Thứ Năm, 26 tháng 10, 2017

Youtube daily or Oct 26 2017

Welcome

New

YouTuber

YouTube Channel Name - Ujjal Bhowmik

Please SUBSCRIBE

Welcome Again

Today's Tutorial

How To Make Best Free Professional Logos Online

My Channel LOGO

Ujjal Bhowmik

My Next Video Coming Soon

How to add Branding Logo in your YouTube Channel

One Logo for all YouTube Videos

Next Tutorial

How To Brand Your YouTube Channel

Now

How to Create Logo

Website is

Logo Maker: http://logomakr.com/

Open it now

Now

Make Best Free Professional Logos Online

Without Photoshop or Skill!

Click next

Again next

Again next

Next click Done

Create Logo

You can choose any website from google

This is my choice

Now how ?

Now search Logo

FUNNY, TUTORIAL, TRAVEL ETC

Choice is your

This is FUNNY Logo

For Funny Channel

You can change the color

Any

Red, blue, green etc

all color here

Now Your Text

Type Now

Something

You can Edit Text or logo Size

my Channel Name - Ujjal Bhowmik

Huge Edit Options

Very Easy

Any problem contact me

Save option is upper side corner

After Complete

Save

Download

2 option for download

Click free option

Thanks for watching

Happy to hello you

Thanks

Please SUBSCRIBE

For more infomation >> How To Make Best Free Professional Logos Online | Without Photoshop or Skill! Hindi - Duration: 5:28.

-------------------------------------------

London - Cheap or free + MAP - Duration: 3:38.

Welcome to London really pretty expensive city, but there is a lot of

cheap or free things you can do here!

Spend some time as famous city markets like this one Camden Market here you can

find a lot of cheap souvenirs and of course statue of Amy Winehouse or you

can visit Borought market where you can find all the food from all around the

world! You can taste almost everything for free, if you want to take free sample

and then decide which your favorite dish you can buy for a few pounds... or if you

want to save even more you can eat in supermarkets. This coleslaw salad is only

89 cents and it's very tasty! If you wake up on time and be here

around 11 o'clock you can see changing the guard with horses close to the St.

James Park.

You can you can feed squirrels in St. James Park and duck also, or you can

feed parrots in a Hyde Park. But please don't use chips or bread, just use

peanuts or some bird seads so they get their proper food. And there's also

Richmond Park there you can find deers, wild deers so please don't eat them just

take a picture and go home. Although national museums in London are free, you

need to pay to get into some of the churches. For example like Westminster's

Abbey for around I think 15 pounds. But if you would like to enter the St.

Paul's Cathedral for free, come here around 5 p.m. because they have

singing choir and if their service, so it's free entrance for everybody. Don't

forget to take a picture as it is on a Beatles album crossing the Abbey Road

or picture at King's Cross station at platphorm 9 3/4 if you're more

Harry Potter's fan. Or with the statue of Amy Winehouse, but I told you already, it is in

Camden Town. For getting around London, use metro or use bicycles because

everything is so far away. If you go by foot you may lose hour or hour and a

half just to walk from one point to another.

Check all the Metro fares online because sometimes if you change only one zone,

you need to pay around 1.50 which is

actually very cheap. Or if you take buses you can drive for 1.50 on two buses

within one hour. Or you can take bicycles. They are cheap as two pounds per day.

You can drive them only 30 minutes, just like in every other city. And be aware that

bicycle stations are only available in city center, so before you rent a bike,

check your districts and your stations. All national museums in London

are free to enter. Like Science Museum, Tate Modern museum, Victoria and Albert or my

favorite one - Nature and history museum so let's check it out...

London is so beautiful so you just can walk around the see Tower Bridge,

Millennium Bridge, Tate Modern Museum or old part of Soho... or just to see a new and

modern part!

For more infomation >> London - Cheap or free + MAP - Duration: 3:38.

-------------------------------------------

Guilt or Shame? | daily sprout 391 - Duration: 1:25.

For more infomation >> Guilt or Shame? | daily sprout 391 - Duration: 1:25.

-------------------------------------------

Graves or Llanas in Spanish - Videos Learn - Duration: 1:22.

For more infomation >> Graves or Llanas in Spanish - Videos Learn - Duration: 1:22.

-------------------------------------------

Filmora-Filmora Video Editor|how to Split or Cut the media file in Filmora Video Editor - Duration: 6:16.

For more infomation >> Filmora-Filmora Video Editor|how to Split or Cut the media file in Filmora Video Editor - Duration: 6:16.

-------------------------------------------

Is dog harness beneficial or harmful? - Duration: 5:08.

harnesses are they beneficial or are they harmful? Should you get rid of them

or should you use them all that and more coming up

hello lover my name is Saro and this is Harvey my dog my beagle in this episode

we're going to talk about harnesses but before we go any further let me just

give you this tip that tools are not the solution you can't solve a behavioral

issue using any tool including harnesses if your dog is barking or pulling on the

leash or misbehaving harness is not a tool to use to solve that behavioral

issue you have to deal with the behavioral issue differently many dog

owners are depending on tools and that is the wrong way to approach any

behavioral issue in your dog so let's dive in knowing all these to the idea of

whether the harness is a good idea or not the reason I suggest using a harness

and your dog is because we want to reduce the amount of pressure or the

pressure that it gets to the neck using your dog's collar when your dog

let's say if it's a pulley dog and it pulls and you want to reduce the

pressure from your dog's neck when you put on a harness on a dog it actually

gives more power to the dog to pull on the leash it gives more freedom and

flexibility to pull on the leash they tend to use their shoulders and all

their back and all the legs in front power to pull on the leash so actually

it works against you when you have a dog who's a pulley so think of dog sled dogs

they usually wear harness the reason for that is because it gives them the

freedom and the ability to pull on the sled so actually harnesses teachers and

lets the dog to pull on the leash it doesn't help with the pulling on the

leash so when a dog or a puppy or a older dog (stay) is pulling on the leash

they're putting a lot of pressure on their neck right so that's where we usually put the

