JCMan8 wrote:
Quote:

caj11 wrote:
Quote:

brewster wrote:
Quote:

135jc wrote:
Quote:

hero69 wrote:
Scumbag wants top security clearance for his children. wtf

So someone says he wants to make America great and you call him a scumbag.

Some of us judge him by what he has done, like leaving a trail of stiffed contractors, bankruptcies, and molested women, rather than what he says he will do.

Regarding the stiffed contractors and bankruptcies, I've been to a few friends' BBQs in central and southern Jersey, and I met more than one family who went without a Christmas after the Taj Mahal filed bankruptcy, because their family run businesses had been sub-contractors or vendors for that property. Most got around 33 cents on the dollar of what they were owed if they were lucky. Many long-time family owned small contractor businesses were simply ruined after Trump used the bankruptcy process to weasel out of paying what he rightfully owed. Despite all those families being ruined and going to work for other contractors or any menial job they could get, do you think Trump ever stopped riding around in his limousines, yachts and helicopters after the Taj's three separate bankruptcies? I doubt it. His lifestyle was not affected.

It's not just this that matters though - Trump has zero elected experience. He is as qualified to run this country as Jesse Jackson was when he ran in 1984. If you're going to run for the most powerful elected office in the world, you should have *some* lower office experience first - you don't need to be a career politician like Bernie Sanders, but at least one lower level elected office would be nice.

Trump will demonstrate to you how instincts and judgment are far more important than experience in a President.

More importantly, all of Hillary's experience is bad. She's like a CEO who ran her former company into the ground. Think of the election as picking the CEO of a new company. While it's true to say that Hillary was the only candidate with CEO experience, she sucked, so it's not like her experience is much of a positive factor when you put it into proper context.

He's surrounded by the best people and that suffices.

135jc wrote:
Quote:

hero69 wrote:
Scumbag wants top security clearance for his children. wtf

So someone says he wants to make America great and you call him a scumbag.

JCMan8 wrote:
President Trump has earned his mandate, and he will run the country as he sees fit. Instead of trying to undermine him at every possible opportunity, you should sit back and be happy as he Makes America Great Again.

third_street_hats wrote:
Quote:

WhoElseCouldIBe wrote:
Quote:

Monroe wrote:
Quote:

fat-ass-bike wrote:
The 'He isn't might President' protest is stupid - The ass-wipe (in my opinion and those of many others) was elected legally and I know my options when a game show host is elected president.

The Kardashians should take a hard look at running at the next elections !

Are you kidding? The Hollywood types who all pledged to move to Canada would all vote for a Kardashian.

I wonder why no one is saying they want to move to Mexico? :)

Most likely because the predominant language in almost all of Canada is English and the infrastructure and political climate are much more in line with what Americans are used to. Do you disagree?

hero69 wrote: Quote:

WhoElseCouldIBe wrote: Quote:

TheBigGuy wrote: Quote:

WhoElseCouldIBe wrote: Quote:

TheBigGuy wrote: Notice the store hours? Quote:

paulushooker wrote:

I stopped in here today and I could not believe the pastries. They are baked on the premises by the owner (who is French) and were still hot from the oven.

They have espresso and 6 or 7 different varieties of French pastries as well as sanwdiches but no French bread.

Incredibly nice people too. They're in Tommy 2 Scoops' old place at 177 York St. I'm so happy!

Ever run a small retail business before?

That was helpful... now do you have the answer to my question or are you just being a jerk? This is a specialized "retail store" and they might not have evening hours.

Sorry, that you were making a flippant comment about the French not working a lot hours :)

the french worker might not work as many hours as us workers, but he/she is almost as productive as the american worker. quality, not quantity, sweetie!

Monroe wrote:
Quote:

fat-ass-bike wrote:
The 'He isn't might President' protest is stupid - The ass-wipe (in my opinion and those of many others) was elected legally and I know my options when a game show host is elected president.

The Kardashians should take a hard look at running at the next elections !

Are you kidding? The Hollywood types who all pledged to move to Canada would all vote for a Kardashian.

TheBigGuy wrote: Quote:

WhoElseCouldIBe wrote: Quote:

TheBigGuy wrote: Notice the store hours? Quote:

paulushooker wrote:

I stopped in here today and I could not believe the pastries. They are baked on the premises by the owner (who is French) and were still hot from the oven.

They have espresso and 6 or 7 different varieties of French pastries as well as sanwdiches but no French bread.

