'massage parlors'...most owned by Asians...employing Asians. I used to work for a Chinese guy that used almost entirely Asian workers...all illegal that he paid to come over and work for next to nothing. Now, this isn't an "Asian" thing...it happens with all cultures...but when you're in that community...the people seem to not only 'accept' it...but they don't really see anything wrong with it. To them, laws are just hurdles they have to find a way to get around.

I'm very torn this elections season. I like Bernie...but I don't like how he's pandered to African Americans. I don't like Hillary and her racial stances nor do I like that she seems to think Obama has had a great 8 years (I think he had a good 3) and is going to just continue is policies.

All my choices on the Republican side have dropped out. The moderate, sensible Lindsay Graham. The reformist/pragmatist Rand Paul. I liked Chris Christie early on...but he spent so much time moving to the right...who knows what he stands for anymore. And that leaves Donald. I despise many things about Donald. He seems to know virtually nothing about any issue. If asked for specifics he's as lost as a goldfish in cat litter. He says stuff that Presidents shouldn't say. And worse than all of that...he insulted John McCain...a true American hero who spent more time in a POW camp than he could have...because he didn't think it was fair that he get to leave (because his father was a high ranking Naval officer) and his fellow comrades did not.

If Bernie drops out...it's gonna be yet another election cycle where I have to hold my nose and vote for either Hillary or Donald....trying to find the best of two bad options.

[Hot_pocket]

As we all know Obama didn't have a good 8 years because of congress. The fact that a republican was able to outright say, their job was to make him a 1 term president should have been a violation of the peoples rights. We have officials who don't and won't work with each other to help US because they don't like tom, dick or harry, which is ridiculous. He would have had better terms if we didn't just stop at electing him, but as they are stressing now, vote for the congressional leaders also. While all democrats won't agree with every policy the chance of them willing to work to compromise increases tenfold.

[Aslan]

Well, HP...the good/bad (depending on where each person stands) news is:

The Republican party is about to collapse.

In my opinion, the Republican party has been hijacked by the extreme right wing: Rush, Levin, Hewitt, Prager, Glenn Beck, Ann Coulter, Bill O'Reilly, Fox News, etc... They've convinced 10-20% of their party that 90% of the country is ultra-conservative. And that's just not the case. So each election cycle, the Republican candidate fails and they claim it's because he's "not conservative enough" or "not a true conservative". When in fact...they are losing BECAUSE they are TOO conservative for the general electorate. Fox News thought they could pull the rest of the country over to the conservative side...and all they've done is push moderates out of the party.

So now you have a "silent majority" that is upset and voting for a very unlikeable moderate conservative...almost to 'spite' the right wing extremists.

And on the left...you're also seeds of this. The Democratic party has went from nominating a moderate Democrat (Bill Clinton) to having a very left-leaning Hillary against a Democratic Socialist. And BLM (blacklivesmatter) is serving as the wedge...that could seriously damage the party going forward. Reverse racism "plays well" during Democratic primaries and on ultra-liberal talks shows...but most people in this country are white...most Democrats are white...and like me, white people are kinda getting tired of defending ourselves as "not being racist" every time something happens in the black community. You (HP) may say that "I shouldn't feel that way"...but every time I turn on CNN or MSNBC there's a BLM operative explaining police brutality as if this is 1957...as if cops are just driving around gunning down innocent black kids on their way home from Sunday school. Yet in each scenario...that narrative ranges from completely false (M. Brown) to "not really accurate" (Garner, Trayvon, most others) to "sort of true, but not really". And if people raise their hand...and say, "excuse me sir, but didn't <insert victim>:
A) Have a criminal record?
B) Was armed?
C) Was resisting arrest?
D) Was high on narcotics?
E) Was a threat to the community?
F) Died due to negligence more so than being targeted due to race?

...all these questions paint me as a "racist". And even though I'm not...and most white Democrats (or Republicans) are not...the general white population is going to get tired of having to say "I'm not a racist, but..." It's going to cause a divide in the party...especially when these "prison reforms" start to lead to increased crime and murder rates...which is what we had BEFORE Bill Clinton signed into law 3 strike polices, etc... The Deomocratic party is trying to disarm law obiding people...telling them that they don't need guns to protect themselves because that is what the police are for...and then going to a rally and talking about letting felons out of jail and reducing the police presence because white police officers are making black people nervous and causing them to commit crimes.

Most people in this country are moderates...even though neither party likes moderates. And it's one thing to ask moderates to hold their nose and vote for the "best of two evils"...it's an entirely different thing to ask moderates to just accept an extreme right wing or extreme left wing candidate when that candidate is in favor of things that will harm them or could very well harm them.

There was a KKK rally in Anaheim recently...and the 3 members were attacked immediately upon exiting their vehicle. All I've heard from the media is how terrible the KKK is...which they are....which is probably why there were only 3 of them and nobody actually came to support them.

BUT...they have a right, a constitutional right...to peacefully protest....just like BLM does. You don't waive that right when most people think you're 'bad'. And to violently attack people...to set that precedent...I don't think it the precedent BLM should endorse...because only 13% of the country is black...and if being in the minority and spreading hateful rhetoric is suddenly deemed punishable by vigilante violence...BLM is going to have some problematic protests. And I predicted this...I predict that BLM will either disappear into the sunset like "Occupy Wall Street"...OR...we will see violent clashes between opposition groups.

Am I saying BLM = KKK in terms of hate groups. Absolutely not. The KKK is a domestic terrorist group with ties to white supremecists that are really nothing more than violent gangs of thugs. But if you look at the message of BLM...and how much hatred there is towards whites in this country...I'd be a little worried. MLK protested injustice peacefully. Malcolm X, Faraquan, the Black Panthers...those groups took another path...which is why we have an MLK national holiday...and those others are viewed negatively. BLM has been described more in line with the Black Panther mentality...that's a problem. To sum it up...it's one thing for a minority group to upset racists...it's another thing for a minority group to upset everyone that doesn't buy into their rhetoric.

It's too bad it costs so much to run for President...because a true moderate...who isn't as awful as Trump...this would be their election to win.

[fordman1]

Why does MLK get a holiday and Washington and Lincoln have to share one?
Why doesn't FDR have a holiday? He did so much for this country (all of the country).
Why doesn't Apple have to put back doors into all their phones?
What is everyone hiding?

[Aslan]

2016 Political Myths

Hillary Clinton
- She can't run because she is going to be indichted.
Actually, very little of what she is accused of doing was not done by previous Secretarys of State.

- She is the odds on favorite to win.
Actually, most Americans don't like her and don't trust her. She's leading because her party wants her to win and nobody stepped up to challenge the "Clinton Machine"...but she's the weakest candidate (in either party) since Al Gore.

- She is winning because she aligns herself with a popular Obama.
Obama was popular in the first term...but once re-elected has done things most Americans are not happy with...which is why he waited until after the re-election. Racial discrimination, Criminal Justice reform, Immigration Amnesty, Gun control, hostage trades, military failures, etc...

Bernie Sanders:
- He can't win.
The fact that he raises more money in a month, from small donors, than any other candidate would indicate otherwise.

