tvc184

Perhaps he was seeking an end.

🤣 How are you busting my bubble? Why should Trump debate if he is going to win? Most people would lose support if they refused a debate but not Trump. His claimed abuse of the White House, from the legacy media spin, doesn’t exist. In think Trump won three cases this week in front of the Supreme Court or the DC Circuit Court. Yeah, I have a problem with his antics. Almost everyone does. When he was elected in 2016 I am almost everybody. I knew they supported him said, now if he would just shut up and govern. He hasn’t and he won’t. He’s a narcissist. ……. and yet the public still supports his agenda more than anything the Democrats have to offer.

Remember…. KBH as a sitting and popular US Senator was up 26% at this point with big name backers and then lost by 21%.

Sorry, Kamala will never be the president. Unless the Democrats get serious then they will get beat worse in 2028 when they will have to defend their antics and can no longer use anyone but Trump.

🤣🤣🤣 Rent free! NEWSFLASH: This breaking story just in to the Associated Press, Donald Trump has won the presidency! Any thinking person would not be asking how a convicted felon won the election but how lame the message was from the Democrat candidate was that allowed Trump to gain ground in every state. 🤣🤣🤣

Meaning what? Maybe it’s past my bedtime but I don’t see the connection.

He should have self deported back to his home country or anywhere else.

Who here hasn’t tripped? With Biden, it was not a trip. It was turning around to shake hands with someone who was not there and standing there befuddled wondering where the person should be. It was being let away from a public event by the Easter bunny. It was turning to walk off stage and not knowing how to get there. It was forgetting what the topic was in the middle of a sentence. With Biden it was an obvious mental acuity issue, but being unsteady on his feet for being old.

Biden had to be led away by the Easter Bunny. Just sayin’….. 🤣

Most people probably would but the only people who can do it are the ones holding the position.

They don’t. Where do you see that in my comment?

How does showing a person’s face confirm that he is a federal agent? What does a banker’s face look like? Nurse? Police officer? Cashier? Carpenter? Please explain the rationale that showing a person’s face divulges his profession or his criminal intent. It would sure make it easier for the police if they could simply spot criminals and make arrests by looking say them.

That’s the same logic of preventing school shootings by declaring schools as gun free zones.

The Dems just want to be doxxing them.

Mexico sued several US firearms manufacturers as being responsible for murders in Mexico It was not completely unexpected to be a winning case for firearms manufacturers but the unanimous decision, authored by Kagan, is a welcome sight. The case is Smith & Wesson et al. V. Estados Unidos Mexicanos (Mexico) Smith & Wesson was sued along with six other gun manufacturers (Colt, Glock, Ruger, Baretta, etc.) in the United States by Mexico. The claim (that might have shut them down) was that those manufacturers were responsible for gun violence in Mexico and because the cartels used American manufactured guns. Mexico claimed that since the manufacturers did not strictly police or regulate who bought goes from FFL’s, they were responsible. The First Circuit Court of Appeals covering Maine, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New Hampshire and Puerto Rico ruled in favor of Mexico saying the suit could go forward. The firearms manufacturers appealed to the Supreme Court and their ruling was issued a few hours ago. A unanimous Supreme Court ruled that the federal law, Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, protects firearms manufacturers from lawsuits in state and federal courts unless it can be shown that the manufacturer was complicit by aiding and abetting the illegal gun transfers. Mexico showed no evidence that any of the manufacturers were knowingly helping the drug cartels to obtain the guns. The decision was authored by Elana Kagan who in her order wrote…. “Finally, Mexico's allegations about the manufacturers’ design and marketing decisions" add nothing of consequence. As noted above, Mexico here focuses on the manufacturers' production of "military style" assault weapons, among which it includes AR-15 ri-fles, AK-47 rifles, and .50 caliber sniper rifles. But those products are both widely legal and bought by many ordinary consumers. (The AR-15 is the most popular rifle in the country.) The manufacturers cannot be charged with assisting in criminal acts just because Mexican cartel members like those guns too” So in the Opinion of the Court written by Kagan, the AR15, AK47 and similar guns are “widely legal and bought by many ordinary consumers”. She then noted that the AR15 is the most popular rifle in the country. That language may come up in the next session or two when the Supreme Court takes up the assault weapons ban in some states under the premise that they should not be included in the common use test in the Supreme Court cases of Heller and Bruen. The main facts that are important here in my opinion are that even the liberal leaning justices, saw the stupidity of Mexico‘s claim and issued a ruling to protect gun manufacturers against what I think is a frivolous claim and that Kagan wrote the opinion. In doing so wrote that the assault rifles and even sniper rifles were widely legal and purchased by consumers and that the AR15 was the most popular rifle in the country. The flabbergasting part is that the First Circuit Court thought that the manufacturers should be liable if one of their weapons was later used to commit a crime. I guess in their opinion, if a drunk driver killed someone, the family should be able to sue Exxon-Mobil for manufacturing the gasoline.

