DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Everything Else... Countdown to Election Day, #10

Trump sucks, vote for Pedro.

Isn't it amazing just how much pressure per square inch people have to use to squeeze these two camels through the eye of the presidential needle?

Given that Ted Cruz has sold out I just might write y own name in just so I can say I wrote 'Ted' on the ballot.

Can't tell you how freeing it is to not have a horse in the race and have total objectivity.

Trump sucks!

Hillary sucks!

EVERYBODY SUCKS!

It's going to really suck if Hillary is elected and we have to endure the justices she appoints or nominates. This will have a lasting effect for years to come.

Trump 2016

I don't get it bro. why did he sell out?

there's no way in hell somebody will talk about my wife like that and still endorse him? no backbone.

should've been cool with garland.

he was a moderate. but, since it was obama who picked him, y'all couldn't have that,

now it's about to bite y'all in the ass.

These read like onion headlines:





This, my friends, is what a meltdown looks like. Reality sucks doesn't it, Drumpf?

Trumps tweets would be hilarious if he wasn't running for president.

I'm just being dead ass serious. Dude was so funny as a tv personality and playboy billionaire. Everybody was on his team then.

But these meltdowns aren't what is needed to represent our country. And that's the problem: celebrities flaws are highlighted to the max once they try to be something way more than that.

Rocket, it's why I asked the question before:

If Obama had 5 kids by three different women, would he be president?

J/C

Trump had cameo in softcore Playboy porn film in 2000

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-r...y-softcore-porn

Just read the article. Hilarious lol

A couple days after the endorsement, Ted called in to Glenn Beck and got raked over the coals for over half an hour and he gave the most 'politician' like answers I'd ever heard out of him.

Even Glenn said that was the first time that he sounded 'calculating'.

He made a business decision in order to protect his seat in the senate when he comes up for reelection next time around.

I'm disappointed, when the founders signed the Declaration of Independence, they pledged their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor for liberty.

Apparently, Ted was only willing to do that until he couldn't afford to anymore.

Hillarys 22 biggest scandals ever

http://www.wnd.com/2015/05/here-they-are-hillarys-22-biggest-scandals-ever/

Ted, I'm bout to tell you my real feelings on this cause I respect the hell out of you.

So please don't take this personal about your beliefs.

Religious leaders, regardless on the fact that I'm non religious, tend to be really good leaders in general, or at least good examples of living an honorable life.

So why is it that the ideology of Christianity can't ever produce those at consistent level, as far as government.

I'm sorry bro, but from everything Christians tell me about respecting marriage, honoring your wife, and protecting her, it's really disappointing to see other Christians defend these kinds of issues.

I thought it was faith before anything else? I understand law of the land and such, but how on earth could somebody allow their political career to override somebody blatantly disrespecting his wife like that?

I not trying to trash anybody. I'm genuinely asking you to help me understand. arent there suppose to be certain character flaws you simply can't overlook in the name of politics?

I counted every interruption in the first presidential debate. And then I did the same for Obama-Romney.

http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2...hoo&ref=yfp

I spent Monday night clicking a button on my computer each time Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump interrupted each other (or host Lester Holt) during the first presidential debate.

I ended up clicking that button a whole lot.

The result was this graphic, produced about halfway through the debate, which quickly went viral.


I kept counting till the end of the night and found that Trump ultimately interrupted Clinton 51 times, significantly more than Clinton’s 17 interruptions of Trump.

I wasn’t the only one counting interruptions during the debate.

The New York Times found that Trump interrupted Clinton 39 times while she only interrupted him eight times. Time used the debate transcript to identify 84 interruptions, 55 of which came from Trump. FiveThirtyEight even tried to classify the types of interruptions that occurred.

Vox decided to count interruptions — and I’m guessing other outlets did too — because we knew about research showing that in professional situations, women tend to get interrupted significantly more than men. So we wanted to see whether that dynamic would be in play as Clinton became the first woman to participate in a presidential debate.

My reporting led to a question from a lot of readers: Was the disparity in interruptions really about gender? In other words: How much of what we saw Monday was Trump just being his usual outspoken self, and how much of it was actually related to how men act in a debate?

