Then how does that explain the fact that Tom's posts include facts and data derived from published sources with verifiable information? You haven't disproved ONE of Tom's claims, let alone 85%. Where did you get this "being correct is less than 15%"? From your arse again? You really are just completely full of s**t these days, aren't you?

You obviously can't dispute any of the facts from this article and can't refute the words that came right out of the horse's mouth - Republicans in Wisconsin about v**er suppression - so you have to retreat to your tired childish insults and false accusations against the messenger. :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:

You really are just a complete waste of time and not worth the attempt to ever engage you in an honest conversation. Just like most of your other right wing buddies here.

Interesting that you ignore what Police Officers are saying and only want to make this about Schumer. I think we should listen to our police officers when they express concern about something that can put their lives in danger, don't you?

I think what the head of the National Association of Police Organizations said was an important point. An even more important point that he didn't mention is how it could put civilian's lives at risk more with this disguised smartphone gun.

Think about it: If smartphone can be guns, Any time a civilian is interacting with the police, when they pull out a phone, the cop would be much more likely to assume it could be a gun and shoot the person. It increases OUR risks of getting shot. You don't think that should be a consideration?