Leferd

The Netherlands, Belgium, Germany, Luxembourg, Hong Kong, Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, Japan, Canada, Mexico, Hawaii, California, Nevada, Washington, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Missouri, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Ohio, West Virginia, Pennsylvania, New York, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, and the District of Columbia. The Dutch are the friendliest, followed by the fine folks from Kansas City who know what burnt ends are supposed to taste like. Singapore and Japan have the best foods. Indonesia has the worst mosquitos, and Cologne has the tallest cathedral. East Coast turnpikes suck.

Ha!. Timmy published the following journal while at Wake Forest. https://books.google.com/books?id=zY1ivEwlHP4C&lpg=PA111&ots=nl14fdGXmf&dq=Aversive%20Interpersonal%20Behavior%20tim%20duncan&pg=PA111#v=onepage&q&f=false

Man, I can't believe Lou Reed played at the same venue thirty years ago where they now have Mass Effect: The Ride.

Study by Harvard Economics Professor just published on police use of force. http://www.nber.org/papers/w22399 The NY Times write up and profile of the study: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/12/upshot/surprising-new-evidence-shows-bias-in-police-use-of-force-but-not-in-shootings.html?smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur&_r=0 Although the study finds that there is no evidence of increased bias in use of lethal force against blacks, there is significantly more use of non-lethal force towards blacks than whites when taking into account similar situations.

So long, and thanks for all the bank shots, Timmy!

http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/black-americans-are-killed-at-12-times-the-rate-of-people-in-other-developed-countries/?ex_cid=538twitterchart Pretty clear there are huge homicide rates within African American communities. Lots of it is "Black on Black" violence, but BLM is more than in the right to demonstrate that "Black Lives Matter" and as a society we need to reflect on our own internalized prejudices and recognize the human element of these crime statistics. In a step towards the right direction, the DoJ has started a program to train their law enforcement agencies and prosecutors on "how to recognize their own implicit bias." https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/department-justice-announces-new-department-wide-implicit-bias-training-personnel I would imagine that the DoJ will then pass on this training to other Federal law enforcement agencies and local departments and DA offices across the country. *edit* corrected DoJ link.

I get it.

This fecesbag was a Congressman. Before the shooting started. Protester and DPD. https://twitter.com/NPRmelissablock/status/751396163966885888 DPD Chief David Brown states that the shooter was a lone gunman and wanted to kill white police officers.

Louisiana. Minnesota. Dallas. This is surreal.

I don't know if a Wade/Rondo/Butler combo can work. They are all ball dominant guards who don't shoot threes playing for a coach who loves ball movement and the three point shot.

In my view, he didn't give up on trying to fix the inequality between whites and blacks (and other minority groups) - in whatever forms he believes inequality manifests itself as - even when blacks overwhelmingly voted against him. He didn't give up on seniors even when they overwhelmingly voted against him. He didn't give up on women's rights even when women didn't vote for him perhaps quite as well as he would've liked. The way I see it, by steadfastly refusing to give in and say, "Well, I guess Hillary's making all the decisions now! Make sure to vote for her!" as would be the norm in today's party politics, he is not giving up on the people who voted for him and his vision...and NOT Hillary and hers. He's fighting tooth and nail for those people...and the way I see it, this is how politics should be done - with a little conviction. He will still end up endorsing her after he's done everything he possibly could because convictions will require him to in the face of a lack of better options, and I can understand and respect that, even if I don't particularly like it. So yes, I think it's unfair to imply that he's still in it all for himself, when it seems pretty obvious that he's not. And bless him for that. I like Sanders and have always had that stance. But Sanders is a zealot, and zealots tend to have myopic tunnel vision and can't bend or pivot to the political realities. Lots of what he stands for is still actually part of the traditional Democratic party platform and will continue to be championed by a Clinton administration. I prefer my leaders to have the longview and flexibility to adjust to the situation and make the deals, compromises, and wherewithal necessary to have a functional and progressive government. Obviously, the Clintons get a lot of flak for being politicians. Well, that's not necessarily a bad thing in my view.

And I was perfectly O.K. with that, but... This is what I took issue with, and nothing you've responded with since has been about that. Maybe I didn't make that totally clear when I originally responded, but I did mention his motives for not conceding multiple times. Fair 'nuff. Maybe I am projecting a little Don Quixote on him.

You may be right. Perhaps Sanders is going to get all that he could ask for. Who knows...we'll see. Then again, Clinton may not necessarily even need Sanders as a proxy. Of these battleground states, Sanders beat Clinton in Michigan, New Hampshire, Colorado, Minnesota, Wisconsin and Iowa. Clinton has healthy leads over Trump in all except for Colorado. In order for Trump to win the GE, he'll need to do much better...and he's got a significant polling defecit to overcome in many of these states. He's still got time --and a chance...but it ain't looking good.

