tvc184

Which is what I said….

I am not upset Griner was released. I think the charges were probably true and she is guilty. But if America can get its citizens released from a foreign prison, okay. The way and why it happened is the bad part. The administration wanted Griner because of how many boxes she (or them) could check. I think that she is a whiny woke person who hates what this country because of her brainwashed opinions. But while them (her) political stance is stupid in my opinion, 10 years in hard labor is a bad deal for a vape cartridge no matter if it is the laws of that country. If someone in this forum had a relative that was sentenced to 5 years of hard labor for throwing an aluminum can out of a car (littering) in Singapore, I wouldn’t expect them to say, oh well, it’s the law in that country. Am I bent out of shape like many people because she was released? No. Do I think it was a bad deal and her being a Black, female, LGBTQ identified, kneel for the Star Spangled Banner-American hating woke them person was a key factor? Absolutely. We set a weak precedent and gave up too much for a political ploy. That however, is not Griner’s fault. She was just an unwilling international pawn.

She isn’t doing anything other than saying I am still on the same team but too embarrassed to claim them.

I doubt that they will nominate a Republican. After that, they aren’t left with many or any options.

He is deceased.

I don’t disagree with the polls. Like most polls, I don’t think they fudge the numbers but ask the wrong questions or they are intentionally leading. In a poll such as this, the questions should be, what is your opinion but then, why? Why does either side want a candidate to run or not run? Of the 37% of Republicans who don’t want Trump to run (I am in that category), is it because they didn’t like the results of his decisions or is it because they know he is more likely to lose than another candidate such as DeSantis? Did the 37% not lit the idea of a wall? The tax break? Low gas prices? Meeting with Kim Jong Eun? Exactly what is it that the 37% don’t like? I think that a majority of them have issues with him winning, not his results. I agree with that stance. Of the 57% of Democrats that don’t want Biden to run, is it because they don’t think he can win or is it because they don’t like the results that they see? Let’s be honest, I think a majority of the public, no matter political thinking, thinks that Biden is a train wreck. For the Democrats I think a lot of the 57% is not about the chances of losing but that he is so incompetent. But… the poll doesn’t show why, just the final result. Again, I don’t disagree with the numbers like the pollsters lied. The poll should be for Republicans, Democrats and independents, after the first question of “do you want your guy to run….”, the follow up should be a multiple choice, why? Such as: A. I like his leadership but don’t think he can win. B. I don’t like what he is doing /did? Note that independents (whatever those are) who really have no candidate so supposedly don’t have “their guy right or wrong”, dislike Biden at an almost 10% higher rate. A final thought about how much does your chosen desire based on personality or results. For the people of any party, it is the same question, why don’t you want him to run? If for example DeSantis got the nomination and did almost the exact same thing as Trump but obviously more well spoken and not prone to outlandish comments, would they support him? Would the rank and file Republicans support opening the American oil production? Shutting down the border? Cutting more taxes? Would Democrats want (who do they have?) another person but who has a free for all policy so the border? Continues to shut down American oil production? Wants to force people (if he had the authority) to get multiple vaccinations? Loves what he has done with the economy? I don’t doubt the results of this article. In my opinion the Republicans don’t want Trump because he is more likely to lose but their beliefs aren’t much different. The Democrats in my opinion hate what is happening and don’t like Biden’s policies. Another person doing the same is not a good option. All of this can be summed up with, Biden’s leadership sucks. It isn’t his personality that is the issue. Trump’s policies led to lower taxes, low gasoline prices, a booming economy and no threats of wars…. but he is Trump. His personality is his liability, not his decisions (other than his tweets). Maybe the poll could be reduced to: If any person in your desired party can guarantee a win but he/she has to keep the exact same policies as either Biden or Trump, are you for that candidate? For independents, if any person of your choice (even a third party) would win but is forced to do exactly the same as Trump or Biden, whose policies do you favor?? I think you would find that independents think Biden’s leadership is horrible. Trump’s narcissism is horrible.

He appeared to be having an argument with and then made threats to use deadly on an imaginary person(s). Then he shot at the imaginary person. Unfortunately, the guy clearly had mental issues whether drug induced or some kind of psychological crisis. Maybe they should have sent some social workers or maybe city council members to the call from the defund the police communities. I am sure they could have diffused the situation and the guy would not have perceived the social workers as an imaginary threat.

Police got a shots fired and a guy having mental issues was shooting into his own house. As soon as the police arrived they shot him. Social media comments on a site I looked at were calling it murder.

Justified?

That article is a hoot. This is the Brett Kavanaugh hearing all over again. He tried to kiss me 35 years ago when he was intoxicated so he’s a rapist!!

