• NT Latest Discussions

    @Community - Discussion

    My birthday video-- a present from my son! - @community
    09/26/16 07:15:38PM
    This is my birthday present from my son!  I have, of course, cried, which is what one just does when you're this age...   Thank you for the greatest gift-- one of my family!   Buzz, please accept my apologies for not being able to publish this anywhere but YouTube...   Thanks, all of you, for coming by!  

    Would Obama have lied about where he was born if he thought he could get away with it ? - @community
    09/26/16 07:04:40PM
    An original article by Petey Coober : Would Obama have lied about where he was born if he thought he could get away with it ? This is about the issue of credibility . I'll grant that Obama probably was born in the US [as far as I know] . But is he credible if he didn't have documented proof ? Where a person is born is not something one knows automatically . One accepts what one's parents have told him/her . If Obama had been told he had NOT been born in the US would he lie about that just to be a more electable presidential candidate ? What is your opinion about this ?

    A vote for Jill Stein is a vote to elect Donald Trump. - @community
    09/26/16 07:02:55PM
    http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/23/opinions/a-vote-for-jill-stein-is-a-vote-for-trump-kohn/ (CNN)Dr. Jill Stein is without a doubt a bold progressive leader. But let's face reality: A vote for Jill Stein is a vote to elect Donald Trump. In a September 2016 NBC News/Wall Street Journal/Marist poll, when registered voters were given the choice between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, 46% chose Clinton while 41% chose Trump. But when Jill Stein and Gary Johnson were added as options, 9% of registered voters chose Johnson and 3% chose Stein. Meanwhile Trump's support dropped two points to 39%. But Clinton's? Her support dropped 5 points to 41%. In Arizona, a state in play in this election that the Clinton campaign is making a strong effort to win, early September polling shows Clinton at 41% and Trump at 40% with registered voters. But when Stein and Johnson are options? Arizonans throw 13% of their support behind Johnson and 4% to Stein -- and give 37% each to Clinton and Trump, cutting Clinton's small lead down to a statistical dead heat. It's clear -- at least in these two states -- that support for Johnson and Stein most clearly hurts Clinton and helps Trump. In a national Quinnipiac poll last week, millennial likely voters supported Clinton over Trump by a 55-34 margin. But when Stein and Johnson were included in the survey, Clinton received just 31% support by likely voters between 18 and 34. Upon further analysis, it's clear that Stein is the one mostly taking votes away from Clinton. Stein understandably sees herself as taking the baton from the progressive revolutionary campaign of Bernie Sanders. There's only one problem with that: Sanders himself handed the baton to Hillary Clinton.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   "This election is about which candidate understands the real problems facing this country and has offered real solutions,"Sanders said in his speech at the Democratic National Convention in August. "By these measures, any objective observer will conclude that -- based on her ideas and her leadership -- Hillary Clinton must become the next president of the United States. The choice is not even close." As I said when I endorsed Senator Sanders during the primary, he and Hillary Clinton agree on 90% of issues. Which is just true -- of them and of most liberals and progressives and left-of-center folks. Including Jill Stein.   For instance, while the websiteinsidegov.com does rank Hillary Clinton as, on average, slightly more conservative than Stein, according to the site, on issues ranging from keeping abortion fully safe and legal to supporting strong environmental regulations to opposing restrictions on voting rights, Clinton and Stein are in lockstep. Both Clinton and Stein believe in government spending to stimulate economic recovery, agree that taxes on the very rich are far too low, and oppose privatizing Social Security. Clinton and Stein both support a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants and they both oppose the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal. And incidentally, Jill Stein believes England's xenophobic Brexit vote was a win for "self-determination." And she also believes that exposing kids to wireless internet access in schools is dangerous for their brains. So there are some things she and Hillary Clinton most definitely do not agree on.           