Incredibly nice people too. They're in Tommy 2 Scoops' old place at 177 York St. I'm so happy!

Ever run a small retail business before?

That was helpful... now do you have the answer to my question or are you just being a jerk? This is a specialized "retail store" and they might not have evening hours.

TheBigGuy wrote: Notice the store hours? Quote:

paulushooker wrote:

I stopped in here today and I could not believe the pastries. They are baked on the premises by the owner (who is French) and were still hot from the oven.

They have espresso and 6 or 7 different varieties of French pastries as well as sanwdiches but no French bread.

Incredibly nice people too. They're in Tommy 2 Scoops' old place at 177 York St. I'm so happy!

La_Verdad wrote:
Quote:

bill wrote:
Lol if California even tried to seriously leave the Union the military would squash it so fast.

"Yes California is the nonviolent campaign to establish the country of California using any and all legal and constitutional means to do so. We advocate for peaceful secession from the United States by use of an independence referendum to establish a mandate, followed by a nationwide campaign to advocate in support of a constitutional exit from the Union."

Why would non-Californians support this? What about the tax base!

I'm not suggesting this is easily done or probably even feasible (today) - just curious how people feel about it.

You kind of make my (and their) points quite well:

California (like NJ, NY, CT and other higher-earning, high-taxed states) subsidizes a lot of the rest of the country. Why should they (we?) be concerned about "the tax base". And it the military would have to be called in to put it down - seems like a good indication of the fact that Californians probably aren't getting a good deal by being in the union if they have to be compelled to stay at gunpoint.

I truly believe the country will split up in my lifetime - culturally the union is untenable. I've felt this way for quite a while (although I used to think it would be beyond my lifetime) and a book I read a couple of years ago makes a great case for it - "American Nations".

SOS wrote:
Nate Silver Blew It Bigly on the Election ? Can His Brand Recover?

?Nate was arrogant. His numbers were all over the place. The title of ?guru? is now gone,? media pundit Joe Concha tells TheWrap

Brian Flood | November 9, 2016 @ 4:05 PM

In 2012, when Mitt Romney seemed close to defeating President Obama, Democrats took to tweeting the slogan ?Keep Calm and Trust in Nate Silver.?

The New York Times prognosticator called all 50 states correctly, and leveraged his fame as the nation?s predictor-in-chief into a new role at ESPN, where he founded the site FiveThirtyEight.

But after Thursday?s win for Donald Trump, the days of trusting in Nate Silver may be over. Most pollsters and data journalists were wrong, too. But none have his reputation to live up to.

?Nate was arrogant. His numbers were all over the place. The title of ?guru? is now gone,? The Hill media reporter Joe Concha told TheWrap. He said Silver?s career will survive, but ?never again will he be held in any revered regard.?


On Monday, Silver predicted that Trump had a 1-in-3 chance of defeating Hillary Clinton. Some other pundits thought Silver was being too generous: Huffington Post Washington bureau chief Ryan Grim accused him of ?putting his thumb on the scales? to give Trump a better chance of wining.

(Grim tweeted an apology to Silver on Election Night, saying there was ?far more uncertainty than we were accounting for.?)

By Tuesday morning, Silver?s site reported that Clinton had a 71.4 percent chance of winning the election.
That was a huge improvement over his numbers earlier in the year: Back in January, Silver couldn?t make up his mind on where Trump stood.

?I don?t think his chances are zero. You have to be very careful about saying they?re zero, but I think they?re lower than 20 [percent] or 25 percent. Maybe they?re 10 percent. Maybe they?re 8 percent. I?m not sure, somewhere in that range,? Silver told Adweek.

The credibility questions arrive at an odd time for FiveThirtyEight.

ESPN shut down Grantland, its sports and pop culture website, abruptly in 2015 after the company had a nasty split with its founder, Bill Simmons. Grantland had a niche fan base and a staff of extremely talented writers ? just like FiveThirtyEight.

But Grantland was relevant every day, while nobody will care about presidential polling for at least three years. FiveThirtyEight has branched out in other ways, covering sports data and even ranking burritos, so it clearly won?t limit itself to politics.

Silver is the face of the data reporting, which had been seen as one of the only growth sectors in journalism. After this election, the threat to it may go well beyond one site.

?I?ve believed in data for 30 years in politics and data died tonight,? GOP strategist Mike Murphy tweeted. ?I could not have been more wrong about this election.?

