Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Informant wrote:

And "unarmed" means nothing. People can cause severe bodily harm without a gun. I'm no George Zimmerman fan, but if someone slammed my head into cement repeatedly, I wouldn't feel bad about shooting them either.

That's a pretty good example of the problem.  If George Zimmerman didn't want to get his ass kicked he shouldn't have confronted the random stranger in the middle of the night.  Cops do the same thing, they escalate situations then claim self defense when the person fights back.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Actually, you just highlighted the problem perfectly. Lack of information, and quick outrage.

All evidence suggests that Zimmerman didn't confront Martin. Martin had a clear path back home, but circled back and confronted Zimmerman, physically assaulting him before Zimmerman shot him. The shooting was justified.

Sorry, but seeing a suspicious person (and by that, mean that he fit the description of someone who had been committing crimes in the neighborhood, not that he was suspicious because he was black) and following them to see where they go is not a crime. It is not grounds for taking someone's life.

To put it clearly, I can't shoot someone for walking on the sidewalk behind me. I can shoot them if they are slamming my head into cement repeatedly.

Please be informed that the political, scientific, sociological, economic and legal views expressed in Informant's posts and social media accounts do not reflect any consensus of Sliders.tv.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Zimmerman was in his car when he spotted Martin.  If he hadn't gotten out to cause trouble, he would have never been in a position to get beat up like that.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Was Zimmerman legally allowed to get out of his car? It is as simple as that.

What you're saying is that because Martin was a thug, Zimmerman's rights no longer apply.


The fact is that George Zimmerman (a member of the neighborhood watch) spotted a suspicious person, walking not on the sidewalk, but close to the houses and looking into windows. He called 911 and reported this person (don't know about you, but I don't typically call 911 before I intend to make trouble). He followed Martin at a distance (not confronting him, as you say) to see where he was going. He apparently even walked up to the next street to get an address for the 911 operator. After that, he was told that he didn't have to follow the suspect and he apparently turned around.
During all of this time, Martin had a clear path home and the time to get there. He wasn't being chased or threatened.

After Zimmerman turned around, Martin assaulted him. That means that Martin turned around, pursued Zimmerman and physically endangered his life.

Your entire argument is crap. You're saying that because you're on Martin's side, Zimmerman's rights didn't apply. You say that Zimmerman had no right to follow someone suspicious, yet Martin had the right to kill someone that he thought was suspicious (and this is a clear distinction. Zimmerman did not assault Martin or threaten his life. Martin threatened Zimmerman's life in no uncertain terms).

What you're saying is that the law didn't apply to Martin because... he was black and the rules applying to him wouldn't fit your narrative?

Please be informed that the political, scientific, sociological, economic and legal views expressed in Informant's posts and social media accounts do not reflect any consensus of Sliders.tv.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Informant wrote:

Was Zimmerman legally allowed to get out of his car? It is as simple as that.

What you're saying is that because Martin was a thug, Zimmerman's rights no longer apply.


The fact is that George Zimmerman (a member of the neighborhood watch) spotted a suspicious person, walking not on the sidewalk, but close to the houses and looking into windows. He called 911 and reported this person (don't know about you, but I don't typically call 911 before I intend to make trouble). He followed Martin at a distance (not confronting him, as you say) to see where he was going. He apparently even walked up to the next street to get an address for the 911 operator. After that, he was told that he didn't have to follow the suspect and he apparently turned around.
During all of this time, Martin had a clear path home and the time to get there. He wasn't being chased or threatened.

After Zimmerman turned around, Martin assaulted him. That means that Martin turned around, pursued Zimmerman and physically endangered his life.

Your entire argument is crap. You're saying that because you're on Martin's side, Zimmerman's rights didn't apply. You say that Zimmerman had no right to follow someone suspicious, yet Martin had the right to kill someone that he thought was suspicious (and this is a clear distinction. Zimmerman did not assault Martin or threaten his life. Martin threatened Zimmerman's life in no uncertain terms).

What you're saying is that the law didn't apply to Martin because... he was black and the rules applying to him wouldn't fit your narrative?

No, I'm saying I don't take Zimmerman at his word like you do.  Only two people know what happened between them and one of them is dead.  Zimmerman had every reason to make Martin seem like the aggressor, and himself as acting in self defense.  He wanted to avoid prison, and the jury bought it.  I have a very hard time believing someone in a neighborhood watch doesn't know the address of the neighborhood he's watching.  Only one of the two had a criminal record, and it wasn't Martin.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

The truth is that there is no truth we can reach. George Zimmerman was and remains a deranged, abusive thug with a lengthy history of domestic violence. Trayvon Martin was most definitely a thug with a history of violent behaviour. We don't know who threatened to kill whom and Zimmerman's account most definitely cannot be trusted given the long list of incidents in his life, but we also can't declare that the opposite of Zimmerman's story is therefore the truth. We don't have any facts.

What is certain is that Zimmerman stopped Martin, Martin demanded to know why Zimmerman was following him -- followed by a series of events that led to Martin dead on the ground. It is possible that Zimmerman belittled and attacked Martin and then shot him dead; it is possible that Martin responded to an inappropriate (but not illegal) question by attacking Zimmerman and then shot him. The fact that Martin was a low-level drug dealer and a thug doesn't change the fact, however, that he was unarmed and simply walking the streets and that Zimmerman targeted him, followed him and instigated whatever led to the outcome. The fact that Martin was not the second coming of Jesus does not justify shooting him. Zimmerman was acquitted because there simply wasn't enough evidence to say one way or another if it was self-defense or not and the absence of evidence required that the jury declare him innocent.

Zimmerman has proceeded to continue his life in which he's assaulted and threatened his girlfriends but, admittedly, also saved someone from a car wreck. He is an appalling human being, but whether he murdered Martin or not isn't something we'll ever know.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Actually, Martin had been suspended from school for possession of marijuana and of stolen property. So he had a history.


Regardless, the difference between you and me is that you believe what you believe regardless of facts and information. I approached the situation with an open mind, listened to all of the 911 calls, read the reports, listened to the witnesses, looked at the maps of the area, looked at Zimmerman's injuries and how Martin was shot, and based on all of the information available, I came to an educated conclusion. You don't care about any of the actual facts. You will fight to the end to believe what you already believed going into this story, which is an opinion most likely based on catchy headlines and mangled news reports.