- He's a Socialist.
He's a Democratic Socialist. And more accurately, a Democratic Communist. True Socialism is not actually a political ideology...because true Socialism doesn't require a government. It's a form of passive anarchy...which is why it never actually works. All it takes is one person in the commune to be the least bit greedy and Socialism collapses. The communist analogy is closer...because Bernie believes (like many EU countries) that the government redistributes wealth according to a progressive system...that's more of a communist mentality. Since our Constitution protects private parties...and it's nearly impossible to alter the Constitution...Bernie's system would be a hybrid of Democracy and Communism.

- He can't win because Clinton has the superdelegates.
The super delegates are not locked in. 8 years ago they also were behind Clinton...until Obama started winning...then they switched to Obama. If Bernie wins, the super delegates would have an almost impossible time to over-turn the will of the primary voters.

- Bernie can't win unless he gets the black vote
The black vote (or Hispanic vote for that matter) is only important in the primaries. In the general election, the black and Hispanic votes are usually more of a detriment than an advantage. The bottom line is, if the choice is between Obama/Clinton versus Bernie in the primaries...the black/Hispanic vote matters...if it's between Bernie and Cruz/Rubio/Trump...the minorities will vote Democrat and always have. Actually, Bernie being Jewish is more important in the general election with Florida being a Jewish swing state.

Other Liberal Myths:
- Most people want more gun control, less prisons, open borders, and criminal justice reform.
Those play well in the primaries but are liabilities in a general election. People want mental health (as they relate to guns) issues dealt with but not to have more gun rules for law abiding citizens. People want less crime, not less prisons. As Trump is showing, people are tired of illegal immigration being ignored and marginalized...especially by the left that refuses to even use the term "illegal". And people want a 'fair' legal system...but not a legal system that reverses the trend in reduced crime rates throughout the nation.

Ted Cruz:
- He's a "true conservative".
Actually, he's a 'fringe' conservative that represents roughly 12-21% of Republicans which is why he's loved my right wing radio and Fox News...but not very loved by most of his colleagues in Congress.

- He's a great politician.
If politicians are measured by how little they accomplish; he's the best politician in the history of the World. If politicians are measured by how well they can work with others in their party and across the aisle...he's the worst politician in the history of the World.

Donald Trump:
- He's a liberal.
By Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck's standard, everyone except Rand Paul and Ted Cruz are liberals...including John Boehner and Mitch McConnel who have two of the most conservative voting records in Congress.

- He can't win in the general election.
He would fare better than Ted Cruz in a general election. Maybe not as well as Rubio or Kasich. And, as stated above, he's facing the weakest Democratic candidate since Al Gore.

- He'll destroy the country.
Jimmy Carter was not a great President. George W. Bush was one of the worst Presidents in history. Neither destroyed the country. Almost...but our Constitution has checks and balances for a reason.

- People are voting for him because they are mad that conservative candidates aren't conservative enough.
Absolutely incorrect. It's the opposite...people are mad that their party...which 30 years ago had far more appeal to most Americans than the Democratic party did...is now being run by Tea Party fanatics who would rather shut down the government than concede an inch of ground to Democrats. They're tired of both parties ignoring immigration laws. They're tired of having the most powerful military in the World yet are unable to defeat a group of rebels in a desert. There IS anger...but it's not the anger right wing media is saying it is....which is leading to more anger.

[Tony]

Interesting events of recent with more and more of the GOP turning on their front running candidate Trump.

So if they decide not to support him, who do they run and does that doom them in the general election.

We should also address the fact that if the constitution was being followed both Cruz and Rubio do not meet the requirements to be president.
Remember the "Natural Born Citizen" clause, the writers did not include a definition, probably because they didn't think it was needed. The common law they had been living under and were accustomed to, English law , did have a specific definition, it said the person must be born in England or a territory of England to two citizens in order to be considered a natural born citizen.

Of course our court system could easily revise the understanding of this statement to whatever is handy at the time as they have done so many times before. That of course is their prerogative they feel as the ruling class is to adapt the law to whatever is handy a the time.
If they followed the intent of the constitution Cruz having been born in Canada to one American parent and Rubio born in the USA but to both non-citizens would not be eligible.

Of course if one of them should get elected we should assume the Clinton corruption machine will do everything possible to get them declared ineligible.

What a freaking mess, our political process much like our health care system are horribly broken and will need considerable help to return the country to the type of political system envisioned by the founders of the country.

If you've never been involved in local, state of federal government you might not have seen the level of corruption we are currently facing, it's horrendous.

[fordman1]

Didn't that weak Al Gore actually WIN! The constitution needs an overhaul. it was written before we had missiles, jets, a-bombs and 50 states. Every thing in it is outdated.

[fortheloveofbowling]

Didn't that weak Al Gore actually WIN! The constitution needs an overhaul. it was written before we had missiles, jets, a-bombs and 50 states. Every thing in it is outdated.

Why does Martin Luther King Jr have his own holiday and everything in the Constitution is outdated........ I in all sincerity hope there are no young people around you that may be influenced by your ridiculousness.

[Tony]

The constitution has built into it the ability to be amended, thus updating or adding things that are needed with a 2/3 's majority.
This process had worked well for a number of years but due to the establishment of a ruling class and persons serving unlimited terms in congress the
corruption has taken over. In retrospect the 22nd amendment allowing a president to serve only 2 terms should have included all elected officials.

What needs an overhaul is the members of congress and ALL elected officials. Our entire political and court systems are corrupt and it needs to stop.

Just in the past month in a city near me the Chairman of the County board was forced to resign after it was discovered he had a 6000.00 sauna installed in his
home paid for by the county, the purchasing clerk was also forced to resign with a finding of bribes and sweetheart deals for certain vendors over a period of years.

In the same city the alderman voted to forgive a TIF district loan to a real estate development company owned by the mayor's father and brother ( he only gave up ownership after being elected ) They took out the loan and got the TIF money to develop an old school building into condo's in a blighted area of town, other than the mayor and alderman I don't know anyone who thought this would work. Hey lets put a bunch of money into a school in the worse area we can find ans make it into high end housing area.....
Shouldn't the fools who decided to take the risk be held responsible, instead of the tax-payers. Where is the accountability of these officials ?

In another nearby town they are investigating a state office that has large quantities of inventory missing. In another they allocated 20 million dollars to update and remodel a civic center, a couple of years later with the project less than 1/2 way done they confessed they didn't know what happened to a significant amount of the money, it was not spent, but it's not there anymore and no one seems to have any idea what happened to it.....

That's just a small local example, add all the other local state and federal corruption and it's pretty easy to see that the people running things are not serving the people at all, mostly they are serving themselves ........

[Aslan]

If Trump continues his momentum, we are likely seeing the end of the Republican party as we've known it.

This has little to do with Trump...who most people and most of his supporters recognize is a ludicrous conman. It has everything to do with Right wing media, Fox News, and the Tea Party...who have taken a fringe right wing element in the Republican party...and completely taken the party over. Their calculation was that if they could keep hammering the rhetoric down people's throats...that eventually the moderates in the party would accept a more right wing approach and more right wing party.

