1) I think people should respect the borders of every nation.

2) I want criminal justice reform. People shouldn't be in prison for years/decades for non violent crimes.

3) I want to stop losing money to China by having massive trade deficits. It may not be a massive issue now, but if we keep going this way for the next 50 years it's going to be a big problem. Better to resolve this now.

4) I want to not lose jobs to countries that pay employees dirt cheap and have a lower cost of life. It's not fair on American families.

5) I want every American to continue to have the right to protect themselves and their loved ones with weapons, not just their bare hands. Mass shootings occur when no one has anything to defend themselves with. Banning guns means the only people that have them obtained them illegally and probably are up to no good, which makes the rest of us unsafe. Also it's a huge determent to someone invading us if we have an instant militia available.

6) People should be able to run their businesses as they wish, hire who they want, and allow whoever they want in the door. It's not business of mine making those decisions for a company I invested no money into.

7) People should be able to practice whatever religion they want as long as they aren't physically hurting others.

Flag on the play. Red card. Whatever you want to call it. That is a full stop disgusting statement.

You complain about "shutting down conversations and polite discourse" and then immediately imply people enjoy  (or are for) murdering babies.

I didn't even bother reading past that because I was too busy almost vomiting at that desperate and pathetic framing of the issue.

That is one of the most loaded statements I've seen in quite a bit of time. Do you actually expect to have any part of your statement taken seriously when the very first thing you do is frame it as "for murdering babies".

That someone can follow a black guy with your guns out because he matches a suspect and then when he freaks out because a pickup truck with two white guys with guns is following him and tries to wrestle the gun away the white guys are allowed to shoot him without issue. 

Looking at this from the victim's point of view. He was being followed in what could've easily just been a lynching waiting to happen. He decides to be proactive instead of letting himself get killed, and in the resulting shuffle he's shot several times. I don't think it's reasonable to expect that a person being followed by civilians with weapons should take no action against those following him. If they were marked police that would be different, but this is equivalent to someone walking behind me in a park with a rifle out. The guy with the rifle has it because he assumes the worst of people, but when the people he follows do the same and assume he's a criminal they're the ones acting irrationally. If it's rational to bring a gun because the person you're following may have ill intent, it's rational to assume the person following you with a gun has ill intent. 

On the other hand, I do not think it's reasonable to ask that people don't do random armed citizen's arrests based off little to no information. 

Have we video footage of this encounter?

Flag on the play. Red card. Whatever you want to call it. That is a full stop disgusting statement.

You complain about "shutting down conversations and polite discourse" and then immediately imply people enjoy  (or are for) murdering babies.

I didn't even bother reading past that because I was too busy almost vomiting at that desperate and pathetic framing of the issue.

That is one of the most loaded statements I've seen in quite a bit of time. Do you actually expect to have any part of your statement taken seriously when the very first thing you do is frame it as "for murdering babies".

1) "Respecting borders" isn't really a contentious or political opinion. The question "What action should be taken based on this" is much more relevant. I personally think Trump's family separation policy is vile, his wall is a massive waste of money and the steps he has taken to weaken DACA weaken our country. Steps should be taken to increase the technology at the southern border to allow us to better counteract smuggling and trafficking, and steps should be taken to increase our ability to process immigration cases to allow us to promptly evaluate need, but these are not the steps that Trump has prioritized.

2) So why do you support Trump? Virtually every democratic candidate is much stronger on criminal justice reform than Trump. He will sign a weak measure when it is dropped on his desk, but he is far from leading the charge.

3) A trade deficit doesn't mean that we are losing money to China and it doesn't imply any lack of sustainability. I go to the grocery store about once a week and I spend money every time and they haven't bought something from me a single time. This is a huge trade deficit. Is this bad? Is this economically unsustainable? Well, no. I am receiving goods for my money. This is normal. There are criticisms that can be levied on a heavy reliance on other countries, or the practices by which other country ensure their goods are cheap, but speaking strictly economically, at best this perspective is a vast oversimplification and misunderstanding of trade deficits.