I never took anyone at their word. You did.

Please be informed that the political, scientific, sociological, economic and legal views expressed in Informant's posts and social media accounts do not reflect any consensus of Sliders.tv.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

What is certain is that Zimmerman stopped Martin, Martin demanded to know why Zimmerman was following him -- followed by a series of events that led to Martin dead on the ground.

There is actually no evidence to suggest that Zimmerman confronted Martin. We have Zimmerman's 911 call, which suggests that he wasn't approaching Martin or planning to confront him. After that ends, we have a witness who described who was on top of whom during the fight, delivering blows. The witness described Zimmerman screaming for help during the fight.

The fact that Martin was a low-level drug dealer and a thug doesn't change the fact, however, that he was unarmed and simply walking the streets and that Zimmerman targeted him, followed him and instigated whatever led to the outcome.

Given the situation, what should Zimmerman have done differently? Following a series of burglaries in the neighborhood, he spotted someone who fit the description of the suspect, acting strangely and looking at/into houses as he went along. He called 911 and had a pretty rational conversation with the operator. He didn't act as though he was out of his mind or planning to do anything drastic during that conversation.

So if you were walking through your neighborhood and saw someone acting strangely around the homes of other people, would you call the police? I don't think that qualifies as instigating. It doesn't justify Trayvon Martin on top of Zimmerman delivering blow after blow (according to a witness, who described the tactic as "ground and pound"). At that point, Zimmerman has a reasonable fear for his life, which justifies a shooting. I've had training in what is justified and what isn't, and based on all of the available information, this seems pretty justified. It wasn't just a lack of evidence, it was the sum of the evidence available.


Again, I don't like Zimmerman. I think he's a douchebag. But the fact that I don't personally like him doesn't mean that he's guilty of stalking a kid and killing him. Martin was shot at very close range, after Zimmerman had sustained injuries. If Zimmerman had been hunting the kid down, his gun would have been drawn the whole time and he probably would have fired before he had the crap beaten out of him.

Please be informed that the political, scientific, sociological, economic and legal views expressed in Informant's posts and social media accounts do not reflect any consensus of Sliders.tv.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Informant wrote:

Actually, Martin had been suspended from school for possession of marijuana and of stolen property. So he had a history.

That's a far cry from a history of violent confrontation resulting in mandated anger management classes, like Zimmerman had.  A school suspension is not a criminal record in any event.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

The city had a program to keep kids out of jail by trying to deal with these things through the school system. The kid had a history.


Okay, so let's say that both of them had pasts. Cool. How does that change any of the evidence in this case?

Please be informed that the political, scientific, sociological, economic and legal views expressed in Informant's posts and social media accounts do not reflect any consensus of Sliders.tv.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

FWIW, I never said Zimmerman stalked the kid.  I don't think he ever intended for it to go down the way it did.  My guess as to what happened is that Zimmerman tried to intimidate Martin, emboldened by his gun and the knowledge that cops will virtually always take the word of a white dude over that of a black kid.  Martin responded by getting pissed off and whaling on Zimmerman.  Having gotten in over his head, Zimmerman pulled his weapon and fired.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Two questions:

1. What evidence is that conclusion based on?

2. Does anyone else think that we either need to do away with racial classifications or clarify these classifications? Half the time, Hispanic/Latinos are considered white and half the time they're considered "brown". Zimmerman is genetically of mixed races, but is usually just referred to as "white". Is that because it's easier to make this into a racial crime/hate crime if he's just "white"? I mean, Zimmerman isn't exactly a pale blond guy.

I don't think that race has anything to do with it. Say we're playing into the hick stereotypes of the cops here (which we are apparently doing), they're going to pull up to that scene and see a black kid and a Mexican. Since these cops are so racist, they're not going to think "Wow, that Mexican just saved the day!", they're going to think "Gang war!"


And I know that Zimmerman isn't Mexican. I'm not the racist one here. The imaginary cops are. I hate racist imaginary cops. They're the worst. They make all other imaginary cops look bad.

Please be informed that the political, scientific, sociological, economic and legal views expressed in Informant's posts and social media accounts do not reflect any consensus of Sliders.tv.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Well, just to jump in here.  As a native of Dallas, this week has been pretty crazy.  I watched the Alton Sterling videos and basically watched the Philandro Castile shooting live (I happened to be on Twitter when everyone was posting the Facebook live video).  And people grouped it together because it was cops shooting black people, but I found the situations to be wildly different.

- The Sterling one looks the worst because he didn't seem to be resisting arrest - he was just a huge guy who didn't want to be thrown to the ground.  The video makes it look bad but there's a couple different things about the story that can change the narrative a bit.  I haven't heard confirmation but I've heard that "Gun!  He's got a gun!" is one cop and the one that shot was the other.  In that case, it's a horrible mistake but the shooting makes sense.  It's a guy protecting his partner.  The shooter was misled but thinks he's saving a life.  Even in that case, he shot him way too many times (and whoever shot "Gun!" was incorrect).  Both should be prosecuted IMO and let the courts decide.

- The Castile one is another example of a cop making a mistake.  Castile definitely shouldn't have been shot, and the cop who shot him *knew it*.  If you watch the video, he yells "FUCK!" a ton.  He knew he made a mistake, and he knew it was going to ruin his life.  Doesn't justify it, but it definitely doesn't mean he went out that night to gun down black people.  Castile told him he had a gun and reached for his ID.  Something in the cop's mind misinterpreted it and he made a mistake.  Just like people make a mistake when they accidentally kill someone with a car or any other weapon.  Again, he should be prosecuted and the courts should decide how guilty he is of a crime.

They're very different scenarios but have two key things in common.  In both instances, a black man died because of a mistake by the police, but in both cases the mistake makes sense in the moment.  So to me it's more of a situation of unprepared police making awful, horrible mistakes.  Instead, the media paints it as "black people are being hunted by the police" which isn't the case in either situation.

But I monitored the situation on social media, and many upset black people were saying that the police were at war with black people.  "Leaders" in the black community (not all actual leaders, just people with big voices) implied that was the case.  And I saw many people on Twitter saying that someone needs to do something.  And when you convince people that there's a war on the police, Dallas happens.

