tvc184

I would guess .... maybe. McCain would not have a lot of the conservative or GOP vote crossover but he would get some. He would likely have gotten most of the Democrat vote. The Democrats are way more loyal to the party name than actual politics in my opinion. The GOP has a lot more independent thinkers which is why they are always arguing among themselves on who is conservative "enough" whether on candidates or bills/laws. They generally agree with each other on principle but will vote no out of spite if they don't get exactly what they want. The Dems tend to vote more on party based on nothing more than party. They tend to be way more party loyal. The vote was close enough in some states to possibly make a difference. Some of the crossover vote that Trump got from the Dems would not have swapped if it had been anyone other than Clinton. While I said above the Dems are more likely to vote by party, Hillary was bad enough of a candidate to overcome that. Let's face it, Obama and Clinton are not popular no matter what poll someone spits out. Clinton was a horrible candidate and Obama's reputation and legacy was no help. The bottom line is that had McCain been the Democratic nominee, Trump would not have gotten nearly as much crossover or refusal to vote from the Dems and McCain would have swung some minor GOP votes. It would likely not have been more than 1/2 - 1% in some states but in this close election that may have made the difference. Hillary was simply so horrible of a candidate, I think you might put any person's name in the, "would ______ have beaten Trump?" and probably end up in the affirmative.

I would never try to outguess a jury and I would not likely even put money on a jury decision but I can't see a Murder conviction. I could easily believe Manslaughter which says you kill someone while acting recklessly. Murder requires the intent or knowledge to kill. I would like to know what the officer saw whether firing at a vehicle moving in any direction. Did he see a muzzle flash near the car? Did the car backfire? Especially if a camera shows something like that, I can envision an acquittal or more likely a Criminal Negligent Homicide conviction where you kill someone but with "criminal negligence". I think a jury might have a hard time having 12 people believe that the officer "intended" to kill that child while knowing that he wasn't acting in self defense. I can believe that a jury would find that made a terribly stupid decision and it cost a life... which would likely be Manslaughter. But.... I would never try to outguess a jury.... especially since we know very little about the case.

Zimmerman didn't approach Martin. It was the other way around. How do you know who Zimmerman has called in on?

The board puts it on the ballot. The registered voters in the district vote for or against. I am saying that people that have a higher land/home ownership have a higher percent of people whose taxes will go up if it passes. I am saying that it is easy to say..... "Sure, give me a brand new and awesome whatever...", if you aren't the one paying, AKA land or home owners.

.... except bullets is not a conservative.

Not that would make any sense. Maybe it was kind of an in your eye to the state of Texas for removing their beloved and crooked board or perhaps it was just because my representative voted in lockstep with the rest of the people who were crooked, it wasn't her fault that she went along.

Which has what to do with Martin attacking him?

Nothing in any of my posts have said anything about it being wrong to pay for something that children can use. I think that Vidor getting a new high school or Nederland getting a new football stadium would be awesome. My opinion on either was never brought up so I'm not sure what your comment even means or why it was stated. All that I have said is that the people who actually have to pay for it have made a decision. Again, it is easy for someone who is not paying the bills to vote yes for someone else's money to be spent.

Most of the people voting in Nederland are not the "old heads". In fact the protests to not pass the bond issue wasn't led by a bunch of old codgers. I spoke to several of them and they were a heck of a lot younger than me. Of course you probably are better in tune with the voting population in Nederland than I am. Maybe it was just that the people who actually had to pay for it, didn't want to. Again, it is easy to say build, spend, give me more..... when the person isn't the one paying the bills.

So you have perceptions (opinions, judgments, etc.) of nothing as everything is left to God? Don't look at the speck in my eye while missing the plank in yours. I get it..... But I have sure seen a lot of opinions by the person (you) that claims to leave it for "God to decide". I suspect your deferral to God is limited by the question asked (that you don't want to answer) and not in principle of it. Again, I get it.

I guess you missed the word "perception".

Land owners pay the taxes. It is easy to vote for spending money when you aren't the one paying the bill. Apparently many of the people in Vidor actually own housing and don't want to fool the bill for a new school. The same thing happened in Nederland a few years ago with the bond that would have built a new football stadium. The people paying the taxes said no.

Martin would be alive if he would not have attacked Zimmerman. It does not matter with Zimmerman had in his mind once that he was attacked and had to defend himself.

News is about sensationalism, not news in itself. Not seeing something on the does does not mean that it does not exist. It only means someone in the news department did not feel that it would get enough people talking.

Votes.

They weren't removed for breaking the law but for being stupid. If we kept stupid people from running for office.................

Anyone that voted for Trump because the voter thought that Mexico was going to run out and build a wall is an idiot. Again... and again and again and...... The people voted against the worst candidate that has ever been nominated in our lifetimes.

Not for three more years. That is meaningless (not surprisingly) since no law has been changed. A person on Medicare cannot say that he/she has lost anything as nothing has yet changed, if ever. "Do you receive Medicare benefits" proves absolutely nothing even for a person that is on it. By the way, my mother is for many years and I have yet to see her lose anything..... maybe because the law hasn't changed. Oh well, to heck with the facts............ Now that you have researched it, please show the passages that say Medicare will be ended for millions of people.