collar and they put a lot of pressure on their neck so what happens when a dog is

putting pressure on the neck if you're using a collar it what happens

all that negative energy all that pressure is distributed especially

because they're the neck is very sensitive and it's a sensitive area in

this area it's very sensitive all that pressure is just distributed to their

spine and their spine is connected to all the nerves that is in the it goes in

their body and all that in those all those nerves and joint and including

their neck gets stressed and when they get stressed it causes to develop health

issues including injuries and also cancer so even when you put a harness on

the dog the pressure from the neck is just transferred to somewhere else and

it's alleviated to their shoulders and chest so therefore is the same pressure

that they will put when they are wearing a collar but instead of the pressure is

spread to the neck and shoulders and the chest so now it's less the pressure is

less but still there's a negative force active in their chest and in their body

so in general harness doesn't help or reduces the pressure it just distributed

differently so I don't recommend harness to be used for dogs who have who tend to

be pulling on the leash you're better solution or the healthier solution

would be to train them Harvey is sleeping now I hope that answers your question if

you want to become an educated dog lover if you want to have a well-behaved dog

make sure to subscribe to my channel and if you liked this video give it a thumbs

up and share know until next time from with your dog

For more infomation >> Is dog harness beneficial or harmful? - Duration: 5:08.

-------------------------------------------

How To Translate YouTube Videos To English Or Another Language - Duration: 5:30.

Do you want your YouTube content to reach a global audience? On average two

thirds of YouTube watch time comes from outside your home country if you want to

make your YouTube videos accessible to an international audience consider

translating them into different language there are 75 languages that access

YouTube every day and they're probably interested in your great content. In this

video I'm gonna show you how to translate your YouTube videos, playlists

and channel info into English or another language hello my name is Herman Drost

from drostdesigns.com if you want to grow your audience on youtube and

generate traffic leads and subscribers on autopilot hit the subscribe button or

hit the bell notification icon. Here's how to translate your YouTube videos into

English or another language besides your own home country step 1 identify the

language that you want to translate your videos into click on creator studio

click analytics on the overview page you'll see your top geographies click on

that and you can see it's United States India United Kingdom Canada Pakistan

Australia Philippines Bangladesh Malaysia Germany Arab Emirates Saudi

Arabia. What if I want to translate my videos into Arabic so I can appeal to

people from Saudi Arabia step 2 go to your video manager select the video that

you wish to translate and another language I'm going to select this one

click Edit click translations under original language it says select

language so the original language is going to be English and this is going to

be the default for new uploads so you can check that then in the drop-down box

under translate into select the language that you want to translate your

title into and for Arabic click add language step 3 enter your translated

title and enter your translated description you could go to Google

Translate just Google "Google Translate" enter your text. Enter my title in there and

I can select the language Arabic click on this window symbol to copy

"translations copied" you can see it my title has been translated into Arabic

and I can do the same with the translated description just copy my

description go to Google Translate enter it into there

and here it's translated click on the window icon copy it "translation is copied" then

I can just paste it into the description and then just click Save Changes

alternatively if you have the TubeBuddy extension it will show you the top ten

languages spoken by your channels audience so you can see here English Hindi Arabic

Filipino Punjabi German Spanish Dutch Indonesian Portuguese so I could just

simply choose Arabic for instance here and then click translate keep in mind

you do have to upgrade your TubebBuddy license to enable this feature and just

click Save Changes you also want to add a translated

version of your title into the tags so just copy this you can go to basic info

and I'll just put in my tags like that and click Save Changes

now if someone views my videos from an Arabic country such as Saudi Arabia the

title description and tags will be in Arabic if you translated your video from

French to English the title description and tags will be in English number two

here's how to translate YouTube playlists click on your video manager

click playlists select the playlist that you wish to translate I'm gonna select

this one "how to make money on YouTube" Click playlist settings click on the three

dots over here click translate playlist info, select the original language

"What language is the original text setup?" English set language then you want to

select the language that you want to translate your playlist into in this

case I'm gonna add a new language which would be Arabic click add language then

you just add your translated title so I'd go to how to make money on YouTube

go to Google Translate paste it in there and here's my translated Arabic language

Click the window icon "translation copied" paste it into the title box and

here's my description just copy that go to Google Translate click on the window

icon "translation copied" paste it in there

then click Save now my playlist title and description has been converted into

Arabic number 3 here's how to translate your channel info go to your channel

home page click on the gear icon down the bottom here it says translate info

reach audiences in foreign countries by translating channel info click on

translating channel info select the language click English select the

language click add new language this case gonna select Arabic again click add

language enter the translator title I'm going to Google Translate it's gonna be

exactly the same translate it and I'm gonna copy my channel description Go

to Google Translate and then I'm just gonna click on the window icon

"translation copied" and click Save now you know how to translate your

videos, playlists and channel info to another language and reach a global

audience here's an important thing to keep in mind the Google Translate tool

is not very accurate so you might upset the people from that country when they

don't see an accurate translation of your videos if you want to get a really

accurate translation then use a service such as go transcript.com I'll put a

link to it in the description below this video if you want to learn how to grow

your audience on YouTube and generate traffic leads and subscribers on

autopilot click the subscribe button below and check out the related videos

For more infomation >> How To Translate YouTube Videos To English Or Another Language - Duration: 5:30.

-------------------------------------------

BOAT LILY - RHOEO PLANT Care / OYSTER PLANT or Tradescantia spathacea Care - Beautiful House plant - Duration: 2:43.

Hello Friends, Today will look into a very beautiful ornamental plant known as the Boat

lily or Oyster plant , Moses in the Cradle plant or Rhoeo plant with botanical name Tradescantia

spathacea. Many of us have these plants in our gardens, but we may not be knowing its

name. Knowing a plants name is very important to learn more about the plant � like how

to care for it, what is the watering requirement, sunlight requirement and so on.

