New video shows officer's perspective in ICE shooting of Renee Good

[WallFlowerActive]

Bottom line what he did was stupid and unnecessary. 

The agent didn’t decide to move a car endangering an agent physically engaged at the driver door.  And the agent isn’t the one that decided to accelerate a car with malice and intent resulting in an agent being hit.

The question wasn’t if he was right or wrong.  The question was, is there any evidence the agent fired his weapon other than the motivation of self defense.

[putnam6]

  Nope.

Most of the time, which ever side is in the White House LOSES midterms.
Doesn't matter if it's Democrats or Republicans.
Doesn't matter if it's Trump or not.
It's not a statement of popularity or not for the POTUS.
That's just how it usually goes.   

It's not your country ... and your agenda is showing again.  

As usual, the Broad Street Bully Flyers Fan  is correct and  is not.

The last election besides (2002) where the trifecta party kept control was 1978, with Jimmy Carter 


How many times has one political party kept control of the Presidency, Senate, and the House at the midterms since 1900?

 
 
Since 1900, there have been 12 instances where a single political party entered a midterm election with unified control of the Presidency, Senate, and House of Representatives 
and retained control of all three afterward. These occurred in the following midterm election years:
 
 
1902
Theodore Roosevelt
Republican
Retained both chambers despite minor seat changes.
 
1906
Theodore Roosevelt
Republican
Retained both chambers.
 
1914
Woodrow Wilson
Democratic
Retained both chambers; gained Senate seats.
 
1922
Warren G. Harding/Calvin Coolidge
Republican
Retained both chambers despite significant House losses (still held majority).
 
1926
Calvin Coolidge
Republican
Retained both chambers despite losses in both.
 
1934
Franklin D. Roosevelt
Democratic
Retained both chambers; gained seats in both.
 
1938
Franklin D. Roosevelt
Democratic
Retained both chambers despite heavy losses in both.
 
1942
Franklin D. Roosevelt
Democratic
Retained both chambers despite losses in both.
 
1950
Harry S. Truman
Democratic
Retained both chambers despite losses in both.
 
1962
John F. Kennedy
Democratic
Retained both chambers; minor House losses, Senate gains.
 
1966
Lyndon B. Johnson
Democratic
Retained both chambers despite heavy House losses and minor Senate losses.
 
1978
Jimmy Carter
Democratic
Retained both chambers despite losses in both.

 
There have been 5 such midterm trifecta losses since 1978 (1994, 2006, 2010, 2018, and 2022).

This reflects the strong historical tendency for the president's party to lose congressional ground in midterms, especially when they already hold full control going in.
 
For context,

the only post-1978 midterm where the president's party avoided losing the trifecta was in 2002 (Republicans under George W. Bush actually gained Senate control while retaining the House, expanding their trifecta — but this was an unusual post-9/11 rally year, not a defense of an existing one in the typical sense). No other midterms since then saw retention when starting with a trifecta.

[quintessentone]

You called the agent that shot Good a murder.  You opened this can of worms. If you are not engaging in slander, then what evidence that goes beyond a reasonable doubt do you have the individual was motivated in to firing his weapon was something other than self defense.

That's right, that is how I interpreted it, that is my opinion - cold blooded murder. I admit that I could be wrong, but that was how it looked like to me. You interpreted it another way. If he wants to sue me and the thousands if not millions of other people that are also calling it a cold blooded murder, have at it.

[ANNEE]

As I said in response to a similar kind of claim you made.
I am the queen of Siam.
You of all people have no leg to stand on when it comes to commenting on the objectivity of others.

I would imagine that their mindset would be that it is totally unforgivable to murder unborn children and that mutilating children on the trans altar would be punishable by an all expenses paid trip to the oubliette so.......

Your biased opinion is noted. 

This is not an abortion thread — major off topic. 

That it bothers you is your issue. Your issue has no affect on me.

[KrustyKrab]

So true, the hypocrisy is deafening.

[ANNEE]

There, fixed it for you and I agree.

Don’t be stupid. 

Your words are yours. Not mine.

[quintessentone]

Yes.  We have evidence.  And we can discus that evidence.  So, by your own admission you called the agent that shot Good a murder with on actual evidence.  Are you making states to just incite.

Then I am in a lot of other company who also interpreted the same thing that I did, which is not incitement (why? are you triggered again?). Minnesota officials are saying the self-defense claim is bullshit, and I agree with them. Without independent investigation there is no moving past these interpretations.

[WallFlowerActive]

That's right, that is how I interpreted it,

To be something other than slander, you need to accuse someone of murder on actual evidence.

I’m not asking about your political motivation to incite.

 

that is my opinion - cold blooded murder. I admit that I could be wrong,

Even opinions need to be based on evidence to be valid. If there is no evidence, then you are making statements for political theater and trolling. Especially when asked what is your evidence.

 

but that was how it looked like to me. You interpreted it another way.

Based on what. What evidence do you have the agent didn’t act on the motivation of self defense. You are making the allegations the agent’s only motivation was murder.
 

If he wants to sue me and the thousands if not millions of other people that are also calling it a cold blooded murder, have at it.

Mob mentality? Political hacks and trolls.

In the US the legal system in based on innocent until proven guilty with there being evidence beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law often in the context of the persons state of mind, the motivation.

If a prosecutor is stupid enough to charge the agent with murder. What evidence makes that a valid charge. It’s not the death, many cases of individuals justified by self defense where a person died.

[KrustyKrab]

Don’t be stupid. 

Your words are yours. Not mine.

So you don’t think what she was doing was stupid and unnecessary?   M’kayyyy Run with that.

[quintessentone]

To be something other than slander, you need to accuse someone of murder on actual evidence.

I’m not asking about your political motivation to incite.

 

Even opinions need to be based on evidence to be valid. If there is no evidence, then you are making statements for political theater and trolling. Especially when asked what is your evidence.

 

Based on what. What evidence do you have the agent didn’t act on the motivation of self defense. You are making the allegations the agent’s only motivation was murder.
 


Mob mentality? Political hacks and trolls.

In the US the legal system in based on innocent until proven guilty with there being evidence beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law often in the context of the persons state of mind, the motivation.

If a prosecutor is stupid enough to charge the agent with murder. What evidence makes that a valid charge. It’s not the death, many cases of individuals justified by self defense where a person died.

You make me laugh some times.

The Minnesota officials said it was not self-defense and I believe them.