Their calculation failed. And it failed in two horrific ways:

1) It drove more people to the Democrats...a party that prior to the tea party had < 50% support and being a "liberal" or "Democrat" was considered a "bad word". It's now reversed...where being "conservative" is viewed by most people as a "bad" thing. The Tea Party essentially ate their own young...killing strong conservative politicians like John Boehner and others...claiming they weren't "true conservatives" because they compromised (very occasionally). They have essentially defined "conservative" to be SO far to the right...that only Michelle Bachman, Ted Cruz, and sometimes Rand Paul actually meet the definition. They've taken a party with 55% of support...and killed it to the point that only about 6% of Americans pass the conservative litmus test.

2) It's allowed the Democrats to move further left. In the past...if a Democratic candidate moved too far left...they were slaughtered in the general election. And if they moved too far right...someone like Ralph Nadar would step in and take votes away from them. It made for an easy path to the Presidency for any moderate Republican. By the Tea Party narrowly defining "conservative" as essentially a flat tax tea party evangelical Christian constitutionlist...they've allowed the Democratic party to become more liberal with no real consequences regarding electability.

Rubio is the Republican candidate. He talks about Tea Party things...but supports the "mainstream" Republican beliefs like illegal immigration being a good thing because it brings in cheap labor and free trade being a good thing because it allows corporations to make more money. Ted Cruz is the Tea Party candidate...but in a general election...his extreme right wing ideals would kill him.

So the Tea Party has their guy...who has won just enough to keep running. The establishment Republicans won't support a Ted Cruz nor a Donald Trump so they won't let Rubio drop out and will keep funding him. Trump is a clown...but he understands compromise and understands how to get things done...and so long as the Republican party stays divided...they have parted the Red Sea and allowed Moses Trump to walk through.

And the establishment Republicans can't do anything about it. If they rally behind Cruz...they lose the Presidency because Cruz is unelectable in a general election. His only path is if the Democrats simply quit. If they try a brokered convention...with Trump winning the most delegates...the Trump supporters will vote Democrat and they'll lose...OR...Trump will claim shenanigans...and run as an independent which would pave the way for the Democrats or possibly lead to the first election that goes to the House because one nominee can't get 270 electoral votes.

Either way, the Republicans have only themselves to blame. By continuing to demonize anyone that disagrees with them...even their own...and nearly every moderate in the country...many of them Reagan Democrats and compassionate conservatives...they've killed their own party.

[Aslan]

Another major reason the Republican party is failing...is because their core belief is no longer relevant due to globalization.

In the past, trickle down economics was effective...give more money to the rich...they expand and create jobs for America...and we have a stronger America. The system was always rigged...but so long as the middle class was strong...people bought that concept. And it allowed them to dangle a carrot in exchange for votes. "Vote for me, I'll take less of your money (taxes)."

Free trade and a failed GW Bush/Karl Rove Presidency taught Americans that if you give money to the rich...they open plants in China and India and close plants in the United States. Suddenly the Republicans lost half their arsenal...and could only rely on Evangelical Christians to vote Pro-Life...but with far less people believing in Evangelical beliefs and being Pro-Choice...especially in swing states...that's a huge problem. Their message of "give to the rich...and someday...you too might be rich...maybe...unlikely...but maybe..." That message isn't selling the way it used to.

On the flipped...Democrats are offering everything and anything!! Free college. Free Health Care. Free Daycare. Free paid leave. And...the rich will pay for everything...and if they don't...we'll make it so they won't make as much money and force them to leave. Now, Republicans say that is a thing that will force companies to leave...which it will...but as long as America is the strongest economy...they can't "really leave". They need us to buy their stuff. If we don't, the global economy collapses...overnight. They need us, more than we need them. Thats our true US power. Not the Navy, not the oceans, not the nuclear missiles. Russia had all those things when they collapsed. We have consumers...with money and credit and a debt ridden mentality of "live for the now".

Don't want to sell us clothes...thats okay...we can make our own. Don't want to sell us bicycles? We can make those too. Don't want to sell us steel? Or oil? Thats okay...we have our own. We have the leverage.

So, back to the point...what can Conservatives off now that tax cuts are seen as just a trick to make the top 2% even more rich than they already are? Thus far...that answer is a resounding, "WHAT?!" And to quote Yoda, "That is why you fail."

[Hot_pocket]

Well, HP...the good/bad (depending on where each person stands) news is:

The Republican party is about to collapse.

In my opinion, the Republican party has been hijacked by the extreme right wing: Rush, Levin, Hewitt, Prager, Glenn Beck, Ann Coulter, Bill O'Reilly, Fox News, etc... They've convinced 10-20% of their party that 90% of the country is ultra-conservative. And that's just not the case. So each election cycle, the Republican candidate fails and they claim it's because he's "not conservative enough" or "not a true conservative". When in fact...they are losing BECAUSE they are TOO conservative for the general electorate. Fox News thought they could pull the rest of the country over to the conservative side...and all they've done is push moderates out of the party.

So now you have a "silent majority" that is upset and voting for a very unlikeable moderate conservative...almost to 'spite' the right wing extremists.

And on the left...you're also seeds of this. The Democratic party has went from nominating a moderate Democrat (Bill Clinton) to having a very left-leaning Hillary against a Democratic Socialist. And BLM (blacklivesmatter) is serving as the wedge...that could seriously damage the party going forward. Reverse racism "plays well" during Democratic primaries and on ultra-liberal talks shows...but most people in this country are white...most Democrats are white...and like me, white people are kinda getting tired of defending ourselves as "not being racist" every time something happens in the black community. You (HP) may say that "I shouldn't feel that way"...but every time I turn on CNN or MSNBC there's a BLM operative explaining police brutality as if this is 1957...as if cops are just driving around gunning down innocent black kids on their way home from Sunday school. Yet in each scenario...that narrative ranges from completely false (M. Brown) to "not really accurate" (Garner, Trayvon, most others) to "sort of true, but not really". And if people raise their hand...and say, "excuse me sir, but didn't <insert victim>:

...all these questions paint me as a "racist". And even though I'm not...and most white Democrats (or Republicans) are not...the general white population is going to get tired of having to say "I'm not a racist, but..." It's going to cause a divide in the party...especially when these "prison reforms" start to lead to increased crime and murder rates...which is what we had BEFORE Bill Clinton signed into law 3 strike polices, etc... The Deomocratic party is trying to disarm law obiding people...telling them that they don't need guns to protect themselves because that is what the police are for...and then going to a rally and talking about letting felons out of jail and reducing the police presence because white police officers are making black people nervous and causing them to commit crimes.

Most people in this country are moderates...even though neither party likes moderates. And it's one thing to ask moderates to hold their nose and vote for the "best of two evils"...it's an entirely different thing to ask moderates to just accept an extreme right wing or extreme left wing candidate when that candidate is in favor of things that will harm them or could very well harm them.

There was a KKK rally in Anaheim recently...and the 3 members were attacked immediately upon exiting their vehicle. All I've heard from the media is how terrible the KKK is...which they are....which is probably why there were only 3 of them and nobody actually came to support them.

BUT...they have a right, a constitutional right...to peacefully protest....just like BLM does. You don't waive that right when most people think you're 'bad'. And to violently attack people...to set that precedent...I don't think it the precedent BLM should endorse...because only 13% of the country is black...and if being in the minority and spreading hateful rhetoric is suddenly deemed punishable by vigilante violence...BLM is going to have some problematic protests. And I predicted this...I predict that BLM will either disappear into the sunset like "Occupy Wall Street"...OR...we will see violent clashes between opposition groups.

