2016 Election -- Part II

Quote: rxwine

Why wait. There's plenty of places to live where you can be a white minority, if that's what you desire.

Gee, didn't take long for me to be called a racist, did it? haha

Quote: Joeshlabotnik

Well, so much for civility :(

Yep. Filter out the part where you accused Max of being a liar and were proven wrong. You're the victim. You're the "civil" one.

Amazing to watch a mind like this at work.

Quote: Rigondeaux

Yep. Filter out the part where you accused Max of being a liar and were proven wrong. You're the victim. You're the "civil" one.

Amazing to watch a mind like this at work.

You should probably spend less time with your personal amplifier turned up to 11.

Quote: FDEAD3709

USA today had an article about Silicon Valley black engineers getting a big assist by joining /dev/color, a support network for black software engineers. 114 member who are all black. Without accusing me of being a racist, have you an opinion on when such an organization of white only engineers might be allowed to form?
Should it be based on a percentage of whites in a specific work field being a minority ? Or what should the threshold be for the ever reducing percentage of white in the US population to be considered a minority? It's just a question. This is a forum.

I totally support private groups remaining private and having whatever members they want
I lean far left
but
Augusta Country club where the Masters is played is a private club
They have every right to determine who can be a member
It was once all white and no woman
That's their business
Its a private club

KKK wants to stay all white, hey that's their right.
I hate the KKK but will defend their right to limit members to white.
Its a private group

Quote: FDEAD3709

Gee, didn't take long for me to be called a racist, did it? haha

When, exactly, did anyone call you a racist? If that was the point of your cwever twap, well, you didn't catch Bugs Bunny.

In other news;
(from CNN)

Quote:

A campaign fundraising email from Eric Trump on Wednesday cited "huge gains" and contained a map showing blue states changing to red. This positive spin is not backed up by the facts; indeed, FiveThirtyEight suggested that Eric Trump may have been using a map it produced showing what would happen if only men voted.

That map can be found here

It would seem that all the time wasted on things like voter ID, reduced polling stations in minority areas, and reductions to early voting could have just been solved by simply repealing the 19th Amendment.

#RepealThe19th is trending on Twitter because everyone knows women are going to destroy Trump's chances at winning the election.

Could his supporters be any more deplorable?!?

I think Trump just indicated he's done with the debates.

Several women have come out alleging that Donald Trump inappropriately groped and/or kissed them.

NYT has the story.

Trump is threatening to sue the NYT.

His campaign is going after the accusers and calling them liars - which is hilarious after how they trotted out Bill Clinton's accusers last weekend.

Quote: rxwine

I think Trump just indicated he's done with the debates.

Really??? What did he say?

If he skips Debate #3, that would really mean he's throwing in the towel, as the debates were supposed to be his last chance of getting back in the race. Maybe Debate #2 was his Battle of the Bulge, and he's going to retreat into his underground bunker with Melania and shoot himself.

He quipped he was done, but his campaign people say it is still on. So...

It's clear as day now that there are fabrications from the left coming out. The LA Times reported that #repealthe19th was trending on Twitter to get women not to vote, which is false. I think that the people coming out to say that they were groped or sexually assaulted are timed and orchestrated attacks on Trump, and fabricated.

I'm okay with this. At this time, it is fairly clear, even without the sexual misconduct, that his policies and demeanor are very very bad for the United States and the world. And Trump is getting an unfair advantage from WikiLeaks who are releasing DNC emails that were hacked from Russia (and yes, there is proof that the source is Russia). Accusing well known polling companies as being rigged is a problem. Encouraging Russia to commit espionage is a problem. His son putting out a graphic on Twitter showing that they are winning (which was a men only graphic) is more than misleading, it's just plain inaccurate.

Clinton, on the other hand, is status quo as well, perhaps worse than status quo in that she misleads and lies as well. She is a long-term politician which it seems that is abhorred for the sake of being abhorred. The emails are bad, but the sources that state that a bunch of FBI people wanted her locked up is likely fabricated as there are no named sources. The Clinton Foundation attacks has bad optics too, but there has been no proof that special favors as State were granted to its donors and that 90% of the monies received went to causes (including Haiti).

When FoxNews is headlining the sex assault story on its main page, you know that Murdoch's editorial board is taking a different direction.

Quote: ams288

Several women have come out alleging that Donald Trump inappropriately groped and/or kissed them.

NYT has the story.

