The GOP has a stable of potential winners, the Dems have one old mare

[Redfish]

'

saw it and its sorry

About what I expected as a response from you

demand proof ( twice)

Then you can't refute a single point

Re: your lie about GDP;

Blame this on Bush Obama Has Lowest Average 1stQ GDP Growth of Any President on Record US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Too funny

You use that lame thread of cherry picked data as proof?
Why don't you just link to a Stephanie thread and remove all doubt you are an idiot?

can you refute the data, or are you just spouting?

What's the special relevance of Q1 data? It would be like offering us the average approval rating of presidents on Labor day.

Its arbitrarily specific. And doesn't denote any particular significance.

neither does any of the crap posted by RW, thats my point.

 

[Skylar]

'

saw it and its sorry

About what I expected as a response from you

demand proof ( twice)

Then you can't refute a single point

Re: your lie about GDP;

Blame this on Bush Obama Has Lowest Average 1stQ GDP Growth of Any President on Record US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Too funny

You use that lame thread of cherry picked data as proof?
Why don't you just link to a Stephanie thread and remove all doubt you are an idiot?

Average first quarter GDP is rather......specific. What's special about Q1?

OK how about it? what exactly did obama do to make it better? What specific actions did HE take?

And what is special about q1? Your standards are just.....arbitrarily specific. Like the best presidential speech while facing to the left and standing on one foot.

What's the significance?

 

[Skylar]

About what I expected as a response from you

demand proof ( twice)

Then you can't refute a single point

Re: your lie about GDP;

Blame this on Bush Obama Has Lowest Average 1stQ GDP Growth of Any President on Record US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Too funny

You use that lame thread of cherry picked data as proof?
Why don't you just link to a Stephanie thread and remove all doubt you are an idiot?

can you refute the data, or are you just spouting?

What's the special relevance of Q1 data? It would be like offering us the average approval rating of presidents on Labor day.

Its arbitrarily specific. And doesn't denote any particular significance.

neither does any of the crap posted by RW, thats my point.

So your point is to offer us something that even you admit has no particular significance?

 

[rightwinger]

Read the post above yours

'

saw it and its sorry

About what I expected as a response from you

demand proof ( twice)

Then you can't refute a single point

already refuted all of them.

I especially like the one on the auto bailouts,

If GM was allowed to go through a structured bankruptcy, it would have been broken down into smaller more efficient units and each new company would have had to have a union representation vote. That scared the UAW shitless as well as the dems who depend on union money. Soooooooooooooo, your hero used OUR money to save the UAW, and you are too ignorant to understand what it was really about.

You have yet to refute them....but it was a nice try at a bluff

If GM collapsed, there is no assurance that anything would have reemerged. Keep in mind, there were no banks. Nobody to risk investing in these new companies. Only the US government was willing to take the risk and it paid off

If GM went through bankruptcy, paid the creditors $X on the dollar owed, and broke up into smaller units there would have been investors lined up for a piece of that. The loser would have been the UAW as I mentioned.

What we know for sure is GM survived and is a viable company

Your fantasy of a half dozen small companies emerging is just that...a fantasy
When was the last small auto company to survive in the US? 1940?

 

[rightwinger]

Read the post above yours

'

saw it and its sorry

About what I expected as a response from you

demand proof ( twice)

Then you can't refute a single point

Re: your lie about GDP;

Blame this on Bush Obama Has Lowest Average 1stQ GDP Growth of Any President on Record US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Too funny

You use that lame thread of cherry picked data as proof?
Why don't you just link to a Stephanie thread and remove all doubt you are an idiot?

can you refute the data, or are you just spouting?

Read the thread...it is openly mocked

 

[JoeMoma]

My dog is better than your dog.......

Oops.... Sorry wrong thread.....but not far off.

 

[JoshuaZ]

Its very amusing to watch the dims twist and turn trying to justify running the old, tired, lying, corrupt, failed ***** HRC. But she is all they have, they have no one else. Its hilarious.

It is hilarious! I am slapping my knee and laughing so hard I start coughing uncontrollably. Especially given the fact that the failed ***** is beating all of the Republicans in the polls. So, genius, what does that make them? And what does that make you, sock puppet?

ROFLMNAO~

Now isn't THAT ADORABLE!

Answer the question. OK, I'll let you off on the second question because anyone here can answer that. But what about the first one.

Frame the question into something lucid.

There are no legitimate polls which show that Monica Lewinsky's Ex-boyfriend's wife would win an election for President against anyone. So if the question says anything about anyone, it says that anyone that believes that, is a fool.

Really? Can you explain how the Qpac polls are not legitimate, and the Fox News polls are also not legitimate? Because they both seem to be putting Hillary as winning against a lot of potential Republicans in head to head contests. Don't confuse you not liking a candidate with that candidate having low chances.

 

[daws101]

How many lies and scandals will the Dems justify between now and November of next year?

Certainly a lot less than the repubs.