Rheo plant has leaves like rosettes of waxy lanceolate leaves. Leaves are dark to metallic

green above, with glossy purple underneath. This two color feature makes it an attractive

ornamental plant grown usually in small pots and also as ground cover. These can grow up

to 1 foot in height and are invasive plants. Hence require very little care and attention.

Now few points on the care of these Rhoeo plants:

1. They do not require deep containers or pots, because they do not have deeper roots.

2. Multiple plants can be potted within a same container.

3. For best results, Soil or potting mix has to be well drained with some compost like

10 percent cowdung powder or vermicompost. 4. Repotting is also easy. If you have brought

this from nursery, remove the clay rich soil binding tightly to the roots by keeping it

immersed in a water tub, so that the clay rich soil separates from the roots. Do not

pull out the soil, as this can damage the roots.

5. Watering requirement: It loves water, but still it�s a drought tolerant and hardy

plant. You can water it twice a day to keep it happy.

6. Fertlizer requirement: its generally not necessary. One point to note that it�s a

flowering plant and its propagated easily from seeds. It can also be propagated by dividing

the root ball and repotting.

So, there we have it folks, That was our episode on How to grow and Care the Rhoeo plant. If

you like the video, please give a thumbs up and pass on some comments below the video.

Also consider subscribing to the channel if you are new to the channel. Happy Gardening!

For more infomation >> BOAT LILY - RHOEO PLANT Care / OYSTER PLANT or Tradescantia spathacea Care - Beautiful House plant - Duration: 2:43.

-------------------------------------------

Fact or Fiction? "The Right of the First Night" - Duration: 7:46.

The practice of jus primae noctis ("right of the first night") is, in simplest terms,

the right of the local noble to deflower local peasant brides on their wedding night before

their newlywed husbands.

Precedence for this practice supposedly goes back for many thousands of years, with the

first reference of something like it going all the way back to the Epic of Gilgamesh

from over four thousand years ago.

This practiced (apparently) reached its crescendo during the Middle Ages in Europe, and today

is popularly depicted in Hollywood in such films as Braveheart.

But did it really ever happen?

Numerous historians have studied the subject and the result is that it turns out there

is no solid evidence of this practice happening in reality at all.

Not a single well documented incident recorded, nor a single victim's name passed down.

It could be argued that women in these periods, in general, would not be considered noteworthy,

especially peasant women, but with a practice spanning (supposedly) thousands of years,

and the presumable rage it would induce in the peasant populace, not to mention occasional

bastard offspring and perhaps a boatload of secret weddings to avoid the issue, odds are

at least a few documented cases would manage to make it down through posterity.

Or even just a record of the law in some court case, as there are such records of numerous

other laws.

But any such evidence simply doesn't exist outside of fictional works or, for instance,

cases where people were trying to rally the peasant class against their lords using the

supposedly former practice of jus primae noctis to whip the mob up.

In fact, the very first mention of this in the Epic of Gilgamesh, we see the hero Enkidu,

who was sent by the gods to stop Gilgamesh after the people cried out to the gods for

aid, physically blocking a wedding place to challenge Gilgamesh over this appalling abuse

of power.

In another early account (in the 5th century BC), Heraclides Ponticus describes how the

king of the Island of Cephalonia instituted this practice.

Once again, the commoners weren't pleased and one man went ahead and dressed himself

as a bride and subsequently murdered the king when the monarch tried to exercise his lordly

right.

For his efforts, the cross-dressing man was made the new king by the overjoyed masses.

There's also the matter of disease to consider.

While these girls were all (supposedly) virgins on their wedding day, that didn't mean they

were free from diseases that frequently devastated life through most of history.

And, let's face it, these lords weren't just sleeping with these women, but many others

to boot.

If the lords were truly sleeping with many or all of these women in their little fiefdoms,

beyond spreading diseases to every corner of their lands, jus primae noctis would have

been a deadly law for a lord of a fiefdom of any real size, assuming he chose to enforce

it.

So it should come as no surprise then, that while it's possible there exists a few rulers

in history who actually tried something like this at some point, as mentioned, most historians

think the vast majority of accounts are pure fiction or exaggeration.

For instance, Louis Veuillot writing in France during the 19th century stated: "Nothing,

absolutely nothing, in the archives of Justice authorizes us to say that our forefathers

ever made a crime into a law.

If we search the evidence and the literature we find the same silence everywhere.

The Middle Ages had never heard of the droit du seigneur [aka jus primae noctis]."

Other European scholars shared Veuillot's opinion.

Germany's Karl Schmidt penned a thorough treatise on jus primae noctis in 1881, and

came to the conclusion that is was "a learned superstition."

Over and over again historians from then to now have tried to find hard evidence of this

occurring and come up empty, despite the numerous accounts, sometimes explicitly fictional and

other times thought to be, throughout written history in nearly every major culture.

For instance, famed philosopher Hector Boece in the 16th century described this practice

perfectly during the reign of the Scottish king Evenus III and claimed the practice went

on for centuries.

It turns out, though, no such king ever existed and much of Boece's accounts concerning

many of the legendary kings of Scotland are thought to be pure fiction.

Similar fictional trends are seen elsewhere concerning this supposed law.

Back to Europe and the middle ages, what is true is that in many feudal societies, peasants

were required to get permission from their lord to marry.

This requirement was called the culagium.

This often involved payment of a fee to be granted such permission (some claim this law

replaced jus primae noctis, but while there is hard evidence of culagium, not so much

with jus primae noctis, as mentioned).

Besides an extra source of revenue, another purpose of the culagium was the nobles safeguarding

their investment by making sure they didn't lose their valuable serfs to a neighboring

lord for nothing.

In essence, jus primae noctis in some cases functioned as a tax due when a serf's daughter

married a man not on the lord's estate.

By requiring the tax, it also made it easier to track such movements in populace, as well

as perhaps deny it when prudent.

In addition, in some areas the Church also demanded payment of a fee to get the couple

out of a three day waiting period before consummating their union.

(One can only imagine how they tracked this.)

During that three day waiting period, the betrothed were supposed to be deep in prayer

to prepare themselves fully for their physical (and spiritual) union.

