Dog Brothers Public Forum
September 29, 2016, 05:13:06 PM
Login with username, password and session length
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
Dog Brothers Public Forum
Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities
Politics & Religion
Topic: 2016 Presidential (Read 96712 times)
Re: 2016 Presidential, Debate 1, HRC Fact Check: Egg on Face
Reply #1500 on:
September 27, 2016, 05:51:34 PM »
Hillary wants her debate fact checked. I'll take a shot at her assertions:
(more on this here:
We also, though, need to have a tax system that rewards work and not just financial transactions. And the kind of plan that Donald has put forth would be trickle-down economics all over again. In fact, it would be the most extreme version, the biggest tax cuts for the top percent of the people in this country than we’ve ever had. I call it trumped-up trickle-down, because that’s exactly what it would be. That is not how we grow the economy.
- This always goes unchecked. It isn't "trickle down" if all rate cuts apply to everyone. It is an interconnected economy, not a trickled down one.
Rating: Straw Argument, Deception, and Lie.
"He really believes that the more you help wealthy people, the better off we’ll be and that everything will work out from there."
Still not true. Rating: Straw Argument, Deception, Lie and Repeating a Lie.
"I believe is the more we can do for the middle class, the more we can invest in you, your education, your skills, your future, the better we will be off and the better we’ll grow."
- Government 'investment' is called spending, leads to debt, $20 trillion.
Rating: Deception, Lie.
"Donald was one of the people who rooted for the housing crisis. He said, back in 2006, “Gee, I hope it does collapse, because then I can go in and buy some and make some money.” "
- Housing was over-priced in 2006. A real estate buyer benefits from lower prices.
Rating: Punch not landed.
HRC: "The last thing we need to do is to go back to the policies that failed us in the first place."
- She and her group have been in power from before the crash all the way through history's slowest 'recovery'.
Rating: Egg on Face.
"Independent experts have looked at what I’ve proposed and looked at what Donald’s proposed, and basically they’ve said this, that if his tax plan, which would blow up the debt by over $5 trillion and would in some instances disadvantage middle-class families compared to the wealthy, were to go into effect, we would lose 3.5 million jobs and maybe have another recession. They’ve looked at my plans and they’ve said, OK, if we can do this, and I intend to get it done, we will have 10 million more new jobs, because we will be making investments where we can grow the economy. Take clean energy. Some country is going to be the clean- energy superpower of the 21st century."
- There isn't a serious economic study that uses static analysis. Government money into investments like Solydra that otherwise don't pay for themselves add no net new jobs.
Rating: Denial of Science, Lie, Deception.
"I would not add a penny to the debt."
Pay no attention to the previous record of same policies.
Rating: Congenital Lie. There was a column by that name.
"What I have proposed would be paid for by raising taxes on the wealthy, because they have made all the gains in the economy. And I think it’s time that the wealthy and corporations paid their fair share to support this country."
- That's exactly the argument made before Obama was elected. These policies made it worse.
Rating: Pathological Lie.
"$4 billion tax benefit for your family."
- You just said in the same debate that he pays NO federal income tax.
"Too many young African-American and Latino men ended up in jail for nonviolent offenses. And it’s just a fact that if you’re a young African-American man and you do the same thing as a young white man, you are more likely to be arrested, charged, convicted, and incarcerated. So we’ve got to address the systemic racism in our criminal justice system. We cannot just say law and order. We have to say — we have to come forward with a plan that is going to divert people from the criminal justice system, deal with mandatory minimum sentences, which have put too many people away for too long for doing too little."
- Mandatory sentencing was a feature of the Bill Clinton administration, as was the Defense of Marriage Act and repeal of Glass Steagal.
Rating: Deflection, Deception, Lie.
"He has really started his political activity based on this racist lie that our first black president was not an American citizen."
- What is racial about birth? And she started that political lie.
Rating: Lying about your own Lie.
HRC: "There was absolutely no evidence for it, but he persisted."
- The evidence was that he was refusing to release his birth certificate for a job that has requirements regarding birth, also that his own publicist was promoting him as a Kenyan.
Rating: No one Left to Lie to. There was a book by that name. Yes, about her.
