Politcal Ramblings

[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.