"Before face masks, Americans went to war against seat belts"

[skye]

I bet ANYTHING Trump was one of them who was against them, too, just like he is masks.

Before face masks, Americans went to war against seat belts

Apples and Oranges.

 

[Nostra]

Whatever is commonly excepted, he is willing to challenge it if he sees it to his advantage to do so. Unlike most presidents, he has no pet issues that drive him, only the desire to win. The issues such as immigration, voter fraud, coronavirus, abortion, trade, defense, etc are nothing to him but winning is everything. If he wins the next election and democrats win the congress, I would expect he would change positions on almost all issues he supported to win the election.

Possible, but not likely. We will have two choices this election: Trump and Biden. If Trump wins, he may go in the opposite direction of all his issues. If Biden wins, we know that's the direction he's going. I'd say our best chances for that not to happen is voting for President Trump.

Well, if you're happy with 11.5% unemployment, 132,000 dead from an epidemic the president is now promoting by failing to support his administration guidelines, and division and violence in every major city due in no small part from the presidents message of hate and division then Trump's your man because it will certainly continue under his leadership.

Yes, I am happy. I'm happy with the way he handled it, how he went into action getting PPE and equipment in case this thing really got out of hand, I liked the way he helped these Democrat cities be prepared since they had the worst of it. I do like everything he did.

A police officer is responsible for a death of a black career criminal in a Democrat town in a Democrat state. Democrats went out to protest, riot, and destroy personal and public property. Trying to convince people that all this Democrat activity was Trump's fault will only fall on deaf ears, other than the liberals who were never going to vote for Trump anyway. They still believe Russia fixed our election after all.

The shutdown closed down the country. When we started opening back up, employment shot back up; not nearly to the successful levels Trump had us at, but very impressive. June numbers were very impressive, along with a higher consumer confidence index. The stock market is even bouncing along in the right direction. You bet I'm satisfied. Trump gave America assurance that everything would be alright. That's what a real leader is supposed to do, especially when his opposition were telling people this was the end of the Fn world because they were trying to help destroy the economy.

Well I'm glad you're happy. I wonder how many other voters are going to be happy with a 10% unemployment rate, an epidemic that has killed over 200,000 and is still out of control, and racial unrest and violence in all the major cities.

Pretty sure the voters will be fed up with all that shit caused by Dimwingers.

 

[jasonnfree]

Seatbelts, motorcycle helmets, or masks all come down to costs and who pays for medical expenses incurred when insurance max's out. The cost of paying medical expenses for you or one person you give COVID to is usually hundreds of thousands of dollars and sometimes over a million. Just like seatbelts and helmets, society does not want to pay for people's negligence and irresponsibility.

We've been paying for negligence and irresponsibility for generations now.

If a person doesn't use seat belts and gets in a crash and one of his kids fly out the wind and dies or becomes disabled? He may be stupid but why should his kids suffer as a result?

Because until the commies rode into our country, we left the safety and proaction of a child up to the parent--not the government.

Cars didn't even have seat belts back then. Many lives have been saved with all our added on safety features forced onto the automakers thanks to people like Ralph Nader. Is this communism? I don't think so.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Seatbelts, motorcycle helmets, or masks all come down to costs and who pays for medical expenses incurred when insurance max's out. The cost of paying medical expenses for you or one person you give COVID to is usually hundreds of thousands of dollars and sometimes over a million. Just like seatbelts and helmets, society does not want to pay for people's negligence and irresponsibility.

We've been paying for negligence and irresponsibility for generations now.

If a person doesn't use seat belts and gets in a crash and one of his kids fly out the wind and dies or becomes disabled? He may be stupid but why should his kids suffer as a result?

Because until the commies rode into our country, we left the safety and proaction of a child up to the parent--not the government.

Cars didn't even have seat belts back then. Many lives have been saved with all our added on safety features forced onto the automakers thanks to people like Ralph Nader. Is this communism? I don't think so.

So where in our founding documents or Constitution does it state government should be in charge of our safety, or for that matter, the safety of our family? Those who rely on government for those mandates are not citizens, they are servants.

It's not governments business how to save your life, my life, or the lives of our children. Government protecting it's people means to protect you from the harm of others--not from harm from your own decisions.

When government gets involved in personal decision making against their will, yes, that's Communism, or at the very least, a dictatorship. I grew up at a time with no seatbelt, no child seats, no cradle to grave government. It was a much better time than we have today.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Whatever is commonly excepted, he is willing to challenge it if he sees it to his advantage to do so. Unlike most presidents, he has no pet issues that drive him, only the desire to win. The issues such as immigration, voter fraud, coronavirus, abortion, trade, defense, etc are nothing to him but winning is everything. If he wins the next election and democrats win the congress, I would expect he would change positions on almost all issues he supported to win the election.

Possible, but not likely. We will have two choices this election: Trump and Biden. If Trump wins, he may go in the opposite direction of all his issues. If Biden wins, we know that's the direction he's going. I'd say our best chances for that not to happen is voting for President Trump.

Well, if you're happy with 11.5% unemployment, 132,000 dead from an epidemic the president is now promoting by failing to support his administration guidelines, and division and violence in every major city due in no small part from the presidents message of hate and division then Trump's your man because it will certainly continue under his leadership.

Yes, I am happy. I'm happy with the way he handled it, how he went into action getting PPE and equipment in case this thing really got out of hand, I liked the way he helped these Democrat cities be prepared since they had the worst of it. I do like everything he did.

A police officer is responsible for a death of a black career criminal in a Democrat town in a Democrat state. Democrats went out to protest, riot, and destroy personal and public property. Trying to convince people that all this Democrat activity was Trump's fault will only fall on deaf ears, other than the liberals who were never going to vote for Trump anyway. They still believe Russia fixed our election after all.

The shutdown closed down the country. When we started opening back up, employment shot back up; not nearly to the successful levels Trump had us at, but very impressive. June numbers were very impressive, along with a higher consumer confidence index. The stock market is even bouncing along in the right direction. You bet I'm satisfied. Trump gave America assurance that everything would be alright. That's what a real leader is supposed to do, especially when his opposition were telling people this was the end of the Fn world because they were trying to help destroy the economy.

Well I'm glad you're happy. I wonder how many other voters are going to be happy with a 10% unemployment rate, an epidemic that has killed over 200,000 and is still out of control, and racial unrest and violence in all the major cities.

Did you blame Hussein for the racial unrest and violence of major cities? He had two riots during his terms. Trump had one. And keep in mind, all were in Democrat run cities.

Unemployment being at 10% is not acceptable under normal conditions. This is not a normal condition. This is a worldwide pandemic. The fact that we cut our unemployment in half in two months amid this worldwide problem is acceptable to me.

 

[Flopper]

Whatever is commonly excepted, he is willing to challenge it if he sees it to his advantage to do so. Unlike most presidents, he has no pet issues that drive him, only the desire to win. The issues such as immigration, voter fraud, coronavirus, abortion, trade, defense, etc are nothing to him but winning is everything. If he wins the next election and democrats win the congress, I would expect he would change positions on almost all issues he supported to win the election.

Possible, but not likely. We will have two choices this election: Trump and Biden. If Trump wins, he may go in the opposite direction of all his issues. If Biden wins, we know that's the direction he's going. I'd say our best chances for that not to happen is voting for President Trump.

Well, if you're happy with 11.5% unemployment, 132,000 dead from an epidemic the president is now promoting by failing to support his administration guidelines, and division and violence in every major city due in no small part from the presidents message of hate and division then Trump's your man because it will certainly continue under his leadership.

Yes, I am happy. I'm happy with the way he handled it, how he went into action getting PPE and equipment in case this thing really got out of hand, I liked the way he helped these Democrat cities be prepared since they had the worst of it. I do like everything he did.

A police officer is responsible for a death of a black career criminal in a Democrat town in a Democrat state. Democrats went out to protest, riot, and destroy personal and public property. Trying to convince people that all this Democrat activity was Trump's fault will only fall on deaf ears, other than the liberals who were never going to vote for Trump anyway. They still believe Russia fixed our election after all.

The shutdown closed down the country. When we started opening back up, employment shot back up; not nearly to the successful levels Trump had us at, but very impressive. June numbers were very impressive, along with a higher consumer confidence index. The stock market is even bouncing along in the right direction. You bet I'm satisfied. Trump gave America assurance that everything would be alright. That's what a real leader is supposed to do, especially when his opposition were telling people this was the end of the Fn world because they were trying to help destroy the economy.

