segnosaur

Kimmy already addressed that issue. Nobody claimed that Trump was going to be "dictated to". Her claim (one that I think is realistic) is that Congress will act to restrict gay rights, and Trump doesn't care about the issue to any degree to intervene. Being an "alpha male" would only be useful if its an issue that he actually cares about. (I could also suggest that labeling Trump an "alpha male" may be incorrect. He is certainly brash and egotistical, but he also seems to be easily swayed and prone to manipulation. He's also a guy who got his twitter account taken away by his handlers.)

I am not denying that the Republicans and Democrats like the 2 party system for selfish reasons. But, there are advantages to such a system to the voters as well: - It makes your electoral choices clearer. Look at Canada's election... ~40% is enough to gain power, and you always end up with accusations that "the party in power didn't get a majority of the vote". When you have 2 main parties, things are a lot simpler - It encourages moderation. If you had more than 2 viable parties, some of the alternatives might end up being extremist or fringe parties. With 2 parties, both must attempt to appeal to voters in the political center (Granted, Trump does seem to be the exception that proves the rule.) And yes, I do believe that it technically isn't a 2 party system, but functionality that's the way it works out. As for having Johnson in the debate... him participating would give his candidacy a boost; however, it may also detract from the flow of he debates. It might be interesting from a reality show/Survivor perspective to see how candidates concentrate their attacks, but those wanting to evaluate Clinton and Trump will have less opportunity to judge the main candidates. Frankly, I think all political debates should be replaced by a WWE-style cage match.

First of all, who said that xenophobia is ever good? Secondly, most people would actually try to put xenophobic attitudes in context before deciding how to handle them. To some people, doing things that are racist/xenophobic could be due to ignorance, or misinterpretations, or outright mistakes. That sort of thing isn't acceptable, but it can hopefully be cured. That belongs in a different category than someone like taxme, who actually seeks out racist sources and seeks to pass on the messages they contain. It is also different from Trump, who is promoting bigotry for his own political gain. Both are wrong, but the way the cases should be condemned, as well as the solutions, are completely different. Lastly that is a pretty typical deflection technique you used. (You do that all the time when you've been proven wrong... make some post that has nothing to do with the topic at hand in order to deflect the fact that you were completely debunked.) Do you now accept that taxme is indeed a neo-nazi sympathizer?

There might be a couple of reasons for that: - News (in general) tends to be very... localized/geocentric. (I.e. people tend to care more about local events than international.) Journalists covering the story may have been more keen to concentrate on the 'Tourist' angle because it would be of more interest to those in the U.S. - Its also possible that some stories were written before anyone had a chance to identify the details of the victim's life. (After all, you want to get the story out quickly, and it would take time to build up a detailed profile about who he actually was, and who he worked for.)

And don't forget the effect of the sonar used in the military, which may also negatively affect whales and other marine animals. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/does-military-sonar-kill/

Why? Evolution doesn't have a goal or direction. And more importantly, how? There are certain rules of physics (like law of conservation of energy). More complex thought processes will require more calories, and you can't get around that. I understand that. Scientists in general understand that. The only one who doesn't seem to understand science are creationists.

It is not a personal attack. It is a statement of fact. In the following thread: http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/topic/25455-donald-vs-hillary/page-50(see post 728 and 740) taxme admits to getting his information from the following sources: - IHR (Institute of Historical Review). This is basically a neonazi source, well known for holocaust denial. They have had writers like Ernst Zundel. - Political Cesspool... a site that had, as one of their earlier contributors, a white separatist, and is concerned with improving the "white birthrate" If taxme is listening to people of that ilk, and saying "You know, they are a valid source of information", its pretty reasonable to assume that taxme himself has the same set of beliefs. i.e. is a neo-nazi (or at least a neo-nazi sympathizer). Furthermore, he has actually posted the following statement in the same thread:(post 863) Those so-called politicians have sold their souls to the zionist devil. In general, if someone is posting about the 'zionist devil' and how they are somehow controlling things, its a pretty good indication that they have some anti-semetic leanings. The tern "nazi" does sometimes get tossed around all too casually, with everyone from George Bush to Obama getting labeled as such. In the case of taxme, where he has actually made anti-semetic posts and has admitted getting information from racist sources then I think the label is an accurate one. Hopefully the moderators will accept my interpretation.

Taxme is a neo-nazi sympathiser, who admits to getting information from the IHR (a neo-nazi site), and has made posts that have included anti-semitic remarks. Please don't confuse that with him being any way indicative of "Canadian Nationalism" and/or an icon speaking against politicial correctness. Most proud canadiians nationalists are not neo-nazi sympathizers, and would actually be horrified to be associated with neo-nazis. Well, that's rather telling, isn't it. Taxme is a neo-nazi sympathizer. If Trump is fighting the same battle, then Trump is also trying to fight for the racist, bigoted vote in the U.S. election.

