tvc184

It is according to who a person supported going in. I have seen articles and news talking heads that have said that the winners was Cruz/Trump/Christie/Paul/Rubio. The others were relegated to the losers bracket. Cruz did okay but could have done better. I think his "win" might have been simply holding his own. Christie actually made some great points without being abusive. I think he said that he was "a federal prosecutor" too many times. Yep, we know that now Chris. Try answering without saying, ".... and I know that because I was a federal....". Christie "might" pick up a couple of percentage points out of this performance but he is so low that it won't likely matter but time will tell. I think of the second tier candidates on the big state last night (Christie, Fiorina, Kasich, Bush and Carson), Christie likely came out on top enough to stay in for a little longer. Rubio was hot and cold and may pick up a couple of points from the lower tier. Trump was just Trump. The carnival act was in full swing and I don't see his support dropping from last night's performance. The guy makes almost no sense at all and never has a plan other than "trust me" but he is such an entertainment that he still have some (I have no idea why) support. Paul was on point on his Constitutional defense but he also always appears angry and he (like his father) is still seen by many as a kook. He carries his libertarian views a bit too far to be mainstream. All in all, I am not sure that anyone really moves up or down although I can see either Cruz or Rubio or both picking up some steam.

You do realize that all debates from any party are exactly the same. No matter who gets the nomination, it will be exactly the same on the stage with Hillary and it will be slinging both way. When people are in a system to pick a person that the voter thinks is "better", the only way to get the vote/win is to go after the other person. It is not a talent contest where you play a piano and I play a trumpet and someone votes on who is the best. You win by saying, "The other guy can't get it done because..............". The only way you can solve anything is to win and the only way to win is to go after the other guy(s).

They are making a strong move to abolish free thought.

Get away from ball ammo and the military can keep the AR15 platform another 20 years. The police carry far superior rounds than the military.

I agree. I just wanted to point out that Sharpton (like always) is patting himself on the back and pretty much stating that he can be thanked for the verdict.

I noticed this from the article. "If an all-white jury in Oklahoma City would convict a policeman of this amount of grievances, of charges, then it gives us hope that our marching and continued organizing is not in vain," Sharpton said. It sounds like Sharpton believes that this all white jury convicted the ex officer not because of the evidence but because he is has always organized marches. I would bet that neither Sharpton nor anyone else was in the juror's minds and they were dealing with nothing other than the evidence at hand. Sharpton has found a way to again blow his own horn with no evidence of anything. I also find it interesting that he believes marching gained this conviction when in truth, race was probably not an issue with the jury. They looked at the evidence and it pointed to proof beyond a reasonable doubt. No prompting from the studio audience was needed. Imagine that Al.... a group of all white people in the south came to a logical conclusion "based on evidence" with no need to go any further. Now if we could just get him to go by the same standard..............

A tweet by Trump said that it was a bogus report.

Doesn't know or like the current occupant of the WH, doesn't care what it says?

I mostly liked the talking heads before any details came out that had this attributed to right wing extremists. Like always, facts aren't needed.

I agree 100%.... however..... Yes, politicians are into politics. It is kind of like saying police officers are into policing or doctors are into doctoring. I agree that we ought to push our own agenda. Does that mean that we can't then agree with a politician pushing his agenda no matter his reasoning? As as example, this shooting has both the Dems and the GOP spitting out their opinions on gun control. Does that mean that we cannot agree with one side that it putting out their opinion? Sometimes political rhetoric IS my agenda. I am anti most gun control measures. If a politician comes out against those same measures, he isn't thinking for me. I am simply agreeing with his stance. Although I rarely use politicians in my posts unless it is disagreeing with one and not agreeing with (pushing someone else's) an agenda.....

Looking at the FBI UCR statistics from 2010, CA has a higher homicide rate from "firearms" (and total murders) than the very gun friendly TX. I am trying to figure out how the CA strict guns laws have made them safer.

Probably just a member of the Westboro Baptist Church.

Sounds like the police have jumped the suspects and were in a shootout. At least one dead, one wounded in the back of the SUV and one loose in the neighborhood. The on foot suspect may be cornered and awaiting SWAT to move in.

I doubt that we are in some kind of conspiracy with them however our rules of engagement likely help their continued survival. I am sure the president doesn't want to offend anyone while we are killing them.

Harry Reid is one of the biggest idiots from either party. If a Republican met someone one the street and said, "Hello", Reid would say that it is hate filled speech. The guy is really a loon. Typically he will take an insane act by a completely loser idiot and blame it on a political party. I am sure that he doesn't feel that riots that destroyed millions of dollars in property in places such as Ferguson and Baltimore are associated with the Democratic Party or the whiner in chief that encourages the action with supportive statements about "the cause". It is a case of selective outrage.

Probably like most other parents.

Love the media and their headlines. "Drug Lord"...... An ounce of cocaine and 4 ounces of marijuana and they make it out like she is head of a cartel. She is a street level dealer probably selling to college kids. Some of the articles called her a "kingpin". I guess if a 16 year old gets arrested for shoplifting at Walmart of a $10 t-shirt, they will say major theft ring busted up.

That is why I have five pairs of Crocs.............

Again, I agree. Try and convince the current occupant of the White House of that strategy.

I agree can basically agree with that. Are Syrian refugees not our issue also?

Why not worry about both of them? I am fairly certain that policy and enforcement of immigration laws are the federal government's responsibility by the US Constitution and a response to active shooters is local/state/county police. Because there is a shooting in Colorado, the Border Patrol and ICE is not going to leave the border. One has nothing to do with the other. By the same reasoning, we could say, why worry about Syrian refugees because a house caught fire in Beaumont last night and the firefighters had to respond.

That is correct. You will not hear that several officers forced their way into a home and took the suspect into custody with no injuries and with a Spanish surname, probably a minority. A man who was supposed to be armed and there was a claim of shots having been fired. So we have several officers, forcefully make an entry into a home and take a minority into custody for a violent crime and do so with no injuries. No way that will even get much play in the local news, much less national. It will be mentioned and forgotten in about one day, maybe two. In fact most people will likely not know that it even happened. It does happen thousands of times a day (by FBI stats, almost 35,000 arrests per day in the USA) and let one bad incident happen (or more likely, the accusation of a bad incident) and there will be a call for a national referendum against the police. Usually with little facts or knowledge of the law.