Those women could be telling the truth, but not because the NYT reported it.

This is the same newspaper that once praised Hitler and Stalin, and praised the Communist system in China in 2009.

It is a Mexican newspaper owned by Carlos Slim who purchased it to influence US public opinion and government policy, and protect himself against negative publicity.

Just as Bezos purchased the Washington Post, and Murdoch purchased Fox and other media for the same reasons.

Billionaire Obi Wan Kenobi's seeking mass thought control.

Trump is a threat to Mexican and Slim's business interests. He will do anything to get Hillary elected.

Carlos is the New York Time's biggest shareholder but he has only 12.5% of the stock. (161,020,000 shares outstanding, market cap of 1.87B), Carlos has 19.9 million shares. I don't think a 12.5% shareholder can press for editorial control. Institutional shareholders would balk at this.

Bezos does not exercise editorial control over the Post (though he absolutely can).

Both papers have long been leftist bastions well before the shareholder changes.

Murdoch must be a bit of a chameleon has he owns the right-winged FoxNews yet allows shows like the Simpsons, Family Guy, American Dad, etc to appear on his networks, which are must more-left swinging and have much higher viewership than FoxNews ever has. So for him I think it's more about business and money, but he absolutely does exercise political influence, but his political views differs from FoxNews, which is a very small part of his international holdings. I think that in Murdoch's view FoxNews exists not to swing the election but to make money by providing a niche that doesn't exist. He supported Obama in 2008, for example. He is also strongly pro-immigration. But he has turned right over the last 8 years, and people have called his newspapers holdings and his editorial control as "highly unethical".

Please don't think the only possible reason you're hearing these stories is that the women are lying.

These women were mostly working in one form or another, modeling, reporting, beauty queens, working in television, paid attendees at Trump corporate events or parties. When you're a woman, especially trading somehow on your beauty to be working, and someone in a position of power makes improper advances, you're stuck. You laugh it off, you go along and get away as soon as possible, you make excuses for it (too much to drink, it was quick and done, you must have been mistaken, a dozen others).

What you don't do, if you ever want to work again, is file a complaint, make a scene, embarrass the powerful host or the star. You quietly warn the people around you that may also become objects of his attention, and that's about it. This is how it has been since I started working in the late 70s, and at least until the last 10 years, if not until now, that it still happens commonly.

There's never any real proof. The guy just denies it, and lives to offend another day. This is about power more than sex or lust; it just manifests that way. The guys are known as hound dogs, playboys, skirt-chasers, model effers, whatever, all half in admiration. Other men look the other way for the most part, and hate having to adjudicate the complaints that do show up.

There are women who encourage this behavior, finding power their own way through it, but the vast majority resent the quid pro quo, the feeling of entitlement from the men who do it, being objectified.

And it's everywhere. Everywhere. Grabbing a waitress ' ass, copping a feel on the subway, getting backed into a closet at a party or at work. Personally, I've experienced a fair amount, and while I had my day, I'm not known for being beautiful or using my looks for work. But still;

Supervisor grabbing my ass every chance he got for 10 years. Same supervisor scheduling 2 person conferences so he could lift my shirt and nuzzle my breasts.

Trainer demanding a blow job before he would write a recommendation for certification.

Co-worker pushing me into a bathroom and dry - humping me until I could get him off me.

Director demanding a blow job before casting me in a show. Yes, it does happen.

Co-worker jerking himself off through his clothes while we're working airplanes then proudly displaying the wet stain to me like it was a compliment. (Ooh, look what you do to me)

Some other random, lesser aggressions here and there.

Not going to discuss what I did in each case, not all of which was as a federal employee. But there was no upside to complaining. None. Just future trouble for me if I did.

Back to Trump. He caused this flood of stories by denying he behaves this way on Sunday, and having people making excuses for him. That's the last straw for a lot of women who kept quiet rather than embarass him, and put themselves in danger of being fired or losing future jobs. Says a lot about the culture, more even than about Trump. There ARE decades of stories out there. And we're stuck hearing them all.

It took Anderson Cooper 3 repeats of the question to finally get Trump to say that he's never done any of the things discussed on the 2005 tape. I found that interesting. If you hadn't done any of those things and were asked, the answer is unequivocally, with no hesitation, NO. I found it to be pretty telling moment and these women are only corroborating my suspicion of that moment.

And now he says he'll be dating a ten year old in ten years?

