Trump may face a reckoning in case brought by female accuser

[GMDino]

(12-08-2017, 11:31 PM)bfine32 Wrote: And more people voted for other people than they did any candidate. So to point out that one candidate didn't get the majority of the vote sorta falls in the "so what" category. 

Was that suppose to make sense?

Did you mean more people did NOT vote than voted for any candidate?

Is it schizoid paranoia or just existential blues?

(12-08-2017, 11:31 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Not sure how that is "denying" who won the popular vote. What do you get for that by the way? 

You don't get anything.  Well it seems you get people denying it happened for some reason. 

[hollodero]

(12-08-2017, 02:59 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: hollodero,
Samsung creating a 17B chip plant in Austin, TX
Samsonite relocating manufacturing jobs back to the US
Foxcon setting up a plant in the US: 7B 30-40k jobs
Kia/Hyndai new plant 3.1B
Alibaba Group creating the software to allow US small businesses to sell directly to China
Toyota 9-10B upgrading existing plants to increase production
Softbank 50B and 50k new jobs expanding into the US.
GM 1B shifted back to US instead of investing overseas.
Ford abandoning Mexico plant, re-investing 700Mil in Detriot plant.
Chrysler 1B Michigan and Ohio plants
Broadcom moving HQ from Singapore back to the US.
Bayer 16B, half in agriculture research in the US
IBM 1B in jobs in the US
Lockheed Martin saved the US money on the f-35 plane they were developing and planning to create more jobs here.
Dow Chemicals new state of the art plant in Midland, Texas at dinner for Trump.
Trans-Lux sped up their process of bringing a plant back to the US from China

 appreciated... and that's quite the list. I can only randomly check these out, but at least some sure deserve some mention. I am quite certain the Bayer-Monsanto deal was in the making independently of Trump, some others might not have to do anything with him, but overall I certainly have to admit that the economic data you posted do work in Trump's favor.

Since I'm certainly biased against him, I still think the bubble will burst and unemployment wasn't that big of a problem to begin with compared to bad wages. But that's not what I asked for, so again you have a point and the point is well taken.


(Still I want to kick the 5,73 % "others" in the butt)

[*Nately120*]

(12-08-2017, 11:37 PM)bfine32 Wrote: But kudos to you and your ability to detect tone. 

I choose to take this at face value.

[*bfine32*]

(12-08-2017, 11:40 PM)GMDino Wrote: Was that suppose to make sense?

Did you mean more people did NOT vote than voted for any candidate?

Is it schizoid paranoia or just existential blues?


You don't get anything.  Well it seems you get people denying it happened for some reason. 

Nope, I meant what I typed. Not sure if it was "supposed" to make sense;, however, it should to folks that can read and comprehend.

Agreed. Those that keep bringing up popular election do so for no legitimate reason. You have to ask yourself. what kind of idiot would keep bringing it up. 

[*bfine32*]

(12-08-2017, 11:47 PM)Nately120 Wrote: I choose to take this at face value.

No you didn't. You chose to question it. 

[hollodero]

(12-08-2017, 11:40 PM)GMDino Wrote: Was that suppose to make sense?

Did you mean more people did NOT vote than voted for any candidate?

Is it schizoid paranoia or just existential blues?

Ehm, actually he meant that you could pick any candidate, and in each case a majority of people voted not for that candidate, but for someone else. Which is, well, just true.

[*Nately120*]

(12-08-2017, 11:51 PM)bfine32 Wrote: No you didn't. You chose to question it. 

Cosmic, man.

[GMDino]

(12-08-2017, 11:58 PM)hollodero Wrote: Ehm, actually he meant that you could pick any candidate, and in each case a majority of people voted not for that candidate, but for someone else. Which is, well, just true.

"more people voted for other people than they did any candidate"


So if we take ALL the votes cast for ALL candidates those votes are more than any ONE candidate got?  Or, as I said, more people chose NOT to vote for a candidate than voted for one?  Either way that's a long way to go to dismiss Trump losing the popular vote.

[*bfine32*]

(12-09-2017, 12:08 AM)GMDino Wrote:

"more people voted for other people than they did any candidate"


So if we take ALL the votes cast for ALL candidates those votes are more than any ONE candidate got?  Or, as I said, more people chose NOT to vote for a candidate than voted for one?  Either way that's a long way to go to dismiss Trump losing the popular vote.

There's like one person in the forum that thinks you make solid points. 

Others read what is written. 