This is, in some ways, an impossible question to answer. We’ve only had one woman participate in a presidential debate; we can’t look back at the gender dynamic in prior debates because the candidates, up until now, have always been the same gender.

But what I could do was look at how men interact with each other when they’re put onstage together in the same situation. So I recently watched the first debate between Mitt Romney and President Barack Obama in 2012 and counted the number of times they interrupted each other to see how it was — or wasn’t — different from what we saw this election cycle.

Here’s what I came away thinking: The interactions between Clinton and Trump reflected both the particulars of the candidates (namely, Trump’s brash debating style) and the larger gender dynamics (how Clinton might face specific scrutiny for pushing back on interruptions). The two came together in a way that led to significantly more interruptions than we saw in the first presidential debate of the 2012 cycle.

When Obama and Romney debated, direct interruptions were infrequent, and more than half were from the moderator
Watching the first debate between President Obama and Gov. Romney, I was immediately struck by just how politely and infrequently they interrupted each other.

In total, Obama interrupted Romney seven times and Romney interrupted Obama just four times. Romney spent far more time interrupting moderator Jim Lehrer (12 times); Obama interrupted Lehrer just five times. Meanwhile, Lehrer by far had the most interruptions — 38 in total, 15 directed at Obama and 23 directed at Romney.

As the above numbers suggest, the bulk of interruptions were either directed at Lehrer, the moderator, or happened because Lehrer was trying to rein in Romney and Obama’s answers, as both candidates consistently went over time in their responses.

Granted, Lehrer had quite the time trying to corral both men’s answers, and the press was not impressed with his performance — but the types of interruptions we saw when Obama and Romney took the stage were dramatically different from what we witnessed Monday night.

Perhaps most telling, though, was that neither candidate angrily interjected his disagreement with the other’s response as Trump did repeatedly to Clinton Monday night.


In a way, watching the Obama-Romney debate was less illuminating than I’d hoped, because it was so different from the debate we watched Monday — not just for the fact that there wasn’t a woman onstage but also because the two 2012 candidates had significantly different debating styles than what Trump brought to the stage.

Trump interrupted Clinton frequently Monday night because interruptions are part of his debate strategy
There is a valid case to be made that what we witnessed Monday night — the sheer volume and ferocity of Trump’s interjections — had to do with the gender dynamic at play and with Trump’s flagrant disregard for conventional norms, including debate decorum.

If you read what my colleague Libby Nelson wrote about Trump’s seven key moves during the Republican primary debates, you’ll note that one of the candidate’s key debate tactics actually involves trying to shout down and humiliate his opponents. Nelson points out that it wasn’t because Trump was trying to dispute a policy issue but rather that he wanted to be the one talking.

Nelson notes that Trump was careful to avoid this tactic with Carly Fiorina in the Republican primary debates. But as we saw Monday night, he had no qualms interrupting Clinton just as he did Jeb Bush, Ted Cruz, and Marco Rubio during the primaries.

That said, as my colleague Emily Crockett notes, the fact that Clinton is a woman means she has a far greater chance of being on the receiving end of these kinds of interruptions than a man in her position. What’s more, Clinton stands a far greater risk of being criticized for how she reacts. So it makes sense that she was more reticent to participate in the interruptions, and that her numbers were closer to (although still higher than) Obama and Romney’s in 2012.

It’s really hard, Crockett writes, to distinguish among the different factors that created the discrepancy in interruptions:

It’s true that interruptions are a complicated subject in sociolinguistics. Gender isn’t the only factor that determines patterns of interruption; an individual’s social status or cultural upbringing also matters a lot.

Statistically speaking, though, being a woman makes Clinton more likely to be on the receiving end of these kinds of interruptions — and, on top of that, more likely to be criticized for the way she responds to them.
So for the second and third presidential debates, I’ll continue to track the number of interruptions, as we try to understand what’s happening and how much of what we’re witnessing is a continuation of the subtle — and, in this case, often not so subtle — sexism that women experience in once male-dominated spaces.

