Moiraine

Out of years of business dealings, I have not seen tons of suppliers, contractors, and employees speaking out against him. All the GOP opponents tried this angle and struggled to find a few. Stop trying to dismiss her corruption and imply there is an equivalency. Some of these might be duplicates, because it's 2 in the morning and I didn't actually read through them, this was just the first two pages of a simple google search. http://mediamatters.org/blog/2016/07/19/former-trump-business-associate-speaks-out-about-sexual-assault-allegations-against-trump-media/211704 http://www.xojane.com/issues/stephanie-cegielski-donald-trump-campaign-defector http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-hired-me-as-an-attorneyplease-dont_us_579e52dee4b00e7e269fb30f http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/01/us/politics/donald-trump-university.html http://time.com/4296060/trump-the-apprentice-cast-new-york/ http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/07/25/donald-trumps-ghostwriter-tells-all http://www.people.com/article/donald-trump-campaign-staffer-open-letter-defector http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/mar/29/stephanie-cegielski-ex-trump-strategist-calls-cand/ http://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-barbara-res-trump-tower-radio-4-today-436429 http://zap2it.com/2016/05/former-miss-universe-alicia-machado-fat-shamed-donald-trump/ http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/06/09/donald-trump-unpaid-bills-republican-president-laswuits/85297274/ Now, here's what I don't understand. You contrasted the two as Trump being the guy who says dumb stuf, and Hillary being the woman who has done a lot of bad things. What exactly are these bad things? I'm no Hillary fan by any stretch of the imagination, but I hear all these awful nefarious things referenced a lot yet I haven't actually heard what any of them are, other than lying, which... are you new to politics? she called the mother of one of the vets that died in benghazi a liar at the miami dem debate, that was pretty scummy. But other than that its just her dishonesty and fakeness that turns off most imo. No. She didn't. You can't be a liar about something you didn't witness. She's calling her misinformed. It'd be like me saying Johnny is a liar for saying Bin Laden didn't poop his pants when he died, assuming Johnny was sitting on his couch at home and not in the room with Bin Laden when he died and I was actually connected via video or phone to the people who killed Bin Laden when it happened. Now this isn't to say Clinton wasn't lying about her being misinformed. That's possible. The mother said she wasn't contacted after her sons death though as well I thought. How could she be misinformed on that? Since you're the one claiming Clinton called her a liar, why don't you provide the evidence? I already scrounged around for the above quote. I'm not sure what you're referring to with your reply. Jesus I'm not attacking you, fix your knickers... Here's the transcript from the question and video in its entirety and it felt at the time like she was told misinformation and not replied to like she was told. What is your comment about? I didn't feel attacked, and my reply was perfectly reasonable. Not sure how you got that idea. It's the internet and you misread my tone and instead of giving me the benefit of the doubt you told me to adjust my underwear. Okay then. Onto the post - none of that shows any better than the quote I originally supplied that Clinton was calling her a liar. Again, Clinton could have been lying, but she wasn't calling anyone a liar. It sounds really bad, and catchy, to say Clinton called the mother of a victim of the attack a liar, but that's not what happened.

'Cause that's what I'm saying Let me try to be clearer: Timmy hears from Jimbo that Bonnie lost a tooth yesterday. Timmy tells some people that Bonnie lost a tooth yesterday. Bonnie didn't actually lose a tooth. Is Timmy lying? Is Bonnie's brother, who knows she didn't lose a tooth, calling Timmy a liar by saying that Bonnie didn't lose a tooth? It's possible Bonnie's brother is lying but he sure as hell isn't calling Timmy a liar. I agree… You're saying that it's fair to say that if you don't witness someone's height or weight or tooth loss that you don't actually know for sure the truth. Right? No, that's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is it doesn't matter if the mother was right or wrong. Clinton wasn't calling her a liar. Clinton may have been lying herself, but she wasn't calling the mother a liar.

'Cause that's what I'm saying Let me try to be clearer: Timmy hears from Jimbo that Bonnie lost a tooth yesterday. Timmy tells some people that Bonnie lost a tooth yesterday. Bonnie didn't actually lose a tooth. Is Timmy lying? Is Bonnie's brother, who knows she didn't lose a tooth, calling Timmy a liar by saying that Bonnie didn't lose a tooth? It's possible Bonnie's brother is lying but he sure as hell isn't calling Timmy a liar.