Am I saying BLM = KKK in terms of hate groups. Absolutely not. The KKK is a domestic terrorist group with ties to white supremecists that are really nothing more than violent gangs of thugs. But if you look at the message of BLM...and how much hatred there is towards whites in this country...I'd be a little worried. MLK protested injustice peacefully. Malcolm X, Faraquan, the Black Panthers...those groups took another path...which is why we have an MLK national holiday...and those others are viewed negatively. BLM has been described more in line with the Black Panther mentality...that's a problem. To sum it up...it's one thing for a minority group to upset racists...it's another thing for a minority group to upset everyone that doesn't buy into their rhetoric.

It's too bad it costs so much to run for President...because a true moderate...who isn't as awful as Trump...this would be their election to win.

The funniest thing about conservatives is they don't truly understand conservatism. They don't realize they support a party that doesn't like change, which is the simple definition of conservative, while they are willing to support changes that don't even necessarily benefit from. They choose a party based on popularity or catering to "making America great again", W.E. that means, because we damn sure aren't third world and most of them haven't had their decent if not lavish ways of living affected in the past 8 years. The parties need to be disbanded and 1 party need to be created that shares ideas or they need to get rid of the over payed support, keeping the corruption damn near nil.

Once again if that is how you feel when you watch someone who expresses how they feel then it's a personal thing. If a man beats a woman do you feel it's your fault for being a man? If you hear anyone claim it's your fault directly, then know you are dealing with someone who is ignorant and uneducated, which i know you can distinguish between the 2. As i have also said, they are explaining what they have seen/ experienced, so if you feel what they are describing is the police brutality of the 1950's then that tells me you are unconsciously and unacceptably realizing it as such. Of course they aren't talking about water hosing and unprovoked dog attacks but the, some not all cases, of excessive force being used. We know it's a fact that minorities, mainly hispanics and blacks, are stopped by police more frequently. Why they are stopped is due to racial profiling, which even i can't argue, when its in bad neighborhoods. But when said minorities are being stopped at a higher rate in Manhattan, where the neighborhoods are predominantly white, then that raises the red flag. There are less of them with more of them being stopped. Meanwhile corrupt Jim is walking down the street with enough blow in his briefcase to fuel a coke party,not to be racist just truthful.

As for the questions you ask, i have a hard to believing that people would call you racist for asking them. anyone who says your racist is dumb and again ignorant. However to further bring understanding to the leading causes of resisting arrests, which i don't condone, is to understand what leads to it. while i tell people just comply and fight the good fight later, i also understand some of those incidents should have never made it to the point of arrest. For instance someone being arrested to be given a summons and released, the arrest was not not necessary.The fear that you hear them speak of is real. being arrested forever affects someones future as you know. To be processed and booked now also puts people in the system for what seems to be, just in case the commit a crime. that just in case has not hurt there job chances. The crazy part is no-one questions when a celebrity or a big CEO has had a past run in with the law but it matters when a regular person has. You even see the difference in the media when they describe black kids as thugs and white kids as misunderstood or troubled youth. As iv'e said before to judge someone on their pass or their possible future is not a reason to target them or label them. It's not a reason for them to be treated any different unless you are dealing with a dangerous individual.

The dems are not trying to disarm anyone and all states need to adopt the 3 strike rule. As a responsible gun owner and logical person the closing of loop holes aren't negatives. Checking psych backgrounds and making people wait to purchase something that can kill others if misused is a benefit. Plus they can't take guns away without some kind of small war breaking out inside the U.S., there are just way too many gun owners.

As for BLM, as iv'e stated before they aren't aligned with white hate as they are reported to be. Once again that's the media doing it's best to slander something that could be positive and use the people to dismantle it. They are anti-police brutality, simple as that. I haven't seen any videos of anti-white claims being made by the real BLM movement. So as you said "they are described", not they are, aligned with black panther mentality. Which isn't necessarily far off if you understand the truth of the black panther party and not just the the negative light they were given. They were anti-police brutality also, which was way worse during their time, but they also uplifted their own communities. One thing I say very absurd is how the KKK, a white supremacist hate group that carried out killings of blacks and other minorities for decades, was never disbanded but the black panther party was disband by the government.

[Aslan]

As for the questions you ask, i have a hard to believing that people would call you racist for asking them. anyone who says your racist is dumb and again ignorant. However to further bring understanding to the leading causes of resisting arrests, which i don't condone, is to understand what leads to it. while i tell people just comply and fight the good fight later, i also understand some of those incidents should have never made it to the point of arrest.

There's a couple problems with that platform.

1) White people get pulled over too. And, believe it or not, we also hate it. And believe it or not, if we get out of the car, refuse to cooperate, cuss out the officer, etc... we also usually have bad, bad consequences.

2) Often times, when we hear these stories, we get a picture of somebody like Ben Carson minding his business and a cop sees him in a fancy car and stops him. That's harassing, and it's most likely annoying...but Ben Carson goes about his business. I'm willing to bet over 90% of stops of black people don't go that way. 10% of the time, the officer thanks the individual and it's nothing but an annoyance and the person leaves a little late, a little upset, but no harm no foul. The other 90% of the time...there was a reason they were stopped...or after they were stopped...there was a reason they weren't let free...or they did something...that made the incident more severe.

So, many stops...the black teen has drugs or drug paraphanalia in their possession. So is that profiling? Is it undue harassment? or is it an officer enforcing a law? What if the person has expired tags? A suspended liscence? Or a warrant out? Are these all harassment? Because we see this over and over in videos of traffic stops...the police pull over the black suspect...whether due to profiling or whatever...and there is a problem...a suspended lisence or something to that effect. Obviously, the black driver isn't happy that they got "caught"...just like I wouldn't be happy if I got caught speeding in a speed trap. But I think the power of the racial argument loses potency when the person is in fact committing a crime. Or, at least, it should shouldn't it?

Same thing with this new 'trend' to "resist". Then we see videos of police beating someone and we all get appalled...but we forget...the person getting beaten had numerous chances...to NOT fight...to NOT resist...to peacefully provide paperwork/documentation to the officer. And that's a black/white issue...we see plenty of videos of white people...getting pissed about a traffic stop...and ending up getting a beatdown and handcuffed in the back of a squad car. Resisting arrest is a horrible, horrible idea 99% of the time.

And I guess that's where my major annoyance/worry comes from. If we send the message that police need to take a step back...and be less aggressive towards those that commit crimes...then we will have more people committing crimes. For some reason, Trayvon Martin thought the chip on his shoulder was a good enough excuse to attack George Zimmerman. Mike Brown had a chip on his shoulder big enough to lead to an attack on a police officer. The guy selling cigarettes who had been arrested for that many times before...felt that it was still something he should be able to do. I'm not saying their deaths weren't tragic...but what should police do? Not enforce the laws? If plates are out of date...just let it go because it ain't worth the hassle? In each of these cases, when you peel away the racism element...you get to the real complaint...that many of these people, black and white, don't want to register their cars, want to be able to drive on suspended liscenses, want to drive intoxicated, want to sell illegal cigarettes...and they use "excessive force" or "profiling" as an excuse.