I have yet to read any facts or even what is reported to be facts other than an officer shot someone and a 15 year old child is dead. Not that it matters what I think but....... 1. A 15 year old child was needlessly killed. He is an innocent victim no matter what happened. 2. Was the vehicle driving away or toward the officer? The chief changed the "facts" but said the car was not in reverse but was moving forward. Okay, but what gear he was in might mean nothing. Was he driving forward toward or away from the officer? 3. What is the time span from the shots fired on scene and the officer opening fire? 4. What was the distance between the officer and the vehicle that he fired into? 5. Did the officer see muzzle flashes in the vicinity of the vehicle whether it was heading toward or away from him? In the late 80's in San Bernardino, CA an officer responded to an armed person on school grounds late at night or early in the morning. As the officer was walking around the school he saw a man with a gun that turned toward the officer and fired. The officer saw the flash of light and returned fire, killing a teenager. No problem..... except it was some people playing Laser Tag. The officer killed a kid with a toy that likely had no idea the officer was there other than to think it was one of his friends playing the game. No, it isn't the same scenario but in a way it is. It is perception. What did a officer reasonably believe? The SCOTUS has set the standard of viewing such incidents from the eyes of an officer responding to a situation. It is not viewed from the eyes of a person in his living room or in a judge's chambers a few months later. The ruling (Graham v. Connor) said that such uses of force are to be viewed from an officer responding to a possible violent situation and not from the totality of circumstances as we might later find. It was a unanimous ruling. In a recent case the SCOTUS (2014 Plumhoff v. Rickard) a unanimous Court found that an officer could not be sued for firing into a car and killing not only the driver but an innocent passenger. Note again that it was a unanimous ruling. In 2007 in Scott v. Harris the SCOTUS ruled in an 8-1 decision that ramming a car off the roadway in a chase and causing a person to be a quadriplegic was not an unlawful use of force. In 2015 in another 8-1 ruling the SCOTUS said that a Texas DPS trooper was entitled to qualified immunity from even a lawsuit after he fired into a fleeing car and killed the driver. At the time the trooper was on top of an overpass and was in no danger from being struck. He had just been ordered not to shoot by his supervisor but he opened fire anyway. In all of these cases the SCOTUS has ruled that a decision must be based on what an officer sees and what he reasonably believes. In these decisions we have an innocent person killed and an officer disobeying a direct order. In 9-0 and 8-1 rulings the officers were cleared. When we often have 5-4 and 6-3 split decisions all the time from the SCOTUS, in these four police cases on use of force there were 34 votes in favor of the officers and 2 against. That is overwhelming. While none of these is the same scenario as in Balch Springs, the point is that you cannot simply say a person that was unarmed/not a threat/innocent automatically makes the officer wrong. These were civil suits where the burden of proof is not beyond a reasonable doubt such as it is for a criminal conviction but a burden of a preponderance of the evidence or roughly more than 50%. There is a good likelihood that this officer will be convicted although maybe not for Murder. I can envision Manslaughter or Criminally Negligent Homicide. But who knows, maybe the "facts" will show enough for a Murder conviction. If so, great. We still have seen nothing publicly released that show what happened other than the aforementioned a 15 year old is dead and an officer fired the shot. Maybe the officer has a history of stupid decisions and this one rises to Murder and he needs to get a life sentence. Maybe he was responding to a legally defensible situation and will be cleared by a jury. If anyone can actually report any known "facts", please point out the source.

Is any of that really in the bill or are you merely repeating the daily Democratic talking points?

I have a couple of thoughts to ponder. I heard Chuck Schumer complain that the GOP passed the bill with no Democratic support. NEWSFLASH CHUCK!!. The Dems passed Obamacare without a single GOP vote. Nancy Pelosi was complaining that they were bringing back a dead issue. NEWSFLASH NANCY!!. It took the Dems almost a year and a half to pass Obamacare and then they had to bribe several Democrats at the end to vote for it with pork projects for those states. They act like if the GOP can't pass it in a month, it should be over. The complaints are from the same people that incessantly repeated the mantra of, "you can keep your doctor and keep your insurance". It was all an outright lie. It was not even close to the truth and the cost is way more than the CBO claimed. These same people now want you to trust them when they want you not to believe the GOP and the costs. I guess it would be better if the Dems said, "We outright lied to fool you and the GOP is doing the same so don't fall for it". Back to your rants...........

The bill removes from office any chief of police or sheriff who even adopts a policy that interferes with immigration laws. That applies to some local law enforcement agencies that seem to have such policies. It also provides civil penalties of up to $25,500 for each occurrence.

There is no new healthcare act. There is a bill that has yet to be decided and has not even begun debate in the Senate. Obamacare is still the law of the land.... unfortunately.

Just like the local case of the security guard shooting into the car in Port Arthur while thinking he was witnessing a robbery. It would be lawful to stop a robbery by using deadly force. Unfortunately, blasting indiscriminately into a vehicle he caused the death of a woman who is not involved. I wonder about the thought process of firing into a vehicle in such cases. If a person is actively and continually try to run over you, I understand shooting at the driver. That does not seem to be the case in the security guard in Port Arthur or the officer in Balch Springs.

I would be lying if I said I understood that.