I was right: President Elect Trump

[dezailoooooo]

Nov 4, 2016 14:00:14 GMT -5 Iggy aka IG said:

Nov 4, 2016 13:41:20 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

What people are going to have to come to grips with who are in the media, and in polling organizations, and who do political consulting-- is that this is not 2008, and it's not 2012. Treating this like a traditional election year where the usual formulas apply is a YUGE mistake.

Agreed.  I just had a lengthy conversation with a like minded client.  Things have changed, especially with the African-American voters in his opinion.

Oh, and the latest poll I looked at had my state heavily leaning toward Hillary.  Guess who conducted the poll?  U of Boulder-the largest Colorado liberal school. 

IMHO...for a black voter to vote for the Donald is on a par with a German Jew voting for Herr Hitler in 1933..long before the final solution but not before the publishing of Mein KAUF,,his life story and his aspirations and beliefs..in print..toward others, primarily Jews but also Communists and such..plus like his rallies and his feeling and verbals..this man was so full of dislike and hate and public about it,,...so similar to the Donald who didn't write the book but has the verbals from the primaries to the actual campaign...and actually for some blacks his slogan "what do u have to lose"..they have so much to lose...

I have been in daily contact with people of color..my wonderful care givers, and what surprised me is how in tune they are in this election, all of them, and their friends..seems many phone calls a day..and ALL..definitely against the Donald, big time...and follow every little thing that comes out...

For the Donald to gain the office of POTUS would be a disaster on the level of 9/11, Pearl Harbor, the San Francisco earthquake as well as the most recent big one in california a few years back...the bombing at  the Boston Marathon, the bombing in  Oklahoma and every other disaster that has hit our country...

[dezailoooooo]

Nov 4, 2016 18:13:43 GMT -5 dondub said:

I simply cannot believe that you and the other Democrats here are not smart enough to realize that money is all Hillary cares about, she cares NOTHING for the country at all-- it's all about making a buck.

Just another in a long line of scurrilous accusations with no basis in fact or reality.

So untrue...when Bill left office, beyond a pension they were basically broke..especially for two highly intelligent professionals..attorneys...

As a former POTUS  he had the opportunity to write a book on his experiences..and as all former Presidents was paid very well for that endeavor. Are u suggesting he should not have written the book and taken the $. Also, being one of the better communicators and also populer, he was asked to give speeches and as all famouse people, paid very well for them..the same with his wife when her public service was over..Your suggesting she too should not have given those speeches..basically perforning in her new business...speech giver..and refused the renumeration?

Now they are no longer almost broke ..in fact very comfortable..and your suggesting in our country of entrepenures and go getters this is wrong?

[Deleted]

Nov 4, 2016 18:13:43 GMT -5 dondub said:

I simply cannot believe that you and the other Democrats here are not smart enough to realize that money is all Hillary cares about, she cares NOTHING for the country at all-- it's all about making a buck.


Just another in a long line of scurrilous accusations with no basis in fact or reality.

About the underlined (because the bolded was dondub "quoting"):

Except, of course, for the facts and reality that prove it... that have been posted (and ignored by her supporters) ad nauseam... of course.

[Deleted]

Nov 4, 2016 18:38:14 GMT -5 tallguy said:

Our choice of leaders matters. Our respect for institutions matters. Trust in the democratic process matters. Freedom of the press matters. An independent judiciary matters. And it matters that America continues to believe itself a country that welcomes “your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.”

Imagine for the moment that it would be possible to set aside Trump’s repulsive personal behavior and evaluate him on his more aspirational merits. Trump as President substantially increases the risk of grave and direct harm to American citizens.

A president has checks and balances domestically, but sits virtually unbound when it comes to global affairs. Trump has lied and contradicted himself on every major foreign policy question; demonstrated a cavalier attitude toward the use of nuclear weapons; insulted veterans and current service members; stoked ethnic and religious violence; acted in support of Putin (the single person doing the most to erode global order); repeatedly demonstrated his thin skin and personal vindictiveness; and, most damagingly, undermined the trust and institutions of our republic.
---------------------------------------------------------
There’s nothing irreversible in America’s character that makes the country forever safe. ISIS, as it stands today, cannot compare to the threat that someone like Trump could pose to the US. The world has not matured past the specter of global conflict or the possibility of nuclear holocaust. We are not inherently different than all those previous generations who also thought they had reached the end of major wars. For our safety and as the world’s indispensable nation, America cannot have a President Trump.