What's stupid about the Dallas situation is:

1. Dallas PD had nothing to do with any of the shootings, and has been regarded by black leaders (actual leaders) as being one of the exemplary departments in the country.  DPD has been involved in BLM protests, both helping to plan and helping to protect protests.

2. There are an insane number of people on social media calling Micah Johnson a hero.  Even though he put future black lives in danger no matter what you think the police agenda is.  If you think police are at war with black people, then now they are going to be even more trigger happy.  And if you think police are good people doing a scary job, then their job is now that much scarier.  And people make mistakes when they're scared.

The whole thing is a disaster, and I'm a little upset that black leaders (including Obama) aren't doing more to try and fight the anger in the black community.  That's not to say they shouldn't be angry or scared - that's completely justified.  But when people are calling a mass murderer a hero, you're emboldening future mass murderers.  And while I've seen tons of black people calling out the idiots that are calling him a hero, I'm not seeing enough of it.

I think the primary problem with BLM is that there's no central leadership.  No one is able to speak for Black Lives Matter.  And so no one can speak *to* Black Lives Matter.  If there was a leader, he/she could condemn the shootings and preach peace.  And maybe that would calm people down. 

Because people used to wait until cops were cleared of charges before they rioted/protested (Rodney King, Ferguson, etc).  Now, there's no wait.  Someone dies and riots/protests happen.  The system needs to change, but shouldn't we wait to see if the system changed?  Shouldn't we see if the cops in Louisiana and Minnesota get charged?  And if they're charged with murder (whether they're found guilty or not), doesn't that mean the system changed?  Wouldn't that be a step in the right direction?

I believe there needs to be less shootings of black men by the police, but I understand that being a policeman is a can't-win job that is crazy dangerous.  And that any decision they make can and sometimes does result in the loss of a life.  I both sympathize with BLM and back the blue.

And I don't understand why those two things are mutually exclusive for so many people.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Informant wrote:

What is certain is that Zimmerman stopped Martin, Martin demanded to know why Zimmerman was following him -- followed by a series of events that led to Martin dead on the ground.

There is actually no evidence to suggest that Zimmerman confronted Martin. [...] Given the situation, what should Zimmerman have done differently? [...] So if you were walking through your neighborhood and saw someone acting strangely around the homes of other people, would you call the police? I don't think that qualifies as instigating.

According to the girl that Martin called before Zimmerman killed him, she overheard the start of the exchange between Martin and Zimmerman. Martin noticed Zimmerman following him and Zimmerman was close enough that Martin could ask him, "What are you following me for?" at which point Zimmerman demanded, "What are you doing around here?" Which means that Zimmerman wasn't observing at a distance; he got up close, he wanted a confrontation. You make it seem like all Zimmerman did was call the police as opposed to what he did, which was call the police and then pursue Martin because Zimmerman fancied himself a police officer.

And I would not call the police because I would not find it strange for an unfamiliar black teenager to be walking through the streets, even recently burglarized streets, because being unknown to me and being black are not characteristics that threaten me. The fact that Martin was high on marijuana is also not frightening to me as being high and being a teenager aren't exactly unusual circumstances and plenty of teenagers get high without breaking and entering, nor would I be bothered to call the police just because of someone's personal lifestyle decisions. I would call the police if someone were levering front doors and windows open with a crowbar.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Slider_Quinn21 wrote:

They're very different scenarios but have two key things in common.  In both instances, a black man died because of a mistake by the police, but in both cases the mistake makes sense in the moment.  So to me it's more of a situation of unprepared police making awful, horrible mistakes.  Instead, the media paints it as "black people are being hunted by the police" which isn't the case in either situation.

But I monitored the situation on social media, and many upset black people were saying that the police were at war with black people.  "Leaders" in the black community (not all actual leaders, just people with big voices) implied that was the case.  And I saw many people on Twitter saying that someone needs to do something.  And when you convince people that there's a war on the police, Dallas happens.


I haven't had time to do enough looking into the most recent cases and research every angle, so I can't really form an informed opinion about either case. But I think that in these situations, people have been bunching them all together, as you say, and it's created a toxic and dangerous atmosphere. Justified shootings are being tallied with unjustified shootings. Shootings with racial components are being bunched with shootings without racial components. Some shootings (anyone with light skin) are ignored completely in the grand tally.

The fact is, every situation is different. There is no organized war on black people, otherwise this would be entire police departments littering the streets with bodies. That isn't the case. And it's dangerous to group every situation together. It's dangerous to schedule protests and fuel anger without having the facts and the details. If something is legitimately unjustified, I wholeheartedly agree that something needs to be done. However, it takes work to figure these things out. Cops are held to the same laws as us, but they're not like us. We don't put our lives on the line every time we leave home in the morning. We're not asked to approach life threatening situations.

The will be justified shootings.
There will be unjustified shootings.
There will be mistakes.
There will be outright murders.

It is so important that we don't just read a headline and jump to conclusions based on emotional reactions.


2. There are an insane number of people on social media calling Micah Johnson a hero.  Even though he put future black lives in danger no matter what you think the police agenda is.  If you think police are at war with black people, then now they are going to be even more trigger happy.  And if you think police are good people doing a scary job, then their job is now that much scarier.  And people make mistakes when they're scared.

The whole thing is a disaster, and I'm a little upset that black leaders (including Obama) aren't doing more to try and fight the anger in the black community.  That's not to say they shouldn't be angry or scared - that's completely justified.  But when people are calling a mass murderer a hero, you're emboldening future mass murderers.  And while I've seen tons of black people calling out the idiots that are calling him a hero, I'm not seeing enough of it.

I think the primary problem with BLM is that there's no central leadership.  No one is able to speak for Black Lives Matter.  And so no one can speak *to* Black Lives Matter.  If there was a leader, he/she could condemn the shootings and preach peace.  And maybe that would calm people down.

A very real problem here is that the "leaders" that we're talking about are politicians and activists who make a living on fear and hostility. They aren't trying to keep level heads, because they benefit from paranoia. Keeping people divided makes them easier to control. Making people believe that it's "us" versus "them" keeps everyone in convenient little boxes. It makes sure that there is a "black vote" or a "female vote", even though the notion of all black people or all women thinking the same or believing the same is absurd.

