All Forums | Penalty Box

How do you know when a Democrat is in trouble ?

...
Participants:
Search model icon
Views: 1708
Posts: 92
 
Captain
Participation Meter
Joined: Jan, 2010
Posts: 8480
Posted: #26
Quote Originally Posted by Killer_B:

white college educated people will support her? Some education they received huh? If she wins then the liberal college brainwashing will be complete, actually the education system period is a liberal indoctrination. Have fun trying to find a job to all the "college educated" support as well as a country with no borders...
Bingo!

That's all a college degree is = liberal indoctrination

All college institutions do is teach revisionist history.

Islam is peaceful. A liberal lie!
Christianity and Islam are the same. A liberal lie!
Christians were the aggressors during the crusades. A liberal lie!
White Christians in the past committed acts similar to Islamic terrorists.  A liberal lie!
Islam has a history of coexisting with other religions. A liberal lie!
Bush started Islamic terrorism. A liberal lie! 
Africans were stolen from Africa to be slaves in America. A liberal lie!
Slavery is a white only thing. A liberal lie!
White people are historically more evil than any other race. A liberal lie!
Racism started and exists because of the white race.  A liberal lie!
America is the only country with a history of slavery. A liberal lie!
The founding fathers were liberals. A liberal lie!
Liberals are historically responsible for progress. A liberal lie!
The Democratic Party is the party of the people. A liberal lie!
The democrats switched parties. A liberal lie!
There is a right to vote amendment. A liberal lie!
American Pilgrims were illegal immigrants. A liberal lie!
Americans stole the country, defrauded the Indians, and committed genocide. A liberal lie!
The national anthem is racist. A liberal lie!
The Civil War was a moral fight over slavery. A liberal lie!
America is historically an imperialist evil. A liberal lie!

When liberals say “college educated” - they mean people who believe ‘liberal lies and myths.’


 
Covers Referee
Participation Meter
Joined: Feb, 2004
Posts: 15726
Posted: #27
Quote Originally Posted by Hugh_Jorgan:


DJ, the article from New York magazine is laughable. There are so many real issues with Trump, that I'm not sure what would compel you to use this article in an attempt to discredit the guy.

Regarding the article on  'libel laws', I happen to agree with what Trump wants. Everyone in the media would attack Trumps stance on this simply because he wants to take away their ability to write "purposely negative and false articles" 

Here is Trumps comment ... "One of the things I'm going to do if I win... I'm going to open up our libel laws so when they write purposely negative and horrible and false articles, we can sue them and win lots of money"

It is irrelevant if the slanderous piece of bulls!t is aimed at Trump, HRC, Obama, or Djbrow, it should not be allowed, or tolerated. 

In that same article, they have this quote from the New Yorker's John Cassidy: "Trump takes attacks on media to new level -- says as president he'll try to gut the First Amendment."

I googled "Trump will gut the first amendment", and 100's of thousands of articles popped up. On the first page, every single article on this topic claimed that Trump "wants to gut the first amendment"
As to my knowledge Trump never said that.

Just more 'curious' reporting 


I am not surprised you are defending Trump here. He has many quotes about curbing and ending media that disagrees with him. 

But as for changing libel/slander laws, its a red herring designed to appease supporters like yourself. 

The reason: libel laws already exist to prevent purposely false articles. 
 
Hall of Fame
Participation Meter
Joined: Sep, 2002
Posts: 22961
Posted: #28
Quote Originally Posted by djbrow:


I am not surprised you are defending Trump here. He has many quotes about curbing and ending media that disagrees with him. 

But as for changing libel/slander laws, its a red herring designed to appease supporters like yourself. 

The reason: libel laws already exist to prevent purposely false articles. 

I agree with Trumps stance that the ability to sue any media source which purposely promotes false propaganda in an effort to harm anyone (politician or not) should be opened up and made easier than it is in its current state of law.

I recognize that Trump made his comments directed at liberal news outlets, and I do not agree with this. It is my opinion that across the board changes should be made to the liability of any news agency that reports blatant falsehoods. 

Your comment about a "red herring designed to appease supporters like yourself" is egregious at best. Not to mention that I am offended at being called a Trump supporter. 

Your last line about libel laws already existing is moot, as I clearly articulated that the current laws need to be tweaked. Pointing out that they already exist and then going to your oft used light-bulb emoticon suggests you question my ability to reason in an intellectual manner.