Thank you for posting this video ddubia. The section about her IRS abuse is frightening. By referring to millions of Americans as 'deplorables' and 'irredeemable,' Hillary Clinton is showing her outright contempt for ordinary people. If elected what are her plans for those people she has already labeled?

Much respect to you also my friend! His 'rationale' was that after much prayer, as a family they forgave him.

Not going to say that he isn't sincere as it's certainly not my place, but...it certainly did come at a convenient time didn't it?

Senators Blame Obama For Not Helping Them Understand Their Own Bill


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/sena...ection=politics

Last Friday, President Barack Obama vetoed a bill called the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act, better known as JASTA. The bill, which enjoyed broad bipartisan support in both houses of Congress, would, among other things, have allowed plaintiffs to sue countries known to have sponsored terrorist acts for compensatory damages. Many of the bill’s supporters had pitched JASTA as a “sue Saudi Arabia” bill, based on their insistent belief that Saudi Arabia was behind the Sept. 11 attacks. The bill’s supporters in Congress frequently cited the 9/11 attacks as their motivation for passing the bill in the first place.

Obama vetoed JASTA, but the story didn’t end there. Earlier this week, Congress handed Obama the first veto override of his presidential tenure. JASTA was law, baby! All that’s left is the high-fiving!

But there always has to be a morning after. And many members of Congress, after they’d come down a bit from their veto override high, evidently started to wonder about what they’d done, exactly. That’s when they found that the bill they supported through a veto override maaaaaybe needed a tweak or two. Per Jordain Carney at The Hill:

A day after the House and Senate overwhelmingly voted to override President Obama’s veto, GOP leaders are expressing reservations about legislation that would allow lawsuits related to 9/11 to go forward against Saudi Arabia.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) both said they were open to discussions about changing the bill, which Congress approved unanimously.
Oh, my stars and garters, what needed to be changed to make these sudden “reservations” go away?

“We want to make sure the 9/11 victims and their families have their day in court,” Ryan told reporters. “At the same time, I would like to think that there may be some work to be done to protect our service members overseas from any kind of legal ensnarements that occur, any kind of retribution.”
Huh, well, that’s interesting. Congress wrote a bill that would allow sovereign immunity protections to be waived so that people could sue other nations for sponsoring terrorist acts, and it turns out that when you do that, it causes these other consequences ― like establishing the legal precedent through which the United States may be similarly sued. Someone should have really seen this coming. Perhaps the authors of the bill will step up and take responsibility?

Ha, ha: no. As Carney went on to report last night, it’s very clear who the bad guy is in all of this.

Though the Senate voted on Wednesday to overwhelmingly nix the president’s veto in a 97-1 vote, some lawmakers said they had misgivings about the bill. They stressed, however, that any push to find an alternative was largely ignored by the Obama administration.

McConnell echoed that sentiment Thursday, calling the legislation “an example of an issue that we should have talked about much earlier.”

“You know, that was a good example of — it seems to be a failure to communicate early about the potential consequences of a piece of legislation was obviously very popular,” he said.
So let me get this straight. Congress wrote the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act. It was super popular with members of Congress. But the president insisted he’d veto the bill. Congress was like, “Bring it on, mofeaux!” They overrode the veto without a second thought. Then suddenly they started having those second thoughts, and now it is somehow the White House’s fault for not fully communicating the unintended consequences of the bill and the impact they might have.

It’s a pretty insane response from McConnell (and it’s just as nuts that his claim was reported uncritically). It would be pretty inconvenient if, say, White House press secretary Josh Earnest had at some point communicated this specific concern with the JASTA bill, wouldn’t it?

White House press briefing, July 15, 2016:

Q You’ve also said on a previous occasion that the White House was against JASTA. And I’m just wondering why there would seem to be this disconnect between the White House’s view of JASTA when there are so many in the United States Senate, overwhelmingly so, who feel like this may be a very good idea?