HRC: "I voted for every sanction against Iran when I was in the Senate, but it wasn’t enough. So I spent a year-and-a-half putting together a coalition that included Russia and China to impose the toughest sanctions on Iran. And we did drive them to the negotiating table. And my successor, John Kerry, and President Obama got a deal that put a lid on Iran’s nuclear program without firing a single shot. That’s diplomacy. That’s coalition-building. That’s working with other nations."
- She is taking credit for constructing the sanctions regime that they abandoned, and is supporting the abandonment. There is a "lid" on Iran’s nuclear program"
Rating: She is a consistently contrary indicator between right and wrong on policy.
HRC: "Let’s have paid family leave, earned sick days. Let’s be sure we have affordable child care and debt-free college. How are we going to do it? We’re going to do it by having the wealthy pay their fair share and close the corporate loopholes."
- You already ran out of other peoples' money, $20 trillion in the red and counting.
Rating of anyone who believes that: Gullible.
Last Edit: September 28, 2016, 10:12:32 AM by DougMacG
TIME Post Debate Poll
Reply #1501 on:
September 28, 2016, 12:04:36 AM »
Has Trump winning 55% to 45%.
Quote from: ccp on September 27, 2016, 05:31:17 PM
"This question may well prove to be a big warning flag of serious cheating to come."
This was exactly my thought. Is the election rigged? Why wouldn't it be? Who is going to do anything about it?
Quote from: Crafty_Dog on September 27, 2016, 05:09:18 PM
They want to forestall him from complaining about dirty tricks, rigging the vote, stuffing the ballot box, etc.
This question may well prove to be a big warning flag of serious cheating to come.
Exactly my concern and an odd question. Trump was smart to just answer "yes," because in doing so, he is supporting law and order. Anything else would have left him open.
Been doing homework all day. Going to edit this with my notes in a few minutes.
Edit... not going to edit it. Any analysis of this at this moment is imprudent based on the fact that no one is going to change their minds. I was thinking Johnson this morning, then got to 5600 pages of TPP junk that I have to skim vs Trump's "stop and frisk" which I also don't support. Have to see what happens at the next debate.
There are just too many variables at the moment. Election fraud is indeed a danger and why the leftist media is attempting to claim that HRC is close in the polls. I doubt she is. Electronic voting leaves no hard proof, which is a point many have mentioned before the debate. When asked of supporting Clinton, I can only laugh.
With a potential of nearly two decades of liberal rule, would you support it, while they destroy every freedom you hold dear, especially if there is a reasonable doubt that they were elected fraudulently? GC just posted an article with the gun laws that have passed... Anyone that is 40 years of age or older, remembers the difference between their childhood and the litany of laws that exist now.
Support? Support what?
Last Edit: September 28, 2016, 12:45:21 AM by DDF
It's all a matter of perspective.
Re: 2016 Presidential
Reply #1502 on:
September 28, 2016, 12:11:42 AM »
On line polls are of limited value.
Re: 2016 Presidential
Reply #1503 on:
September 28, 2016, 12:25:10 AM »
Quote from: Crafty_Dog on September 28, 2016, 12:11:42 AM
On line polls are of limited value.
I agree. I was screen capturing data off of both candidates' pages last night, immediately after the debate had ended, from the top comments on their respective pages, with both publishing posts as soon as the debate had ended.
In 21 minutes, the top comment from Trump's page garnered 5950 likes in 21 minutes (283.333- endorsements of support per minute), with 394 replies.
In 18 minutes, the top comment from Clinton's page had generated 2087 likes (115.9444- endorsements of support per minute) OR 40% of the support Trump was enjoying based on the ratio, per minute. Clinton had 214 replies.
From the replies, we can also garner interest generated by either candidate. I know that is subject to several factors that may sway data (both are from English speaking pages, time zones, amount of households that have internet, and a lack of input from either Stein's or Johnson's pages). Even still, the reverse is also true... those that were awake, on the internet, and had just watched the debate, those are the results of what they had to say.
Interesting to note, is the correlation between Time's result of 55% pro Trump, and the casual data gathered by what I observed last night. More drastic are Youtube ratios which I have generally calculated at roughly 12 in 5 supporting Clinton. I should look into why that is.
It's all a matter of perspective.
Re: 2016 Presidential, Michael Barone, 2nd thoughts on debate 1
Reply #1504 on:
September 28, 2016, 08:48:49 AM »
From our point of view Trump missed so many opportunities. OTOH maybe he did land some lasting punches with his targeted voters.
