ChrisWeigant.com

Democrats Should Demand Universal Mail-In Voting In Next Must-Pass Bill

[ Posted Wednesday, March 18th, 2020 – 16:51 UTC ]

The coronavirus outbreak is going to change the fabric of American life in many ways. "Social distancing" is just one of them; one which might last a lot longer than anyone now fully realizes. The coronavirus could be successfully fought this spring, and could be brought under some semblance of control by summer -- but then still come raging back next fall, even worse than before. That's precisely what happened with the Spanish Flu, one hundred years ago. Everyone thought it was over, but in fact the worst was yet to come. This is a very real danger, even though most people haven't even begun to focus on it yet.

Congress is currently taking drastic action to counteract the effects of the pandemic, and the Senate just passed the second coronavirus measure so far. President Trump is expected to quickly sign it, which will make sick pay available for millions of American workers who don't currently have it. This will help, but as the Trump administration fully admits, this is only "the second inning" of the legislative response efforts. The next coronavirus bailout bill is being drafted right now by Senate Republicans, who seem somewhat miffed that they were entirely left out of the process for the second bill (which was hammered out between Nancy Pelosi and Steve Mnuchin, while McConnell sat on his hands). But no matter if Mitch McConnell has finally woken up and spurred his Republicans to do something (for once), Democrats still hold a lot of power over the shaping of the next must-pass coronavirus bill. And they should use this power to insert a measure which might just turn out to be critical for the continuation of American democracy: mandatory universal voting by mail, in every state in the Union.

Now, "mandatory" in this sense will mean: "everyone who wants to vote for mail has the guaranteed right to do so, if they choose to," rather than: "everyone must vote by mail, period." This would give the states at least some flexibility and would allow for a normal election process if the coronavirus pandemic doesn't actually return this fall. But that flexibility should have a very hard limit, which is that voting by mail should be an option for every single voter to make -- on their own -- and that any state-level barriers to doing so must be at least temporarily suspended. Permanently would be a lot better, but selling it as "an emergency measure for the duration of this particular crisis" would probably be a lot easier politically.

Three states already hold their entire elections by mail: Oregon, Colorado, and Washington. They're already ready for November. Other states have a ways to go to catch up to them. Some already have what this bill would decree -- what is called "at-will" voting by mail. Any voter can request a mail-in ballot for any reason or for no reason at all and they are automatically mailed a ballot. But plenty of other states -- both red and blue -- have much higher barriers, which must be removed before November. Some states make you actually prove you won't physically be in the state on Election Day, which was breathlessly outdated even before the pandemic hit. All such barriers must be at least temporarily suspended for the November election, in every state.

Voting by mail has its own challenges, of course. No election method is perfect. The biggest of these must be addressed by the bill: (1) ballots must be postage-free ("business reply mail") so that even the price of a stamp is no barrier to voting; (2) all ballots which are postmarked by Election Day must count (not "received by" but "postmarked by"); (3) getting a ballot in the mail must be guaranteed for every person who requests one -- no questions asked, and no further requirements necessary; and (4) requesting a vote-by-mail ballot must be available as many ways as possible -- by phone, by mail, by internet -- and not require an in-person visit to the county offices (which would essentially defeat the pandemic-fighting point of mail-in voting in the first place). Those should all be seen as the bare minimum, when drafting the legislation.

This is already a national emergency, so this can be pitched as an emergency effort which must supersede any state law to the contrary. By doing so, nobody would have to wait for their own state legislature to act as well. It wouldn't be entirely "federalizing" the election, but it would lay down the law for how this one aspect of it will take place this year.

Unlike the other emergency efforts now being contemplated -- mostly to deal with the financial fallout from the crisis -- this one needs a lot of lead time. The federal government can bail out whole industries and send citizens checks in the mail without any infrastructure buildup, to put it another way. Mandating at-will voting by mail is different, for obvious reasons. But we've got over seven months to prepare, which should be time enough. If Congress acts now, that is.

This is why it is imperative that Democrats use their political leverage right now to demand mandatory mail-in voting in all 50 states. No excuses should pre-empt this, either from the states themselves or from anyone in Congress. We need the lead time needs to become the rallying cry. If we act now to prepare for the future, then we'll be ready in November and the election will be held whether the pandemic is currently raging among the populace or not. The continuation of our system of government is at stake, because the alternative is too frightening to even contemplate. What if mail-in voting is not allowed in certain states and everyone's too scared to go vote -- or too scared to volunteer to man the polling places? Would such an election be considered legitimate? Would the loser of the presidential race accept the results? These are no longer academic questions. We need to have faith in our democratic process, period. Passing a mandatory mail-in law right now might turn out not to be needed, if the best case scenario happens and the coronavirus does abate almost completely by November. In that case, we can all have a good laugh over how panicked we all were. But if that does not turn out to be the case and we don't pass such a law now, we're going to be in a very tough spot indeed. This is a national emergency -- even the president has finally woken up to that fact. In emergencies, emergency measures are necessary. Preserving the sanctity and trustworthiness of American elections should be one of those emergency measures, and Democrats need to demand it happen in the very next round of pandemic legislation. We need the lead time, so the time to act is right now.

-- Chris Weigant

 

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

79 Comments on “Democrats Should Demand Universal Mail-In Voting In Next Must-Pass Bill”

  1. [1] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    As problems go, I'd say we've got one here.

  2. [2] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Liz-
    Which problem is that?

    Is it the problem that now is not the time doesn't work here? :D

  3. [3] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Now would also be a good time while we still have the lead time to pressure Biden to become a small donor candidate for general election so that the problems that resulted in Trump being president don't come roaring back even worse just because electing big money Biden made us think it was over.

  4. [4] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    As for the mail-in voting- I'm not sure how to do this...hmmmm...let's see...um....oh!

    I agree.

  5. [5] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Stay Real ? :D

  6. [6] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Don,

    Senator Biden and campaign finance reform go way back. And, he's never been your typical politician in terms of fundraising - it's not his thing, you know.

    Would you take some time to look at what Biden is proposing for government and campaign finance reform? https://joebiden.com/governmentreform/

    I believe he's the one in the best position to go a long way toward what you are trying to achieve with OD (I still like the other name better, by the way, but I can't recall what it was).

  7. [7] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Liz-
    I will look at it because you asked. I will do my best to look at it objectively, but it will have to be pretty convincing to make me change my mind about promises of future legislation being any valid substitute for action that can be taken now.

    Perhaps you will also look at the Cuomo clip you provided as I asked imagining he is talking about big money infecting our political process instead of the corona virus and recommending taking action now with One Demand. He makes a pretty convincing argument.
    (of course the part about staying on the couch and staying put only apply to the corona virus, he would recommend the opposite for One Demand)

    If you try to look at this objectively he might even
    be able to convince you that now IS the time for One Demand (the Superpac formerly known as Voucher Vendetta).

