Moiraine

You couldn't stand it coming from them, so what do you do when it comes from Trump? Just bury your head in the sand? Are you actually under the delusion that Trump is exempt from the exact same thing that you are complaining about from Clinton/Warren, or are you admitting to your tribal, us vs. them mentality where as long as it's your side doing it you're fine with it? I watched every minute of Trump's speech about Hillary Clinton. Not only did he use statistics and actual figures, he cited many other people who worked closely with the Clintons in the White House and witnessed first-hand what she is like. This is probably the most crazy claim I've heard about Trump so far. He contradicts his own words on a daily basis. Clinton doesn't even begin to approach the types of lying spew that come out of his mouth.

Matthew 25: 37-40 Then the righteous will answer him, Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you? The King will reply, Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me. Mark 12:17 And Jesus answering said unto them, "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's." And they marveled at him. Notice how he didn't say "Render unto Caesar your money so he can give it to those less fortunate." Once again, I believe Jesus would have it be a free will offering rather than a payment to the government for them to disburse. Acts 4:32-35 All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had. With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. And Gods grace was so powerfully at work in them all that there were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned land or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales and put it at the apostles feet, and it was distributed to anyone who had need. We can quibble about who's doing the distributing - the government or the church - but it's still about as Socialist as Medicare. And we can quibble about the government being "them" or "us" all you want, but Abraham Lincoln said the government was "Of the people, by the people, for the people." If the government is "them," then who is "us?" The dots don't connect the way you want them to. Bottom line is, people work hard for their money. They shouldn't be forced to hand over a portion of it so that it can be distributed by a current-day government that has shown time and again not to be trustworthy. Giving money to the poor should be entirely by choice. It isn't by choice. You've been commanded to do so by Jesus. He couldn't have been more clear about it. So you're forcing the Jews, Muslims, Atheists, Pagans, and Satanists to participate in a Christian program through the government? That doesn't seem right... Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security aren't Christian programs. That's what you're trying to argue. Bottom line, no government should force anyone to give money in order for them to re-disburse to those they deem worthy. It should be entirely by free will choice, as Jesus intended it if that's what you're coming back at me with. Let's try that for 2 years. Get back to me when your car is done falling into a giant pothole that didn't get repaires because people didn't freely donate their time and money to repair it.(facepalm) Like usual, you're not understanding the issue. We're not talking about taxation in general. Just social security and other socialist programs to pay for poor people. Oh I underatand the issue perfectly. You just don't understand what you're saying. All tax money is used for things that people can't afford on their own. The police help everyone including poor people. As do road repairs. As would help for parents of newborns. I guess you're only agains things that ONLY help poor people. 'Cause they just don't deserve it. I'm pro-life but the Republicans are completely ass-backwards on their philosophy about it. You want people to help their babies? Don't be such jerks to people of need.

Also, get back to me on how well this "free giving" goes with the police force and stopping these illegal abortions. Or are you wanting us to just have several random militias in this tax-free utopia?

Matthew 25: 37-40 Then the righteous will answer him, Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you? The King will reply, Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me. Mark 12:17 And Jesus answering said unto them, "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's." And they marveled at him. Notice how he didn't say "Render unto Caesar your money so he can give it to those less fortunate." Once again, I believe Jesus would have it be a free will offering rather than a payment to the government for them to disburse. Acts 4:32-35 All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had. With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. And Gods grace was so powerfully at work in them all that there were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned land or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales and put it at the apostles feet, and it was distributed to anyone who had need. We can quibble about who's doing the distributing - the government or the church - but it's still about as Socialist as Medicare. And we can quibble about the government being "them" or "us" all you want, but Abraham Lincoln said the government was "Of the people, by the people, for the people." If the government is "them," then who is "us?" The dots don't connect the way you want them to. Bottom line is, people work hard for their money. They shouldn't be forced to hand over a portion of it so that it can be distributed by a current-day government that has shown time and again not to be trustworthy. Giving money to the poor should be entirely by choice. It isn't by choice. You've been commanded to do so by Jesus. He couldn't have been more clear about it. So you're forcing the Jews, Muslims, Atheists, Pagans, and Satanists to participate in a Christian program through the government? That doesn't seem right... Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security aren't Christian programs. That's what you're trying to argue. Bottom line, no government should force anyone to give money in order for them to re-disburse to those they deem worthy. It should be entirely by free will choice, as Jesus intended it if that's what you're coming back at me with. Let's try that for 2 years. Get back to me when your car is done falling into a giant pothole that didn't get repaired because people didn't freely donate their time and money to repair it.