President Obama could have easily helped to calm the emotions over the past few years. He could have pushed for level heads and for people to wait for information. He could have strongly condemned further violence and tried to quell the racial paranoia that has been steadily building into a literal war in the streets.

But he hasn't. Instead, he has talked out of both sides of his mouth. Supporting the outrage, but saying that he didn't support the violence (while really not *not* supporting the violence). He has done nothing to bring people together. He has only worked to keep emotions simmering, because it benefits politicians and activists is that division continues. I believe that there is leadership here, and I believe that they are getting exactly what they want from all of this. They don't care about bodies in the streets, they care about bodies in the voting booths.


And I don't understand why those two things are mutually exclusive for so many people.


Those things aren't mutually exclusive. Believing in justice isn't a crazy notion. It doesn't have to be a black vs. white thing. It doesn't have to be cops vs. citizens thing. There is no war between black people and police, there are instances of wrongdoing on both sides, but those instances do not represent a majority on either side. The environment that has been created here is making people more tense, more divided, and more likely to kill more people, both black civilians and police officers.





ireactions wrote:

According to the girl that Martin called before Zimmerman killed him, she overheard the start of the exchange between Martin and Zimmerman. Martin noticed Zimmerman following him and Zimmerman was close enough that Martin could ask him, "What are you following me for?" at which point Zimmerman demanded, "What are you doing around here?" Which means that Zimmerman wasn't observing at a distance; he got up close, he wanted a confrontation. You make it seem like all Zimmerman did was call the police as opposed to what he did, which was call the police and then pursue Martin because Zimmerman fancied himself a police officer.


There are a couple of problems here.

First, the girlfriend's testimony is destroyed by the fact that her story changed and she lied on the stand. Now, nobody knows what to believe or what not to believe from her.

But let's say that a version of her story is true. It doesn't invalidate what Zimmerman said at all, and it doesn't mean that Zimmerman suddenly decided to change his whole attitude after hanging up with the 911 operator and started fancying himself a cowboy.

The sidewalk where the confrontation took place is T-shaped, with no street (it's off the street, with houses lining the top and sides of a sidewalk). Trayvon was spotted by Zimmerman, apparently walking closer to the buildings than was normal, and looking around suspiciously. He called 911 and tried to provide information about where he was and where Martin was going. This was off the street, mind you. The directions got a little muddled, and Zimmerman was trying to keep an eye on where the then-suspect was headed and provide that information to the 911 operator.

You say that her overhearing this conversation between the two men means that Zimmerman was actually pursuing Martin closely. I disagree. The path leading to Martin's home branches off from the top of that T and heads downward in a straight line. He had a straight path to his home, where he could lock the door. He had a phone from which to call 911 for help. He had a lot of options that he didn't take.

The girlfriend doesn't say that she heard Zimmerman confront Martin, yelling "freeze!" like you see in the movies. She doesn't say that she heard Trayvon get hit. She says that she heard Trayvon start the conversation. So this would seem to support the scenario where Trayvon turns around to confront Zimmerman, doesn't it? I'm not sure how you're getting to the conclusion that this means that Zimmerman was in pursuit. Wouldn't the person who initiates contact be the person who presumably "wanted a confrontation"?


And I would not call the police because I would not find it strange for an unfamiliar black teenager to be walking through the streets, even recently burglarized streets, because being unknown to me and being black are not characteristics that threaten me. The fact that Martin was high on marijuana is also not frightening to me as being high and being a teenager aren't exactly unusual circumstances and plenty of teenagers get high without breaking and entering, nor would I be bothered to call the police just because of someone's personal lifestyle decisions. I would call the police if someone were levering front doors and windows open with a crowbar.

You're making this racial, and there's no evidence that Zimmerman was motivated by race at all. In fact, the only time that there appears to be the possibility of racism involved here is when Martin reportedly referred to Zimmerman as a "cracker".

And the funny part about all of this is that while people discount the recent burglaries in the area, Martin had recently been suspended for possessing some of that stolen property. He apparently fit the description of the suspect there because he probably was the suspect there! (he was caught on camera in a restricted area of the school, I believe, and painting the letters WTF on a wall. When school officials searched his locker for the paint, they found the stolen items as well as a screwdriver. It was taken into police custody, but charges were never filed because of that program that I mentioned earlier, where they tried to reduce the crime rates by dealing with issues in the school)

Of course, this part wasn't reported on all of the news shows.

There is a blurring of lines here, where people are mistaking narrative for evidence. We can't do that. We have to use the facts that we have on hand, not what we're being told by Trayvons parents and their lawyers after the fact. There is no evidence of racial motivation. There is no evidence that Zimmerman pusued Martin, or that the gun was drawn until Zimmerman was on the ground having his head bashed in. Zimmerman says that he didn't go for the gun until Trayvon reached for it... There's nothing to disprove that, but you can discount it if you want.

The questions are these:

Discounting all of what Zimmerman says, let's say that he approached Trayvon and asked him what he was doing in the area.
Does that give Martin the right to pin Zimmerman to the ground, delivering punch after punch (as the witness reported seeing) and slamming his head into the cement (as his wounds verify), while Zimmerman scream for help (backed up by initial police reports of what Zimmerman told them, and neighbors who heard the cries... there is even a recording of that on one of the 911 calls)?

Zimmerman could have been the biggest racist in the world. He could have been following Martin. He could have even asked him what he was doing there. Even if all of that were true (which the evidence does not support), it doesn't mean that once Zimmerman is on the ground, having his head pounded into the cement, he isn't justified in shooting Trayvon. You are not allowed to use deadly force because you don't like how someone looks or how they speak to you. You are allowed to use deadly force once there is a reasonable fear for your life. It doesn't even appear as though Zimmerman shot Martin when that threat was merely perceived. The shot was fired after life-threatening injuries were sustained, and after calling for help as neighbors retreated into their homes.

It was a justified kill. There is no evidence to suggest otherwise, and that's what I'm interested in. The evidence. The witnesses. The facts that we do have, and not the narrative that was created in the press afterward.