More than 16.5 million unique users, an all-time record, visited FiveThirtyEight on Election Night.

http://www.thewrap.com/nate-silver-bl ... on-can-his-brand-recover/

SOS wrote:
Quote:

WhoElseCouldIBe wrote:
Quote:

SOS wrote:
Quote:

WhoElseCouldIBe wrote:
Quote:

SOS wrote:
Quote:

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

SOS wrote:
Quote:

TheBigGuy wrote:
Quote:

SOS wrote:
Quote:

TheBigGuy wrote:
Quote:

fat-ass-bike wrote:

And never a truer word spoken about Hillary.

Do you honestly believe that Trump will win?

Not sure what the point of the question is about. I am voting against Hillary , both her public face and her private face.

Nearly every policy position she espouses is wrong Her job is to keep Wall Street happy, If Bill , Hillary and Chelsea can just skim a little bit of the global trillion dollar scam while selling out America, no problem.

After all they feel they are enlightened and entitled to it all. And a vote for them enables their narcissism and corruption.

I'm concerned that Trump supporters are deluded into believing that he has a real shot at winning. It isn't going to happen, unless something huge drops this weekend. Anything is possible in this election.

So much for that prognostication.

Yup that's what happens with once in a lifetime upsets. Sam Wang PhD didn't get it right either. http://election.princeton.edu/2016/11 ... i-senate-seats-gop-house/

It wasn't a once in a lifetime upset for 538. How do you explain that?

You made a foolish prediction before the election, that's it.

I made a bad prediction based on foolish/flawed polling methods.

And you conveniently ignored 538's poll because you wanted to bury your head in the sand. I didn't even vote for Trump but you were being foolish.

LOL 538 called the election wrong too. His site goes back to his roots - baseball statistics. Silver needs to generate interest 365 days a year. And as it turns out Clinton may squeak by with winning the popular vote. There are several good post-mortem analysis articles of how the polls were wrong - which I won't be posting. If you want to continue your foolish discussion, knock yourself out, but I'm going to move on.

SOS wrote:
Quote:

WhoElseCouldIBe wrote:
Quote:

SOS wrote:
Quote:

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

SOS wrote:
Quote:

TheBigGuy wrote:
Quote:

SOS wrote:
Quote:

TheBigGuy wrote:
Quote:

fat-ass-bike wrote:

And never a truer word spoken about Hillary.

Do you honestly believe that Trump will win?

Not sure what the point of the question is about. I am voting against Hillary , both her public face and her private face.

Nearly every policy position she espouses is wrong Her job is to keep Wall Street happy, If Bill , Hillary and Chelsea can just skim a little bit of the global trillion dollar scam while selling out America, no problem.

After all they feel they are enlightened and entitled to it all. And a vote for them enables their narcissism and corruption.

I'm concerned that Trump supporters are deluded into believing that he has a real shot at winning. It isn't going to happen, unless something huge drops this weekend. Anything is possible in this election.

So much for that prognostication.

Yup that's what happens with once in a lifetime upsets. Sam Wang PhD didn't get it right either. http://election.princeton.edu/2016/11 ... i-senate-seats-gop-house/

It wasn't a once in a lifetime upset for 538. How do you explain that?

You made a foolish prediction before the election, that's it.

I made a bad prediction based on foolish/flawed polling methods.

SOS wrote:
Quote:

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

SOS wrote:
Quote:

TheBigGuy wrote:
Quote:

SOS wrote:
Quote:

TheBigGuy wrote:
Quote:

fat-ass-bike wrote:

And never a truer word spoken about Hillary.

Do you honestly believe that Trump will win?

Not sure what the point of the question is about. I am voting against Hillary , both her public face and her private face.

Nearly every policy position she espouses is wrong Her job is to keep Wall Street happy, If Bill , Hillary and Chelsea can just skim a little bit of the global trillion dollar scam while selling out America, no problem.

After all they feel they are enlightened and entitled to it all. And a vote for them enables their narcissism and corruption.

I'm concerned that Trump supporters are deluded into believing that he has a real shot at winning. It isn't going to happen, unless something huge drops this weekend. Anything is possible in this election.

So much for that prognostication.