Out of years of business dealings, I have not seen tons of suppliers, contractors, and employees speaking out against him. All the GOP opponents tried this angle and struggled to find a few. Stop trying to dismiss her corruption and imply there is an equivalency. Some of these might be duplicates, because it's 2 in the morning and I didn't actually read through them, this was just the first two pages of a simple google search. http://mediamatters.org/blog/2016/07/19/former-trump-business-associate-speaks-out-about-sexual-assault-allegations-against-trump-media/211704 http://www.xojane.com/issues/stephanie-cegielski-donald-trump-campaign-defector http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-hired-me-as-an-attorneyplease-dont_us_579e52dee4b00e7e269fb30f http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/01/us/politics/donald-trump-university.html http://time.com/4296060/trump-the-apprentice-cast-new-york/ http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/07/25/donald-trumps-ghostwriter-tells-all http://www.people.com/article/donald-trump-campaign-staffer-open-letter-defector http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/mar/29/stephanie-cegielski-ex-trump-strategist-calls-cand/ http://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-barbara-res-trump-tower-radio-4-today-436429 http://zap2it.com/2016/05/former-miss-universe-alicia-machado-fat-shamed-donald-trump/ http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/06/09/donald-trump-unpaid-bills-republican-president-laswuits/85297274/ Now, here's what I don't understand. You contrasted the two as Trump being the guy who says dumb stuf, and Hillary being the woman who has done a lot of bad things. What exactly are these bad things? I'm no Hillary fan by any stretch of the imagination, but I hear all these awful nefarious things referenced a lot yet I haven't actually heard what any of them are, other than lying, which... are you new to politics? she called the mother of one of the vets that died in benghazi a liar at the miami dem debate, that was pretty scummy. But other than that its just her dishonesty and fakeness that turns off most imo. No. She didn't. You can't be a liar about something you didn't witness. She's calling her misinformed. It'd be like me saying Johnny is a liar for saying Bin Laden didn't poop his pants when he died, assuming Johnny was sitting on his couch at home and not in the room with Bin Laden when he died and I was actually connected via video or phone to the people who killed Bin Laden when it happened. Now this isn't to say Clinton wasn't lying about her being misinformed. That's possible. The mother said she wasn't contacted after her sons death though as well I thought. How could she be misinformed on that? Since you're the one claiming Clinton called her a liar, why don't you provide the evidence? I already scrounged around for the above quote. I'm not sure what you're referring to with your reply.

Out of years of business dealings, I have not seen tons of suppliers, contractors, and employees speaking out against him. All the GOP opponents tried this angle and struggled to find a few. Stop trying to dismiss her corruption and imply there is an equivalency. Some of these might be duplicates, because it's 2 in the morning and I didn't actually read through them, this was just the first two pages of a simple google search. http://mediamatters.org/blog/2016/07/19/former-trump-business-associate-speaks-out-about-sexual-assault-allegations-against-trump-media/211704 http://www.xojane.com/issues/stephanie-cegielski-donald-trump-campaign-defector http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-hired-me-as-an-attorneyplease-dont_us_579e52dee4b00e7e269fb30f http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/01/us/politics/donald-trump-university.html http://time.com/4296060/trump-the-apprentice-cast-new-york/ http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/07/25/donald-trumps-ghostwriter-tells-all http://www.people.com/article/donald-trump-campaign-staffer-open-letter-defector http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/mar/29/stephanie-cegielski-ex-trump-strategist-calls-cand/ http://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-barbara-res-trump-tower-radio-4-today-436429 http://zap2it.com/2016/05/former-miss-universe-alicia-machado-fat-shamed-donald-trump/ http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/06/09/donald-trump-unpaid-bills-republican-president-laswuits/85297274/ Now, here's what I don't understand. You contrasted the two as Trump being the guy who says dumb stuf, and Hillary being the woman who has done a lot of bad things. What exactly are these bad things? I'm no Hillary fan by any stretch of the imagination, but I hear all these awful nefarious things referenced a lot yet I haven't actually heard what any of them are, other than lying, which... are you new to politics? she called the mother of one of the vets that died in benghazi a liar at the miami dem debate, that was pretty scummy. But other than that its just her dishonesty and fakeness that turns off most imo. No. She didn't. You can't be a liar about something you didn't witness. She's calling her misinformed. It'd be like me saying Johnny is a liar for saying Bin Laden didn't poop his pants when he died, assuming Johnny was sitting on his couch at home and not in the room with Bin Laden when he died and I was actually connected via video or phone to the people who killed Bin Laden when it happened. Now this isn't to say Clinton wasn't lying about her being misinformed. That's possible.

