tvc184

It is interesting that you believe that straight ticket voting is a problem for Democrats if I read you correctly. From the data that I have seen it is the Democrats that benefit from the practice. I haven’t checked it in a few years but the last time I did, about 70% of the Democratic voters in Jefferson County were straight ticket and only about 30% of Republicans. Just from my man on the street dealings, the Dems have a lot less knowledge of names on the ballot and only know the capital letter next to the name. But let’s forget about opinions for now. The Republican dominated Texas legislature just passed a bill (HB25) that outlaws straight ticket voting in 2020. It was signed by the governor on June 1st. I realize that you likely believe that the Texas GOP agrees with you and is sacrificing their future for the betterment of the state. I suspect that like me, the Texas Republicans believe that the Dems are the big beneficiary of straight ticket voting and this law backs that up. My anectdotal evidence is an opinion but the new law banning straight ticket voting is a fact.

A blind man could see this one and likely the ruling on it in the next session. What constitutional rights does a person have that is not from this country and has never been to this country? Going around immigration laws set by Congress, the Ninth Circuit has yet again set its own rules out of their perceived feelings and not the law. The liberals and progressives loved it when the SCOTUS overruled Arizona’s immigrant trespassing law by saying only the US Congress could make immigration laws. I have not looked it up yet but I believe that US law, passed by Congress, gives the US President the authority to stop people from entering from any other country. I guess they are finding that you cannot have it both ways.

Wow, I think you are onto something here... Obama Health and Human Service Secretary, Sylvia Mathews Burwell. Degree in political science. Graduate degree in politics, economics and philosophy. So how did she get to be the secretary over all health issues with degrees in politics and philosophy? Oh, she was already in the Obama cabinet nominated..... as deputy of the Office of Management and Budget. Yep, that sounds real medicine like. But wait, she was in the Clinton White House also (no, not as an aide with a blue dress) as an OMB member. Who did Burwell replace in this important health position. Well Kathleen Sebelius. What is her link to health and the medical field? Why she was the governor of Kansas and with a degree in (get this) POLITICS!! Two very qualified healthcare professionals. Then we have Anthony Foxx who was the Secretary of Transportation. He is well qualified after his college degree in ... history? Wait, he also got a law degree. As a lawyer and with a degree in history, he is the best we could find. I guess the young lawyers must have taken a lot of public transportation so he is qualified. Called one of the top four most important cabinet members, the Secretary of the Treasury, Jack Lew, was highly qualified under Obama. His degree was in economics. No wait, that was someone else. The head of the treasury was a lawyer. Let's not worry about those people that may just happen not to be in their chosen field, let's focus on the good picks, such as Secretary Janet Napolitano. With a degree to be a lawyer and sometimes mentioned as a nominee to the US Supreme Court, she was highly qualified when Obama named her as his choice for Homeland Security. Yep, the head person to protect our country was a lawyer with no experience that I could find that has had anything to do with security or the military. She did have some government experience however. Where you might ask? Well in that place that prepares you for security and military positions, she was on the Senate Committee on the Budget. Obama's Secretary of Agriculture? Surely it is a farmer or rancher.... or at least something to do with agriculture. Nope, Tom Vilsack was another lawyer. But hey, he was the governor of Iowa and they grow corn and soybeans. I can see where Obama had this long list of highly qualified secretaries in fields where they have college degree and specialties.

I look at it this way. The Republicans in 2016 probably put up the second worst candidate in the history of American presidential elections. Fortunately, the Democrats put up the worst candidate in history.

I think you are way over blowing Trump's support. I have said on several threads, I never wanted him to get the nomination and he is not anywhere near my top 10 choices. Like millions of people however, no matter how much buffoonery he performs, he is still a sight better than Hillary and that was the vote. The lesser of two evils. His getting Gorsuch confirmed on the SCOTUS is huge. That alone is worth the price of admission. A couple more like that and Trump will lock in the SCOTUS as conservative for decades. If he can get the unmitigated disaster known as Obamacare repealed, he can do almost anything else. Heck, if he can get a couple of more justices and one of the biggest disasters legislation in our history repealed, he will go down as a successful president even if forced to leave office.

True but a couple of times I saw the wind gust up to about 15mph!!!

