BruceVC

Yes, this is correct and logical. You would think at sometime Trump would want the media to discuss his realistic policies ....the ones that matter like economic ones Yet he keeps hijacking his own narrative No you were not listening. He gave a serious and well thought out speech on his economic policy in Detroit last week and the media ignored it altogether. They covered Clinton's almost verbatim.No thats not true as I mentioned The media did discuss it, I watched several hours of political and economic commentary. Thats why I posted the views of Moodys analysts like Mark Zandi. Here is an updated link, the video interview with Wolf Blitzer is particularly relevant http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/08/08/zandi_on_trump_speech_nafta_was_good_for_economy_in_general_dark_irony_if_we_step_back_from_trade.html Smh at the person in that article. "Haven't done the research" and "better place than where we was 23 years ago" just to me as a pissant means he doesn't know what the **** he's talking about. Nafta is a MAJOR part in WHY we have been in a ****ing recession for so damn long (tbh I don't even know if we are out of it bc it doesn't feel that way). Yes I know Bush's war tremendously "helped" put us further in the hole and obamas spending, but the average tax payer could be okay if ALOT of our jobs didn't go over seas... I can understand how when he says " I haven't done the research " this may seem to be illogical but he was referring specially to the impact on upmarket NY But overall he is clear that the USA is in a much better place economically from initiatives like Nafta compared to the last 20 years

Yes, this is correct and logical. You would think at sometime Trump would want the media to discuss his realistic policies ....the ones that matter like economic ones Yet he keeps hijacking his own narrative No you were not listening. He gave a serious and well thought out speech on his economic policy in Detroit last week and the media ignored it altogether. They covered Clinton's almost verbatim. No thats not true as I mentioned The media did discuss it, I watched several hours of political and economic commentary. Thats why I posted the views of Moodys analysts like Mark Zandi. Here is an updated link, the video interview with Wolf Blitzer is particularly relevant http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/08/08/zandi_on_trump_speech_nafta_was_good_for_economy_in_general_dark_irony_if_we_step_back_from_trade.html

Yes, this is correct and logical. You would think at sometime Trump would want the media to discuss his realistic policies ....the ones that matter like economic ones Yet he keeps hijacking his own narrative

So are you saying its acceptable and normal for any politician to say what they want, promise what they want and publically attack anyone they want but the concept of political decorum is not a consideration? So in your analysis there is no such thing as reasonable or accurate political commentary? We must just accept endless hyperbole from the Trump campaign It's completely up to the media. For example, the guy had an 1 hour conference in Detroit highlighting his economic policies down to tax deduction for having your kids in kindergarden the other day but that went on pretty much unreported. If the media and the twitter-whores would've ignored what he says on social media or in real life and sticked to the issues and policies we might've had a completely different election. Your, or any other expert's, whimsical musings about what is acceptable or decorum has no influence what so ever. Your argument is inconsistent and doesn't reflect the reality of how Trump expects the media to respond His economic policies were discussed by many commentators, the perceived outcome of what he says he can achieve through some of his ideas like the tax breaks he plans to implement are subjective Many economists have many questions about the sustainability of Trumps economic views, look at Moodys views http://www.forbes.com/sites/maggiemcgrath/2016/07/29/moodys-where-trumps-economic-policies-might-spark-recession-clintons-could-boost-gdp-and-lower-unemployment/#dc57cf1234808 https://www.economy.com/mark-zandi/documents/2016-06-17-Trumps-Economic-Policies.pdf But if Trump wants the media to focus just on his economic views which should be relevant than he should stop saying things that cause the media to focus on his divisive comments

