Trump is going to get trounced in the debates

Stop and frisk is harassment. The only people that support it are people that will not be subjected to it.

 

Right... Black people love getting pulled over by police officers too. They just think to themselves, "I must have been driving too fast. Golly gee gosh if this officer I'd be much worse off."

- - - Updated - - -

I think that every time a police officer sees Trump they should stop and frisk him. Who cares if he's president? He might be in a gang.

 

Are you implying that stop and frisk won't be applied equally? Why? Wouldn't rich neighborhoods want it also?

 

Most black Americans would prefer to be policed by independent Sheriffs they elect and support with their own concealed handguns.
If you think black Americans are glad to be disarmed in urban Kill Zones you are mistaken.

 

Well you're right on that. Black people do want to keep their guns. However how would you like to be racially profiled by a police officer and then have your gun taken away from you? Actually, scratch that. How would you like to be beaten or shot... for no reason? Yeah you're crazy if you think that black people have a bunch of concealed carries. If the police were completely impartial and righteous and well trained, then your policy might work. They're not though. They kill black people for no reason at an alarming rate, and that makes black people on edge.

 

Do they have the same crime rate?

- - - Updated - - -

If the gun is legal and they are carrying it with a permit it won't be taken away.

 

And if people just respect the police they won't be killed by them. You don't live in reality.

 

Did you read my post? I did not say that black -Americans are allowed to carry concealed handguns. They should be allowed to do that - instead they have been disarmed. The only people who carry guns in Americas DP ruled urban hell holes are the felons, police and the politicians.

I offered no defense of the police, though it is clear that most conduct themselves professionally. I doubt that you can find a crime defined in the massive federal and state codes that a policeman has not been arrested tried and convicted of committing. They are human.

I did suggest that independent elected local Sheriffs supported by local deputies and volunteers and armed citizens would be a far better approach to policing - everywhere.

 

Well buddy, your solution wasn't represented by either opponent. Both said they'd need gun control. My comment was that stop and frisk would increase the poor relations between police and innocent black people. Why? Because police racially profile black people. And this will only happen in "hell holes" because if it were to happen in Trump's neighborhood it would have a large amount of outrage because "good" citizens were being stopped.

 

They both supported disarming people on terrorist watch list - probably pointless. The Clintons are the Gun Free Zone candidate.

Stop and frisk would be welcomed by black Americans who do not carry illegal guns. It would be even more popular if the LEO's doing it were local Sheriff's deputies. Trump's black and Hispanic support will increase. It would increase faster if he called for CCW and elected local Sheriffs. The people want law and order.

Trump is not perfect - alas.

 

Well, I think you're wrong.

 

I know you do. I still enjoyed our exchange of ideas and thoughts. I tend to like people who try to find real solutions to serious problems.

 

So others like you can lie and make accusations without evidence and no one will question them in 200 years

 

The OPer sure got it wrong. Polls show Trump won.

 

The debate went just as I thought it would. The Donald lost his cool. Earlier I wrote, “I have known many men like Trump. He has an arrogant, narcissistic personality. He runs a billion dollar corporation. He’s like the commanding general of an army. He is used to setting the rules, not abiding by them. He is used to people listening to him and doing his bidding without protest once he has made a decision. He is used to speaking without restraint because people should listen to him or there will be consequences.

“Now we come to the debates. I have no idea of the format, but we do know there are going to be moderators. They will be asking the questions and setting the rules. For example, how long a speaker has to make his or her point. That is an alien atmosphere to Trump and that is before one considers his daunting opponent, Hillary Clinton. In addition, recently he has been using a teleprompter to keep him on message. Along with everything else he must endure, that prop will not be available to him.

"Considering the constraints imposed upon him, Trump now faces someone on an equal plane who is superior to him in knowledge of the issues and temperament. He is facing someone who is bent on dominating him and being successful at it in terms of experience, and he cannot fire her. He simply has to stand there and take it.”

He could not take it when Hillary or Holt caught him in a lie. He could not take when some of his past practices came back to bite him in the ass; i.e. not releasing his taxes, and when confronted, he changed the subject completely to Hillary’s emails. He bragged about not paying any taxes and lost the middle class worker burdened with taxes. He lost it when Hillary brought up lawsuits against his racism.

He rudely interrupted Hillary 25 times. On occasion he would not allow the moderator to moderate. Many times Holt asked him a question and he never answer it, changing the subject back to some grievance earlier discussed.

The hope of many Trump surrogates that Hillary would feint, have a coughing fit, or be forced to leave the stage were unfounded just as I predicted. I was also prescient in that Trump’s arrogant, narcissistic persona would come to the forefront. It did so after the first 25 minutes.

A substantial number of conservative Fox News contributors conceded that Trump lost the debate. The CNN poll is one of only two scientific polls that were conducted and it showed the following: Clinton, 62%; Trump, 27%. This more than 2 to 1 margin is the 3rd greatest margin in the history of presidential debates. Yes, CNN's is slightly skewed toward Dems but only by a few points. YouGov also did a scientific poll and it showed a similar two to one margin. Arch conservative news site, Breitbart, put it at 48/43 in favor of Clinton.

 

You are wrong. You are referring to the unscientific internet polls in which a number of sources indicate that Trump people are "stuffing the ballot box," euphemistically speaking. Don't accept my word for it. Here is what the business magazine, Fortune, says about the debate.