Well I'm glad you're happy. I wonder how many other voters are going to be happy with a 10% unemployment rate, an epidemic that has killed over 200,000 and is still out of control, and racial unrest and violence in all the major cities.

Did you blame Hussein for the racial unrest and violence of major cities? He had two riots during his terms. Trump had one. And keep in mind, all were in Democrat run cities.

Unemployment being at 10% is not acceptable under normal conditions. This is not a normal condition. This is a worldwide pandemic. The fact that we cut our unemployment in half in two months amid this worldwide problem is acceptable to me.

I don't blame Donald Trump for the virus, the violence, nor the economic slowdown. I blame him for making it worse, a lot worse.

Trump's rhetoric fans the flames violence and division. Trump has presented himself as someone who seeks conflict, not conciliation, a fighter, not a peacemaker. With the country on edge, ravaged by an epidemic, hammered by economic collapse, divided over lockdowns and even face masks and now torn apart once again by race, Trump’s first instinct has been to look for someone to fight and to cast blame.

Trump makes no appeal for calm. Instead in tweets and comments to reporters, he blames the unrest on Democrats, called on “Liberal Governors and Mayors” to get “MUCH tougher” on the crowds, threatened to intervene with “the unlimited power of our Military” and even suggested his own supporters mount a counter demonstration. Turmp has done just about everything a president should not do when dealing social unrest, protests, and riots.

Obama's reaction is just the opposite of Donald Trump, calm, rarely judgmental, and always addressing what is being done or can be done to cool down the situation. Trump reaction is sending in troops, suggesting that violence should be met with more violence.

 

[miketx]

I bet ANYTHING Trump was one of them who was against them, too, just like he is masks.

Before face masks, Americans went to war against seat belts

Before face masks, Americans went to war against seat belts

"There was a libertarian streak among resistors," Ralph Nader told Business Insider.

www.businessinsider.com

• A small but vocal minority of people in the US are protesting face-mask mandates.
• In the early 1980s, the public-safety battle was over seat belts. Most Americans didn't use them, and 65% opposed them being enforced by law.
• "There was a libertarian streak among resistors," car-safety pioneer Ralph Nader told Business Insider. "They took the stance that 'you're not going to tie the American people up in seat belts.'"
• More than 50 years after "Unsafe at Any Speed," Nader said, "We are a very hard society to change cognitively.""""

So let's take the politics out of this mask thing and get healthy again!
Protect yourself, protect your friends and take your tip from the scientists and docs!

Show us where the gov has any right to force of to wear a belt.

 

[miketx]

Whatever is commonly excepted, he is willing to challenge it if he sees it to his advantage to do so. Unlike most presidents, he has no pet issues that drive him, only the desire to win. The issues such as immigration, voter fraud, coronavirus, abortion, trade, defense, etc are nothing to him but winning is everything. If he wins the next election and democrats win the congress, I would expect he would change positions on almost all issues he supported to win the election.

Possible, but not likely. We will have two choices this election: Trump and Biden. If Trump wins, he may go in the opposite direction of all his issues. If Biden wins, we know that's the direction he's going. I'd say our best chances for that not to happen is voting for President Trump.

Well, if you're happy with 11.5% unemployment, 132,000 dead from an epidemic the president is now promoting by failing to support his administration guidelines, and division and violence in every major city due in no small part from the presidents message of hate and division then Trump's your man because it will certainly continue under his leadership.

Yes, I am happy. I'm happy with the way he handled it, how he went into action getting PPE and equipment in case this thing really got out of hand, I liked the way he helped these Democrat cities be prepared since they had the worst of it. I do like everything he did.

A police officer is responsible for a death of a black career criminal in a Democrat town in a Democrat state. Democrats went out to protest, riot, and destroy personal and public property. Trying to convince people that all this Democrat activity was Trump's fault will only fall on deaf ears, other than the liberals who were never going to vote for Trump anyway. They still believe Russia fixed our election after all.

The shutdown closed down the country. When we started opening back up, employment shot back up; not nearly to the successful levels Trump had us at, but very impressive. June numbers were very impressive, along with a higher consumer confidence index. The stock market is even bouncing along in the right direction. You bet I'm satisfied. Trump gave America assurance that everything would be alright. That's what a real leader is supposed to do, especially when his opposition were telling people this was the end of the Fn world because they were trying to help destroy the economy.

Well I'm glad you're happy. I wonder how many other voters are going to be happy with a 10% unemployment rate, an epidemic that has killed over 200,000 and is still out of control, and racial unrest and violence in all the major cities.

Did you blame Hussein for the racial unrest and violence of major cities? He had two riots during his terms. Trump had one. And keep in mind, all were in Democrat run cities.

Unemployment being at 10% is not acceptable under normal conditions. This is not a normal condition. This is a worldwide pandemic. The fact that we cut our unemployment in half in two months amid this worldwide problem is acceptable to me.

I don't blame Donald Trump for the virus, the violence, nor the economic slowdown. I blame him for making it worse, a lot worse.

Trump's rhetoric fans the flames violence and division. Trump has presented himself as someone who seeks conflict, not conciliation, a fighter, not a peacemaker. With the country on edge, ravaged by an epidemic, hammered by economic collapse, divided over lockdowns and even face masks and now torn apart once again by race, Trump’s first instinct has been to look for someone to fight and to cast blame.

Trump makes no appeal for calm. Instead in tweets and comments to reporters, he blames the unrest on Democrats, called on “Liberal Governors and Mayors” to get “MUCH tougher” on the crowds, threatened to intervene with “the unlimited power of our Military” and even suggested his own supporters mount a counter demonstration. Turmp has done just about everything a president should not do when dealing social unrest, protests, and riots.

Obama's reaction is just the opposite of Donald Trump, calm, rarely judgmental, and always addressing what is being done or can be done to cool down the situation. Trump reaction is sending in troops, suggesting that violence should be met with more violence.

No, scum like you are doing all the violence. When you vermin are burning down businesses is not the time for us to be calm, it's time for us to send you to hell.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Whatever is commonly excepted, he is willing to challenge it if he sees it to his advantage to do so. Unlike most presidents, he has no pet issues that drive him, only the desire to win. The issues such as immigration, voter fraud, coronavirus, abortion, trade, defense, etc are nothing to him but winning is everything. If he wins the next election and democrats win the congress, I would expect he would change positions on almost all issues he supported to win the election.

Possible, but not likely. We will have two choices this election: Trump and Biden. If Trump wins, he may go in the opposite direction of all his issues. If Biden wins, we know that's the direction he's going. I'd say our best chances for that not to happen is voting for President Trump.

Well, if you're happy with 11.5% unemployment, 132,000 dead from an epidemic the president is now promoting by failing to support his administration guidelines, and division and violence in every major city due in no small part from the presidents message of hate and division then Trump's your man because it will certainly continue under his leadership.

Yes, I am happy. I'm happy with the way he handled it, how he went into action getting PPE and equipment in case this thing really got out of hand, I liked the way he helped these Democrat cities be prepared since they had the worst of it. I do like everything he did.

A police officer is responsible for a death of a black career criminal in a Democrat town in a Democrat state. Democrats went out to protest, riot, and destroy personal and public property. Trying to convince people that all this Democrat activity was Trump's fault will only fall on deaf ears, other than the liberals who were never going to vote for Trump anyway. They still believe Russia fixed our election after all.

The shutdown closed down the country. When we started opening back up, employment shot back up; not nearly to the successful levels Trump had us at, but very impressive. June numbers were very impressive, along with a higher consumer confidence index. The stock market is even bouncing along in the right direction. You bet I'm satisfied. Trump gave America assurance that everything would be alright. That's what a real leader is supposed to do, especially when his opposition were telling people this was the end of the Fn world because they were trying to help destroy the economy.

Well I'm glad you're happy. I wonder how many other voters are going to be happy with a 10% unemployment rate, an epidemic that has killed over 200,000 and is still out of control, and racial unrest and violence in all the major cities.

Did you blame Hussein for the racial unrest and violence of major cities? He had two riots during his terms. Trump had one. And keep in mind, all were in Democrat run cities.