[hollodero]

(12-09-2017, 12:08 AM)GMDino Wrote:

"more people voted for other people than they did any candidate"


So if we take ALL the votes cast for ALL candidates those votes are more than any ONE candidate got? 

Not quite. It's actually not that complicated. If 48% voted Hillary, 52% voted for someone else than Hillary. Which might very well lead to the conclusion that a majority voted for, ergo wanted someone else than Hillary.
If you define "majority" as "more votes than anyone else", then ok. One might break down it to a definition question. I can just say, in all democracies I know that result would not warrant to call Hillary the winner. In yours, it doesn't mean much. In European ones, there would be a second runoff election.

(12-09-2017, 12:08 AM)GMDino Wrote: Or, as I said, more people chose NOT to vote for a candidate than voted for one?  Either way that's a long way to go to dismiss Trump losing the popular vote.

Maybe it is. I agree with you in principle, but technically no one got the majority of all votes. That Hillary got more votes than Trump is undisputed.

[GMDino]

(12-09-2017, 12:26 AM)hollodero Wrote: Not quite. It's actually not that complicated. If 48% voted Hillary, 52% voted for someone else than Hillary. Which might very well lead to the conclusion that a majority voted for, ergo wanted someone else than Hillary.
If you define "majority" as "more votes than anyone else", then ok. One might break down it to a definition question. I can just say, in all democracies I know that result would not warrant to call Hillary the winner. In yours, it doesn't mean much. In European ones, there would be a second runoff election.



Maybe it is. I agree with you in principle, but technically no one got the majority of all votes. That Hillary got more votes than Trump is undisputed.

Ah, got it.  It was worded very poorly IMHO.  

A better way would have been "No candidate got a majority of all the votes cast in their race."

So when I said:

Quote:How about more people voted for other people than voted for Trump? 

I was correct.  Good.

Meanwhile Clinton still got more votes than Trump.    

[*bfine32*]

(12-09-2017, 12:15 AM)bfine32 Wrote: There's like one person in the forum that thinks you make solid points. 

Others read what is written. 

(12-09-2017, 12:37 AM)GMDino Wrote: So when I said:



I was correct.  Good.

And there's that one person.

[GMDino]

(12-09-2017, 12:49 AM)bfine32 Wrote: And there's that one person.

See?  That's the difference between me and a lot of posters.

I didn't understand what you wrote (because of the way you wrote it, in this case) and I offered my explanation. Rather tan clarify there were personal jabs.  Which is "fine".  Then I got a clearer explanation from someone else and all was good and I realized I made a mistake in the reading of the post and moved on.

But why explain when you can imply?  Right?

[*bfine32*]

(12-11-2017, 10:10 AM)GMDino Wrote: See?  That's the difference between me and a lot of posters.

I didn't understand what you wrote (because of the way you wrote it, in this case) and I offered my explanation. Rather tan clarify there were personal jabs.  Which is "fine".  Then I got a clearer explanation from someone else and all was good and I realized I made a mistake in the reading of the post and moved on.

But why explain when you can imply?  Right?

Oh you mean I launched "personal jabs" responding to these types of questions?

GMDino Wrote:Was that suppose to make sense?

Did you mean more people did NOT vote than voted for any candidate?

Is it schizoid paranoia or just existential blues?


You don't get anything.  Well it seems you get people denying it happened for some reason. 

WTH, is wrong with me.

[GMDino]

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/364217-trump-accusers-to-unite-for-first-time-demand-congressional

Quote:Trump accusers to unite for first time, demand congressional investigation into allegations

Women who have publicly accused President Trump of sexual misconduct will call for Congress to investigate the allegations at a press conference on Monday.

The women will unite for the first time to demand the probe and share details of their allegations against Trump, according to a press release.

The conference is being hosted by Brave New Films, a film and campaigns organization that works for progressive causes. It released a film about the allegations against Trump in November.

More than a dozen women came forward with allegations of sexual misconduct against Trump during his presidential campaign.

Trump has denied the reports, and the White House has said its official position is that the women are lying.

Sexual misconduct has emerged as a major topic in recent weeks as prominent men in politics and entertainment have been accused of sexual harassment or abuse.

Hollywood mogul Harvey Weinstein, Kevin Spacey and Louis C.K. are among the men that have been accused of sexual misconduct.

And three lawmakers resigned or announced their resignation during the past week over sexual misconduct claims.

http://ew.com/tv/2017/12/11/trump-accusers-megyn-kelly-today/

Quote:Trump accusers speak out on Megyn Kelly Today: 'Where do we draw the line?'