This old saying applies: Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Just because you don’t see it, hear it or are not aware of it doesn’t mean that it doesn’t exist or didn’t happen. I was working an apartment security off duty job a few years ago with a partner. It was late at night like about 10pm. We heard a gunshot that sounded like it was a few blocks south of where we were. About a minute later a call was dispatched after a person called 911 hearing the gunshot. It is a fairly routine call usually with no information other than it was somewhere within 10 blocks. About 99% of the time it results in the officer not finding anything. There isn’t really anything to go on other than, “I heard shots a good way off north of here”. Within a couple of minutes an officer was reporting that people in the area said that they heard no shots. So that means it was a fake call, right? No evidence, case closed. Like usual, nothing was found. On hearing an officer say that it might be a fake call, my partner and I reported on the radio that we heard the shot. Officers continued searching the area came upon the guy who fired the shot. Oops! He was outside looking around when officers found him. The man had caught somebody trying to break in his car and had fired a warning shot. The police now had a description and actually caught the guy who is breaking into the car. So citizens didn’t hear it therefore it didn’t happen. Officers didn’t find anything so it didn’t happen. What “didn’t happen” turned out to be a real crime with a shot being fired and a suspect apprehended. So why didn’t “witnesses” who were closer than me not hear a shot that I heard? I have no clue. Wind direction? Structures between us? They were playing loud music? Talking loud and not paying attention? We will never know but it happened. Had my partner and I not heard it, causing officers to keep searching, it would have gone down as another likely fake call. The person calling 911 could be accused committing a crime by calling in a false report. Because of circumstances it turned out completely different. The fake call turned out to be real. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. How many comments have we seen in all forums including this one where people draw conclusions based on reports in the media and other forum members posting, “I heard”. That is why I often throw into my comment, IF this happened or if the news reports are correct or if the witnesses didn’t make a mistake…… The shots fired call is an example of a completely false conclusion by witnesses and police officers also. We can understand why the conclusions were made… they just turned out to be wrong.

That is a news media term that kind of originated with the Olympic bomber suspect Richard Jewell who was a security officer there. Itv has no real bearing in law enforcement. He reported the suspicions package at the Atlanta Olympics. The police (I think FBI but not sure) made a statement about a “suspect” (I think was the wording) and someone (some police agency) identified him. Well….. it turns out that he was a hero and tried to clear the area but was blasted in the media as the suspect in the bombing. The media and parts of the investigation made Jewell out to be a wanna be police officer who planted the device and then reported it to look like a hero. It turned out that he was the good guy but now having his reputation potentially ruined. He did later become a police officer. I had never heard the term person of interest before then and now only hear that. To police talking to each other, I haven’t heard anything other than suspect or possibly actor (in the Penal Code, actor means suspect). A person of interest, most of the time unnamed, is a term to let the public know that the police are suspicious about a person. It is likely used to prevent lawsuits and false accusations or defamation. Therefore there is no requirement. If the media asks if the police have any leads, they might say they are looking at a person of interest. Legally there is no such thing that I have ever heard of. The legal standards are reasonable suspicion (detain), probable cause (force a search or arrest) and proof beyond a reasonable doubt (convict).

If the had probable cause they likely would have made an arrest. Extreme suspicion, currently checking out alibis and other investigations would almost certainly not been made public. I am not suggesting that they are involved and they probably aren’t. I just think that if they are even suspicious of them, we aren’t going to know about it yet.

I have used a mix like Bisquick (but thinned) as a topping for a pot pie and also Pillsbury crescent rolls.

I will toss in, just because the police have said the roommates or others in the home are not suspected of the crime, don’t be so sure that the police have eliminated them. Maybe… but a public statement of an unsolved crime isn’t always the final outcome.

I have fought for my life including having a gun to the side of my head during the fight. I never made a sound that I know of. I was too busy to think how to get out of a really bad situation. When you start screaming it is probably over for you because you have now given up and screaming is all that is left. Basically you have gone into pure panic mode (which absolutely exists) and that may be your only response left. We have probably all seen crazy or horrific videos of shooting, stabbing, car crashes, etc. and it sometimes amazes me that there are a few people who will just stand and scream or maybe run and scream. I think for possibly a majority of people, screaming isn’t what they will do but everyone responds differently. I agree that a lack of screaming is not an automatic piece of evidence that there is some sort of coverup or bogus alibi from others on scene. That can’t be discounted however. Either scenario is possible. Let’s play everybody’s favorite game, what if. What if the victims didn’t scream? What if they did but (and remembering intoxication may have been involved): 1. All bedroom doors (including the persons not killed) were shut, knocking out about 90% of the sound. 2. The perpetrator(s) shut the victim’s door, then put his/her hand over the victim’s mouth. 3. The perpetrator used a pillow. 4. The people not killed were truly that intoxicated. I have seen people so intoxicated that they had a cigarette in their hand and it had burned them and they did not wake up. 5. The people not killed had the television on while in an intoxicated state. 6. The people not killed had ear buds in listening to music. 7. And so on. After reading hundreds, if not thousands of threads about crimes or suspicious circumstances, I am usually in wonder on how people are drawing their conclusions or (usually) assumptions. Most times there is nothing in a news article to back up their stance. They might be 100% correct however there is nothing known publicly that shows the claim or assumption. Even more interesting is how a complete assumption by one person will be repeated by another and then become “fact”. It is at times accompanied by, “Well I read…..”. Yes you did. You read an opinion by a person that had no clue but then justified it by saying you read it. Then your statement gets repeated…. In this forum over the years I have seen conclusions on big news incidents locally. I will go back try to read about the incident from different news media outlets. Many times I can’t find a single bit of information backing up a claim. I have gone off on a tangent but I agree with the FBI agent (as an example, I am assuming you read jt ), not screaming (or I will add, not hearing any) doesn’t prove anything.