Lol. I personally don't care very much if Sanders endorses, or doesn't endorse Clinton. I was originally pointing out that Sanders was getting booed not for the comments KP quoted him for, but because he wasn't stopping his campaign. The Democratic Congressmen were getting on him for unity and his motives for staying in the race. http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton-campaigns-talks-endorsement-week/story?id=40389661 But it may be a moot point, as the Sanders and Clinton camp are getting together to discuss future events and a possible endorsement anyway. He'll get his speaking spot in the convention, a Senate committee chair, (when the Dems take back the Senate) and a voice in the party platform. But he may have gotten more if he played ball with the party sooner. It's a trade off and he may have overplayed his hand a bit.

Wow. The Bulls. I really wanted him to go to Cleveland. That would have been fun.

Meh. I was going to add on regarding the college proposal --but it's pretty difficult to organize and type out my thoughts on a phone. But Clinton actually announced her college plan while out campaigning with Obama as an expansion of his free college proposals, the morning of Comey's press conference. It is certainly possible and commendable if it's due to Sanders's influence (which was a primary reason why I wanted Sanders to continue campaigning up until the Primaries were over), but it's not because of her looming email scandal. The DoJ/FBI hearings are all political grandstanding. Nothing's going to come out of it. The FBI will have crossed their T's and dotted their I's. No undue influence would have shown to have taken place during the course of the investigation --and certainly nothing the Republicans will be able to prove. Barring a national catastrophe, Hillary Clinton will be the next POTUS with a better than 75% chance probability. Trump's campaign and the RNC is simply not sophisticated or united enough to turn out enough voters in battleground swing states beyond his key demographic to defeat a well-organized Clinton political machine. The polls are trending that way. The analytics say so. The ancillary data supports it. *edit I think you're giving too much weight to the political grandstanding. Most (non-rabid) voters don't care what's happening in Congress or their stupid hearings. Attention span is too short, too ADD. Lookie here -- More googles for Trump and his theatrics than Clinton and her emails the day after. Hillary Clinton isn't as unlikeable as most people here make her out to be. To regular everyday democrats, she's actually very well liked. The Democratic Party is united. Sanders and his supporters aren't even democrats. In the grand scheme, Democrats will vote Democrat. Republicans will vote Republicans. The disaffected either won't vote or place protest votes. Swing voters are significantly swaying towards Clinton. The DNC/Clinton campaign will turn out more voters than Trump/RNC.

Oh please. What's unfair about it? The Democrats were letting him know of their displeasure over him not stepping aside when clearly he already lost. By staying in the race this long, he lost whatever leverage he had in negotiations with the party in setting the party agenda going into the general election. I've been saying all along that Sanders shouldn't quit until it's over. Well, now it's been over for one month now. And there's no indictment. Sanders miscalculated and it cost him. Was he clinging to hope for an indictment? That'd be his in.

Huh? The reports state that Congressional Democrats were asking him when he'd shut down his campaign for party unity and he didn't say when. They booed him for that.

He didn't get booed for saying those things. It was because he was still clinging to the hope that he'd receive the nomination and not shutting down his campaign.

Sorry to hear Bartimaeus. Condolences.

That's a good take GD. I don't agree with everything but fair. Though I do want to point out that Director Comey was a career prosecutor with the DoJ --includung stints as the US Attorney for the Southern District of NY and as the Deputy US Attorney General. PS I'm not a big Hillary Clinton fan, but to me she is by far the best candidate we have that is in line with my world view. She's a politician in the absolute sense, but her motives are honorable as is her dedication for public service. I support her candidacy.

Wrong choice, clearly option 3 was the correct action. You're crazy. Punching the duck is never not the correct action.

JESUS!

The 2003-2004 Detroit Pistons gave up 84.3 points a game. I personally found that a lot more enjoyable to watch than what we see now. Mid/late 90's to the mid 2000's NBA were my personal dark ages for basketball. You had coaches dictating pace to a grinding halt. Only Don Nelson and Mike D'Antoni were advocating up tempo play. Only Rick Adelman's Sacramento teams utilized a motion, backdoor-cutting based (Princeton) offense. The Phil Jackson Triangle teams were deliberately slow and punctuated by heroball and Shaq postups. Guard play was de-emphasised and stifled. The abolishment of the handcheck rule after 2004 was the best thing that could have happened to the NBA game. Smalls such as Steve Nash and Chris Paul cold finally break free and properly weave through defenses that are now forced to move their feet as opposed to constantly hacking, holding, and clutching guys from the perimeter. The floor opened up, and now you can free up bigs who have the skills to play outside-in. Coaches started to loosen the reins and allowed players to freestyle and play more on the open floor. Increased spacing opens up wider passing lanes, allowing greater emphasis on team play. We started to see less isolations. The pace of play increased, players started to share the rock again, and team defenses became more sophisticated with the advent of Tom Thibideau's ICE and increasing use of defensive rotations. In short, the game became less one-on-one and more team oriented on both sides of the ball. Today's game overall hasn't been this aesthetically pleasing since the early 90's when Magic, Bird, and Jordan were hooping.