  8. [8] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Liz-
    Sorry. Nothing new there.

    The only exception would be the disclosure within 48 hours for spending within 60 days of an election that is a good idea.

    But mandatory public financing? Are you kidding?
    "Eddie are you kidding? NO NO"
    -Zappa

    NO thanks. I do not want candidates that I do not support financed with my tax dollars.

    And I want to be able to finance the candidates I support. You can take that amendment and shove it.

    Public financing only protects the status quo from competition because the status quo decides who gets money.

    A perfect example occurred here in NJ a few years ago. They tried an experimental project in two districts called the Clean Elections act, bill or whatever.

    Any candidate that got 800 dollars in 10 dollar contributions qualified for public financing but that was all they could use if they chose this route. They were indentified on the ballot as Clean Election candidates.

    If an opponent chose not to use the public financing and raised more money than allotted to the publicly financed candidate the amount of public financing could be up to doubled to match.

    Doesn't that sound wonderful?

    One problem is that it was only for the general election so the big money had already been spent in the primaries. And it was in two districts that were already competitive so all it did was save the big money donors from having to spend big money in those two districts for the general election.

    The other problem was that the CMP candidates that raised the 800 dollars got 500 thousand to run their campaigns while any other candidates that raised the 800 dollars only got 50 thousand (remember- that's ALL they can spend).

    Not exactly leveling the playing field as they claimed.

    There is nothing at Biden's website that explains HOW any of this will become law.

    NONE of it will be passed by big money legislators so the only way it could be passed is if we first replace the big money legislators with small donor legislators.

    So how could any of this be better than Biden taking action now that could be effective before anything proposed could even be considered, much less passed into law and implmented?

    And that means Biden needs to be a REAL LEADER and TAKE ACTION NOW (did you go back to the Cuomo clip yet?).

  9. [9] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    The Cuomo clip? Not everything is a metaphor for OD.

  10. [10] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    The Cuomo clip is. Have you looked it again yet in the manner requested?

    You can't say now is not the time. I reviewed what you asked and provided my assessment. Why can't you?

    I bought you dinner you have to put out. :D

  11. [11] 
    Kick wrote:

    CW: Democrats Should Demand Universal Mail-In Voting In Next Must-Pass Bill

    Yes, THIS... a thousand times THIS!

    Texas leaders will hate this idea; if eligible voters were given easy access to the ballot box, they might actually do it. The GOP in Texas keep it a basically non-voting state by making casting a ballot an exercise in jumping through hoops, waiting in long lines, etc.

    As we discussed on Super Tuesday, in order to cast a mail-in ballot in Texas, an eligible voter must be:

    * 65 years or older
    * disabled
    * out of the county on election day and during the period for early voting by personal appearance, or
    * be confined in jail but otherwise eligible to vote.

    Make it happen, Democrats. Surely this issue is something the vast majority of Americans can agree on: Let the eligible people vote! :)

  12. [12] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Liz-
    The one thing you are right about is that Biden is the one in the best position to go a long way toward what I am trying to achieve with One Demand.

    As the Dem nominee he could get the Dems to finance his campaign with small donors only and accomplish a really good start in 2020 that we can build on in 2022 which would both be before ANY legislation could ever be passed.

    Whether he will use that position in 2020 and run as a small donor only candidate tells us all we need to know about whether he has any intention of making good on passing any legislation he is proposing.

    If he won't take action now that could be more effective sooner than any legislation and could make any legislation he is proposing that could still be needed easier to pass and pass sooner then he clearly will not take action in the future to pass the legislation.

    I just don't understand why you won't discuss something that could help or greatly increases the chances that Biden wins.

    There is only upside as no rational person could argue that people already supporting Biden would abandon Biden for making the small donor only commitment. So it could only get him more votes and not lose him any votes.

  13. [13] 
    Michale wrote:

    Biden steps smack dab in the middle of unconstitutional racist discrimination..

    Did Biden realize his discriminatory pledge for his Supreme Court pick?

    The pledges that Biden has made amount to this. No matter how qualified men or, in the case of the Supreme Court, women who are not black may be, he will not consider them as candidates. In the case of vice president, such gender discrimination would be allowed, as presidential candidates can select a running mate on any grounds and voters can decide if they approve. Justices, however, are lifetime appointees, and presidents have always been careful to state that, while they seek diversity among their nominees, they would appoint the most qualified person regardless of race, religion, gender, or sexual orientation. But in a single declaration, Biden quickly dispensed with even the pretense of equal consideration.
    https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/487961-did-biden-realize-his-discriminatory-pledge-for-his-supreme-court-pick

    Joe Biden just disqualified himself for the Presidency...

  14. [14] 
    Mezzomamma wrote:

    Yes, definitely.

  15. [15] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Indeed.

  16. [16] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Don,

    The one thing you are right about is that Biden is the one in the best position to go a long way toward what I am trying to achieve with One Demand. As the Dem nominee …

    He's best positioned because, with Biden, you're getting a whole lot more than the Dem nominee. You'll understand as time goes by ...

  17. [17] 
    Kick wrote:

    Joe Biden just disqualified himself for the Presidency...
    ~ Michale

    Weigantia: Does anybody remember Michale declaring that Trump had just disqualified himself for [sic] the presidency at the time Trump presented an extremely limited list of 11 white people as his picks for the Supreme Court of the United States?

    Trump Reveals All-White List of Potential
    SCOTUS Nominees

    Presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump on Wednesday released the names of 11 people he would nominate to the Supreme Court to succeed Antonin Scalia. They include Steven Colloton of Iowa, Allison Eid of Colorado, Raymond Gruender of Missouri, Thomas Hardiman of Pennsylvania, Raymond Kethledge of Michigan, Joan Larsen of Michigan, Thomas Lee or Utah, William Pryor of Alabama, David Stras of Minnesota, Diane Sykes of Wisconsin, and Don Willett of Texas. The Trump campaign hopes the move will quell the fears of Republicans who have been skeptical of his potential to nominate a true conservative to the bench. None of the choices are minorities.

    https://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/2016/05/18/trump-releases-list-of-potential-supreme-court-nominees

    Well then, we here in Weigantia accept Mike's concession that Trump seriously disqualified himself for the presidency when he self-limited his choices to that of an even smaller list of persons containing nothing but 11 white people.

    Mike either didn't think through that one or he just thoroughly enjoys being the Weigantia poster child for hysterical hypocrite... or both. :)

  18. [18] 
    Michale wrote:

    Again, the question HAS to be asked..

    WHY weren't these commentaries posted in 2009 when 12,000+ Americans were dying from Swine Flu???

    WHY!?

