I heard someone talking about this bill on TV so take this with a grain of salt but if I understood him correctly, other countries could also sue the USA for war crimes. So US citizens could sue Saudi Arabia and all of the countries in the middle east that don't get billions in foreign aid could sue the US. If that's true, it's probably good Obama vetoed but that's an incredible number on the vote.

 

Was about to page Badger in the Dem thread. But I'm seeing the same as you.

 

Talk about opening Pandora's Box.

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.

You present a good argument. But I don't think the writer of the article of the game would say Sale pitched "brilliantly." I think he'd get Robin and others on the Sox and the manager of the other team to say it. Just my take.

You present a good argument. But I don't think the writer of the article of the game would say Sale pitched "brilliantly." I think he'd get Robin and others on the Sox and the manager of the other team to say it. Just my take.

"Sale Spins Gem in Sox Loss"

 

"Sale Brilliant in Tough Loss"

 

You don't see these as reasonable headlines huh?

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.

I just saw a yahoo article that referred to Trump's crude behavior, but it also said that Hillary pretends to be amused when you know she's not. My head is spinning. Must be a subliminal attempt to prop up a third party candidate. Perhaps Governer "The Body" will be getting my vote.

I heard someone talking about this bill on TV so take this with a grain of salt but if I understood him correctly, other countries could also sue the USA for war crimes. So US citizens could sue Saudi Arabia and most of the countries in the middle east that don't get billions in foreign aid could sue the US. If that's true, it's probably good Obama vetoed but that's an incredible number on the vote.

 

What is interesting is that an exception for this sort of stuff has already been put in the old rule, and been tested in court.

 

http://articles.philly.com/2008-06-02/news...-immunities-act

 

Plaintiffs must show that whatever harm was caused was the result of criminal behavior or some other action outside the boundaries of normal government operations.

 

Once that high hurdle is cleared, U.S. citizens can sue under circumstances, including:

 

Cases of personal injury or death, or damage to or loss of property, occurring in the United States if caused by negligent acts of omission or commission by a foreign government.

 

Cases of personal injury or death caused by an act of torture, extrajudicial killing, aircraft sabotage, hostage taking, or the provision of material support or resources for such an act, if the foreign state is designated as a state sponsor of terrorism.

 

 

Hello incoming flood of "collateral damage" civil action lawsuits against the U.S.

https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/782223934175444992

 

Have you noticed that anyone who doesn't support HRC is either naive, childish, delusional, purist, deplorable, or racist? Sensing a pattern

 

a keen sense of reality?

 

do we need to make a list of what the people who don't support Trump are called? Because I'm betting your list is a lot nicer.

https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/782223934175444992

 

Have you noticed that anyone who doesn't support HRC is either naive, childish, delusional, purist, deplorable, or racist? Sensing a pattern

 

A long, long pattern.

 

Sorry, not taking your bait.

 

Legit, how is that bait? I was being serious. Lol

Does anyone planning to vote for Trump really believe he can change his habits?

 

That he wouldn't be threatening war with a random third world country at 3 a.m. when he felt insulted on Twitter?

Someone like Duterte in the Philippines wouldn't get under his skin?

 

As it is, these latest comments on women will be the end unless HRC commits more self-inflicted mistakes simply because the average American woman is a Size 12, as opposed to the Size 2-4 average of his three wives.

Legit, if you're just going to try nd pick fights block me like you said you would with your hollow threat from the other day.

Wait like... just responding to something you post is "picking a fight" with you?? Goodness.

Does anyone planning to vote for Trump really believe he can change his habits?

Does Trump actually have any supporters? He's going to lose in a landslide. The sad thing is some Americans think Hillary is just as bad as Trump and I am one of them. She is no better. Our country couldn't come up with better candidates??

Does Trump actually have any supporters? He's going to lose in a landslide. The sad thing is some Americans think Hillary is just as bad as Trump and I am one of them. She is no better. Our country couldn't come up with better candidates??

There was a better candidate - his name was John Kasich.

There was a better candidate - his name was John Kasich.

 

If you bought into his transition to a moderate Republican and stripped away all of his extreme viewpoints and statements over the years.

 

He seemed more on point regarding economic solutions and uplifting the middle class than most of his fellow Republicans.

If you bought into his transition to a moderate Republican and stripped away all of his extreme viewpoints and statements over the years.

 

He seemed more on point regarding economic solutions and uplifting the middle class than most of his fellow Republicans.

This is one of the things I find very odd about politics, and I mean it in regard to how all politicians are treated. We bring up their voting record and and things they said 15 years ago and hold them to it today. It's like they aren't allowed to grow or change opinions without it being called a lie or "flip flop."

 

I understand that their voting records and statements they've made are important, but if 15 years ago I said something that showed a blind devotion to law enforcement, and today I was critical, doesn't that show that I'm paying attention? Would it really be better for me to view a police brutality video and act like I wasn't able to see what was on the video?

 

Again, I don't mean this in a partisan way. I mean it in regard to social, economic, and policy issues. I'm not sure why politicians aren't allowed to grow or change as long as they can justify the change.

This is one of the things I find very odd about politics, and I mean it in regard to how all politicians are treated. We bring up their voting record and and things they said 15 years ago and hold them to it today. It's like they aren't allowed to grow or change opinions without it being called a lie or "flip flop."

