I'd actually say that Hillary is costing herself, but hey.

 

 

Rolling Stone @RollingStone Millennial voters may cost Hillary Clinton the election http://rol.st/2dbaXM8 / @theatlantic

Welp....that debate was more embarrassing then I ever suspected. We lost as a country. What horrific candidates we have on both sides.

Welp....that debate was more embarrassing then I ever suspected. We lost as a country. What horrific candidates we have on both sides.

 

As an American and a voter, I feel like I should have watched it, but I just can't. I don't like either candidate, don't want to vote for either one, and it makes me not care. This rigid two party system sucks. Even when you get a 3rd candidate, his chances of competing are 0.00001%.

Welp....that debate was more embarrassing then I ever suspected. We lost as a country. What horrific candidates we have on both sides.

 

Yep. That was so awful last night. Just once I would like to see a debate participant give an answer without referring to the other person.

All sorts of lab tech type jobs, working at refineries or gas plants, power plants etc.

Thanks. Seriously, I didn't realize that was the case.

 

As an American and a voter, I feel like I should have watched it, but I just can't. I don't like either candidate, don't want to vote for either one, and it makes me not care. This rigid two party system sucks. Even when you get a 3rd candidate, his chances of competing are 0.00001%.

 

The third parties need to show up more than once every four years. If you really want the Libertarians or the Green Party to be successful, you need to start building at the local level.

 

The third parties need to show up more than once every four years. If you really want the Libertarians or the Green Party to be successful, you need to start building at the local level.

 

No one cares about local politics. People basically just vote based on how they feel about the national parties. Making your party and platform known in the one election that people actually sort of pay attention to is the way to get your name out there.

This is an example of the bias against Trump. This is in a news story on CNN.com not an opinion piece. ...

 

The sentence says: "With no apparent consideration for the political recklessness of his crude comments, Trump once again went after Machado's physical appearance, bringing her up on his own."

 

The writer said the comments were "crude" and says they were politically "reckless." Says who? This is how you can tell the writer of the story favors Hillary over Trump. And don't get me started with the TV folks like Chris Matthews. He basically issued a love letter to Hillary making sure he had the first crack at who won the debate. He screamed that it was a shutout with HIllary hitting five home runs to Trump's none.

Cmon Chris. Any Trump supporter could point to five zinger lines Trump had that would look good as soundbites as well as Hillary's. If Hillary won, it was by a very very small margin. The bias amazes me.

This is an example of the bias against Trump. This is in a news story on CNN.com not an opinion piece. ...

 

The sentence says: "With no apparent consideration for the political recklessness of his crude comments, Trump once again went after Machado's physical appearance, bringing her up on his own."

 

The writer said the comments were "crude" and says they were politically "reckless." Says who? This is how you can tell the writer of the story favors Hillary over Trump. And don't get me started with the TV folks like Chris Matthews. He basically issued a love letter to Hillary making sure he had the first crack at who won the debate. He screamed that it was a shutout with HIllary hitting five home runs to Trump's none.

Cmon Chris. Any Trump supporter could point to five zinger lines Trump had that would look good as soundbites as well as Hillary's. If Hillary won, it was by a very very small margin. The bias amazes me.

 

What about the remarks isn't crude? If someone called Bill Self an ugly blowhard, wouldn't you describe it as crude? If someone called Bernadette Gray-Little a fat pig, wouldn't that be reckless? Or do we need to have a right-wing talk radio show confirm it?

What about the remarks isn't crude? If someone called Bill Self an ugly blowhard, wouldn't you describe it as crude? If someone called Bernadette Gray-Little a fat pig, wouldn't that be reckless? Or do we need to have a right-wing talk radio show confirm it?

I think you have to write around it and word it differently. Let the quote speak for itself. In a non opinion piece why throw in your opinion? My point is this is how they get Hillary to win by a landslide. It's not fair.

I think you have to write around it and word it differently. Let the quote speak for itself. In a non opinion piece why throw in your opinion? My point is this is how they get Hillary to win by a landslide. It's not fair.

 

At that point, you're simply providing Trump with the platform and validating his quotes. That was the case until he backtracked on the birther comments.

 

The third parties need to show up more than once every four years. If you really want the Libertarians or the Green Party to be successful, you need to start building at the local level.

100% correct

I think you have to write around it and word it differently. Let the quote speak for itself. In a non opinion piece why throw in your opinion? My point is this is how they get Hillary to win by a landslide. It's not fair.

 

Greg - let's say that Chris Sale throws a complete game, two hitter, with 12 Ks and the Sox lose. The article on the game states that Sale pitched brilliantly in a losing effort. It's a non-opinion piece, but the author used the word brilliant to describe the outing. That's not editorializing. Based on your issues above, however, they should have just put in Sale's line and let the reader infer that the outing was brilliant.

 

Neither is the example above. Trump, unprompted, insulted a beauty contestant's weight. That comment is crude. It is not editorializing to call it that.