  19. [19] 
    Michale wrote:

    FPC

    DH,

    Did the officer have a fear for his life?
    Clearly not. If he was in fear he could have driven away instead of getting out of the car to shoot Brown.

    Facts to support???

    Regardless, such activity is not in the job description..

    Cops don't run away when they are in fear of their lives. They eliminate the threat..

    Hell, in FL, CIVILIANS are not required to run away when their life is put in danger...

    You think COPS should!!???

    You call a cop to come to your home because someone is threatening your family with a gun.. Cop responds, feels his life might be in danger and runs away..

    Instill you with a lot of confidence??

    Cops are duty bound NOT to run away...

    Sorry, but that's a bigger bullshit claim than most you have made on this subject..

    When the evidence shows Brown was down when shot with the fatal shot it was not self defense and not a good shooting.

    Except NO FACTUAL EVIDENCE showed that...

    If the officer could flee (and he could have) because he feared for his life and did not flee then it was not self defense and not a good shooting.

    With the utmost affection, you are completely and utterly displaying your ignorance of LEOs and LEO procedures here...

    Do you realize the UTTER ANARCHY we would have if cops were required to flee every time they felt their life was in danger!??

    Why bother having cops???

    You really need to think that thru, Don...

  20. [20] 
    Michale wrote:

    Well then, we here in Weigantia accept Mike's concession that Trump seriously disqualified himself for the presidency when he self-limited his choices to that of an even smaller list of persons containing nothing but 11 white people.

    As usual, Victoria misses the point.. She IS a somewhat intelligent person, so I have to assume she is doing it on purpose because she can't address Biden's unconstitutional discrimination with logic and facts..

    Nowhere in her BS does it say that President Trump STATED that he was choosing those candidates *BECAUSE* they were white... If President Trump HAD stated such, THEN dearest Victoria would have a valid comparison..

    But President Trump DIDN'T make that statement, so dearest sweet Victoria does NOT have a valid comparison...

    Biden's actions, if he actually gets into the position to follow thru and if he actually follows thru, would be a GROSS violation of the US Constitution..

    Biden stated, FOR THE RECORD that in his choice for SCOTUS, RACE and GENDER are going to be the ONLY considerations in his choice..

    Flat out UNCONSTITUTIONAL...

    And he did it SOLELY to pander to the black American vote...

    Because Biden realizes how bad the Democrats are going to lose the black American vote..

  21. [21] 
    Michale wrote:

    Mezzomama,

    Yes, definitely.

    Why.. Thank you... I appreciate that.. :D

  22. [22] 
    Michale wrote:

    FPC,

    DH..

    If you ever prove me wrong I will admit it.

    I have proved you wrong in every discussion of the last week or so.

    For example.. Your claim that cops are required to flee if they feel their life is in danger rather than engage and eliminate the threat...

    WRONG... Wrong as wrong can be..

    You are wrong, but you can't admit it.. In that you are like most everyone here...

    Dunno.. Maybe it's a pride thingy...

  23. [23] 
    Michale wrote:

    I mean, simply on the face of it, it's complete and utter bullshit..

    MANY states have laws that state CIVILIANS don't have to flee if their life is in danger.. They can stand their ground and eliminate the threat..

    And you HONESTLY believe that LEOs, the very people who are THERE to safeguard our lives would be required to flee???

    Usually, when you have gone THIS far off the reservation, your next tactic is to say, "What are you talking about!! I never said that!!"

    Bring it... :D

  24. [24] 
    Michale wrote:

    As far as mail in voting?

    Ridiculous..

    How do you verify that the mail-in came from the person it claims to have come from??

    So, for all ya'all's talk of Election Security, ya'all want to turn over our Elections to the Russian Postal service, US Elections Interference Division...

    Gotcha :eyeroll:

    Ya see, DH... Ya gotta have the colon... :D

  25. [25] 
    Michale wrote:

    OMG, we truly are at the END OF DAYS!!

    Ilhan Omar praises Trump's 'incredible' response to coronavirus pandemic
    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ilhan-omar-praises-trumps-incredible-response-to-coronavirus-pandemic

    I can't believe that I am holding up Ms Omar as a shining example of how our political leaders SHOULD act...

    I must have woke up (no really, I actually DID sleep a little last night) in a parallel universe where everyone loves President Trump..

  26. [26] 
    Michale wrote:

    Minnesota Democratic Rep. Ilhan Omar unexpectedly praised President Trump's handling of the coronavirus pandemic on Wednesday night, saying it was "incredible and the right response in this critical time."

    Omar, normally a staunch critic of the White House who herself has repeatedly drawn the president's ire, went on to quote Rep. Ayanna Pressley, D-Mass., as saying "unprecedented times require unprecedented leadership" -- and, Omar added, "we are seeing that in our country right now."

    "Finally, we should never let politics get in the way of good policy," Omar concluded. "This is a great start and hope others will be part of a united front to push for good policies that will help us work through the economic anxiety the country is feeling right now."

    Omar was responding to a post by The Intercept's Lee Fang, who noted: "Trump suspending mortgage foreclosures, demanding cash payments to Americans, now invoking the Defense Production Act to force private firms to produce needed supplies is incredible. Kind of a shell shock for anyone who reported on any economic policies in the Obama years."

    If Democrats can catch on to Omar's logic and good sense, we could truly change the world...

    I remain cynical, but slightly less so...

  27. [27] 
    Michale wrote:

    Her praise for the president was matched this week by other Democrats and left-of-center commentators. New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, on Tuesday, told reporters, “His team is on it. They’ve been responsive. ... I want to say thank you.” And, CNN's Dana Bash asserted that Trump's new tone on the coronavirus made him the "kind of leader that people need."

    On Wednesday, Trump invoked rarely used emergency powers to marshal critical medical supplies against the coronavirus pandemic. Trump tapped his authority under the 70-year-old Defense Production Act to give the government more power to steer production by private companies and try to overcome shortages in masks, ventilators and other supplies.

    It's catching on!!!!

    I wonder if such love of country and countrymen will catch on here in Weigantia..

    Imagine seeing PRAISE coming from some of the most virulent sufferers of HHPTDS...

    NAW, that's just TOO crazy to hope for!!!

  28. [28] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Michale-
    You did not prove me wrong by saying there is no evidence when I saw the evidence in the documentary.

    You would have to prove the evidence in the documentary wrong to do that.

    Just because you say that police are not supposed to flee doesn't make you right and me wrong.

    If it is police procedure when there is no one in danger except a lone police officer (which may have just been percieved danger that did not exist- if it wasn't a cover story made up after), then I am not wrong saying the officer should flee (and wait for back up before pursuing the threat). It is police procedure that is wrong.

    That is my opinion. And I don't have to be a police officer or former police officer to have that opinion any more than I have to have been in the military to have an opinion on how our military should be run.