This is simply more curious reporting, but this time the reporting comes from you, Mr Brow 



bigreds daddy
 
Covers Referee
Participation Meter
Joined: Feb, 2004
Posts: 15726
Posted: #29
Ok. 

So why don't you explain what laws currently restrict the ability to sue for libel and how Mr. Trump intends on making this easier, whilst also allowing for free speech?

 
Banned
Participation Meter
Joined: Jul, 2003
Posts: 27850
Posted: #30
Quote Originally Posted by Killer_B:

 

white college educated people will support her? Some education they received huh? If she wins then the liberal college brainwashing will be complete, actually the education system period is a liberal indoctrination. 

I always find the point of view of the uneducated so fascinating.  Not just what they think, but how they think. 

It's funny too that you are backing The Most Inexperienced and Unqualifed Presidential Candidate Ever. Funny but I guess it makes sense from the uneducated point of view. 
 
Banned
Participation Meter
Joined: Jul, 2003
Posts: 27850
Posted: #31
Quote Originally Posted by JimmyDrizzl:

 


YOU already know the internet websites that most INTELLIGENT, INFORMED persons use for their news...SO why ask me?

Your "god" Hitlery has specifically named them in one of her latest speeches and vows to shut them down if she gets elected.

SOCIALISM OR COMMUNISM on the rise if she somehow can win.....Can you believe the outrage that would occur if Trump said he would shut down the New York Times if he wins...

SHE says she will trample the first amendment if elected...IS ANYONE PAYING ATTENTION?

You still avoid my questions about your own statements.  I am not asking you the Internet websites people use.  I am asking you specifically what are the sites and news sources that you use to shape your world view. 

Once again you also start with the lies.  Hillary is not my god nor am I voting for her.  I have said it for a long time now, even before her campaign in 2016 that I do not like Hillary and will not vote for her. It's like you have no clue what you are talking about.  I am starting to get why you call your own posts drivel and idiotic. 

So let's try this again... Im interested to understand how you come up with your conclusions and statements.

when it comes to establishing your world view, I was curious, what non-biased news sources do you regularly read to stay informed and to understand the world?

But like which ones specifically?

Can you name a few?





 
Covers Rehab
Participation Meter
Joined: Jan, 2007
Posts: 35486
Posted: #32
Hillary Clinton expressed "regret" Saturday for comments in which she said "half" of Donald Trump's supporters are "deplorables," meaning people who are racist, sexist, homophobic or xenophobic. 

She really meant to say was.. all of Donald Trump's supporters are "deplorables''..
 
Hall of Fame
Participation Meter
Joined: Sep, 2002
Posts: 22961
Posted: #33
Quote Originally Posted by djbrow:

Ok. 

So why don't you explain what laws currently restrict the ability to sue for libel and how Mr. Trump intends on making this easier, whilst also allowing for free speech?


Again with that friggin' light-bulb ...

I don't believe we are talking about "Free Speech", this is a discussion of Freedom Of The Press. While they are both protected by the First Amendment, they are not one in the same.

For the sake of accuracy, I'm not so sure that Trump can do anything to effectively change the laws regarding cases of libel. This is because these type of cases are heard on the State level, and each state, while beholden to First Amendment rights, have their own standards for bringing and winning claims.

Rightfully, the First Amendment does not allow for any law to infringe upon the Freedom of Press. But the First Amendment does not give the press free reign to print whatever the heck they want, and we seem to have reached that point.

It is my opinion that the current laws make it unduly arduous to win a claim against the press. 
A complainant must prove that what was written about them was defamatory, meaning it harmed their reputation. Proving harm to ones reputation has proven to be very difficult over the years of court cases. This complaint can not be made due to hyperbole. I would like to see this changed. A reporter should be beholden to reporting the truth, without a preconceived effort to persuade its readers to believing something which is not accurate.

There are False Light laws, which protect against statements which are not technically false, but are intentionally misleading. I would like to see this abolished. 

To simplify my point, the burden of proof for libel, or slander, is a higher hurdle than what is necessary. Protections are still needed for the Press, but the scales of justice have weighed in the direction of the Press and away from the protection of the people.

I think we all can agree that we would prefer that all media be held to certain standards. We can also agree that those standards are not being met by a good number of media outlets. This is not a left or right argument. It is an argument for reporting with a degree of accountability, not to mention a conscience. 

I hope I answered your question 
bigreds daddy
 
All-Star
Participation Meter
Joined: May, 2005
Posts: 12254
Posted: #34
Quote Originally Posted by dl36:


You still avoid my questions about your own statements.  I am not asking you the Internet websites people use.  I am asking you specifically what are the sites and news sources that you use to shape your world view. 