The guy is the worst...and creepiest, presidential candidate in history. Thanks republicans. You would probably be winning if you had voted for Rubio. But...ya know, the wall.

Here's a simple but devastating question to ask any Trump supporter:

If you don't think Donald Trump grabbed women "by the pussy" like he said he could, why do you believe any of his other promises?

Quote: beachbumbabs

Please don't think the only possible reason you're hearing these stories is that the women are lying.

When there's one allegation and no special reason to believe one person or the other, I usually pass no judgement.

When there's a bunch of independent allegations, I think you have to weight things towards guilt.

When there's a bunch of allegations and they guy said or did something that could suggest he mistreats women, and he seems like an all around dirtbag, then the odds are tipped even more.*

This is not always true. There was a Canadian DJ who was recently accused of rape by several women, more or less independently, I'd have laid a big price that he was guilty. But, when they took the stand, they were proven to be lying. There are also things like The McMartin preschool case. I'd lay a big price on this one too.


*Clintons not magically exempt.

Quote: ams288

Here's a simple but devastating question to ask any Trump supporter:

If you don't think Donald Trump grabbed women "by the pussy" like he said he could, why do you believe any of his other promises?

I don't think that's all that devastating, because there are certain contexts where it is pretty normal to BS or joke around.

Also, like I said earlier, it might be a different bag of chips when you are a rich celeb and women you've never met show up at your hotel room for the sole purpose of having sex with you. I'd imagine things can advance pretty quickly.

But, with the allegations (and I think some were previously existing), it doesn't look good.

Quote: Rigondeaux

I don't think that's all that devastating, because there are certain contexts where it is pretty normal to BS or joke around.

Yes - men joke around in locker rooms all the time, as the Trump campaign has desperately told us a million times over the past 6 days.

But Trump wasn't in a locker room. He was on a bus. With Billy Bush.

When he says he can sexually assault women with impunity, we should believe him.

The legal letters have been flying back and forth in the wake of the NY Times article. Here is the NYTimes' lawyer on Trump's attorney's claim that the article constituted libel per se:

Quote: David McCraw

You write concerning our article "Two Women Say Donald Trump Touched Them Inappropriately" and label the article as "libel per se."
...
The essence of a libel claim, of course, is the protection of one's reputation. Mr. Trump has bragged about his non-consensual sexual touching of women.... Nothing in our article has had the slightest effect on the reputation that Mr. Trump, through his own words and actions, has already created for himself.
...
If Mr. Trump believes ... that the law of this country forces us and those who would dare to criticize him to stand silent or be punished, we welcome the opportunity to have a court set him straight.

Trump will never sue the NYT. He won't subject himself to discovery in a case like this - THAT would be a disaster for him.

Or if he does sue - he will drop the lawsuit quickly after the election is over.

Trump always threatens to sue - and rarely follows through. And if he does, the judge usually laughs him out of court. Just ask Rosie O'Donnell. Or Bill Maher.

Quote: Rigondeaux

. There are also things like The McMartin preschool case. .

That one proved just how careful you have to be with the interviewing of kids for testimony in court. I'm not sure there is any bigger lesson about adult witnesses though.

Maybe Trump is already getting these calls.

https://youtu.be/6fJgN686Znw?t=34

Quote: beachbumbabs

Please don't think the only possible reason you're hearing these stories is that the women are lying.... various allegations

Anyone with a daughter, who is married to a woman, or is a women knows that this sh*t happens all of time. My daughter, now in 2nd year university, tells of stories about being followed, approached, talked to, and groped. It happens often. It isn't pretty. Alot of men are pigs. Heck, I had a very good friend of mine offer a young women more work if she would go out with him, which I told him was absolutely repugnant.

Alot of older women just write it off to the work/climate of the day but this behaviour continues.

No doubt both Bill and Donald were guilty of this behaviour and that some of the stories that are coming out on Trump are absolutely true. The comments that Trump definitely made in 2005 and comments made over the years and the company he hung out with (including Jeff Epstein, who had underaged sex-slaves and Trump described in 2002 as "He’s a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side. No doubt about it — Jeffrey enjoys his social life." The only reason that HRC doesn't bring it up is because Bill's relationship with Epstein's women were likely just as bad.

Quote: BBB

What you don't do, if you ever want to work again, is file a complaint, make a scene, embarrass the powerful host or the star. You quietly warn the people around you that may also become objects of his attention, and that's about it. This is how it has been since I started working in the late 70s, and at least until the last 10 years, if not until now, that it still happens commonly.