 

I understand that their voting records and statements they've made are important, but if 15 years ago I said something that showed a blind devotion to law enforcement, and today I was critical, doesn't that show that I'm paying attention? Would it really be better for me to view a police brutality video and act like I wasn't able to see what was on the video?

 

Again, I don't mean this in a partisan way. I mean it in regard to social, economic, and policy issues. I'm not sure why politicians aren't allowed to grow or change as long as they can justify the change.

 

Well, the present election is a good example. Hillary being dinged for her husband's trade policies from 20+ years ago or using the term "super predators," it goes with the territory.

 

Two events that happened twenty years ago, related to Alicia Machado and Trump's Federal taxes/losses, are going to help decide the election in her favor.

 

Maybe that's why Obama had an advantage in 2008, having more of a blank slate and much less of a record to run on or against, but looking at only "recent" comments would generally lead to younger and even more inexperienced candidates, yes?

Well, the present election is a good example. Hillary being dinged for her husband's trade policies from 20+ years ago or using the term "super predators," it goes with the territory.

 

Two events that happened twenty years ago, related to Alicia Machado and Trump's Federal taxes/losses, are going to help decide the election in her favor.

 

Maybe that's why Obama had an advantage in 2008, having more of a blank slate and much less of a record to run on or against, but looking at only "recent" comments would generally lead to younger and even more inexperienced candidates, yes?

Yeah, there is really not a clean solution. I just find it a little head scratching that something someone said 20 years ago that they might not feel now is still a point of emphasis in an election. In this election, Trump has the advantage of never actually voting for any of the current policies, so he is similar to Obama in lack of experience

 

I like to think that I'm not the same person I was 20 years ago, 10 years ago,.....

 

 

If you bought into his transition to a moderate Republican and stripped away all of his extreme viewpoints and statements over the years.

 

He seemed more on point regarding economic solutions and uplifting the middle class than most of his fellow Republicans.

I've voted on both sides of the aisle and really was looking to vote for someone that could work across party lines to get things done. I can accept that politicians change their minds and some will say what they will to get elected. I just felt like Kasich was the adult in the room during the republican debates and had much more substance to his arguments and policies than the brash GOP nominee did. I'm not really looking forward to having to vote for one party for president and the other party for the state elections, but like the Northsiders winning the World Series, it is what it is.

Edited October 2, 20169 yr by SpankyEaton

Yeah, there is really not a clean solution. I just find it a little head scratching that something someone said 20 years ago that they might not feel now is still a point of emphasis in an election. In this election, Trump has the advantage of never actually voting for any of the current policies, so he is similar to Obama in lack of experience

 

I like to think that I'm not the same person I was 20 years ago, 10 years ago,.....

 

It's just basic human nature, and it's not going to change. If it's YOUR candidate, you applaud their "evolution" on an issue. If it's THEIR candidate, they've "flip flopped" and they're "pandering" to win an election.

 

Just like Ben Franklin said about the Revolution: "A rebellion is always legal in the first person, such as "our rebellion." It is only in the third person - "their rebellion" - that it becomes illegal."

 

Same diff.

Does Trump actually have any supporters? He's going to lose in a landslide. The sad thing is some Americans think Hillary is just as bad as Trump and I am one of them. She is no better. Our country couldn't come up with better candidates??

He may lose but a landslide it will not be.

It's just basic human nature, and it's not going to change. If it's YOUR candidate, you applaud their "evolution" on an issue. If it's THEIR candidate, they've "flip flopped" and they're "pandering" to win an election.

 

Just like Ben Franklin said about the Revolution: "A rebellion is always legal in the first person, such as "our rebellion." It is only in the third person - "their rebellion" - that it becomes illegal."

 

Same diff.

No doubt. Ol' Ben had a way with words.

Well, the present election is a good example. Hillary being dinged for her husband's trade policies from 20+ years ago or using the term "super predators," it goes with the territory.

 

Two events that happened twenty years ago, related to Alicia Machado and Trump's Federal taxes/losses, are going to help decide the election in her favor.

 

Maybe that's why Obama had an advantage in 2008, having more of a blank slate and much less of a record to run on or against, but looking at only "recent" comments would generally lead to younger and even more inexperienced candidates, yes?

 

That is because Hillary is running based on her husbands record, and her involvement in those things coming to fruition.

That is because Hillary is running based on her husbands record, and her involvement in those things coming to fruition.

Of course she couldn't POSSIBLY be running on HER OWN 30 year record in public service.

 

Subtext: (because she's a woman)

 

SMH

Of course she couldn't POSSIBLY be running on HER OWN 30 year record in public service.

 

Subtext: (because she's a woman)

 

SMH

 

Do you even listen to her speak? She is constantly mentioning the Clinton Presidency. The whole it has to be sexism thing is pathetic.

Do you even listen to her speak? She is constantly mentioning the Clinton Presidency. The whole it has to be sexism thing is pathetic.

When you say she's running on her husband's legacy, that's sexism. She has created a massively impressive legacy on her own.

 

I don't care if you can't see it. It's normal that people who are sexist don't realize they're sexist. But systemic misogyny colors your opinion of Hillary.