i know little about international economics. Sounds like the Chinese president has made some concessions in the tariff war. i don’t know if they are meaningful
or not, i do get the impression that the tariff war has hurt them more than its hurt us, at least in terms of stock market impact.

Was it a meaningful win? Was it a loss? was it no big deal? our markets went up a bit after the announcement...

I do deals all the time.
I have a lot of possible deals.
But they are not the real deal until they are done.

I do deals all the time.
I have a lot of possible deals.
But they are not the real deal until they are done.

if this one gets done as they agreed to, is it meaningful to us?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I have only heard different stories from each side to date, so what they may agree on is unknown to me.
Still posturing, one inscrutable, one unpredictable
Business is not happy, the markets went up and then down more.

With the market again diving almost 700 points today as of now over renewed concern about the trade war I know I’m NOT winning😡
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

With the market again diving almost 700 points today as of now over renewed concern about the trade war I know I’m NOT winning😡
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

it’s one day.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Not sure China has offered up that much, I do know American farmers are getting hammered. Manufacturing isn’t going to just up and move production back home as that’s a long term play and they’re servicing a global market more than ever. Besides the next admin could just roll back the policy.

It does look like they are starting to drag on the global economy hard.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It’s a good thing I can’t post pics or Tarriff Man would be right here
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

it’s one day.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Well in case your not tracking it, we recently lost an entire years worth of gains, the latest uncertainty is just salt on my wounds
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

We keep on "winning" don't we, another banner day in the market, more fear over trade war and the economy starting to show signs of slowing.

The rich and corporate upper echelon certainly had a good year to date, but I'd be surprised if the poor younger middle class working stiffs more heavily invested in the market then I am are doing all that well.

Then you have the poor factory workers in those GM plants slated to close, its a double whammy for them this year, but hey Trump is keeping those coal plants cranking so there will be something to put in their stockings.

The decrease today started exactly when Peter Navarro said that if the trade talks are not successful they will impose the 25% tariffs.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

We keep on "winning" don't we, another banner day in the market, more fear over trade war and the economy starting to show signs of slowing.

The rich and corporate upper echelon certainly had a good year to date, but I'd be surprised if the poor younger middle class working stiffs more heavily invested in the market then I am are doing all that well.

Then you have the poor factory workers in those GM plants slated to close, its a double whammy for them this year, but hey Trump is keeping those coal plants cranking so there will be something to put in their stockings.

Stocks did not reflect the actual market when their prices skyrocketed during stagnant market conditions. The rich were investing in stocks rather than in a weak business market. As the market improved and money started to be diverted from stock investment into business growth rather than into inflated stocks, and inflated stocks were sold off for profit, stock prices began to fall, as predicted, and are probably coming into a closer relationship to the market. Stock prices will probably continue to fall. But if they reach a more realistic index, it will make them a more reliable source for retirement portfolios.

Trade negotiations with China require the will to suffer temporary market jitters. If we cave due to fear of market failure, then China won't need to make concessions, so will continue to do what it has been doing. If we stay the course, they will have to blink or suffer worse political upheavals than we would, and our market will stabilize and rebound if we don't overreact and make unnecessary regulatory or tax interventions.

As of now, our market is still strong. There will always be bits of bad news for some. The automobile sector is being cajoled, if not forced, into re-gearing, as GM is doing, for electric car production. If you're concerned about global warming due to burning fossil fuels, then you should welcome the changes the auto companies are making even while we regret the unfortunate temporary hardships for some that will follow.

But an overall strong and growing economy, if we stay the course, will provide more opportunities for unemployed workers.

Stocks did not reflect the actual market when their prices skyrocketed during stagnant market conditions. The rich were investing in stocks rather than in a weak business market. As the market improved and money started to be diverted from stock investment into business growth rather than into inflated stocks, and inflated stocks were sold off for profit, stock prices began to fall, as predicted, and are probably coming into a closer relationship to the market. Stock prices will probably continue to fall. But if they reach a more realistic index, it will make them a more reliable source for retirement portfolios.

Trade negotiations with China require the will to suffer temporary market jitters. If we cave due to fear of market failure, then China won't need to make concessions, so will continue to do what it has been doing. If we stay the course, they will have to blink or suffer worse political upheavals than we would, and our market will stabilize and rebound if we don't overreact and make unnecessary regulatory or tax interventions.

As of now, our market is still strong. There will always be bits of bad news for some. The automobile sector is being cajoled, if not forced, into re-gearing, as GM is doing, for electric car production. If you're concerned about global warming due to burning fossil fuels, then you should welcome the changes the auto companies are making even while we regret the unfortunate temporary hardships for some that will follow.

But an overall strong and growing economy, if we stay the course, will provide more opportunities for unemployed workers.

I'm invested at a low risk level being retired, but even so, my losses in just over a year now are approaching 8%. Not sure I agree the market is doing well this year, it's actually the reverse in a single calendar year. I don't mess with my investment company's plans as being in good health, with no real need for large cash withdrawals in the near future, I have no choice but to stay the course. Knowing where I was invested in the market when I was younger and working, I know I'd be taking a big arse beating this year.

Message on my MA smart plan

In light of recent market volatility, remember that your retirement plan is intended for long-term investment. Attempts to time the market are rarely successful. One way to manage risk over time is to ensure you have a diversified portfolio that is rebalanced through up-and-down markets. Keep your individual needs, goals and time horizon in mind and consult with your financial adviser if needed. It is important to note diversification and rebalancing do not ensure a profit and do not protect against loss in declining markets.

10/07/2018 12/07/2018 -0.86% lost a 1000.00 from 9\30\18 thru 12\7\18

I'm invested at a low risk level being retired, but even so, my losses in just over a year now are approaching 8%. Not sure I agree the market is doing well this year, it's actually the reverse in a single calendar year. I don't mess with my investment company's plans as being in good health, with no real need for large cash withdrawals in the near future, I have no choice but to stay the course. Knowing where I was invested in the market when I was younger and working, I know I'd be taking a big arse beating this year.

I was referring to the economic market, not the stock market. Many believe the stock market was overpriced and due to come down. The dynamics have reversed. The good economic market invites investment in business that was not as attractive in a stale economy where most big money investment went to stocks instead of business.

I think, unless we go back to higher business taxes and regulations, things will keep looking good and even out to a secure position that helps your investment future. At least, for your sake, I hope so.

And if the Repubs can get the strictly middle class cut in taxes that they're proposing, it may get even better.

I was referring to the economic market, not the stock market. Many believe the stock market was overpriced and due to come down. The dynamics have reversed. The good economic market invites investment in business that was not as attractive in a stale economy where most big money investment went to stocks instead of business.

I think, unless we go back to higher business taxes and regulations, things will keep looking good and even out to a secure position that helps your investment future. At least, for your sake, I hope so.

And if the Repubs can get the strictly middle class cut in taxes that they're proposing, it may get even better.