Hillary Clinton is more than simply an alternative to Trump. She has certainly made mistakes, often amplified by a lack of transparency. Moreover, the Clintons have often allowed themselves to be surrounded by a political courtier class that embodies the establishment and is rife with potential conflicts of interest. But Clinton has also routinely been saddled with negative baggage that is not her own, but instead a byproduct of an exceptionally visible and polarizing political life. She is smart, thorough, and diligent in her study of complex topics. In the foreign policy world that I know best, I believe she could be among the most capable presidents of the last century.

A former Marine Corps officer on why voters must defeat Donald Trump

It's a little out of date (May 9th 2016)... but it's an interesting rebuttal to that ONE Marine (who I thank for his service):

Military Times survey: Troops prefer Trump to Clinton by a huge margin

[Opti]

Nov 4, 2016 20:32:50 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Nov 4, 2016 18:13:43 GMT -5 dondub said:

I simply cannot believe that you and the other Democrats here are not smart enough to realize that money is all Hillary cares about, she cares NOTHING for the country at all-- it's all about making a buck.


Just another in a long line of scurrilous accusations with no basis in fact or reality.

About the underlined (because the bolded was dondub "quoting"):

Except, of course, for the facts and reality that prove it... that have been posted (and ignored by her supporters) ad nauseam... of course.

You mean the money that goes to the Foundation that gets spent on programs?

[Deleted]

Nov 4, 2016 20:09:58 GMT -5 dezailoooooo said:

Nov 4, 2016 18:13:43 GMT -5 dondub said:

I simply cannot believe that you and the other Democrats here are not smart enough to realize that money is all Hillary cares about, she cares NOTHING for the country at all-- it's all about making a buck.

Just another in a long line of scurrilous accusations with no basis in fact or reality.

So untrue...when Bill left office, beyond a pension they were basically broke..especially for two highly intelligent professionals..attorneys...

As a former POTUS  he had the opportunity to write a book on his experiences..and as all former Presidents was paid very well for that endeavor. Are u suggesting he should not have written the book and taken the $. Also, being one of the better communicators and also populer, he was asked to give speeches and as all famouse people, paid very well for them..the same with his wife when her public service was over..Your suggesting she too should not have given those speeches..basically perforning in her new business...speech giver..and refused the renumeration?

Now they are no longer almost broke ..in fact very comfortable..and your suggesting in our country of entrepenures and go getters this is wrong?

Except for their annual "retirement" package of just under $200,000.

I've said this before: I wish I could be so "broke" that I only had a $200,000 pension to live on.

[Deleted]

Nov 4, 2016 20:40:03 GMT -5 Opti said:

Nov 4, 2016 20:32:50 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

About the underlined (because the bolded was dondub "quoting"):

Except, of course, for the facts and reality that prove it... that have been posted (and ignored by her supporters) ad nauseam... of course.

You mean the money that goes to the Foundation that gets spent on programs?

Nope. I mean the money that gets spent on access to Hillary.

[tallguy]

Nov 4, 2016 20:38:34 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Nov 4, 2016 18:38:14 GMT -5 tallguy said:

A former Marine Corps officer on why voters must defeat Donald Trump

It's a little out of date (May 9th 2016)... but it's an interesting rebuttal to that ONE Marine (who I thank for his service):

Military Times survey: Troops prefer Trump to Clinton by a huge margin

From the article:

In the latest survey, nearly half of respondents identified as Republicans, and only 18 percent as Democrats. That partisan divide accounted for much of Trump’s support.

Which means, if you dig into it at all, that Clinton outperformed relative to her party's representation to a greater degree than did Trump.  Which means, further, that if the representation of Democrats and Republicans were equal that she would likely have beaten him easily.  But, take from it what you want.  

[Deleted]

Nov 4, 2016 20:45:40 GMT -5 tallguy said:

Nov 4, 2016 20:38:34 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

It's a little out of date (May 9th 2016)... but it's an interesting rebuttal to that ONE Marine (who I thank for his service):

Military Times survey: Troops prefer Trump to Clinton by a huge margin

From the article:

In the latest survey, nearly half of respondents identified as Republicans, and only 18 percent as Democrats. That partisan divide accounted for much of Trump’s support.