MR. EARNEST: Well, Kevin, this just goes back to a long-held principle here about the risk that this legislation would pose to ―

Q It’s pretty narrow, wouldn’t you agree? At least the way it’s currently ―

MR. EARNEST: Again, based on the analysis that’s been conducted by our lawyers here in the U.S. government, the way that this law is written could open up U.S. companies and even potentially U.S. personnel to vulnerabilities when they’re engaged in actions or doing business or conducting official government work overseas.

There is an important principle related to sovereign immunity. And when you’re the most powerful country in the world, you’re invested in the idea of sovereign immunity, given how deeply the United States is involved in so many other countries.

So we believe that’s a principle worth protecting. And that is the concern that we have with this legislation, at least the way that the most recent draft was put forward. Doesn’t have to do with any specific country, but rather has to do with our concern about a specific principle that benefits the United States and private U.S. interests in countries all around the globe.
It would also be awkward if it turned out the White House actually had been attempting to work with Congress to address these concerns.

White House press briefing, Sept. 23, 2016:

Q This 9/11 lawsuit bill seems to be framed as an up or down proposition. Is that accurate, or is there room for compromise?

MR. EARNEST: Well, we certainly would welcome congressional action that would address the concerns that we’ve raised. So I guess that’s the reason that we’re having conversations, is to try to find an approach that would satisfy the concerns and the desire of some members of Congress to want to address the request of the 9/11 families. And we’re hopeful that they can find a way to do that that doesn’t carve out the kinds of exceptions that put our diplomats and servicemembers at risk around the world.

Q But your answer to Olivier before sort of suggested that there are two moving parts here. There is the sovereign immunity stripping provisions of JASTA, but also the response from other nations, which may or may not be reciprocal to that. So is there any ― am I characterizing your position correctly? If that’s true, is there anything that you can do to reduce the immunity protection without triggering some sort of international law ―

MR. EARNEST: I guess what I would say ― the best way I can answer your question, Gregory, is to say that, yes, potentially there is a way to address the significant concerns that we’ve raised about the risk facing U.S. servicemembers and U.S. diplomats while also addressing the requests of the 9/11 families. That’s the ―

Q Are you prepared to say (inaudible)?

MR. EARNEST: No, but I think that’s the nature of the conversations that we’re having with members of Congress on Capitol Hill. I don’t know if something like that exists, but we’re certainly in conversations to find out if it does.
Huh, well, that’s interesting. But surely it was incumbent on the president himself to personally communicate his specific misgivings about the bill ― maybe in, say, a letter to the Senate written on the occasion of his veto. Wonder if he did that?

Veto Message from the President ― S.2040:

TO THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES:

I am returning herewith without my approval S. 2040, the “Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act” (JASTA), which would, among other things, remove sovereign immunity in U.S. courts from foreign governments that are not designated state sponsors of terrorism.

I have deep sympathy for the families of the victims of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 (9/11), who have suffered grievously. I also have a deep appreciation of these families’ desire to pursue justice and am strongly committed to assisting them in their efforts.

[...]

...JASTA would upset longstanding international principles regarding sovereign immunity, putting in place rules that, if applied globally, could have serious implications for U.S. national interests. The United States has a larger international presence, by far, than any other country, and sovereign immunity principles protect our Nation and its Armed Forces, officials, and assistance professionals, from foreign court proceedings. These principles also protect U.S. Government assets from attempted seizure by private litigants abroad. Removing sovereign immunity in U.S. courts from foreign governments that are not designated as state sponsors of terrorism, based solely on allegations that such foreign governments’ actions abroad had a connection to terrorism-related injuries on U.S. soil, threatens to undermine these longstanding principles that protect the United States, our forces, and our personnel.