George Zimmerman acted like a buffoon. But once he was on the ground getting punched and beaten...what was he supposed to do? Invent a time machine and go back to earlier in the day? Should officer Wilson have just let Mike Brown have the gun? I mean, he already had stolen cigars...might as well let him have the gun too. And should cops see people illegally selling cigarettes and just go, "oh well, that's a silly law...we're not going to enforce that." Or if people call the cops that a kid is in the park with a handgun or a homeless person is wielding a knife...or a naked drugged man is walking down the middle of the freeway with a machete...should cops just "let it be"....cuz the kid probably has a toy or the homeless person is just mentally ill or the drugged machete guy ain't hurtin anyone?

Cops have seconds to make some of these calls. And these calls could be life or death for the public or their own safety. And they don't have judicial authority to just decide not to enforce certain laws and enforce other ones. The same people that are calling for cops to be less aggressive...are the same ones that will be on a 911 call screaming for police to get to their house because a naked machete wielding drug addict is in their front yard chopping up their dog.

There are people that commit crimes and people that don't. Sometimes people get caught in the "grey area"...where they are generally law abiding but have a "vice" or two. But all of us, with our "vices" run the risk that we get caught up in the "criminal" side of the law...and if we do...the consequences can sometimes be severe...even deadly. Black, white, Asian, latino....it doesn't matter. Breaking laws can have consequences. Especially when our lawmakers are cowards and refuse to change laws that they don't want enforced (prostitution, illegal immigration, marijuana, etc...) And I agree with "The Donald" on this...laws exist to punish cops who are dirty or racist. And those laws should be enforced to the fullest extent...a cop committing crimes is even worse than a standard citizen...an insult to the badge and the public trust. But the vast, vast majority of police...aren't doing anything wrong.

[fordman1]

I agree except I don't understand why you keep bringing up Travon Martin and George Zimmerman. If Zimmerman would have been minding his own business and not been allowed to carry a gun Martin would be alive today and maybe contributing to society. Not in and out of jail like Zimmerman.
Is it just me or there a lot of cops who were bullies in High School? They just love the authority the gun and badge give them.

[fortheloveofbowling]

I have been reading this back and forth between Aslan and Hot Pocket and have some perspective on some of these things.

First of all, i have in my life been pulled over 15-20 times in my life and that is no exaggeration. I have not had a speeding ticket in a while but over the course of my young life i had around 7-8 to the point of having my license suspended and taking classes to return it. In addition, i had other moving violations as well taillight, not coming to complete stop at stop sign etc. Just dumb kid stuff and being stupid essentially. I grew up in towns between 5,000 - 20,000 when at night the towns basically became silent. I was pulled over 4 or 5 times in my youth and into my early 20's and policeman told me i just wanted to see what you were doing out late. No reason, just what are you doing. Once i was pulled over and i got out to meet the officer (which i had done before) and he stopped cold and put his hand on his gun. Well that freaked me out and i have not done that ever again. Is all of this profiling a white guy or just a police officer doing his job?

When i first started getting really serious about bowling in tournaments my practice and travel partner was black. For several years we traveled all over ( Tennessee, Georgia, Kentucky, Indiana, Ohio, Michigan, Illinois) and put many miles on our vehicles. In those years we NEVER got pulled over and i NEVER heard him say anything about being pulled over in the town WE BOTH GREW UP IN. This was my best friend and we talked extensively and that never came up. Maybe it was because there was never any continuing trouble with blacks just white rednecks.

Through high school i had long hair to my shoulders and was a little rebellious. Maybe that is why constantly in stores i would be watched. More profiling of the type of person in that city they were having trouble with? Now i don't want my fellow bowlers thinking i was a criminal, i was just a young partier like many people. Some just don't admit it.

Having said all of that, i have always believed in do as i say not as i do with my kids. Maybe i'm a hypocrite but my kids don't smoke, drink, and always get good grades and are respectful of all people. My son graduated with a degree in criminal justice and is now a Police Officer. The main advice i had for him was don't be a jerk and treat everyone with respect. He has these feeling of i want to serve and protect he community i grew up in and be someone people can respect as a good human being that cares about others. Well, i would never say this to him but especially in this day and age unfortunately that is naive. At this point after a small time on the job he has been told i am going to kill you and spit on. This kid sees no color, is a great person to all, and all he wants to do is his job and serve a community he has emotional ties with.

So when i hear white people are not pulled over as much and people railing on all police officers all the time they have no clue.

[fortheloveofbowling]

I agree except I don't understand why you keep bringing up Travon Martin and George Zimmerman. If Zimmerman would have been minding his own business and not been allowed to carry a gun Martin would be alive today and maybe contributing to society. Not in and out of jail like Zimmerman.
Is it just me or there a lot of cops who were bullies in High School? They just love the authority the gun and badge give them.

Totally wrong viewpoints, hopefully you never need the aid of police because obviously you won't call.

Changed my comment because fordman can't help the way he is.

[fordman1]

What a Dick. Yeah, i said it. Take away my account if you need to but this guy is dumber than a bucket of s**t.....

Seems a little harsh. Maybe you need to go to church next Sunday.

[fortheloveofbowling]

Seems a little harsh. Maybe you need to go to church next Sunday.

I call it like i read it.

[Aslan]

fthlob-

1) I agree with you. I personally think police officers do an amazingly difficult job and are unjustly criticized. We hear that same LEGITIMATE argument from athletes. If one athlete beats his wife....people say the NFL has a problem. But how many teachers or doctors or judges or police officers beat their wives? When you look at percentages...it's probably similar. But when the spotlight is on you...everything gets magnified.

And I think it's horribly misleading...because as soon as some criminal gets shot committing a crime...the media goes nuts because the criminal was unarmed. Yet how many police officers are gunned down everyday...and it barely makes the back page. BLM doesn't like to talk about that or the fact that a black person is probably 2000 times more likely to be killed by a black criminal in their own neighborhood than by a police officer. And we've gotten to a point in race relations...where just bringing that up...I would be called "racially insensitive". If I got asked if "black lives matter or all lives matter" and I say "all lives matter"...that's considered racist....but it's not. It's just common sense. We don't need to make this an issue. Asians don't claim they are harassed by police...latinos haven't started protesting. Yet I'm willing to bet latinos face as much law enforcement discrimination as any other race. When we make it about 'race'...it's hypocritical to then criticize people for "seeing color".

I personally...now have an immediate negative opinion when I see black people in public. I never had that before. But now, I see a guy in a store or a bank...and he looks at me...and I think, "Oh...he's one of those BLM guys....he hates me because I'm white." I never thought that before. It never occurred to me. And there are a LOT of good people, black people, that have the opposite problem....where before all this nonsense...they were just neighbors and coworkers...now they're "black coworkers" or "black neighbors". Now people are uncomfortable around them and don't know what to say.

And there's no reason for it. Race relations have improved to the point that we have a half black President for crying out loud. 30 years ago, I'd have never imagined I'd live to see that. I was very proud that our country finally was willing to set race aside when they elected Obama. And fast forward 8 years....and it's worse now (race relations) than it was 30 years ago!! I think Obama and Eric Holder have fueled those flames in term #2....but it's mostly what I call "black opportunists"...who are politically motivated...and instead of being proud that race relations have improved....have started asking themselves, "How come I didn't get anything from the black President? Where is my money? Where are my reparations? How come my life isn't better now?" And instead of placing that blame on congress and corporations and unfair trade policies, etc...; it's easier to once again blame it on "The Man".