He's not a politician but he lies more than one.

Doesn't it just show he has the physical tools? I thought that's what the testing was. He tested better than guys that are 5th year Seniors.... I'm sure it's impressive, but I have no frame of reference. How much better did he do than the others? It doesn't matter how much better he did. He scored highest of everyone, and he's a true freshman. You should drop the question if you don't understand this yet. Unless you're trying to claim maybe everyone suddenly SUCKS this year so his being number 1 means nothing. But that's silly.

I'll start paying more attention to polls after the first debate. But seeing Clinton in the lead right now is more comforting than seeing Trump in the lead. The biggest gap between Romney and Obama within 6 months of the election on the real clear politics average was about 5.5. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_election_romney_vs_obama-1171.html

IMO it's the scariest thing going on right now and it started a long time before Trump. If people don't believe in the scientific process and scientists then what is the point of doing research at all? Why don't we just all go by our gut feeling and things we witness and ignore tendencies? One of the worst things Trump has said this whole campaign in my opinion is that there is no drought in California (the U.S. Drought Monitor is run by UNL, btw) and the government is sending all the water to the ocean. When someone his position says things like that they hold weight. There are a lot of people out there who trust the words of so-called leaders. People who don't understand how much damage he could do saying things like that as the president lack foresight.

I understand the short term market panic. That's just the normal reaction to virtually any change. But I have yet to see it explained how this changes the economic fundamentals for the UK or the EU or for anyone. Seems like much ado about nothing...but that is what current day society is good at, I guess. I don't know much about it either but saw this yesterday: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/brexit-cornwall-issues-plea-for-funding-protection-after-county-overwhelmingly-votes-in-favour-of-a7101311.html I imagine that kind of thing will be happening all over the place and is going to take a long time to sort out.

Ooh so you're "one of those people"...Absolutely.One of those people who thinks any idea foreign to their immediate shell of thinking is a cult? At least you admit it.No. He didn't admit that. There is definitely a cult feeling about Trump and his followers. For example he said he "could shoot someone and not lose any voters," and his fans didn't seem to care what it implied about them. His fans also ignore any/all valid criticism of him (e.g. proof by his own words that he's lied or contradicted himself) and blame it on media bias.

Not wrong to think it, but to take the time to post that here - yes. That's what I was thinking.

Is this British exports vs imports from EU or am I missing a joke?

It's clear you have to be fearless to be a punt returner so I'd imagine it'd be tough to come back and be the same. Hopefully he can do it.

Good idea. Also, without California, Obama would have won 310-173, and 277-206. 242 would be needed to win, with this made up scenario. Clinton is currently leading in all states that Obama won in 2012. While that does not mean she'll win, it definitely refutes your "remote possibility" comment. As far as the House goes, 14/53 California Reps are non-Democrat. 39 votes isn't a huge swing in the House. A short 6 years ago, the Democrats had 78 more seats than the Republicans. Again, "remote possibility" isn't accurate here.

Trump's as smart as ever: Scotland voted for independence from England and the vote narrowly failed. Now they're out of the EU and stuck with England.

Are you talking in the debates or the polls? I don't think that will happen in either. As for the polls, he has a lot of ground to gain.

On the one hand, if I was a football player who was incapable of committing sexual assault, I might feel a little offended at being singled out on this. They're making the assumption that I need to hear it. On the other hand... you're not correct on your bet. There have been many, many studies that show that male athletes are much more likely to commit rape than male non-athletes. This isn't just stemming from accusations to the police/trials/all that. There have also been studies which included talks with counselors, where charges weren't brought. (The reason I bring that up is one could argue that athletes are accused more often because their accusers see the potential for more money). One study I saw showed that 3% of the college population in 1995 was athletes and they committed 19% of the rapes. Anyway, here's a study. Didn't read the whole thing. It's long. http://www.northeastern.edu/sportinsociety/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/ViolenceByMaleAthletes.pdf

That's your reply? lol. a) I don't believe I've said anything about the CDC, I was just refuting your post saying those states haven't done any research on guns. And b) now I will: the CDC would have far more resources to carry out nationwide research, which is what is needed. There isn't even a comparison. There are dozens/hundreds of studies that could be done on it and there is no way they're all being covered.