Of course, payoff your local clergy and you could go forth with a clear conscience.

In the end, let's face it, life was brutal for peasants, and especially peasant women,

in this era.

When they weren't being wiped out by some pandemic, humiliation and subjugation were

just accepted facts of life for those born into the lower social orders.

Jus primae noctis or not, female serfs were at the mercy of their lords (and others),

who really didn't need an excuse, a law, or a wedding to rape or assault the serfs

inhabiting their land.

The peasant class didn't appreciate this (or many other such abuses) one bit, and so

it's no surprise that they would rally around a concept like jus primae noctis during various

uprisings and instances of political discourse.

In slightly more modern times, this was, for instance, a favorite weapon against nobility

and clergy used by the great enlightenment thinker Voltaire.

(Voltaire also, incidentally, made his fortune by helping to rig the lottery.)

As J.Q.C.

Mackrell states in his book, Attack on Feudalism in the 18th Century France, "the Philosophes

used the Droit [jus primae noctis] as a ploy to exaggerate the specter of oppressed Serfs.

(For them) no charge was too absurd…"

It should be noted here that at this time in France it was also said that lords used

to claim the right of droit de prélassement (right of lounging), a right of a lord to

use one of his subject's entrails, freshly ripped from the body, to warm the noble's

feet…

No charge too absurd indeed.

Despite most movie fans connecting the nickname "Braveheart" with William Wallace because

of the award winning film with Mel Gibson (1995), in real life the specific nickname

actually belonged to one of the semi-bad guys depicted in the film- Robert the Bruce.

While Robert (then the Earl of Carrick) really did switch sides several times during the

Wars of Scottish Independence, there is no record of him betraying Wallace and the Battle

of Bannockburn wasn't waged spontaneously as it seemed in the movie.

He had been battling the English for nearly a decade up to that point.

Robert ultimately became the King of Scots from 1306 and held that title until his death

in 1329.

For more infomation >> Fact or Fiction? "The Right of the First Night" - Duration: 7:46.

-------------------------------------------

VERB + INFINITIVE or GERUND? LEARN ENGLISH VERB PATTERNS & GET 35 ENGLISH PHRASES (FREE AUDIO!) - Duration: 6:16.

For more infomation >> VERB + INFINITIVE or GERUND? LEARN ENGLISH VERB PATTERNS & GET 35 ENGLISH PHRASES (FREE AUDIO!) - Duration: 6:16.

-------------------------------------------

Spill Your Guts or Fill Your Guts w/ Anna Wintour - Duration: 9:38.

For more infomation >> Spill Your Guts or Fill Your Guts w/ Anna Wintour - Duration: 9:38.

-------------------------------------------

Does picking fights with GOP members help or hurt Trump? - Duration: 9:03.

JUDY WOODRUFF: We return now to this week's swirling political news with Matt Schlapp.

He's the chairman of the American Conservative Union and the former White House political

director under President George W. Bush.

And Hilary Rosen, she is a longtime Democratic consultant and managing director at the public

relations firm SKDKnickerbocker.

And we thank both of you for being here.

Matt, to you first.

This feud that has gone on now for several days between the president, Senator Corker,

now Senator Flake, is this helping the president?

What is it doing for him, for the Republican Party?

MATT SCHLAPP, Former White House Director of Political Affairs: I don't think it's helping

the president, although I do think there is a strong feeling within the Republican Party

and the conservative base of the Republican Party that they really want their Republican

leaders to fight back against the eight years of the Obama agenda.

It's one of the reasons they picked Donald Trump in the nominating process.

But what you see with Corker and with Flake and with Susan Collins and some of these other

members, they were never for Trump.

Some of them were never-Trump.

And after a year, that relationship has just not mended, and it's not going to mend.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Hilary Rosen, how do you look at this?

HILARY ROSEN, Democratic Strategist: Well, I think that the fact that they're both stepping

down, I think, is actually a long-term victory for President Trump.

My guess is, they're going to be replaced by potentially -- well, Arizona has a potential

for a Democratic pickup -- but, you know, in Tennessee, by a senator who is probably

going to be more loyal to President Trump.

His problem, though, is short-term, which is over the next, you know, year-and-a-half,

do they hurt his ability to get things through the Senate?

And I think they do.

So, I think it was shortsighted to pick this fight as early as they did.

And I think he's going to suffer for it on Capitol Hill.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Matt, you can comment on that.

I also want to ask you about what Congressman Charlie Dent said to me in that interview

a few minutes ago, where, among other things, he said he thinks this has become too much

about one man, rather than about the Republican Party.

And he said there's this loyalty test, and he thinks the president or Steve Bannon are

trying to remake the GOP into the image of Donald Trump.

MATT SCHLAPP: Presidents lead their parties.

And I -- when I was at the White House, one of the things I did is work with candidates

like Charlie Dent.

I consider Charles Dent a friend.

Charlie Dent is a moderate, and the party is dominated by conservatives.

Moderates and conservatives have to learn to work together.

And we have historically.

But there's a new element of some of these more independent-minded people who also want

to join our coalition.

I'm all for it.

And those people in the Republican Party who don't want to expand the party, they're making

a huge mistake, because if you don't get to 51 in America, if you don't get a majority

of the electoral votes in the presidential race, you don't win.

And I want to win races.

JUDY WOODRUFF: So, Hilary Rosen, looking at this from the other side of the political

aisle, does it look like this is getting the Republican Party stronger or not?

HILARY ROSEN: Well, I think that it's getting more concentrated.

And so I think, if you look in particular areas like a Tennessee, it becomes stronger,

if you look at what happened in Alabama when the conservative candidate won the Republican

primary.

So I think it essentially creates more division and less incentive for more conservative Republicans

to want to compromise and work with Democrats.

I think -- but it also puts places in play that may not have been in play, like Arizona.

You know, I think we can pick up a Democratic seat in Arizona, because moderate Republicans

and independents have sort of been driven away from -- due to the kind of combativeness

of Donald Trump.

MATT SCHLAPP: Let me just quickly address this.

