At least he's not Hillary...

[RWS]

Honestly, I don't give enough of a shit about this topic to debate you on it.

Fine. Cops are never assholes.

There are plenty of assholes out there.  The only point here is that compared to the number of officers and the number of interactions those officers have per day, the excessive force needle isn't even moving. 

I partly blame the misconception on simple lack of understanding in regards to excessive force.  The public (i.e. the internet) has defined excessive force as one thing.  Courts and department policy define it as something else.  The general public observes a tactic, and it shocks their senses, so it must be excessive.  When in reality, it is perfectly reasonable according to policy and precedent.  I just think that everyone is a little too quick to yell excessive force.

[Kaos]

Honestly, I don't give enough of a shit about this topic to debate you on it.

Fine. Cops are never assholes.

Fact.

[WiregrassTiger]

I'm an asshole.

Note:
Honestly, I barely glance at 99% of the things you post on here. But I have to say that I agree with you wholeheartedly on this one. You are spot on in this assessment.

Now, carry on with the kiss and make up talk with Chizzy.

[War Eagle!!!]

Honestly, I don't give enough of a shit about this topic to debate you on it.

Fine. Cops are never assholes.

This is your problem. You are one complete extreme to another. We have several law enforcement people here disputing your claim of "often", you pout and say fine "never". This sums you up completely.

[AUChizad]

This is your problem. You are one complete extreme to another. We have several law enforcement people here disputing your claim of "often", you pout and say fine "never". This sums you up completely.

Ok. Cops are usually not assholes.

Like I said, I don't care about this enough to continue to discuss it any more than I already have. It was one of like 7 or 8 throwaway rhetorical statements that don't have anything to do at all with the topic of this thread or the current discussion besides that I usually don't take 100% conservative or 100% liberal stances on much of anything.

Y'all are cool with K flat out lying and misrepresenting facts, but God forbid I make a generalization about cops not always being the bestest without y'all trying to nail me to the fuckin wall over it.

[Kaos]

Y'all are cool with K flat out lying and misrepresenting facts, but God forbid I make a generalization about cops not always being the bestest without y'all trying to nail me to the fuckin wall over it.

RUUUDE! 

Haven't lied a single time.  Not one. 

You still don't have any facts to support the points you are trying to make.  Maybe we should return to surfing polar bears.

[AUChizad]

RUUUDE! 

Haven't lied a single time.  Not one. 

You still don't have any facts to support the points you are trying to make.  Maybe we should return to surfing polar bears.

[Snaggletiger]

These last few posts are much more entertaining.

[RWS]

Half of this thread is comparable to me trying to convince one of you that Alabama is better than Auburn and anyone who doesn't believe that is a moron, and then all of you trying to convince me of the opposite.  We both know nobody is going to change their mind, so there's really no point in going apeshit about it. 

Most of the folks in the thread saying they are voting for Trump were even pretty clear early on that they weren't necessarily "supporters", just that it's a two-party system and they absolutely could not vote for Hillary.  Which I can relate to, because that's where I am as well.  Kaos even said he wasn't changing his mind and there is nothing that could be said that would, and everyone knows good and well he's an asshole and meant it.  I don't even know what the point was in the 12 pages after that.

[GH2001]

That animated gif/meme will show him!

[War Eagle!!!]

Ok. Cops are usually not assholes.

Like I said, I don't care about this enough to continue to discuss it any more than I already have. It was one of like 7 or 8 throwaway rhetorical statements that don't have anything to do at all with the topic of this thread or the current discussion besides that I usually don't take 100% conservative or 100% liberal stances on much of anything.

Y'all are cool with K flat out lying and misrepresenting facts, but God forbid I make a generalization about cops not always being the bestest without y'all trying to nail me to the fuckin wall over it.

It's kind of like when I asked a question of "what if the LaRaza premise was true?" and got:

Remember what I've been saying about manipulating idiots? Just put a minimal effort into not to being one.

[wesfau2]

It's kind of like when I asked a question of "what if the LaRaza premise was true?" and got:

To be fair, this was dropped into the middle of a much larger debate on another topic.  I don't think Chad intended to have an in-depth discussion on the police brutality argument in this (portion of this) thread.

[Kaos]

To be fair, this was dropped into the middle of a much larger debate on another topic.  I don't think Chad intended to have an in-depth discussion on the police brutality argument in this (portion of this) thread.