Well, if you want to nitpick... If the bible said "you shall have no other gods before me", it doesn't necessarily mean god is alone... it just means that he gets priority in being worshiped. The bible is actually contradictory on whether there is a single god or many... some passages suggest there is only one god ("There is no god else beside me") while other passages suggest a multitude of gods ("the lord is greater than all gods") Of course, the correct answer is that god doesn't exist... so I guess its a philosophical question about whether a non-existent being can ever be alone.

As I have explained already... it is not necessarily easier for the animals if the costs that would be needed to provide language skills (e.g. higher food requirements due to higher caloric demands of the larger brain) outweigh whatever benefit is provided by improved communication. Its really amazing how little that creationist/fundamentalist spam-bots actually understand. Over and over again, they keep claiming that there is some huge unsolvable mystery that science can't answer (such as why animals don't use language) and that god must be the solution, but they are ignoring the fact that pretty much all those mysteries have been solved. By real scientists. And creationists are either not smart enough, or too dishonest, to actually understand that. I seem to remember that the bible had some sort of rule about lying. Too bad creationists seemed to have skipped over that part.

Unless of course Trump's reputation takes a significant hit because the election has highlighted his failures as a business men and his bigotry/sexism, and as a result the Trump "brand" looses its value. From: http://money.cnn.com/2016/08/04/technology/trump-campaign-business-foursquare/ There has been a clear decline in foot traffic to Trump-branded golf courses, hotels and casinos in the U.S. since Trump entered the presidential race ... Another survey late last year from BAV Consulting found the Trump brand was less associated with traits like "prestigious" and "innovative" among wealthy consumers. I guess the racists and other bigots who actually like Trump don't have the money to visit his properties.

And Bloomberg has also never made a sex tape with Ray J. Kim Kardashian has, but I don't think people would want her to be president either. Trump is a failure as a businessman. His only "success" has been marketing himself, much like Kardashian. Both of them are shameless self-promoters, and the only reason you see Trump's name on Canadian buildings is his fake reputation. He's pretty much famous for being famous.

See? The system is broke! We need Trump to fix it. You know, one of the guys who broke the system in the first place. Or something like that.

Even racists and bigots deserve entertainment. Why do you hate America?

Looks like Trump might be under a little more scrutiny for possibly bribing a Florida politician. Trump's "foundation" recently got into trouble because they made a donation to a political candidate. This in itself is bad (charitable organizations are not supposed to be funding politics), and they had to pay a fine. The second problem is... the politician that they donated to was Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi. At the time, the Florida government was looking into complaints against Drumph over Trump University (something New York brought charges over). Following Trump's donation, Bondi dropped the case. Now, it could just be a coincidence. (After all, New York had more complaints against Trump than Florida.) But, keep in mind that Trump is the one who said: "When you give, they do whatever the hell you want them to do.". http://www.npr.org/2016/09/06/492857874/trump-dismisses-questions-over-donation-tied-to-florida-attorney-general

So, Trump has stated that one of his first acts should he become president is to tell the military to "come up with a plan to defeat ISIS" within 30 days. As one retired general has said: "had to ask myself, what the hell does he think we've been trying to do for the last 14 years in terms of al Qaeda?" Trump also supposedly has the support of 88 former military leaders. Which makes you wonder... why 88? Couldn't they find one more, or cross one name off the list? Just so you know, 88 is a sort of inside code for neo-Nazis... 8 being the 8th letter of the alphabet, so HH is heil hitler. You would think that a campaign that is dogged by accusations of being racist (mostly on account of actually being racist) would be careful enough to avoid that sort of thing. http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/07/politics/mark-hertling-trump-30-day-isis-plan/index.html

I don't think the girls were brought in for their raw musical talent. They were brought in to look like nice young girls that people can go "Awww, how cute.... USA! USA!". Regardless of how well they did, they still performed as requested, and the Trump campaign obviously thought they did well enough to schedule a second performance.

The article points out that the girls did not have a written contract (which again, when dealing with a scam artist like Trump is a mistake). They do however have emails pointing to the (broken) agreement to allow them to sell merchandise at the rallies. If the Trump campaign did pay for their performances, it would be quite easy for them to provide proof... a cancelled check, a bank statement, etc. And we certainly do have proof that the girls did perform... it was in front of a large rally and has been captured on video. I'd have to say the evidence is in favor of the plaintiffs.