And that's what disappoints about Bernie Sanders. He's very honest...but when he saw how popular Hillary was with the black voters...he decided to pander for votes rather than continue to drive home his original message...that all lives matter...all people deserve opportunity...regardless of skin color. That's the message that wins general elections rather than winning Democratic primaries.

2) You might want to re-word your post. Bowl1820 has taken a rather "hands off" approach to moderating this thread given these type of discussions are of the non-bowling nature and can get a little "testy". But take it from a guy that has made a career out of "walking that fine line"...outright foul language is almost daring the moderator to act....and you never want to "dare" them to act. Even us "bowling gods" who have "dared" them...have found ourselves in "bowling forum jail". I never use foul language...it makes moderating me too easy. And most of the time when I've seen it...the person is essentially "asking" to be moderated...like a cry for help. But, I'm not a moderator...and I'm obviously not offended by much...so I don't really care...but just thought I'd offer my 2 cents...don't want to see people in trouble and leave the boards...or they'll end up in some forum for 70-year old health nuts advocating snake oil and magical elixers (Iceman joke).

Fordman-
The problem with your argument about Trayvon....is it is full of assumptions. Had Zimmerman NOT been armed...he may have been killed...and Trayvon would almost certainly be in jail right now. Remember, the evidence showed that Trayvon attacked Zimmerman. The gun didn't come out until after that attack started.

Should Zimmerman have followed him? Probably not.
Should the 911 operator have instructed him not to (versus phrasing it, "you don't need to do that")? Probably.
Should the neighborhood watch have had better guidelines on how to conduct their watches? Probably.

But the one thing that we drastically wrong that night...the ONLY criminal act according to Florida law...was assault and battery with intent to injure or do great bodily harm...BY Trayvon AGAINST George Zimmerman. That is the only crime that took place....and unfortunately, Trayvon picked a guy with a gun...who was frightened enough to use it. It doesn't make the loss less tragic...but the facts are the facts. In my OPINION...I don't think Zimmerman acted appropriately, I think he and the neighborhood watch are CIVILLY responsible for the death of Trayvon Martin. But I do not disagree with the jury...that George Zimmerman commited no criminal act and was well within his rights under state law to defend himself.

[fordman1]

Sir a neighborhood watch should always be in pairs in easily identifiable plainly marked something. Arm bands, berets special shirts. Something to let a person being stalked not fear for his life. They are there to watch and inform police. Not act like Police officers. I think some people are looking for a reason to arm everyone and start a war in the streets. All this stuff about BLM is just a smoke screen to find things to get on TV. They don't seem to matter as much when it is black on black.

[fortheloveofbowling]

Sir a neighborhood watch should always be in pairs in easily identifiable plainly marked something. Arm bands, berets special shirts. Something to let a person being stalked not fear for his life. They are there to watch and inform police. Not act like Police officers. I think some people are looking for a reason to arm everyone and start a war in the streets. All this stuff about BLM is just a smoke screen to find things to get on TV. They don't seem to matter as much when it is black on black.

Arm bands and special shirts.... I'm going to run like hell because i am being stalked by Nazi Brownshirts........

[fordman1]

Need something to identify them so when the police arrive to do their job they know which black guy to arrest.

[Tony]

Need something to identify them so when the police arrive to do their job they know which black guy to arrest.

I would think they might arrest the guys wearing armbands and berets .....they obviously must be gang members of some type !

[Aslan]

Last night, the two parties got dealt a double-blow in Michigan...an important swing state.

Hillary saw a double digit lead in the polls turn into a narrow loss. Trump brought out Michigan's significant amount of independents and Reagan Democrats...easily defeating his opponents.

At first, I was over-joyed! My man Bernie...sticking it to Hillary and the Democratic party! But then....

....then I saw something that troubled me. So I ran the numbers....based on party strength, who is voting for who, voter turnout, independents, etc... And for Trump supporters...it's great news. For everyone else....it's bad news.

Popular Vote Predictions:

Clinton vs. Trump: Clinton 49,650,546 (46.75%) vs. Trump 56,545,500 (53.25%)

Sanders vs. Trump: Sanders 53,229,198 (48.83%) vs. Trump 55,769,362 (51.17%)

Now, lets assume Ted Cruz pulls off a miracle....

Clinton vs. Cruz: Clinton 53,012,399 (52.99%) vs. Cruz 47,021,821 (47.01%)

Now, let's assume the Repblicans have a brokered convention....now before I list this...realize what that means. Trump WILL run as an independent. The Republican Party knows this...so a brokered convention leads to 3 candidates...and since Trump appears to be easily defeating every establishment candidate...it's reasonable to assume he'd be the first independent Presidential candidate in history to garner well over 15% of the popular vote. In this scenario....

Clinton vs. Establisment/Brokered Choice vs. Trump: Clinton 47,449,820 (43.69%) vs. GOP Candidate 15,323,539 (14.11%) vs. Trump 45,840,421 (42.20%)

Now, in the above "mess"...there could be a significant problem....and one that if you're a true election nerd...may actually provide a "back door" for a GOP nominee to get in. Should the GOP broker their convention...and the 3-party race not lead to 270 electoral votes...which it might...the constitution dictates the election goes to Congress. The House would then choose the President. The House is Republican controlled...and would likely be able to get a majority. In that case, the GOP selection from the brokered convention...despite receiving only 14.11% of the popular vote...would be elected President. The Vice-President...would be chosen by the Senate...but only from the top 2 candidates...so if Paul Ryan was the GOP convention's choice and Scott Walker is VP. Lets say Chris Christie is Donald's VP choice...and Hillary's VP choice is Julian Castro. The senate would choose between Julian Castro and Chris Christie for VP.

So, the likely scenario....should it go THAT far...is President Ryan (R) and Vice President Castro (D). :eek:

This would be an epic and potentially catastrophic event for the World's leading Democracy. Over 45 million voters that support Trump...including 40% of registered Republicans...will have their votes erased...not counted. The President receiving the most popular votes (Clinton)...will have lost. Worst case scenario...you'd have civil war...as Pro-Trump States refuse to recognize the authority of a President that 85% of the country voted against. Even if the people accepted the results....over time...the Republican Party would be in shambles...with moderate Republicans fleeing to the Democratic Party or attempting to start their own party with Trump as their martyr. And Donald Trump would spend 4 years in courtrooms and on TV...blasting and diminishing the sitting President as a fraud. It could even lead Congress, almost force Congress, to abolish the 12th and 14th ammendments to the Constitution and end the electoral college....deciding all future elections by popular vote.

That may seem like a good idea, but it drastically re-shapes how we elect a President. Suddenly Red states like Texas will see more Democrats voting and California New York will see more Republicans voting...because their votes suddenly matter more. Voter turnout would almost certainly increase...as would voter fraud...as individual votes become far more meaningful in every State.

[fordman1]

Florida gun advocate shot by her 4 year old son in a pickup truck. I guess she wouldn't take him to McDonalds. It couldn't have been an accident she said he really gets geeked up going to the gun range??? 31 year old mom?

