Moiraine

Comparing Trump in the primaries to Clinton in the primaries is like comparing apples to oranges. You can look just at New York and it tells the whole story for you. Clinton won 58% of the vote and got 139 of 247 delegates. Trump won 60.4% of the vote and got 89 of 95 delegates. The Republicans also have lots of winner-take-all states. The Democrats have none. Both processes are "unfair" in their own ways. Although... they're not unfair at all. If I start a political party I can do my primaries weird ways if I want. What's unfair (which I've stated many times) is that these parties can throw so much money at this thing. I like Sanders but I get sick of people talking about how mistreated he is. He's been a Democrat for less than 2 years.

9/11 happened under Bush. They were here and it was planned for 5 years under Clinton, Bush was 9 months on the job. Nice try though. His post made as much sense as yours. Saying Benghazi never would have happened under Bush is like saying 9/11 never would have happened under Clinton or Obama. In fact, the Benghazi thing is just as easy to argue against as the 9/11 thing. The middle east wouldn't be the sh#tstorm it is without us having gone to Iraq.

Honestly, what he says with his mouth is enough to go on.

Did you work there or did you use it?

What is that hawkeye doing to our logo?

Mav those are great numbers but to be fair, you have to compare it to the games that were at the same times as well. Agree? That's why I was listing night games. I think what he's saying is you have to check which other games were on while they were playing.

Ugh. I just NOW read the stuff he said about the drought. It makes me really sad/angry for all the scientists out there that some buffoon can convince millions of something he knows nothing about with a few one-liners after they've done years of research on it. I don't understand this glorification of ignorance, when it started or how. And I'm not even talking about the drought here. Any 10 year old understands how that works, but Trump doesn't.

The same can be said for those that are supporting Hillary. They are scared of what Trump might do, so they want to keep the status quo. Why do people say others are scared of what Trump might do as if that somehow promulgates him for the presidency? Fear of the unknown with the most powerful political position in the world is in no way a good thing, particularly if it risks the complete destabilization of social progression and international political cooperation. What social progression and political cooperation are you speaking of? I believe I asked you a question, first. But, for the sake of clarification. Canada's Prime Minister has taken several subtle swipes at Trump's political views while avoiding outright confrontation. David Cameron believes Trump's views of Muslims are "stupid and wrong." Germany's Minister of Economy had this to say about him - "Whether Donald Trump, Marine Le Pen or Geert Wilders -- all these right-wing populists are not only a threat to peace and social cohesion, but also to economic development." France's Prime Minister has also voiced concerns over Trump's political views, and then there's this gem from the Mexican president. There's no hiding from the concerns that he'll be difficult on the international scale and the very real social concerns he presents. So, again why does being "scared" of what Trump will do promulgate him as a viable presidential candidate? As far as the Muslim part goes, I don't have an issue with it as they should have background checks before coming to this country. I had to wait for my wife to go through two years of crap before they allowed her into the country and she isn't Muslim nor did she even have a police record in her country. So why is it a bad thing when Muslims will be allowed to come only after passing background checks to ensure that we are not allowing radical Muslims into our country? Therefore we won't be allowing another 9/11 incident to happen like it did under Bill as they were here for five years before pulling off the attack. I didn't read the article you linked but I searched it for background checks. I'm not sure why you're bringing that up. Trump stated he wants Muslims banned from the country and their places of worship monitored. This is a lot different than doing background checks. People arriving here from most countries are already screened and I guarantee that those from predominantly Muslim countries were already screened more thoroughly before this was ever a conversation. You have more faith in them than I do. Not to mention the Syrian refugees that Obama just wants to allow in the country without background checks. That is asking for another terrorist attack on US soil. Please provide evidence of this. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2015/nov/19/politifact-sheet-5-questions-about-syrian-refugees/ Or read the above and tell me how they're wrong.

It's Hillary that should be in prison though. Don't forget that, otherwise you'll be biased too. We have no proof that either of them should be in prison.

The same can be said for those that are supporting Hillary. They are scared of what Trump might do, so they want to keep the status quo. Why do people say others are scared of what Trump might do as if that somehow promulgates him for the presidency? Fear of the unknown with the most powerful political position in the world is in no way a good thing, particularly if it risks the complete destabilization of social progression and international political cooperation. What social progression and political cooperation are you speaking of? I believe I asked you a question, first. But, for the sake of clarification. Canada's Prime Minister has taken several subtle swipes at Trump's political views while avoiding outright confrontation. David Cameron believes Trump's views of Muslims are "stupid and wrong." Germany's Minister of Economy had this to say about him - "Whether Donald Trump, Marine Le Pen or Geert Wilders -- all these right-wing populists are not only a threat to peace and social cohesion, but also to economic development." France's Prime Minister has also voiced concerns over Trump's political views, and then there's this gem from the Mexican president. There's no hiding from the concerns that he'll be difficult on the international scale and the very real social concerns he presents. So, again why does being "scared" of what Trump will do promulgate him as a viable presidential candidate? As far as the Muslim part goes, I don't have an issue with it as they should have background checks before coming to this country. I had to wait for my wife to go through two years of crap before they allowed her into the country and she isn't Muslim nor did she even have a police record in her country. So why is it a bad thing when Muslims will be allowed to come only after passing background checks to ensure that we are not allowing radical Muslims into our country? Therefore we won't be allowing another 9/11 incident to happen like it did under Bill as they were here for five years before pulling off the attack. I didn't read the article you linked but I searched it for background checks. I'm not sure why you're bringing that up. Trump stated he wants Muslims banned from the country and their places of worship monitored. This is a lot different than doing background checks. People arriving here from most countries are already screened and I guarantee that those from predominantly Muslim countries were already screened more thoroughly before this was ever a conversation.