Let's see, many on the left don't think Trump should be the president because he has no experience in running any government program. He has no clue what he is doing. He should leave it to the career politicians that know how things work. Okay, so Trump wants people that know how to spur growth in charge of the economy... but now the left is saying, hey, experience is not needed. Middle class Americans need to be in charge of what is good economically. I don't know if Trump is correct but I understand his concept. I don't want a college dropout that is organizing anti-military peace rallies to be in charge of the Department of Defense.

It was horrible. Call CNN... Super Storm Cindy was devastating..........

Maybe it’s code for crappy weather on the way.

Now there’s something we can agree on.

Terrible news.

Wrong thread perhaps?

I watched it. Utter nonsense and political, not factual statements. One lawyer says, don’t look at this case (doesn’t like the facts?) but let’s look at it as a whole. Really? He wants to convict Yanez due to other cases. Let’s just convict someone to appease the masses maybe. Judge Hatchett then outright lies and claims her speculation is fact. She made statements that she wants to help her civil case but isn’t backed up by any known fact. An interesting video of opinions, almost none of which can be backed up.

And of the two counties that the city Yanez worked for was located, had a black population of less than 8% in one county and less than 9% in the other. Going by population only, there should have been one black on thr jury. I wouldn’t care if there were all minority jurors. The facts seem clear that there was nothing that showed proof beyond any reasonable doubt.

It is actually slightly over represented however we cannot cut people in half.

Maybe those are the open minded people that you claim for the Democrats. Once they open their minds, they left the home party.

There is absolutely nothing broad and open minded about Democrats as a party and as a whole. Individuals might be but not collectively. The “open minded” party will not even allow a conservative to speak on a college campus where people claim that free thought is encouraged. The open minded Democratic party is a myth.

Go for it. Keep looking for some emotional backup. When facts and evidence doesn’t side with an opinion, such relief is often sought out. Maybe the minorities on the jury felt bullied. Like the lone juror in the Zimmerman case that spoke publicly, we wanted to find him guilty but we followed the law and the evidence was not there. She admitted being prejudice toward Zimmerman but could not find evidence to back up a guilty verdict.

The guy is a cad, was probably a schoolyard bully and never has the sense of when to shut his mouth. I hated Trump in the primaries, never thought he would get the nomination, much less the general election win. Apparently way more people across the country thought the same thing I did than the political pundits and pollsters realized. With his faults, Trump was less likely to drag the country further down the drain than Hillary. The people that thought Hillary would win in a record landslide discounted that with all his faults Trump was seen by many a better option. The Democrat’s lone savior from a historical landslide the other way was that Trump got the nomination. That is the only thing that kept it close in popular vote.

Awesome. My facts (not opinion) are backed up by a jury of 12 people that unanimously came to the same conclusion after they saw hours of evidence and had the law explained to them by a judge. Fortunately for the officer, wishful thinking isn’t evidence.

The last officer involved shooting in my department two years ago, the officer fired 7 shots in about 2.5 seconds. This officer took about the same time frame. This isn’t Hollywood.

So when you find out that everything the officer did was lawful, now the narrative is, police shouldn’t write citations. Got it. Oh yeah, the officer was trying to solve a real crime and a violent one at that.

The guy had brake lights out. There is no excuse needed. It is called probable cause. Officers need no description when a crime is witnessed.

A robbery happens a day or two earlier. Officers are given a general description. Part of that description includes a female accomplice and color of vehicle. Officer spots a similar colored vehicle and a man that generally fits the description and he has a woman with him. It is called a hunch. It gives no lawful authority for a detention. BUT.... brake lights out give not only reasonable suspicion but probable cause. even if the officer is using the traffic violation to check out something else. (Whren v. US- US Supreme Court) Since the officer doesn’t know if this is really the suspect and may be innocent citizen, he doesn’t approach with gun drawn in felony traffic stop mode. He strikes up almost casual coversation with driver and in all likelihood just wants name. Why? Photo lineup. Several photos are shown to clerk in the robbery with driver being one of them. It is routine police work. Driver says I have a firearm on me. Officer says don’t pull it out and if you listen closely, it sounds like the driver says I have to pull it out. Officer’s statements were, “Don’t reach it though.. don’t pull it out! Don’t pull it out!!” Officers flinches to the rear as he draws and opens fire. We will never know why the driver reached for the gun and sounds like he said I have to pull it out.

The words “don’t move”give no legal self defenses options. The words “don’t move” followed by a person reaching, do.