Ya, I'm a bit dumbfounded here. Who else would we attribute the Iraq war to? Saying Bush isn't responsible for the Iraq war isn't the same as saying Clinton isn't solely responsible for ISIS getting more powerful. It's the same thing as saying Bin Laden isn't solely responsible for the attacks on the twin towers. Notice you used the word "solely" in one example and not the other. I asked the question for a very specific reason. We can argue that nobody is 100% responsible for any decision that goes the wrong way, but I often find some more willing to say that the Hillary/Obama is not accountable for the world being more dangerous and less safe these past 7 years, yet these same people are the ones to place sole blame on Bush for Iraq. Its complete hypocrisy to blame one and not the other. You're comparing two things that are vastly different. Again, what you're saying is like saying Bin Laden isn't solely responsible for 9/11. Technically you're right, but it's not AT ALL like saying Clinton isn't solely responsible for the rise of ISIS. Edit: Ok I see which part you're talking about with the solely but that is exactly what I meant. I attribute that to the comparison being ridiculous in the first place.

Ya, I'm a bit dumbfounded here. Who else would we attribute the Iraq war to? Saying Bush isn't responsible for the Iraq war isn't the same as saying Clinton isn't solely responsible for ISIS getting more powerful. It's the same thing as saying Bin Laden isn't solely responsible for the attacks on the twin towers.

I know it's not you saying this, but

longroom's polls don't remove bias. They remove statistically defensible weighting and assume that Republicans are under-sampled in every poll. "For a rather extensive list of biases that a statistician may introduce into a poll, there is an excellent article here by Nate Silver where he discusses the biases he uses in creating his analysis, and why he thinks his biases are good." --> http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/a-users-guide-to-fivethirtyeights-2016-general-election-forecast/ They're not even using the word bias correctly. Check out their front page.

Can you explain what he was trying to say? The Trump campaign's explanation that he was implying that 2nd amendment supporters could vote in sufficient numbers to keep her from being elected doesn't pass muster as he was clearly describing what would happen after she had been elected. Well, considering he said before the "2nd amendment" portion that there was nothing we could do, the plausible explanation is just what they said.. That if enough 2nd amendment people got together we could make a change. Why is that hard to believe? I know people are just looking for anything to grab on to but why don't people use common sense once in a while? I would not have said it the way he did, but I sure as hell didn't think he was calling on people to kill her. That is beyond ignorant! Seriously??? That's pretty good spin on his joke. It's clear that the crowd knew what he was joking around about. Hillary has won. Voting doesn't do squat. She's nominating judges.....Ummm.....second amendment people.....go take care of it. AFTER Hillary has won, what are second amendment people supposed to be doing to "take care of it"? Spin job, why would I care to spin anything that Trump says? The guy is trying to lose but he didn't mean kill Hillary. To the bold.. Don't the people matter anymore, or what they want? Let me see if I understand what you think Trump is saying. Clinton gets elected. She nominates anti-gun judges. They're in the Supreme Court now. The people can go out and what? Vote? To make the anti-gun Supreme Court justices not be justices anymore? Even though the NRA has put millions and millions of $ into keeping the 2nd amendment around already, and most people want it to stay around? Pro 2nd amendment rights people are already in a huge majority. If we can't stop this from happening, we're not going to undo it after it does happen except through some kind of miracle decades down the road. Unless we do what Trump is actually suggesting (as a joke)... fair points... I still don't think that is what he meant, he opened his mouth without thinking, like he always does, no doubt about that. I know it's not on the same level of seriousness, but it reminds me of when he said Megyn Kelly was "bleeding out of her wherever." He didn't say she was on her period but that's what he was implying. He does similar things all the time, so I think that's why people think he meant (as a joke) that 2nd amendment people use their guns. Maybe he didn't mean to kill Clinton. Maybe he meant to revolt in general.