I just found this comment I made in May 2022 in a different sports forum… [QUOTE=tvc184;n23043687] Wait until 300 kids gather at the bus stop to go home and be stationed away with a suppressed rifle. Toss Molotov cocktails or pipe bombs into school windows. Mow down the 300 kids at the bus stop with a vehicle. Do like Adam Landsa at Sandy Hook and shoot out the locked door glass to gain entry. Wait for a school bus on a known daily route to stop at a stop sign, shoot the driver, enter the bus and proceed to……. I believe in making it tough. Make the schools harder to enter, allow armed teachers and so on but how do you stop a dedicated attacker who can choose the target and time?[/QUOTE] Is it the weapon that is the problem or the mental health and/or being shy to ruffle someone’s political feelings? We joke at times after a major news incident that doesn’t involve a firearm by saying things like, Ban knives! or Ban cars! Well here you go. A British actor believes that kitchen knives shouldn’t have points on them. “I do think there is areas of innovation that we can do with kitchen knives”. I know, let’s just remove the points and sharp edges from the knife…. 🤣🤣🤣 [Hidden Content]

This is a bit off topic but I made this comment (search worked) agreeing with you in May 2023 in response to complaints of large capacity magazines. “You answer was clearly the correct assessment. If no rifle, a shotgun. Then a handgun. Then a Molotov cocktail thrown into a couple of rooms” I have made the same basic comment for years in various gun control arguments if different social media groups. If a person has intent to kill and has just a little bit of time to plan, how do you stop him? OH, BAN AR15s!! Yeah, that’ll do it…. So we have locked doors to schools. We have in most places at least one armed person. It’s over then, right? Surely no one would sprint up to a classroom window, smash it out and throw a couple of glass bottles full of easily obtained flammable liquid into the now open classroom. Surely no one would steal a car and drive it into 200 children waiting in the bus after school. Focusing on items that can injure people is a sideshow as a means to an end.

If they can get the amendments together in the conference committee to work out the differences it could be a great bill.

AND…. the fail to ID law that I mentioned is Texas law. Under Texas law, if you are not driving or you’re not under arrest, you do not have to identify yourself to the police. In approximately half of the states, if lawfully detained, you do have to identify yourself to the police or you are committing a crime.

I can do nothing but speculate but I suspect that any fail to ID was before any arrest. Up until two years ago, the only time you absolutely had to identify yourself to the police was if you’re actually under arrest. Of course, if you were driving, you had to present a drivers license or identify yourself, but you could not be arrested for failure to ID. If a driver refuse to give his identification, the police had to do what I called the Texas two-step. They had to arrest the driver for a valid charge like an expired license registration and then demand an ID after the arrest. A couple of years ago, the state finally changed that law and put failure to ID on the driver of a vehicle. I am kind of curious if they actually saw him driving or was he in a truck that was parked? If the police were just randomly patrolling and noticed the expired registration sticker, but did not see who was driving, could they lawfully demand his ID? Again, with knowing absolutely nothing of what actually happened, I could see a situation where it was possibly an unlawful arrest and all charges could be dropped against the Bpd officer. I would hope that the arresting officer actually knew what he was doing and probably so however, I’m not always that confident.

Like almost any other job, he could be fired for violating any policy violation. It’s not quite an at-will job because there has to be cause. In an at-will job a person can be terminated for almost any reason. In his case there has to a reason. An arrest is not likely a valid reason (not proven guilty) for termination but convictions or toss in things like conduct unbecoming of a police officer and it could be. These are just traffic citations though. Was it an expired license plate, an open container and not presenting a driver’s license? Strangely enough, the license and expired plate are always arrest-able offenses but the open container is not if in your county. I suspect that he could get as little as a written reprimand (which is not public by law) or a suspension without pay like maybe 3 to 7 days. That would be public. I am fairly certain that the Beaumont police are under state civil service laws. All police punishments are public information however state civil service law only recognizes a suspension as punishment. Verbal or written reprimands are not considered punishment. So could he be terminated? Sure. It will have to hold up to the scrutiny of an outside arbitrator though if they have the same grievance process that we have. So the officer’s lawyer and the city can go to one of the arbitration organizations and agree on an arbitrator to come in and hear the case. In our contract the arbitrator has to come from out of state. It is kind of like a court because each side can ask questions and call witnesses who are placed under oath.Also, if it is like ours, the arbitrator’s decision is final as it’s binding arbitration. I really have a hard time imagining that an outside arbitrator would look at three traffic citations and determine that is a valid reason to terminate a police officer. What we do not know and probably will never know, is if any officer has any history of policy violations unless it was a suspension. This officer might have a spotless record.

That was almost certainly for being a jerk if the news reports are correct. If the police had a reason to detain him for a violation such as expired registration, he has to identify himself. The report says that he was arrested for failing to identify himself. it was only a couple of traffic citations. Geez, identify yourself, sign the ticket and move on.

Yep, that’s why I said it was all nonsense. Of course he could get the Martha Stewart prosecution. Stewart was accused of insider trading and they couldn’t prove it but she stupidly did not remain silent and lied to the FBI. So she is now a convicted felon for obstruction of justice or whatever they call it.

There is no third party. The term third party is an idiom for any number of parties who are not Republicans or Democrats. I think common ones are the Libertarian Party, Green Party, Constitution Party, etc. The Dems and GOP stop them how? Those parties typically put up candidates. There simply isn’t this claimed third party and there is virtually no support for any of them. The absolute most that a third-party could do is to win maybe two states and deny anyone from getting the required 270 electoral college votes. That would throw it to the house of representatives. That is where the Constitution steps in. The House of Representatives chooses the next president. What third party, with zero members of the House, is going to win any election? The Democrats and Republicans don’t have to stop this magical third-party. Again, first off no third-party actually exists. Secondly, the most that another candidate could do is win a handful of votes and throw the election for the House. So yes, the Constitution stops any so called third party from the presidency.

What third party was ever a threat and what rules are changed? The Constitution stops any third party (which there isn’t really one). The biggest threat to third parties is third parties.