RealGM

dckingsfan wrote:Great - and that is where we disagree. From my point of view the folks that don't support women raising children are right there in the middle of the brigade (actually worse because in my mind an infant is even less able to support himself than a fetus).

And there you have it... now you should be able to clearly understand why gtn's comment was so succinct. It just took a like time to get there.

Pointgod wrote:
Wizardspride wrote:
Wizardspride wrote:
A question for the hardcore Trump supporters (mainly SD20/Nate):


IF Trump perjured himself while answering Mueller's questions, does that change your opinion?


Just want to get everyone on the record.

I'd like a response to this please.

Thanks.


Crickets.....,..


sorry wizardspride, i didn't think you actually wanted an actual answer to this rhetorical nonsense. But if you insist.

If Trump meaningfully perjures himself i'll go on record as saying that could be a red line for me. I'll reserve the right to define meaningfully for myself thank you very much and I'll reserve the right to define any type of punishment for crossing such a red line. But Impeachment would not be off the table if the perjury is meaningful enough.

Thats said, wow...you guys really chopping on that "russian ties to business bone today, huh?"

1. Even though we already knew about this quelched deal during the transition? And by "deal" i do mean a "pitched" deal.
2. Even though (as a private citizen) he already hosted his pageant in russia?
3. Even though Manaforte had worked for 2 russian friendly Ukraine politcians?
4. Even though he is a Global Billionaire that sells condos to foreigners including those from the middle east, russia, and others while he was a private citizen running his company?

You...know its been 25 years since i bought and flipped my first condo which gave me the seed money to begin buying income property....You could call me a very very poor man's Donald Trump. I also own many businesses. I am currently closing on a multi dental practice purchase to build my "Enpire" (muahahahaha) ...to date I've closed on more than 400 real estate transactions. Some i made some money. Some I lost some money. Some i still have and make a little money on each month. Do you have any idea as to how many "deals" got away? Take a guess? There was a time from 2010-2012 (god, those were dark and gloomy years but i digress) that I was making actual offers (submitting contracts) to purchase over 10 properties per day (200 per month)...about 1-2 would be accepted. I met with agents. Spoke to them on the phone. Sometimes met with sellers directly. Toured properties. Drove by. Even kicked in a few doors (that were stuck). We held tons of preliminary talks...and the deal fell apart on 95% of them...and these were 2 flats! 3 flats! 4 flats!

So you want me to be worried about trump leveraging his massive popularity uptick in 2016 as a potential presidential candidate to boost a business deal? I would too!!! He was down 5-7 points against HRC and 10-12 against bernie. And probably was still having internal debates as to whether or not he even wanted to be president...i mean why put yourself through this If you are already worth $8 Billion?

And to trump Russia was not a boogie man. No one is a boogie man. Look i'm not a billionaire...but i am a millionaire...many time over. And I can tell you...people get less scary when you know the law, under stand the law, and have the ability to pay the best lawyers in the world. Trump aint afraid of no one. because he understand people. You dont get to where he is at without understanding people extremely well.

So all of this...outrage...over every little thing he does...its just political spin. There are no crimes here...and there are not even misrepresentations. trump is an international businessman. I assume someone from every single state department in the entire world has at least stayed at one of his hotels and possible even met him or bought something from him. So what! There will only be a problem if trump compromises the citizens of the USA in exchange for personal gain. and quite the opposite has occurred since he took office. His Brand has took a major hit with half the country. liberal media has successfully branded him toxically (for liberals) and most of trump's base cant afford his products. <--I'm guessing they open up a modest brand of motels 8's across middle america or something else.

But right now...the only criminals i can find are the Clintons and the Obama's are looking to take a page from their book...tours around the world selling access to foreign states. <--and if Trump does that!! Then I'll be upset. If trump forms a charity...collects tens of millions from foreign bad actors like the Clintons did under the Bush and Obama watch, no less...i mean under Obama's very nose as he fell for it and made her secretary of state while BIll Clinton is collecting massive checks overseas!!

Thats a problem! Uranium One is still a problem!! Those are crimes against the american people, enriching themselves while selling access to our heads of state! But you seriously want me to (worry about) or question a real estate deal that never occurred!!?? No money changed hands!!??? While he was a private citizen????!!

Come on! find some consistency!

A Mall Shooting, a Black Man’s Death, and a Debate Over Race and Gun Rights



After gunshots rang out in a cavernous suburban shopping mall on Thanksgiving night, Ashlyn McMillan encountered a man she considered a hero.

Yet to a police officer who raced to the scene in Hoover, Ala., the black man with the gun was not a hero in action, but “a suspect brandishing a pistol,” according to a police account. The officer fired at him, and the man, Emantic Fitzgerald Bradford Jr., died.

As it turned out, Mr. Bradford was not the gunman the police had been searching for.

The correction was too late for Mr. Bradford, whom the police initially identified as the culprit, only to change their story a day later. Mr. Bradford had not shot anyone, the Hoover police said, but was a licensed gun owner at a chaotic scene in the crowded mall.