    Why is one of us is right and one of us is wrong is what seems to matter more to you than what we are trying discuss? (I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt that you are trying)

  29. [29] 
    Michale wrote:

    You would have to prove the evidence in the documentary wrong to do that.

    You would have to provide evidence that this documentary actually exists.. You claim you did.. You did not.. You were wrong..

    Regardless, the point was you were wrong about cops being required to flee if they felt their life was/is in danger..

    Just because you say that police are not supposed to flee doesn't make you right and me wrong.

    Yer right.. Me just saying it doesn't make me right and you wrong...

    Over 25 years in Public Safety (Military, LEO, Security, FSO) is what says I am right and you are wrong..

    If it is police procedure when there is no one in danger except a lone police officer (which may have just been percieved danger that did not exist- if it wasn't a cover story made up after), then I am not wrong saying the officer should flee (and wait for back up before pursuing the threat). It is police procedure that is wrong.

    And you base that on... WHAT exactly?? Your vast law enforcement experience??? :^/

    But OK.. Let's game out a scenario that goes your way..

    A single LEO confronts a guy with an semi-automatic rifle with a 100 round magazine and a backpack likely containing a bunch more mags..... The LEO is the ONLY person around so, according to DH Procedures Of Law Enforcement, said LEO should flee instead of engaging the threat because it's ONLY the LEO's life that's in danger.....

    The cop flees..

    20 minutes later that threat walks into an elementary school and kills a hundred children..

    I don't think the parents of those butchered kids would like DH's Procedures Of Law Enforcement..

    Cops engage threats at the risk to their own lives for a REASON...

    That is my opinion. And I don't have to be a police officer or former police officer to have that opinion any more than I have to have been in the military to have an opinion on how our military should be run.

    Now here, we agree.. It IS just your opinion.. Based on nothing but your partisan ideology.. NO FACTS to support said opinion..

    And, it's fair to say that what *I* am saying is ALSO my opinion.. But MY opinion is based on 25+ years in Public Safety.. In other words, being there, doing that..

    So, of the two opinions, which carries more weight in the world of the here and now?? The real world??

    Why is one of us is right and one of us is wrong is what seems to matter more to you than what we are trying discuss? (I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt that you are trying)

    Those hare-brained {sic} "debate" tactics don't work on me when Liz does it and she is a LOT better at it than you..

    One of us is right and one of us is wrong because of what forms the BASIS for the differing opinions...

    Your opinion is based on zero facts... It's based on how you FEEL...

    "Dr Dehner feels that Mitchell is not dangerous. What makes her wrong and you right."
    "Because Dr Dehner FEELS.. Her opinion is based on emotion. My opinion is based on logic. And logic tells me we will be very lucky to escape this alive."

    -STAR TREK, Where No Man Has Gone Before

    My opinion, on the other hand, is based on 2+ decades in the Public Safety career fields..

    THAT is what makes your opinion wrong and my opinion factually accurate...

  30. [30] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Liz-
    "..you'll understand as time goes by...."

    I already understand what Joe Biden is.

    Forty plus years of working for the big money interests.

    Yet I am willing to let that be in the past if he steps up now to finally do the right thing by running a small donor only campaign.

    Why is Biden doing the right thing when we need it most not the right thing for Biden to do?

    Why shouldn't Biden make the small donor commitment when it can only gain him more votes and not lose any votes when it is also the right thing to do?

    What possible reason could there be to keep doing the wrong thing that could lose votes and possibly lose the election over doing the right thing that would increase the votes and chances of winning the election.

    He can raise enough money with a small donor only campaign so that can't be the reason.

    Unless 500-800 million dollars is not enough or he can't get one in 5 to 8 Dems to contribute an average of 100 dollars. But if he can't do that then the Dems are worthless and can no longer claim to represent ordinary citizens.

    Not that their claim is currently valid.

    But it could be if Biden runs a small donor only campaign.

    Stop avoiding the issues.

    Step up and explain why Biden should not have to earn my vote and should be given my vote for more of the same empty promises that he has been making and breaking for forty years.

    Or just admit that you can't.

  31. [31] 
    Michale wrote:

    SO... Home schooling going well..

    Two students suspended for fighting..

    One teacher fired for drinking on the job..
    -America, Mar 2020

    :D

  32. [32] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Michale-
    No you did not prove you are right to anyone but yourself.

    We have different opinions.

    I will admit that I would be both right and wrong to say for sure you are trying.

    Wrong that you were trying to have a discussion instead of WINNING- and right that you are trying- extremely trying.

    What does your scenario with an armed threat (that CLEARLY is a danger to others) have to do with Michael Brown?

    Are police supposed to treat all citizens as if they were acting in a threatening manner with a weapon whether they have one or not?

    Even in that situation isn't the lone police officer supposed to call for back up and try to keep it at a stalemate until back up arrives so he/she doesn't end up dead allowing the perpetrator to proceed unobstructed?

    You can have a different opinion than me and it doesn't make you right.

    But you are definatley wrong when you say that your opinion matters more because you were in law enforcement.

    I don't have to work on wall street to have an opinion on wall street or have been a police officer to have an opinion on police procedures.

    Unless you can show me where it says that in the Constitution.

  33. [33] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Also, you keep saying that I did not provide evidence but you still have not seen the documentary, have you?

    I even gave you the name- Stranger Fruit.

    There it is again.

    One more time for the factually impaired- Stranger Fruit.

    I didn't look at the evidence provided so you did not provide it is not factually accurate.

  34. [34] 
    Kick wrote:

    Mike

    As usual, Victoria misses the point.. She IS a somewhat intelligent person, so I have to assume she is doing it on purpose because she can't address Biden's unconstitutional discrimination with logic and facts..

    Of course I can, but I thought I would use your tactic of deflection in order to undercut what I was fairly certain your lame ass argument would be as to why Trump's obvious discriminatory SCOTUS picks that included zero -- count them zero -- minority picks wasn't racism/discrimination... because I was quite certain you'd go there, and as per usual you did not disappoint.

    Nowhere in her BS does it say that President Trump STATED that he was choosing those candidates *BECAUSE* they were white... If President Trump HAD stated such, THEN dearest Victoria would have a valid comparison..

    So in this pathetic exercise of yours where you're whining about Biden's racism/discrimination for a potential new member of the SCOTUS, you're perfectly okay with Trump's 100% white list of potential picks and the obvious discrimination against every minority in America because he didn't say "out loud" why it was that he picked only 11 white people.

    So -- just so you know -- this defense of yours is widely known in legal circles as "intent." Trump revealed no "intent" to choose only whites so the fact that he discriminated against every minority in America that wasn't white is okay according to you because of no spoken "intent."

    So then consider before you hurl your "racist" and "discrimination" stones at Biden, that you might want to determine Biden's "intent."