Which means, if you dig into it at all, that Clinton outperformed relative to her party's representation to a greater degree than did Trump.  Which means, further, that if the representation of Democrats and Republicans were equal that she would likely have beaten him easily.  But, take from it what you want.  

Since they took people randomly, that just shows that more Republicans are likely willing to serve. They didn't go out and pick 500 Republicans and 500 Democrats and ask them. They used random sampling. 

Is that bad news for Clinton? Probably.

Is bad news for Clinton good news for the US? Definitely.

ETA: my bad... it wasn't "random sampling" it was e-mail (a LOT of them), and 951 people responded. Still... my point stands... they didn't cherry pick.

[tallguy]

Nov 4, 2016 20:51:29 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Nov 4, 2016 20:45:40 GMT -5 tallguy said:

From the article:

Which means, if you dig into it at all, that Clinton outperformed relative to her party's representation to a greater degree than did Trump.  Which means, further, that if the representation of Democrats and Republicans were equal that she would likely have beaten him easily.  But, take from it what you want.  

Since they took people randomly, that just shows that more Republicans are likely willing to serve. They didn't go out and pick 500 Republicans and 500 Democrats and ask them. They used random sampling. 

Is that bad news for Clinton? Probably.

Is bad news for Clinton good news for the US? Definitely.

ETA: my bad... it wasn't "random sampling" it was e-mail (a LOT of them), and 951 people responded. Still... my point stands... they didn't cherry pick.

No, your point does not stand mathematically.  Do you really not know why?

[Deleted]

Nov 4, 2016 21:00:37 GMT -5 tallguy said:

Nov 4, 2016 20:51:29 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Since they took people randomly, that just shows that more Republicans are likely willing to serve. They didn't go out and pick 500 Republicans and 500 Democrats and ask them. They used random sampling. 

Is that bad news for Clinton? Probably.

Is bad news for Clinton good news for the US? Definitely.

ETA: my bad... it wasn't "random sampling" it was e-mail (a LOT of them), and 951 people responded. Still... my point stands... they didn't cherry pick.

No, your point does not stand mathematically.  Do you really not know why?

It actually does stand (there wasn't anything mathematical about my point). Do you really not know why?

[Tennesseer]

So Melania was working in the U.S. before she was legally able to do so.  Send her to jail.

Trump's wife modeled in US prior to getting work visa

WASHINGTON — Documents obtained by The Associated Press from 20 years ago show that Melania Trump was paid for 10 modeling jobs in the United States worth $20,056 before she had legal permission to work in the country.

The documents provide the most detailed accounting yet of Mrs. Trump's first months in the U.S. She has said she followed all immigration laws as she moved from Slovenia to New York in August 1996 and obtained a work visa about seven weeks later.

The documents show she was paid for 10 modeling assignments between Sept. 10 and Oct. 15, before she would have been legally allowed to be paid.

It is highly unlikely that the discovery will affect the citizenship status of Mrs. Trump. She has been a citizen since July 2006.

Trump's wife modeled in US prior to getting work visa

[Deleted]

Nov 4, 2016 21:31:16 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

So Melania was working in the U.S. before she was legally able to do so.  Send her to jail.

Trump's wife modeled in US prior to getting work visa

WASHINGTON — Documents obtained by The Associated Press from 20 years ago show that Melania Trump was paid for 10 modeling jobs in the United States worth $20,056 before she had legal permission to work in the country.

The documents provide the most detailed accounting yet of Mrs. Trump's first months in the U.S. She has said she followed all immigration laws as she moved from Slovenia to New York in August 1996 and obtained a work visa about seven weeks later.

The documents show she was paid for 10 modeling assignments between Sept. 10 and Oct. 15, before she would have been legally allowed to be paid.

It is highly unlikely that the discovery will affect the citizenship status of Mrs. Trump. She has been a citizen since July 2006.

Trump's wife modeled in US prior to getting work visa

Do they know WHEN "between Sept. 10 and Oct. 15"... and when in August did she arrive (important to know, to start the clock on her "7 weeks")?