Recesssions happen, it’s cyclical, we may have already reached the pinicle of this cycle.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

got stripers, obama
also had days when the market was down. judge him
on how the market does over his whole presidency, maybe? although when it was up you did point that out so you’re fair that way. Some guy at J.p. morgan said the pe ration for the sp500 is low
and that he thinks the market is irrationally low. if that’s true, and that’s a pretty big if, it’s a buying opportunity. also from what i understand the tariffs are hurtingbthe chinese market far worse, so if they agree to favorable terms ( also a big if) it could be a win for him.

the economy is healthy, and the market has done well
since he’s been in office, hasn’t it? we may end 2018 with annual
gdp growth over 3 percent, i think 2005 was the last time thatbhappened.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

got stripers, obama
also had days when the market was down. judge him
on how the market does over his whole presidency, maybe? although when it was up you did point that out so you’re fair that way. Some guy at J.p. morgan said the pe ration for the sp500 is low
and that he thinks the market is irrationally low. if that’s true, and that’s a pretty big if, it’s a buying opportunity. also from what i understand the tariffs are hurtingbthe chinese market far worse, so if they agree to favorable terms ( also a big if) it could be a win for him.

the economy is healthy, and the market has done well
since he’s been in office, hasn’t it? we may end 2018 with annual
gdp growth over 3 percent, i think 2005 was the last time thatbhappened.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Judging him year by year as I'm sure most are. Year one was an extension of an already strong economy and of course Trump took all the credit for the market while it was making all those gains. At the end of this year I have less money in my retirement account, then I had when he took office and as expected Trump is silent on the market as it reacts to the trade war, the fed and possibly a slowing economy. Not arguing that the GDP is up, I think it certainly is debatable if Trump and his administration is responsible; again this is still an extension of what he inherited. Not saying some moves he made helped it continue, but those moves also put most of that wealth right back into the corporations and upper 1-2 percent. If he makes it to year 4, I guess we can review and debate his impact on my retirement account and the economy as a whole.

Judging him year by year as I'm sure most are. Year one was an extension of an already strong economy and of course Trump took all the credit for the market while it was making all those gains. At the end of this year I have less money in my retirement account, then I had when he took office and as expected Trump is silent on the market as it reacts to the trade war, the fed and possibly a slowing economy. Not arguing that the GDP is up, I think it certainly is debatable if Trump and his administration is responsible; again this is still an extension of what he inherited. Not saying some moves he made helped it continue, but those moves also put most of that wealth right back into the corporations and upper 1-2 percent. If he makes it to year 4, I guess we can review and debate his impact on my retirement account and the economy as a whole.

year one also benefited from the regulations that were eliminated, and from the confidence that wall street had a real ally. obamas
momentum was part of it, but trump helped it. let’s be honest and fair.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

if you have less $$ now then you had in january 2017, you’re doing something wrong and that’s not his fault.

year one also benefited from the regulations that were eliminated, and from the confidence that wall street had a real ally. obamas
momentum was part of it, but trump helped it. let’s be honest and fair.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

if you have less $$ now then you had in january 2017, you’re doing something wrong and that’s not his fault.

The gains I made in 2017 are gone due to what has happened in the market in 2018 and I don't monkey with what Fidelity is doing with my accounts; I don't have that kind of market knowledge to trust myself with trading. Going back to a balance I had when he took office is all the proof I need to give him a failing mark thus far, you can judge him however you like.

Two years in and he has had one legislation passed and that tax cut profited the rich for the most part; yeah short terms for some but stay tuned.

Not sure the environment is going to keep winning with some of the moves he's made that impact it, so I'm giving him a failing mark there as well.

I'd agree China needed to be addressed, but I'm not sure the all out trade war is the best approach, I'm holding out on my judgement on that one.

I have to give him a good mark for getting NK to the table, but it doesn't appear to have gone anywhere from there.

Jobs, sure he's helped, but again when you have a economy (large ocean going box ship) going in one direction, it goes that way for a long, long time. Economy changes aren't done on a dime, they evolve over years.

Immigration, well that's his campaigning platform and he is still looking for his wall. Not arguing that our borders needed to be tighter, but the way he goes about it is wrong, or you wouldn't keep getting judges ruling against him. He fails IMHO, as this needed to be a partisan approach from the beginning, otherwise nothing substantial will come of it.

Hard to put forth good legislation and changes that are positive for everyone, when you can barely keep the "good" people today long enough; he gets an F for civility and good judgement on hires and fires. Look at the comments made recently about Rex, dumb as a rock and lazy, he turned from smart and sharp to dumb as a rock in a year really. An F isn't a low enough grade to give him on civility and respect for his peers.

Have you been reading or getting the filings released and not just the spin Fox News is putting on them? I don't think it's looking too good for the Trump family when all is reveled. I love it that Fox and Trump are echo's of one another, claiming it proves no collusion is so laughable. Even some that wasn't redacted seems to indicate a coordinated effort by all in the campaign staff to get their stories straight on dealings with the Russians and now the Trump family business ventures in Russia are part of the equation. I'd bet my life on him not running in 2020 and I'm not sure he will even reach that far before the other shoe drops.

The gains I made in 2017 are gone due to what has happened in the market in 2018 and I don't monkey with what Fidelity is doing with my accounts; I don't have that kind of market knowledge to trust myself with trading. Going back to a balance I had when he took office is all the proof I need to give him a failing mark thus far, you can judge him however you like.

Two years in and he has had one legislation passed and that tax cut profited the rich for the most part; yeah short terms for some but stay tuned.

Not sure the environment is going to keep winning with some of the moves he's made that impact it, so I'm giving him a failing mark there as well.

I'd agree China needed to be addressed, but I'm not sure the all out trade war is the best approach, I'm holding out on my judgement on that one.

I have to give him a good mark for getting NK to the table, but it doesn't appear to have gone anywhere from there.

Jobs, sure he's helped, but again when you have a economy (large ocean going box ship) going in one direction, it goes that way for a long, long time. Economy changes aren't done on a dime, they evolve over years.

Immigration, well that's his campaigning platform and he is still looking for his wall. Not arguing that our borders needed to be tighter, but the way he goes about it is wrong, or you wouldn't keep getting judges ruling against him. He fails IMHO, as this needed to be a partisan approach from the beginning, otherwise nothing substantial will come of it.

Hard to put forth good legislation and changes that are positive for everyone, when you can barely keep the "good" people today long enough; he gets an F for civility and good judgement on hires and fires. Look at the comments made recently about Rex, dumb as a rock and lazy, he turned from smart and sharp to dumb as a rock in a year really. An F isn't a low enough grade to give him on civility and respect for his peers.

Have you been reading or getting the filings released and not just the spin Fox News is putting on them? I don't think it's looking too good for the Trump family when all is reveled. I love it that Fox and Trump are echo's of one another, claiming it proves no collusion is so laughable. Even some that wasn't redacted seems to indicate a coordinated effort by all in the campaign staff to get their stories straight on dealings with the Russians and now the Trump family business ventures in Russia are part of the equation. I'd bet my life on him not running in 2020 and I'm not sure he will even reach that far before the other shoe drops.



The market is up meaningfully since January 2017. I’m not a financial advisor, but if you’re ok with lagging the market by double digits, that’s your issue, not Trumps fault. The indices are up since he took office. Gdp is up meaningfully, and unemployment is down meaningfully. trump clearly inherited favorable tailwinds from obama. He is also clearly making his own positive impact. i don’t know what you’re invested in, but the broad statistics are all better now than when he took office. Do you dispute that?

i think you’re being extremely fair in China, it may end well, but americans are hurting now because if it. maybe a more finessed approach would
have been wise. We’ll see. but you were fair.

on jobs, i agree it doesn’t change on a dime. but most people admit he has been a positive influence. most say we’re overdue for a recession, maybe he deserves some credit for extending the good run.

on immigration, i’m no lawyer but we need major changes, and it means nothing to me if the 9th circuit blocks him, those idiots are constantly overturned, they don’t care about the law, they care about liberal advocacy. But he’s not winning on immigration, i agree.