Indeed, reciprocity plays a substantial role in foreign relations, and numerous other countries already have laws that allow for the adjustment of a foreign state’s immunities based on the treatment their governments receive in the courts of the other state. Enactment of JASTA could encourage foreign governments to act reciprocally and allow their domestic courts to exercise jurisdiction over the United States or U.S. officials ― including our men and women in uniform ― for allegedly causing injuries overseas via U.S. support to third parties. This could lead to suits against the United States or U.S. officials for actions taken by members of an armed group that received U.S. assistance, misuse of U.S. military equipment by foreign forces, or abuses committed by police units that received U.S. training, even if the allegations at issue ultimately would be without merit. And if any of these litigants were to win judgments ― based on foreign domestic laws as applied by foreign courts ― they would begin to look to the assets of the U.S. Government held abroad to satisfy those judgments, with potentially serious financial consequences for the United States.
I trust you get my point. (Emphasis mine in all of the above selections, by the way.) McConnell’s claim ― that the fiasco in which Congress is now entangled is somehow a result of the White House’s “failure to communicate” ― is entirely without merit. The White House communicated its concerns clearly, early and often. How clearly did they communicate them? Clearly enough that we were able to talk about them on the “So That Happened” podcast that was published on Sept. 16.


So it’s really hilarious to see members of the Senate suddenly seeking guidance about the bill, when the White House articulated its concerns very explicitly to anyone who was willing to listen...


...concerns that appear to have been rather widely reported.


This is just... the living end, isn’t it?


In short, we have a Congress that desperately needs to take some sort of “Remedial Congressing” class at the Learning Annex, or something.

And once they’re ready for some advanced studies, I would urge them to reflect on this: When there’s a bill that would allow these sorts of lawsuits, and the president of the United States greets that bill by saying “Hey guys, you know, probably no nation on Earth depends on the principle of sovereign immunity more than we do,” that’s your cue to maybe consider the possibility that the United States is knee damn deep in some very dirty water.

They overrode the veto because they were all afraid of being seen as for the Saudi government and against the families of the 9/11 victims. Now they are just playing dumb and blaming Obama.

I really don't think being a good Christian while being a successful Politician is possible once you get to the state level and above. The "friends" you have to make in order to get the support needed to win elections will see to that. Sadly, only those who are willing to sell out on some of their Christian beliefs can prosper in this arena.

I would like for someone to define for me exactly what is a "good Christian".

I can show you what a bad one looks like. *Sticking my face up to the screen*

IMHO a good Christian is a person who walks daily with the Lord, fighting against evil influences and his own Human Nature. He reads and understands to the best of his abilities what exactly the Lord asks of him. He sins and then realizes he has sinned, prays, saying he is sorry for the sin and asks God for forgiveness. He carries on and tries to not sin again, until he once again does.

It is a never ending cycle of Faith, Worship, Obedience, falling down and picking yourself up.

When he prays, he prays like this while thinking to himself what each sentence means...

Our Father, Who art in heaven
Hallowed be Thy Name;
Thy kingdom come,
Thy will be done,
on earth as it is in heaven.
Give us this day our daily bread,
and forgive us our trespasses,
as we forgive those who trespass against us;
and lead us not into temptation,
but deliver us from evil. Amen.

In simpler terms, it's someone who strives to live according to the teachings of Jesus.

Ah, but he didn't ask for the definition of "A Christian", I think he already knows that and there are plenty of them.

He asked what exactly is a "Good Christian".

Someone who has accepted Jesus as their Lord and Savior, and who follows Christs's teachings in the Bible to the best of their abilities.

I believe that the life of a Christian should "look" different than the average non-believer's life. A Christian should do their best to obey God's Commandments, and even though we screw up and sin, we should be doing our best to avoid sin. The Bible tells us to repent of our sins ..... to turn away from them.

It is my belief that Christians should do their best to obey Jesus. I have to wonder if a person can truly do this, when they are actively chasing after sin. To me, it seems that a Christian should be doing all they can to stay away from sin, and temptation. Christians should do their best to avoid sin, and not because we "have to", but because we want to please our Lord. The God fearing Christian doesn't encourage others to sin. A good Christian doesn't condemn others for their sins, but they also don't tell the sinner that their sin is just fine, anymore than they should accept that their own sins are perfectly OK.

The Bible tells us to confess our sins before the Lord, and repent. A person cannot repent of something they actively pursue, and that becomes more important to them than God.

Good Christians should use the gifts God gives them, and should help others whenever they can.

To me, these are some of the things that make up "good Christian". In short, follow Jesus, and accept Him as Lord and Savior, and make your life a reflection of Jesus.