Also, when was she paid for the work? That matters because for example: all work I do AFTER turning in my last time sheet for my last paycheck of the year... I still do it that year, but the PAY for it goes on the taxes of the FOLLOWING year, when I actually receive the money. Timing is everything.

I'm not saying she's not guilty... I'm just saying that there are unanswered questions.

[Opti]

Nov 4, 2016 20:44:19 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Nov 4, 2016 20:40:03 GMT -5 Opti said:

You mean the money that goes to the Foundation that gets spent on programs?

Nope. I mean the money that gets spent on access to Hillary.

If some folks give to the Foundation believing they are going to get better access, does not make it true. To prove pay to play, you would need to show that the Clintons solicited these donations in exchange for favors like access.

[Deleted]

Nov 4, 2016 21:47:06 GMT -5 Opti said:

Nov 4, 2016 20:44:19 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Nope. I mean the money that gets spent on access to Hillary.

If some folks give to the Foundation believing they are going to get better access, does not make it true. To prove pay to play, you would need to show that the Clintons solicited these donations in exchange for favors like access.

Umm... no you wouldn't need to do that. They wouldn't have to solicit anything for "pay to play" to exist. The offer could begin with the one proposing to "donate" money. "Pay for play" can exist regardless of the origin of the transactions.

All that has to exist to prove "pay for play" is "money in" and "access/favor granted". Both of which exist and have been shown.

[Tennesseer]

Nov 4, 2016 21:46:12 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Nov 4, 2016 21:31:16 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

So Melania was working in the U.S. before she was legally able to do so.  Send her to jail.

Trump's wife modeled in US prior to getting work visa

WASHINGTON — Documents obtained by The Associated Press from 20 years ago show that Melania Trump was paid for 10 modeling jobs in the United States worth $20,056 before she had legal permission to work in the country.

The documents provide the most detailed accounting yet of Mrs. Trump's first months in the U.S. She has said she followed all immigration laws as she moved from Slovenia to New York in August 1996 and obtained a work visa about seven weeks later.

The documents show she was paid for 10 modeling assignments between Sept. 10 and Oct. 15, before she would have been legally allowed to be paid.

It is highly unlikely that the discovery will affect the citizenship status of Mrs. Trump. She has been a citizen since July 2006.

Trump's wife modeled in US prior to getting work visa

Do they know WHEN "between Sept. 10 and Oct. 15"... and when in August did she arrive (important to know, to start the clock on her "7 weeks")?

Also, when was she paid for the work? That matters because for example: all work I do AFTER turning in my last time sheet for my last paycheck of the year... I still do it that year, but the PAY for it goes on the taxes of the FOLLOWING year, when I actually receive the money. Timing is everything.

I'm not saying she's not guilty... I'm just saying that there are unanswered questions.

The wife of the GOP presidential nominee, who sometimes worked as a model under just her first name, has said through an attorney that she first came to the U.S. from Slovenia on Aug. 27, 1996, on a B1/B2 visitor visa and then obtained an H-1B work visa on Oct. 18, 1996.

The documents obtained by the AP show she was paid for 10 modeling assignments between Sept. 10 and Oct. 15, during a time when her visa allowed her generally to be in the U.S. and look for work but not perform paid work in the country. The documents examined by the AP indicate that the modeling assignments would have been outside the bounds of her visa.

Trump's wife modeled in US prior to getting work visa

[Opti]

Nov 4, 2016 21:52:50 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Nov 4, 2016 21:47:06 GMT -5 Opti said:

If some folks give to the Foundation believing they are going to get better access, does not make it true. To prove pay to play, you would need to show that the Clintons solicited these donations in exchange for favors like access.

Umm... no you wouldn't need to do that. They wouldn't have to solicit anything for "pay to play" to exist. The offer could begin with the one proposing to "donate" money. "Pay for play" can exist regardless of the origin of the transactions.

All that has to exist to prove "pay for play" is "money in" and "access/favor granted". Both of which exist and have been shown.

Hmmm.

 

Let's say I go to a fast food restaurant. The guy ahead of me gives the cashier an extra $10 to get his burger and fried in 5 minutes or less. I just pay the usual for my burger and fries and get them in 5 minutes or less. In my opinion, pay to play does not exist in that example because no unusual benefit occurred for the guy to get his food within his preferred time window. He paid, but he didn't need to - to get what he wanted. From what I've read a similar situation exists in these alleged Hillary Clinton access situations.