There was no debate on the other topic.  A person was wrong. Badly.  And his name here started with "Chiz" and ended in "ad"

The comment regarding police brutality merely defined the mindset and confirmed the overall wrongness.

[War Eagle!!!]

To be fair, this was dropped into the middle of a much larger debate on another topic.  I don't think Chad intended to have an in-depth discussion on the police brutality argument in this (portion of this) thread.

My point is that Chad is the master of taking one little thing that you say, and turning it around to "Oh my god, let me post 5 links to prove what you mentioned is COMPLETELY WRONG DON'T BE A MANIPULATED IDIOT FACTS!"

[AUChizad]

We cannot have a president so dishonest that they would go so far as to destroy court-ordered email evidence amirite?

#Hillary4Prison amirite?

#CrookedHillary rite?

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/06/13/trump-accused-destroying-email-evidence-lawsuit-10-years-ago-republican-hillary-president/85795082/

Trump was accused of destroying email evidence in lawsuit 10 years ago
 Paul Singer, USA TODAY 4 p.m.

In 2006, when a judge ordered Donald Trump's casino operation to hand over several years' worth of emails, the answer surprised him: The Trump Organization routinely erased emails and had no records from 1996 to 2001. The defendants in a case that Trump brought said this amounted to destruction of evidence, a charge never resolved.

At that time, a Trump IT director testified that until 2001, executives in Trump Tower relied on personal email accounts using dial-up Internet services, despite the fact that Trump had launched a high-speed Internet provider in 1998 and announced he would wire his whole building with it. Another said Trump had no routine process for preserving emails before 2005.

Judge Jeffrey Streitfeld was stunned. “He has a house up in Palm Beach County listed for $125 million, but he doesn’t keep emails. That’s a tough one,” he said, according to transcripts obtained by USA TODAY. “If somebody starts to put forth as a fact something that doesn’t make any sense to me and causes me to have a concern about their credibility in the discovery process, that's not a good direction to go, and I am really having a hard time with this.”

Now, a decade later, Trump regularly hammers Hillary Clinton, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, for using her own email server while she was secretary of State and deleting emails from that server that she deemed to be private. In a war of tweets with Clinton a week ago, Trump wrote, “And where are your 33,000 emails that you deleted?” On the CBS News program Face the Nationearlier this month, Trump said, "What she did is a criminal situation. She wasn't supposed to do that with the server and the emails."

A USA TODAY Network analysis found that Trump has been involved in more than 3,500 lawsuits over the past three decades. In this case, while Trump was not accused of doing anything illegal at the time and he clearly was not a public official, there are, nonetheless, fascinating parallels between the events of 2006 and the current campaign.

The Trump campaign and his lawyers have not responded to requests for comment on this story.

The preservation of email was a central point of contention in the suit filed in 2004 by Trump's publicly traded casino company, called Trump Hotels and Casino Resorts, against a former employee, Richard Fields. The gist of the Trump company's suit in a Broward County, Fla., court was that while he was working with Trump, Fields had developed the idea of working with the Seminole Tribe in Florida to build a casino, then told Trump the idea wasn’t going to fly. Fields then left Trump’s employ at the end of the 1990s and struck the same deal with other partners.

Trump sued Fields and the companies he had ended up working with on a Seminole casino, arguing that Trump Hotels should be entitled to all profits the casinos produced, which were expected at the time to be more than $1 billion over 10 years.

The companies Trump sued argued that if it was true that Trump Hotels had been pursuing a similar deal with the tribe, there would be emails and other records documenting their discussions. The judge agreed and ordered Trump Hotels to hand over emails, financial documents, executive meeting calendars and so forth.

In a March 2006 hearing, the Trump company's lawyer, Robert Borrello, said Trump didn’t use email himself and his company didn’t retain emails. “My understanding from speaking to my client is that there are no emails,” Borrello said, according to a transcript obtained by USA TODAY. “They don’t keep emails from the time period from ’96 until within the last couple of years, when the organization instituted retention procedures for keeping emails electronically.”

Streitfeld, who has since retired, told USA TODAY he remembers the case. “I was a bit incredulous that an organization of that significance doesn’t do email,” Streitfeld said. “I had heard a number of things in 24 years on the bench, but that stuck in my mind.”