Please be informed that the political, scientific, sociological, economic and legal views expressed in Informant's posts and social media accounts do not reflect any consensus of Sliders.tv.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Informant wrote:

I'm not sure how you're getting to the conclusion that this means that Zimmerman was in pursuit.

Zimmerman spotted Martin and called 911. Two minutes into the call, Zimmerman remarked, "He's running." The operator asked Zimmerman which way, Zimmerman got out of his car. The operator asked if he was following Martin, to which Zimmerman replied, "Yeah."

That's not jumping to a conclusion, that's a statement of fact. Zimmerman was pursuing Martin. He said so himself. As for Rachel Jeantel (not Martin's girlfriend), she lied about her age and she lied about why she didn't go to Martin's funeral, but her account of the phone call didn't change.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Was Zimmerman running when he said it? There is a difference between pursuing someone (with the goal of catching them) and walking in their direction to tell the cops which way they went.

If Trayvon is running and Zimmerman is not, Zimmerman isn't pursuing him. Only Michael Myers plays it that cool.


During the 911 call (I just listened to it again), Martin comes toward Zimmerman with his hand in his waist band, and then something in his hand. After coming toward Zimmerman, Martin runs. The operator asks which direction, and Zimmerman gets out of his car to look. He is not running. He seems to be looking around, but he lost sight of Trayvon. The operator tells Zimmerman that they don't need him to follow and Zimmerman says okay.

There is no pursuit here. Distant following, maybe. But by this point, Trayvon could be home if he kept running.

And nothing here shows any good reason for Trayvon to then be on top of Zimmerman, beating him.

Please be informed that the political, scientific, sociological, economic and legal views expressed in Informant's posts and social media accounts do not reflect any consensus of Sliders.tv.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Your bias is betrayed by your asymmetrical use of names.  You often call Martin by his first name, as you would a child, while you always call Zimmerman by his last name, as you would an adult.  Why?  Because you want to portray Zimmerman as the cool headed grown up in the situation.  You may not even be conscious of it.  The notion of black as being undeserving of being treated equally with white is deeply ingrained in many people.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Or... Trayvon was usually referred to by  either his full name or his first name in the press (justice for Trayvon) while Zimmerman was usually referred to by either his full name or his last name (the Zimmerman trial). So by your standards, I showed Martin more respect than most do, just by using his last name to begin with.

Your bias is made clear by the fact that you're not interested in actual facts or evidence and keep hanging your hat on wild accusations of racism.

Please be informed that the political, scientific, sociological, economic and legal views expressed in Informant's posts and social media accounts do not reflect any consensus of Sliders.tv.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

ireactions wrote:
Informant wrote:

I'm not sure how you're getting to the conclusion that this means that Zimmerman was in pursuit.

As for Rachel Jeantel (not Martin's girlfriend), she lied about her age and she lied about why she didn't go to Martin's funeral, but her account of the phone call didn't change.


Sorry. Didn't see this part at first.

Her details tend to shift. In some versions, Trayvon uses the racial slur. In others, he doesn't (which she says his mother wouldn't want to hear. I personally think slurs were the least of his problems). Her telling of what she heard Zimmerman say changes, leading me to believe that she didn't hear it very well at all.

She also lied about not watching the news coverage of the story, which we know because there are deleted tweets from her, showing that she was watching the coverage. It just gets hard to pin down the details and what she is saying when and why.

That said, I think there is a version of the truth in there. And I don't think that it conflicts with Zimmerman's story.

Rachel Jeantel says that Trayvon told her that there was a crazy-ass cracker (or whatever it was) was watching him. She urged Trayvon to run.

Zimmerman tells the 911 operator that the guy was running. He moved up the walkway to see where the guy was going. The operator says not to follow the guy and to meet the officers near the mailboxes. Zimmerman agrees.

According to Zimmerman, he started to walk back to his car and Trayvon jumped out of the bushes, asking him what his problem was. He said he didn't have a problem.

According Jeantel, she heard Trayvon ask Zimmerman why he was following him. She has different versions of what Zimmerman said in reaponse, so she probably hear much of this clearly.

Those two accounts phrase the encounter differently, but they don't contradict each other.

Zimmerman's account has Trayvon then saying "you have a problem now" and hitting him. We have nothing to confirm or deny this, but his injuries support the claim that he was hit in the nose, and we have eye witness testimony supporting Zimmerman's claim that Trayvon was then on top of him, beating him while he screamed for help.


So the details are hazy, but the stories don't really conflict. Jeantel couldn't see where Trayvon was going or what he was doing. She confirms that he initiated the conversation that she heard, which lines up with what Zimmerman said. Neither of them have to be really lying here.

It still doesn't paint the picture of Zimmerman being in pursuit though.

Please be informed that the political, scientific, sociological, economic and legal views expressed in Informant's posts and social media accounts do not reflect any consensus of Sliders.tv.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

I fully admit that I have a bias against cops.  The way they are recruited and trained in most areas results in systemic abuse of power and inequality of protection.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Back to the original subject, Bernie Sanders endorsed Hillary Clinton today

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

pilight wrote:

Back to the original subject, Bernie Sanders endorsed Hillary Clinton today

It was a ringing endorsement too.  "She is not Donald Trump" was the summary of the entire speech.  So if the Republicans were to pick any other human, I wonder if he'd retract it tongue

Outside of just being afraid of a Trump presidency, I don't really understand what Bernie gains here.  From what I've read, Clinton delegates shot down a ton of progressive items in the democratic platform.  They're miles away on tons of subjects that Bernie claims to be excited about.

Statistically speaking, Bernie Sanders should die sometime during Hillary's first term (average American lifespan is 78).  Statistics say this will be the last election of his life.  And to get such little done after such a long fight seems to indicate that Bernie is the weak politician that everyone thought he was the last 30 years.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Obama with an amazing speech at the political   I'm willing to vote to repeal the 22nd amendment if it means no Trump or Clinton.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

pilight wrote:

I fully admit that I have a bias against cops.  The way they are recruited and trained in most areas results in systemic abuse of power and inequality of protection.

I am all for having a healthy skepticism toward those in authority. We're supposed to be keeping the authorities in check.

