Waching daily Jun 4 2018

For more infomation >> NOT EVERY DAY IS SO GLAMOROUS (VLOG) - Duration: 5:56.

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

this is a SYLVIE MIST STREAM CLUB (not clickbait) - Duration: 0:08.

no bridles allowed

we're protesting

w͍̯̫̆̔̎͗̍̚ͅẻ͚̼͕͖̍ḽ̢͙͖̟̟̱̱̐ͣc͍͖ͧ̄o̵͑̌̃̀̓ͪ̎m̢͍̳̲̪̭̲̽̊e̮ͮ͋͜ ̮̍̐ͥͪe̼̗͍̟͍̩ͣ͒͒v̬̪̭͓̥͚͊͒̐ͩe̖r̭͚̥̺̣͔͗ͥ̄ͥͯ͐̒ͅyŏ̏͒ͧ̇҉̭͈͔̹̭͚͍ṇ̼̪̟͆̓ͬ̉͌̆̓e͚͓̺̙͙̫̩̓͂̔̔̃̋ ̲̞͂̅̑͟t͖̣̤̹̖̄̒̌̎ͧo͇̟̱͓ͭ͐̑ ̶͉̗̰̤͎̖̘̆͗̄̎̈́ͮṫ̥̦̳̂̋͞h̭̦̟ͥ̈́͗̑ȋ̶͔̹͎̂̄̈́͐̓s̖̙ͫ̈́ͣͩͨͬ̚͡ ̴̟̱̠͈͈v͇͉͔̟i͏̪̪̜̖͙d̡̖͈̯̀ͫͫ̊ȇ̜̻ő̴̤̰̖̈

For more infomation >> this is a SYLVIE MIST STREAM CLUB (not clickbait) - Duration: 0:08.

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

Eric Holder Is In New Hampshire and Just Announced His Obnoxious Campaign Slogan - Duration: 5:01.

Eric Holder Is In New Hampshire and Just Announced His Obnoxious Campaign Slogan.

We now have reports that confirm that Former Attorney General under Barack Obama, Eric

Holder has officially said he is considering a run for the Democrat presidential nomination

in 2020.

And worse, his visit to New Hampshire today would indicate that he's serious about that

idea.

He even went as far as to announce a campaign slogan, which seems like he's not even sure

what to say.

It was like reading a bunch of slogans mixed together because he's confused.

As per the Tweet below, it looks like his slogan might be this: "We can make this

country better.

It's not about making this country great again.

It is great.

But it could be better."

If that's really his slogan, then how does he plan to fit that on a hat?

It seems like MAGA might have the upper hand in the next election.

Some people might find it hard to stop laughing if that's truly Holder's slogan.

It also might be hard to make America 'better', after Trump already made it 'great.'

Holder hinted at running for President before, so this isn't the first time this topic

has come up.

If he wants to make the country better, he could start by figuring out his own slogan

first.

CNBC reported about this back in February when Holder was "hinting" at entering

the election in 2020, but now it seems like he might be more serious about it.

They reported:

"Former Attorney General Eric Holder refused to rule out the possibility, that he would

run for president in 2020, and said he will decide before the end of the year if there

is to be "another chapter" in his political life.

"We'll see," Holder said when a reporter asked him about a possible run for president,

during a breakfast Wednesday hosted by the Christian Science Monitor in Washington.

"I think I'll make a decision by the end of the year about whether, there is another

chapter in my government service," Holder said, according to reporters who attended

the event.

A former judge and United States attorney for the District of Columbia, Holder currently

leads the National Democratic Redistricting Committee, a group that seeks to push back

against the past decade of Republican gains in state legislatures and statewide offices.

With political backing from former President Barack Obama, Holder said the group plans

to spend $30 million during the 2018 campaign cycle.

Despite his coy response to the question of a presidential run, it's difficult to see

how Holder might translate his legal career, into a traditional resume for a presidential

candidate.

In addition to a large body of government trial work that would likely provide fodder

for his would-be opponents, Holder also worked in private practice for nearly a decade, representing

corporate giants such as Merck and the National Football League.

Still, if Holder decides not to run for president, there could be other political offices he

might consider.

As a native New Yorker, Holder could be a formidable candidate for a Senate seat in

the state, should one of New York's current senators, Kirsten Gillibrand, decide to run

for president.

One thing Holder has working in his favor, politically, is his career in law enforcement,

on display Wednesday as he defended the FBI, which has come under attack recently from

President Donald Trump.