Once again you also start with the lies.  Hillary is not my god nor am I voting for her.  I have said it for a long time now, even before her campaign in 2016 that I do not like Hillary and will not vote for her. It's like you have no clue what you are talking about.  I am starting to get why you call your own posts drivel and idiotic. 

So let's try this again... Im interested to understand how you come up with your conclusions and statements.

when it comes to establishing your world view, I was curious, what non-biased news sources do you regularly read to stay informed and to understand the world?

But like which ones specifically?

Can you name a few?







How many broken clocks are people required to look at before forming an opinion regarding the time? 
 
Covers Referee
Participation Meter
Joined: Feb, 2004
Posts: 15726
Posted: #35
Quote Originally Posted by Hugh_Jorgan:


Again with that friggin' light-bulb ...

I don't believe we are talking about "Free Speech", this is a discussion of Freedom Of The Press. While they are both protected by the First Amendment, they are not one in the same.

For the sake of accuracy, I'm not so sure that Trump can do anything to effectively change the laws regarding cases of libel. This is because these type of cases are heard on the State level, and each state, while beholden to First Amendment rights, have their own standards for bringing and winning claims.

Rightfully, the First Amendment does not allow for any law to infringe upon the Freedom of Press. But the First Amendment does not give the press free reign to print whatever the heck they want, and we seem to have reached that point.

It is my opinion that the current laws make it unduly arduous to win a claim against the press. 
A complainant must prove that what was written about them was defamatory, meaning it harmed their reputation. Proving harm to ones reputation has proven to be very difficult over the years of court cases. This complaint can not be made due to hyperbole. I would like to see this changed. A reporter should be beholden to reporting the truth, without a preconceived effort to persuade its readers to believing something which is not accurate.

There are False Light laws, which protect against statements which are not technically false, but are intentionally misleading. I would like to see this abolished. 

To simplify my point, the burden of proof for libel, or slander, is a higher hurdle than what is necessary. Protections are still needed for the Press, but the scales of justice have weighed in the direction of the Press and away from the protection of the people.

I think we all can agree that we would prefer that all media be held to certain standards. We can also agree that those standards are not being met by a good number of media outlets. This is not a left or right argument. It is an argument for reporting with a degree of accountability, not to mention a conscience. 

I hope I answered your question 

Huh?  False light claims do exactly what you are suggesting. Why would you want them abolished unless you really are confused on the subject about what Trump is talking about and what changes should be made. 

False Light laws protect the target, not the media. In fact, they are much easier to bring than defamation claims because one does need to prove falsity. 

Two examples of such actions are a case in FL where a newspaper published an article stating that a person had shot and killed his wife. Technically, it was true because he shot her in a hunting accident, but the 'false light' portrayal led to an 18 million verdict. 

Another protected a Priest whose photo was featured in an article on molestation. He had never been accused but was awarded a judgment due to the 'false light.'

Now, let's think about HRC. She has been called a crook, accused of crimes including murder, been labeled a lesbian, etc. by the media. 

I'm sure given your views on the subject, there must be a post of yours somewhere discussing this. I'm looking. I'm sure I will find it. 
 
Captain
Participation Meter
Joined: Jan, 2007
Posts: 6288
Posted: #36
Quote Originally Posted by dl36:


I always find the point of view of the uneducated so fascinating.  Not just what they think, but how they think. 

It's funny too that you are backing The Most Inexperienced and Unqualifed Presidential Candidate Ever. Funny but I guess it makes sense from the uneducated point of view. 

I always find it a riot that your the one that calls out people for insults and you had no problem dishing out that I'm uneducated... I graduated high school and own a business. I'm not eating government cheese. I don't live in government housing or use any other type of government assistant. The Democratic party is full of the uneducated low information voters. How else can you explain the support for the most corrupt politician in history?
 
Covers Referee
Participation Meter
Joined: Feb, 2004
Posts: 15726
Posted: #37
Quote Originally Posted by Killer_B:


I always find it a riot that your the one that calls out people for insults and you had no problem dishing out that I'm uneducated... I graduated high school and own a business. I'm not eating government cheese. I don't live in government housing or use any other type of government assistant. The Democratic party is full of the uneducated low information voters. How else can you explain the support for the most corrupt politician in history?