Can you explain what he was trying to say? The Trump campaign's explanation that he was implying that 2nd amendment supporters could vote in sufficient numbers to keep her from being elected doesn't pass muster as he was clearly describing what would happen after she had been elected. Well, considering he said before the "2nd amendment" portion that there was nothing we could do, the plausible explanation is just what they said.. That if enough 2nd amendment people got together we could make a change. Why is that hard to believe? I know people are just looking for anything to grab on to but why don't people use common sense once in a while? I would not have said it the way he did, but I sure as hell didn't think he was calling on people to kill her. That is beyond ignorant! Seriously??? That's pretty good spin on his joke. It's clear that the crowd knew what he was joking around about. Hillary has won. Voting doesn't do squat. She's nominating judges.....Ummm.....second amendment people.....go take care of it. AFTER Hillary has won, what are second amendment people supposed to be doing to "take care of it"? Spin job, why would I care to spin anything that Trump says? The guy is trying to lose but he didn't mean kill Hillary. To the bold.. Don't the people matter anymore, or what they want? Let me see if I understand what you think Trump is saying. Clinton gets elected. She nominates anti-gun judges. They're in the Supreme Court now. The people can go out and what? Vote? To make the anti-gun Supreme Court justices not be justices anymore? Even though the NRA has put millions and millions of $ into keeping the 2nd amendment around already (supposedly - but it's so the gun sellers make more $), and most people want it to stay around? Pro 2nd amendment rights people are already in a huge majority. If we can't stop this from happening, we're not going to undo it legally after it does happen except through some kind of miracle decades down the road. Unless we do what Trump is actually suggesting (as a joke)...

Ditto that.

Gonna look at one line of the statement one more time then move on: "Although the Second Amendment people, maybe there is, I don't know." If Trump was telling gun rights advocates to get out and go vote, how would he word it? Would he say "Maybe there's something you can do about it. I don't know." ? No, that's not what he'd say. He'd say "Vote for Trump to stop that from happening." He was, at the very least, joking about people shooting Clinton.

Why spend millions on advertising when he really doesn't even want to win. When you are doing everything you can to lose the election, why go spend dollars trying to convince people to vote for you? How does campaign funding work, anyhow? I mean I know Trump can't go spend it on a new yacht. But if he doesn't spend it, where does it go? Back to the GOP pool? Toward, God forbid, his future campaigns? I don't know about ALL of it, but my understanding is he can use some of it to reimburse himself for the money he "loaned" his campaign. So basically he could buy a fleet of 50 Trump buses and say he needed them for the campaign and then keep them and start a trucking company. Or something. Or he could buy a plane now. That's what he should do. For now he can fly banners behind it that make fun of Hillary and then afterwards just use it as his private plane.

Why spend millions on advertising when he really doesn't even want to win. When you are doing everything you can to lose the election, why go spend dollars trying to convince people to vote for you? How does campaign funding work, anyhow? I mean I know Trump can't go spend it on a new yacht. But if he doesn't spend it, where does it go? Back to the GOP pool? Toward, God forbid, his future campaigns?