I also give him a F on civility, not in hires. i love Mattis, and i love love love the supreme court picks.

on the special investigator, filings, etc, all i saw was that alan dershowitz, a lefty if there ever was one, said he saw no crimes in what trump did. if trump is guilty, i want him impeached as much as Spence and Pete.

to me, the economy and the supreme court picks and killing terrorists, are what matter. putting kavanaugh in the SCOTUS, and all the appointments he’ll make in the next two years, it doesn’t even matter as much to me
if liberals sweep in 2020 ( and they might), they can’t go nearkybas far with these judges. he’s put in limits for far we can go in ignoring the constitution. to me, that’s his legacy, and it’s awesome.

it would
be nice if he had better bedside manner. but i care more about results.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

it would
be nice if he had better bedside manner. but i care more about results.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

and in that last statement ... is exactly wrong with the New Trump GOP and conservatives in general

A moral compass that only works when it's convenient..

and in that last statement ... is exactly wrong with the New Trump GOP and conservatives in general

A moral compass that only works when it's convenient..

get over yourself. why is bill clinton ( impeached and disbarred) so popular with democrats? because he’s such a swell guy?

sorry, the party worships at the feet of the clintons doesn’t get to lecture me about prioritizing virtue. can’t have it both ways. i votes for clinton, and
i claim he was a good potus. scumbag of a
man but a good president. i say the same about trump. go ahead tell me why the dems can worship clinton and say they care about morals.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

get over yourself. why is bill clinton ( impeached and disbarred) so popular with democrats? because he’s such a swell guy?

sorry, the party worships at the feet of the clintons doesn’t get to lecture me about prioritizing virtue. can’t have it both ways. i votes for clinton, and
i claim he was a good potus. scumbag of a
man but a good president. i say the same about trump. go ahead tell me why the dems can worship clinton and say they care about morals.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device


You miss the point again Clinton was held responsible for his actions (lying) Trumps and GOP supporters have no intentions of holding Trump accountable
As you said as long as you like the results .... and of couse you see trump's behavior and Clinton behavior as some how equal .?.. not sure how . But your good at it

You miss the point again Clinton was held responsible for his actions (lying) Trumps and GOP supporters have no intentions of holding Trump accountable



just sayin'....I suspect if you come up with an impeachable charge...you will have some republicans happy to vote to impeach...we'll see

Five Democrat House members (Virgil Goode of Virginia, Ralph Hall of Texas, Paul McHale of Pennsylvania, Charles Stenholm of Texas and Gene Taylor of Mississippi) voted in favor of three of the four articles of impeachment, but only Taylor voted for the abuse of power charge.

A two-thirds vote (67 senators) was required to remove Clinton from office. 50 senators voted to remove Clinton on the obstruction of justice charge and 45 voted to remove him on the perjury charge; no member of his own Democratic Party voted guilty on either charge.

You miss the point again Clinton was held responsible for his actions (lying) Trumps and GOP supporters have no intentions of holding Trump accountable
As you said as long as you like the results .... and of couse you see trump's behavior and Clinton behavior as some how equal .?.. not sure how . But your good at it

no no, you missed
your own point. your post didn’t say trump should be held accountable ( which i agree with). you were criticizing people who defend trump. but your side still worships clinton. if it’s ok for your sidento overlook moral lapses, why is it wrong for my side to do so?

I said i care more about results style, and you said “that’s whats wrong with the new GOP.”. that not nearly the same thing as saying “Trump should be held accountable for his actions.”
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

no member of his own Democratic Party voted guilty on either charge.

WDMSO, what say you to that?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

no no, you missed
your own point. your post didn’t say trump should be held accountable ( which i agree with). you were criticizing people who defend trump. but your side still worships clinton. if it’s ok for your sidento overlook moral lapses, why is it wrong for my side to do so?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Again you think Clinton supporters worship Clinton ??

Trump supporters Worship Trump ... (watch a rally ) once Again attempting to claim they are the same

I know Getting a blow job is horrible and lying about it is worse

but playing with the russians their no harm in that or paying of a porn star before an election or just lying daily is just being a politician for Trump..

I know Getting a blow job is horrible and lying about it is worse


The only time it’s horrible is when it’s non consensual. Clinton and Lewinski were both into it...
that whole investigation was a total joke. So what if he denied it...it was no ones business but his and his wife’s. Were any laws broken ?? No.

Trump on the other hand is basically a mafia boss directing a bunch of felons at this point.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

WDMSO, what say you to that?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I say 10 republican also voted not guilty with the democrats ... so seems the burden of proof was not met and he was Acquitted by the Senate...


now ask yourself with the house in 2019 having a 235 to 199 advantage to send articles of impeachment to the senate

and the Republicans having a 53\ 45 \2 independant seat advantage and the need A two-thirds vote (67 senators) to convict ...

if articles of impeachment are presented.. do the math 14 republicans would need to jump ship to convict


Clinton gets impeched for liying about getting a blow job from a women

and Trump gets impeached for trying to give russia a blow job and lying about and his senate votes not guilty .... such irony :buds:

Again you think Clinton supporters worship Clinton ??

Trump supporters Worship Trump ... (watch a rally ) once Again attempting to claim they are the same

I know Getting a blow job is horrible and lying about it is worse

but playing with the russians their no harm in that or paying of a porn star before an election or just lying daily is just being a politician for Trump..

Bill Clinton is still very popular with democrats, and unless i has a stroke this morning, Hilary was the democratic presidential nominee in 2016.

WDMSO, your side is very very comfortable nominating people
who have horrible ethics. that’s ok, because some of them, like bill clinton, were decent presidents. but it means you can’t wag your finger and lecture republicans when we do the same exact thing.

is paying off a porn star, which he did before he was a politician, worse than what Clinton did while in office? Debatable i guess. Both men are reptiles. Both made the country better in my opinion. i can live with the moral lapses if they implement policies which improve the country.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I say 10 republican also voted not guilty with the democrats ... so seems the burden of proof was not met and he was Acquitted by the Senate...


now ask yourself with the house in 2019 having a 235 to 199 advantage to send articles of impeachment to the senate

and the Republicans having a 53\ 45 \2 independant seat advantage and the need A two-thirds vote (67 senators) to convict ...

if articles of impeachment are presented.. do the math 14 republicans would need to jump ship to convict


Clinton gets impeched for liying about getting a blow job from a women

and Trump gets impeached for trying to give russia a blow job and lying about and his senate votes not guilty .... such irony :buds:


Clinton got impeached for lying under oath. Do we know that Trump lied under oath?

There is an investigation of Trumps connection with Russia, and if possible campaign finance violations. no charges yet, so it seems like you think you know more than the investigators who haven’t indicted him (yet).

Trump is a snake. As of right now, we don’t know if he committed an impeachable offense. If he did, i want him impeached. You want him impeached regardless of whether or not he committed an impeachable offense, because you don’t like him. I don’t like him either, but I like following the rules.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The only time it’s horrible is when it’s non consensual. Clinton and Lewinski were both into it...
that whole investigation was a total joke. So what if he denied it...it was no ones business but his and his wife’s. Were any laws broken ?? No.