"I would hope that the president would rethink the way in which he has attacked career people

at the FBI, career people in the Justice Department, and career people in our intelligence community,"

Holder said.

Holder also defended Trump's attorney general, Jeff Sessions, suggesting the president ought

to treat his top law enforcement officer with more respect.

Trump, he said, should "think about the ways in which he's spoken about his attorney

general."

If Eric Holder actually runs for President, then who will he run against in the DNC?

Will Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders make another attempt?

Will Nancy Pelosi or Chuck Schumer try to take over?

If we recall the 2016 election, then we know that the Democrats didn't have too many

people willing to represent them in the election, however, the Republicans had a lot of candidates.

What does that mean for the Democrat party?

Are people not willing to go the distance and square up against candidates, from the

GOP for the top seat in the White House?

If Holder really runs for President, does he really believe that he has a chance to

win?

If he can barely piece together a coherent slogan, then there might not be a very good

chance for him to win.

He has another year or so to practice, so perhaps he'll have a more catchy slogan

later.

Let's hope he's not using taxpayer money to create a company to make a slogan for him.

That's something he could get for free just by asking people on Facebook!

Something like "Make America Corrupt Again" could work for Holder!

What do you think about this?

Please share this news and scroll down to Comment below and don't forget to subscribe

top stories today.

For more infomation >> Eric Holder Is In New Hampshire and Just Announced His Obnoxious Campaign Slogan - Duration: 5:01.

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

Slovenia election: Anti-immigrant SDS is largest party - Duration: 3:20.

Slovenia election: Anti-immigrant SDS is largest party

Janez Jansa is a supporter of Hungarys nationalist PM Viktor Orban. The anti-immigrant Slovenian Democratic Party (SDS) has emerged as the largest party in Slovenias general election.

With nearly all votes counted SDS had 25% of the vote, officials said. The centre-left anti-establishment LMS party came second with 12.7%. Analysts say SDS may find it difficult to form a coalition.

The poll was called in March after centre-left PM Miro Cerar quit amid strikes, coalition wrangling and a damaging Supreme Court ruling.

The SDS is led by former PM Janez Jansa, who has been a vocal supporter of Hungarys nationalist Prime Minister Viktor Orban.

The anti-establishment LMS party of Marjan Sarec is in second place. On Sunday evening as the results became clear he said his partys door for talks and coalitions is open to all other parties.

We are ready to start serious talks based on the programme we have been working hard on, he said.

SDS will have 25 seats in the 90-seat assembly. The only party that has so far said it will work with the SDS is the centre-right Nova Slovenija which won 7.1% and has seven seats.

That could leave LMS, which will have 13 seats, with a crucial role to play, correspondents say.

SDS argues that money spent on migrants would be better used for the countrys security forces. Mr Jansa says he wants Slovenia to become a country that will put the wellbeing and security of Slovenians first.

LMS (Marjan Sarec List) is led by comedian and political satirist Marjan Sarec who launched himself as an anti-establishment politician. He described Sundays result as a very big success for his partys first election.

Some 25 parties were contesting the election with 1. 7 million people eligible to vote. Miro Cerar resigned after a Supreme Court ruling went against his flagship railway investment project.

His additional troubles in the banking system, the health sector and over pensions will become key issues on the next governments agenda.

For more infomation >> Slovenia election: Anti-immigrant SDS is largest party - Duration: 3:20.

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

Time travel SHOCK: Does this 1917 photo prove time travel is possible? - Duration: 5:41.

The photo taken more than years ago in Canada, portrays a group of men, women and children sitting on the side of a hill of some sorts

But eagle-eyed observers have noticed the photo stands out for a very particular reason – what appears to be a man straight out of the 2th century

The photo was discovered in Lester Ray Peterson's 4 book 'The Great Cape Scott Story' – a tale of the Canadian region's history

What has fascinated those who came across this photo is how out of place the 'surfer man', as some have called him, appears to be

He is wearing a very baggy t-shirt and shorts, sporting a modern windswept haircut and is clearly at odds with everyone else around him

Looking closer at the people around, the man to his left appears to be utterly stunned by his presence

Further to the right a woman also appears to be pointing her hand at the supposed time traveller, leading many to speculate the man was out of place and out of his time

In fact, it almost looks as though he jumped right into the scene as the photo was taken

YouTuber Jamie D. Grant found himself gobsmacked when he picked up the book and came across the mysterious photograph