Quote:[/url]Megyn Kelly TODAY

@MegynTODAY

“America is having a ‘Me Too’ moment, as men are being outed and punished for sometimes decades of sexual misconduct. But does that accountability extend to the oval office?” #MegynTODAY
9:09 AM - Dec 11, 2017

Megyn Kelly has been doggedly covering the mounting accusations of sexual misconduct against public figures over the last few months, and on Monday morning, the Today host turned to none other than President Donald Trump.


Kelly was joined by three women who accused Trump of sexual misconduct during the 2016 election cycle: Jessica Leeds, who claimed Trump groped her on an airplane; Samantha Holvey, who described Trump inappropriately leering at her and other pageant contestants in a dressing room in 2006; and Rachel Cooks, who alleged Trump forcibly and repeatedly kissed her on the lips in Trump Tower before asking for her phone number.


“America is having a ‘Me Too’ moment, as men … are being outed and punished for sometimes decades of sexual misconduct,” Kelly said at the show’s beginning. “But does that accountability extend to the Oval Office?” Kelly noted that Senator Cory Booker has requested that Trump resign in the wake of the allegations, the White House’s UN Ambassador Nikki Haley said that the president’s accusers deserve to be heard, and at least 16 women have publicly accused the president of sexual misconduct.

Quote:TODAY

@TODAYshow

“For us to put ourselves out there to try to show America who this man is and especially how he views women and for them to say ‘Eh, we don’t care,’ it hurt. Trump accuser Samantha Holvey on @MegynTODAY
9:09 AM - Dec 11, 2017

“We’re private citizens and for us to put ourselves out there and try and show America who this man is, and especially how he views women — for them to say ‘Meh, we don’t care,’ it hurt,” Holvey said after Kelly introduced her and the other two women. “Now it’s just like, alright, let’s just try round two. The environment’s different. Let’s try again.” Of Inauguration Day in January, Holvey added, “It was just a tough day because the country said, ‘We don’t care that he’s like this.'”


Kelly then asked the three women to describe, again, their alleged encounters with Trump. Cooks, who worked in Trump Tower and saw him frequently because her office was near where he’d take the elevator to his residency, recalled her experience in great detail. “He shook my hand and gave me the normal double-cheek kiss, but then he held onto my hand and he kept kissing me,” Cooks said. “He kept … kissing me again and again … And then he kissed me on the lips. I was shocked. Devastated.” Days later, Cooks says Trump asked for her phone number, which she provided out of fear.  “I was so uncomfortable and a little threatened, like I didn’t have a choice in agreeing to do that,” she said. “You feel like you have to say yes to [these] guys. You don’t want to be the nasty girl, the mean girl, who doesn’t comply and puts up a fight. I wish I had been stronger … Things would be a lot different now.”

Quote:Megyn Kelly TODAY

@MegynTODAY

WATCH: “He held onto my hand and he kept kissing me”- Trump accuser Rachel Cooks on #MegynTODAY
9:19 AM - Dec 11, 2017

Leeds, who was a traveling salesperson in the 1970s when Trump allegedly groped her, then described her encounter. She says a stewardess invited her to sit in First Class and that she was seated opposite Trump, whom she did not recognize as a public figure at the time. “All of a sudden, he’s all over me kissing and groping, and groping and kissing,” she said. “It was just this silent groping going on … When his hand started going up my skirt, I’m not a small person. I managed to wiggle out … and I went to the back of the airplane.” She admitted she didn’t tell anybody at the time: “I just thought, ‘Oh, that’s just some creep on an airplane.'”

Quote:Megyn Kelly TODAY

@MegynTODAY

WATCH: “When his hands went up my skirt, I managed to wiggle out” – Trump accuser Jessica Leeds on #MegynTODAY
9:37 AM - Dec 11, 2017

The White House provided a statement to Megyn Kelly TODAY on Monday morning, after previously declining a request for comment. “These false claims, totally disputed in most cases by eyewitness accounts, were addressed at length during last year’s campaign, and the American people voiced their judgment by delivering a decisive victory,” the statement read. “The timing and absurdity of these false claims speaks volumes and the publicity tour that has begun only further confirms the political motives behind them.”

The statement was read live on air as it came in, to which Cooks reacted, “It’s laughable. I just recently read a comment about ‘If this happened in Trump Tower, they have to have security footage. Where is that?’ I’m like, ‘Yes, where is that? Let’s get that out,’ because I would love for that to be made public.”