[Deleted]

Nov 4, 2016 22:01:11 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Nov 4, 2016 21:46:12 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Do they know WHEN "between Sept. 10 and Oct. 15"... and when in August did she arrive (important to know, to start the clock on her "7 weeks")?

Also, when was she paid for the work? That matters because for example: all work I do AFTER turning in my last time sheet for my last paycheck of the year... I still do it that year, but the PAY for it goes on the taxes of the FOLLOWING year, when I actually receive the money. Timing is everything.

I'm not saying she's not guilty... I'm just saying that there are unanswered questions.

The wife of the GOP presidential nominee, who sometimes worked as a model under just her first name, has said through an attorney that she first came to the U.S. from Slovenia on Aug. 27, 1996, on a B1/B2 visitor visa and then obtained an H-1B work visa on Oct. 18, 1996.

The documents obtained by the AP show she was paid for 10 modeling assignments between Sept. 10 and Oct. 15, during a time when her visa allowed her generally to be in the U.S. and look for work but not perform paid work in the country. The documents examined by the AP indicate that the modeling assignments would have been outside the bounds of her visa.

Trump's wife modeled in US prior to getting work visa

So the answers to my questions, in order are: no, and no.

Thanks!

[Deleted]

Nov 4, 2016 22:02:08 GMT -5 Opti said:

Nov 4, 2016 21:52:50 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Umm... no you wouldn't need to do that. They wouldn't have to solicit anything for "pay to play" to exist. The offer could begin with the one proposing to "donate" money. "Pay for play" can exist regardless of the origin of the transactions.

All that has to exist to prove "pay for play" is "money in" and "access/favor granted". Both of which exist and have been shown.

Hmmm.

 

Let's say I go to a fast food restaurant. The guy ahead of me gives the cashier an extra $10 to get his burger and fried in 5 minutes or less. I just pay the usual for my burger and fries and get them in 5 minutes or less. In my opinion, pay to play does not exist in that example because no unusual benefit occurred for the guy to get his food within his preferred time window. He paid, but he didn't need to - to get what he wanted. From what I've read a similar situation exists in these alleged Hillary Clinton access situations.

I've read differently... in posts/links HERE (this board). And no, I'm not going to bother looking them up.

As to your burger & fries scenario: Maybe they gave you "Special speed" too, because you witnessed the payoff and they didn't want you to be suspicious. (sorry... if you are going to give ridiculous scenarios, I get to give equally ridiculous possibilities)

[Tennesseer]

Nov 4, 2016 22:31:38 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Nov 4, 2016 22:01:11 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Trump's wife modeled in US prior to getting work visa

So the answers to my questions, in order are: no, and no.

Thanks!

Not sure what "no, and no" mean but she did modeling work for which she was to be paid before she had a visa to do paid work.

[billisonboard]

Nov 4, 2016 21:46:12 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

...

The documents show she was paid for 10 modeling assignments between Sept. 10 and Oct. 15, before she would have been legally allowed to be paid.

...

Do they know WHEN "between Sept. 10 and Oct. 15"... 

Also, when was she paid for the work? ...

I would say that she was paid the first time on Sept. 10th and paid the last time on Oct. 15th with her being paid for the other 8 between.  

[Deleted]

Nov 4, 2016 22:38:16 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Nov 4, 2016 22:31:38 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

So the answers to my questions, in order are: no, and no.

Thanks!

Not sure what "no, and no" mean but she did modeling work for which she was to be paid before she had a visa to do paid work.

I pose questions and you posted a post that showed the answers were both "no". That's what "no, and no" mean.

(I thought I was quite clear in my response)

[Deleted]

Nov 4, 2016 22:41:32 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Nov 4, 2016 21:46:12 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

...Do they know WHEN "between Sept. 10 and Oct. 15"... 

Also, when was she paid for the work? ...

I would say that she was paid the first time on Sept. 10th and paid the last time on Oct. 15th with her being paid for the other 8 between.  

Is that an assumption (and if so, based on what, exactly)... or do you have presentable proof of fact?