Trump certainly had access to high-tech communications. In 1998, he created a tech venture called Trump New Media, and its first project was “to wire his luxury high-rise Trump Tower for blazing-fast Internet access and video-on-demand service,” the New York Daily News reported. A publication called Network World reported in October 1998 on the efforts of Trump’s Louisiana-based Internet service provider to provide “bursting” capability for “business residents at Trump Towers in New York” to be able to “grab extra bandwidth from time to time.” The article quoted Trump New Media executive Harry Geruldsen as saying the company planned to offer these services to businesses nationwide.

But Trump’s own company was apparently not using it.

In 1996, some Trump executives set up email accounts “using dial-up connections with various email providers such as AOL, Compuserve,” said Nikos Vroulis, the director of networks and systems for Trump’s casino operations in a March 2006 affidavit. “In the late 1990s, (1998-99 approximately), we switched dial-up accounts to different providers. In 2001 we acquired a server … and gradually moved employees away from using their dial-ups.” Vroulis added that “it was not until the summer of 2003 that we began to journal and save emails on the server.”

Before that, Trump’s casino company destroyed old computers and emails that might have been stored on them. “There was no uniform procedure for migration of data from an obsolete work station to a replacement work station,” Vroulis said.

Trumps’s companies had no document retention policy, witnesses testified. “Every year everything was just wiped out and deleted from pretty much everybody’s computers,” said Bob Pickus, general counsel of the casino unit at the time, according to court records.

Email retention policies were still evolving over the years covered by the Trump’s dealing with the Seminoles. At the time, companies had very little guidance on what electronic records they were supposed to keep, said Rae Cogar, a lawyer who used to chair the American Bar Association committee on electronic evidence. Cogar said when Congress passed the 2002 law known as Sarbanes-Oxley to combat securities fraud, "that was the start when people really started looking at how they were handling their information and electronic records."

As the Trump Hotels court case dragged on, the defendants asked the judge to enforce sanctions against Trump for destroying evidence. Trump’s company failed to preserve emails and “has been regularly destroying data and evidence located on its computer, both before and after this case was filed,” the companies charged in a May 2007 motion. One Trump executive had his computer replaced in 2005, after Trump filed his complaint against Fields and the other casino developers, and “there were emails on the hard drive of his old computers that were not migrated to his new computer or otherwise preserved,” the defendants argued.

But the case was settled before the judge ruled on whether Trump's company had destroyed evidence.

[AUJarhead]

We cannot have a president so dishonest that they would go so far as to destroy court-ordered email evidence amirite?

But was it required by federal law for trump casino to keep the emails?

[War Eagle!!!]

But was it required by federal law for trump casino to keep the emails?

Or was he covering up national security breeches when he deleted the email?

[Kaos]

We cannot have a president so dishonest that they would go so far as to destroy court-ordered email evidence amirite?

#Hillary4Prison amirite?

#CrookedHillary rite?

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/06/13/trump-accused-destroying-email-evidence-lawsuit-10-years-ago-republican-hillary-president/85795082/

You do understand the difference between state secrets and business dealings, amirite? 

You do understand this is USA Today's third hatchet piece on Trump in two weeks, amirite?

Deaf ears my friend.  Deaf ears. 

[GH2001]

I think it's best left said on here that there are several differing takes and opinions on things. Some just personal tastes and some based in some sort of facts. Regardless we all have different takes on it. I don't think anyone is going to change anyone else's mind on this stuff. So the subsequent pissing contests and diatribes with personal attacks are a bit fruitless. I try to put my take in there just as I see it but not so much trying to talk down to anyone or change their mind. I think there is a constructive way to do it but that's Just my .02.

[dallaswareagle]

I think it's best left said on here that there are several differing takes and opinions on things. Some just personal tastes and some based in some sort of facts. Regardless we all have different takes on it. I don't think anyone is going to change anyone else's mind on this stuff. So the subsequent pissing contests and diatribes with personal attacks are a bit fruitless. I try to put my take in there just as I see it but not so much trying to talk down to anyone or change their mind. I think there is a constructive way to do it but that's Just my .02.

I think someone else may have said this. You know maybe its just time to blow shit up in DC. Change the formula, change the people.

Trump is a buffoon, likes to hear his own voice, but dog shit and cat turds, he ain't Hillary and with her not only do we keep the current climate, it gets a shit ton worse.