This is an example of the bias against Trump. This is in a news story on CNN.com not an opinion piece. ...

 

The sentence says: "With no apparent consideration for the political recklessness of his crude comments, Trump once again went after Machado's physical appearance, bringing her up on his own."

 

The writer said the comments were "crude" and says they were politically "reckless." Says who? This is how you can tell the writer of the story favors Hillary over Trump. And don't get me started with the TV folks like Chris Matthews. He basically issued a love letter to Hillary making sure he had the first crack at who won the debate. He screamed that it was a shutout with HIllary hitting five home runs to Trump's none.

Cmon Chris. Any Trump supporter could point to five zinger lines Trump had that would look good as soundbites as well as Hillary's. If Hillary won, it was by a very very small margin. The bias amazes me.

 

Name one occasion when a female candidate commented on the attractiveness of male candidates, or heck, her opinion on Brit Hume's appearance?

 

Nobody would crucify them for "hiding behind being female"?

 

If you're alienating 14.5% of voters by attacking a female and Hispanic, and your weakest numbers are coming from women and minorities, how is that not a reckless strategy if you're attempting to make inroads with that group? Even if EVERY male in the US agreed, it would still be a losing line of attack because more and more females are voting than ever before.

 

Female and non-white voters are 62.2% of the electorate...why would he want to continue focusing on this topic?

Unbiased journalism doesn't require a journalist to set aside all forms of judgement, understanding and interpretation.

It isn't often you see a veto override vote of 97-1

 

http://thehill.com/policy/international/29...erwhelming-vote

Sweet Meteor O'Death ‏@smod2016 23m23 minutes ago REAL POLL: Who won the debate?

2% Trump

3% Clinton

95% I gouged out my eyeballs and look forward to nothing but the sweet release of death.

Sweet meteor of death 2016!

 

Is there any good breakdown of the 9/11 bill? I've only seen a couple of headlines about it.

It isn't often you see a veto override vote of 97-1

 

http://thehill.com/policy/international/29...erwhelming-vote

So let's say a family successfully sues Saudi Arabia in a US court. How is payment enforced? I don't understand who this helps.

 

This bill is just nakedly political. What am I missing here?

So let's say a family successfully sues Saudi Arabia in a US court. How is payment enforced? I don't understand who this helps.

 

This bill is just nakedly political. What am I missing here?

 

I actually have no idea how this would work. At the most basic level there has to be "jurisdiction" for a court to even hear a lawsuit. Generally speaking, courts dont have jurisdiction over foreign countries. Even if it gets through that stage, the Plaintiff's would have to prove that Saudi Arabia directly damaged them in a way that has not otherwise been compensated. If they successfully prove that, then they would have to collect. I guess if Saudi Arabia has money in banks etc they could theoretically get a turnover order. But what if they dont even respond to the citation? Generally when that happens you get a rule to show cause and then a bench warrant. Who could they even get a bench warrant against?

 

Its purely political and if Obama was up for re-election he probably doesnt veto it. I also think there is a slight worry that another country will use this as precedent for the US to be sued in their court system.

I don't think this is ALL political. You're going to see a big action against SA soon. Whether they can prove it or not is another matter.

 

Jurisdiction is provided in the law btw. And the theory is that will seize foreign assets to pay. But you're right, what happens if they don't respond. There's no one to haul into court unless you go grab an ambassador maybe?

Edited September 28, 20169 yr by JenksIsMyHero

That sounds like a fun way to start a war and destroy diplomatic standards worldwide though

I don't think this is ALL political. You're going to see a big action against SA soon. Whether they can prove it or not is another matter.

 

Jurisdiction is provided in the law btw. And the theory is that will seize foreign assets to pay. But you're right, what happens if they don't respond. There's no one to haul into court unless you go grab an ambassador maybe?

Pretty sure federal (and international) law prevents putting legal action against foreign consular staff as representative for their country's actions. I don't think that can be done.

 

I don't think this is ALL political. You're going to see a big action against SA soon. Whether they can prove it or not is another matter.

 

Jurisdiction is provided in the law btw. And the theory is that will seize foreign assets to pay. But you're right, what happens if they don't respond. There's no one to haul into court unless you go grab an ambassador maybe?

 

I didnt read the law but I kind of guessed that they must have given jurisdiction. I have no doubt that some lawyer(s) will take this case, but I just dont really see it as a winner. Evidence is going to be a huge issue, not to mention SA has pretty much unlimited funds, so I bet they appeal even if they lose.

 

I mean its 15 years later, if this was a legitimate move, it should have been done years ago.

 

(edit)

 

Also the ambassador would be immune, so that is the problem with any citation etc.

Edited September 28, 20169 yr by Soxbadger

I found this piece to be a useful summary of some of the law.

 

A comparable example to what courts might order is what happened with Argentina. They defaulted on their debt a decade ago and some wall street firms hassled them with court orders for a decade - including court ordered seizures of any assets in the country. That wound up hurting Argentina's ability to do business overseas enough that eventually they made some payments to settle those debts.