Unemployment being at 10% is not acceptable under normal conditions. This is not a normal condition. This is a worldwide pandemic. The fact that we cut our unemployment in half in two months amid this worldwide problem is acceptable to me.

I don't blame Donald Trump for the virus, the violence, nor the economic slowdown. I blame him for making it worse, a lot worse.

Trump's rhetoric fans the flames violence and division. Trump has presented himself as someone who seeks conflict, not conciliation, a fighter, not a peacemaker. With the country on edge, ravaged by an epidemic, hammered by economic collapse, divided over lockdowns and even face masks and now torn apart once again by race, Trump’s first instinct has been to look for someone to fight and to cast blame.

Trump makes no appeal for calm. Instead in tweets and comments to reporters, he blames the unrest on Democrats, called on “Liberal Governors and Mayors” to get “MUCH tougher” on the crowds, threatened to intervene with “the unlimited power of our Military” and even suggested his own supporters mount a counter demonstration. Turmp has done just about everything a president should not do when dealing social unrest, protests, and riots.

Obama's reaction is just the opposite of Donald Trump, calm, rarely judgmental, and always addressing what is being done or can be done to cool down the situation. Trump reaction is sending in troops, suggesting that violence should be met with more violence.

And Trump is absolutely correct. How many weeks has this been going on for now? It's ridiculous. But why the continued civil unrest? Because nobody is stopping it, even to the point of calling this mayhem the Summer of Love.

These problems are not taking place in red cities with Republicans leading the charge. These problems stem from Democrat cities with Democrats causing the problems and damage. At the beginning your people were screaming that Trump is not doing anything about it, and when Trump announced that he may, are now screaming he's being to confrontational and divisive.

You are biased which is why you see things the way you do, but people not diehard Democrats do not see things the way you do. They see things for what they really are, and the November election will be evidence of that. People are going back to work, spending money, trying to regain some semblance of normality. Unemployment dropped dramatically, and it's all because we have a President restoring confidence in the public.

 

[Flopper]

Seatbelts, motorcycle helmets, or masks all come down to costs and who pays for medical expenses incurred when insurance max's out. The cost of paying medical expenses for you or one person you give COVID to is usually hundreds of thousands of dollars and sometimes over a million. Just like seatbelts and helmets, society does not want to pay for people's negligence and irresponsibility.

We've been paying for negligence and irresponsibility for generations now.

If a person doesn't use seat belts and gets in a crash and one of his kids fly out the wind and dies or becomes disabled? He may be stupid but why should his kids suffer as a result?

Because until the commies rode into our country, we left the safety and proaction of a child up to the parent--not the government.

Cars didn't even have seat belts back then. Many lives have been saved with all our added on safety features forced onto the automakers thanks to people like Ralph Nader. Is this communism? I don't think so.

So where in our founding documents or Constitution does it state government should be in charge of our safety, or for that matter, the safety of our family? Those who rely on government for those mandates are not citizens, they are servants.

It's not governments business how to save your life, my life, or the lives of our children. Government protecting it's people means to protect you from the harm of others--not from harm from your own decisions.

When government gets involved in personal decision making against their will, yes, that's Communism, or at the very least, a dictatorship. I grew up at a time with no seatbelt, no child seats, no cradle to grave government. It was a much better time than we have today.

I think you'll find your state constitution addresses public safety and clearly makes the state and local government responsible for such.
The requirement for seat belts in cars did not come from federal government but state governments. In the early 1960's, the major manufactures were offering seat belts as an option. In 1963, 23 states enacted laws requiring seat belts and a number of other states were considering it. So many states had adopted the requirement, it would have been silly for car companies to make a distinction between the markets that had required seat belts and the ones that had not. So front row seat belts became standard. In 1968, the federal government, responding to research reports of saved lives required seat belts in all forward-facing seats and ordered that shoulder straps be installed in front outboard seats used in interstate commerce. Clearly seat belt laws are constitution as the law is written.

The question of whether goverment should protect the individual lives of it's citizens is more a philosophical than legal question. Essentially all governments recognize that the first duty of government is to afford protection to its citizens, although that is interpreted different by different governments. The premise that goverment should protect it's citizens is based of the fact that the lives of its citizens have worth to society that goes beyond that of the worth to the individual. For example, if you are allowed to drive a car without seat belts, have a wreck, and kill your kids and permanently disabled both you and your wife, you hurt all society because someone will have to care for you the rest of your life and the productivity of you, your wife, and your children as adults will be lost to society.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Seatbelts, motorcycle helmets, or masks all come down to costs and who pays for medical expenses incurred when insurance max's out. The cost of paying medical expenses for you or one person you give COVID to is usually hundreds of thousands of dollars and sometimes over a million. Just like seatbelts and helmets, society does not want to pay for people's negligence and irresponsibility.

We've been paying for negligence and irresponsibility for generations now.

If a person doesn't use seat belts and gets in a crash and one of his kids fly out the wind and dies or becomes disabled? He may be stupid but why should his kids suffer as a result?

Because until the commies rode into our country, we left the safety and proaction of a child up to the parent--not the government.

Cars didn't even have seat belts back then. Many lives have been saved with all our added on safety features forced onto the automakers thanks to people like Ralph Nader. Is this communism? I don't think so.

So where in our founding documents or Constitution does it state government should be in charge of our safety, or for that matter, the safety of our family? Those who rely on government for those mandates are not citizens, they are servants.

It's not governments business how to save your life, my life, or the lives of our children. Government protecting it's people means to protect you from the harm of others--not from harm from your own decisions.

When government gets involved in personal decision making against their will, yes, that's Communism, or at the very least, a dictatorship. I grew up at a time with no seatbelt, no child seats, no cradle to grave government. It was a much better time than we have today.

I think you'll find your state constitution addresses public safety and clearly makes the state and local government responsible for such.
The requirement for seat belts in cars did not come from federal government but state governments. In the early 1960's, the major manufactures were offering seat belts as an option. In 1963, 23 states enacted laws requiring seat belts and a number of other states were considering it. So many states had adopted the requirement, it would have been silly for car companies to make a distinction between the markets that had required seat belts and the ones that had not. So front row seat belts became standard. In 1968, the federal government, responding to research reports of saved lives required seat belts in all forward-facing seats and ordered that shoulder straps be installed in front outboard seats used in interstate commerce. Clearly seat belt laws are constitution as the law is written.

The question of whether goverment should protect the individual lives of it's citizens is more a philosophical than legal question. Essentially all governments recognize that the first duty of government is to afford protection to its citizens, although that is interpreted different by different governments. The premise that goverment should protect it's citizens is based of the fact that the lives of its citizens have worth to society that goes beyond that of the worth to the individual. For example, if you are allowed to drive a car without seat belts, have a wreck, and kill your kids and permanently disabled both you and your wife, you hurt all society because someone will have to care for you the rest of your life and the productivity of you, your wife, and your children as adults will be lost to society.

The feds pressured states to adopt seatbelt laws because they were getting paid off by the insurance companies. Same thing with the .08 BAL for driving. Yes, technically those are state laws, but the states wouldn't have created them without the pressure from the feds and insurance industry.

Our government is charged with protecting us from others, not protecting us from ourselves. If our founders could come back to life, they would be outraged at our government dependency and tyranny that's going on in our federal government today.

The very idea that the Democrats can tax people into submission of their demands is as un-American as it gets. The idea that we have bureaucracies and bureaucrats that we cannot vote on nor redress goes everything against everything our founders crated for us. Mandating people have health insurance, tell kids what they are allowed to eat in school, having to wear seatbelt, force schools to allow weirdos in dresses to enter our daughters bathrooms and showers, even telling people what size drinks they are allowed to buy at a gas station are all things they don't even do in places like Cuba or North Korea. It's called conditioning; like the frog that is happily swimming along in that pot of cold water on top of the stove. We don't even realize it's happening to us.

 

[Leo123]

Whatever is commonly excepted, he is willing to challenge it if he sees it to his advantage to do so. Unlike most presidents, he has no pet issues that drive him, only the desire to win. The issues such as immigration, voter fraud, coronavirus, abortion, trade, defense, etc are nothing to him but winning is everything. If he wins the next election and democrats win the congress, I would expect he would change positions on almost all issues he supported to win the election.

Possible, but not likely. We will have two choices this election: Trump and Biden. If Trump wins, he may go in the opposite direction of all his issues. If Biden wins, we know that's the direction he's going. I'd say our best chances for that not to happen is voting for President Trump.