[Hot_pocket]

I never said police dont do a good job, I am apart of the LEO community and I know from the other side of the fence the ridiculous b.s we deal with. I've been told "suck my ****, I'll beat your a$$, had my kids talked about, had toilet water thrown on me." List goes on. You are missing the point, but have proven a very valuable point against yourself. Of course I'm not speaking of the crimnials being stopped while committing crimes, that's stupid. I'm talking about, the senseless stops by officers. Quick story, I was walking down the street with 3 friends, 1 was fom Florida. We get to the store and see 3 of our other friends, we stop and talk for a second to them outside. Mind you it's December and freezing. A cop car passes by, then a cop van pulls up. They line us up with our hands on the wall take out wallets out of our pockets, not suppose to do that, and proceed to issue 6 bogus summons. 3 for disorderly conduct 3 for obstruction of pedestrian traffic. There was absolutely no reason for us to be given summons. Stop us fine, summon us b.s., including the friend from Florida who had to come back just to go to court. This is what I'm talking about. It happens all to often do to the pressure created inside the force to produce numbers. Racial discrimination is real not imaginary. Once again not all cops are bad, I know, just needs to be a change in views.

Now the fact you said you go out and see a black man in a bank and go " he hates me because I'm white", that's as I said, personal. Black people have dealt with that for years and still do though ,so maybe you now know how it feels to be judged for how you look. Thanks for proving the personal issue point. Blaming protestors for a cause that's not anti-white, for your change in how you think all black people, according to what you said, are looking at you is crazy.

You keep bringing up Zimmerman. As I said, and I agree with fordman oddly, he should not have followed him leading the incident and he should have some kind identification. If I pull my gun while off duty I have to identify myself otherwise I'm just a young black man with a gun. If someone sees my gun on my hip, don't think they assume I'm a cop, because they will call the cops on me. We will probably never agree on the situation. Zimmerman instigated and then claimed self-defense. As you said he acted in negligence and as I said he would have been guilty if charged differently. As a person who carries you have to have a different mind set when confronting someone. Most of the time you don't get within a certain distance to avoid a physical confrontation. With mike brown we agreed so no point in bringing that up. Garner should have been detained differently, simple as that. They deemed his death a homicide. The chokehold was illegal, so what should be done about it?

Recently there were two incidents on the same day in Cincinnati. A white man pointed a toy gun at officers and lived. A black man complied with officers but made a gesture for a toy gun in his waist band and died. The officers who had the gun pointed at them would have been justified to use deadly force. What was the deciding factor in use of force each time? I'm asking your opinion. I will say though, it's situations like that, that cause the race argument to be fueled. Obama didn't flame the racial flame the media did. The events that took place, Eric garner, akai gurley, trayvon martin, tamir rice, freddie grey, mike brown....those flammed racial tensions. As I said a while back unedcuated people will not understand the process and reasoning of police actions, but as you know, if enough people feel something is wrong they begin to demand a change. The media controlled the information relayed and perceived. They control the minds of most and thats in regards to everything worth reporting, bad news sells.

I'm not a tactician but I feel that if officers are surrounding someone one officer should take a shot with a Taser while the other officers have their weapons drawn for back-up. It seems logical because it offers 1 non-lethal option before deadly force is necessary. I could be wrong but it's just an opinion.

Forthelove--- I appreciate what your son does. Officers that can keep it neutral are what make up a great force. I know what it's like to see officers who look at all criminals as scum. As you taught him you respect everyone which makes his job easier. If someone choose to disrespect a man for bad decisions he made, understand you will not receive respect back. I learned that in the academy and an inmate said it to me the first day I worked inside.

[Aslan]

I can't disagree with your experiences hotp...and if police did that...and I saw them do that...even as a white/non-black person, I would ask those officers why they are harassing three people for walking down the street minding their own business? I would hope other races would do so as well. Maybe we aren't "there" yet as a society. And that's sad.

Where I disagree is the "statistics". We've seen mega-coverage every time an African American is shot by cops. Cell phone videos, etc... Yet how many times does a cop killing make the news? How many times are blacks arrested each day....and how many are truly just being profiled or racially mistreated? If I'm a cop walking the beat in South Chicago....and I arrest 10 African americans....and 1 turns out to be "just minding his own business"...am I in the wrong or in the right? Am I allowed a 10% mistake rate? If not, how many mistakes am I allowed to make?

I agree that whenever non-lethal force can be used...it should be. Tasers are "extremely effective". I see no point in ever shooting an unarmed person when you have mace and a taser. And I think to bridge this gap...between races...we just have to be honest with each other. I don't know many white folks that would honestly be "okay" with unarmed black citizens being shot for no reason. But we also have to stop claiming that EVERY time a black person is pulled over....it's because they're black. And we have to stop saying it's okay when a black person gets pulled over...that they are allowed to resist arrest....and if they die or get shot...it's a racist act. As I've said...and someone else mentioned as well....if I get out of my car at a traffic stop...I'm not getting any different treatment than "black Aslan"....not a chance. If I cuss out a cop at a traffic stop because my car isn't registered and I'm driving on a suspended liscence...he doesn't just let me go because I'm white. If a person is committing a crime...skin color shouldn't matter. If a person is minding their own business....skin color shouldn't matter.

The reason I keep brining out Garner and Brown...is BOTH of them were committing crimes. They both were in the wrong. They both died tragically as a result. They both received a ton of attention...and the BLM movement still uses them as poster children for their movement. Yet BOTH of them were committing a crime....both were resisting arrest....both were very large men. Yet when you watch CNN or MSNBC...they tell you about these poor, unarmed, teen, black men....gunned down by white cops....or attacked and strangled by white officers. They paint a picture...that enrages people....then they cover the riots and make $$$ off of it. Then, before the facts are in...President ODumb*** starts saying that it's a tragedy that these innocent kids are being gunned down....as if Officer Wilson saw some kid on his bicycle riding home from Sunday school and just opened fire because he thought it would be funny. Then we get riots...and more riots....

And what happens during these "riots"? Is it like in the days of MLK? Nope...75% of the people rioting are most concerned with which store to break into and steal and loot from. During the LA riots...people were running in stores taking TVs and DVD players and XBoxes....and it makes the whole thing look like just an excuse to steal...the whole riot loses it's original message.

Hopefully....some good comes from all of this. Maybe body cameras is a good start. And that is another reason I don't care for BLM....now they are against body cameras because they don't want "surveillance" of them in their neighborhoods. Sometimes...I just don't get it. :confused: It's like, you want video...so cops can't just do whatever they want to whomever they want...but not if the video might show some unlawful act that you are actually doing.