Face believes if you have integrity, you take a stand and leave the industry. I see his point of view, but his integrity comes from his natural position of power as a white dude in this world. Sorry, Face. I'm a white dude too. I don't get pulled over every month for driving normally like my black friends do. I don't get hit on or get asked to perform favors like my female cohorts do. Integrity is a luxury to some.

Quote:

Back to Trump. He caused this flood of stories by denying he behaves this way on Sunday, and having people making excuses for him. That's the last straw for a lot of women who kept quiet rather than embarass him, and put themselves in danger of being fired or losing future jobs. Says a lot about the culture, more even than about Trump. There ARE decades of stories out there. And we're stuck hearing them all.

Correct. He could have apologized for his behavior but to dismiss it as 'locker room' talk and deny his actions -- 'they're just words' and deflect was not the right way to go. It's not locker room talk. All Trump does when he writes off what he did is talk is enable other men to sexually assault women or at least make it acceptable to talk about it that way and call it "locker room talk".

But Trump and Billy Bush did something extremely creepy in that video. Trump: "I’ve got to use some Tic Tacs, just in case I start kissing her. You know I’m automatically attracted to beautiful — I just start kissing them. It’s like a magnet. I just kiss. I don’t even wait. And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything." Then he jokes (my opinion) "Grab them by the pussy. You can do anything".

Then he gets of the frickin' bus, Bush asks the soap star to give Trump a hug, and he hugs and kisses her and stated "Melania said this was ok". What an ass.

There's the whole walking in the dressing room of miss-Teen USA and miss Universe while they were in states of undress. His privilege just made that okay for him to do. And this is at age 59.

Trump cannot be president.

Quote: ams288

Here's a simple but devastating question to ask any Trump supporter:

If you don't think Donald Trump grabbed women "by the pussy" like he said he could, why do you believe any of his other promises?

I don't think anyone actually believes he is going to follow through on his promises. There's an excellent video of Katie Couric interviewing Howard Dean, and Dean sums it up nicely. No one believes he's actually going to do anything he said he's going to do.. it's just a big middle finger to Washington DC because people are fed up with government.

I think that's a really accurate assessment, and I'd call that cutting off your nose to spite your face. Things DO need to change in D.C., but electing Trump is not the way to do it.

Quote: beachbumbabs

Please don't think the only possible reason you're hearing these stories is that the women are lying.

Back to Trump. He caused this flood of stories by denying he behaves this way on Sunday, and having people making excuses for him. That's the last straw for a lot of women who kept quiet rather than embarass him, and put themselves in danger of being fired or losing future jobs. Says a lot about the culture, more even than about Trump. There ARE decades of stories out there. And we're stuck hearing them all.

Well, Babs, here's the sad truth. Let's take just the example of THE MEN ON THIS FORUM as an example. The male societal reaction to women reporting being sexually harassed falls into three categories:

1. Boys will be boys! It's no big deal.
2. Women really want this kind of attention; otherwise, they wouldn't dress and act so provocatively.
3. The bitches are probably lying. You know how women exaggerate.

Now, I've seen these reactions right here on this forum, and I've been called some pretty nasty things for suggesting that they're inappropriate. (No, I'm not going to name names or point to specific posts.) The sad fact is that while we've evolved, we're still a pretty sexist culture. This is yet another way that we're well behind other nations from a social perspective. Hell, we can't even get the Equal Rights Amendment passed!!!

I had a friend who worked for Bank of America in the 80s. She worked a graveyard shift and was constantly under siege, as she often found herself alone with a single male coworker, due to the fact that the building was mostly deserted. Eventually, she complained to her supervisor's supervisor (because her immediate supervisor had been hitting on her as well). This earned her--a firing and a bad job reference.

Have things improved? Yes. Women can file and win sexual harassment suits. But I'm certain that ten times as many women put up with it for fear of losing their jobs.

Trump admits to barging into pageant dressing room while the contestants are naked and half-naked:

Quote: Joeshlabotnik

Well, Babs, here's the sad truth. Let's take just the example of THE MEN ON THIS FORUM as an example. The male societal reaction to women reporting being sexually harassed falls into three categories:

1. Boys will be boys! It's no big deal.
2. Women really want this kind of attention; otherwise, they wouldn't dress and act so provocatively.
3. The bitches are probably lying. You know how women exaggerate.