Well, if you're happy with 11.5% unemployment, 132,000 dead from an epidemic the president is now promoting by failing to support his administration guidelines, and division and violence in every major city due in no small part from the presidents message of hate and division then Trump's your man because it will certainly continue under his leadership.

Yes, I am happy. I'm happy with the way he handled it, how he went into action getting PPE and equipment in case this thing really got out of hand, I liked the way he helped these Democrat cities be prepared since they had the worst of it. I do like everything he did.

A police officer is responsible for a death of a black career criminal in a Democrat town in a Democrat state. Democrats went out to protest, riot, and destroy personal and public property. Trying to convince people that all this Democrat activity was Trump's fault will only fall on deaf ears, other than the liberals who were never going to vote for Trump anyway. They still believe Russia fixed our election after all.

The shutdown closed down the country. When we started opening back up, employment shot back up; not nearly to the successful levels Trump had us at, but very impressive. June numbers were very impressive, along with a higher consumer confidence index. The stock market is even bouncing along in the right direction. You bet I'm satisfied. Trump gave America assurance that everything would be alright. That's what a real leader is supposed to do, especially when his opposition were telling people this was the end of the Fn world because they were trying to help destroy the economy.

Well I'm glad you're happy. I wonder how many other voters are going to be happy with a 10% unemployment rate, an epidemic that has killed over 200,000 and is still out of control, and racial unrest and violence in all the major cities.

Did you blame Hussein for the racial unrest and violence of major cities? He had two riots during his terms. Trump had one. And keep in mind, all were in Democrat run cities.

Unemployment being at 10% is not acceptable under normal conditions. This is not a normal condition. This is a worldwide pandemic. The fact that we cut our unemployment in half in two months amid this worldwide problem is acceptable to me.

I don't blame Donald Trump for the virus, the violence, nor the economic slowdown. I blame him for making it worse, a lot worse.

Trump's rhetoric fans the flames violence and division. Trump has presented himself as someone who seeks conflict, not conciliation, a fighter, not a peacemaker. With the country on edge, ravaged by an epidemic, hammered by economic collapse, divided over lockdowns and even face masks and now torn apart once again by race, Trump’s first instinct has been to look for someone to fight and to cast blame.

Trump makes no appeal for calm. Instead in tweets and comments to reporters, he blames the unrest on Democrats, called on “Liberal Governors and Mayors” to get “MUCH tougher” on the crowds, threatened to intervene with “the unlimited power of our Military” and even suggested his own supporters mount a counter demonstration. Turmp has done just about everything a president should not do when dealing social unrest, protests, and riots.

Obama's reaction is just the opposite of Donald Trump, calm, rarely judgmental, and always addressing what is being done or can be done to cool down the situation. Trump reaction is sending in troops, suggesting that violence should be met with more violence.

Your first mistake is thinking BLM is peaceful. They are not as we have seen with our own eyes. Burning down buildings, destroying property, killing people, beating people, taking over entire cities. They don't want peace they want to overthrow the U.S. The fact you apparently can't see that and blame Trump speaks volumes about your ignorance of current events.

How in the world are you going to tell a militant rioter to 'please be calm?' Ain't gonna happen. We have already seen what happens when you try to placate such human debris, they take over a city, burn, loot, etc. Hell, the weak kneed Democrats told the police to stand down. The only thing that stopped all this violence was the insertion of law enforcement that Trump had to finally tell them to bring in.

 

[Flopper]

Whatever is commonly excepted, he is willing to challenge it if he sees it to his advantage to do so. Unlike most presidents, he has no pet issues that drive him, only the desire to win. The issues such as immigration, voter fraud, coronavirus, abortion, trade, defense, etc are nothing to him but winning is everything. If he wins the next election and democrats win the congress, I would expect he would change positions on almost all issues he supported to win the election.

Possible, but not likely. We will have two choices this election: Trump and Biden. If Trump wins, he may go in the opposite direction of all his issues. If Biden wins, we know that's the direction he's going. I'd say our best chances for that not to happen is voting for President Trump.

Well, if you're happy with 11.5% unemployment, 132,000 dead from an epidemic the president is now promoting by failing to support his administration guidelines, and division and violence in every major city due in no small part from the presidents message of hate and division then Trump's your man because it will certainly continue under his leadership.

Yes, I am happy. I'm happy with the way he handled it, how he went into action getting PPE and equipment in case this thing really got out of hand, I liked the way he helped these Democrat cities be prepared since they had the worst of it. I do like everything he did.

A police officer is responsible for a death of a black career criminal in a Democrat town in a Democrat state. Democrats went out to protest, riot, and destroy personal and public property. Trying to convince people that all this Democrat activity was Trump's fault will only fall on deaf ears, other than the liberals who were never going to vote for Trump anyway. They still believe Russia fixed our election after all.

The shutdown closed down the country. When we started opening back up, employment shot back up; not nearly to the successful levels Trump had us at, but very impressive. June numbers were very impressive, along with a higher consumer confidence index. The stock market is even bouncing along in the right direction. You bet I'm satisfied. Trump gave America assurance that everything would be alright. That's what a real leader is supposed to do, especially when his opposition were telling people this was the end of the Fn world because they were trying to help destroy the economy.

Well I'm glad you're happy. I wonder how many other voters are going to be happy with a 10% unemployment rate, an epidemic that has killed over 200,000 and is still out of control, and racial unrest and violence in all the major cities.

Did you blame Hussein for the racial unrest and violence of major cities? He had two riots during his terms. Trump had one. And keep in mind, all were in Democrat run cities.

Unemployment being at 10% is not acceptable under normal conditions. This is not a normal condition. This is a worldwide pandemic. The fact that we cut our unemployment in half in two months amid this worldwide problem is acceptable to me.

I don't blame Donald Trump for the virus, the violence, nor the economic slowdown. I blame him for making it worse, a lot worse.

Trump's rhetoric fans the flames violence and division. Trump has presented himself as someone who seeks conflict, not conciliation, a fighter, not a peacemaker. With the country on edge, ravaged by an epidemic, hammered by economic collapse, divided over lockdowns and even face masks and now torn apart once again by race, Trump’s first instinct has been to look for someone to fight and to cast blame.

Trump makes no appeal for calm. Instead in tweets and comments to reporters, he blames the unrest on Democrats, called on “Liberal Governors and Mayors” to get “MUCH tougher” on the crowds, threatened to intervene with “the unlimited power of our Military” and even suggested his own supporters mount a counter demonstration. Turmp has done just about everything a president should not do when dealing social unrest, protests, and riots.

Obama's reaction is just the opposite of Donald Trump, calm, rarely judgmental, and always addressing what is being done or can be done to cool down the situation. Trump reaction is sending in troops, suggesting that violence should be met with more violence.

And Trump is absolutely correct. How many weeks has this been going on for now? It's ridiculous. But why the continued civil unrest? Because nobody is stopping it, even to the point of calling this mayhem the Summer of Love.

These problems are not taking place in red cities with Republicans leading the charge. These problems stem from Democrat cities with Democrats causing the problems and damage. At the beginning your people were screaming that Trump is not doing anything about it, and when Trump announced that he may, are now screaming he's being to confrontational and divisive.

You are biased which is why you see things the way you do, but people not diehard Democrats do not see things the way you do. They see things for what they really are, and the November election will be evidence of that. People are going back to work, spending money, trying to regain some semblance of normality. Unemployment dropped dramatically, and it's all because we have a President restoring confidence in the public.

The root cause of the problem is police killing blacks, not the democrat party. There are hundreds of cities with democrat mayors that experience little or no violence in protests and there has been protest with violence in a number of cities with republican mayors such as Sioux Falls SD, Omaha, NB, Las Vegas, Nv, Miami Fl, and Jacksonville Fl. The political party of the mayor is irrelevant.

The kind of help cities with racial unrest, protests, and violence are looking for from the president are peaceful solutions and words to calm down the violence not treats send in troops and turn the city into a blood bath.

BTW If you haven't figured this out, every member on this board including you are biased.

 

[Leo123]

The root cause of the problem is police killing blacks, not the democrat party. There are hundreds of cities with democrat mayors that experience little or no violence in protests and there has been protest with violence in a number of cities with republican mayors such as Sioux Falls SD, Omaha, NB, Las Vegas, Nv, Miami Fl, and Jacksonville Fl. The political party of the mayor is irrelevant.