Jeff Flake was at 18 percent amongst Republicans in Arizona.

He had no shot of winning.

Bob Corker wouldn't get out of a Republican primary in Tennessee.

Same for Susan Collins if she ran for governor of Maine.

These people who are bellyaching are people that had political problems in their states

and they were going to lose anyway, so that's -- that's what is important here.

HILARY ROSEN: But their independence is valued.

But their independence is valued by the middle of the spectrum there, and that's that's where

you're fighting for election in those Senate races, I think.

JUDY WOODRUFF: I want to turn you both to these reports, Matt, in The Washington Post

and other news organizations that the Hillary Clinton campaigns was among those Democrats

who were funding this so-called dossier research into President Trump's connections with Russia.

What's the consequence of this?

MATT SCHLAPP: Well, it sure muddies the water for people who believe that the special counsel

investigation and this whole concept of Russian collusion is a Trump problem.

We now learn that one of the -- one of Trump's -- one of the people running against Trump

in the Republican primary started this process, somehow tipped off Hillary Clinton and the

Democrats that they had worked on this dossier, $9 million funneled through this project,

and went to Vladimir Putin's -- some of his cronies.

So, literally, you have Democratic money going to Vladimir Putin's cronies to try to harm

Donald Trump.

It seems like, after all of this, the collusion that we know about it, if The Washington Post

and The New York Times and The Hill are right, is collusion with the Hillary campaign, which

is just ironic.

And that's why investigations go to interesting places.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Hilary?

HILARY ROSEN: Well, let's be clear.

Donald Trump and his administration are under investigation because he fired the FBI director

who was investigating countless meetings between his campaign officials and Russians, and that

that his top lieutenants didn't disclose multiple amounts of those meetings in their forms.

So that's why that investigation is going on.

I think this dossier only muddies the water from a rhetorical standpoint, not from the

investigation standpoint.

It's mere opposition research that a candidate did during the campaign.

MATT SCHLAPP: No.

HILARY ROSEN: There's no suggestion of any kind of government involvement.

It was actually a British...

MATT SCHLAPP: No.

HILARY ROSEN: Ex-British spy who ended up doing the majority of this work.

It had nothing to do with Russia.

MATT SCHLAPP: I think it's interesting.

HILARY ROSEN: I don't think that we're going to see anything happen here with respect to

that.

I think Mueller has what he will have.

MATT SCHLAPP: Look, I can be quick here.

Hilary didn't refute anything I said.

The money that actually went through this process to Vladimir Putin's cronies, and Jim

Comey, as the FBI director, picked up this dossier process, and did it under the auspices

of the FBI as well.

This is crummy.

This stinks, and this looks bad for the Democrats.

HILARY ROSEN: Not too worried about it.

JUDY WOODRUFF: We started talking about one kind of feud.

Now we're talking -- now I want to ask you about this other feud the president has had,

Matt, for the last -- more than a week with a Gold Star family.

The president was asked about all this today as he got on a plane to go to Texas.

Let's just quickly hear what he had to say.

DONALD TRUMP, President of the United States: I was really nice to her.

I respect her.

I respect her family.

I certainly respect La David, who, by the way, I called La David right from the beginning.

Just so you understand, they put a chart in front, La David, says La David Johnson.

So I called right from the beginning.

There's no hesitation, one of the great memories of all time.

There was no hesitation.

JUDY WOODRUFF: The president talks about this.

Should he just drop it?

MATT SCHLAPP: Yes.

Yes.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Or is it helpful to keep talking about it?

MATT SCHLAPP: He should drop it.

I think -- I was with President Bush during the years when he had to have some of these

meetings and conversations.

It's gut-wrenching for a president.

And I think it should be private.

And I think that the congresswoman made a big mistake down in Florida who tried to politicize

this.

And I think the president makes a mistake if he continues to engage this woman, who

clearly is grieving.

It must be a terrible loss.

I haven't experienced something like this.

And I think we need to give her, her privacy.

I think we ought to leave it alone.

And I think he should keep making the calls.

Most of the calls will go well.

Most of the people will appreciate the calls, even if they're raw emotionally.

But I don't think we be should be talking about it in a public sense.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Hilary, what do we learn from this?

HILARY ROSEN: Well, we learn that the president and his chief of staff shouldn't go on TV

and call a grieving widow and her friend, even if that friend is a congresswoman, liars.

And he picked this fight.

He's kept it going.

It's an extraordinarily painful for a lot of -- not just that family, but for a lot

of families who have suffered loss.

And they still have given no reasonable explanation for what even happened to these soldiers in

Niger.

And I think that, if the president really cared about this situation, the way he tried

to express today, he would focus more on getting answers for those families than protecting

his name, when he clearly picked this fight to start.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Well, we know there is an investigation under way at the Pentagon, and we're all waiting

to see where that goes.

Hilary Rosen, Matt Schlapp, thank you both.

MATT SCHLAPP: Thanks, Judy.

HILARY ROSEN: Thanks, Judy.

For more infomation >> Does picking fights with GOP members help or hurt Trump? - Duration: 9:03.

-------------------------------------------

Lovefest Or Slugfest? Former Chair Of Republican Party In Broward Analyzes State Of GOP - Duration: 4:42.

For more infomation >> Lovefest Or Slugfest? Former Chair Of Republican Party In Broward Analyzes State Of GOP - Duration: 4:42.

-------------------------------------------

프로듀스101 하성운 순위 3위? 견제픽 수혜 or 간절함 동정픽? - Duration: 7:01.

For more infomation >> 프로듀스101 하성운 순위 3위? 견제픽 수혜 or 간절함 동정픽? - Duration: 7:01.

-------------------------------------------

10/25/17 4:58 PM (560-588 2nd St, Lafayette, OR 97127, USA) - Duration: 6:04.

For more infomation >> 10/25/17 4:58 PM (560-588 2nd St, Lafayette, OR 97127, USA) - Duration: 6:04.

-------------------------------------------

10/25/17 4:14 PM (Marion St NE & OR-22 & OR-99EBUS, Salem, OR 97301, USA) - Duration: 12:51.