Trump on the other hand is basically a mafia boss directing a bunch of felons at this point.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Well Fellatrix and Felon both start with F
So they are the same
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The only time it’s horrible is when it’s non consensual. Clinton and Lewinski were both into it...
that whole investigation was a total joke. So what if he denied it...it was no ones business but his and his wife’s. Were any laws broken ?? No.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Consensual but still highly unethical.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Consensual but still highly unethical.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Worthy of impeachment ??? Doubtful.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The only time it’s horrible is when it’s non consensual. Clinton and Lewinski were both into it...
that whole investigation was a total joke. So what if he denied it...it was no ones business but his and his wife’s. Were any laws broken ?? No.

Trump on the other hand is basically a mafia boss directing a bunch of felons at this point.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

the law says that when the two parties are from unequal places on the .org chart, that it can’t be consensual. this is why teachers cannot get involved with students, even if the student is 18. in any event, bill didn’t get into trouble for the fling, he got into trouble for
lying about it under oath. you seem to think he got impeached because if the fling - nope. and maybe you don’t care, but i’d say it’s also horrible when the man is married and has children.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Consensual but still highly unethical.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

the ability for an intern to give consent to the president, is debatable. so you think teachers should
be able to get involved with students, if the student is above the
minimum age of consent? the difference in authority, doesn’t effect the ability to give consent? i guess you’re not into the whole me too movement then, most were above the age of consent.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

the ability for an intern to give consent to the president, is debatable. so you think teachers should
be able to get involved with students, if the student is above the
minimum age of consent? the difference in authority, doesn’t effect the ability to give consent? i guess you’re not into the whole me too movement then, most were above the age of consent.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
I think you’re confusing current CT law with Federal law, and also consider attitudes towards this stuff are a lot different now versus 1995.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

the law says that when the two parties are from unequal places on the .org chart, that it can’t be consensual.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

didn't clinton sign that legislation in to law? :rotf3:

and also consider attitudes towards this stuff are a lot different now versus 1995.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

for some .....:kewl:

I think you’re confusing current CT law with Federal law, and also consider attitudes towards this stuff are a lot different now versus 1995.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

nice dodge. i asked you what you think. don’t want to share? Many states, in addition to CT, make it illegal for students to get involved with teachers.

Again, afraid to tell us what you think?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

nice dodge. i asked you what you think. don’t want to share? Many states, in addition to CT, make it illegal for students to get involved with teachers.

Again, afraid to tell us what you think?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Apples and oranges. With teachers you have the potential for a power imbalance but also for the student to use sex to get preferential treatment. I’m not sure it needs to be illegal if the ages of consent are within range but it’s still unethical and should carry a penalty.

If everyone is an adult the situation is a bit different but certainly carries clear ethics and moral risks.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Apples and oranges. With teachers you have the potential for a power imbalance but also for the student to use sex to get preferential treatment. I’m not sure it needs to be illegal if the ages of consent are within range but it’s still unethical and should carry a penalty.

If everyone is an adult the situation is a bit different but certainly carries clear ethics and moral risks.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

so you’re saying that imbalance cannot exist in a professional relationship between adults. no matter how far apart the difference in position?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Apples and oranges. With teachers you have the potential for a power imbalance but also for the student to use sex to get preferential treatment. I’m not sure it needs to be illegal if the ages of consent are within range but it’s still unethical and should carry a penalty.

If everyone is an adult the situation is a bit different but certainly carries clear ethics and moral risks.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

With Presidents you have the potential for a power imbalance but also for the intern to use sex to get preferential treatment. I’m not sure it needs to be illegal if the ages of consent are within range but it’s still unethical and should carry a penalty.


BTW he wasn't impeached by the house for sexual relations with monica so i don't know why you keep beating the dead horse

With Presidents you have the potential for a power imbalance but also for the intern to use sex to get preferential treatment. I’m not sure it needs to be illegal if the ages of consent are within range but it’s still unethical and should carry a penalty.


BTW he wasn't impeached by the house for sexual relations with monica so i don't know why you keep beating the dead horse
they beat that horse, even though it’s bullish•t, because it sounds better than admittimg th e truth, that he was impeached for lying under oath.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Meh...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Meh...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

so it’s no biggie when a democrat lies under oath, but when
a republican behaves badly, that needs to be addressed.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

so it’s no biggie when a democrat lies under oath, but when
a republican behaves badly, that needs to be addressed.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Jim So do you have the ability to to see things objectively?

You are a 100% correct he lied under oath as POTUS...

About a blow job .....

when presented in context with white water and all the other Conservative investigations against clintons and blue dress is the best they could do.. its speaks a lot about your party historically

But when confronted with Guilty pleas lining up against Trumps inner circle all the information ... you want impeachable offense?? are you suggesting its a witch hunt ?, it wont be for lying he'll never testify under oath

you falsely claim I want him impeached regardless of whether or not he committed an impeachable offense, because you don’t like him

He is an embarrassment to the united states a Liar a bully and has no respect for the institutions of the US ... your correct I do not like Him because of his actions his words not solely because he has an R next to his name . vote him out or impeach him were stuck with him for 2 more years as this plays out anyway ...

he is the only captain of a ship who is not responsible for anything his people do or say while the serve under him??

Jim So do you have the ability to to see things objectively?





Trump is a snake. As of right now, we don’t know if he committed an impeachable offense. If he did, i want him impeached.

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device


:smash:

Jim So do you have the ability to to see things objectively?

You are a 100% correct he lied under oath as POTUS...

About a blow job .....

when presented in context with white water and all the other Conservative investigations against clintons and blue dress is the best they could do.. its speaks a lot about your party historically

But when confronted with Guilty pleas lining up against Trumps inner circle all the information ... you want impeachable offense?? are you suggesting its a witch hunt ?, it wont be for lying he'll never testify under oath

you falsely claim I want him impeached regardless of whether or not he committed an impeachable offense, because you don’t like him

He is an embarrassment to the united states a Liar a bully and has no respect for the institutions of the US ... your correct I do not like Him because of his actions his words not solely because he has an R next to his name . vote him out or impeach him were stuck with him for 2 more years as this plays out anyway ...

he is the only captain of a ship who is not responsible for anything his people do or say while the serve under him??

i’m way more objective than you. i thought Bill Clinton was a decent president who was a scumbag. as with trump, i’m not nearly as concerned with bedside manner as i am with results. But when he was obviously guilty of committing a crime, i was in favor of impeachment. He also got disbarred. When lawyers feel youvare too unethical to associate with them, that’s really something.

I say the same exact thing about Trump. A good president who is also clearly a scumbag. I want him investigated ( some say he will be indicted, some like liberal alan dershowitz say there’s zero evidence he broke the law). if he broke the law, he has to pay for it. if he didn’t, let’s move on at some point?

I’m way way more consistent and objective than you are, im applying the same exact standards to clinton and trump. Zero difference. Zip.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

:smash:

thank you!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Jim So do you have the ability to to see things objectively?

You are a 100% correct he lied under oath as POTUS...