He mandated that PUBLIC SCHOOLS be forced into having gender neutral LOCKER ROOMS. While that doesn't affect me. It affects my neices, and my potential future daughters. If schools don't comply then federal funding goes out the window? This has gone from absurd to just down right biased and stupid Can you give us a link to this? I googled it and came up with a transgender issue where he said transgender kids should use the bathroom that matches their gender identity. I'm not coming up with where he directed schools that it should just be a free for all with one big locker room with both boys and girls basketball teams changing together and using the same showers. LINK Locker Rooms are bathrooms. No one is requiring a check on if the person is "transgendered" or not. It's all about what they feel like they are. You know this BRB. So who's going to be the ones that say..."hey you can use the bathroom, but not the locker room."? So, you really view this as just one big free for all orgy in the locker rooms from now on. No but there already have been issues with the bathrooms at places that are "non discriminatory". There was an 8 year old girl that was strangled in the non discriminatory restroom. But because no one can question where anyone goes to the restroom we can't stop these incidents before they begin. (Cue the "her mom should have gone in with her...that's neglect" BS) If you don't think there are going to be problems with the public schools being forced to do this, then you aren't as intelligent as I once thought. For the record, why does everyone defending this stuff say things like what you said above? Does it have to be an incident all the time for it to be considered ridiculous to be mandated? Here's the story of the 8 year old. May 13th, 2016 http://www.wsbtv.com/news/trending-now/man-accused-of-choking-8yearold-girl-in-public-bathroom/281054107 People got kidnapped from and raped in bathrooms before North Carolina ever passed their law which started this story. At the moment, I fall on the side of thinking kidnappers and rapists will find a way and this probably won't exacerbate the problem.

Here's 1 reason JJ. Any boy who goes into a girl's locker room will be considered to be a transgender female. How many hormonal teenage boys want people to think they're transgender females? Probably only the ones who really feel the conviction that it's what they are, and they aren't there to ogle girls.

Our military needs to be better??? We spend more on our military than anything we spend money on in this country by FAR. Military officials have said many times that they don't need all the money that gets flung at them. If we put 10 percent of what we pay into our military into education we wouldn't have dumb dumb trump equivalent supporters by the time they were old enough to vote. Yes our military needs to be better. The problem is that the money is being spent in the wrong area's, the same can be said about the cuts. They are cutting veterans benefits (active and retirement) while keeping worthless projects going that are in some cases decades behind. But our "leaders" (term used very loosely on both sides of the isles) do this to help out the special interests that have bought and paid for them to get elected in the first place. I don't think we want to get into how poorly the military has been run over the last 8 years. All you have to do is look at how froggy our enemies are getting because they know that we won't do anything about it under this president. You have it backwards on the education comment, more money won't get spent on it by the Democrats because their backbone is the uneducated voter. As much as a mess the Republican Party is, the Democrats are 10K worse, the media is just trying to cover it up with their liberal agenda. All you have to do is look at who they have running. They have a presumptive front runner who should be in jail for many reasons over the course of her 30 years in public office who also (just like Trump) isn't very popular within her party. The other is a socialist who is pandering to the entitled young vote who have no idea what socialism really is. Just look at Venezuela on how that works out after the government runs out of money to give out freebee's. So... If you were to see data that showed that a higher percentage of Republican voters are uneducated than Democratic voters, you'd ignore it because it's the "liberal agenda?" This is a nice and easy cop out for you. It must make it easy to win arguments. The problem with looking at a single variable, like education level, is you're not accounting for trends like the proportion of people who graduate in each era. 60-80 year olds are far less likely to be college graduates than 25 year olds. Looking at it by itself is silly regardless of whether it supports Republicans or Democrats.

We've already given terrorism massive victories in the invasion of privacy and freedoms we enjoy, and stooping to their levels via torture is just another bad step. Yeah, waterboarding is arguably torture. As are the other things we've been known to do--sleep deprivation, containment in a small box with insects, slapping and beating, etc. But these don't even compare to beheading and cutting off limbs which are preferred methods of our terrorist enemies. Not that that makes it right. It's just a tough thing, knowing where to draw the line in the war against terrorism. I don't understand why people bring up what the bad guy is doing when discussing whether we should use torture. They torture people because they're sadistic and evil. Not for information. We have the technology available to get vast amounts of intelligence without the need to do anything even resembling what they do. The only reason for the comparison I can think of is that we should use torture to intimidate the ones who hear about it. Lots of terrorists go on suicide missions. I dont think it would have any effect on them. This isn't apples to apples. I get what you're saying here, and I'm not advocating for torture by saying this but I just want to offer one thing: terrorists don't torture themselves to death on a suicide mission. Ya, suicide would be preferable in most cases. I still don't think us using torture is going to change how they act. It's not like they don't already think we use it.