Democrats call the shots in Chicago, NYC, and California, where they spend money like drunken sailors. You don't see them spending money on such studies when there is nobody to stop them, do you? Of course not! I'd have to google it to see it! https://johnjayrec.nyc/2014/06/15/cv2014_maps/ http://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2016/06/16/california-lawmakers-approve-gun-violence-research-center/ http://www.ucdmc.ucdavis.edu/vprp/giving/index.html https://crimelab.uchicago.edu/page/our-funders

...and you (and a couple of others here) are a predisposed victim hoping that if we disarm everybody else you can hide in a sea of other victims in waiting and that would be fair. As it is now, you are voluntarily abrogating your right and duty to self defense for you and for those around you, and that no doubt impacts your self esteem and gives you a little twinge of guilt that you don't have the courage or won't make the effort to protect yourself and others. There, enough for one night. We all have something to think about and I am sure my opinions and ideas will be valued at the same level as I hold those of the dissenting side of the debate. The hilarious thing about this reply is you're projecting a bunch of opinions onto me that I don't have. I value some people's opinions on both sides of the argument, but I don't value yours because you make crap up and then state it as fact, over and over. That being said, assuming I decided to not own a gun, what you said is not logical. Let's say you're standing in a crowd of 100 people and you know 1 person has to get killed by an attacker with a gun. In that case what you've said is fine. You're hoping you're lucky or that someone has a gun they can use to kill the attacker. That's not reality though. Reality is that we're not under constant attack by guns. Most people don't need them. Not because they're letting someone else save them but because they'll never been in a situation where anyone near them needs to have a gun. Also, contrary to what you've posted, most people who want regulation just simply want it to be harder to get them. That doesn't necessarily mean they don't want to own guns themselves. I don't even necessarily believe in what those politicians are fighting for. I think some of it's been said here already (but you clearly haven't read any of the thread considering what you think my stance to be) but there are problems with not allowing people on the terror watch list to buy guns. Off the top of my head - it lets them know they're on the terror watch list. Kind of hard to get intelligence on someone once they've figured that out.

It most definitely is, but you go with whatever floats your boat on this topic. Nobody on the House floor thinks getting rid of guns would prevent all deaths. Nobody on the House floor thinks anywhere there's a gun results in a bloodbath. Everything you've said here is just completely made up. You're almost up there with the guy who thinks abortion causes gun violence.

Uhhmm, that's not my terrible logic, the sole ownership of that sort of thinking belongs to the idiots presently sitting on the House floor. But I readily concede it is terrible logic, but how do we convince the Democrats of this??? No, it doesn't.

Unemployed, uneducated young black men that come from broken families and join gangs to sell drugs and commit other crimes...but if you even casually looked at any facts, you already knew that, didn't you? I guess what you didn't know was I have no qualms about stating the obvious. There are facts and then there are facts worth noting. The proportion of Blacks who commit violent crimes is higher than the proportion of Whites who commit violent crimes. But you have to be an idiot if that's the statistic you're using. You also have to be an idiot if you look at the total (which would tell you more Whites commit violent crimes than Blacks). The two statistics are equally idiotic and not useful in telling us anything. When taking into account socioeconomic status there's no correlation between race and crime. The rest of your statement is probably valid. The unemployed/uneducated/broken families part.

Uh, no. This might come as a surprise to you but we already have guns, there's not a constant bloodbath, and nobody is claiming there is. That doesn't mean things can't be improved. By your terrible logic, if there were no guns no one would ever die. Things aren't black and white.

I'm not sure the Dems and liberals really want the CDC to study gun violence. They might find out that there is more of a cause / effect link between certain demographics and groups. rather than the guns and laws that apply to them. Take Chicago, for instance... Maybe you should say what you're thinking instead of being vague. Tell me, what demographics that exist in Chicago, which would upset the "Dems and liberals," cause gun violence.