About a blow job .....

when presented in context with white water and all the other Conservative investigations against clintons and blue dress is the best they could do.. its speaks a lot about your party historically

But when confronted with Guilty pleas lining up against Trumps inner circle all the information ... you want impeachable offense?? are you suggesting its a witch hunt ?, it wont be for lying he'll never testify under oath

you falsely claim I want him impeached regardless of whether or not he committed an impeachable offense, because you don’t like him

He is an embarrassment to the united states a Liar a bully and has no respect for the institutions of the US ... your correct I do not like Him because of his actions his words not solely because he has an R next to his name . vote him out or impeach him were stuck with him for 2 more years as this plays out anyway ...

he is the only captain of a ship who is not responsible for anything his people do or say while the serve under him??

as for trump not respecting things...from where i sit, he respects people like me, he respects cops, he respects the military, a hell of a lot more than Obama ever did. Those things may not matter to some people, but they matter to me. Also, you let me know when the Little Sisters Of The Poor successfully sue Trump for trampling on their religious rights ( that happened with Obama, also with Hobby Lobby), and let me know when Trump is using the IRS as a club against political opponents.

it doesn’t bother you when obama disrespects fundamental institutions, or when he trampled on the constitution when it served his agenda. you only get worked up when trump does it. That’s the textbook definition of a hypocrite.

Try making that wrong...go ahead.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

as for trump not respecting things...from where i sit, he respects people like me, he respects cops, he respects the military, a hell of a lot more than Obama ever did. Those things may not matter to some people, but they matter to me. Also, you let me know when the Little Sisters Of The Poor successfully sue Trump for trampling on their religious rights ( that happened with Obama, also with Hobby Lobby), and let me know when Trump is using the IRS as a club against political opponents.

it doesn’t bother you when obama disrespects fundamental institutions, or when he trampled on the constitution when it served his agenda. you only get worked up when trump does it. That’s the textbook definition of a hypocrite.

Try making that wrong...go ahead.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Sooner or later you'll find out just how much he respects you.
Trump claims to respect cops but consistently disrespects our legal institutions and the rule of law.
He claims to respect the military but uses them for political purposes and in two years has yet to go to a combat zone.
He has been at best selective on religious rights, but admittedly perfect if you are a evangelical christian.
And once again you cite baloney to claim that Obama did something, surprised you don't want to see his birth certificate.
https://www.newsweek.com/remember-irs-scandal-it-was-fake-news-all-along-681674
Trump would love to use the Justice Department as a club as he has said many times, luckily they believe in the rule of law.

Sooner or later you'll find out just how much he respects you.
Trump claims to respect cops but consistently disrespects our legal institutions and the rule of law.
He claims to respect the military but uses them for political purposes and in two years has yet to go to a combat zone.
He has been at best selective on religious rights, but admittedly perfect if you are a evangelical christian.
And once again you cite baloney to claim that Obama did something, surprised you don't want to see his birth certificate.
https://www.newsweek.com/remember-irs-scandal-it-was-fake-news-all-along-681674
Trump would love to use the Justice Department as a club as he has said many times, luckily they believe in the rule of law.

i said trump respects people
like me ( conservative white
people who are middle class) more than obama, and that’s true. i don’t care if Trump respects me as a person, i don’t need him to respect me, i need him to help the economy grow ( like obama did) so i can retire some day.

i don’t think most of the
military feels that trump doesn’t have their backs. and he doesn’t endlessly bash white cops.

Trump has been selective in religious rights? please elaborate? whose rights has he trampled on?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I realize you think Trump respects you, but he's playing you for a fool.
If is politically expedient for us to fail in the future as long as there is the appearance of success at the current time, he has no issue with the final results being bad as long as his ratings are good.
His military approval rating was little different than Obamas and is dropping.
" President Donald Trump’s approval rating among active-duty military personnel has slipped over the last two years, leaving today’s troops evenly split over whether they’re happy with the commander in chief’s job performance, according to the results of a new Military Times poll of active-duty service members.

About 44 percent of troops had a favorable view of Trump’s presidency, the poll showed, compared to 43 percent who disapproved.

The results from the survey, conducted over the course of September and October, suggest a gradual decline in troops’ support of Trump since he was elected in fall 2016, when a similar Military Times poll showed that 46 percent of troops approved of Trump compared to 37 percent who disapproved. That nine-point margin of support now appears gone."

Pretty much anyone other than conservative white
people who are middle class evangelical Christians have had their rights trampled on.

The Department of Health and Human Services created a new civil rights division to protect medical personnel who, based on their religious beliefs, refuse to treat patients -- regardless of the patient's needs or access to alternative providers. So religious freedom means the freedom to discriminate.
In February, Education Secretary Betsy DeVos proposed spending over $1 billion on private school vouchers and other school choice plans. Based on existing voucher programs, a lot of that money would have ended up subsidizing religious schools if Congress had approved the funds.
The Department of Education also announced its desire to change rules that prohibit federal education funding for faith-based entities, and has re-opened the public comment period to begin the process. Some of those funds may well end up subsidizing religious schools that teach creationism and declare climate science a hoax. So religious freedom means the freedom to undermine science at taxpayer expense.
Top officials -- such as Vice President Mike Pence -- have repeatedly committed to overturning Roe v. Wade, despite the fact that 63% of Americans support it, and now they have a Supreme Court nominee who might help do just that. So religious freedom means forcing one interpretation of religion on everyone.
President Donald Trump has (so far unsuccessfully) tried to get rid of the Johnson Amendment to let religious leaders explicitly endorse candidates from the pulpit. So religious freedom means compromising the separation of church and state, allowing people to use religion for partisan advantage and politics to build religious power.

I realize you think Trump respects you, but he's playing you for a fool.
If is politically expedient for us to fail in the future as long as there is the appearance of success at the current time, he has no issue with the final results being bad as long as his ratings are good.
His military approval rating was little different than Obamas and is dropping.
" President Donald Trump’s approval rating among active-duty military personnel has slipped over the last two years, leaving today’s troops evenly split over whether they’re happy with the commander in chief’s job performance, according to the results of a new Military Times poll of active-duty service members.

About 44 percent of troops had a favorable view of Trump’s presidency, the poll showed, compared to 43 percent who disapproved.

The results from the survey, conducted over the course of September and October, suggest a gradual decline in troops’ support of Trump since he was elected in fall 2016, when a similar Military Times poll showed that 46 percent of troops approved of Trump compared to 37 percent who disapproved. That nine-point margin of support now appears gone."

Pretty much anyone other than conservative white
people who are middle class evangelical Christians have had their rights trampled on.

The Department of Health and Human Services created a new civil rights division to protect medical personnel who, based on their religious beliefs, refuse to treat patients -- regardless of the patient's needs or access to alternative providers. So religious freedom means the freedom to discriminate.
In February, Education Secretary Betsy DeVos proposed spending over $1 billion on private school vouchers and other school choice plans. Based on existing voucher programs, a lot of that money would have ended up subsidizing religious schools if Congress had approved the funds.
The Department of Education also announced its desire to change rules that prohibit federal education funding for faith-based entities, and has re-opened the public comment period to begin the process. Some of those funds may well end up subsidizing religious schools that teach creationism and declare climate science a hoax. So religious freedom means the freedom to undermine science at taxpayer expense.
Top officials -- such as Vice President Mike Pence -- have repeatedly committed to overturning Roe v. Wade, despite the fact that 63% of Americans support it, and now they have a Supreme Court nominee who might help do just that. So religious freedom means forcing one interpretation of religion on everyone.
President Donald Trump has (so far unsuccessfully) tried to get rid of the Johnson Amendment to let religious leaders explicitly endorse candidates from the pulpit. So religious freedom means compromising the separation of church and state, allowing people to use religion for partisan advantage and politics to build religious power.

he’s not playing me for a fool, i know exactly what he is, moreso than you. My god, every syllable from you is pure paranoid fantasy. Take off the tinfoil hat, stop howling at the moon, and talk sense.