Facts...the right wing's worst enemy. 

https://www.people-press.org/2016/04/26/a-wider-ideological-gap-between-more-and-less-educated-adults/
 
Captain
Participation Meter
Joined: Jan, 2007
Posts: 6288
Posted: #38
You know what DJ... I'd like to see the totals for the governmental assistant totals for each parties voters. I wonder how that would shake out?

 
Banned
Participation Meter
Joined: Jul, 2003
Posts: 27850
Posted: #39
Quote Originally Posted by Killer_B:


I always find it a riot that your the one that calls out people for insults and you had no problem dishing out that I'm uneducated... I graduated high school and own a business. I'm not eating government cheese. I don't live in government housing or use any other type of government assistant. The Democratic party is full of the uneducated low information voters. How else can you explain the support for the most corrupt politician in history?

How is that an insult?  It's simply describing your point of view and you education. I appologize if you chose to take offense to my accurate description. 

I also own a business, I am not eating government cheese and don't live in government housing or any other type of government assistance. 

But the difference between you an me is that I am educated and you are uneducated.  Simply stating facts. No insults. 

I am trying to understand your statement that education is a liberal indoctrination.  I would say majority of my friends in college were conservatives like myself at the time and after graduation. 

So on what basis are you making your statement?  

You have not graduated from college or had that experience.  So what facts or information are you making your statement upon?  

Or is this just Killerb's Low Information point of view?

Once again it is not just what the uneducated think but rather how you come to the conclusion that I find so fascinating as it seems to be different than how I would do it.   

So can you explain to me the exact supporting facts to back up your statement or can we just chalk it up yet another one of your Emotional Uneducated Low Information statements and beliefs?

Looking forward to seeing your explanation.  Should be fascinating 


 
Covers Referee
Participation Meter
Joined: Feb, 2004
Posts: 15726
Posted: #40
Quote Originally Posted by Killer_B:

You know what DJ... I'd like to see the totals for the governmental assistant totals for each parties voters. I wonder how that would shake out?


You ask and you shall receive. 

https://swampland.time.com/2013/12/04/interactive-republicans-more-likely-to-have-constituents-who-use-food-stamps/
 
Rookie
Participation Meter
Joined: May, 2011
Posts: 651
Posted: #41
Quote Originally Posted by dl36:


I always find the point of view of the uneducated so fascinating.  Not just what they think, but how they think. 

It's funny too that you are backing The Most Inexperienced and Unqualifed Presidential Candidate Ever. Funny but I guess it makes sense from the uneducated point of view. 


So imagine we are now back in 2008....What if someone said that kind of talk about your paymaster ozero....."inexperienced" ...."unqualified"...we could also add in ..."evil"  ....."novice"....I could go on and on ,but that would just make you angrier than you usually are.
 
Captain
Participation Meter
Joined: Jan, 2007
Posts: 6288
Posted: #42
Quote Originally Posted by djbrow:


You ask and you shall receive. 

https://swampland.time.com/2013/12/04/interactive-republicans-more-likely-to-have-constituents-who-use-food-stamps/

Nice try. I said "GOVERNMENT ASSISTANCE". That includes everything. Food stamps isn't all of it...
 
Covers Referee
Participation Meter
Joined: Feb, 2004
Posts: 15726
Posted: #43
Quote Originally Posted by Killer_B:


Nice try. I said "GOVERNMENT ASSISTANCE". That includes everything. Food stamps isn't all of it...

Hmmm....

you are right. I will try to add others in. But I need to know what qualifies. 

For example, do you consider government grants for those less educated for starting businesses a form of aid?  
 
Captain
Participation Meter
Joined: Jan, 2007
Posts: 6288
Posted: #44
Never heard of that grant, I heard of foreigners getting that but not the "uneducated", since when do they have the ambition or knowledge to start a business?... I'd like to see the housing, phones, food stamps and whatever assistance available that I don't even know about. With 90% minority vote going to democrats I'm sure the dems get more assistance.
 
Captain
Participation Meter
Joined: Jan, 2010
Posts: 8480
Posted: #45
Quote Originally Posted by djbrow:


You ask and you shall receive. 

https://swampland.time.com/2013/12/04/interactive-republicans-more-likely-to-have-constituents-who-use-food-stamps/
More lies and bullsh!t from you.

https://thefederalist.com/2013/12/04/republicans-likely-constituents-food-stamps/#disqus_thread

I can't select two posts at once so I'll address the other BS on this post. The Pew Research Center is nothing but opinionated liberal propaganda. A fact is something that can’t be disputed. Asking a couple thousand people using malignant rhetorical trick questions and pushing respondents to agree with well constructed and contrived manipulative statements proves nothing. We don’t even know the backgrounds or the states of which those are surveyed. It’s all garbage.