For more infomation >> 10/25/17 4:14 PM (Marion St NE & OR-22 & OR-99EBUS, Salem, OR 97301, USA) - Duration: 12:51.

-------------------------------------------

Trump Voter Fraud Commissioner Says Panel Should Be More Transparent Or Disband - Duration: 7:30.

Trump Voter Fraud Commissioner Says Panel Should Be More Transparent Or Disband

A Democratic member of President Donald Trump's voter fraud probe said it should urgently disclose what it's been working on and its future plans, or else disband entirely.

Alan King, a probate judge in Jefferson County, Alabama, is one of four Democrats on the 11-member Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity.

He told HuffPost on Tuesday that he was disappointed in how the commission had conducted business and wouldn't be surprised if other members of the panel had already drafted a recommendation to the president.

"Based on what I've read and accounts, it wouldn't surprise me," King said.

"It wouldn't surprise me if this whole commission was set up and they had an end result in mind when this commission was first originated." Both King and Maine Secretary of State Matthew Dunlap (D), say they've had no communication with other members of the commission since the group met in New Hampshire on Sept.

"If you're gonna start a commission like this, then it either needs to be pursued and pursued in a vigorous manner to gather data, to line up witnesses, to keep commissioners informed every step of the way," King said.

"Or they just need to push away from the table and say, 'No, this isn't going to work.

and now we're not gonna have any more meetings.'"  King said he joined the commission with an open mind, planning to weigh the facts on both sides, as he would in court.

Those claiming there is widespread voter fraud had failed to prove their case, he said.

While he added that it was possible "that there are maybe some pockets of folks on both sides of the aisle who perhaps haven't followed the rules," he continued, "it's a huge leap to go from that type of scenario to then go to to this massive plot, conspiracy of almost election mafia standards, to think that there are massive, widespread voting fraud in the United States."  He also said he'd outlined his concerns in a letter to Andrew Kossack, the commission's designated federal officer, on Friday.

(Kossack is charged with the administration of the commission and is responsible for communicating schedules and logistics.)  King declined to share the letter ― saying he was unsure if he was allowed to ― but said he'd asked questions about when the commission's next meeting would be, who would choose the next witnesses, the names of commission staff members, how many states had responded to its request for voter data, whether the commission received any private funding and what the commission was supposed to accomplish over the next few months.

Kossack did not respond to HuffPost's request for comment, but told The Washington Post in a statement on Monday that the panel was continuing to review information and would update commissioners "should further meetings be scheduled." Dunlap, another Democrat on the commission, says the panel's Republican vice chair, Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach, and other Republicans are wielding absolute control over the group's direction.

Like King, Dunlap recently wrote a letter asking questions about the commission's work.

Other Democratic commissioners, including New Hampshire Secretary of State Bill Gardner, have declined to voice similar concerns.  As some Democrats on the commission have begun openly questioning their fellow commissioners' activities, Democrats in Congress have asked the Government Accountability Office to review whether the panel is complying with transparency requirements.

Several federal lawsuits have also sought to block the commission from operating, alleging it is not complying with federal transparency and privacy requirements.

Critics of the panel characterize it as an effort to weaken confidence in American elections, saying it aims to lay the groundwork for more restrictive voting laws and substantiate Trump's claim that millions voted illegally last year (several studies and investigations have shown voter fraud is not a widespread problem).

Trump and Vice President Mike Pence, the commission's chair, have pledged that the panel would be bipartisan and neutral. Recent disclosures have weakened that claim of neutrality.

An email made public in separate litigation showed that Kobach, in a meeting with Trump last year, recommended amending a key federal voting law to allow states to impose a proof of citizenship requirement on people when they register to vote. Voting advocates say such a move is designed to suppress voting by minorities, the poor and the elderly.

Another email made public in September showed Hans von Spakovsky, another commission member, objecting to Democrats and "mainstream" Republicans serving on the panel because he claimed they would impede its work. King criticized Republican commissioners von Spakovsky and J.

Christian Adams, both former Justice Department officials who have pushed claims of widespread voter fraud.  "I'm concerned that, quite frankly, they aren't more people like me who are election officials who know everything about elections from the ground up.

The fact that someone may have worked in the Justice Department, perhaps, at one time, in my opinion, that doesn't really qualify someone to be on a commission such as this," King said.

Von Spakovsky defended his role on the commission, citing his work on local election boards in Georgia and Virginia and federal agencies dealing with voting. "You might want to ask him if he knows about any of that experience," he wrote.

After seeing a transcript of King's quote, Logan Churchwell, a spokesman for Adams, wrote, "Mr Adams has endeavored to engage the other Commissioners in serious discussion and constructive ideas.

Your characterizations of his comments seem beyond anything Alan King would say, considering the Commissioners have exhibited the utmost courtesy to each other and would have never questioned the qualifications of a Commissioner without knowing what they were."  .

For more infomation >> Trump Voter Fraud Commissioner Says Panel Should Be More Transparent Or Disband - Duration: 7:30.

-------------------------------------------

As G.O.P. Bends Toward Trump, Critics Either Give In or Give Up - Duration: 12:52.

As G.O.P. Bends Toward Trump, Critics Either Give In or Give Up

Despite the fervor of President Trump's Republican opponents, the president's brand

of hard-edge nationalism — with its gut-level

cultural appeals and hard lines on trade and immigration — is taking root within his

adopted party, and those uneasy with grievance

politics are either giving in or giving up the fight.

In some cases, the retirement of an anti-Trump Republican could actually improve the Republican

Party's chance of retaining a seat.

Senator Jeff Flake's decision on Tuesday to not seek re-election was greeted with quiet

sighs of relief in a party anguished by his plunging

approval ratings.

But such short-term advantages mask a larger, even existential threat to traditional Republicans.

The Grand Old Party risks a longer-term

transformation into the Party of Trump.