The kind of help cities with racial unrest, protests, and violence are looking for from the president are peaceful solutions and words to calm down the violence not treats send in troops and turn the city into a blood bath.

BTW If you haven't figured this out, every member on this board including you are biased.

No, the root cause of the problem is black thugs that have no respect for the police and fight being duly arrested. There are reasons why those black men died but the main one is they resisted arrest. If you don't want to become room temperature, don't fight law enforcement. Oh, and BTW, White men have died at the hands of law enforcement for the same reasons, they were criminal thugs. Stop being a 'victim' and start acting like a responsible human being. In Seattle, the 'troops' stopped CHOP which was becoming a blood bath. Where do you get your news Flopper? From BLM?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Whatever is commonly excepted, he is willing to challenge it if he sees it to his advantage to do so. Unlike most presidents, he has no pet issues that drive him, only the desire to win. The issues such as immigration, voter fraud, coronavirus, abortion, trade, defense, etc are nothing to him but winning is everything. If he wins the next election and democrats win the congress, I would expect he would change positions on almost all issues he supported to win the election.

Possible, but not likely. We will have two choices this election: Trump and Biden. If Trump wins, he may go in the opposite direction of all his issues. If Biden wins, we know that's the direction he's going. I'd say our best chances for that not to happen is voting for President Trump.

Well, if you're happy with 11.5% unemployment, 132,000 dead from an epidemic the president is now promoting by failing to support his administration guidelines, and division and violence in every major city due in no small part from the presidents message of hate and division then Trump's your man because it will certainly continue under his leadership.

Yes, I am happy. I'm happy with the way he handled it, how he went into action getting PPE and equipment in case this thing really got out of hand, I liked the way he helped these Democrat cities be prepared since they had the worst of it. I do like everything he did.

A police officer is responsible for a death of a black career criminal in a Democrat town in a Democrat state. Democrats went out to protest, riot, and destroy personal and public property. Trying to convince people that all this Democrat activity was Trump's fault will only fall on deaf ears, other than the liberals who were never going to vote for Trump anyway. They still believe Russia fixed our election after all.

The shutdown closed down the country. When we started opening back up, employment shot back up; not nearly to the successful levels Trump had us at, but very impressive. June numbers were very impressive, along with a higher consumer confidence index. The stock market is even bouncing along in the right direction. You bet I'm satisfied. Trump gave America assurance that everything would be alright. That's what a real leader is supposed to do, especially when his opposition were telling people this was the end of the Fn world because they were trying to help destroy the economy.

Well I'm glad you're happy. I wonder how many other voters are going to be happy with a 10% unemployment rate, an epidemic that has killed over 200,000 and is still out of control, and racial unrest and violence in all the major cities.

Did you blame Hussein for the racial unrest and violence of major cities? He had two riots during his terms. Trump had one. And keep in mind, all were in Democrat run cities.

Unemployment being at 10% is not acceptable under normal conditions. This is not a normal condition. This is a worldwide pandemic. The fact that we cut our unemployment in half in two months amid this worldwide problem is acceptable to me.

I don't blame Donald Trump for the virus, the violence, nor the economic slowdown. I blame him for making it worse, a lot worse.

Trump's rhetoric fans the flames violence and division. Trump has presented himself as someone who seeks conflict, not conciliation, a fighter, not a peacemaker. With the country on edge, ravaged by an epidemic, hammered by economic collapse, divided over lockdowns and even face masks and now torn apart once again by race, Trump’s first instinct has been to look for someone to fight and to cast blame.

Trump makes no appeal for calm. Instead in tweets and comments to reporters, he blames the unrest on Democrats, called on “Liberal Governors and Mayors” to get “MUCH tougher” on the crowds, threatened to intervene with “the unlimited power of our Military” and even suggested his own supporters mount a counter demonstration. Turmp has done just about everything a president should not do when dealing social unrest, protests, and riots.

Obama's reaction is just the opposite of Donald Trump, calm, rarely judgmental, and always addressing what is being done or can be done to cool down the situation. Trump reaction is sending in troops, suggesting that violence should be met with more violence.

And Trump is absolutely correct. How many weeks has this been going on for now? It's ridiculous. But why the continued civil unrest? Because nobody is stopping it, even to the point of calling this mayhem the Summer of Love.

These problems are not taking place in red cities with Republicans leading the charge. These problems stem from Democrat cities with Democrats causing the problems and damage. At the beginning your people were screaming that Trump is not doing anything about it, and when Trump announced that he may, are now screaming he's being to confrontational and divisive.

You are biased which is why you see things the way you do, but people not diehard Democrats do not see things the way you do. They see things for what they really are, and the November election will be evidence of that. People are going back to work, spending money, trying to regain some semblance of normality. Unemployment dropped dramatically, and it's all because we have a President restoring confidence in the public.

The root cause of the problem is police killing blacks, not the democrat party. There are hundreds of cities with democrat mayors that experience little or no violence in protests and there has been protest with violence in a number of cities with republican mayors such as Sioux Falls SD, Omaha, NB, Las Vegas, Nv, Miami Fl, and Jacksonville Fl. The political party of the mayor is irrelevant.

The kind of help cities with racial unrest, protests, and violence are looking for from the president are peaceful solutions and words to calm down the violence not treats send in troops and turn the city into a blood bath.

BTW If you haven't figured this out, every member on this board including you are biased.

Without doubt I'm biased. But I also see things clearly. You don't have Republicans in polo shirts tipping over police cars and starting stores on fire. So what violence took place in cities with Republican leadership that did nothing, or even encouraged it?

Over this weekend, there were 29 shootings and three dead in the city of Cleveland. The lowlifes painted a BLM mural on a main street, and the Mayor had 24/7 police protection for that mural while all the other units were extremely backed up on their calls making it more dangerous for them and citizens alike. Now there is a movement to ape other cities in getting rid of or defunding their police department. So the show is just getting started.

You see, there is no logical person that can look at all this and blame the President of the United States, especially since a city has to make a request to the White House for aid, which to my knowledge, no Democrat Mayor did. Democrats are party first--country second people which is why they are defunding or considering defunding their police departments. There will be a crime wave like we've never seen before in these areas, and they (with the help of MSM) try to blame all these Democrat idiotic moves on the President. But like I said, it won't work on open minded people.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Whatever is commonly excepted, he is willing to challenge it if he sees it to his advantage to do so. Unlike most presidents, he has no pet issues that drive him, only the desire to win. The issues such as immigration, voter fraud, coronavirus, abortion, trade, defense, etc are nothing to him but winning is everything. If he wins the next election and democrats win the congress, I would expect he would change positions on almost all issues he supported to win the election.

Possible, but not likely. We will have two choices this election: Trump and Biden. If Trump wins, he may go in the opposite direction of all his issues. If Biden wins, we know that's the direction he's going. I'd say our best chances for that not to happen is voting for President Trump.

Well, if you're happy with 11.5% unemployment, 132,000 dead from an epidemic the president is now promoting by failing to support his administration guidelines, and division and violence in every major city due in no small part from the presidents message of hate and division then Trump's your man because it will certainly continue under his leadership.

Yes, I am happy. I'm happy with the way he handled it, how he went into action getting PPE and equipment in case this thing really got out of hand, I liked the way he helped these Democrat cities be prepared since they had the worst of it. I do like everything he did.

A police officer is responsible for a death of a black career criminal in a Democrat town in a Democrat state. Democrats went out to protest, riot, and destroy personal and public property. Trying to convince people that all this Democrat activity was Trump's fault will only fall on deaf ears, other than the liberals who were never going to vote for Trump anyway. They still believe Russia fixed our election after all.

The shutdown closed down the country. When we started opening back up, employment shot back up; not nearly to the successful levels Trump had us at, but very impressive. June numbers were very impressive, along with a higher consumer confidence index. The stock market is even bouncing along in the right direction. You bet I'm satisfied. Trump gave America assurance that everything would be alright. That's what a real leader is supposed to do, especially when his opposition were telling people this was the end of the Fn world because they were trying to help destroy the economy.

Well I'm glad you're happy. I wonder how many other voters are going to be happy with a 10% unemployment rate, an epidemic that has killed over 200,000 and is still out of control, and racial unrest and violence in all the major cities.