And the case I really have the most "trouble" with...even more so than the Trayvon case....is the case of the white guy that shot the van/SUV. Now, unlike the Trayvon case, the white guy was sent to prison for that....and I agree with that decision. But....what if he hadn't shot the SUV? What if he asked them to turn their music down...they refused, and an altercation followed? That's like 4-5 guys...against one old white guy. At what point as a gun carrying person...do you use force...versus just "take a beating"? We've all experienced what that guy experienced. We've all been at gas stations when someone pulls up with the radio turned to the max....so loud it's shaking the mirrors of our cars. Is the message that we're not supposed to say anything? And if we do, we should take a beating? I don't know. Like the Trayvon case...it can be summed up the way my CCW instructor summed it up back when I went through the concealed carry training in Michigan:

"If you use your gun and shoot someone, even if you were in the right, you're going to wish you hadn't. You will be detained for questioning, you might be prosecuted, and you certainly will get sued by the family(s). Even if you win, it'll cost thousands in time and money. So you never want to shoot someone unless it's your absolute last choice and it's either you or them." (paraphrased)

And that sucks. It sucks that a person can break into your house on Christmas Eve and steal the presents from under your tree...and as long as they are unarmed...they can just walk out the door with all of your things....including the tree...like the Grinch...and you can't shoot them. They are unarmed....they are not threatening you with bodily harm...and once they are outside of your dwelling...you just have to hope the police see them carrying a big Christmas tree with a wagon full of your stuff. And if you've been robbed....which I have once....ask the cops how likely it is you get your stuff back....and they'll likely laugh so hard they will pee themselves.

[fordman1]

You had me until you told the BS story about not being allowed to shoot a burglar who broke into your house. Shoot him and you get to tell the story of what happened. Once they leave your house they are no longer a threat to you or your family so maybe you don't want to shoot them some one might be watching.

It amazes me how brave people get when they are allowed to walk around with guns in their pocket. If you don't have the nerve to say something when you don't have a gun don't say anything when you don't.

Sounds like your CCW trainer gave you some good advice. It takes a bigger man to walk away than pull their gun and do some macho BS.

[Hot_pocket]

As I stated before about race relations, is it the media, BLM, president, or the citizens that are increasing the racial tension? Peoples expectations for Obama was to easy them further even though he can't change the minds of millions of Americans, only they themselves can. Everyone is accountable for their own feelings and actions , unless we are talking mental instability or temporary insanity. So actually the race relations issue is a combination of continued media influence and the ignorance of those who can't choose when hate is not necessary.

I've already said not all stops are a result of being black, it's just a statistic the a majority are black. I hate these cell phone videos that come out. It shows true ignorance of the person recording. Most of the time they show the justification for the officers actions. Not to mention they always start Midway through the altercation, so you don't know who escalated the situation.

I hope to never have to shoot someone and not because of legal fees but because taking a life can't be easy. It takes a toll of you mentally.

Well if they jumped him then hell yea he would be justified, but that's not what happen. Just like I'm pretty sure if Zimmerman identified himself as a neighborhood watch, there would have just been an exchange of words instead of an altercation. Let me ask you this though aslan. Do you believe Zimmerman acted without any form of prejudice?

Is this guy for guns or against them.... Your worse than trump with the flip flopping.

[Aslan]

Well if they jumped him then hell yea he would be justified, but that's not what happen. Just like I'm pretty sure if Zimmerman identified himself as a neighborhood watch, there would have just been an exchange of words instead of an altercation. Let me ask you this though aslan. Do you believe Zimmerman acted without any form of prejudice?
No. Nobody acts without prejudice.

I would actually enter into this discussion, that prejudice is actually a GOOD thing. How so? Prejudice is a form of instinct. If I see a person approaching me, acting 'shady'; my instinct is to be cautious. Those who lack that instinct, get weeded out of the gene pool. Imagine you see a bear in the woods. Are you acting in a prejudiced way to assume that bear will eat you? Is it not "profiling" of that bear? That bear has done nothing wrong...it's just walking around...minding it's own business.

See, you'll that's an unfair comparison...a wild animal to a person. But is it? You would be right to be cautious around wild animals...just as you would be right to be cautious in back alleys or after midnight or when working in a dangerous profession. Minorities see it as "racial discrimination"....yet most black people are as racially discriminatory as any race. They HAVE to be. If you grew up in the 50s...you are perfectly reasonable to assume white people don't like you. That isn't being a "racist"...it's being a "realist".

Criminals prey on those that are not prejudiced...and are not cautious. They see an old lady and scam her. They find a lonely nerd on the internet, and convince him they are a beautiful woman needing money for a plane ticket to come see him. Watch late night TV...commercial after commercial from low-credentialed colleges and infomercials from get rich quick and pyramid schemes...preying on the poor and jobless who are up at 3AM on a weekday.

Prejudice keeps us alive. I think Zimmerman thought he had found a robber....casing the neighborhood. It was dark, the kid was black, the kid was unfamiliar. Zimmerman made a series of bad decisions...and Trayvon made only one bad decision. But one bad decision against a guy with a gun is all it takes. That's sad...but it's the reality.


Is this guy for guns or against them.... Your worse than trump with the flip flopping.
Not sure if this is for me or Fordman?

I am a former CCW holder and proud gun owner that voted AGAINST the CCW laws that got enacted in my former state of Michigan. I voted against it, because I was concerned it would make criminals out of law-abiding people. And I was right to some extent. I don't know how many times while I was carrying that I almost took off my coat or my shirt rode up too high...and suddenly I was "brandishing" a firearm in public and was subject to a misdemeanor fine and forfeit of my CCW and firearm. I can't count how many times I had to go into a place like a bar or pub or expo...knowing I wasn't supposed to carry it there...but I felt it was necessary or didn't realize it until I was already in there. I was a law-abiding citizen...forced into committing crimes....by a law that was so precise and overly-stringent....that it was impossible to follow.

In terms of usage....no, of course I don't "want" to shoot somebody. That's horrible. If I was a sociopath wanting to shoot someone...I've had plenty of opportunities...but no thanks. That being said, there needs to be consequences when people commit crimes. We are seeing an increase in theft, break-ins, assaults, robberies, rapes, murders...and all the politicians talk about is jail over-crowding and better conditions for prisoners. What about the victims? Why are the law-abiding required to do more and more to protect themselves...then when they finally get fed up and "DO something"....they are deemed racist and insensitive? Here's an idea....if you don't want to get shot....try NOT committing a crime. It's no guarantee you won't get shot....but it reduces the likelihood by about 400%. I have no compassion for a person that would break into my home...steal from me...possibly harm me. I think it's a shame that their lives have led them to that...and that society has failed them in some way. I feel bad for the homeless and the mentally ill and the poor. But is allowing a thug to steal my Xbox so he has more money to buy meth...is that me helping them? Maybe a bullet is the best way to end their misery. Maybe not.

But if I have to choose between their life and my Xbox...even though I rarely use the Xbox...the Xbox wins. Because it's mine...not his. It's not sitting outside...it's in my apartment. And he wasn't invited in nor was he given that item...which makes him a dangerous criminal. My Xbox is not dangerous...it's dangerously addictive sometimes...but I don't have to worry that if I leave it turned on it might rape my neighbor. If I leave the thug alive...whats the next crime going to be? Am I taking a life? Or saving two? I dunno. But I believe, in my heart, that God has a plan...and if God's plan is to have a thug break into my apartment...that thug is likely to get shot...and maybe that's what God's plan is. Maybe I got to jail...maybe that is also God's plan. Or maybe, at the last second, I hesitate...and the thug runs off...and the near-death brush...changes him into a better person. Again, I don't know what God's plan is....and hopfully it doesn't involve me shooting anyone...but if it does...hopefully the community and God are okay with it.