What is he doing to hurt our future, other than accumulating debt, which obama also did and we all know you didn’t complain about that.

Whose rights has he trampled? Sure he has had his wrist slapped by courts, as obama also did. What trampling of rights has he implemented?

“religious freedom means the right to discriminate.”.

i encourage you to actually read the first amendment. it says the right to freely practice religion shall not be infringed. It does not say “unless someone else is being seriously inconvenienced.”. It’s easy to respect others rights when it doesn’t cost you anything. the true test, is if you reapect the conatitution when it hurts you to do so.

most poor people support school choice and vouchers. only those pressured by teachers unions oppose it. i thought liberals were in favor of “choice”? Pretty sure i heard that somewhere.

As to roe v wade, slavery was settled law, so was segregation. until the christian right helped eliminate those things. Roe v wade isn’t in any danger.

“separation of church and state” does not mean that religion cannot influence politics. It means the government cannot officially endorse one religion. The words “separation of church and state” aren’t in the constitution. In fact, it’s obvious ( perhaps not to you) that the founding fathers relied heavily on judeo christian principles to found the nation.

would do you good to actually sit down and read what the constitution actually says, instead of listening to what msnbc claims
it says.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Pretty much anyone other than conservative white
people who are middle class evangelical Christians have had their rights trampled on.



I see pete has already begun his holiday drinking

I see pete has already begun his holiday drinking

they’re acting like he has already set up concentration camps within our borders. i must have missed that news story.

Trump is a jerk, his style is offensive to many people, and he thinks that’s all our fault.

But how is he trampling on our republic, exactly?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

they’re acting like he has already set up concentration camps within our borders. i must have missed that news story.

Trump is a jerk, his style is offensive to many people, and he thinks that’s all our fault.

But how is he trampling on our republic, exactly?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
https://youtu.be/lkz7xgsPGmQ
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

https://youtu.be/lkz7xgsPGmQ
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Oh for f*ck's sake, you think he was being literal?

Obama went on camera and said Republicans needed to get to the back of the bus. It never occurred to me, not for a second, that he meant it literally.

That's the best you have? You are seriously afraid that Trump will drag you to 5th Ave in NY and shoot you?

Deranged. Totally unhinged.

Oh for f*ck's sake, you think he was being literal?

Obama went on camera and said Republicans needed to get to the back of the bus. It never occurred to me, not for a second, that he meant it literally.

That's the best you have? You are seriously afraid that Trump will drag you to 5th Ave in NY and shoot you?

Deranged. Totally unhinged.

I'm deranged when I point out Trump's approach to the rule of law.

He would be King, after all as he claims, the country would fail without him.

Just read his tweets

I'm deranged when I point out Trump's approach to the rule of law.

He would be King, after all as he claims, the country would fail without him.

Just read his tweets

You're deranged if you ignore it when Obama says that Republicans have to sit in the back of the bus (I was never worried that a bus was actually coming), but terrified when Trump jokingly says he could shoot someone and people would still love him.

You really think that was a credible threat? How many people has he shot? How many people is he accused of shooting?

"He would be King"

Fortunately the constitution says he can't. Obama was also a narcissist who said that his inauguration would be remembered as the day that waters stopped rising and the planet began to heal. But it's OK when Obama claims that he can change the weather. When democrats use hyperbole, it's no biggie, but it's a problem when republicans do it.

Just read his tweets

I don't care what he tweets. I'd rather read the obituaries looking for jihadists, and the business page to see how low unemployment is doing and how the market is doing.

I don't care how vulgar he is, not if he's keeping us safe and putting us to work. It would be nice if he could do those things and be decent about it. But if I have to choose between results or style, that's easy.

No I don’t think Trump will shoot someone but I do not think he believes laws should apply to him.
That is the difference between a King and a President
You can discuss that with Rex Tillerson.
But he went from the best to lazy in a very short time.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

No I don’t think Trump will shoot someone but I do not think he believes laws should apply to him.
That is the difference between a King and a President
You can discuss that with Rex Tillerson.
But he went from the best to lazy in a very short time.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

you are free to believe he thinks he’s above the law. i am free to think Obama despised white cops.

hopefully with trump, we will soon know something meaningful, instead of relying on what we think.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

instead of relying on what we think.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

in this group, that would be a terrible precedent to set. :hihi:

you are free to believe he thinks he’s above the law. i am free to think Obama despised white cops.

hopefully with trump, we will soon know something meaningful, instead of relying on what we think.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Such a horrible potus he was for speaking out about white cops and cops in general who shoot unarmed black and white people .... how many people were shot just for being black in the last 3 months . I know of several or 3 cops who sent each other’s texts to beat up a black lives matter protesters . And the guy they target was a black under cover officer in the crowd.. you live in a white washed world you need to get out more
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Such a horrible potus he was for speaking out about white cops and cops in general who shoot unarmed black and white people .... how many people were shot just for being black in the last 3 months . I know of several or 3 cops who sent each other’s texts to beat up a black lives matter protesters . And the guy they target was a black under cover officer in the crowd.. you live in a white washed world you need to get out more
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

He attacked the Cambridge police (after admitting he didn't know what happened, but he knew a black person was upset with white cops, and that was enough for him to take sides), who did they shoot? Please inform us?

You work in law enforcement, you think white cops are systematically targeting black people for racial assassinations?

"how many people were shot just for being black in the last 3 months "

I don't know. I know that a LOT MORE were shot by fellow blacks, than were shot by white cops.

"I know of several or 3 cops who sent each other’s texts to beat up a black lives matter protesters "

We have no way of knowing if that's true.

It might be an alternative fact
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

He attacked the Cambridge police (after admitting he didn't know what happened, but he knew a black person was upset with white cops, and that was enough for him to take sides), who did they shoot? Please inform us?

You work in law enforcement, you think white cops are systematically targeting black people for racial assassinations?

"how many people were shot just for being black in the last 3 months "

I don't know. I know that a LOT MORE were shot by fellow blacks, than were shot by white cops.

"I know of several or 3 cops who sent each other’s texts to beat up a black lives matter protesters "

We have no way of knowing if that's true.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/nation/2018/11/30/its-still-blast-beating-people-st-louis-police-indicted-assault-undercover-officer-posing-protester/

https://wgno.com/2018/11/27/the-changing-police-narrative-of-why-a-black-man-was-shot-to-death-in-an-alabama-mall/

. I know that a LOT MORE were shot by fellow blacks, than were shot by white cops

Wow that’s a twisted way to rationalize cops killing unarmed blacks
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/nation/2018/11/30/its-still-blast-beating-people-st-louis-police-indicted-assault-undercover-officer-posing-protester/

https://wgno.com/2018/11/27/the-changing-police-narrative-of-why-a-black-man-was-shot-to-death-in-an-alabama-mall/

. I know that a LOT MORE were shot by fellow blacks, than were shot by white cops

Wow that’s a twisted way to rationalize cops killing unarmed blacks
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"Wow that’s a twisted way to rationalize cops killing unarmed blacks"

WTF are you talking about? I wasn't rationalizing cops killing unarmed blacks. I was pointing out that other blacks are a far bigger threat to blacks, than white cops. Liberals bend over backwards to avoid talking about it, because it doesn't serve their agenda. Why not start with the biggest threat, first? If you went to the ER with a harpoon sticking out of your jugular, do you want the surgeon to worry about removing a wart on your toe?