Trump added, "The judge, who happens to be, we believe, Mexican, which is great. I think that's fine." Being Mexican is fine you guys. Trump likes Mexicans. Many of his best friends are Mexicans and they think building the wall is a great idea.

I know it sounds awful and all, but maybe the villagers prefer to stay isolated. Easing the way to reach the village could change that.

The bolded is (part of) what makes Trump and his supporters so scary. Trump thinks the press are "people doing bad stuff." Trump thinks overweight people are doing bad stuff. Trump thinks people who say his fingers are short are doing bad stuff. Trump thinks anyone who disagrees with him about anything are people doing bad stuff. Trump thinks ALL Muslims are people doing bad stuff. I don't want this guy to be involved in anyway in deciding what to do with the "people who are doing bad stuff," or in defining who the "people who are doing bad stuff" are. Also, there's nothing wrong with her saying Bill will do that. The economy was great under him. There's nothing wrong with admitting you have an area of weakness and finding people to supplement your knowledge in that area. Trump is constantly saying he will "get the best people" for everything. This is no different than that.

It's happening!!

To me it is pretty clear the PSU receiver caught the ball with both feet off the ground and the first foot to come down was nearly 2 feet out of bounds. The NU guy on the sidelines was shocked to see it called a catch. I remember ABC replaying this many times during the game and them saying the refs made a mistake.Really? Because there's a link to the actual broadcast in the OP. It was CBS and they didn't say anything of the sort. And if you can tell when the receiver catches the ball in that poor of resolution, you have way better eyes than me... Not that that would be hard, but I paused it and freeze framed it, you literally can't see when the ball is caught because it gets lost in the sideline because of the low resolution. I wasn't alive during the game, so I don't know what other evidence there was, but the game broadcast that's on YouTube and every video I've seen of it hasn't been conclusive either way. If there's something I'm not privy to, that's another matter. But based solely on what I've been able to see, it's nowhere near as egregious as everyone seems to think it was. You have to be joking with this. He jumps to catch the ball. After the jump, the first foot to land is a couple feet out of bounds. Also, why are you talking about poor resolution? You do realize people watched this game in real-time once, right? Hate to break it to you but that's the something you're not privy to. You're entirely discounting everyone who watched this game on tv because you can only see it on YouTube. Not to mention the play has been shown many more times on tv since then. lol

We have satellites, and a crapton of other technology. Seems to me if we can't get the info we need through other means and have to use antiquated methods then we're a bunch of idiots.We?What is your question? You used we. I'm a U.S. citizen. I'm partially responsible for what we do to get information, and my taxes help pay for whatever method we use to get it, whether it's technology, spies, or torture. Anything done in the name of the country I am a citizen of is something I consider done by "we." Again, I don't understand the question.Then please quit paying taxes and move out of the country. Thank you. Btw, i dont doubt you have trouble understanding. Why would I want to do that? I wasn't making that comment as any kind of complaint. I was merely explaining why I refer to the United States as "We." I don't get what your deal is here. Of course I don't understand it. You're being deliberately vague. My hypothesis is that you're calling me un-American and stupid for thinking that having satellites, superior technology and weaponry should be enough to kill these people without needing to resort to torturing them for intel.

We have satellites, and a crapton of other technology. Seems to me if we can't get the info we need through other means and have to use antiquated methods then we're a bunch of idiots. We?What is your question? You used we. I'm a U.S. citizen. I'm partially responsible for what we do to get information, and my taxes help pay for whatever method we use to get it, whether it's technology, spies, or torture. Anything done in the name of the country I am a citizen of is something I consider done by "we." Again, I don't understand the question.

We've already given terrorism massive victories in the invasion of privacy and freedoms we enjoy, and stooping to their levels via torture is just another bad step. Yeah, waterboarding is arguably torture. As are the other things we've been known to do--sleep deprivation, containment in a small box with insects, slapping and beating, etc. But these don't even compare to beheading and cutting off limbs which are preferred methods of our terrorist enemies. Not that that makes it right. It's just a tough thing, knowing where to draw the line in the war against terrorism. I don't understand why people bring up what the bad guy is doing when discussing whether we should use torture. They torture people because they're sadistic and evil. Not for information. We have the technology available to get vast amounts of intelligence without the need to do anything even resembling what they do. The only reason for the comparison I can think of is that we should use torture to intimidate the ones who hear about it. Lots of terrorists go on suicide missions. I dont think it would have any effect on them. This isn't apples to apples.

Ya that's it. He's a victim in all of this!

Why do people say Trump says what's on his mind? He can say one thing Wednesday and something the opposite on Thursday. This has happened over and over. So can he not make up his mind, or is he a liar? Why is saying what's on your mind considered a good quality when it changes every day? I find his supporters to be batsh#t crazy. At least I admit that I don't like the person I'm going to vote for. People who genuinely like Trump are mind boggling.