    We talked about the Supreme Court — I’m looking forward to making sure there’s a black woman on the Supreme Court to make sure we in fact get everyone represented. ~ Joe Biden

    Biden also made clear his intent to have a Cabinet that looked like America, and he wasn't even the first POTUS to do it. Stating that you'd like to make sure that a very large subset of America is finally represented on the Supreme Court wouldn't exactly qualify as the intent to discriminate.

    But President Trump DIDN'T make that statement, so dearest sweet Victoria does NOT have a valid comparison...

    Your excuse for Donald Trump was totally expected and right on cue, and your claim of Biden being discriminatory doesn't quite meet the definition.

    Biden's actions, if he actually gets into the position to follow thru and if he actually follows thru, would be a GROSS violation of the US Constitution..

    Tell Weigantia if you whined this hard when Ronald Reagan promised to appoint a woman to the Supreme Court while campaigning in 1980 and then followed through? Did you get your knickers in a twist when George H. W. Bush promised to appoint a Latino to his Cabinet? I'll bet you did have a hissy fit when Barack Obama said:

    The empathy to understand what it's like to be poor or African-American or gay or disabled or old – and that's the criteria by which I'll be selecting my judges. ~ Barack Obama

    You've confessed before than you're not a "history buff," and it appears you are hellbent on proving it on a regular basis with your all too frequent exercises in hysterical hypocrisy. :)

    And he did it SOLELY to pander to the black American vote...

    You think that ~90% isn't enough for him and that Biden is making a play for that whopping 8% of black voters Trump got in 2016? *laughs* Next thing you know, Biden will be printing up black "WOKE" stickers and opening up "black" outreach offices... oh, wait... that's "Black Voices for Trump":

    https://www.axios.com/campaign-black-voices-trump-field-offices-launch-6743587c-c861-4a15-893d-4101d8aa59c0.html

    Because Biden realizes how bad the Democrats are going to lose the black American vote..

    I'm sure Weigantia will be happy to play along with that right-wing fantasy of yours... if it'll make you feel better. :)

  35. [35] 
    Michale wrote:

    Yep.. Right Wing fantasy..

    JUST like the "right wing fantasy" that President Trump would beat Hillary Clinton for the Presidency.. Oh wait.. It WASN'T a "fantasy"... It actually happened!! :D

    JUST like the "right wing fantasy" that the Russia Collusion delusion would produce BUPKISS and President Trump would be fully exonerated and completely vindicated.. Oh wait.. It WASN'T a "fantasy"... It actually happened!! :D

    JUST like the "right wing fantasy" that the Dumbocrats' faux impeachment coup would FAIL epically... Oh wait.. It WASN'T a "fantasy"... It actually happened!! :D

    JUST like the "right wing fantasy" that President Trump would kick the Dumbocrats asses in courts time and time and time again... Oh wait.. It WASN'T a "fantasy"... It actually happened!! :D

    Seems like ALL my "fantasies" are in fact REALITY, sugar..

    And all YOUR claims ARE the fantasies.. :D

    Funny how that works out, eh honey?? :D

    You think that ~90% isn't enough for him and that Biden is making a play for that whopping 8% of black voters Trump got in 2016? *laughs* Next thing you know, Biden will be printing up black "WOKE" stickers and opening up "black" outreach offices... oh, wait... that's "Black Voices for Trump":

    And if Biden had Hillary's clout with black Americans, you would have a point..

    But he doesn't, so you don't..

    Add in to that mix the *FACT* that black American unemployment is at it's LOWEST POINT EVER thanx to President Trump...

    And you have black Americans supporting President Trump by the millions..

    If yer so sure I am wrong, let's make a wager, sweet'ums...

    The fact that you refuse proves you yourself don't even believe your own BS.. :D

    Love ya, honey-bunches.. :D

  36. [36] 
    Michale wrote:

    DH,

    No you did not prove you are right to anyone but yourself.

    We have different opinions.

    Yes.. And yours is based on what you THINK and FEEL..

    Mine is based on what is factual...

    Wrong that you were trying to have a discussion instead of WINNING- and right that you are trying- extremely trying.

    I can understand why you would say that.. Getting your ass kicked and all.. :D

    Are police supposed to treat all citizens as if they were acting in a threatening manner with a weapon whether they have one or not?

    Getting punched in the face and having said citizen try to take the LEO's weapon IS acting in a threatening manner...

    DUH...

    But you are definatley wrong when you say that your opinion matters more because you were in law enforcement.

    Again.. I can understand why you would feel that way..

    But, you are wrong.. Actual experience, training and expertise *ALWAYS* trumps partisan bigotry..

    I don't have to work on wall street to have an opinion on wall street or have been a police officer to have an opinion on police procedures.

    You do if you want your opinion to actually MEAN something.. To actually be factually accurate..

    I even gave you the name- Stranger Fruit.

    And I gave you the reason why you are wrong..

    Dogs Barking Can't Fly Home Without Umbrella

    Give me the facts and the link that proves those facts are true..

    It's not up to me to scour the 'net searching for your fantasies that I KNOW for a fact are bullshit..

    You claim to have facts..

    Put up or shut up...

    It's that simple..

  37. [37] 
    Michale wrote:

    DH,

    Put another way..

    If I tell you my opinion is that One Demand is criminal and you would be arrested if you tried to implement..

    And your opinion is that One Demand is what this country needs and is vital..

    Are you saying that BOTH opinions would carry equal factual weight??

    That, as the originator of One Demand, your knowledge of it is equal to mine??

    That would be re-donk-ulous.. Your opinion on OD carries MUCH more weight than mine does due to your particular expertise with One Demand..

    Just as MY opinion of LEO procedures and actions carry MUCH more weight than yours because of MY particular expertise, training and experience...

    "Simple logic"
    -Captain Spock, STAR TREK

  38. [38] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Getting punched in the face and going for the officer's weapon are threatening behavior.

    Let's assume for one minute that there is not conflicting testimony and there is actual evidence conclusively proving that Brown punched the officer and went for the weapon.

    Let's assume that police officer should go after Brown when Brown runs away without the weapon.

    At this point the officer is not in immediate danger and no one else is as Brown is not armed and is only fleeing from the officer, not threatening anyone else.

    Wouldn't proper police procedure be for the officer to call for back up, inform dispatch of the attack and say he is leaving his vehicle in pursuit?

    Does any such call exist? (note: I am asking because I don't know not claiming there isn't any.)

    Again, your declarations of being right are wrong.

    Grow up.

    PS- If you are any example of what a police officer should be then it should be legal to punch police officers in the face. The gun is still out of the question. :D

  39. [39] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Your experience carries more weight with you.

    No, my opinion on One Demand carries no more weight than anyone else's- but if anyone here wants to believe that I can't stop them :D

    One Demand is about big money in politics and everyone is entitled to their opinion on that and can interpret the information/facts to form their own opinions.