(I'm good either way. If she's guilty, then she's guilty... but if she's not, she's not.)

[dezailoooooo]

Nov 4, 2016 20:45:40 GMT -5 tallguy said:

Nov 4, 2016 20:38:34 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

It's a little out of date (May 9th 2016)... but it's an interesting rebuttal to that ONE Marine (who I thank for his service):

Military Times survey: Troops prefer Trump to Clinton by a huge margin

From the article:

In the latest survey, nearly half of respondents identified as Republicans, and only 18 percent as Democrats. That partisan divide accounted for much of Trump’s support.

Which means, if you dig into it at all, that Clinton outperformed relative to her party's representation to a greater degree than did Trump.  Which means, further, that if the representation of Democrats and Republicans were equal that she would likely have beaten him easily.  But, take from it what you want.  

Regarding military who prefer Trump over Hillery...that is not surprising...military for the most part are conservative in their out look...always have been that way..I think , and it's my thoughts here, military do not like change..more comfortable with the status quo...

Actually Hillerys actual record on the troops is a positive, whether they are aware or not..has always supported veteran benefits and better medical coverage for the troops and their families...that Trump has come late to this is understandable..to busy making all those billions he is always yapping about...

during my service, I was no volunteer..draftee all the way;...and most of my fellow grunts very, very young and for those who could vote, of age..still young and influenced by those over them, non coms and officers..

AToday with so many minorities in service and no longer drafted..I wonder if the ranks are really that into Trump..Officers, career types I would think so..but our troops of color..I wonder...They are very sharp and aware and Trump is very out there, loud and obnoxiouse...same with the many female troops and sexual attacks are a concern in the military..

[billisonboard]

Nov 4, 2016 22:44:39 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Nov 4, 2016 22:41:32 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

I would say that she was paid the first time on Sept. 10th and paid the last time on Oct. 15th with her being paid for the other 8 between.  

Is that an assumption (and if so, based on what, exactly)... or do you have presentable proof of fact?
...

I am assuming that the AP report is accurate and the article has standard use of written English:

The documents show she was paid for 10 modeling assignments between Sept. 10 and Oct. 15 ...

[weltschmerz]

I simply cannot believe that you and the other Democrats here are not smart enough to realize that money is all Hillary cares about, she cares NOTHING for the country at all-- it's all about making a buck.

ROTFLMAO!
While the magnanimous Trump, on the other hand, is all about altruism and helping his fellow man. Money doesn't mean a thing to him.

[Rukh O'Rorke]

I don't see Melanie's work as relevant in the slightest here.

[Deleted]

Nov 4, 2016 22:56:23 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Nov 4, 2016 22:44:39 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Is that an assumption (and if so, based on what, exactly)... or do you have presentable proof of fact?
...

I am assuming that the AP report is accurate and the article has standard use of written English:

The documents show she was paid for 10 modeling assignments between Sept. 10 and Oct. 15 ...

So that's an assumption then. Got it.

According to your little mini-profile, you joined on Dec 20, 2010... and according to mine, I joined on Feb 2, 2014.

Knowing these facts, Would it be accurate and standard written English to say "we joined between January 1, 2001 and December 31, 2015"?

[billisonboard]

Nov 4, 2016 23:45:11 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Nov 4, 2016 22:56:23 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

I am assuming that the AP report is accurate and the article has standard use of written English:

The documents show she was paid for 10 modeling assignments between Sept. 10 and Oct. 15 ...

So that's an assumption then. Got it.

According to your little mini-profile, you joined on Dec 20, 2010... and according to mine, I joined on Feb 2, 2014.

Knowing these facts, Would it be accurate and standard written English to say "we joined between January 1, 2001 and December 31, 2015"?

No.

[Deleted]

Nov 4, 2016 23:59:38 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Nov 4, 2016 23:45:11 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

So that's an assumption then. Got it.

According to your little mini-profile, you joined on Dec 20, 2010... and according to mine, I joined on Feb 2, 2014.

Knowing these facts, Would it be accurate and standard written English to say "we joined between January 1, 2001 and December 31, 2015"?

No.

Why not? Maybe my criteria for start and end dates is "any occurrence in a 15 year period".

Or are you saying that our dates don't fall into the range that I provided?