"There is zero appetite for the 'Never Trump' movement in the Republican Party

of today," said Andy Surabian, an adviser to Great

America Alliance, the "super PAC" that is aiding primary races against Republican

incumbents.

"This party is now defined by President

Trump and his movement."

On Wednesday, Joe Straus, the speaker of the Texas House of Representatives, announced

that he would not run again, an indication that

the Washington fever was spreading.

Mr. Straus, a pragmatist with deep ties to the Bush family who had tangled with his state's

hard-

liners, delivered a plea that Republicans "appeal to our diverse population with an

optimistic vision," but he still chose flight over fight.

Mr. Straus's dash for the exits followed the retirement announcements of Mr. Flake,

Senator Bob Corker of Tennessee and

Representatives Ileana Ros-Lehtinen of Florida, Charlie Dent of Pennsylvania, Pat Tiberi of

Ohio and Dave Reichert of Washington State

— all members of the Republican establishment.

Many of those who remain will have to accommodate the president to survive primaries from the

pro-Trump right.

Already, in the high-

profile campaigns of 2017 — governor races in Virginia and New Jersey and a special Senate

race in Alabama — Republican candidates

are mirroring Mr. Trump's racially tinged campaign tactics.

And Republican officials are putting up with the sort of incendiary candidacy

that a party more devoted to nurturing a tolerant image might have rejected.

The reason?

Many of their voters prefer the Trump way.

"We're not an element," said Laura Ingraham, a pro-Trump talk show host.

"We're the party."

Ms. Ingraham, the author of a new book, "Billionaire at the Barricades," on the populist uprising

that helped elect Mr. Trump, said the

conservatism of market-oriented internationalism simply has little mass appeal.

"There's no constituency for open borders, endless war and these international trade

deals that are skewed against the United States," she

said.

As for the limited government pitch that defined Mr. Flake's career, Stephen K. Bannon, the

president's former chief strategist, scoffed.

"This thing they've got today doesn't work, it doesn't move with urgency," said

Mr. Bannon, who is now orchestrating an effort to defeat

Republicans deemed insufficiently loyal to Mr. Trump's agenda.

"It's very nice.

But it's a theoretical exercise.

It can't win national

elections."

Even some of the president's detractors on the right believe that the party base will

stick with him because they like his agenda.

"We have a leader who has a personality disorder," said former Senator Tom Coburn,

Republican of Oklahoma, "but he's done what he

actually told the people he was going to do, and they're not going to abandon him."

This grass-roots loyalty is why no prominent Republicans on the ballot next year have broken

with Mr. Trump — only lame-duck

lawmakers and Republicans out of office, such as former President George W. Bush, have been

harshly critical of him.

At the moment, congressional Republicans and Mr. Trump are trying to make common cause

of an overhaul of the tax code because they

see it as something of a temporary cure-all.

A bill-signing ceremony on taxes would hand lawmakers something to run on next year and

the

president a much-needed accomplishment.

"It stops the bleeding," said Senator Lindsey Graham, of South Carolina.

But even that holds risks.

A tax cut that skews heavily toward corporations and the rich would hardly dislodge the populist

view of a

Republican establishment beholden to its donors.

"I don't think the rank-and-file Republican believes that corporations are people,"

said Sam Nunberg, a former adviser to the Trump

campaign who has also worked with Mr. Bannon.

He was mimicking a Mitt Romney quote that earned Mr. Romney, the 2012 Republican

presidential nominee, ridicule for being out of touch.

On Wednesday, Mr. Trump painted a rosy picture of the party.

"We have, actually, great unity in the Republican Party," he told reporters before leaving

for a fund-raiser in Texas.

But even as Mr. Trump won repeated standing ovations from Senate Republicans on Tuesday

when he visited their weekly lunch at the

Capitol, the party's lingering tensions were also on display.

Senator Pat Roberts of Kansas, a longtime member of the Agriculture

Committee, expressed concern about whether Mr. Trump would pull out of the North American

Free Trade Agreement, according to a

Republican present at the luncheon.

Less than an hour after Mr. Trump left the Capitol, Mr. Flake was on the Senate floor

delivering a 17-minute excoriation of the Trump era.

How aggressively the president pursues his platform on trade and immigration restrictionism

could test how strong his grip is on Congress.

For now, though, the vision for a more populist-nationalist party sketched out by Mr. Bannon is being

won as much through intimidation as

through actual purges in Republican primaries.

What Mr. Bannon is trying to do — and what Mr. Flake's retirement could further — is

strike fear in the hearts of Republicans who do not

display enough enthusiasm for the nationalism that Mr. Trump ran on.

"This should be a warning shot to any other 'Never Trumper' in the Senate today: Your

time is up," Mr. Surabian said.

That is playing out not only in the examples of Mr. Flake and Mr. Corker.

In Nevada and Mississippi, Senators Dean Heller and Roger Wicker have responded to Trump-inspired

primary threats by taking steps to

emphasize their fealty to Mr. Trump.

On Wednesday, Senator John Cornyn of Texas, the No. 2 Republican in the Senate, endorsed

former Judge Roy S. Moore in the Alabama

Senate race, praising Mr. Moore, a caustic social conservative, as "a tireless advocate

led by principle rather than politics."

Mr. Cornyn is

the highest ranking Republican to formally back Mr. Moore.

But accommodation is not giving pause to would-be rivals.

Danny Tarkanian, Mr. Heller's Republican challenger, said the conversation

among activists was no longer dominated by finding the most conservative candidates.

"The talk I hear is, 'Hey, who's going to support Trump's "America First" policies,'"

said Mr. Tarkanian, citing trade, military intervention

and what he described as "worrying more about refugees from other countries than our

own people."

In the House, some lawmakers who have previously spoken out against Mr. Trump, such as Representative

Martha Roby, Republican of

Alabama, are now working to repair their relationship with the White House.

"The message they're sending is: The way to survive is by accommodating him, changing

their tone and professing loyalty to Trump," said

William Kristol, the former editor of The Weekly Standard and a vociferous Trump critic.

The two governor's races this year also illustrate Mr. Trump's influence in the

party.