In a YouTube video titled 'Time Travel proof found. Truth or Illusion?', he says: "Notice the group, their clothes, their hats

Even how they sit poised for a photo."Now look closer. His head uncovered, his hair, his shorts

The man on the left stares in disbelief."Has a mysterious traveller proved the impossible and journey through time? What do you think?" The 'surfer man' has joined the ranks of the so-called 'time travelling hipster' who appeared in a 4s photograph with a fashion sense seemingly decades ahead of those around him

But as some have pointed out, 'surfer man' may appear to stick out like a sore thumb from the rest of the crowd, but his clothing could have very well been in vogue

One person commenting on the book on GoodReads.com, referenced a Post Gazette article, saying: "In the comments to the article, someone mentioned that t-shirts were around then and that they made it into the common lexicon soon after that date – it appeared in the Merriam-Webster Dictionary in the 2s

"This Article says they were worn by US Navy sailors as early as 3."Considering that other guys in the picture are also wearing shorts, I'm going to say that he's not a time traveler

"Other than Bill and Ted, what time travellers would think that a t-shirt and shorts would be the best thing to wear when time-traveling into the past anyway?"In either scenario, physicists all agree that it is impossible to travel back in time by our current understanding of the universe and its laws

According to Professor William Hiscock, of Montana State University, we can move forward due to the the time-dilation effect of Special Relativity

Moving backwards however is a dead end. "There are many solutions to Einstein's equations of General Relativity that allow a person to follow a timeline that would result in her (or him) encountering herself – or her grandmother – at an earlier time

"The problem is deciding whether these solutions represent situations that could occur in the real universe, or whether they are mere mathematical oddities incompatible with known physics

"The professor underlined that no experiment or observation in the universe has ever indicated such time travel occurs

For more infomation >> Time travel SHOCK: Does this 1917 photo prove time travel is possible? - Duration: 5:41.

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

What is the minimum age for making a will - Duration: 3:42.

Hello, Adrian Corbould, Accredited Specialist - Wills and Estates, Turnbull Hill Lawyers. Today's question is what is the minimum age

someone can make a will?

Section 5 of the Succession Act states that a

minor

who makes a will, that

will is invalid. So what does that mean?

Anyone who makes a will and their age is less than 18, that will is not legal. Therefore

It can't be used to

administer someone's estate. So that means that the majority of persons under 18

their estate is dealt with under the laws of intestacy.

Intestacy is the law that

states that

in order of preference

assets are left to one's spouse; If there's no spouse,

it goes equally to one's children equally; If there's no children, then it goes equally to one's parents.

The majority of persons under 18 don't have a spouse and don't have children,

so in the majority of instances their assets are divided equally between their parents.

There is an exception to that rule about minors, in that a

minor can make a valid will if it's in contemplation of marriage,

but that will is not valid unless that marriage actually occurs.

Also a minor

who is married can make a will,

though that brings in the added difficulty of

how two persons under 18

get married. Well, the minimum age to get married is 16, and you generally have to

convince a court

why you

want to get married before they issue a marriage certificate, and that involves establishing

the degree of commitment together,

maturity, and several other factors.

So in the majority of instances someone under 18,

they cannot make a valid will, and if they decease before the age of 18, their estate is

subject to the laws of intestacy, and the majority of instances it goes to both parents equally.

Section 16 of the Succession Act, however, states that a court can authorise a will for someone under 18,

for a minor, though these are very isolated

instances, but they still still happen.

They're instances where

It may not be in a child's interest that their estate go equally to their two parents.

One parent may have had nothing to do with raising them, whereas the other parent did, and it would be

prejudicial to the parent who did raise them that if half their assets went to the other

parent. So this could be an instance where there is someone under 18 who actually does have a lot of

funds, they could have been subject to

a

personal injury claim, where they received a lump sum

in the millions of dollars, and it would be prejudicial to the parent that raised them if it went to the other parent.

Always lots of different circumstances - all have to be taken on their own merits.

So the thing to take away from this is - have to be over 18,

and if they are under 18, have to be married or in contemplation of marriage, or

get a court authorised will -

very difficult - definitely need lawyer's advice about that.

Thank you.

For more infomation >> What is the minimum age for making a will - Duration: 3:42.

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

This Is Why Dating Naked Was Canceled - Duration: 4:51.

The title tells you pretty much everything you need to know about Dating Naked, a reality

show that aired on VH1 between 2014 and 2016.

Singles flew to tropical locales, stripped nude, then went on jet-skiing and horseback-riding

dates in their birthday suits.