[One other point is that Romney destroyed Obama in the first debate of 2012 and lost the election decisively.]
Did Donald Trump deconstruct Hillary Clinton with marginal voters?
By MICHAEL BARONE (@MICHAELBARONE) • 9/27/16 7:39 PM
One way to look at Monday's night presidential debate: Both candidates were speaking, time and again, to marginal voters. Specifically, to young Americans, and for a considerable time to young black Americans in particular, people who may or may not choose to vote, may choose to vote for a third- or fourth-party candidate or may (Democrats hope) turn out to vote in large numbers for Hillary Clinton. Clinton's strategy of replicating the 2012 Obama 51 percent majority requires high turnout among groups that over history have had a low propensity to vote — blacks, Hispanics, young people. Trump's strategy, given his unpopularity with young voters, is to deter them from voting for Clinton, especially considering that the black and Hispanic percentages among young people eligible to vote is higher than those percentages among older people.
"She's been doing this for 30 years," Trump said near the beginning of the debate, while talking about trade. The number's not quite accurate: Clinton has been a national figure for only — only! — 25 years, since Bill Clinton began running for president in 1991, but she was also, as speakers at the Democratic National Convention mentioned over and over, a public policymaker starting at least when Bill Clinton was first elected governor in 1978, 38 years ago. "And Hillary, I'd just ask you this," Trump said some minutes later. "You've been doing this for 30 years." There's no clear antecedent for "this" — Trump was riffing about energy, debt, trade — but the point was made again. He even lapsed into absurdity — "You've been fighting ISIS your entire adult life" — which is impossible because the Islamic State didn't exist for most of that time. Much later in the debate, he chimed in on ISIS. "So she talks about taking them out. She's been doing it a long time." And near the end of the debate, he chimed in, "Hillary's has experience, it's bad experience."
Trump also went after her on flip-flopping, which is to say, sincerity. He brazenly predicted that she would push the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement she's currently and then recalled, accurately, "You called it the gold standard of trade deals." Young people, it seems safe to say, value sincerity and dislike candidates who switch positions for political reasons.
Trump missed a chance to skewer Clinton for her secret email server in response to a question on cybersecurity, but earlier, when moderator Lester Holt (otherwise mum on the emails) asked her to respond to Trump's mention of them, he said, "That was more than a mistake. That was done purposely. OK?" At which point he repeated the previous two sentences. "When you have your staff taking the Fifth Amendment, taking the Fifth so they're not prosecuted, when you have the man that set up the illegal server taking the Fifth, I think it's disgraceful."
So on three critical characteristics Trump tried to get across the message that Clinton is antique, expedient and dishonest — qualities that young people presumably abhor. He underlined the concerns that have young people in some target state polls casting more than 20 percent of their votes for Gary Johnson or Jill Stein or no candidate rather than the Democratic nominee.
How did Clinton try to appeal to young voters? Near the beginning of the debate, as part of a laundry list of policies supported by many Democrats, she called for "paid family leave, sick days" and "affordable child care and debt-free college." She echoed the call for "debt-free college" later but did not describe her plan, adapted from Bernie Sanders' proposal, in any detail. Later, in listing her "plans," she said, "We also have to look at how we help families balance the responsibilities at home and the responsibilities at business." Not all these concerns are shared by many young people, especially those who are marginal voters. Not all want to go to college. The percentage of Millennials who are married is lower than it was of previous generations and most unmarrieds are not in the market for child care. By no means do all have jobs. It's not clear that the policies will help them.
She also attacked Trump for positions and statements presumably unattractive to young people. She charged that "Donald thinks that climate change is a hoax perpretrated by the Chinese" — a slight alteration of a Trump tweet. And at the end of the debate Lester Holt asked a question that gave her a chance to reprise some of the repulsive things Trump has said about women.
"We move into our next segment talking about America's direction," said Lester Holt. "Let's start by talking about race." I don't recall "race" being a subject in any presidential debate in the last four elections (please correct me if I'm wrong), which tells you something about the state of things today.