Considering there are 20 Republican candidates to one, you may have a point.

Which of Hillary's lies do you believe? Benghazi? She has only one cell phone? She didn't know she need to use government e-mails? What about under fire in Bosnia, that was compelling.

Which ones do you believe?

Bengazi is/ was no lie.
as for the others there is no credible evidence proving them to be lies .
I will make my decision on the evidence, not bigoted rumors.

Okay, then I know how gullible you are thank you.

Nope thats you guys , anybody who voted for Reagan or Gw bush has proven beyond any doubt that they are without question suckers!

 

[daws101]

Bengazi is/ was no lie.
as for the others there is no credible evidence proving them to be lies .
I will make my decision on the evidence, not bigoted rumors.

Fact on Benghazi:

Four US Citizens are dead... as a direct result of obama and clinton delivering weapons to Islamic Terrorists and spent MONTHS lying to the American public that the attack was a consequence of a frickin' YOUTUBE VIDEO.

These facts are indisputable and they are the tip of the subversive, treasonous iceberg.

false.

 

[Jackson]

The claim of objectivity still stands.

Then objectively, what is your explanation for the stark reduction in the use of force by police officers by their own reporting when body cams were implemented. We've already eliminated the 'they aren't doing their job because they are afraid' angle. Arrests are up. And the 'false allegation' angle. As these are self reported numbers.

So what do you have left?

Objectively, my explanation works: that much of the use of force by police officers before body cams wasn't necessary.

Its an explanation blessed with the credibility of simplicity (Occam's Razor anyone?), is supported by other evidence (accompanying reduction in complaints of excessive force) and matches the evidence. Nothing you've presented does.

So.....can you offer a better explanation? If no, then why are you rejecting mine? Especially when your last two excuses didn't work.

I was impressed with the data on arrests and feel that the city is not being affected as other metropolitan areas. I looked more at the data provided and other data to complete the observance. Do you feel that the fact that San Diego has a black population of 6.7% has made a difference?

San Diego - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

San Diego is probably not alone. Other cities with the same demographics would be interesting to study.

The demographics of the area didn't change significantly from the year before the use of body cams to the year that body cams were used. Yet use of force changed dramatically between those two years. Body cams are the only significant difference. The black population percentage remained essentially unchanged.

Skylar, you have made a great representation...better than mine. I am inclined to lean toward you opinion.

Thank you. And thank you for being open to reviewing the evidence. My point in presenting it is as evidence that the use of unnecessary force by police is likely far greater than is being reported. And that such likelihood of unnecessary force is worthy of federal 'interference'.

Now, can this be repeated elsewhere whereas the arrest records increase? Can you make these same assumptions where LE are not proactive in their present environment?

We'll find out. Body cams uses are expanding. If we see accompanying dramatic reductions in the use of force by police after implementation but no major change to their arrest numbers.....then I think that stands as strong evidence that illegal and unnecessary violence by police was pretty wide spread.

Better though is that the use of body cams would then help keep that level low and help reduce unnecessary uses of force. And help protect police officers from unjust accusations when the uses of force were justified. The benefits are very much a two way street. Which is why most police unions support them....with one caveat:

That officers be able to review (but be unable to alter in any way) the body cam footage of an incident before writing their reports. That seems completely reasonable as it would result in the most accurate accounting.

I absolutely agree especially with your last statement. There was one police officer who claimed the video cam went down (shut off) three times while he was engaging suspects. The police investigated and found there was no problem with the video cam. He was likely the culprit.

Being a police officer is risky business and we need well qualified and honest people taking those positions. I would agree with most anything that would encourage proper police action, taking out the biased and egocentric cops as long as we support our good officers. Think we can agree on that.

I completely agree. And I'd argue that most cops fit the bill you've described. The vast majority of cops fit one of two types: those who want to protect and serve or those who are just doing a job. Either is fine with me. And bodycams protect them both.

The tiny minority of abusive a-hole who is drawn to the job because of its power I'm not fine with. And the body cams keep these folks in check.

I don't see any downside for cop or public with bodycams. And a huge bump in accountability.

Now, one question: do you think that uploaded bodycam footage should be available to the public? Some municipalities that use them actually create an online archive that anyone can access. Their own cross between COPS the series and youtube.

What do you think? I'm undecided.

I do not see anything wrong with having those videos open to the public. Think of the issues if they weren't. We need to re-establish a rapport with LE. Showing exactly what happens in their jobs is a good thing and weeds out the bad cops. I still would like to believe that the vast majority of police are good. We have to work with the public to have the same views as mine. Then again, some won't believe anything good about LE. Those videos will be open to them as well.

Good talking with you!

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"The GOP has a stable of potential winners, the Dems have one old mare"

It's this sort of partisan delusional nonsense that will lose the GOP the presidency.

Again.

 

[Jackson]

How many lies and scandals will the Dems justify between now and November of next year?