No. Point 1: Yes, men will state to their best friends how attractive they think someone is and might describe what they might imagine an encounter with them might be like. Example: "Did you see those legs?" or "I'd love to see her sucking my ****", or "imagine her on top of you". What Trump said was far beyond that - he said he does things without even asking, which constitutes a description of assault via Tic Tac or hand grabbing the hoo-haw. So, what Trump said was a big deal.

Point 2: no, again. Women do dress provocatively because they want attention and want to be looked at. Being looked at and being assaulted/raped are two completely different things. Men dress to be looked at too. It does not mean they want to be fondled/kissed/groped without their consent.

Point 3: there are motivations behind what each women is saying. Perhaps 0% are telling the truth, perhaps all of them are telling the truth. We don't know. But when TV cameras and political motivations are concerned, we don't know.

And yes, you are absolutely correct in that women put up with it for fear of losing their jobs. As an employee of a large IT company, I have to take sexual harassment training and retake it once every two years, and there are serious repercussions for harassment.

Quote: MathExtremist

The legal letters have been flying back and forth in the wake of the NY Times article. Here is the NYTimes' lawyer on Trump's attorney's claim that the article constituted libel per se:

The quote said that "the essence of a libel claim" is "the protection of one's reputation." Er, isn't the primary point of a libel claim that the statement in question is false?

I have read the article, and I don't see anywhere where the article claims that Trump actually did it - just that the women say that he did. Assuming the women did say these things, there's nothing in the article that's a lie, is there?

Trump won't sue the paper. Whether or not he wants to sue the women is another story, but the only reason he should even consider it is if there's a chance that not suing them would be considered an admission of guilt.

FoxNews poll out today of 1,001 LV has Clinton up by 7 points.

Trump is now lashing out at the entire political establishment on both sides and spent a good portion of his conference today defending himself against women, essentially asking the stupid question of why they didn't come out with it 12 years ago. Anyone who has been assaulted or raped or knows someone who has can answer that question.

Keep digging the hole, Trump. Keep digging.

Rasmussen has Trump +1 42 - 41 in their last three days of polling in Nationwide poll.

Quote: boymimbo

Trump is now lashing out at the entire political establishment on both sides and spent a good portion of his conference today .

Next week, Trump vs The Earth.

I still think Wikileaks has a good treasure trove up their sleeves. The releases are ramping up and there is absolutely no reason to not publish everything at once except to build suspense.

Clearly Snowden is supporting Trump. And the Wikileaks releases, when you actually spend time looking at them, reveal how insiduous, immoral, and calculated HRC and her campaign is. There are no smoking guns however, but when you add all of it, you see how strategic, calculated, and prepared everything is, which is everything you would expect in a political campaign.

If I were mainstream media, I would be spending some quality time going through all of the Podesta emails and start determining what exactly is being said and to apply context to all of the messages. The right wing conspirators are coming up with "smoking gun" evidence that Podesta knew about the assassination of Scalia and other atrocities.

I expect the bulk of Snowden's email to come out before the 3rd debate, this weekend, and that the major talking point of the weekend will be Wikileaks and whatever new sex scandals the Clinton campaign digs up.

Still, Trump is unfit to be president, but I'm convinced that you don't deserve Clinton either. I'm not sure Sanders' campaign staffers would have in their emails.

Quote: boymimbo

I still think Wikileaks has a good treasure trove up their sleeves. The releases are ramping up and there is absolutely no reason to not publish everything at once except to build suspense.

Clearly Snowden is supporting Trump. And the Wikileaks releases, when you actually spend time looking at them, reveal how insiduous, immoral, and calculated HRC and her campaign is. There are no smoking guns however, but when you add all of it, you see how strategic, calculated, and prepared everything is, which is everything you would expect in a political campaign.

If I were mainstream media, I would be spending some quality time going through all of the Podesta emails and start determining what exactly is being said and to apply context to all of the messages. The right wing conspirators are coming up with "smoking gun" evidence that Podesta knew about the assassination of Scalia and other atrocities.

I expect the bulk of Snowden's email to come out before the 3rd debate, this weekend, and that the major talking point of the weekend will be Wikileaks and whatever new sex scandals the Clinton campaign digs up.

Still, Trump is unfit to be president, but I'm convinced that you don't deserve Clinton either. I'm not sure Sanders' campaign staffers would have in their emails.

