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

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

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

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??

:smash:

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

thank you!
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-ir...l-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.

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

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

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.was...ing-protester/

https://wgno.com/2018/11/27/the-chan...-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.

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

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?

"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-th...ack-homicides/

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...ables/table-21


https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s...ables/table-43

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/s...s/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.

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