But once you care more about being anti-cop than you do the facts or evidence, I don't see how you can claim to be any better than the people you're speaking against. A small percentage of cops are corrupt, just like a small percentage of black people are criminals. Judging the whole rather than the individuals is wrong in either case.

Not waiting for information before jumping to conclusions has gotten our whole country into this incredibly volatile situation.


Slider_Quinn21 wrote:

I'm willing to vote to repeal the 22nd amendment if it means no Trump or Clinton.

Whoa now... let's not go crazy. President Trump might not be *that* bad. The last thing we need is another FDR situation.

Please be informed that the political, scientific, sociological, economic and legal views expressed in Informant's posts and social media accounts do not reflect any consensus of Sliders.tv.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Well after I said that I looked into it.  I was thinking there'd be a popular change.org petition or something, and there wasn't.  Which surprised me.

What I did see was the idea of an emergency extension of the presidency for two years and have the election in 2018.  Which would mean Hillary and Trump would be eligible to "re-take" their positions, but they'd have to win a primary again.  Basically saying "do-over" on the whole process and starting it back over.  I'd certainly be okay with that, assuming that we'd spend the next year feverishly looking for anyone to replace the two of them.

But, again, I'd be okay with a third term for Obama.  I don't love him as a president, but we know what we're going to get with him.  And by the time the next election happens, Trump and Hillary would both be Bernie's age, and I'd hope both parties could find someone less toxic.

I don't know.  I watched all the speeches today.  Bush was great and Obama was great.  Both very presidential.  And just the idea of either Hillary or Trump giving a speech like that would come off as very self-serving.  I think both of them are very narcissistic - to the point where I honestly wouldn't be able to buy that they care about any of the victims.  I think Hillary is sad that two black voters were killed, Trump is sad he lost 5 white voters, and I think both candidates are going to just use what happened in Dallas for their own agendas.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Yeah, we have very different views of Obama. We do know what we'd be getting, and that is as bad or worse than what the others would give us. We aren't even keeping our heads above water here. Terrorist attacks keep happening. Our own citizens are on the brink of declaring war on each other. The medical system is a disaster. The Constitution might as well cease to exist. In my mind Hillary and Trump are horrible ideas precisely because they might be just like Obama. He is a truly, truly horrible President. Like... "Jimmy Carter and FDR's love child" bad. So bad that I think I'd actually prefer Drunk Uncle Biden to take over.

But I guess we're all entitled to our opinions. smile

Please be informed that the political, scientific, sociological, economic and legal views expressed in Informant's posts and social media accounts do not reflect any consensus of Sliders.tv.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Boy, these past 20+ posts are a really electrifying discussion about the U.S. presidential election! smile

Earth Prime | The Definitive Source for Sliders™

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Obama has been pretty bad, mostly because he was underqualified for the job in the first place.  That's part of what makes Trump so scary.  He's even less qualified than Obama.

The only good thing to say about Obama is that he's a step up over his predecessor, which is like bragging about having a faster Yugo than your neighbor.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Obama was a brand, not a real candidate when he ran. It was all about pretty pictures and catchy slogans, and he really had no idea what he was doing... and he still doesn't. Ever since he was a kid, he's just been a follower of activists. Some pretty extreme.

My biggest worry about Trump is that he is balls-out crazy. I think he's qualified in terms of knowing how to get things done. I'm just very skeptical that what he wants to get done will benefit the rest of us in any way. His whole history is about lying, cheating and manipulating to get whatever will benefit him. I don't believe that he has much concern for the little people.

As for Bush... there are a lot of things that I didn't like and some things that I did. I would disagree that he was worse than Obama, but it probably isn't worth debating right now.

Please be informed that the political, scientific, sociological, economic and legal views expressed in Informant's posts and social media accounts do not reflect any consensus of Sliders.tv.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Again, no happy with Obama.  But the future is so scary with either Hillary or Trump.  The problem is that they're both Nixon, and we haven't had a president as narcissistic and power-hungry since then.  And as we saw with Nixon, I think both of these people would be willing to do anything (punch their mother, murder someone one live television, etc) to get to be president.  I'm already on record as saying that I don't believe either would make it through a whole term because they're both so stupid and/or corrupt.

I think Obama generally wants what's best for the country.  He's made a lot of mistakes (yes, due to being underqualified) but I don't see him as downright-evil as I see these guys.

The one positive I can say about Hillary in my own soul-searching over this mess is that she's done a ton of horrible things to get to this point, and maybe it's all to get to be the first woman president.  And maybe once she has that power, she can go back to being a respectable human being.

But I wouldn't bet on it.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Are we talking about the same Obama? Barack, right? smile

Please be informed that the political, scientific, sociological, economic and legal views expressed in Informant's posts and social media accounts do not reflect any consensus of Sliders.tv.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Hahaha.  I just can't put him on the same level as Hillary and Trump.  The good news for you is that he ain't coming back, and he does seem to be in fully lame duck mode.  And if he truly thinks that Hillary is the most qualified ever, then he's clearly not as smart as I want to give him credit for.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

In all seriousness, if neither Trump nor Clinton work for you as candidates, why not send a message and vote third party? Gary Johnson is polling double digits as a Libertarian - it's not outside the realm of possibility if people would stop voting to keep people out instead of voting people in.

Earth Prime | The Definitive Source for Sliders™

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

I will be voting third party.  Still trying to figure out which one.

So a poll came out that had Trump winning or tied in all three big battleground states (Pennsylvania, Florida, Ohio).  If he wins those three states, it's going to be very hard for Hillary to win.  In fact, if you take the Obama/Romney map and just flip those three states, Trump wins 273-265.

Leads me to my question.  If Hillary loses, what happens to the Democratic party?  Besides the rift created by the Bernie Sanders crowd, there'd be tons of mistakes made along the way.  A really weak field (orchestrated by Hillary) and then losing to a crazy unpopular Republican with almost no support from the Republican establishment.  We know the Republican party is going to go through tons of changes after all this, but wouldn't this be a giant disaster?  With Hillary's money, her support from a president with high approval ratings, and her support from her party, wouldn't a loss be devastating?