The other side is hysterical. To deny or pass it off as spin is… hysterical and hypocritical. The obviously hypocritical part is that you didn’t explain why I am wrong, you simply said it was a cop-out. You did what you accused. So I give about a 10 paragraph answer and you can only say, it’s a cop-out? Your TDS has skewed your ability to reason. Let’s look at what I said, not rehashing the explanation but the format. It started with, I am “guessing” what Trump meant. Reasoning ability would see that as “maybe” this happened. Maybe you could look up maybe in the dictionary. I wasn’t endorsing his tweet but looking at possible answers. After discussing an actual case (which I am reasonably confident you will ignore), I ended with Trump “might” have been referring to the case and being returned to office, which is not in the Constitution. If you read the actual tweet “maybe” you could comprehend it. Again, you would have to research the definition of “maybe”. It is irrelevant but I don’t support Trump. I am for DeSantis at this point and have been since the last election. Trump will be divisive and hurt the GOP campaign. …… and you have TDS.

I don’t know since I don’t follow Trump but I am guessing that he meant Brunson v. Adams which has been submitted to the Supreme Court. Trump stated along the line of, the Constitution should be scrapped to reinstall him as president. Brunson v. Adams seeks to do something like that. The request for certiorari (review) by the Supreme Court was submitted in October. I see the case where it was submitted on the Supreme Court website but haven’t seen the response if certiorari was granted. Brunson seeks (I think) to remove every Democrat from office due to the accusations of fraud in 2020 and half of the Republicans. Brunson doesn’t bring up the fraud but the fact that Congress didn’t follow the law on January 6. During the certification of the election where fraud was claimed, over 100 congressmen were going to testify that the election might have been fraudulent. According to the law (claimed, I haven’t read it), if such a claim is made, there shall be (obligation) to hold a 10 investigation before certifying the election. I guess basically it requires Congress to hold hearings before the election could then be certified. That would make January 16 as the earliest day to certify the election. Apparently all Democrats and some Republicans voted to certify the election and disregard the law. They could have still certified the election but only after a 10 day delay… which again, didn’t happen. The key in this case, unlike other lawsuits where fraud has to be proven, is that is doesn’t try to prove fraud in court (which has lost) but to follow the law requiring Congress (not a lawsuit) to conduct the required investigation. it is like denying a person a constitutional right. An example is that if you were accused of a crime, you have the right to remain silent and you had the right to an attorney if there is a trial. You might still be convicted however, they cannot take away your rights. This lawsuit is saying that Congress still has the authority to certify but only after the investigation which did not happen. If the Supreme Court accepted the case and if it ruled in favor of Brunson, the result could be that the election certification is voided and therefore remove Biden from the presidency for the unlawful certification. It would also potentially remove all members of Congress who voted for certification. Coincidentally that if the same part of the Constitution that Nancy Pelosi tried against Trump where I believe the Constitution says that if removed from office, a person could not again take office. I am sure that most of us remember the question why Pelosi continued with impeachment after Trump left office. It was to keep him from running again. Now the Supreme Court is being asked to do the same to Pelosi and 350+ others. I am not advocating nor claiming that the Supreme Court will take the case or how they would rule. The case is it there however and may come up for a decision in January. I think that is what Trump might have been referring to when he said the Constitution should be scrapped and he put back in office. TDS however won’t see that angle.

😜🤣😜🤣😜 Too funny!!