Certainly a lot less than the repubs.

Considering there are 20 Republican candidates to one, you may have a point.

Which of Hillary's lies do you believe? Benghazi? She has only one cell phone? She didn't know she need to use government e-mails? What about under fire in Bosnia, that was compelling.

Which ones do you believe?

Bengazi is/ was no lie.
as for the others there is no credible evidence proving them to be lies .
I will make my decision on the evidence, not bigoted rumors.

Okay, then I know how gullible you are thank you.

Nope thats you guys , anybody who voted for Reagan or Gw bush has proven beyond any doubt that they are without question suckers!

And those who vote for a Community Organizer are not? One that can't even produce birth records to prove his status? One that will not open information or talk about his school career?

One that exclaims his mentor is none other than a racist, come on now...

 

[JoshuaZ]

"The GOP has a stable of potential winners, the Dems have one old mare"

It's this sort of partisan delusional nonsense that will lose the GOP the presidency.

Again.

What probability do you assign to the GOP not winning the Presidency?

 

[BluesLegend]

Certainly a lot less than the repubs.

Considering there are 20 Republican candidates to one, you may have a point.

Which of Hillary's lies do you believe? Benghazi? She has only one cell phone? She didn't know she need to use government e-mails? What about under fire in Bosnia, that was compelling.

Which ones do you believe?

Bengazi is/ was no lie.
as for the others there is no credible evidence proving them to be lies .
I will make my decision on the evidence, not bigoted rumors.

Okay, then I know how gullible you are thank you.

Nope thats you guys , anybody who voted for Reagan or Gw bush has proven beyond any doubt that they are without question suckers!

And those who vote for a Community Organizer are not? One that can't even produce birth records to prove his status? One that will not open information or talk about his school career?

One that exclaims his mentor is none other than a racist, come on now...

If we proposed electing a GOP candidate with no experience president, a GOP candidate who's resume is virtually blank since college and has no career accomplishments, the entirety of the left would come unglued but its okay if the candidate is a flaming liberal. Their double standards define the word 'blatant'.

 

[Jackson]

"The GOP has a stable of potential winners, the Dems have one old mare"

It's this sort of partisan delusional nonsense that will lose the GOP the presidency.

Again.

What probability do you assign to the GOP not winning the Presidency?

You didn't ask me, but if you had, I'd say the GOP has an 80% chance of winning this next election. The old gray mare has no positive experiences to bring to the election. She can't even answer press questions let alone difficult questions in a debate.

She nor her "husband" will be indicted before the election but that is not to say that they shouldn't have. It just goes to demonstrate that the Clintons are indeed above the law.

 

[rdean]

Sad isn't it?

Republicans have 15-20 candidates and not one is capable of beating an old hag like Hillary

Fewer lemmings in the Republican party

The GOP are all lemmings. And for them, fortunately, they are 90% the same color. They don't have to tell one from the other.

 

[rdean]

Still, the same old platform of "let him die" and "the poor are lazy".

 

[auditor0007]

Its very amusing to watch the dims twist and turn trying to justify running the old, tired, lying, corrupt, failed ***** HRC. But she is all they have, they have no one else. Its hilarious.

Actually, Dems have a number of great potential candidates, but there is no sense in them running at this point, because Hillary is going to win the nomination. If she had chosen not to run, Dems would have several strong candidates.

 

[kaz]

The post you replied to answered that question. The corruption is rampant and coverup is in full force.

Oh no! Not the cover up ploy!
sure sign of makin' shit up!

And the Dems picked a community activist. I'd stop making judgments if I were you.

And The repubs picked a ptsd ridden vet and an a incredible stupid evangelical
it's not the dems judgment that's questionable.

Oh, you were doing so well until that last statement. Before the angry black man who's an empty suit in the white house, John Kerry? Are you kidding me? He was a gag candidate. Al Gore is a lunatic who says more stupid things than Dan Quayle did. Before that was your two election love of the sexual predator who caught a break by being on the good side of the internet bubble which had zero to do with him. Tsongas? Mondale? Carter? LOL, that's picking well? yeah

You'll get an anurisim yammering like that.

I know Obama is a deity, I was just kidding saying he wasn't

Tragic failed attempt at sarcasm.

I'll let you in on the trick to effective sarcasm. You have to say something you don't normally say. Cool, huh? Now go give it a shot

 

[kaz]

Its very amusing to watch the dims twist and turn trying to justify running the old, tired, lying, corrupt, failed ***** HRC. But she is all they have, they have no one else. Its hilarious.

Actually, Dems have a number of great potential candidates, but there is no sense in them running at this point, because Hillary is going to win the nomination. If she had chosen not to run, Dems would have several strong candidates.

Democrats are interchangeable, so from a policy standpoint it makes no difference who runs. But from a strategy standpoint, isn't it a bit risky to put all your eggs in one basket this far from the election? Particularly someone with the arrogance and trail of corruption as a Clinton?