Did you blame Hussein for the racial unrest and violence of major cities? He had two riots during his terms. Trump had one. And keep in mind, all were in Democrat run cities.

Unemployment being at 10% is not acceptable under normal conditions. This is not a normal condition. This is a worldwide pandemic. The fact that we cut our unemployment in half in two months amid this worldwide problem is acceptable to me.

I don't blame Donald Trump for the virus, the violence, nor the economic slowdown. I blame him for making it worse, a lot worse.

Trump's rhetoric fans the flames violence and division. Trump has presented himself as someone who seeks conflict, not conciliation, a fighter, not a peacemaker. With the country on edge, ravaged by an epidemic, hammered by economic collapse, divided over lockdowns and even face masks and now torn apart once again by race, Trump’s first instinct has been to look for someone to fight and to cast blame.

Trump makes no appeal for calm. Instead in tweets and comments to reporters, he blames the unrest on Democrats, called on “Liberal Governors and Mayors” to get “MUCH tougher” on the crowds, threatened to intervene with “the unlimited power of our Military” and even suggested his own supporters mount a counter demonstration. Turmp has done just about everything a president should not do when dealing social unrest, protests, and riots.

Obama's reaction is just the opposite of Donald Trump, calm, rarely judgmental, and always addressing what is being done or can be done to cool down the situation. Trump reaction is sending in troops, suggesting that violence should be met with more violence.

Your first mistake is thinking BLM is peaceful. They are not as we have seen with our own eyes. Burning down buildings, destroying property, killing people, beating people, taking over entire cities. They don't want peace they want to overthrow the U.S. The fact you apparently can't see that and blame Trump speaks volumes about your ignorance of current events.

How in the world are you going to tell a militant rioter to 'please be calm?' Ain't gonna happen. We have already seen what happens when you try to placate such human debris, they take over a city, burn, loot, etc. Hell, the weak kneed Democrats told the police to stand down. The only thing that stopped all this violence was the insertion of law enforcement that Trump had to finally tell them to bring in.

Absolutely, they are nothing but troublemakers. Their only goal is to cause disruption and potential violence.

Black Lives Matter protesters return to mansion where couple drew guns

Photos of Mark and Patricia McCloskey standing outside their palatial St. Louis property armed with an AR-15 and a handgun were beamed around the world last Sunday.

www.dailymail.co.uk

 

[Flopper]

Seatbelts, motorcycle helmets, or masks all come down to costs and who pays for medical expenses incurred when insurance max's out. The cost of paying medical expenses for you or one person you give COVID to is usually hundreds of thousands of dollars and sometimes over a million. Just like seatbelts and helmets, society does not want to pay for people's negligence and irresponsibility.

We've been paying for negligence and irresponsibility for generations now.

If a person doesn't use seat belts and gets in a crash and one of his kids fly out the wind and dies or becomes disabled? He may be stupid but why should his kids suffer as a result?

Because until the commies rode into our country, we left the safety and proaction of a child up to the parent--not the government.

Cars didn't even have seat belts back then. Many lives have been saved with all our added on safety features forced onto the automakers thanks to people like Ralph Nader. Is this communism? I don't think so.

So where in our founding documents or Constitution does it state government should be in charge of our safety, or for that matter, the safety of our family? Those who rely on government for those mandates are not citizens, they are servants.

It's not governments business how to save your life, my life, or the lives of our children. Government protecting it's people means to protect you from the harm of others--not from harm from your own decisions.

When government gets involved in personal decision making against their will, yes, that's Communism, or at the very least, a dictatorship. I grew up at a time with no seatbelt, no child seats, no cradle to grave government. It was a much better time than we have today.

I think you'll find your state constitution addresses public safety and clearly makes the state and local government responsible for such.
The requirement for seat belts in cars did not come from federal government but state governments. In the early 1960's, the major manufactures were offering seat belts as an option. In 1963, 23 states enacted laws requiring seat belts and a number of other states were considering it. So many states had adopted the requirement, it would have been silly for car companies to make a distinction between the markets that had required seat belts and the ones that had not. So front row seat belts became standard. In 1968, the federal government, responding to research reports of saved lives required seat belts in all forward-facing seats and ordered that shoulder straps be installed in front outboard seats used in interstate commerce. Clearly seat belt laws are constitution as the law is written.

The question of whether goverment should protect the individual lives of it's citizens is more a philosophical than legal question. Essentially all governments recognize that the first duty of government is to afford protection to its citizens, although that is interpreted different by different governments. The premise that goverment should protect it's citizens is based of the fact that the lives of its citizens have worth to society that goes beyond that of the worth to the individual. For example, if you are allowed to drive a car without seat belts, have a wreck, and kill your kids and permanently disabled both you and your wife, you hurt all society because someone will have to care for you the rest of your life and the productivity of you, your wife, and your children as adults will be lost to society.

The feds pressured states to adopt seatbelt laws because they were getting paid off by the insurance companies. Same thing with the .08 BAL for driving. Yes, technically those are state laws, but the states wouldn't have created them without the pressure from the feds and insurance industry.

Our government is charged with protecting us from others, not protecting us from ourselves. If our founders could come back to life, they would be outraged at our government dependency and tyranny that's going on in our federal government today.

The very idea that the Democrats can tax people into submission of their demands is as un-American as it gets. The idea that we have bureaucracies and bureaucrats that we cannot vote on nor redress goes everything against everything our founders crated for us. Mandating people have health insurance, tell kids what they are allowed to eat in school, having to wear seatbelt, force schools to allow weirdos in dresses to enter our daughters bathrooms and showers, even telling people what size drinks they are allowed to buy at a gas station are all things they don't even do in places like Cuba or North Korea. It's called conditioning; like the frog that is happily swimming along in that pot of cold water on top of the stove. We don't even realize it's happening to us.

State enacted seat belt laws because they were seeing deaths on highways going down by as much 50%. Of course, car insurance companies as well as life insurance companies lobbied for seat belts. Also the National Safety Council, American Automobile Association, American Medical Association, as well as some of the manufactures did significant lobbying.

Only if the individual bore complete financial responsible for his actions, would elimination of government laws and regulations that protect the individual make sense. This was society the founders live in. The family was the safety net; no family, no safety net. There was no health insurance because there was no need for it considering how little professional healthcare existed. The average adult life span was only 37 years so there wasn't much need for pensions. Since starvation and malnutrition was just part of living and dying, they of course would see no need for government providing food for the poor. Housing for poor made no sense because so many poor people lived in sheds, or homes of their own making. Fortunately, we don't have to live in that society. Considering how much better people live today with all those government laws and regulation, the founders would trade places with us in heartbeat.

 

[Flopper]

Whatever is commonly excepted, he is willing to challenge it if he sees it to his advantage to do so. Unlike most presidents, he has no pet issues that drive him, only the desire to win. The issues such as immigration, voter fraud, coronavirus, abortion, trade, defense, etc are nothing to him but winning is everything. If he wins the next election and democrats win the congress, I would expect he would change positions on almost all issues he supported to win the election.

Possible, but not likely. We will have two choices this election: Trump and Biden. If Trump wins, he may go in the opposite direction of all his issues. If Biden wins, we know that's the direction he's going. I'd say our best chances for that not to happen is voting for President Trump.

Well, if you're happy with 11.5% unemployment, 132,000 dead from an epidemic the president is now promoting by failing to support his administration guidelines, and division and violence in every major city due in no small part from the presidents message of hate and division then Trump's your man because it will certainly continue under his leadership.

Yes, I am happy. I'm happy with the way he handled it, how he went into action getting PPE and equipment in case this thing really got out of hand, I liked the way he helped these Democrat cities be prepared since they had the worst of it. I do like everything he did.

A police officer is responsible for a death of a black career criminal in a Democrat town in a Democrat state. Democrats went out to protest, riot, and destroy personal and public property. Trying to convince people that all this Democrat activity was Trump's fault will only fall on deaf ears, other than the liberals who were never going to vote for Trump anyway. They still believe Russia fixed our election after all.

The shutdown closed down the country. When we started opening back up, employment shot back up; not nearly to the successful levels Trump had us at, but very impressive. June numbers were very impressive, along with a higher consumer confidence index. The stock market is even bouncing along in the right direction. You bet I'm satisfied. Trump gave America assurance that everything would be alright. That's what a real leader is supposed to do, especially when his opposition were telling people this was the end of the Fn world because they were trying to help destroy the economy.