A police officer who I worked with was at a public information/community relations school in Houston. I think it was mostly for the police but maybe other spokespersons could attend. It is a school to learn to put out news releases, conduct press conferences, etc. As one of his lessons (basically homework) for the next day he was given a set of facts known to him about a crime scene and he was supposed to write a press release. It may have been like, police called to a report of shots fired. They found a man shot 3 times with a 9mm and blah blah blah…. Lots of details. So as part of his homework, he called me. I wrote a basic press release and sent it him. I left out most of the details of what the police knew. The reason is that the law on statements by a suspect (basically a confession), requires certain rules, most of which is being able to corroborate (I think the wording is establish guilt) the statement. You can’t do that with information that was released to the public. Details such as caliber of a weapon, number if times shot or stabbed, which room, etc. cannot be used. Everybody knows those answers if you out it on the 6 o'clock news. So the next day in class the instructor (of all things, a news reporter) chose my friend’s release to read to the class on what NOT to do. It was read anonymously so as not to single a person out. The reason that it was wrong in the instructor‘s opinion, was because he did not have nearly enough details that were known to the officer writing the press release. My friend later told me that he spoke up in class and identified himself as the author. He the cited the law on statements and why it was unwise (but not illegal) for the police to release certain information until a warrant is obtained (then it is public anyway). He said the instructor put that press release on the table and went to the next one. The instructor didn’t even make a commitment….😂 It isn’t against the law to release most information to the public (except such as the name of a juvenile suspect) but it isn’t always wise either. I guarantee in this case they have clues but aren’t going to release them at this point.

The police have released no clues to protect the investigation.

The belief that the country was founded on Judeo-Christian beliefs, values or principles I believe is a fallacy. Religious? Absolutely. I believe that all countries until fairly recent history were based on faith and sin such as theft, murder, lying, adultery, etc. all had religious roots. But did non-Christian countries have the same beliefs? What distinguishes Christians believing that murder was wrong and Buddhists thinking it was wrong? Were the members of the Continental Congress deeply religious? Almost certainly. They mentioned it in writings. The US until independence was mostly governed by laws of France, Spain and Britain. There was no American law. There wasn’t an independent country of God worshipping people but rather several colonies who had different beliefs but certainly most were Christian. At declared independence and before the Constitution we were still a bunch of independent colonies and nothing like we now claim as a nation. The Boston Massacre in 1770 kind of kicked the call for independence. It really heated up in 1773 with the Boston Tea Party and hit the point of no return on April 19, 1775 with the shot heard ’round the world in Lexington. We however, were still part of Britain. It was over a year later before we even got around to declaring independence and declaring to become a separate country. With the Treaty of Paris in 1783, the war officially ended. There was still no Constitution creating what is our now country. The Constitution get ratified and become law in 1789, 13 years after independence was declared. Then the Bill of Rights almost 3 years later, like a week or two before 1793. So it took almost 20 years from the beginning of the Revolutionary War to the US actually being founded as a federal constitutional government. And why does the history lesson matter? Because in the Treaty of Tripoli in 1793 (and right after the Bill of Rights became law) which was agreed to by George Washington and with unanimous consent of the Senate, in one section stated, "the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion”. So within a few weeks after ratification of the Bill of Rights noting very first freedom of religion, President Washington and the US Senate unanimously approved a treaty that said that the American government was not in any sense founded on the Christian religion. To emphasize that, the very first words in the Bill of Rights was not freedom of speech or assembly or the press. Nope, the first words were freedom of religion… started as Congress shall make no law. It would be a disgrace to Christianity that people were told by a country to be that. It trivializes Christianity into a political debate.

What is this Christian value that others don’t have.

Asking when Hunter was in the WH is like asking when Charles Manson murdered people. He was accused of that but was convicted and sentenced the death as part of the conspiracy. That where Hunter fits in.

The 10 Commandments are part of all Abrahamic beliefs or what is sometimes called The Three Great Religions, Judaism, Christianity and Islam. The video, while probably factually correct, is nonsense. For example, an Italian explorer was hired by a Spanish Queen to sail west and he was a Catholic like virtually every person in Italy. So 500 years ago, 300 years before the US Constitution was written, an Italian hired by Spain prayed on his arrival in the Indies and that is proof of Christianity in the US founding? Two countries that ended up having no part in the founding of the US? The guide points out paintings on the wall depicting events from the 1600s? If nothing else from his explanation you might conclude that the US was founded as a Catholic nation. I wonder how that will be perceived by the protestants. Sorry Baptists, this is a Catholic nation! But wait! A president was a preacher! Of course that was 100 years after the founding of the US but let’s ignore that for now. I guess Jimmy Carter is evidence that the nation and the presidents were founded on peach farming. The Founding Fathers were deeply religious…. and rejected relgion as any kind of requirement for laws or office. Were stealing, lying, murdering, etc., mentioned in the 10 Commandments as well as common law through world history? Absolutely. I will bet you find that other kingdoms in Asia and Africa who did not practice Christianity, had the same common laws