Good post. I am beginning to feel it is soon time for another Religious Thread! hehehehehehehe

Hillary Clinton is back on the campaign trail locking arms with former Democratic rival Bernie Sanders to tout debt-free college education. But Clinton has privately distanced herself from such promises and other progressive ideals championed by Sanders, instead describing herself as a “center-left to the center-right” candidate, according to a recently released audiotape.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/10/...nter-right.html

If anyone is on the path of debt-free college education, that is the economic suicide and I have no idea how much of a tax hike that would be but it would be dumb. She would be smart to distance herself from that. Describing herself as a "center-right" candidate, don't make me laugh. You can't pivot when you have history. Its not like I forget everything that happened before.....

When these are the candidates we're left with I say "really?" Has the intelligence of the United States gone down as a whole? How are choices like this allowed to get this far? Either Trump or Hillary?

What's wrong with reinvestment into future minds of America? I'll gladly pay a little more tax, and that would grant many kids a chance they may never has as a reality.

We can make it feasible. Certain benchmarks must get met in college to receive free tuition.

Nothing, but you can't do it by Sanders proposals because that's not the right way.

Having a socialistic program such as paying for everyone's education in the whole United States is economically unfeasible. If we did put such a plan in place there would be a slew of unintended consequences (bad ones) and I don't trust the government to run or plan anything of that size efficiently.

What are those unintended consequences?

I think the pros outweigh the cons/initial expenditure. The investment in the education of our younger generations will pay off in multiple ways. The more we discredit lowering the cost of education or label the discussions of free higher education as "evil socialism" the more we slam the door on our country being able to progress and grow.

Plant the seeds now and enjoy the fruits later.

We're twenty trillion in debt. That's a really really big T. Now we bring in roughly three trillion in taxes a year, so if we shut government down completely for six to seven years we might catch up. Since that will never happen, how can we possibly think of adding new debt to a debt we can't maintain now? How irresponsible is that line of thinking? How much debt are you willing to saddle future generations with?

I worry about the growing anti-intellectual movement. I was flabbergasted at the amount of cheers against people with college educations at Trump's convention.

OR, you channel our obscene amount of funding in defense/war and put it instead into education? The more educated the population the better the economy and the fewer social issues. 4 year college isn't the be all and end all, either. We all know what works for some doesn't work for others. Invest in trade and vocation.

I wasn't. They are seen as the elitists and arrogant fools who have brought us Social changes and experiments that we don't support and when we complain, they call us all kinds of terrible names instead of hearing us out. They see themselves as superior and everyone else as 'deplorables'.

They are the smart ones who have doubled our debt in 10 years and are now looking to give away the rest of the Nation in free stuff.

We have allowed them to run America into the ground and now we are beginning to take our Country back from them.

And before somebody jumps on me about that idea...I am not suggesting channeling ALL our defense budget but, we can certainly cut it and move some of those funds into education.

It is sad when a country turns on education. I mean, think about it...we are not going to compete with Europe, China or India if we don't educate our youth. So, watch the American economy swirl down that toilet. But, hey...at least those "intellectual snobs" are gone, right?

Watch the film "Idiocracy". Laugh but, be afraid. Very afraid.

Yes it could happen but when one group of people see themselves as superior to the rest and begin to dismiss the rest as idiots and deplorables, it is on.

Enjoy the ride.

Facts and science go against your beliefs, 40?



An overwhelming majority of American support abortion, same-sex marriage, trans rights, etc. You're part of a minority that's kicking and screaming against progress.



No, people hear out the counterarguments. Most of the arguments come back to arguing about religious dogma in the public sphere, falsely founded concerns on refugees, or "it wasn't like this back in my day". Modern society tends not to base arguments on religious dogma. Take a time machine back to medieval times if you want that.



It isn't "ours". It most likely belonged to Alaskan Natives and Native Americans who arrived here first. But you know, we don't tend to talk about the genocide of the indigenous.

You can't keep up the spending rate were at now, much less add new pockets to fill with money, even if you reduce spending somewhere else. We're twenty freaking trillion dollars in debt. We need to cut spending, everywhere, to begin to reduce our debt.