There are 300 million people in the country, god knows how many thousands of cops. There are tons of interactions between cops and civilians, some under the most stressful circumstances imaginable, so mistakes will be made, and of course there are a few bad apples among the ranks of white cops. There is no widespread institutional agenda to kill unarmed blacks.

"Wow that’s a twisted way to rationalize cops killing unarmed blacks"

WTF are you talking about? I wasn't rationalizing cops killing unarmed blacks. I was pointing out that other blacks are a far bigger threat to blacks, than white cops.

Why would that have any bearing on the topic ?

Liberals bend over backwards to avoid talking about it, because it doesn't serve their agenda.

What agenda? Again you attempt to equate violence crime and police shooting as again some how the same..

Why not start with the biggest threat, first? See above


If you wentThere is no widespread institutional agenda to kill unarmed blacks. Black people would beg to differ


No one has ever suggested all cops are bad. But that’s all conservatives hear But again facts are not on your side


Data collected by the Washington Post on the use of lethal force by police officers since 2015 indicate that, relative to the portion of the population, Blacks are over-represented among all those killed by police under all circumstances. As is evident in Figure 1 below, (looking at the top blue bar) according to the US Census estimates, Blacks made up 13% of the population. However, in 2015 they accounted for 26% of those that were killed by police, in 2016, 24%, and in 2017, 23% of all those killed by police. In other words, Blacks were the victims of the lethal use of force by police at nearly twice their rate in the general population.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

In other words, Blacks were the victims of the lethal use of force by police at nearly twice their rate in the general population.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

At what rate were blacks involved in police actions? At what rate did blacks commit violent crimes? Did the rate that blacks committed crimes put them at higher risk of contact with police and higher risk of being killed by police?

No one has ever suggested all cops are bad. But that’s all conservatives hear But again facts are not on your side


Data collected by the Washington Post on the use of lethal force by police officers since 2015 indicate that, relative to the portion of the population, Blacks are over-represented among all those killed by police under all circumstances. As is evident in Figure 1 below, (looking at the top blue bar) according to the US Census estimates, Blacks made up 13% of the population. However, in 2015 they accounted for 26% of those that were killed by police, in 2016, 24%, and in 2017, 23% of all those killed by police. In other words, Blacks were the victims of the lethal use of force by police at nearly twice their rate in the general population.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"Why would that have any bearing on the topic ?"

Because it shows that your side isn't interested in addressing problems, not even interested in admitting problems, unless they are politically convenient. Let's ignore the rampant black-on-black violence, to focus on the rare (but tragic) cases of white cops behaving horribly. There's also a huge difference between a scared cop making a good-faith mistake, and a pre-meditated racial assassination.

"What agenda?"

You know what agenda. To spread the bull that liberal=good, conservative=bad.

"If you wentThere is no widespread institutional agenda to kill unarmed blacks. Black people would beg to differ"

Well their differing would be based on political manipulation (the purpose of all the hype), not on anything close to facts.


"No one has ever suggested all cops are bad. But that’s all conservatives hear"

Wrong. You have a serious, serious issue with reading comprehension and short term memory, because you have a constant habit of responding to insane gibberish that no one ever said. I never claimed that liberals think "all" cops are bad. But liberals make the threat from white cops, out to be a hell of a lot more common than it is, to fire up their base.

"facts are not on your side"

Let's be very clear. Very clear. When I say that far more blacks are killed by other blacks, than are killed by white cops, you are saying the facts aren't on my side? If not, what did I actually say (as opposed to what you think I said) which differs from the facts?

"Blacks are over-represented among all those killed by police under all circumstances" I am 100% certain that is correct. But is that because cops are targeting blacks? Or is it because blacks commit a disproportionate share of violent crime, and disproportionately live in places where violent crime occurs?

If you grant that cops will occasionally make mistakes (and that unlike when I make mistakes at work, lives can be lost when they make mistakes), it stands to reason that most mistakes will occur in high stress situations, in settings where cops feel endangered - urban high-crime areas. Common sense also suggests that if one group lives disproportionately in those areas, they will make up a disproportionate share of victims of mistakes.

I'm not saying white cops are never guilty of premeditated murder. I'm saying that some cases of white cops shooting unarmed blacks, are cops making honest mistakes as opposed to premeditated assassinations, and that race has nothing to do with it. Sadly, there is ALWAYS going to be collateral damage when enforcing laws, and the ethnical make-up of victims of that damage will reflect the ethnic makeup of dangerous, urban areas.

Admitting that truth, generates no political capital. Blaming it on racist white cops, produces significant political capital. Who cares that it also produces dead cops, right? As long as Al Sharpton remains relevant.

Here's a law of statistics you left out...correlation does not equal causation. There is no proof, none, that skin color is the reason why a disproportionate number of blacks are killed by cops.

I have no doubt that a small number of black lives can be saved by rooting out the small number of evil white cops. But FAR MORE black lives could be saved, if we could temper black-on-black violence. Yet you and your liberal ilk spend all of their time fanatically focused on the minute threat posed by white cops. What other possible reason would you do so, other than politics?

According to my link, in 2016, 7,881 blacks were killed from violence. According to the uber-liberal Washington Post, 233 black men were shot by police, 16 were unarmed. 16 is 16 too many. But it's two-tenths of one percent of the black victims. 99.8% of black victims were in a category other than "unarmed killed by police".

Interestingly, among all homicide suspects whose race was known, white killers of blacks numbered only 243.

Fatherlessness kills way, way more young black men, than white cops do. You see the devastating effects of fatherlessness at your job, you know it far better than I do. But you'll ignore it, for political reasons.

https://nypost.com/2017/09/26/all-that-kneeling-ignores-the-real-cause-of-soaring-black-homicides/

Data collected by the Washington Post on the use of lethal force by police officers since 2015 indicate that, relative to the portion of the population, Blacks are over-represented among all those killed by police under all circumstances. As is evident in Figure 1 below, (looking at the top blue bar) according to the US Census estimates, Blacks made up 13% of the population. However, in 2015 they accounted for 26% of those that were killed by police, in 2016, 24%, and in 2017, 23% of all those killed by police. In other words, Blacks were the victims of the lethal use of force by police at nearly twice their rate in the general population.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

But yet when you look at the breakdown of violent crimes, by race, they are responsible for more than twice the percentage of crimes, in regards to the percent of their population by race.

Including a whopping 52.6% of all murder arrests in 2016 and 53.1% of all murder arrests in 2017.

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2016/crime-in-the-u.s.-2016/topic-pages/tables/table-21


https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2017/crime-in-the-u.s.-2017/topic-pages/tables/table-43

But yet when you look at the breakdown of violent crimes, by race, they are responsible for more than twice the percentage of crimes, in regards to the percent of their population by race.