Well I'm glad you're happy. I wonder how many other voters are going to be happy with a 10% unemployment rate, an epidemic that has killed over 200,000 and is still out of control, and racial unrest and violence in all the major cities.

Did you blame Hussein for the racial unrest and violence of major cities? He had two riots during his terms. Trump had one. And keep in mind, all were in Democrat run cities.

Unemployment being at 10% is not acceptable under normal conditions. This is not a normal condition. This is a worldwide pandemic. The fact that we cut our unemployment in half in two months amid this worldwide problem is acceptable to me.

I don't blame Donald Trump for the virus, the violence, nor the economic slowdown. I blame him for making it worse, a lot worse.

Trump's rhetoric fans the flames violence and division. Trump has presented himself as someone who seeks conflict, not conciliation, a fighter, not a peacemaker. With the country on edge, ravaged by an epidemic, hammered by economic collapse, divided over lockdowns and even face masks and now torn apart once again by race, Trump’s first instinct has been to look for someone to fight and to cast blame.

Trump makes no appeal for calm. Instead in tweets and comments to reporters, he blames the unrest on Democrats, called on “Liberal Governors and Mayors” to get “MUCH tougher” on the crowds, threatened to intervene with “the unlimited power of our Military” and even suggested his own supporters mount a counter demonstration. Turmp has done just about everything a president should not do when dealing social unrest, protests, and riots.

Obama's reaction is just the opposite of Donald Trump, calm, rarely judgmental, and always addressing what is being done or can be done to cool down the situation. Trump reaction is sending in troops, suggesting that violence should be met with more violence.

And Trump is absolutely correct. How many weeks has this been going on for now? It's ridiculous. But why the continued civil unrest? Because nobody is stopping it, even to the point of calling this mayhem the Summer of Love.

These problems are not taking place in red cities with Republicans leading the charge. These problems stem from Democrat cities with Democrats causing the problems and damage. At the beginning your people were screaming that Trump is not doing anything about it, and when Trump announced that he may, are now screaming he's being to confrontational and divisive.

You are biased which is why you see things the way you do, but people not diehard Democrats do not see things the way you do. They see things for what they really are, and the November election will be evidence of that. People are going back to work, spending money, trying to regain some semblance of normality. Unemployment dropped dramatically, and it's all because we have a President restoring confidence in the public.

The root cause of the problem is police killing blacks, not the democrat party. There are hundreds of cities with democrat mayors that experience little or no violence in protests and there has been protest with violence in a number of cities with republican mayors such as Sioux Falls SD, Omaha, NB, Las Vegas, Nv, Miami Fl, and Jacksonville Fl. The political party of the mayor is irrelevant.

The kind of help cities with racial unrest, protests, and violence are looking for from the president are peaceful solutions and words to calm down the violence not treats send in troops and turn the city into a blood bath.

BTW If you haven't figured this out, every member on this board including you are biased.

Without doubt I'm biased. But I also see things clearly. You don't have Republicans in polo shirts tipping over police cars and starting stores on fire. So what violence took place in cities with Republican leadership that did nothing, or even encouraged it?

Over this weekend, there were 29 shootings and three dead in the city of Cleveland. The lowlifes painted a BLM mural on a main street, and the Mayor had 24/7 police protection for that mural while all the other units were extremely backed up on their calls making it more dangerous for them and citizens alike. Now there is a movement to ape other cities in getting rid of or defunding their police department. So the show is just getting started.

You see, there is no logical person that can look at all this and blame the President of the United States, especially since a city has to make a request to the White House for aid, which to my knowledge, no Democrat Mayor did. Democrats are party first--country second people which is why they are defunding or considering defunding their police departments. There will be a crime wave like we've never seen before in these areas, and they (with the help of MSM) try to blame all these Democrat idiotic moves on the President. But like I said, it won't work on open minded people.

As I said, mayors, both democrat and republican in cities with violence only want one thing form the president, keep the fuck out of their city and take his hate filled rhetoric someplace else. It's causing enough problems as it is. If the mayors decide their police need help, they can ask the governor to send in the National Guard who are much better trained at riot control than federal troops. Trump has done absolutely nothing to quell the violence but has sure aggravated it. By inserting himself into a highly charged racial issue and attacking mayors and threatening to have unruly protesters shot, he is just makes the situation worse by bringing Trump and anti Trump protesters into the melee.

Hasn't he made the epidemic bad enough by delaying the test kits for nearly two months and then encouraging his folks to violate mask and social distancing guidelines. Why in the world does he think he needs more violence in the streets. How does that help him in November?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Whatever is commonly excepted, he is willing to challenge it if he sees it to his advantage to do so. Unlike most presidents, he has no pet issues that drive him, only the desire to win. The issues such as immigration, voter fraud, coronavirus, abortion, trade, defense, etc are nothing to him but winning is everything. If he wins the next election and democrats win the congress, I would expect he would change positions on almost all issues he supported to win the election.

Possible, but not likely. We will have two choices this election: Trump and Biden. If Trump wins, he may go in the opposite direction of all his issues. If Biden wins, we know that's the direction he's going. I'd say our best chances for that not to happen is voting for President Trump.

Well, if you're happy with 11.5% unemployment, 132,000 dead from an epidemic the president is now promoting by failing to support his administration guidelines, and division and violence in every major city due in no small part from the presidents message of hate and division then Trump's your man because it will certainly continue under his leadership.

Yes, I am happy. I'm happy with the way he handled it, how he went into action getting PPE and equipment in case this thing really got out of hand, I liked the way he helped these Democrat cities be prepared since they had the worst of it. I do like everything he did.

A police officer is responsible for a death of a black career criminal in a Democrat town in a Democrat state. Democrats went out to protest, riot, and destroy personal and public property. Trying to convince people that all this Democrat activity was Trump's fault will only fall on deaf ears, other than the liberals who were never going to vote for Trump anyway. They still believe Russia fixed our election after all.

The shutdown closed down the country. When we started opening back up, employment shot back up; not nearly to the successful levels Trump had us at, but very impressive. June numbers were very impressive, along with a higher consumer confidence index. The stock market is even bouncing along in the right direction. You bet I'm satisfied. Trump gave America assurance that everything would be alright. That's what a real leader is supposed to do, especially when his opposition were telling people this was the end of the Fn world because they were trying to help destroy the economy.

Well I'm glad you're happy. I wonder how many other voters are going to be happy with a 10% unemployment rate, an epidemic that has killed over 200,000 and is still out of control, and racial unrest and violence in all the major cities.

Did you blame Hussein for the racial unrest and violence of major cities? He had two riots during his terms. Trump had one. And keep in mind, all were in Democrat run cities.

Unemployment being at 10% is not acceptable under normal conditions. This is not a normal condition. This is a worldwide pandemic. The fact that we cut our unemployment in half in two months amid this worldwide problem is acceptable to me.

I don't blame Donald Trump for the virus, the violence, nor the economic slowdown. I blame him for making it worse, a lot worse.

Trump's rhetoric fans the flames violence and division. Trump has presented himself as someone who seeks conflict, not conciliation, a fighter, not a peacemaker. With the country on edge, ravaged by an epidemic, hammered by economic collapse, divided over lockdowns and even face masks and now torn apart once again by race, Trump’s first instinct has been to look for someone to fight and to cast blame.

Trump makes no appeal for calm. Instead in tweets and comments to reporters, he blames the unrest on Democrats, called on “Liberal Governors and Mayors” to get “MUCH tougher” on the crowds, threatened to intervene with “the unlimited power of our Military” and even suggested his own supporters mount a counter demonstration. Turmp has done just about everything a president should not do when dealing social unrest, protests, and riots.

Obama's reaction is just the opposite of Donald Trump, calm, rarely judgmental, and always addressing what is being done or can be done to cool down the situation. Trump reaction is sending in troops, suggesting that violence should be met with more violence.

And Trump is absolutely correct. How many weeks has this been going on for now? It's ridiculous. But why the continued civil unrest? Because nobody is stopping it, even to the point of calling this mayhem the Summer of Love.

These problems are not taking place in red cities with Republicans leading the charge. These problems stem from Democrat cities with Democrats causing the problems and damage. At the beginning your people were screaming that Trump is not doing anything about it, and when Trump announced that he may, are now screaming he's being to confrontational and divisive.