So I'm curious--what exactly about Clinton's campaign do you find "immoral"? By what standard? And since you say there's "no smoking gun," based on what evidence? Or are you just making vague insinuations? You seem to view her campaign being "strategic" and "calculated" as a bad thing. Reminds me of how so many people think that the worst thing you can call her is a politician (EWWWWWWWWW!!!!).

I cannot imagine a bigger waste of time than sifting through her emails YET AGAIN. How much airtime has been devoted to Donald's blustering and sex life and Hillary's EMAILS EMAILS EMAILS and BENGHAZI BENGHAZI BENGHAZI? And how much to Hillary's substantive plans to improve and/or fix things? Hell, even TRUMP has some viable ideas. But all we see are attempts from one side to paint the other's candidate as the worst human being since Hitler and Genghis Khan combined.

And no one should pay the slightest attention to right-wing conspiracy theories. The "assassination" of Scalia?? I mean, come ON...

The fact of the matter is that Wikileaks is an enemy of America and Snowden is a traitor and should be hanged. Paying any kind of attention to whatever dirt, or pseudo-dirt, they dig up is doing a disservice to the country and the world. I do think that whatever they fling out there in the next few days will be distinctly underwhelming. If they had anything juicy (fair or unfair), they wouldn't have waited this long to release it. Why unleash your secret weapon only after the war is already lost?

Quote: rxwine

Next week, Trump vs The Earth.

The planet is clearly biased against The Donald. For one thing, he doesn't have all the world's money, nor is he the absolute ruler of the earth. Obviously, the system is rigged against him.

Quote: boymimbo

I still think Wikileaks has a good treasure trove up their sleeves. The releases are ramping up and there is absolutely no reason to not publish everything at once except to build suspense.

It doesn't matter what Wikileaks has. The MSM will bury it.

They owe the Clintons for deregulating the media and giving them a monopoly on information distribution.

Just as the banks owe Bill Clinton for deregulating the banks.

They get $500,000 for speaking fees- payoffs - to say things we hear them say every day for free.

We are repeatedly reminded about the Bush war in Iraq, but Bill Clinton bombed them too and imposed sanctions that killed 4% of their population including 576,000 children.

Quote: Joeshlabotnik

I cannot imagine a bigger waste of time than sifting through her emails YET AGAIN.

Have you considered the time you and AMS288 spend here...it is right near the top of the "waste of time" hierarchy.

Quote: Tanko

We are repeatedly reminded about the Bush war in Iraq, but Bill Clinton bombed them too and imposed sanctions that killed 4% of their population including 576,000 children.

You'll find that silly babble doesn't get much traction on this forum. "Bill Clinton bombed them too"? (The Iraq war didn't start until well after he left office.) He imposed sanctions that killed hundreds of thousands of people? How do you kill people with sanctions, anyway? (And you forgot to mention the twelve million puppies he slaughtered!!!!)

And how did the Clintons "deregulate the media"? (And why would that necessarily be a bad thing?)

It's obvious you hate the Clintons, but making up stupid nonsense about them doesn't help your case much. Please don't post any more stupid YouTube conspiracy theory videos to "prove" your contention that the Clintons are mass murderers and have destroyed American society. We have enough crap flying around already.

Quote: Paradigm

Have you considered the time you and AMS288 spend here...it is right near the top of the "waste of time" hierarchy.

I work from home 8-5 Monday - Friday. I have to sit here all day on my computer in case anyone messages me. It can get boring. Arguing with righties is a good way to pass the time by.

Quote: Paradigm

Have you considered the time you and AMS288 spend here...it is right near the top of the "waste of time" hierarchy.

Gee, we should have gotten your approval first.

And my time, and his, are inconsequential. But the time the media spends is not. Nor is the time spent during nationally televised debates rehashing a dead issue. Nor is the time spent by nationally published pundits and columnists.

And if the time we spend here upsets you, well, then, it's time well spent--as important as you obviously are.

The deaths were caused by United Nations sanctions. The goal of sanctions is to pressure governments to change. The world imposed sanctions on Iran, South Africa, Russia, North Korea, Syria, etc, as a form of political pressure. BILL Clinton was not solely responsible for these deaths. Governments still use sanctions when their interests are threatened. Trump would likely just go straight to warfare given the way he reacts.