Most mainstream media outlets are biased towards laziness and sensationalism, which the Republican party has given a greater, higher amount of fodder for over the last decade plus. Spoken like a true sympathizer to the left. Both parties have plenty of material to give to the media, yet it's often covered to suit their own agenda. Not Trump deserves a lot of his own criticism, and perhaps its because he's said so many crazy things in the past that the media now blows the littlest things out of proportion. A completely clear example of MSM bias was how they handled Patricia Smith's speech at the RNC (the mother of a child that was killed serving this country) compared to the Khans (whose son was also killed). Now, WELL BEFORE Trump made his comments and the Khan story took on a different angle, the MSM was all over the Khans speech and pushing their own agenda that Trump is bigoted and mean to Muslims. Meanwhile, I barely saw ANY coverage on MSM outlets about Smith's speech at the RNC. This is just one of many examples of double standards by the press and how they will highlight a story that is positive for the Dems or negative toward the GOP, or they will minimize a story that is positive for the GOP and negative for the Dems. This isn't an example of a double standard. First off, Trump literally is "bigoted and mean to Muslims." He wants them under surveillance, to join a special list, and has said he wants to ban all immigration by Muslims. Smith's speech not having much coverage doesn't tell us anything. Everyone knows about Smith. Everyone knows she says Clinton lied to her. There was nothing positive for the GOP in her speech. Only negative for Clinton. None of this was new news. An anecdote: My mom watched all of both conventions. She was a staunch Republican until 2000 and she's been an independent since. The only part of the two conventions she told me about was Khan's speech. So to her, that was news. The other stuff (including Smith's speech) wasn't.

Mike Pence running the country gives me the heebie jeebies. Say what...of Trump, Hillary, Kaine, and Pence, Pence is the most likable and presidential candidate of the group. Both VPs are better than the tops of the tickets, but Kaine is all squirrly and goofy like a teen who just felt up his girlfriend for the first time. Which probably has no correlation with how fit he is to be president.

What is really going on in this country? I see a country (government) that can not, and will not, let racism die. They continually stoke the flames, to ensure racial tension is alive and well. but please, tell me what is really going on! I feel like people are honesty trying to tell you what's going on. If you see racism as a problem that was largely solved but is now being propped up and stoked by the government I just don't see a path to understanding. First off I didn't say anything about racism in this country, I said the government (and the liberal media) are making sure racial tensions do not subside. And that's a bunch of horse poop. They're bringing to light the fact that there are still huge issues facing minorities. Whether you want to believe or not there is institutional racism and something needs to be done about it. It wasn't/isn't subsiding, especially not by ignoring it. It seems like some people think since segregation isn't enforced and we've had a Black president that Blacks should be happy and not complain about anything.

There isn't much that pisses me off more than people who deny racism exists, or if they don't deny it altogether, they deny that it's a problem that's important enough to try to solve or even to talk about.

Yet the Justice Department still investigated the Ferguson police department and found awful, horrific systemic racism, which is what the protests were really about, using Mike Brown (erroneously, it seems) as a symbol. The effects of slavery are still felt today. You really think everyone realizes that? It shouldn't be, but it is. 1 in 25 people sentenced to death is innocent, and like most of these things, blacks are disproportionately represented in death row. So, how are blacks disproportionately represented on death row?? Does that mean whites are disproportionately represented on death row too?? Smfhhttp://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/race-death-row-inmates-executed-1976 I don't think that link shows what you think it shows and it's unclear why you're syfh. In order to figure out whether a race is disproportionately represented on death row, we need to know the following:The percentage of convicted murderers who are that race The percentage of convicted murderers on death row who are that race. If a higher proportion of Blacks are on death row than are convicted of murder, then a disproportionate number of Blacks are on death row. Now if we really wanted to do it the right way we'd need to look further into what type of murders tend to receive the death penalty, and also look at the Black population in the areas where the death penalty exists. As far as I can see the link doesn't show the proportions for convicted murderers. It only has victim stats and death penalty stats. I agree, as with most stats, they are used by people using them to show what they want. To fully figure it out you would most definitely have to dig much deeper. But to say they are disproportionately on death row comparing it to total population is even further from correct than what stats i posted.Can you elaborate on where you're getting that idea? Because... it's mathematically incorrect unless I'm completely missing what you're seeing. But nobody else on here is arguing that point. Here's from the current death row chart:BLACK 1227 41.69% LATINO 383 13.01% WHITE 1251 42.51% OTHER 82 2.79% If you see that and think Blacks aren't disproportionately killed by the death penalty compared to the population proportion then you're misreading it. If you're talking about something else please elaborate. And how do you get that Whites are overrepresented given that chart? Whites make up 62.6% of the population. Proportionate representation on death row compared to the population would mean that 62.6% of death row is Whites. I'm wondering if you're thinking it should be 25% for each group. I can't figure it out. You make things too difficult. I'm saying its not right to compare blacks on death row to total population. Its not even completely right to compare blacks on death row to prison population per race, but its better than comparing it to total population percentage. I believe you are correct in it being best to be compared to murder convictions per race or something more specific like that. Hey. I just edited my post right before you posted this