    You may have trouble finding facts/information to bolster your opinion that One Demand is criminal.

  40. [40] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    I should have said the gun is out of the question- for now. :D

  41. [41] 
    Michale wrote:

    Wouldn't proper police procedure be for the officer to call for back up, inform dispatch of the attack and say he is leaving his vehicle in pursuit?

    If time permitted, yes.. But if it was a choice between chasing down the subject or calling for back-up and letting the subject escape, the choice for ANY LEO is clear..

    You may have trouble finding facts/information to bolster your opinion that One Demand is criminal.

    Just as you would have an IMPOSSIBLE task to validate your claim on LEO procedures..

    Again, your declarations of being right are wrong.

    Yep, that's your continued claim..

    But, as I have proven with FACTS...

    You are wrong..

  42. [42] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    What claim did I make on police procedures that needs validation?

    You said yourself it would be proper procedure to call in.

    Now you are not even accepting your own validation as valid?

    You have not established that there was no time for the call. Just saying that it is a decision the officer has to make doesn't mean the officer always makes the right decision.

    Except maybe to you.

    You can't say that you are supported by facts when you have not and refuse to consider the facts provided in the documentary and expect anyone but yourself to think you based your decision on facts.

  43. [43] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Liz, CW, anybody-
    Michale is really boring.

    As I have nothing else to do at the moment it would be nice to have a real discussion about the current election instead of playing stupid games with Michale and you are due to step up explain why Biden should not become a small donor only candidate when it would benefit his campaign and the country to do so.

    Tennis anyone?

  44. [44] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    After all, if citizens can demand mail-in voting they can demand small donor only candidates.

  45. [45] 
    Michale wrote:

    What claim did I make on police procedures that needs validation?

    That LEOs are required to run away if only their life is in danger...

    You said yourself it would be proper procedure to call in.

    With a qualifier that you ignore because it totally decimates your claim..

    Michale is really boring.

    Once again, you have spelling issues.. You misspelled "dead on balls factually accurate"...

    After all, if citizens can demand mail-in voting they can demand small donor only candidates.

    Of course they can.. No one is disputing that.

    The simple fact is they don't WANT to demand it..

    You have not established that there was no time for the call.

    Not factually accurate..

    Simply by virtue of Officer Wilson NOT calling for back-up establishes that there was no time to do so...

    On the other hand, YOU have not established ANYTHING of what you claim..

    And here we are.. :D

  46. [46] 
    Michale wrote:

    Market gets big boost as Congress stimulus package takes shape

    Stocks fight to protect Trump-era gains

    Jobless claims jumped by 281,000 in the week through March 14
    https://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/us-stocks-march-19-2020

    So, since ya'all were so quick to attack President Trump and give him the blame for the Stock Market slump, ya'all WILL, of course, give him the credit now that the market is again soaring, eh??

    I mean, THAT is what people of integrity and honesty would do, eh??

    I guess the claims of a BEAR market were kinda premature, eh? :D

    Gods, ya gotta love President Trump's policies and actions.. He REALLY knows what he is doing!!! :D

  47. [47] 
    Michale wrote:

    }}}}}}What claim did I make on police procedures that needs validation?

    That LEOs are required to run away if only their life is in danger...

    Wait.. Don't tell me.. Let me guess..

    You never said that.. right?? :^/

  48. [48] 
    Michale wrote:

    Prince Albert of Monaco tests positive for coronavirus, palace says
    https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/prince-albert-of-monaco-tests-positive-for-coronavirus-palace

    But is he in a can???

    That's the question...

  49. [49] 
    Michale wrote:

    Remember all ya'all's hysterics about the Russian Firms being charged during ya'all's Great Russia Collusion Delusion??

    Oh how ya'all crowed and pointed fingers..

    Andrew McCarthy: Mueller's charges against Russian firms dismissed — other shoe drops in collusion farce
    https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/andrew-mccarthy-muellers-charges-against-russian-businesses-dismissed

    The bullshit that was the Russia Collusion could not be sustained...

  50. [50] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    I did not say they were required to run away. I said they should run away in certain situations.

    I did not ignore your qualifier. I said you did not establish there was not time.

    Your statement that there was no call proves there was no time once again only proves it to you.

    You have presented no evidence that there was no time other than your declaration.

    I am not declaring that the fact (you provided) that there was no call for back up proves that the officer was lying about being attacked, though it is just as much of a possibility as there was no time for a call.

    The only evidence of the attack is conflicting witnesses and some marks/bruises on the officer.

    But those marks/bruises only show there was a confrontation. They do not show how the confrontation happened and whether Brown attacked the officer at the car or the officer was grabbing Brown and Brown was trying to push away.

    What evidence other than your declaration do you have that there was no time?

    Anything substantial?

    As for citizens not wanting One Demand.

    You are so right that the millions of citizens that do not know One Demand is an option have decided that they do not want One Demand.

    They are unfortunately making that decision without having the facts to reach that opinion.

    As you seem to want people to have and use facts you should be encouraging CW to provide these citizens with those facts so they can make an informed decision instead of only being able to decide they don't want One Demand by default which really isn't deciding at all.

  51. [51] 
    Michale wrote:

    What evidence other than your declaration do you have that there was no time?

    I have already provided the facts..

    As usual, you refuse to accept them because they totally decimate your argument..

    I did not say they were required to run away. I said they should run away in certain situations.

    should = required

    And what do you base this opinion on??

    What FACTS support your claim that cops should be required to run away???

    You ignore that question because it totally supports the FACT that you speak from ignorance and bigotry..

  52. [52] 
    Michale wrote:

    It's really easy to avoid getting your ass kicked on subjects such as this..

    Quit making bullshit and inflammatory accusations about cops and their actions unsupported by any facts whatsoever..

    The idea that the Michael Brown shooting or the Trayvon Martin shooting had ANYTHING to do with racism is complete and utter bullshit and has NO SUBSTANTIATING FACTS WHATSOEVER...

    If you want to have an opinion on LEOs and their actions and procedures, you are welcome to..

    But if those opinions are based on bullshit and bigotry, expect to be called on them..

  53. [53] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    There is a big difference between saying something should be required and saying it is required.

    I have tried nut you are just determined to be an asshole.

    You can claim this means I am giving up and you won and you would be right.

    But only if referring to me giving up on trying to have a reasonable discussion.

    In regard to Michael Brown there is plenty of evidence in your comments that your comments are pure bullshit devoid of reality and logic.

    That is my opinion based on the comments posted here. If you disagree with that it is only your opinion and does not make you right to anyone but yourself unless there are other lunatics that agree with you.

    I am not discussing it any further if you continue with your bullshit. Not because you are right but because you are not engaging in a reasonable discussion.