Stein has said, "I will feel horrible if Donald Trump is elected, I will feel horrible if Hillary Clinton is elected, and I feel most horrible about a voting system that says: Here are two deadly choices, now pick your weapon of self-destruction." But Stein wildly misrepresents Clinton -- and her own proximity to many of Clinton's positions -- by lumping her into such a vivid generalization. I know that Jill Stein supports the legalization of marijuana, but if she thinks that Trump's flagrantly hateful and destructive agenda is remotely akin to anything Clinton stands for and believes, Stein must be high. Hillary Clinton is not perfect. But she has spent her entire career working for the very principles of equality and inclusion that Donald Trump has vowed to destroy. And for Latino immigrants and Muslims and working moms and young black men and women fed up with police violence, the difference between a Hillary Clinton presidency and a Trump presidency is too vast to describe with words. To those of you considering voting for Jill Stein, I suspect most of you desperately do not want Donald Trump to be president. But for whatever reason you don't like Hillary Clinton. You should give that some thought -- especially if you enthusiastically supported Barack Obama in 2008 and 2012, who in campaigning and certainly in governing has proven himself pretty much the ideological equal of Clinton in 2016. If you liked him, but don't like her, ask yourself why. And if it boils down to "personality," interrogate that, too. For the record, while a lot of us loved Bernie Sanders' positions, he wasn't the most likable candidate, either. But none of us seemed to mind that. Why? Either way, I would love to be able to persuade you to embrace Hillary Clinton -- but even if I can't, please don't help Donald Trump win.   Earlier this month, New Hampshire Sen. Jeanne Shaheen explained what's at stake. "What happened in 2000 is Al Gore lost New Hampshire by about 7,000 votes, and 19,000 people voted for Ralph Nader," she said at an event with Sen. Sanders. "And we got George W. Bush, and we got the war in Iraq." Meanwhile, the Democratic Party isn't perfect, either, but it still is the best vehicle for advancing progressive policy in America today -- especially if we actively engage with it. Joshua Holland points out how the Working Families Party is a good example of this -- not running symbolic candidates that perpetually lose, but strategically cross-endorsing mainstream Democratic candidates in order to be able to lay claim to a share of their victory and thus influence over their agendas. It has worked -- certainly in shifting New York City Democratic politics to the left and, increasingly, statewide.   By the same token, the Democratic Party needs to change nationally as well. This can't happen if progressives don't engage. Bernie Sanders proved this point by running in the Democratic primary -- and his campaign had an indelible influence on the Democratic Party platform this year as well as several policy shifts on the part of Clinton. And the Progressive Change Campaign Committee has worked closely with the Clinton campaign to elevate progressive issues, including debt-free college, expanding Social Security benefits, and holding Wall Street accountable with tough reforms. If we want to continue to push the Democratic Party to be a force for progressive change, we need to be part of the conversation -- not marginalize our voices and our votes in some fringe party. We cannot afford to elect Donald Trump president. The consequences would be unthinkable. Fortunately, we have a great alternative -- a feminist who believes in racial justice and progressive economic policy, who wants to make college debt-free and expand our vital social safety nets. That candidate is Hillary Clinton. Vote for Hillary Clinton on November 8 and ensure that Donald Trump is defeated. Otherwise you risk waking up on November 9 with your conscience very much full of regret.