I just find it highly ironic that the Law and Order candidate is relying on emails obtained illegally (likely from Russia) to take down his opposition and claim a wide MSM and government conspiracy against him. I wonder if he would drop charges against Snowden and free him. Probably would. That would make him hypocritical as the Law and Order candidate.

As for speaking fees, etc, they are paid what the market bears. Trump makes paid speeches too at an average of $250K a pop. But we don't know as he won't release any tax returns nor will he agree to a blind trust should he become President.

And Trump has not given any kind of policy speeches as how he will treat banks, except to lower the corporate income taxes. And given that his "Law and Order" speeches are targeting specifically at Hillary's emails (Trump is using illegally obtained emails to prop him up, hypocrite), immigrants (build a wall, Mexicans are rapists, extreme vetting), and the black community, he would likely do nothing to regulate banking. Quite the opposite given how pro-business he is.

Quote: Paradigm

Have you considered the time you and AMS288 spend here...it is right near the top of the "waste of time" hierarchy.

Quote: ams288

I work from home 8-5 Monday - Friday. I have to sit here all day on my computer in case anyone messages me. It can get boring. Arguing with righties is a good way to pass the time by.

I agree
I work from home also, 9am to 530pm M-F
Spending time here is a great way to pass time :-)
Why do you come here paradigm? I have to imagine its simply a good way to pass time. Isn't that why everybody is here :-)

Quote: terapined

I agree
I work from home also, 9am to 530pm M-F
Spending time here is a great way to pass time :-)
Why do you come here paradigm? I have to imagine its simply a good way to pass time. Isn't that why everybody is here :-)

I'm in a similar situation. I'm actually more or less on call 16 hours a day. Often, I can't proceed with work until I get a reply to an email I've sent. So I have to spend a lot of time at my computer, and going to this site helps with that.

Snowden has nothing to do with wikileaks, as far as I know.

Trump seemingly just invited women to falsely accuse the President of groping him.
He also said to look at the woman from the plane. She wouldn't be his first choice, he repeated twice.

Quote: ThatDonGuy

The quote said that "the essence of a libel claim" is "the protection of one's reputation." Er, isn't the primary point of a libel claim that the statement in question is false?

I have read the article, and I don't see anywhere where the article claims that Trump actually did it - just that the women say that he did. Assuming the women did say these things, there's nothing in the article that's a lie, is there?

A false statement is absolutely a requirement of libel, and what you refer to is called the neutral reportage privilege. Ironically, the courts first established this privilege in a case against -- you guessed it -- the New York Times:

Quote:

The privilege was first recognized in a 1977 case involving the New York Times, which reported accusations made by the National Audubon Society that a group of scientists were behaving as "paid liars" on the issue of whether DDT was harming bird populations. The story posed a dilemma. The reporter had a good sense that the Audubon Society had little or no evidence to back up its claims and that due to republisher liability he might well be liable for defamation if he published the story. But he also recognized that in his hands was a newsworthy story about an accusation made by a prominent organization. The court responded by recognizing a new form of First Amendment protection:

What is newsworthy about such accusations is that they were made. We do not believe that the press may be required under the First Amendment to suppress newsworthy statements merely because it has serious doubts regarding their truth. Nor must the press take up cudgels against dubious charges in order to publish them without fear of liability for defamation. . . . The public interest in being fully informed about controversies that often rage around sensitive issues demands that the press be afforded the freedom to report such charges without assuming responsibility for them.

http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/neutral-report-privilege

The bigger point in all this is that Trump has threatened to revoke the sorts of reporting privileges that newspapers and other media outlets currently enjoy under the First Amendment, shrinking or eliminating this Constitutional right. That seems to conflict with the required vow that the president "protect and defend the Constitution." Imagine that a press photographer snapped a picture of a Trump rally that included someone holding a sign that says "Hillary has AIDS," and then the newspaper published that photo. Falsely accusing someone of having "a loathsome disease" is defamation per se and AIDS has been previously ruled by courts as one such disease. Under Trump's reduced freedom of the press, the newspaper would be liable for defamation due to printing that picture. That's a scary thought.