You are biased which is why you see things the way you do, but people not diehard Democrats do not see things the way you do. They see things for what they really are, and the November election will be evidence of that. People are going back to work, spending money, trying to regain some semblance of normality. Unemployment dropped dramatically, and it's all because we have a President restoring confidence in the public.

The root cause of the problem is police killing blacks, not the democrat party. There are hundreds of cities with democrat mayors that experience little or no violence in protests and there has been protest with violence in a number of cities with republican mayors such as Sioux Falls SD, Omaha, NB, Las Vegas, Nv, Miami Fl, and Jacksonville Fl. The political party of the mayor is irrelevant.

The kind of help cities with racial unrest, protests, and violence are looking for from the president are peaceful solutions and words to calm down the violence not treats send in troops and turn the city into a blood bath.

BTW If you haven't figured this out, every member on this board including you are biased.

Without doubt I'm biased. But I also see things clearly. You don't have Republicans in polo shirts tipping over police cars and starting stores on fire. So what violence took place in cities with Republican leadership that did nothing, or even encouraged it?

Over this weekend, there were 29 shootings and three dead in the city of Cleveland. The lowlifes painted a BLM mural on a main street, and the Mayor had 24/7 police protection for that mural while all the other units were extremely backed up on their calls making it more dangerous for them and citizens alike. Now there is a movement to ape other cities in getting rid of or defunding their police department. So the show is just getting started.

You see, there is no logical person that can look at all this and blame the President of the United States, especially since a city has to make a request to the White House for aid, which to my knowledge, no Democrat Mayor did. Democrats are party first--country second people which is why they are defunding or considering defunding their police departments. There will be a crime wave like we've never seen before in these areas, and they (with the help of MSM) try to blame all these Democrat idiotic moves on the President. But like I said, it won't work on open minded people.

As I said, mayors, both democrat and republican in cities with violence only want one thing form the president, keep the fuck out of their city and take his hate filled rhetoric someplace else. It's causing enough problems as it is. If the mayors decide their police need help, they can ask the governor to send in the National Guard who are much better trained at riot control than federal troops. Trump has done absolutely nothing to quell the violence but has sure aggravated it. By inserting himself into a highly charged racial issue and attacking mayors and threatening to have unruly protesters shot, he is just makes the situation worse by bringing Trump and anti Trump protesters into the melee.

Hasn't he made the epidemic bad enough by delaying the test kits for nearly two months and then encouraging his folks to violate mask and social distancing guidelines. Why in the world does he think he needs more violence in the streets. How does that help him in November?

First of all it has nothing to do with Trump or who is in the White House. Thanks to our last failed President who did nothing with the riots, people now feel they can conduct them anytime they wish with impunity. Secondly, this has absolutely nothing to do with race. The police never said anything racial while trying to arrest this guy, they didn't go after him because he was black, they went after him for passing counterfeit money, which is a federal offense, and the only people that made it racial are the Democrats because they feel the people are stupid enough to believe it when they say it. Their readers will never question nor research their claim. It was the clerk of the store that summoned police.

Thirdly, Trump never held up any testing kits. The only people who had FDA approval to make those kits were the CDC. When we realized we were starting to have a serious problem, they started to use those kits which were defective, and they all had to be thrown out. The President was faced with this serious problem with no available tests. So he did whatever he could to get the private market to help save the day. The problem is by the time we found all this out, nearly everybody in the world wanted those test kits too.

You will learn all these things and more during the debates, if the DNC doesn't keep Biden away from Trump which I believe is going to be their number one priority.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Seatbelts, motorcycle helmets, or masks all come down to costs and who pays for medical expenses incurred when insurance max's out. The cost of paying medical expenses for you or one person you give COVID to is usually hundreds of thousands of dollars and sometimes over a million. Just like seatbelts and helmets, society does not want to pay for people's negligence and irresponsibility.

We've been paying for negligence and irresponsibility for generations now.

If a person doesn't use seat belts and gets in a crash and one of his kids fly out the wind and dies or becomes disabled? He may be stupid but why should his kids suffer as a result?

Because until the commies rode into our country, we left the safety and proaction of a child up to the parent--not the government.

Cars didn't even have seat belts back then. Many lives have been saved with all our added on safety features forced onto the automakers thanks to people like Ralph Nader. Is this communism? I don't think so.

So where in our founding documents or Constitution does it state government should be in charge of our safety, or for that matter, the safety of our family? Those who rely on government for those mandates are not citizens, they are servants.

It's not governments business how to save your life, my life, or the lives of our children. Government protecting it's people means to protect you from the harm of others--not from harm from your own decisions.

When government gets involved in personal decision making against their will, yes, that's Communism, or at the very least, a dictatorship. I grew up at a time with no seatbelt, no child seats, no cradle to grave government. It was a much better time than we have today.

I think you'll find your state constitution addresses public safety and clearly makes the state and local government responsible for such.
The requirement for seat belts in cars did not come from federal government but state governments. In the early 1960's, the major manufactures were offering seat belts as an option. In 1963, 23 states enacted laws requiring seat belts and a number of other states were considering it. So many states had adopted the requirement, it would have been silly for car companies to make a distinction between the markets that had required seat belts and the ones that had not. So front row seat belts became standard. In 1968, the federal government, responding to research reports of saved lives required seat belts in all forward-facing seats and ordered that shoulder straps be installed in front outboard seats used in interstate commerce. Clearly seat belt laws are constitution as the law is written.

The question of whether goverment should protect the individual lives of it's citizens is more a philosophical than legal question. Essentially all governments recognize that the first duty of government is to afford protection to its citizens, although that is interpreted different by different governments. The premise that goverment should protect it's citizens is based of the fact that the lives of its citizens have worth to society that goes beyond that of the worth to the individual. For example, if you are allowed to drive a car without seat belts, have a wreck, and kill your kids and permanently disabled both you and your wife, you hurt all society because someone will have to care for you the rest of your life and the productivity of you, your wife, and your children as adults will be lost to society.

The feds pressured states to adopt seatbelt laws because they were getting paid off by the insurance companies. Same thing with the .08 BAL for driving. Yes, technically those are state laws, but the states wouldn't have created them without the pressure from the feds and insurance industry.

Our government is charged with protecting us from others, not protecting us from ourselves. If our founders could come back to life, they would be outraged at our government dependency and tyranny that's going on in our federal government today.

The very idea that the Democrats can tax people into submission of their demands is as un-American as it gets. The idea that we have bureaucracies and bureaucrats that we cannot vote on nor redress goes everything against everything our founders crated for us. Mandating people have health insurance, tell kids what they are allowed to eat in school, having to wear seatbelt, force schools to allow weirdos in dresses to enter our daughters bathrooms and showers, even telling people what size drinks they are allowed to buy at a gas station are all things they don't even do in places like Cuba or North Korea. It's called conditioning; like the frog that is happily swimming along in that pot of cold water on top of the stove. We don't even realize it's happening to us.

State enacted seat belt laws because they were seeing deaths on highways going down by as much 50%. Of course, car insurance companies as well as life insurance companies lobbied for seat belts. Also the National Safety Council, American Automobile Association, American Medical Association, as well as some of the manufactures did significant lobbying.

Only if the individual bore complete financial responsible for his actions, would elimination of government laws and regulations that protect the individual make sense. This was society the founders live in. The family was the safety net; no family, no safety net. There was no health insurance because there was no need for it considering how little professional healthcare existed. The average adult life span was only 37 years so there wasn't much need for pensions. Since starvation and malnutrition was just part of living and dying, they of course would see no need for government providing food for the poor. Housing for poor made no sense because so many poor people lived in sheds, or homes of their own making. Fortunately, we don't have to live in that society. Considering how much better people live today with all those government laws and regulation, the founders would trade places with us in heartbeat.

Absolutely wrong. They could have emulated the programs we have today. They could have paid farmers to feed the poor. They could have started programs like Cash for Carriages. The government could have paid workers to build cabins for the poor. What the founders wanted was zero control over the people's personal choices. What the government were to provide the people is outlined in the US Constitution. Healthcare or insurance isn't one of them.

Fast forward to today, many people rely on government for things never dreamt of by our founders. It's not what they wanted. They didn't want a people who depended on government for everything from diapers for you babies to free childcare services to abortions to funding entities line NPR or PBS, to HUD homes in the suburbs.