That's all because of racism. Not culture or socio-economics, just racism. Not because of the absolute collapse of the nuclear family institution in that population (because as liberals know, the nuclear family isn't really advantageous and not something that should be held as the ideal). Don't you see?

Another interesting statistic, Gang membership is in the low to mid 30's % range for blacks, compared to single digits to low 10% for whites.

https://www.nationalgangcenter.gov/survey-analysis/demographics

Another interesting statistic, Gang membership is in the low to mid 30's % range for blacks, compared to single digits to low 10% for whites.

https://www.nationalgangcenter.gov/survey-analysis/demographics
And all those statistics also match the socioeconomic status of the various portions of the population.
Pointing fingers to date has solved no problem.
What has happened, is that statistics for law enforcement has never been collected other than by media or identity groups and that is only recently.
What is the fear of data collection?
It's very hard to solve a problem if you don't identify and quantify it first.
Notice, I have drawn no conclusion.

Notice, I have drawn no conclusion.

Again, maybe you want to take that up with wdmso, he drew a conclusion that cops shoot blacks at a disproportionate rate based on statistics.

I was giving him more statistics to ponder.

I'm also beginning to sense a man-crush, because every time I respond to him, you come to his rescue :hihi:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Again, maybe you want to take that up with wdmso, he drew a conclusion that cops shoot blacks at a disproportionate rate based on statistics.

I was giving him more statistics to ponder.

I'm also beginning to sense a man-crush, because every time I respond to him, you come to his rescue :hihi:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Didn’t realize I was rescuing him
Though perhaps you and Jim should look in the mirror when you tag team and highfive
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Didn’t realize I was rescuing him
Though perhaps you and Jim should look in the mirror when you tag team and highfive
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

TDF and i have disagreed in the past. when all the game takes point to one conclusion, you want to fault us for agreeing with the obvious?

Pete, just because a republican says that 2+2=4, doesn’t make it wrong.

99.8% of black victims of lethal violence, were something other than unarmed blacks killed by cops. If you want to obsess over the 0.2%, giidnfor you. if 90% were killed
by other blacks, i say let’s fix that, let’s atbleast talk about it. You won’t. You can’t, because it doesn’t serve liberalism. All
that matters to you people, is ideology.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Though perhaps you and Jim should look in the mirror when you tag team and highfive
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Maybe Alissa Milano can help him through his #MeToo moment. :hee:

Does this mean I can't be on SCOTUS?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

TDF and i have disagreed in the past. when all the game takes point to one conclusion, you want to fault us for agreeing with the obvious?

Pete, just because a republican says that 2+2=4, doesn’t make it wrong.

99.8% of black victims of lethal violence, were something other than unarmed blacks killed by cops. If you want to obsess over the 0.2%, giidnfor you. if 90% were killed
by other blacks, i say let’s fix that, let’s atbleast talk about it. You won’t. You can’t, because it doesn’t serve liberalism. All
that matters to you people, is ideology.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
You people
I’ve told you before and I’ll tell you again
You don’t know me
There is nothing liberal or conservative in what I wrote
But as usual you feel required to name call
To tell the truth I would much rather be called a liberal than a Trumplican
At least liberals have dreams and don’t whine like victims
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Does this mean I can't be on SCOTUS?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

With your judicial experience I don't think you would be confirmed to the Supreme Court. However looking at some of the nominations put forth by individual 1 you probably would be confirmed for an appellate court judgeship.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You people
I’ve told you before and I’ll tell you again
You don’t know me
There is nothing liberal or conservative in what I wrote
But as usual you feel required to name call
To tell the truth I would much rather be called a liberal than a Trumplican
At least liberals have dreams and don’t whine like victims


Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
i do know
you. almost every post is a foaming at the mouth, thoughtless, trump piece.

i whine like a victim? don’t think so. i piint our truth on both sides. you can’t come close
to that.

right, conservatives don’t have dreams,,only liberals do. i don’t have dreams for
my kids’ future, nope not at all. if only i was a liberal!!!’

of course i know you. liberal=good, conservative=bad. is there any more to know?

liberals
don’t whine or play the victim card? they don’t throw temper tantrums when conservatives try to speak? good lord, man. liberals don’t whine!!!! good one!! did you watch any news on the eve of the 2016 election? here are some
liberals showing us how
not to whine or play the victim card. Right??

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=QUBGGQXsIvI
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

i do know
you. almost every post is a foaming at the mouth, thoughtless, trump piece.

i whine like a victim? don’t think so. i piint our truth on both sides. you can’t come close
to that.

right, conservatives don’t have dreams,,only liberals do. i don’t have dreams for
my kids’ future, nope not at all. if only i was a liberal!!!’

of course i know you. liberal=good, conservative=bad. is there any more to know?

liberals
don’t whine or play the victim card? they don’t throw temper tantrums when conservatives try to speak? good lord, man. liberals don’t whine!!!! good one!! did you watch any news on the eve of the 2016 election? here are some
liberals showing us how
not to whine or play the victim card. Right??

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=QUBGGQXsIvI
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Don’t fool yourself that you are a conservative
You are the role model for Christian Fascists
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

:claps:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Don’t fool yourself that you are a conservative
You are the role model for Christian Fascists
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

what is the single
most christian fascist thing you’ve seen me post?

i’m a fascist. you are something, you really are.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You people
I’ve told you before and I’ll tell you again
You don’t know me . . .But as usual you feel required to name call
To tell the truth I would much rather be called a liberal than a Trumplican . . . Don’t fool yourself . . . You are the role model for Christian Fascists


Pot kettle

what is the single
most christian fascist thing you’ve seen me post?

i’m a fascist. you are something, you really are.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

i’m serious here, Pete. you called me a christian fascist. Can you tell us what i’ve ever posted, thatbwould make anyone think i’m a christian fascist?

Nene, you applauded his post. Can you tell me what i’ve ever said that’s fascistic?

for the record, conservative ideology ( which i usually but not always agree with) is pretty much the exact opposite of fascism.

Nebe, in today’s America, which side wants to punish those who disagree with them? which side goes berserk when someone from the other side wants to speak at college campuses? Which side had masked rioters destroying public property? Occupy Wall Street and Antifa, which side are they on? whuch side wants to eliminate offensive speech, rather than deal with it like adults?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Pete loves the catchy terms that incite and Nebe is just the snowflake to get hooked and make a a good first run .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Pete loves the catchy terms that incite and Nebe is just the snowflake to get hooked and make a a good first run .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

very common for libs to hurl insults when they’ve lost. i’m just curious.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Nebe and Pete, one more time, can you please show us one thing i’ve posted, that would
make anyone think i’m a christian fascist? this will be the last time i ask...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Trade war with China, and tariffs as a weapon, are necessary:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSjlGNaWPbc

I’m more concerned about a potential real war in the Middle East, since Bolton appears to be moving significant forces into position. Between him, Trumps short fuse and love of conflict and a new secretary of defense with no experience; it’s a recipe for a disaster.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The so-called "trade war" between The U.S. and China has a deeper dimension than what the media wants to portray as a Trump folly. Thomas Friedman agrees with what Trump is doing, he and Bannon explain it. A MUST WATCH:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYraLI04WiU