4) Again, this is a fairly apolitical opinion. It is perhaps a more left-wing than right-wing perspective that low wages in foreign countries should be something that we should focus on. Look at what has happened with Nafta 2.0. Trump largely focuses on the movement and production of goods and their price as they cross the border. Democrats on the other hand, were behind the push to increases wages and labor rights in Mexico.

5) What about convicted felons? Do you really believe that every American has a right to firearms? That said, you are creating a bit of a strawman with this argument. Democrats aren't going to take away everyone's guns leaving you with nothing but your "bare hands". This is a lie you have been told to make you afraid, because when you are afraid, you are easier to manipulate.

6) So, civil rights? Not your bag?

7) Nobody is against this?

I think, judging by this post, you don't believe in the Policy of Donald Trump. You believe in things that Donald Trump has told you about the Policy of Donald Trump: That he is the only one fighting for this, or that his opponents have radical, untenable perspectives, or that reality is a lie. I implore you to look further into these issues. I think you find that in many cases, these things that you think set Donald Trump ahead of his opponents are actually little more than a cardboard facade.

1) The family policy began before Trump. On top of that, if someone comes into the country illegally, then they have broken the law. Where do criminals go? Jail. We don't put children in jail for something that is out of their control. If the parents don't want to be separated, then either stay where they are or come in legally. Pretty much every nation in the world has borders and certain quantities of people they will allow in for a specific time frame. I'm not sure why America has to have the burden of being forced to allow everyone in. Also, that wall is a dime in the bucket of our annual budget, and we spend a LOT more money on dealing with illegal immigrants every year than that wall would cost.

2) I wasn't suggesting Trump was the only person who dealt with this, or even the best. Just was saying it's an area he focuses on that I like.

3) Those goods you are receiving are perishable, not an investment of any kind. If we have a trade deficit with China of $400 billion every year, that's $400 billion out of our economy and into China's that we no longer have circulating in our economy. 

4) As I said, I'm not strictly Republican with every thought I have. For example, I am both for the increasing of funding for public schools AS WELL AS for school vouchers.

5) I'm aware democrats aren't currently pushing for the elimination of the 2nd amendment as a whole (only extremists), but I see their current moves as a stepping stone towards that.

6) I'm against people being physically attacked. Who am I to tell someone what they can say or not, or how to run their business? 

As for other candidates, I'd be open to others ones (that realistically can win), but my single biggest issue is ending the decades of legal murder of babies and only one candidate on the ballot will fight for that currently that has a chance at winning.

I'd much rather vote for a Mike Huckabee (2008, not now) guy than Donald Trump (2016/2020), but alas I am dealt the cards I'm dealt.

I'm confused. All I said was I am against murdering of babies. I did not say people enjoy it when they do it. I'm really not certain what you are getting at here?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fIve50vSeLQ&bpctr=1589142941

That someone can follow a black guy with your guns out because he matches a suspect and then when he freaks out because a pickup truck with two white guys with guns is following him and tries to wrestle the gun away the white guys are allowed to shoot him without issue.

Looking at this from the victim's point of view. He was being followed in what could've easily just been a lynching waiting to happen. He decides to be proactive instead of letting himself get killed, and in the resulting shuffle he's shot several times. I don't think it's reasonable to expect that a person being followed by civilians with weapons should take no action against those following him. If they were marked police that would be different, but this is equivalent to someone walking behind me in a park with a rifle out. The guy with the rifle has it because he assumes the worst of people, but when the people he follows do the same and assume he's a criminal they're the ones acting irrationally. If it's rational to bring a gun because the person you're following may have ill intent, it's rational to assume the person following you with a gun has ill intent.

On the other hand, I do not think it's reasonable to ask that people don't do random armed citizen's arrests based off little to no information.

I also want to point out that description of the encounter comes from the shooters, and the DA that chose not to recommend charges. 

In your earlier post, you speak as though Ahmaud Arbery was being chased...

The video you provided however shows Ahmaud Arbery (I assume he's the lone runner in the white shirt) running towards, not away, the white truck which is oriented away from the runner's location. It doesn't look to me like Arbery was being chased, seems like it's the other way around: Arbery ran up to the truck and tried to wrestle a firearm away.

Well we have some footage of the encounter and it shows Arbery running up to the two gunmen and attempting to wrestle a firearm away...