Yup that's what happens with once in a lifetime upsets. Sam Wang PhD didn't get it right either. http://election.princeton.edu/2016/11 ... i-senate-seats-gop-house/

TheBigGuy wrote:
Quote:

manu wrote:
Quote:

TheBigGuy wrote:
Quote:

SOS wrote:
Quote:

jcneighbor wrote:
Hillary Clinton said the Clinton Foundation gives ?90% of their proceeds? to charitable organizations. This is their ?Form 990?, required by the IRS for all charities. In 2013, they had total revenue of $148,889,439 (Line 12). Their TOTAL Grants to Charity were $8,865,052 (Line 13). That is a measly 5.95%!!!!! Now, they are so efficient that it cost them a total of $84,684,494 in expenses (Line 18) to give away $8,865,052 to charity!!!! Including $29,914,108 in salaries (Line 15), $185,970 in fundraising fees (Line 16a, that?s actually legitimate), and a WHOPPING $45,719,364 (Line 17) in ?other expenses?!!!!! So AFTER all that hard charitable work, they end the year with $247,299,458 (Line 22), a cool $100,000,000 more than was contributed for the year!!! Folks, no matter how you slice and dice it, this is simply a blatant money laundering program. They don?t even try to hide it!!! Oh, and Congress wanted to investigate the Clinton Foundation and the DOJ stepped in and blocked it!

It blows my mind how otherwise intelligent people can swallow the alt right bs.

http://www.factcheck.org/2015/06/wher ... nton-foundation-money-go/

...We looked at the consolidated financial statements (see page 4) and calculated that in 2013, 88.3 percent of spending was designated as going toward program services ? $196.6 million out of $222.6 million in reported expenses....

Any mention of how much went to pay for Chelsea's wedding... you don't think Bill and Hillary would have paid for it?

http://nypost.com/2016/11/06/chelsea- ... p-pay-for-wedding-emails/

FactCheck.org is phony "non-partisan" group funded by George Soros. The fact is CFS rarely files appropriate paperwork required by law on time and unless they pushed.

When they do file something, it usually turns out to be filled with lies or with information left out. The initial filing goes on the public record and then months later they file an amendment to "correct the math error or omission in reporting a donor" The filing FactCheck reviewed was a lie to begin with and they help spread disinformation.

Do you also have issues with Charity Navigator? It gives the Clinton Foundation a 4-star rating (its best rating):
https://www.charitynavigator.org/index ... earch.summary&orgid=16680

Don't have an opinion on that Charity site... except to say, once again this site is dependent on CFS 990s and CFS website for their information to assess.

Looking at CFS... Admin Expenses are 3X what most charities are... no controls on CEO Compensation, which probably means Board Members too.... additionally

http://www.thenonprofittimes.com/news ... ation-re-files-form-990s/

With that track record... anything they file should be suspect, which is why the FBI is being restricted from taking a deep dive into the CFS by Lynch and Obama.

I especially like how they did not report revenue from speeches.

SOS wrote:
Quote:

jerseymom wrote:
Paul Sperry PAUL SPERRY
NEWS
Clinton directed her maid to print out classified materials
By Paul Sperry November 6, 2016 | 4:53am | Updated

As secretary of state, Hillary Clinton routinely asked her maid to print out sensitive government e-mails and documents ? including ones containing classified information ? from her house in Washington, DC, e-mails and FBI memos show. But the housekeeper lacked the security clearance to handle such material.

Source

Of all things going on in the campaign this is what you chose to post?

We'll soon have our first female president. That's something to celebrate! America is great.

SOS wrote:
Quote:

WhoElseCouldIBe wrote:
Quote:

SOS wrote:
Clinton is still in very good shape-

http://www.270towin.com/news/2016/11/ ... -of-november-3rd_407.html

Unless the polling is way off I don't see how she can lose.

Good shape =/= no chance of losing

You're being intellectually dishonest and no one is buying it.

Is Nate Silver right?
Most polling models show Hillary Clinton winning easily. Why is 538 more cautious?
By STEVEN SHEPARD 11/04/16 11:55 AM EDT

"The latest RealClearPolitics projections have the race teetering on a knife?s edge. But other, more complex forecast models ? based on the same polls ? give Clinton a 98 percent or 99 percent chance of defeating Trump next Tuesday.

"As of noon Friday, the models and polling averages ranged from RealClearPolitics? close-to-tied electoral map ? if Florida were to flip back to Trump, he would be ahead in the Electoral College ? to HuffPost Pollster and the Princeton Election Consortium, which each show Clinton?s chances close to 100 percent, and Daily Kos Elections? model gives Clinton a 91 percent chance of winning.