The two competing versions of what Mr. Bradford, who was 21, did that night — try to protect those in danger or pose a serious threat by wielding a gun during a moment of chaos — are at the center of a controversy over race, gun rights and bias that has erupted in this predominantly white suburb outside of Birmingham, and led to protests.

The incident has called into question the veracity of a popular slogan among Second Amendment enthusiasts: “The best way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.” Black people trying to protect themselves or others with a gun may not have gotten the benefit of the doubt in recent heat-of-the-moment situations.

This month, before Mr. Bradford’s killing:

• the police fatally shot a black security guard who had pulled his gun to try to break up a shooting in a suburban Chicago bar. He was licensed to carry.
  
• A Portland State University policeman fatally shot a black Navy veteran who, witnesses said, had been trying to break up a fight outside of a bar when his firearm fell to the ground during the scuffle. He was licensed to carry.
  
• And in St. Louis last year, a black off-duty police officer was shot and wounded by a white colleague after the black officer had taken his service weapon out to help officers trying to catch suspects near his home.

Much remains unclear about what led to Mr. Bradford’s death on the opening evening of the holiday shopping season at the Riverchase Galleria, the state’s largest indoor mall. Witnesses have said they did not see Mr. Bradford pointing his gun at people or hear the police shouting commands before shooting him.

Those details will be important as investigators determine whether the shooting was legally justified. In chaotic situations, officers can have just a split second to make life-or-death decisions, and the presence of firearms only complicates things, experts say.

Jamaaliver wrote:The myth of the good guy with a g u n...

Yet another fairy tale conservatives have concocted to paint over an ugly truth.

A Mall Shooting, a Black Man’s Death, and a Debate Over Race and Gun Rights

After gunshots rang out in a cavernous suburban shopping mall on Thanksgiving night, Ashlyn McMillan encountered a man she considered a hero.

Yet to a police officer who raced to the scene in Hoover, Ala., the black man with the gun was not a hero in action, but “a suspect brandishing a pistol,” according to a police account. The officer fired at him, and the man, Emantic Fitzgerald Bradford Jr., died.

As it turned out, Mr. Bradford was not the gunman the police had been searching for.

The correction was too late for Mr. Bradford, whom the police initially identified as the culprit, only to change their story a day later. Mr. Bradford had not shot anyone, the Hoover police said, but was a licensed gun owner at a chaotic scene in the crowded mall.

The two competing versions of what Mr. Bradford, who was 21, did that night — try to protect those in danger or pose a serious threat by wielding a gun during a moment of chaos — are at the center of a controversy over race, gun rights and bias that has erupted in this predominantly white suburb outside of Birmingham, and led to protests.

The incident has called into question the veracity of a popular slogan among Second Amendment enthusiasts: “The best way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.” Black people trying to protect themselves or others with a gun may not have gotten the benefit of the doubt in recent heat-of-the-moment situations.

This month, before Mr. Bradford’s killing:

• the police fatally shot a black security guard who had pulled his gun to try to break up a shooting in a suburban Chicago bar. He was licensed to carry.
  
• A Portland State University policeman fatally shot a black Navy veteran who, witnesses said, had been trying to break up a fight outside of a bar when his firearm fell to the ground during the scuffle. He was licensed to carry.
  
• And in St. Louis last year, a black off-duty police officer was shot and wounded by a white colleague after the black officer had taken his service weapon out to help officers trying to catch suspects near his home.

Much remains unclear about what led to Mr. Bradford’s death on the opening evening of the holiday shopping season at the Riverchase Galleria, the state’s largest indoor mall. Witnesses have said they did not see Mr. Bradford pointing his gun at people or hear the police shouting commands before shooting him.

Those details will be important as investigators determine whether the shooting was legally justified. In chaotic situations, officers can have just a split second to make life-or-death decisions, and the presence of firearms only complicates things, experts say.

New York Times

stilldropin20 wrote:these shooting really bother me.
But the solutions are on the way.

1. Smart technology on guns.

Why the NRA hates smart guns

With yet another push from President Obama to revive initiatives to develop “smart gun” technology, it looks like it’s time to revisit the issue once again.

The most common question I got in response to my previous piece on the many problems with smart guns is, “even if you’re correct that smart guns are a bad idea, why is the NRA so opposed to letting the market even try to get it right?”

The NRA’s official position is that they don’t care one way or the other about smart gun tech, and that the market should decide, but we all know that’s baloney. The NRA doesn’t want smart guns to ever reach the market, at all.

So the question is, why? If smart guns [are] as doomed to fail as previously argued, why not just let them fail in the market? Why try to prevent this technology from even having a chance?

Jamaaliver wrote:The myth of the good guy with a g u n...

Yet another fairy tale conservatives have concocted to paint over an ugly truth.

A Mall Shooting, a Black Man’s Death, and a Debate Over Race and Gun Rights



After gunshots rang out in a cavernous suburban shopping mall on Thanksgiving night, Ashlyn McMillan encountered a man she considered a hero.

Yet to a police officer who raced to the scene in Hoover, Ala., the black man with the gun was not a hero in action, but “a suspect brandishing a pistol,” according to a police account. The officer fired at him, and the man, Emantic Fitzgerald Bradford Jr., died.