In response, Clinton echoed the complaints of the Black Lives Matter group: "race still determines too much," there is "systemic racism in our criminal justice system" and "implicit bias is a problem for everyone, not just police." But she said, "It's really unfortunate that he [Trump] paints such a dire negative picture of black communities in our country." She joined Lester Holt in stating, inaccurately, that stop and frisk has been declared unconstitutional (for once, Trump had his facts straight on this and relayed them clearly). But she also said that police deserve respect and "we do always have to make sure we keep people safe." But the clear thrust of her remarks was in line with that of many protesters and of most black elected Democrats, and she called for federal "retraining" of police. Presumably she did so in the hope of rallying black voters, particularly young blacks, to the polls.
In contrast, Trump talked bluntly about the need for "law and order" and made the point, less clearly than he had at the Republican National Convention, that "the people that are most affected by what's happening" — increasing crime and violent riots — "are African-American and Hispanic people. And it's very unfair to them what our politicians are allowing to happen." He didn't cite the FBI figures released Monday showing murders nationally up 11 percent in 2015 — the biggest annual rise in decades. But he did make specific reference to recent events in Charlotte, Chicago, Detroit, New York and Dallas which show some acquaintance with what's going on.
My own sense is that Trump got the better of this exchange. Clinton's stance may gin up black turnout, but it's not likely to rise to the levels of 2008 and 2012 when the first black president was running. And if the Democratic percentage among blacks should fall from the 95 and 93 percent of those years to the 84 and 83 percent Bill Clinton got in the 1990s, that would mean 1 point off Hillary Clinton's percentage nationally and more in target states like Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Virginia. And I'm not sure it helps Hillary Clinton to accuse the 70-plus percent of voters who are white that they have a problem with "implicit bias." (more at link)
Last Edit: September 28, 2016, 08:57:20 AM by DougMacG
Reply #1505 on:
September 28, 2016, 09:55:51 AM »
It’s Like No One Remembers Who John Warner Is
Most of the Washington media is acting like it’s an enormous surprise that former senator John Warner of Virginia is endorsing Hillary Clinton.
People, people . . . Sometimes I feel like the only man with memory in land of amnesiacs. It was just two years ago that Warner was endorsing the Democrat in the Senate race.
Retired Republican Sen. John Warner endorsed his Democratic successor and onetime rival Mark Warner on Monday in his race against Ed Gillespie.
The 86-year-old told POLITICO that the state benefits from the seniority in the Senate that the 59-year-old Warner (the two are not related) is accumulating. The former chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee also praised the younger Warner – with whom he has developed a friendship since the two squared off in a race nearly two decades ago – for effectively advocating on behalf of the state’s large military presence.
John Warner is the kind of Republican who supported Roe v. Wade and embryonic stem cell research, voted for the Brady Bill, sought to extend the Assault Weapons Ban, voted to reject the nomination of Robert Bork, voted against Bill Clinton’s impeachment, broke with the rest of the party on the Terry Schiavo case, was part of the Gang of 14 on the “nuclear option,” co-sponsored a resolution opposing the 2007 surge of additional U.S. troops in Iraq, and cosponsored cap-and-trade legislation.
John Warner is exactly the kind of Republican you would expect to see endorse Hillary Clinton.
Who Will Win More Votes Where It Counts, Trump or GOP Senate Candidates?
The piece of data that will most illuminate 2016 is Donald Trump’s vote total in key states compared to the vote totals of the Republican Senate candidates in those states.
The easy, lazy narrative is that a tired, unappealing Republican establishment was sputtering, and then Trump came along, energizing working-class white voters, and he represents a better, more broadly-appealing agenda for the party and represents the GOP future.
The current RealClearPolitics averages in each state tell a completely different story.
Right now, Trump is running a little ahead of GOP Senate candidates in a couple of states . . .
Trump’s current level in the RCP average in Colorado: 41 percent.
Darryl Glenn’s current level in the RCP average in Colorado: 40.4 percent.
Trump’s current level in the RCP average in Indiana: 45 percent.
Todd Young’s current level in the RCP average in Indiana: 40.5 percent.
Trump’s current level in the RCP average in Missouri: 46.7 percent.
Roy Blunt’s current level in the RCP average in Missouri: 44.6 percent.
Trump’s current level in the RCP average in North Carolina: 42.3 percent.
Richard Burr’s current level in the RCP average in North Carolina: 42.2 percent.
Trump is running a little behind GOP Senate candidates in a bunch of states . . .
Trump’s current level in the RCP average in Florida: 43.3 percent.
