Purely political violence

In Tulsa a white female cop shot a black suspect and is charged with first-degree manslaughter, yet there was no Black Lives Matter protest. In Charlotte, with a black chief of police and a black city council, a black cop shot a black suspect and Black Lives Matter protested for three nights including fires and looting. About 70% of people arrested in Charlotte were from out of state, just like in Ferguson and Baltimore.

All of this is about the well-funded political manipulation of the black vote. The Washington Times found that BLM was supported with over $100 million from liberal foundations. This is the Black Lives Matter who chant "Pigs in a Blanket — Fry them like bacon." It is shameful that BLM was invited to the White House and was profusely praised at the Democratic National Convention. Some of them are motivated by money and for some it can be said that those who are easily angered are easily manipulated.

Risk is too high

Supporters of Thaw the Freeze have said publicly, “If you have the freeze, you will keep the freeze.” When Columbus Mayor Tomlinson was pressed on this statement at the Columbus Board of Realtors event on Sept. 19, the mayor could not guarantee that.

The Thaw plan, which denies the freeze to new purchasers, will most likely end up in court. When it does, the mayor will have lost her power to keep her promise that you will be “grandfathered in.” The courts will decide whether the dual assessment system, whereby some homeowners have the freeze while new buyers do not, violates the Uniformity Clause of the State Constitution. At that point the courts will decide, and you could lose your freeze.

Proponents of the Thaw also cannot promise that a yes vote would create greater fairness. If current residents with the freeze continue to pay the same amount in taxes while new residents are denied limited assessment protection, the tax burden simply increases on the new buyers, and disparities are increased, not lessened.

Most homeowners consider the freeze a benefit they don’t want to lose. Citizens have reinforced this position twice by overwhelming majority votes to initiate the freeze in 1982, and again in 1992 to maintain it. If you have a benefit that you do not want to lose, why would you want to take it away from someone else? The only safe vote is No on the last item on the Nov. 8 ballot.

What kind of man?

I am overweight. However, I am considerably under the 235 that Trump admits he weighs (who knows what the real figure is with Lyin’ Donald).

But even when I was thin, I did not go around calling innocent women pigs, eating machines … or other horrible names. Would you want your mother, wife or sister called these names?

I do support some of Trump’s ideas (universal healthcare via the Canadian system, making our supposed allies pay their share, halting efforts to be the world’s policeman, etc.). However, I am unsure any of that agenda will get through this backward-leaning Congress.

He has said he will both cut taxes and reduce the deficit while increasing programs. He has also implied the USA can just refuse to pay its debts regardless of the consequences.

Trump obviously has done this before personally, and pays no taxes himself. He makes sense … that is, if you want an economic collapse.

But, primarily, it is his character that I worry about. Who does the things he does and says the things he says? What kind of man? The answer is the kind of amoral man I don’t want as President. The kind of erratic man I do not want with his finger on the nuclear button.

Do you? Why?

Economic need

The National Bureau of Economic Research measured data from World War II to the present and reported: “The U.S. economy not only grows faster, according to real GNP and other measures, during Democratic versus Republican presidencies, it also produces more jobs, lowers the unemployment rate, generates higher corporate profits and investment, and turns in higher stock market returns. Indeed, it outperforms under almost all standard macroeconomic metrics.”

In a seminal treatise, “Unequal Democracy,” noted social scientist Larry M. Bartels condemns working class voters lured into the Republican camp by “value issues” like abortion, gay marriage, Islamic and Latino immigration and other purported causes of economic disparity. Rejecting such causation, his study shows that Republican presidents consistently produce much less growth for middle-class and working-poor families than for affluent families, thereby greatly increasing inequality. He emphasizes the massive Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 and the erosion of the minimum wage coupled with attacks on organized labor as major downward factors.

Obama has done a credible job restoring the economy from utter collapse to a current rebound that needs thoughtful policies to restore it to traditional strength. If you believe Trump is the answer, then you are self-destructive because you prefer his bloviations to irrefutable evidence. Stupidity is an albatross; education overcomes it.

This story was originally published October 6, 2016 at 1:04 PM with the headline "Purely political violence."