    But go ahead and declare it anyway even though no further confirmation of your inadequacy is needed.

  54. [54] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    That should have been "I have tried but you..."
    -but nut you works too! :D

  55. [55] 
    Michale wrote:

    There is a big difference between saying something should be required and saying it is required.

    No, not really..

    In regard to Michael Brown there is plenty of evidence in your comments that your comments are pure bullshit devoid of reality and logic.

    I would ask you to provide such evidence, but I know asking you to substantiate your bullshit claims is useless..

    I am not discussing it any further if you continue with your bullshit.

    Again... You spelled "FACTS" wrong... Yer not a very good speller, ya know that??

    The long and short of it is... You have bullshit..

    I have facts...

    Just another day in Weigantia..

  56. [56] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    the best of Michale + the best of Don = a pretty fun person to have a discussion with

  57. [57] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Thanks for chiming in Liz.

    Any chance of having a real discussion on Biden?

  58. [58] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Not with you.

  59. [59] 
    Michale wrote:

    the best of Michale + the best of Don = a pretty fun person to have a discussion with

    I have to admit, I have been enjoying myself..

    I really do like Don and admire (for the most part) what he tries to do here..

    But when he goes off on a tangent and lumps all cops as racist murderers... Well, as I said.. The 'logic hairs' on the back of my neck start to tingle...

    Not with you.

    Oh... SNAP!

  60. [60] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    CW-
    As everyone is supposed to be staying home when possible and the primary is all but officially over, maybe you will have some time to discuss One Demand at least here in the comments over the next few days.

    You can't even use your car as an excuse because you are not supposed to be going anywhere. :D

    You said the other day conventional political wisdom has changed in just the last few weeks/months. It is not the first time it has changed.

    As the last time you attempted to address One Demand (2016-17?) was YEARS ago and you used conventional political wisdom at the time to argue against One Demand (though mostly against something else that you claimed One Demand was/is) and conventional political wisdom has changed on so many things since 2016-17 isn't it time to revisit One Demand with a fresh perspective to see if anything still applies from years ago or not?

    I have provided many reasons/examples that things have changed and the opportunity is now more likely to be successful and may never have been or even will ever be better.

    This puppy is ovulating at historic levels and bordering the point of immaculate conception.

    It's time to take off your condom and let the savior be born.

    Or at least have the decency to discuss it.

    "... and my clock is going tick, tick, tick, tick."
    -Mona Lisa Vito
    My Cousin Vinny

  61. [61] 
    Michale wrote:

    -Mona Lisa Vito
    My Cousin Vinny

    Is it just me or does anyone else think that Mona Lisa Vito was way WAY out of Joe Pesci's league???

  62. [62] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Liz-
    Why won't YOU engage in a discussion on Biden with me?

    I raised legitimate concerns about Biden and you keep saying he is worth voting for and ignore those concerns.

    If you believe my concerns are not legitimate than explain why.

    Is there some reason you won't do that?

    You aren't also an alternate personaltiy of Michale, are you?

    Or maybe you are all CW. :D

  63. [63] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    No. Mona Lisa Vito wasn't out of Vinnie's league.

    She just made the common mistake of picking the wrong lawyer. :D

  64. [64] 
    Michale wrote:

    Interesting timeline..

    On April 2, 2009 2 cases were identified in California and a new novel H1N1 swine-origine strain of flu was identified. And proceded to spread rapidly.

    April 25, 2009 W.H.O. declares a health emergency.

    April 26, 2009 New York City identifies a heavy cluster and shuts down some schools.

    April 27, 2009 as numbers rise, W.H.O. raises level of warning to level 4 and invokes pandemic.

    April 29, 2009 W.H.O. raises warning to level 5 and issues travel warnings.

    That was the first month of the H1N1 pandemic.

    By June 25, 2009 CDC estimates 1 million cases had occurred in the United States

    October 5, 2009 first doses of H1N1 vaccine were given in the US

    The country did not shut down.

    News media did not play the blame game and seek to spread mass hysteria for political gain.

    CNN was still a news organization, they gave out information.

    Compare that to today...

    The agenda is clear...

  65. [65] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Liz (56, 58)-
    Well I don't have to even ask if 56 was sarcasm.

    It is an insult to me to put the best of Michale and the best of Don in the same sentence, even though you were not drawing a comparison.

    That would be like comparing apples(me) to assholes.

    When not having to deal with an asshole I can have a reasonable discussion.

    I doubt you would ever accuse me of anything like I was claiming the cop is a racist murderer when the only thing I said is he is a murderer and it didn't matter what the motivation was.

    But perhaps you are just being to careful to avoid that by not discussing anything at all. :D

  66. [66] 
    Michale wrote:

    I doubt you would ever accuse me of anything like I was claiming the cop is a racist murderer when the only thing I said is he is a murderer and it didn't matter what the motivation was.

    And yet, the FACTS *STILL* prove you wrong..

    "Murder" is a legal determination..

    Do you have ANY facts to support that Darren Wilson is a "murderer", your claims of racism aside....

    No, you do not..

    So, once again, I have proved you wrong..

  67. [67] 
    Michale wrote:

    Having said that, you are correct about one thing..

    You DID say "racism aside"...

    So I was wrong about that..

    My apologies..

    But claiming Officer Darren Wilson is a murderer is NOT a factually accurate statement..

  68. [68] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    It is an opinion, jusy like people might say OJ is a murderer.

    It was not a statement of legal determination.

    An opinion based on facts I saw.

    Apology accepted. I really didn't want to continue but a charge of making racist accusations made it necessary.

    So on that you win again, damn it. :D

  69. [69] 
    Michale wrote:

    President Trump: Nothing will stand in our way

    Medical breakthroughs are too often held back by outdated, burdensome government rules and regulations. For President Trump, that outcome is unacceptable.

    As America faces an unprecedented global threat from the Coronavirus, President Trump made another important announcement at today’s White House briefing.

    “Today I want to share with you exciting progress that the FDA is making with the private sector as we slash red tape like nobody has ever done it before,” he said. “I’ve directed the FDA to eliminate outdated rules and bureaucracy so this work can proceed rapidly, quickly—and, I mean, fast. And we have to remove every barrier.”

    ???? President Trump: “I want to thank all Americans for pulling together”

    The FDA is committed to providing regulatory flexibility and guidance during this crisis, while fulfilling its duty to ensure product safety and effectiveness, FDA Commissioner Dr. Stephen Hahn said during today’s briefing.

    As a result, obstacles are being cleared for American patients with incredible speed. That includes not only the race to develop a vaccine, but progress in making antiviral therapies widely available. Clinical trials for therapies to fight the Coronavirus are already underway, as well.

    “One thing I know about this country of ours is that we have unbelievable innovators. We have people who every day, it’s their job to develop treatments for all sorts of diseases,” Dr. Hahn said.