"Hillary Clinton won. In the first and potentially most consequential presidential debate of 2016, the Democratic nominee presented as composed and commanding, ticking through her policy prescriptions while landing a series of devastating blows on Donald Trump’s record and readiness. A fidgety Trump meanwhile tried repeatedly to ruffle her with interruptions while riffing his way through his own answers, but struggled on both counts.

"Trump arguably had his best moments in the opening section of the debate, which tends to be its most-watched portion. Drawing from his stump speech, he conjured an image of a blighted U.S., outsmarted by its trading partners and abused by its own companies. He promised, with his trademark bluster and imprecision, to get tough on those responsible at home and abroad. “We have to stop our jobs from leaving,” he said, dismissing Clinton as a member of the entrenched political class that’s presided over an economic hollowing-out.

"Yet Clinton moved from the start to stick Trump in his softest spot: his business dealings. In her second answer, she explained their differing approaches to the economy as the product of their “different perspectives.” While she was raised in a middle-class family, she said, Trump started out in the real-estate business with $14 million in loans from father. Trump maintains he only received a small fraction of that amount, a key to his narrative about being self-made.

"Trump took the bait, the first of several times that he allowed Clinton to provoke him with scripted digs that kept him on the defensive. She weaved into an answer about economic progress under President Obama, for example, a mention that Trump cheered the housing collapse at the time as an opportunity to turn a profit. And Trump chimed in: “That’s called business, by the way.” He deployed another self-defeating interruption as Clinton listed reasons Trump might be avoiding releasing his tax returns. “Maybe he doesn’t want the American people, all of you watching tonight, to know that he’s paid nothing in federal taxes,” Clinton said. Trump, apparently confirming the charge, blurted, “That makes me smart.”

"It got worse for Trump as the night wore on."

At one point I thought Hillary missed an opportunity. She was discussing NATO. She failed to mention that Trump has said that if he is elected President he will not defend those members of NATO that failed to pay their bills. That would violate the U.S. signed treaty, our Constitution, and our laws. But Hillary never mentioned it. Trump did. I couldn't believe my ears. The arrogant fools considered it good business to kiss off some of our allies for monetary reasons. Hillary jumped on him with both feet and Trump deserved it.

 

Breitbart?

“Pro-Hillary gloaters doing end-zone dance again when still on 50-yd line,” Moore tweeted. “You must get it in your head Trump is gonna win and act accordingly!”

“If you just turn off the TV right now and do nothing, you’ve just elected Donald Trump,” he added. “Do something! Plan what you’re going to do tomorrow.”

“It’s over. Trump, the egoist, the racist, the narcissist, the liar, ‘won,'” he continued. “We all lost. His numbers will go up.” Daily Caler, Michael Moore appeared frustrated on Twitter following the presidential debate, saying Donald Trump “won” and “we all lost.” KATIE JERKOVICH, 09/27/2016.

http://dailycaller.com/2016/09/27/michael-moore-says-trump-won-the-debate/

 

You said......

I replied.....

Your response.......

What does the above response have to do with having a legal gun taken away while legally carrying?

 

Entertainment
Michael Moore Says Trump ‘Won’ The Debate

Notice just above the headline from you link is the word "Entertainment." I would havee to say Moore's views were entertaining. He beats to a different than the rest of us. Scientific polls say differently as did Breitbart.

 

Really? What do you think I meant?

 

Trump is going to get trounced in the debates

Knock, knock, knock...Hey OP....That didn't happen. We eagerly await your next off-target shot.

 

It tells me folks don't want to get caught carrying an (illegal/stolen) gun illegally.

 

Innocent people are killed by the police without any aggression. Those people did not have a gun. If you could be killed by police just for nothing, would you want to to carry a gun? No.

 

Absolutely. Why because I am smart enough to follow the cops instructions. Here's my example. I was renovating my home because I was getting divorced and the property needed to be sold. The place was empty except for about $15,000 in tools and material, so I left the alarm service on. A realtor used the lock box to get in but never shut off the alarm, then ran leaving the door open while departing (idiot). I was living less than a mile away and I beat the cops there. I had a firearm on my person when I went in. It was a small house and I was standing in the kitchen when the cops showed up, they came in guns out. I put my hands on my head without being told. When they got to where they could see all of me (breakfast bar in the way). I was told to get on the ground, which I did. Now that they stopped shouting at me I told them I was the owner and had a firearm on me. One kept me covered and the other hand cuffed me and removed my firearm from my belt. They took my wallet checked my ID and let me go. A situation that could have turned deadly in a minute, just went away because I followed instruction.

If someone can't or won't follow simple instructions and gets shot, just think of it as Darwinism at work.

 

Exactly. Police are in a unique position to confront those that most of us would run away from (reasonably so) and in confronting them, they are more and more becoming willing to fight and kill to avoid being arrested. This has had a direct result in officers having to be a lot more cautious when dealing with potential criminals, as any of them can potentially turn violent. The police are not walking databases, and cannot tell who the good guys are from the bad guys in many situations. So it becomes our duty as citizens to just comply, so that the officers can differentiate us from the "bad guys". If something occurs that we are not happy with, then file a complaint and take them to court, but do not become their enemy by refusing to comply with them out of some misguided anti authoritative attitude, which I feel is becoming more and more prevalent in people.

On the topic of your story, some people would argue that since you own the place, and are not breaking any laws...that you simply do not have to comply with the police orders. That they essentially have no authority over you because you have done no wrong. And therefore any force they use against you (were you to not comply) would be unlawful. That flawed thinking is exactly the problem. But these anti authoritative people seem to be, or at least refuse to differentiate the various situations that police are constantly finding themselves in.