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

The GOP released the list of convention speakers.  Notable absences include Mike Pence and Sarah Palin.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Everyone is reporting that Pence is the guy.  So that'd explain why he's not on the list.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Slider_Quinn21 wrote:

Everyone is reporting that Pence is the guy.  So that'd explain why he's not on the list.

Apparently not everyone on the list will actually be speaking.  Tim Tebow announced that he would not be and did not know how he got on the list.  I guess that's the kind of attention to detail we can expect from a Trump presidency.

As for Pence, that should be the final nail in the coffin of the idea that Trump is anything other than a GOP establishment shill.  Nobody is more Republican insider than Pence.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

pilight wrote:

Apparently not everyone on the list will actually be speaking.  Tim Tebow announced that he would not be and did not know how he got on the list.  I guess that's the kind of attention to detail we can expect from a Trump presidency.

It makes his campaign look so stupid.  And this isn't the first time he's announced that someone would speak and they said "wait, no I'm not."  I understand when he shoots from the cuff and just randomly says stuff because he's an idiot, but his staff should be *that much more careful* because of it.  And yet they seem to be the same level of people.

"Hey Tim's publicist!  We want him to speak on the final night of our convention."
"I mean, maybe.  I'd have to speak with him abo-"
"Great!  I'll release it officially!"
"Wait, bu"
* dial tone *

As for Pence, that should be the final nail in the coffin of the idea that Trump is anything other than a GOP establishment shill.  Nobody is more Republican insider than Pence.

I don't disagree at all, but that's not super fair.  Just because VP candidates are supposed to fill in gaps that the presidential candidate can't fill.  So, ideally, Trump's VP is supposed to convince Republicans/independents who don't like him that they should vote for him anyway.  So Hillary's VP should be a progressive.  It doesn't mean that Hillary is progressive, but it's to throw a bone to people that are *supposed* to vote for her but don't like her as a candidate alone.

So Trump gets an establishment VP and the establishment is supposed to vote for him.  Whether or not Trump is establishment (I agree with you, for the record).  People are led to believe that the VP will influence the President when IMO it's basically a vestigial position anyway.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Well, Trump's campaign continues to crap all over itself as Melania Trump straight stole a portion of her speech from Michelle Obama's speech.  At the end of the day, it doesn't really matter, but it's just another stupid thing that the Trump campaign let happen.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

I've heard about this, but haven't had time to see what it is all about. This better be good. If I put the effort in and people show me a clip show of her saying "the", I'm going to be upset.

Please be informed that the political, scientific, sociological, economic and legal views expressed in Informant's posts and social media accounts do not reflect any consensus of Sliders.tv.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

All the people who voted for Joe Biden need to shut the hell up about how bad plagiarism is.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

I agree with that!

Please be informed that the political, scientific, sociological, economic and legal views expressed in Informant's posts and social media accounts do not reflect any consensus of Sliders.tv.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Well I thought the Trump people's explanation was weak.  There were whole sections that were word for word.  My issue has more to do with the people ripping Melania herself.  I would say there is virtually zero chance she had anything to do with the speech, and I would say there is a zero percent chance that she would've realized that it was plagiarized.  That was stupid.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Informant - I have a question for you.  I know you're a conservative/Republican who doesn't support Trump.  If a politician you like were to support/endorse Trump, would that change your opinion of that politician?  Would it make you less likely to vote for them?

The reason I'm asking is that I'm confused on the Republicans who are going out of their way to not support Trump.  They must think that it would hurt them politically, but I don't see how that'd be the case.  Especially when I assume any politician would write it off by simply saying "he was running against Hillary Clinton" even if Trump loses in a landslide.

Along those same lines, if the story about Kasich being offered the VP job (including control over domestic *and* foreign policy), I have no idea why he'd turn that down.  He'd basically be president, and there's a real chance he'd officially be president before 2020.  And even if he wasn't, I could see it being the first time (as far as I know) that a sitting vice president challenged a sitting president in a primary.  And he might win, especially if he looked more presidential than Trump.

Just seems like a weird decision to both turn down that offer and not even show up to the convention.  Even Cruz, who Trump was much more vicious to, is showing up.  Kasich comes off looking really petty.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

I can see it being damaging. If someone has strong beliefs and would rather stand by those beliefs than go along to get along, they wouldn't suddenly start cheering for a guy that they don't like and don't believe in. I'm curious to see how enthusiastic Cruz is about Trump at this point.

I have certainly pinched my nose and supported candidates that I didn't love because they were the lesser of two evils, so I think it makes sense sometimes. But Trump is a lot harder to support. I can certainly understand people needing to give it more thought. At this point, I don't know what my plan is for November.

I also don't understand how anyone at all can support Hillary, given her history and that of her husband. They're the inspiration for characters in House of Cards, for crying out loud.

Please be informed that the political, scientific, sociological, economic and legal views expressed in Informant's posts and social media accounts do not reflect any consensus of Sliders.tv.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Informant wrote:

I also don't understand how anyone at all can support Hillary, given her history and that of her husband. They're the inspiration for characters in House of Cards, for crying out loud.

I've seen people post on social media about how scary Frank Underwood is and then publicly support Hillary.  I almost put my palm through my face each time.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

I didn't watch (the convention is a crock) but I hear that Cruz didn't endorse Trump. After everything Trump did during the primary, I would probably have lost some respect for Cruz if he had. I mean, Trump accused Cruz's father of helping Oswald kill Kennedy. Cruz would have to be seriously whipped in order to endorse Trump.

Please be informed that the political, scientific, sociological, economic and legal views expressed in Informant's posts and social media accounts do not reflect any consensus of Sliders.tv.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Yeah they're saying that Trump set him up.  Either Cruz would endorse him, or Trump would whip up support to boo him at the end of his speech.  I don't see it as a huge deal, although now Hillary is basically using his words to say vote for her.  If Cruz doesn't clarify that he *doesn't* mean "vote for Hillary" then he could be in bigger trouble.  Not voting for Trump is one thing.  Advocating voting for Hillary at the Republican National Convention is the type of thing that ends political careers.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Seeing a lot of people getting mad at Trump for using fear to try and stir up people to vote for him.  I don't disagree, but it's usually said by Hillary supporters.  Isn't her entire campaign about the fear of a Donald Trump presidency?  Isn't she doing the same thing?