In the middle are models from two high-profile data-journalism sites, FiveThirtyEight and The New York Times? Upshot. But those two models aren?t in complete agreement, either. FiveThirtyEight?s ?polls-only? model pegs Clinton?s chances at 67.8 percent as of late Friday morning, while the Upshot model is more bullish at 84 percent."

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11 ... e-silver-538-right-230734


I believe that Nate Silver will be wrong. And when will this thing wrap up?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/ar ... -334pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory

SOS wrote:
Clinton is still in very good shape-

http://www.270towin.com/news/2016/11/ ... -of-november-3rd_407.html

Unless the polling is way off I don't see how she can lose.

SOS wrote:
Quote:

WhoElseCouldIBe wrote:
Quote:

SOS wrote:
Quote:

TheBigGuy wrote:
Quote:

SOS wrote:
Quote:

TheBigGuy wrote:
Quote:

fat-ass-bike wrote:

And never a truer word spoken about Hillary.

Do you honestly believe that Trump will win?

Not sure what the point of the question is about. I am voting against Hillary , both her public face and her private face.

Nearly every policy position she espouses is wrong Her job is to keep Wall Street happy, If Bill , Hillary and Chelsea can just skim a little bit of the global trillion dollar scam while selling out America, no problem.

After all they feel they are enlightened and entitled to it all. And a vote for them enables their narcissism and corruption.

I'm concerned that Trump supporters are deluded into believing that he has a real shot at winning. It isn't going to happen, unless something huge drops this weekend. Anything is possible in this election.

I think Trump is a disaster but you're a fool if you don't think Trump doesn't have a chance at winning.

538 has him at 33% right now. Wake up and pay attention.

The race is getting tighter, more excitement I guess but fundamentals are the same. Trump will lose.

http://election.princeton.edu/
Nate Silver - 538 has sold out to get page hits in my opinion.
But on Tuesday night I'll be consuming some alcohol...

SOS wrote:
Quote:

TheBigGuy wrote:
Quote:

SOS wrote:
Quote:

TheBigGuy wrote:
Quote:

fat-ass-bike wrote:

And never a truer word spoken about Hillary.

Do you honestly believe that Trump will win?

Not sure what the point of the question is about. I am voting against Hillary , both her public face and her private face.

Nearly every policy position she espouses is wrong Her job is to keep Wall Street happy, If Bill , Hillary and Chelsea can just skim a little bit of the global trillion dollar scam while selling out America, no problem.

After all they feel they are enlightened and entitled to it all. And a vote for them enables their narcissism and corruption.

I'm concerned that Trump supporters are deluded into believing that he has a real shot at winning. It isn't going to happen, unless something huge drops this weekend. Anything is possible in this election.

Monroe wrote:
All good suggestions, but I'm shocked not to see the usual JC replies

You're a petroNazi! How dare you live in JC and want a car!

You better park that inside your building, and not take up any space on the street!

Idiot, you can't use Uber? Zipcar?? Citibike??? We're a transport hub!

We have Peapod, Fresh Direct, and Amazon-why would you need some gas guzzling SUV that is spewing particulates towards my children!

JCGuys wrote:
Anyone know why they're killing 33rd street service slightly after rush hour today?

Monroe wrote:
Quote:

SOS wrote:
Quote:

Monroe wrote:
Good job, Gov. Why should low life criminals be the only people to pack?

Unfortunately this won't help in time with the post election riots that Trump is encouraging. Trump takes irresponsibility to a new and extreme level.

Is this a distraction from the news from WikiLeaks that shows that the DNC was hiring people to incite riots at Trump rallies?

fat-ass-bike wrote:
WhoElseCouldIBe at work as the official Hillary cheerleader

135jc wrote:
Quote:

WhoElseCouldIBe wrote:
Quote:

135jc wrote:
Quote:

Mao wrote:
These are the same folks from White Star, are they not?

Yes. The owner's name is Mateusz (Mat) so not sure where the name Matthews comes from.

Mateusz
Matthews

You're really not sure where the name came from?

If your name is Mateusz
It's not spelled Matthew's

Pretty simple.

135jc wrote:
Quote:

Mao wrote:
These are the same folks from White Star, are they not?

Yes. The owner's name is Mateusz (Mat) so not sure where the name Matthews comes from.