In Virginia and New Jersey, the establishment-aligned

Republican nominees for governor, Ed Gillespie and Kim Guadagno, are airing controversial

ads on immigration to both stir their base and

win over some independents concerned about crimes committed by those in the country illegally.

Mr. Gillespie, a veteran Washington

lobbyist who served in George W. Bush's White House, is also running ads extolling

his support for Confederate statues.

[Video: A campaign ad for Ed Gillespie, who is running for governor in Virginia.

Watch on YouTube.]

In the Senate, Republicans have made clear that they will welcome Mr. Moore of Alabama

— who has a decades-long history of making

inflammatory comments about gays, African-Americans and Muslims — to their ranks should he win

the special election in December to

fill the seat left vacant by Jeff Sessions, now the attorney general.

A handful of conservative writers have expressed concern about the

message that tolerating Mr. Moore sends, but no high-profile lawmaker has followed suit,

and a pair of Republican senators are even

hosting a fund-raiser for him next month in Washington.

And in Colorado, former Representative Tom Tancredo, who was shunned by the Bush-era

Republican Party for his harsh anti-

immigration views, is considering a comeback bid for governor in 2018.

Whether Mr. Trump permanently realigns the party around his style and platform may depend

on how much he remains true to what could

be called Trumpism.

Mr. Graham believes that the president is not as wedded to some of his nationalist policies

as his supporters want to believe.

"The best thing that could happen to Trump and the future of the Republican Party is

for Trump to fix a broken immigration system," Mr.

Graham said.

By calling last week to offer his support to a handful of Republican senators that Mr.

Bannon had named as potential targets, the president

demonstrated he would not blindly follow his former adviser.

Establishment Republicans are attempting to convince Mr. Trump that "if you join with

Bannon, you cut your own throat," Mr. Graham

said, because it could lead to an impeachment effort by a Democratic-controlled Congress.

But these arguments cause the early Trump enthusiasts only to roll their eyes.

The party establishment, these Trump backers say, wants to

govern as if the election never happened.

"They still think the election was about Trump's personality," Ms. Ingraham said.

"It wasn't.

It was his ideas."

For more infomation >> As G.O.P. Bends Toward Trump, Critics Either Give In or Give Up - Duration: 12:52.

-------------------------------------------

10/25/17 5:04 PM (5620 NE Abbey Rd, Carlton, OR 97111, USA) - Duration: 7:42.

For more infomation >> 10/25/17 5:04 PM (5620 NE Abbey Rd, Carlton, OR 97111, USA) - Duration: 7:42.

-------------------------------------------

McCown or Bowles: Who's to blame for play that doomed Jets? - Duration: 5:33.

McCown or Bowles: Who's to blame for play that doomed Jets?

Here are three plays from Sunday's 31-28 Jets loss to the Dolphins that we took a closer look at on the coaches' tape:. First quarter, 15:00 left, Jets have the ball, first-and-10 from their own 25.

The Jets won the coin toss and elected to receive, a sign they thought they could get off to a quick start. This was their first play.

This play showed some creativity from offensive coordinator John Morton and a belief they could have success running screen passes against the Dolphins.

The Jets came out with two receivers lined up to the left and two to the right with Bilal Powell on Josh McCown's right side in the shotgun formation.

The Dolphins had their nickel personnel in with five defensive backs, two linebackers and four linemen.

Before the snap, the Jets sent Robby Anderson in motion from the right to the left side of the formation. This caused the Dolphins safeties to shift.

The one who had been deep moved up to the right side. The one on the left side dropped into deep middle. That left cornerback Cordrea Tankersley alone on the left side of the defense, a key to the play.

At the snap, McCown faked a wide receiver screen to the left to Anderson. The linebackers flowed to the left of the offensive formation with the fake.

McCown then turned and threw the ball to Powell. Austin Seferian-Jenkins, who was split out right, was the lead blocker and threw a beautiful block on Tankersley.

The play resulted in a 31-yard gain and began a series that ended with a touchdown. Fourth quarter, 6:25 left, Dolphins have the ball, first-and-goal from the Jets' 2.

The Dolphins had cut the Jets lead to 28-21 and now were threatening to tie the game. Buster Skrine had gotten two penalties on the drive and was having a miserable day covering Kenny Stills. Miami targeted him again.

This play should have been a penalty on Miami. It was a clear pick play at the goal line, which it seems every team in the NFL is trying these days.

On this one, Jarvis Landry was split left with Stills and Leonte Carroo on the right. Caroo was on the outside with Stills in the slot.

At the snap, the Dolphins line and quarterback Matt Moore flowed right. Carroo came inside and collided with Skrine so hard that he knocked his helmet off. With Skrine on the ground, Stills was wide open for the touchdown.

The score tied the game at 28-28. The Dolphins may have scored anyway, but this play should not have counted. Fourth quarter, 47 seconds left, Jets have the ball, first-and-10 from their own 15.

The Jets defense had just stopped the Dolphins at midfield, and the Jets were taking over with 47 seconds left and three timeouts. Jets coach Todd Bowles decided to be aggressive and go for the win rather than play for overtime.

This play has gotten a lot of attention because of the play-call. Were the Jets too aggressive? After watching the play, I don't have a problem with the call, but I have a problem with Josh McCown's decision here.

The Jets came out with two wide receivers left and two to the right. Jermaine Kearse and Jeremy Kerley were on the left side. Matt Forte was lined up to McCown's left in the shotgun.

The Dolphins had dime personnel in with four linemen, one linebacker and six defensive backs. Miami dropped one lineman at the snap and was playing zone.

McCown had two receivers open for short gains. Austin Seferian-Jenkins to his right and Forte in the middle of the field.

He decided to go to Kearse down the left sideline. He never saw Bobby McCain, who had lined up over Kerley in the slot, but dropped into the flat in the zone coverage. McCain read McCown perfectly and intercepted the ball.

The interception set up the game-winning field goal for the Dolphins and sent the Jets to a crushing loss.

Không có nhận xét nào:

Đăng nhận xét