Trumps latest victims: Preteen Girls. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/09/06/usa-freedom-girls-sue-trump-campaign-for-stiffing-them.html So here's what happened: - Trump's campaign got a preteen musical/dance group called "Freedom Girls" to perform at one of his rallies - Instead of paying them, they were promised they could sell merchandise (e.g. T-shirts) at the event to recover their costs - When they got there, they were forbidden from bringing their stuff into the hall (They performed anyways) - They were later supposed to appear at a second rally but the organizers canceled - The group is now suing the Trump campaign Now, I have to admit, I'm kind of split on this.... On one hand, its another example of how Trump is a pretty horrible person. On the other hand, the group was appearing at a Trump rally. What did they think was going to happen. Never mind that they were going to be performing for a group largely composed of racists (kind of hard to have sympathy for that)... but they seem to have forgotten that Trump is a scam artist. Cheating people is actually part of his business plan. (See: Trump University.) What did their management think was going to happen? Getting cheated by Trump is a little like a black person showing up at a Trump rally and being surprised by all the racists.

As others have pointed out, animals can communicate with humans in limited ways. Now, as for why animals don't have a complete use of language (complete with syntax, etc.), well that's easy to explain as well. The ability to use language requires the development of a significant amount of brain power. That sort of development is not "free"... for example, it increases energy usage, which means any creature would have to consume more calories. There is no specific 'goal' in evolution... no requirement that a species must evolve a certain way. Species evolve within a particular environmental niche, and anything extranious will get eliminated. Cats, horses, goats, and fundamentalist christians did not develop advanced language skills because it would not provide a benefit towards reproductive success, and in fact it may actually harm reproductive success if bigger-brain individuals have to consume more calories in order to support their language abilities. Humans developed language because, somewhere during the series of random evolutionary events that lead to our species, the ability to communicate provided a benefit that exceeded the costs of the extra food that needed to be consumed.

They don't? I guess I gotta lay off the late night Taco Bell and whiskey snacks.

Nobody has to act as facebook wishes. They are more than welcome to create their own web site or other service and post what they want from there. Not sure what you are saying. (I recognize that English is probably not your first language. I'm not criticizing you, since any sort of multilingual abilities do take effort. Just that the meaning of that post is unclear.) Are you suggesting that because Facebook can close one page, then facebook itself should be shut down?

Keep in mind that at this point, we do not have a full accounting of what the reason for closing the facebook page was. You did provide a link in Turkish, which I ran though google translate, but things were still very vague. At this point we do not have any sort of response from Facebook... perhaps the journalist violated the terms of service for Facebook in which case the suspension was valid. Perhaps Facebook overreacted to something. I've seen that sort of thing happen before... story breaks about some sort of "abuse". Outrage ensues. More data comes in, and its found that the "abuse" never occurred. After all, you get a lot more sympathy with shouts of "I'm being oppressed" than you do of "I was a dumbass and got punished for it". You see, that raises all sorts of red flags to me. Freedom of speech/freedom of the press only guarantees that the government does not have the right to interfere with any publication. It does not guarantee that you will automatically have a forum for your message. (Other people have made similar statements.) As a journalist, Lejeune should understand that.

I am currently against the death penalty (largely due to the chance of the execution of an innocent person.) However, I do have a problem with that particular argument. It is true that it is illegal for an individual to kill another. But that would not mean it would be wrong for the government to do so. After all, it would also be illegal for one citizen to kidnap another and put them in a small room, yet that's basically what happens when a criminal is arrested and imprisoned. Its illegal for one individual to steal someone else' money or property, but we expect the government to do so in enforcing traffic fines or similar situations. Actually there would be differences... - The convicted criminal is being executed for actions they have taken against society, according to the rule of law. The first degree murder generally does not kill people based on the victim's transgressions against society but for their own selfish reasons. - Those that would be executed would be subject to a court system (which in an ideal world would be fair and unbiased, with various checks and balances). The first degree murder typically does not grant people that sort of right to a trial/appeals/etc. Again, I'm not saying I think capital punishment should be brought back. I'm just saying that that one argument you used (execution is the same as murder) is flawed. The only argument needed to reject capital punishment is the risk of executing an innocent person. Everything else is both unnecessary and, quite often, bunk.

The reason that executions cost so much is not because of the actual execution, but because of all the court issues surrounding it. Because they (meaning the government, courts, lawyers, etc.) wants to make sure an innocent person isn't put to death, capital punishment cases are generally subject to more legal appeals, which ends up costing more in lawyer fees, judge's salary, etc. It would be possible to reduce costs by limiting the appeals process , but then you would end up with more people being put to death who were wrongly convicted. The problem that cases like Bernardo or Pickton (multiple murders with excessive evidence) are relatively rare. Many murder cases are much more murky... fewer victims, less evidence, and more chances of mistakes being made. The problem is trying to come up with a legal framework or a law that can allow an execution of a Bernardo/Picton, but would prevent the execution of a Millgard or Morin. I have no moral objection to the death penalty... I think there are people who's actions are so horrible that they have forfeited their right to exist. (Multiple murders, murder with sexual assault, talking in movie theaters.) I just don't trust the government and legal system to properly handle things.