    The President also announced that one existing treatment will soon be available for many patients to try. Chloroquine and its derivative, Hydroxychloroquine, are drugs commonly used to treat malaria. New research shows they may hold unique promise as potentially effective treatments for Coronavirus, too.

    While people of all backgrounds unite against this invisible enemy, President Trump wants every American to know that we face this historic challenge together.

    Last night, the President signed the Family First bill, which provides crucial support for our workers, small businesses, and families in the coming days. Paid sick leave and paid medical leave will be there for those affected by the virus. And more help is on the way.

    Tens of thousands of tests are being performed each day and are available in all 50 states, Vice President Mike Pence announced. Access to medical equipment is being rapidly expanded to all who need it, including businesses, hospitals, and state and local leaders.

    “We’ve literally identified tens of thousands of ventilators that can be converted to treat patients. And we remain increasingly confident that we will have the ventilators that we need as the Coronavirus makes its way across America,” the Vice President said.

    ???? Once America conquers the virus, our economy will come roaring back!

    WATCH: President and Vice President teleconference with governors at FEMA HQ
    []
    ???? First Lady: We are all in this together
    []
    Americans are making important and difficult lifestyle changes to protect themselves and their families. While these adjustments can be disruptive, First Lady Melania Trump offers an encouraging reminder: “This is not how we will live forever.”

    “Our children will return to school, people will return to work,” she says. “We will gather at the places of worship, concerts, and sporting events again.”

    Until then, remember two important things: First, stay connected with loved ones using technology as much as possible. Second, keep following all CDC public health guidelines, which can be found along with regular updates at http://www.coronavirus.gov.

    “Stay safe, and remember, while many of us are apart, we are all in this together.”
    -The White House

    "Ain't nothin gonna breaka our stride..."
    -President Donald Trump

    :D

    Thank the gods for President Trump... :D

  70. [70] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Too bad the chosen one didn't act sooner. :(

  71. [71] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Liz (70)-
    This is not the time for that.

    After all, I have been trying. :D

  72. [72] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Let's hope Biden becomes a small donor only candidate and beats Trump so we don't have say "Too bad the chosen one didn't act sooner" about Biden as Trump is sworn in again.

  73. [73] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    New column up!

  74. [74] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Don Harris;

    The Grand Jury report and all of the testimony is available online if you want to read it.

    As for Michale Brown’s death, while the press loves to say that Brown was “unarmed”...that wasn’t for a lack of trying. Attempting to disarm a police officer is considered an “use of deadly force” by our courts — and for a good reason: 96% of officers who lose their gun during a struggle are killed by that gun (98% are shot). And it is completely justified to respond to a use of deadly force WITH deadly force.

    You don’t need to trust Michale’s ever-changing claims regarding his work history (it’s now “Public Safety” when I could have sworn it was in Law Enforcement this whole time) to figure out if Officer Wilson was justified in killing Brown. Read Missouri’s legal statutes on justifiable homicide and acting in self-defense. Was it reasonable for the officer to think that his and other’s lives were in danger by Brown if his attempts to take Wilson’s gun were successful? Based on Brown’s previous actions, Wilson’s belief that Brown was attempting to attack him again and witness testimony that believed Brown was charging the officer, the law states that Wilson was justified to shoot Brown.

  75. [75] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    So the witnesses that said the officer pulled Brown into the car and that Brown was not attacking are not to be considered?

    The Grand Jury testimony will not contain anything from witnesses that did not testify or evidence not presented to the Grand Jury.

    The documentary is also available so if you want to verify that the information and witnesses the documentary claims were not presented to the Grand Jury actually was you can do so.

    And I would accept if you could prove the documentary wrong in this regard.

    You are basing your justification for the shooting on incomplete information by just relying on witnesses that say Brown attacked the officer in the car and disregarding other witnesses that may or may not have testified.

  76. [76] 
    Kick wrote:

    Mike
    35

    You could save yourself a whole lot of time and just type:

    "Insert my standard repetitive bullshit here."

    JUST like the "right wing fantasy" that the Dumbocrats' faux impeachment coup would FAIL epically... Oh wait.. It WASN'T a "fantasy"... It actually happened!! :D

    You got one right this time! The impeachment wasn't a fantasy; it actually happened.

    And all YOUR claims ARE the fantasies.. :D

    You know better than that.

    And if Biden had Hillary's clout with black Americans, you would have a point..

    But he doesn't, so you don't..

    You are mistaken about that, of course.

    Add in to that mix the *FACT* that black American unemployment is at it's LOWEST POINT EVER thanx to President Trump...

    Y'all taking possession of those unemployment numbers in the name of Trump is a very good thing... very much in line and indicative of the stock market y'all tied yourselves to. Good thinking. It would be a shame if anything happened to those numbers, wouldn't you say? Rhetorical question.

    Trump obviously is aware how he's tied himself to the numbers and so has now chosen to downplay the numbers on all kinds of things. The Trump administration is now asking the states to hold off on releasing the number of unemployment claims.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/19/world/coronavirus-update-cases.html

    How long before he begins downplaying those numbers? In 3... 2... 1...

    And you have black Americans supporting President Trump by the millions..

    I would be happy to review any data you might have that supports your claim. Until then, I will assume Trump has about the 8% support he received in 2016.

    If yer so sure I am wrong, let's make a wager, sweet'ums...

    Have you seen me make a wager with anyone on this board? It's nothing personal, it just doesn't interest me. Feel free to equate my total disinterest in making a boring bet with whatever you wish; it doesn't change the fact that I'm just not interested.

    Before you respond with what should be the obvious response, I freely admit the fact that I do say the words, "I would wager," and I say them a lot... particularly for someone who isn't really interested in making a wager, but that's just one of those awesome things about me that endears me to so many others... I am a riddle... quite like the beginning of eternity to the end of time and space to the beginning of every end and the end of every place. Not interested in bets, though... just generally indifferent and couldn't care less to make them. Maybe it's because I have need of nothing that I might gain from betting someone. I have no idea, and to be totally honest, I'm really not interested in figuring out why I'm not interested.

    The fact that you refuse proves you yourself don't even believe your own BS.. :D

    I'm not generally a purveyor of BS; I generally leave that up to con artists and people like that who enjoy that kind of nonsensical... BS.

  77. [77] 
    Kick wrote:

    EM
    58

    Heh. :)

  78. [78] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    K, Liz, Truth be told I grew up half my life across the Detroit River with most of my family tree in "Canadia" from Windsor. And, truth be told Canadia is the bestus country on planet Earth. Still, I'm a 'Murican guy and from time to time I hafta call out Repug bullshit. But, ultimately you are correct, please forgive me.

  79. [79] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    For, like all of us "Libtards" we know what has to be done to make for world peace.

Comments for this article are closed.