I don't know enough to have a well-based opinion, but I've never heard
any pundit say anything but what a decent human being he was - which,
I'll grant, is probably irrelevant to being a president... but the
thing that stuck was that when he had to make some economic decision or
another he told the staff in so many words: "Forget about party
politics, we are going to do what's right for the country."
Trump is in a similar position. He has not spent his life trying to
position himself to be president like the rest of the clown car has.
He has not sold his soul to special interests in the quest. He is not
bought and paid for, he doesn't have a string of promises made to
dozens of interest groups who's c)^#s he's been sucking along the way.
And he's been pretty consistent in his views over the years despite
the warped narrative the media keeps trying to paint.
You want to see what his views were 25 years ago? Take a look at this
youtube video from an appearance on Oprah.... He said the same thing
then he says now and it's as true now as it was then.
On Saturday, November 7, 2015 at 10:57:39 AM UTC-5, Ashton Crusher wrote:
Pretty consistent? When Romney lost the last election,
Trump claimed he lost because of his "harsh" and "maniacal" position
on immigration. Romney's position was to enforce the border and rely
on self-deportation. Just a few months ago, when cornered and forced
to answer what he would do with the 11 mil illegals already here, Trump
said he's always been in favor of merit, that with 11 mil, you can't
deport them all, you have to deport the criminal ones, the rest, be
believes in a merit system. Now he says he wants to round up and deport all
11 mil. Sure, that's consistent. Consistent with a liar.
Trump was pro-abortion, until he got interested in running as a
Republican. Now he says he's pro-life.
Trump was pro gay rights, pro gay civil unions, now he says he's
against both civil unions and gay marriage.
Asked just last week about affirmative action, he's said he's always
been a supporter of it, but now, maybe it's time to think about
moving away from AA.
Wow, another, clear, consistent position. Anyone else know a
conservative or any Republican that doesn't have a clear answer on
where they stand on AA?
And then he was a Reform Party candidate, then an Independent,
no party, a Democrat, then just a few years ago he switched again to
Republican so he could run. He says the same thing? Yeah, I guess
if it's self-promoting BS, just telling people what he thinks they
want to hear at the moment, he has been consistently doing that.
There are plenty of good cops. It's a shame anyone who points out
that there are TOO MANY bad ones in the barrel is ALWAYS attacked as
if wanting to clean things us is somehow a bad thing. German cops
kill about 2 citizens a year, US cops kill 1000. A ratio WAY out of
proportion to the population difference. The ratio of population is
4. So if Germany had as many citizens killed by cops as the US does
they would be killing 250 citizens a year. But they kill perhaps 2.
Our policing is barbaric by comparison.
You are making the assumption the police are barbaric. Perhaps it is
the opposite. Law abiding Germans may not be shooting at the police or
otherwise provoking them. Maybe the US residents (note I did not say
citizens) may be the barbaric ones.
Numbers mean nothing unless you know causation.
Hmm, perhaps we can look to NYC for an answer. You may recall
recently where a black basketball player was waiting outside a hotel
or store and a cop thought he was a guy wanted for identity fraud. So
the cop, in plainclothes, with no warning, rushed and tackled him and
smashed him to the sidewalk and arrested him.
The BB player was released when they figured out it was the wrong guy.
Had it not been a well known BB player but just some black guy that
would have been the end of it. If he had complained the police would
have said no harm, no foul, all within policy, nothing to see here,
more along puny citizens. As always the Police Union knee-jerk
defended the cop.
But it's wasn't some unknown black guy. So the next day the Mayor and
Police chief were in damage control. Only someone divorced from
realty doesn't understand what went on here and how differently the
end point was due to WHO the victim of the police brutality was. And
like some many of these instances, this cop had several prior
complaints of excessive force, all basically ignored because you never
fire a cop till there's innocent blood you can't wash away.
It appears you don't know the difference between an automatic weapon
and a non-automatic weapon, nor the difference between a hunting rifle
and "high powered" rifles. Your assignment of cause completely misses
the mark as far as the guns and RWNJ's although there are plenty of
RWNJs. There are also plenty of LWNJs.
It is due to bad parenting brought on by the welfare state that has
taught several generations now that someone else is responsible for
every aspect of their lives. Then there are the schools which have
turned into prisons, and curriculum that is nothing but left wing
pabulum. That and the stupid war on drugs which has done nothing but
made things 1000 times worse and helped create the police state we
On Saturday, November 7, 2015 at 11:07:17 AM UTC-5, Ashton Crusher wrote:
And then there is the movement that you appear to endorse, which is
blaming the cops for "murdering" blacks. Like the incident that
started it all, Ferguson. The facts were that you had a black that
had just committed a strong arm robbery of a convenience store.
It ended with the black guy dead and the facts fully supported the cop.
But BLM and the usual race baiters lied and turned it into a totally
different narrative. That sends exactly the wrong kind of message
to blacks that you're talking about above.
The facts didn't fully support teh cop. The facts supported a murder
charge against teh cop but the DA saw to it that the facts were
misstated to the grand jury. The DA presented a VERY biased case to
the GJ and got what he wanted, no charges returned. 12 out of 15
witnesses said the cop shot the kid while his hands were up and he was
not a danger to the cop. But I don't expect you to base your views on
facts, it's not what you do.
On Sunday, November 8, 2015 at 12:30:23 AM UTC-5, Ashton Crusher wrote:
BS. The facts:
Unlike the innocent kid walking home portrayed by Black Lies Matter,
Brown had minutes before committed a strong arm robbery at a convenience
The forensics absolutely support that the first struggle started
with the officer still seated in his car, with Brown assaulting him
throw the window. The BLM liars claim the cop, seated in his car,
started throwing punches at a perp standing outside the car. Any
one with a pulse knows that makes zero sense. Brown started it,
and went on to try to get the officer's gun. The gun discharged inside
the patrol car, wounding Brown. Forensics absolutely confirm that.
Even the gun going off, being shot, didn't deter Brown. He had
started to run away, then when the officer got out of his car
and started to pursue him, ordered him to stop, get down, etc,
he turned around and charged the officer. He was closing the
distance between himself and the officer as he was struck multiple
times. Again, forensics absolutely show that from where he was
first hit, to where the fatal shot ended it, Brown was moving
towards the officer. End of story. Except of course it's not.
Part of BLMs complaint, which the lib media gladly spread without
questioning, was that it was so disrespectful to leave a black
guy laying in the street for several hours. I guess they don't
watch The First 48 or they would see that's what is done at every
crime scene, to preserve evidence until it can be photographed,
the medical examiner arrives, etc. But, heh, when you're BLM,
any lie is a good lie.
Again, BS. That is not what the grand jury heard. Most of the witnesses
had been totally discredited before they ever got to the grand jury,
including ones that admitted they hadn't seen anything or completely
changed their stories. What was left supported the officer. And this
wasn't just investigated by the DA, you had a full FBI/DOJ investigation.
If it was murder, racist, a violation of civil rights, WTF didn't Holder
bring charges? Simple answer, his investigation also showed there was no
Please cite sources for these "facts" because that is not was reported.
Do you really think Oslama & Holder would walk away if they HAD any
supporting evidence. Remember they were aiming fry someone but they were
shooting blanks as usual.
Right, because some law says the DA must be fair you think he is. I
bet you think traffic court is fair too. LOL. 12 of 15 witnesses said
Browns hands were up and he was not threatening the cop when the cop
murdered him. But you choose to believe the 3 who said differently.
The DA presented witnesses that by his own admission he thought were
lying. But they supported the DAs case or muddied the waters so he
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.