Marco Rubio’s current level in the RCP average in Florida: 46.4 percent.
Trump’s current level in the RCP average in Georgia: 45.4 percent.
Johnny Isakson’s current level in the RCP average in Georgia: 49 percent.
Trump’s current level in the RCP average in Illinois: 34.5 percent.
Mark Kirk’s current level in the RCP average in Illinois: 37.5 percent.
Trump’s current level in the RCP average in Nevada: 42.8 percent.
Joe Heck’s current level in the RCP average in Nevada: 45 percent.
Trump’s current level in the RCP average in Pennsylvania: 41.8 percent.
Pat Toomey’s current level in the RCP average in Pennsylvania: 42.2 percent.
Trump’s current level in the RCP average in Wisconsin: 38 percent.
Ron Johnson’s current level in the RCP average in Wisconsin: 41.3 percent.
And Trump is running way behind GOP Senate candidates in another couple of states.
Trump’s current level in the RCP average in Arizona: 40.4 percent.
John McCain’s current level in the RCP average in Arizona: 49.7 percent.
Trump’s current level in the RCP average in Iowa: 42.8 percent.
Chuck Grassley’s current level in the RCP average in Iowa: 52 percent.
Trump’s current level in the RCP average in New Hampshire: 37.3 percent.
Kelly Ayotte’s current level in the RCP average in New Hampshire: 47.3 percent.
Trump’s current level in the RCP average in Ohio: 42.7 percent.
Rob Portman’s current level in the RCP average in Ohio: 49.3 percent.
All appropriate caveats apply: Polls can be wrong, a bad sample can throw off the RCP average, et cetera. After the election, when all the votes are counted, we’ll have real data. Some will argue that this is an imperfect measuring stick, because Trump is competing against Clinton as well as Gary Johnson and Jill Stein, and most third-party candidates in Senate races are minimally consequential. Of course, this is part of the point. Trump alienates and repels a portion of the electorate that is usually more open to voting for a Republican nominee.
Re: 2016 Presidential
Reply #1506 on:
September 28, 2016, 10:11:42 AM »
Quote from: DougMacG on September 28, 2016, 08:48:49 AM
I think you're right. I'm trying to do homework and also read the Trans-Pacific Partnership to pick it apart, and maybe send some things to Trump's campaign that he can use.
At 5,544 pages (it's hard to tell because the actual government link with the text is in several links due to its size), it weighs more than 100 lbs.
The full text is here:
Immediately, off of the preamble link, there are already glaring problems -
ESTABLISH a comprehensive regional agreement that promotes economic integration to
Liberalise - make liberal or more liberal, of laws and rules. To cause to change; make different; cause a transformation; relax controls.
BUILD on their respective rights and obligations under the Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the
World Trade Organization
Basically ceding more power to - "an intergovernmental organization which regulates international trade."
RECOGNISE further their
inherent right to adopt, maintain or modify health care systems
A good question would be, what healthcare systems have to do with international trade, but they've certainly justified it somewhere in their mountain of documents. I am one of few that actually took the time to read Obamacare in its entirety. Pelosi's infamous "you have to pass it so you can see what's in it," was her way of saying, that she hadn't read it herself, and at more than twice the size of Obamacare, the amount of people that get paid to read this, won't.
AFFIRM that state-owned enterprises can play a legitimate role in the diverse economies of the Parties,
while recognising (sic) that the provision of unfair advantages to state-owned enterprises undermines fair and open trade and investment, and resolve to establish rules for state-owned enterprises
that promote a level playing field with privately owned businesses, transparency and sound business practices;
So the State, wants to regulate the rules by which the State will play by? Clinton, Russia being allowed to buy American plutonium, and cash shoveled into the Clinton Foundation come to mind.
I'll read more of this and see what comes to surface. If anything, someone should pass a law, that makes passing legislation that takes longer than three days to speed read, illegal. When I do read it, I'll post it in the appropriate thread. Just in the preamble, there is even more to pick apart, depending on how much interest and power you think the United States should retain, a fundamental difference in philosophies that cannot be ignored, but that is easy to sell the American public.
Last Edit: September 28, 2016, 10:13:58 AM by DDF
It's all a matter of perspective.