Delete

That makes no sense. Anyone who argues for Michael Brown or any other controversial figure killed by the police should want the police to have body cameras. It defies logic for anyone to not want them. They would help the police who are doing the right thing, and help any future victims of the police doing the wrong thing, and I don't have time to look it up but I swear I've seen studies where they lower the number of incidents between the police and the people they're stopping because both parties know they're on camera.

Yet the Justice Department still investigated the Ferguson police department and found awful, horrific systemic racism, which is what the protests were really about, using Mike Brown (erroneously, it seems) as a symbol. The effects of slavery are still felt today. You really think everyone realizes that? It shouldn't be, but it is. 1 in 25 people sentenced to death is innocent, and like most of these things, blacks are disproportionately represented in death row. So, how are blacks disproportionately represented on death row?? Does that mean whites are disproportionately represented on death row too?? Smfhhttp://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/race-death-row-inmates-executed-1976 I don't think that link shows what you think it shows and it's unclear why you're syfh. In order to figure out whether a race is disproportionately represented on death row, we need to know the following:The percentage of convicted murderers who are that race The percentage of convicted murderers on death row who are that race. If a higher proportion of Blacks are on death row than are convicted of murder, then a disproportionate number of Blacks are on death row. Now if we really wanted to do it the right way we'd need to look further into what type of murders tend to receive the death penalty, and also look at the Black population in the areas where the death penalty exists. As far as I can see the link doesn't show the proportions for convicted murderers. It only has victim stats and death penalty stats. I agree, as with most stats, they are used by people using them to show what they want. To fully figure it out you would most definitely have to dig much deeper. But to say they are disproportionately on death row comparing it to total population is even further from correct than what stats i posted.Can you elaborate on where you're getting that idea? Because... it's mathematically incorrect unless I'm completely missing what you're seeing. But nobody else on here is arguing that point. Here's from the current death row chart: BLACK 1227 41.69% LATINO 383 13.01% WHITE 1251 42.51% OTHER 82 2.79% Edit: I just now saw your post further up about prison populations. I don't necessarily agree with you there but I get what you're saying now. Neither the population nor the prison population actually answer the question.

I did some looking around and in specific states they've found that there are a disproportionate number of Blacks on death row (when comparing to the proportion of convicted murderers which is the only relevant comparison) but there hasn't been a conclusive study on it nationwide. What I did find is that people who kill Whites are far more likely to be sentenced to death than people who kill Blacks or Hispanics. Another interesting tidbit: http://www.capitalpunishmentincontext.org/issues/race From a study in California: http://deathpenalty.org/article.php?id=54

Yet the Justice Department still investigated the Ferguson police department and found awful, horrific systemic racism, which is what the protests were really about, using Mike Brown (erroneously, it seems) as a symbol. The effects of slavery are still felt today. You really think everyone realizes that? It shouldn't be, but it is. 1 in 25 people sentenced to death is innocent, and like most of these things, blacks are disproportionately represented in death row. So, how are blacks disproportionately represented on death row?? Does that mean whites are disproportionately represented on death row too?? Smfh http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/race-death-row-inmates-executed-1976 I don't think that link shows what you think it shows and it's unclear why you're syfh. In order to figure out whether a race is disproportionately represented on death row, we need to know the following: The percentage of convicted murderers who are that race The percentage of convicted murderers on death row who are that race. If a higher proportion of Blacks are on death row than are convicted of murder, then a disproportionate number of Blacks are on death row. Now if we really wanted to do it the right way we'd need to look further into what type of murders tend to receive the death penalty, and also look at the Black population in the areas where the death penalty exists. As far as I can see the link doesn't show the proportions for convicted murderers. It only has victim stats and death penalty stats.