Quote:
[url=https://twitter.com/MegynTODAY]Megyn Kelly TODAY

@MegynTODAY

WATCH: "Where do we draw the line?" Trump accuser Samantha Holvey on #MegynTODAY
9:43 AM - Dec 11, 2017

Kelly asked the women about their current thoughts on Trump in light of the current climate, particularly with Trump stumping for Roy Moore, the Alabama Senate candidate who has been accused of sexually molesting and assaulting girls as young as 14 years old. (Moore denies the allegations.) “It gives me goosebumps,” Holvey responded. “Honestly, it gives me goosebumps whenever they say that … Where do we draw the line? Where do we draw the line as women coming together in this country saying, ‘No. We don’t want to be treated like that anymore. We no longer accept this. It’s happened long enough. No.’ When does that happen?”

[Mike M (the other one)]

(12-09-2017, 12:26 AM)hollodero Wrote: Not quite. It's actually not that complicated. If 48% voted Hillary, 52% voted for someone else than Hillary. Which might very well lead to the conclusion that a majority voted for, ergo wanted someone else than Hillary.
If you define "majority" as "more votes than anyone else", then ok. One might break down it to a definition question. I can just say, in all democracies I know that result would not warrant to call Hillary the winner. In yours, it doesn't mean much. In European ones, there would be a second runoff election.



Maybe it is. I agree with you in principle, but technically no one got the majority of all votes. That Hillary got more votes than Trump is undisputed.

Who cares? Who is the current POTUS again?

[hollodero]

(12-11-2017, 03:09 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Who cares? Who is the current POTUS again?

As I already said, it doesn't mean much. If you look at it, I'm actually not on the "other side" on that one :)

[Mike M (the other one)]

(12-08-2017, 11:42 PM)hollodero Wrote:  appreciated... and that's quite the list. I can only randomly check these out, but at least some sure deserve some mention. I am quite certain the Bayer-Monsanto deal was in the making independently of Trump, some others might not have to do anything with him, but overall I certainly have to admit that the economic data you posted do work in Trump's favor.

Since I'm certainly biased against him, I still think the bubble will burst and unemployment wasn't that big of a problem to begin with compared to bad wages. But that's not what I asked for, so again you have a point and the point is well taken.


(Still I want to kick the 5,73 % "others" in the butt)

yes big list, and I never said they were all directly because of Trump. Just saying that it's happening on his watch, so he gets some credit for it.

Kinda like how Obama takes all of the credit for saving the Automotive jobs/industry in the US.
No one should overlook the importance of Bush’s decision to use $17.6 billion in TARP money in December 2008 to keep General Motors and Chrysler from filing bankruptcy then. The Bush administration provided the short-term bridge for Obama to get an accurate assessment of the situation and try to fix it.

Basically if it's good and on your watch, you take credit for it, if it's bad, find a way to blame it on your predecessor.

[GMDino]

(12-11-2017, 03:09 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Who cares? Who is the current POTUS again?

Trump cares.

He's still claiming he won in a landslide.  

http://www.cnn.com/2017/12/08/politics/trump-pensacola-florida-rally/index.html

Three days ago.



http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2017/dec/08/fact-checking-trumps-make-america-great-again-spee/

Quote:"Hillary resisted and you know what happened? She lost the election in a landslide."


It is False that Trump won the election in a landslide. Clinton won the popular vote.

Trump’s 304 votes in the Electoral College ranks him no better than the bottom quarter of Electoral College showings in American history, and no better than the bottom one-third of the showings since the end of World War II.

"If Trump’s election was a landslide, then the word ‘landslide’ has no meaning," said University of Denver political scientist Seth Masket.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(12-11-2017, 03:47 PM)GMDino Wrote: Trump cares.

He's still claiming he won in a landslide.  

http://www.cnn.com/2017/12/08/politics/trump-pensacola-florida-rally/index.html

Three days ago.



http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2017/dec/08/fact-checking-trumps-make-america-great-again-spee/

LOL Only Trump then, the rest of us have moved on.
he just likes embellishing on his Wins.

btw, earlier in the thread I said this:
"Trump's accusers only came out once he was running"



Straight from your CNN posts:
"More than a dozen women came forward with allegations of sexual misconduct against Trump during his presidential campaign."

The fact that they happened in the past is lost by the political assassination attempt, then throw in Allred representing some of them, and people are really ignoring it.

Wait though, isn't Gloria Allreds daughter representing one of those guys (Weinstein) that's been accused by multiple women for harassment??