Also in case you missed it. I responded to your lies on this thread.
https://www.covers.com/postingforum/POST01/showmessage.aspx?spt=87&sub=102310496&page=4

 
Banned
Participation Meter
Joined: Jul, 2003
Posts: 27850
Posted: #46
Quote Originally Posted by JimmyDrizzl:



So imagine we are now back in 2008....What if someone said that kind of talk about your paymaster ozero....."inexperienced" ...."unqualified"...we could also add in ..."evil"  ....."novice"....I could go on and on ,but that would just make you angrier than you usually are.

Obama had more experience in government in 2008 than trump does now. 

Fact

I guess when you said your posts were drivel and idiotic, you are really trying for stick to that.

Funny.  It seems like you the only one angry here.  

Funnier even that you continue to cut-and-run like a coward from a rational discussion.  Let's see if killerb does the same with the questions he was asked. He seemed to have gotten a bit angry but it was quite the meltdown you had earlier 
 
Covers Referee
Participation Meter
Joined: Feb, 2004
Posts: 15726
Posted: #47
Quote Originally Posted by MoneySRH:

More lies and bullsh!t from you.

https://thefederalist.com/2013/12/04/republicans-likely-constituents-food-stamps/#disqus_thread

I can't select two posts at once so I'll address the other BS on this post. The Pew Research Center is nothing but opinionated liberal propaganda. A fact is something that can’t be disputed. Asking a couple thousand people using malignant rhetorical trick questions and pushing respondents to agree with well constructed and contrived manipulative statements proves nothing. We don’t even know the backgrounds or the states of which those are surveyed. It’s all garbage.

Also in case you missed it. I responded to your lies on this thread.
https://www.covers.com/postingforum/POST01/showmessage.aspx?spt=87&sub=102310496&page=4


You complain about the source and quote "The Federalist" 

You can't make this stuff up. 

But my favorite quote from the article:
<<Unfortunately for TIME, the data don’t really support the sensational headline.>>

At least the author's grammar is better than yours. 
 
Covers Rehab
Participation Meter
Joined: Jan, 2007
Posts: 35486
Posted: #48
Quote Originally Posted by JimmyDrizzl:



So imagine we are now back in 2008....What if someone said that kind of talk about your paymaster ozero....."inexperienced" ...."unqualified"...we could also add in ..."evil"  ....."novice"....I could go on and on ,but that would just make you angrier than you usually are.




Bill Clinton to Ted Kennedy about Barack Obama :

"A few years ago, this guy would have been getting us coffee..


   ...Stepin Fetchit..
 
Banned
Participation Meter
Joined: Jul, 2003
Posts: 27850
Posted: #49
Quote Originally Posted by MaineRoad:



How many broken clocks are people required to look at before forming an opinion regarding the time? 

This was in context to Jimmy' statement and was looking for clarification 
 
 
Banned
Participation Meter
Joined: Jul, 2003
Posts: 27850
Posted: #50
Quote Originally Posted by SarasotaSlim:





Bill Clinton to Ted Kennedy about Barack Obama :

"A few years ago, this guy would have been getting us coffee..


   ...Stepin Fetchit..

Was that supposed to be funny or a smoke screen for the two posters who are running scared from the civil dialog.  Seems like your typical antics and games because you know Jimmy and killerb are in trouble 

You should have called this thread how do you know a low information uneducated trump supporter is in trouble?   

Because the run from questions and civil dialog like these guys...
All Forums | Penalty Box
About Us
Contact Us
Careers
Our Team
Brand
Testimonials
Betting Guides
Sportsbook Reviews
Betting News
Podcasts
Responsible Gambling
Betting Sites
US Betting Sites
Canada Betting Sites
Canada Casinos
Best Betting Apps
Contests
Streak Survivor
King of Covers
Ultimate Race
Office Pools
The Covers community has
810,221
lifetime members worldwide
Covers 30 Years Logo Established in 1995,
Covers is the world
leader in sports
betting information.
21+
Gambling problem? Call 1-800-GAMBLER
Help Privacy Terms of Service Cookies Sitemap Forum
Covers is verified safe by:
Evalon Logo Logo GPWA Logo GDPR logo Logo GeoTrust logo Logo PCI DSS logo Logo
Copyright © 1995 - 2026 CS Media Ltd. All Rights Reserved.
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so.It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly.Covers does not provide any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in your relevant locality.Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it.As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.