But while the premise got a lot of buzz, the ratings didn't, and the show was canceled

after only three seasons.

Here are some of the issues that left Dating Naked in the dumps.

Feeling the sting

The tropical locales where Dating Naked filmed were home to swarms of mosquitoes.

When the show first premiered, host Amy Paffrath told USA Today about shooting in Panama:

"The bugs are insane.

We have all been eaten alive.

We've tried everything.

[...] My remedy is wearing pants."

As for the contestants who couldn't wear pants, Amy said,

"They've got bug bites in interesting places."

If itchy welts below the belt aren't bad enough, imagine getting a sunburn there too.

Season 2 star Kerri told the Tampa Bay Times that her co-star Chris fell victim to, quote,

"Gnarly burns [on his rear]."

Parental guidance

Parents were completely appalled by Dating Naked, and it was about more than just the

nudity.

The prime-time television show was rated TV-14, a fact that the Parents Television Council

watchdog group called "downright disgusting."

They pointed out that graphic conversations about everything from genital jewelry to sexual

encounters were common on the show.

Meanwhile, conservative group One Million Moms argued,

"Even though the frontal body parts are blurred out, showing so much skin leaves nothing to

the imagination."

Both groups hit VH1 in the wallet by pressuring advertisers to boycott the show.

And it worked...

Pulling out

It wasn't long before advertisers started dropping like flies.

Mondelez, the parent company of brands like Oreo and Chips Ahoy, claimed to have had no

idea their ads were even running on the show.

According to AdAge, a representative for the company reportedly told the PTC,

"We have directed our media partner to ensure that we do not run advertising for any of

our brands on this program in the future."

Other brands who reportedly pulled out included Dial and Right Guard.

PTC President Tim Winter said,

"By the end of the season more than 90 percent of the show's corporate advertisers were gone

- proving once again that without advertising dollars, television networks cannot afford

to keep harmful content on the air."

The infamous cam'

Dating Naked's cameras caught a lot of skin - and even went so far as to employ a "

cam" during activities such as kayaking or bicycling.

While it's not a complete surprise, many found it distasteful.

PopSugar's Maggie Pehanick pointed out,

"Whether horseback riding, paddleboarding, or riding a bike, we were exposed to the most

violating of camera angles."

Turns out not everyone wants to see "it" from every angle.

The " wedding"

Dating Naked wrapped Season 1 with a clothing-optional wedding.

"Duh-nuh-duh-nuh"

But it turns out the ceremony wasn't legally binding.

Despite its billing as a wedding by VH1, "bride" Ashley told Entertainment Weekly it was a

commitment ceremony, saying,

"I don't think you need a document [...] to say that you care for someone."

"Groom" Alika didn't even tell his parents about the big day, claiming,

"My mom's really Christian.

She'll be like, 'You're going to go hell!

You need to pray to Jesus tonight!'"

Too nude for comfort

Jessie Nizewitz, who appeared in Season 1, sued VH1's parent company, Viacom, for a whopping

$10 million in 2014, after her uncensored thing accidentally snuck into prime time

television.

While the show is all about nude dating, contestants' privates are typically blurred.

But Nizewitz's parts appeared for a split second during a bout of wrestling.

A New York judge ruled in 2015 to dismiss her case and even required her to pay Viacom's

legal fees.

According to Entertainment Weekly, Viacom claimed that she'd signed a contract stating

that:

"She would participate and be filmed fully [and] that the footage could be exhibited

and distributed without restriction."

The show gets dumped

While Dating Naked hasn't aired on VH1 since 2016, the network never came out and said

it was canceled.

Instead, VH1 President Chris McCarthy implied that it didn't fit with his channel's plans

for the future.

McCarthy told Deadline in 2017,

"We would like the opportunity at some point to reinvent it, but for right now we felt

the shows and assets that we have made more sense as we head into the year."

Ratings bomb

Despite all the drama surrounding Dating Naked, the show's ultimate demise might have been

pretty simple - not enough people tuned in.

Entertainment Weekly reported in 2014 that the show's hugely hyped premiere only enticed

about 800,000 viewers.

That number never improved throughout the run.

Ultimately, while an endless parade of young, hot, singles generated a lot of buzz,

it just wasn't enough to make people watch.

Sounds like a case of: no shirt, no shoes, no viewers.

Thanks for watching!

Click the Nicki Swift icon to subscribe to our YouTube channel.

Plus, check out this other cool stuff we know you'll love too!