Quote: MathExtremist

A false statement is absolutely a requirement of libel, and what you refer to is called the neutral reportage privilege. Ironically, the courts first established this privilege in a case against -- you guessed it -- the New York Times:

Quote:

The privilege was first recognized in a 1977 case involving the New York Times, which reported accusations made by the National Audubon Society that a group of scientists were behaving as "paid liars" on the issue of whether DDT was harming bird populations. The story posed a dilemma. The reporter had a good sense that the Audubon Society had little or no evidence to back up its claims and that due to republisher liability he might well be liable for defamation if he published the story. But he also recognized that in his hands was a newsworthy story about an accusation made by a prominent organization. The court responded by recognizing a new form of First Amendment protection:

What is newsworthy about such accusations is that they were made. We do not believe that the press may be required under the First Amendment to suppress newsworthy statements merely because it has serious doubts regarding their truth. Nor must the press take up cudgels against dubious charges in order to publish them without fear of liability for defamation. . . . The public interest in being fully informed about controversies that often rage around sensitive issues demands that the press be afforded the freedom to report such charges without assuming responsibility for them.

http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/neutral-report-privilege

The bigger point in all this is that Trump has threatened to revoke the sorts of reporting privileges that newspapers and other media outlets currently enjoy under the First Amendment, shrinking or eliminating this Constitutional right. That seems to conflict with the required vow that the president "protect and defend the Constitution." Imagine that a press photographer snapped a picture of a Trump rally that included someone holding a sign that says "Hillary has AIDS," and then the newspaper published that photo. Falsely accusing someone of having "a loathsome disease" is defamation per se and AIDS has been previously ruled by courts as one such disease. Under Trump's reduced freedom of the press, the newspaper would be liable for defamation due to printing that picture. That's a scary thought.

IMO I think it'd be difficult for the newspaper to be responsible for that. If DJT said "HRC has AIDS" and a news group made a story on that, do you think DJT would be responsible or the news? I'd think DJT would be. Same thing if a person had such a sign, I'd think the person would be mostly responsible. (Although definitely would be poor judgement and not the "best" [moral/ethically] for the news group to post such a photo.)

Quote: boymimbo

Face believes if you have integrity, you take a stand and leave the industry. I see his point of view, but his integrity comes from his natural position of power as a white dude in this world. Sorry, Face. I'm a white dude too. I don't get pulled over every month for driving normally like my black friends do. I don't get hit on or get asked to perform favors like my female cohorts do. Integrity is a luxury to some.

I wouldn't compare myself to the black man. For sure, I can go to Guelph and blend right in, let my white power lead me to the promised land. Same goes for pretty much any town in the US and Canada. But I don't live in Guelph, nor any town in the US and CAN. I live here, and here there is every bit of racial hate you describe. Worse, even, because half breed. And no matter how many times I tell my face it's white, my nose still skews left and my orbital remains cracked. Of course, both of those features came by way of my refusal to roll over, so maybe you do have a point...

The sentence "Integrity is a luxury to some" just about makes my ears bleed (Anger coming, don't take offense, I love boymimbo). I mean,...OK, first, no. Integrity is free. You are allowed as much as you can possibly produce. It cannot be given to you nor taken from you. It is yours to create, hold, and own. It's one of the few things that are truly "yours". It's a big part of what makes you "you". And though I get your point and where you were going, I still find it a dangerous opinion to hold. Because what are you saying if you tell folks it's OK to sacrifice their integrity? What is that sentiment other than permission for this type of horses#$% to flourish?

I'm not saying it's easy. I won't even say it's smart; you have your way and I have mine, and by just about any single measurable metric, you're doing a damn sight better than I am. But your daughter's about that age to be entering this segment of the world, if my broken memory serves. She's at that age where she couldn't really afford to sacrifice an opportunity, should one present itself. If given the choice to pursue her path in the face of abuse OR bin it all to stand strong, would you encourage HER to suck it up?

I dunno. But I do know there's a reason we all know the names Ghandi, Parks, Tubman, and it sure as s#$% wasn't because they rolled over. I don't mean to demonize or condemn those who haven't stood. I've got moments like that, too, somewhen in my past. But I damn sure wish to inspire those who don't stand to begin, and would like some like minded folks there to have my back those moments when I feel like rolling. If you want change, you have to do the work. Consider this a pregame locker talk.

Quote: Face

But I do know there's a reason we all know the names Ghandi, Parks, Tubman, and it sure as s#$% wasn't because they rolled over.

Well, these are the ones who lived long enough.

I remember watching some movie where the first person standing up to the KIng got a spear through the middle about 3 seconds into his uprising speech.

So, yeah, it's great thing. No one would not say that.