As it turned out, Mr. Bradford was not the gunman the police had been searching for.

The correction was too late for Mr. Bradford, whom the police initially identified as the culprit, only to change their story a day later. Mr. Bradford had not shot anyone, the Hoover police said, but was a licensed gun owner at a chaotic scene in the crowded mall.

The two competing versions of what Mr. Bradford, who was 21, did that night — try to protect those in danger or pose a serious threat by wielding a gun during a moment of chaos — are at the center of a controversy over race, gun rights and bias that has erupted in this predominantly white suburb outside of Birmingham, and led to protests.

The incident has called into question the veracity of a popular slogan among Second Amendment enthusiasts: “The best way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.” Black people trying to protect themselves or others with a gun may not have gotten the benefit of the doubt in recent heat-of-the-moment situations.

This month, before Mr. Bradford’s killing:

• the police fatally shot a black security guard who had pulled his gun to try to break up a shooting in a suburban Chicago bar. He was licensed to carry.
  
• A Portland State University policeman fatally shot a black Navy veteran who, witnesses said, had been trying to break up a fight outside of a bar when his firearm fell to the ground during the scuffle. He was licensed to carry.
  
• And in St. Louis last year, a black off-duty police officer was shot and wounded by a white colleague after the black officer had taken his service weapon out to help officers trying to catch suspects near his home.

Much remains unclear about what led to Mr. Bradford’s death on the opening evening of the holiday shopping season at the Riverchase Galleria, the state’s largest indoor mall. Witnesses have said they did not see Mr. Bradford pointing his gun at people or hear the police shouting commands before shooting him.

Those details will be important as investigators determine whether the shooting was legally justified. In chaotic situations, officers can have just a split second to make life-or-death decisions, and the presence of firearms only complicates things, experts say.

New York Times

Jamaaliver wrote:

stilldropin20 wrote:these shooting really bother me.
But the solutions are on the way.

1. Smart technology on guns.

Why the NRA hates smart guns

With yet another push from President Obama to revive initiatives to develop “smart gun” technology, it looks like it’s time to revisit the issue once again.

The most common question I got in response to my previous piece on the many problems with smart guns is, “even if you’re correct that smart guns are a bad idea, why is the NRA so opposed to letting the market even try to get it right?”

The NRA’s official position is that they don’t care one way or the other about smart gun tech, and that the market should decide, but we all know that’s baloney. The NRA doesn’t want smart guns to ever reach the market, at all.

So the question is, why? If smart guns as doomed to fail as I’ve previously argued, why not just let them fail in the market? Why try to prevent this technology from even having a chance?

Tech Crunch

Spoiler:

Most who follow this issue know that the NRA hates smart guns because they’re afraid that once a seemingly viable smart gun technology exists, anti-gun legislators at the state and federal levels will attempt to mandate it in all future guns by comparing it to seat belts, air bags, and other product safety features.

But maybe you’re thinking, “that’s fine, then. We just won’t mandate it. There will be no mandate. There, you happy now? Can we just get on with the smart gun innovation and let this play out in the market?”

Here’s the thing, though: the NRA is actually right, in this case. If smart guns get any traction, then non-smart-guns will come under legislative assault.

....This, then, is what the NRA is terrified of: that lawmakers who don’t even know how to begin to evaluate the impact of the smallest, most random-seeming feature of a given firearm on that firearm’s effectiveness and functionality for different types of users with different training backgrounds under different circumstances will get into the business of gun design.

And they’re right to be afraid, because it has happened before.

stilldropin20 wrote:do i look like an NRA shill? I may be a 2A shill but i have no problem with smart tech on guns.

Look, a man or woman needs to be able to defend themselves and with deadly force if necessary.

Bottom line, you kill someone...you must be able to account for why in a court of law or at least during an investigation.

Believe it or not, privacy is actually an enemy of the people.

Privacy is trick played on the poor who literally have nothing to hide. it allows the wealthy to operate in stealth.

gtn130 wrote:

Read on Twitter

I wonder if Deplorables will ever figure out that they were conned by a grifter reality show host

Jamaaliver wrote:

stilldropin20 wrote:do i look like an NRA shill? I may be a 2A shill but i have no problem with smart tech on guns.

Look, a man or woman needs to be able to defend themselves and with deadly force if necessary.

Bottom line, you kill someone...you must be able to account for why in a court of law or at least during an investigation.

Believe it or not, privacy is actually an enemy of the people.

Privacy is trick played on the poor who literally have nothing to hide. it allows the wealthy to operate in stealth.

I only agree with like 30% of this.

But you get the +1 for openly acknowledging the hypocrisy and ineptitude of the NRA.

gtn130 wrote:

Read on Twitter

I wonder if Deplorables will ever figure out that they were conned by a grifter reality show host

stilldropin20 wrote:i lobbed that softball out there and put it just right in the liberal sweet spot....what is the 70% you disagree?

stilldropin20 wrote:Believe it or not, privacy is actually an enemy of the people.

Privacy is trick played on the poor who literally have nothing to hide.

gtn130 wrote:

Read on Twitter

SD20 though is cautiously waiting for the right type of perjury from Trump before he draws his red line.