Reply #1507 on:
September 28, 2016, 10:22:32 AM »
Quote from: Crafty_Dog on September 28, 2016, 09:55:51 AM
All appropriate caveats apply: Polls can be wrong, a bad sample can throw off the RCP average, et cetera. After the election, when all the votes are counted, we’ll have real data. Some will argue that this is an imperfect measuring stick, because Trump is competing against Clinton as well as Gary Johnson and Jill Stein, and most third-party candidates in Senate races are minimally consequential. Of course, this is part of the point.
Trump alienates and repels a portion of the electorate that is usually more open to voting for a Republican nominee.
That is critical.
I think the appropriate thing to do is find and expose Johnson's negative points. He (Johnson) should be in the debates, but not just for Johnson's sake, but for the sake of finding out the negative portions that don't come to light, such as his support of TPP. The public has been focused so much, on attacking and endorsing Clinton or Trump, that even though the likelihood of a Libertarian victory is diminished with the inherent power of the DNC and GOP, the fact that Johnson (Stein to a much lesser extent), will pull needed votes from either candidate, MUST BE addressed. Johnson should receive much more attention than he is currently receiving, and not all of it positive.
Last Edit: September 28, 2016, 10:24:08 AM by DDF
It's all a matter of perspective.
Lesbian for Trump
Reply #1508 on:
September 28, 2016, 10:36:52 AM »
WSJ: Lester Holt was quite wrong on Stop & Frisk ruling
Reply #1509 on:
September 28, 2016, 11:28:35 AM »
Fact-Checking Lester Holt
Here’s the legal back story on that stop-and-frisk ruling.
Sept. 27, 2016 6:55 p.m. ET
We told you Tuesday that Donald Trump was right when he pushed back on debate moderator Lester Holt over “stop and frisk” policing. But the story deserves a more complete explanation, not least because the media are distorting the record.
Mr. Trump invoked stop and frisk as a way to “take the gun away from criminals” in high-crime areas and protect the innocent. That provoked Mr. Holt, who said that “stop and frisk was ruled unconstitutional in New York.” Mr. Trump then noted that the ruling in the case came from a “very against police judge” who later had the case taken away from her. Mrs. Clinton then echoed Mr. Holt.
Here’s what really happened. The federal judge in the stop-and-frisk case was Shira Scheindlin, a notorious police critic whose behavior got her taken off the case by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. The appellate court put it this way:
“Upon review of the record in these cases, we conclude that the District Judge ran afoul of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges . . . and that the appearance of impartiality surrounding this litigation was compromised by the District Judge’s improper application of the Court’s ‘related case rule’ . . . and by a series of media interviews and public statements purporting to respond publicly to criticism of the District Court.”
The court then remanded the case to another judge who would not present an appearance of bias against the police. In a follow-up opinion, the appellate judges cited a New Yorker interview with Judge Scheindlin that included a quote from a former law clerk saying “what you have to remember about the judge is that she thinks cops lie.”
This is an extraordinary rebuke by a higher court and raises doubts that the merits of her ruling would have held up on appeal. As Rudolph Giuliani makes clear nearby, the judge’s ruling of unconstitutionality applied only to stop and frisk as it was practiced in New York at the time. Such police search tactics have long been upheld by higher courts.
In the end, the clock ran out on Mayor Mike Bloomberg, and new Mayor Bill de Blasiochose not to appeal. We rate Mr. Trump’s claim true and unfairly second-guessed by a moderator who didn’t give the viewing public all the facts.
Re: WSJ: Lester Holt was quite wrong on Stop & Frisk ruling
Reply #1510 on:
September 28, 2016, 12:25:28 PM »
Is this a national issue relative to this election, why was it brought up in this debate with time for big issues so limited? I presume the answer to that was to isolate Trump from blacks, stop and frisk is hugely unpopular with blacks. Also to distract attention away from current failures.
This is like abortion question, questioners pick apart the most extreme conservative position on rare cases and ignore the 98% where babies are getting slaughtered for convenience reasons. In this case, the black and Hispanic neighborhoods are becoming war zones. Bothering innocent people isn't a big part of the fix.
The policy as I understand it is stop, question and frisk, not stop and frisk.
Please select a destination:
DBMA Martial Arts Forum
=> Martial Arts Topics
Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities
=> Politics & Religion
=> Science, Culture, & Humanities
=> Espanol Discussion
Powered by SMF 1.1.21
SMF © 2015, Simple Machines