    "Be clearly aware of the stars and infinity on high." (A New Fantasy Image) - @community
    09/26/16 06:49:32PM
    “Be clearly aware of the stars and infinity on high. Then life seems almost enchanted after all.” ― Vincent Van Gogh © A. Mac/A.G./NASA Best Look at this Link

    WaPo, NYT Lead Trend Of Emphasizing Race Of White Officer, Burying Race Of Black Officer - @community
    09/26/16 06:03:32PM
    he New York Times and The Washington Post bury police officers’ race when they are black, but rush to highlight race when the officer happens to be white, an analysis of two similar cases by The Daily Caller News Foundation shows. White Tulsa officer Betty Shelby, a five-year veteran on the force, shot Terence Crutcher, who is black, when police came across his car stopped in the middle of the road. Dash cam video appears to show that police tased and shot Crutcher as he walked back to his car with his hands up.  Black Charlotte officer Brentley Vinson shot Keith Lamont Scott, who was also black and who allegedly carried a gun. According to police, Scott ignore multiple warnings to drop his handgun. In a random sampling of 11 articles from The New York Times on the Tulsa shooting, TheDCNF found that 63 percent of articles mentioned Shelby’s white race and Crutcher’s black race in the same sentence. Thirty-six percent of the articles did not mention the officer’s race, but emphasized that the victim was a black man shot by a police officer. TheDCNF examined 10 random articles from The New York Times’ coverage of the Charlotte shooting. Only 40 percent of the articles mentioned that the officer involved was black. The rest of the articles sampled referred to the shooting as a black man being shot by an officer. An analysis of statistics for randomly selected articles from The Washington Post reveals less evidence of bias than the Times, but could point to a slant. Out of 17 articles on the Tulsa white-on-black shooting, 17 percent mention both the race of the officer and man involved. Eighty-two percent of articles just mentioned the race of the victim. On the Charlotte shooting, TheDCNF examined 14 random articles from The Washington Post. Only 14 percent of the articles sampled mentioned that the officer involved was black. The other 86 percent of articles ignored the officer’s race, but mentioned that the victim was black. When reporting the Tulsa shooting, The Washington Post emphasized that Shelby, a white police officer, killed Crutcher, an unarmed black man. Alternatively, when reporting the Charlotte shooting, the Post buried that Vinson, a black officer, shot Keith Lamont Scott, a black man. In one article on the Tulsa shooting, The Washington Post featured Shelby’s race and Crutcher’s race in the headline, as well as in the very beginning of a story. When reporting on the Charlotte shooting, The Washington Post did not mention Vinson’s race until halfway through the story. The Washington Post ran another article on the Tulsa shooting that emphasized that Shelby, a white officer, had shot Crutcher, a black man, by placing their races at the very beginning of the article. When writing about the Charlotte riots, however, the publication mentioned Scott’s race first, and then mentioned Vinson’s race two paragraphs later. In one example of its coverage of the Tulsa shooting, The New York Times ran an article that mentioned Shelby’s and Crutcher’s races at the very beginning of the story. The New York Times, when covering the Charlotte riots, mentioned in the beginning that Scott was a black man, but did not discuss Vinson’s race until the end of the story. In another article on the Charlotte shooting, The New York Times mentionedScott’s race in the beginning and the headline; Vinson’s race is mentioned halfway through the story. http://dailycaller.com/2016/09/25/exclusive-wapo-nyt-lead-trend-of-emphasizing-race-of-white-officer-burying-race-of-black-officer/

  • The NT Moderators

  • AP Top Stories

    AP Top News at 8:01 p.m. EDT

    Clinton, Trump poised for must-see debate showdown

    HEMPSTEAD, N.Y. (AP) -- With millions watching and the American presidency on the line, Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are poised for a must-see showdown Monday night, pitting the Democrat's call for steady, experienced leadership against the Republican's pugnacious promises to upend Washington....

    Moderator Lester Holt under scrutiny during debate

    NEW YORK (AP) -- Everyone's aware of the stakes for Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump during the first presidential debate, but there's a third person in the equation who faces a different pressure: Lester Holt....

    Colombia, FARC sign historic peace deal ending long conflict

    CARTAGENA, Colombia (AP) -- Colombia's government and the country's largest rebel movement signed a historic peace accord Monday evening ending a half-century of combat that caused more than 220,000 deaths and made 8 million homeless....

    Houston gunman had 2 weapons, thousands of rounds at scene

    HOUSTON (AP) -- A disgruntled lawyer wearing military-style apparel with old Nazi emblems had two weapons and more than 2,500 rounds of live ammunition when he randomly shot at drivers in a Houston neighborhood Monday before he was shot and killed by police, authorities said....

    Police: Mall shooting suspect confessed, shot 5 in 1 minute

    MOUNT VERNON, Wash. (AP) -- The suspect accused of killing five people at a Macy's department store confessed to police, court documents said, but his motive remained a mystery Monday as a portrait emerged of him as a mentally troubled young man whose parents said they were trying to help him....

  • Top Members