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Fear should be a factor. We aren't voting for America's Next Top Model here, we are voting for someone who will undoubtedly be responsible for both saving and taking human lives. People make it sound as though it is reckless to suggest that a candidate could get us all killed, but that can happen too. People should have gone after Obama hard, for his soft stance on terrorism and his history with racial radicals. They didn't. Now we alternate between news headlines about terrorist attacks and headlines about racial attacks. People voted for a slogan and a funky poster and never considered the consequences of that vote. Our national debt thanks them for that, I'm sure.

People should look at voting for a president the same way they would look at handing a loaded gun to a random stranger on the street. Being cautious, nervous or even fearful isn't always a bad thing.

Please be informed that the political, scientific, sociological, economic and legal views expressed in Informant's posts and social media accounts do not reflect any consensus of Sliders.tv.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Informant wrote:

People should look at voting for a president the same way they would look at handing a loaded gun to a random stranger on the street.

So people shouldn't vote?

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Well, the weird thing about the hardcore anti-Trump people are the double-sidedness of it.  They criticize Trump for not being specific about anything (and they're right) and yet talk about a Trump presidency would be post-apocalyptic.  How can you be scared of something that you don't know about?

I think Trump would be a bad president, and I think Pence would be a bad vice president.  But I don't really know how Trump could be a post-apocalyptic president.  I don't know what, specifically, Trump could do to be the next Hitler or to end America.  I don't think the president has that much power, and I think he'd be even more hamstrung by a Republican establishment that doesn't love his policies.

He's not going to deport all Muslims or all Mexicans.  It won't happen.  He's not going to repeal gay marriage - that can't happen.  He's not going to drive away America's allies because our allies are smarter than that.  You don't quit being friends with your best friend because his/her annoying brother is in town for the weekend.  You get through the weekend and wait for things to be fine.

He'd be responsible for a Supreme Court judge, but unless the GOP gets enough Senators (questionable) then he's not going to get a crazy person confirmed.  He'll get someone who leans conservative, but I don't think that means we're going to turn into Nazi Germany. 

He'll probably try and build the wall, but that's either going to fizzle or take forever.   And, again, hardly makes us Nazi Germany.

He sucks.  He's not qualified.  He's probably racist and/or sexist.  But I really don't know the actual consequences of a Trump presidency.  I think the odds are *much* higher that he's impeached before he could ever turn into someone like Erdogan in Turkey.  I know that it's possible, but it's possible with anyone - including Hillary.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Yeah, I am not exactly sure what Trump will do. He is a maniac who  changes directions on a whim, and he is used to having people hang on his every word and never question him. I don't think he can really be a servant of the people. I think he might do some good things, but they will probably be filtered through the lens of what will benefit him or his family's business.

He has proven that he doesn't handle people speaking against him. What happens when everyone is speaking against him and he doesn't like it? I think his scattered beliefs and tantrums are the concern here. His reaction to Cruz proves that.

With Hillary, the problem is that we know exactly what she is. I can't believe that the Democrats brought her back to this point.

Please be informed that the political, scientific, sociological, economic and legal views expressed in Informant's posts and social media accounts do not reflect any consensus of Sliders.tv.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

I mean I get that he won't be a good president.  I'm certainly not going to vote for him.  I just don't know what he could really do that would be as bad as people are fearing.  I think he's a guy who's all talk and no action so I could see it just being four wasted years in terms of actually doing anything productive.  I'm not even sure if he'd repeal Obamacare, even if he wanted to.

My concerns with Hillary are more concrete because we know more about what she wants to do and what she has a history of doing.  There will be more regime changes in the Middle East.  More economic policies that benefit corporations over people.  And after another (apparent) terrorist attack in Germany, more really weak defense against ISIS.

When Trump doesn't spell out policy, I think it's because he honestly isn't planning to do much.  And I'd rather have a president that doesn't do much than one who is actively working in their own self-interests.

But, again, I'm not voting for either.  I'll let the rest of the country decide which of these is the lesser of two evils.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

He might repeal Obamacare to replace it with a universal health care system.  He has favored such a thing for a long time.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

It's possible.  But one of the criticisms of Trump is that he doesn't know what he's doing.  Even if he could repeal Obamacare (which, honestly, might not be the worst idea - I lost my health insurance in January and Obamacare wasn't a great option), I don't know if he'd put together anything to replace it.

It's hard to get things done as president.  Even if one party controls all three branches, the system is so clogged with bureaucracy that wholesale changes are difficult to make.  Compromises have to be made and everything gets watered down. 

The criticisms against Trump are that he's unqualified and doesn't know what he's doing (*agreed*) and that he's going to set up a Fourth Reich.  I don't see how these two gel together.  I don't have any faith that Trump can "make America great again" (or even what that means) but I also don't see him as a political mastermind.  I don't think he has the stomach or the will to do all the hard work that the President requires, and I think he'd delegate a lot of the hard stuff to lower people.  And unless Pence is a political mastermind / secret Nazi, I think we'll just have four years of nothing.  Which, honestly, is the best case scenario in my opinion.

That's why I fear a Trump presidency more than a Hillary presidency.  I fear both and I will not vote for either.  But until someone can tell me what I should actually be afraid of with Trump, that's just how I feel.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Obamacare is a disaster. As someone whose family has been dealing with a lot of doctors, hospitals, therapists since 2009, it is just a mess. A lot of medical professionals are finding other lines of work because of it. Companies that made specialized (expensive!) braces and worked with people to provide them for little to no money are now out of business.
And deciding to punish people who don't get coverage... the system is meant for people who couldn't afford healthcare, so now they actually fine people who can't afford healthcare. How does that logic make sense?

If Obama is capable of getting that monstrosity through, I pray that Trump is at least as capable of making it go away.

Please be informed that the political, scientific, sociological, economic and legal views expressed in Informant's posts and social media accounts do not reflect any consensus of Sliders.tv.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Tim Kaine is so much more likable (just as a person, not talking about policy) than Hillary.  It would've been great if the DNC had let guys like him run for president instead of just allowing nobodies like Bernie to run.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Worth noting: https://www.facebook.com/james.grissom/ … 1889333429