Happy birthday Malc

So are you saying its acceptable and normal for any politician to say what they want, promise what they want and publically attack anyone they want but the concept of political decorum is not a consideration? So in your analysis there is no such thing as reasonable or accurate political commentary? We must just accept endless hyperbole from the Trump campaign This is his strategy. Rather than pay for air time he says off the wall stuff that gets the media talking about him in a negative way 24-7. Watch any news network, he is all they are talking about. Then he inoculates himself against the bad effects of it by shouting about media bias (which they created because they ARE biased but that is beside the point) and every time they do it is free air time. They talked so long about Obama being the "founder" of ISIS they practically planted the idea in everyone's head who didn't hear it from Trump himself. And the more networks like CNN insist it isn't true the more people believe it IS true because they don't believe a word the news media says anymore. It is actually a very interesting situation. The major news networks have been ruining their own credibility with the public for 30 years. Now Trump is turning their own hubris against them. The scary thing is it might work. I hear you but if this was his expected outcome why are most Trump supporters saying the media is biased agasint Trump as if this is a bad thing? Are you saying the objective of the Trump campaign is to get media to be against Trump so they can indeed say " the media is biased" ?

I have a friends birthday tonight and we going to a Mexican restaurant called Perron, I love Mexican food http://www.perron.co.za/images/Perron_menu2016.pdf

So are you saying its acceptable and normal for any politician to say what they want, promise what they want and publically attack anyone they want but the concept of political decorum is not a consideration? So in your analysis there is no such thing as reasonable or accurate political commentary? We must just accept endless hyperbole from the Trump campaign

Nothing surprises me anymore about Trumps comments or general bombast , its hard for Trump to actually shock or offend me anymore ...my expectation of what he says is typically " how low can Trump stoop with his rhetoric " He says things like "Obama\Clinton are the founders of ISIS " http://edition.cnn.com/2016/08/11/politics/trump-obama-isis/index.html And then he claims " I was just being sarcastic " ...this is the man who wants to be the leader of the most powerful military and economic superpower in the world

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/08/12/politics/clinton-trump-swing-state-polls/index.html Guys more good news, Trump is behind Clinton in critical swing states. These include NC, Florida, Virginia and Colorado Also it is unacceptable that Trump refuses to release his tax returns http://edition.cnn.com/2016/08/11/politics/hillary-clinton-release-tax-returns/index.html Trump claims he cant release his tax returns due to an IRS audit but the IRS has said this is no legal reason for Trump not to release his tax returns .....what is Trump hiding? Why is he so reluctant to release his tax returns. This should be a huge concern for any US citizen ?

Oby I thought we were in agreement on this one? Wikileaks has as much credibility as RT when it comes to objective or reasonable assessments of anything about the West Dont believe what Wikileaks " reveals " about the USA or people like Clinton, that way you wont be as concerned as you are about certain global issues or developments

Nations are constructs, not natural things. Ethnicity is mainly a function of culture. New ethnic groups can separate from others, or people can pass from one to another. Religion is one aspect that may be a deciding factor in this process. It is a question of self-identification, not for others to tell them.So while there may have been a time when there was no Bosnian people, there is now. The same with Serbs. Or Norwegians, or whatever. Neither is it necessary that all members of an ethnic group live in the same state. Or a state of their own. People make culture not the other way around. Also, i wouldn't compare Bosnia to similar multi-ethnic countries like Switzerland, which was created under significantly different circumstances. But anyways, the thread has gone exactly as expected. First you have the usual "who was there first/who has most historical claim to the land" and secondly, you have people from other countries trying to lecture the people of Balkan on how horrible their sense of ethnic identity is/was and how it is good to bomb them into submission in their vein sense of LARPing as Tito. As someone who has traveled to the Balkans and talked to the locals, i was surprised on how different they were from each other in terms of customs, looks and behaviour, even if they all have a slavic undertones. No wonder it required oppressive governments like the Austro-Hungarian/Ottoman/Yugoslav to make them to get along with each other. And then you have people like yourself feeding and encouraging the false narrative that war crimes weren't committed by Serbia and the NATO bombing was " completely frivolous and unfair " So I guess no one is really being helpful

Yes you must watch Justified Its indubitably one of my top 5 series of all times, its brilliant for a number of reasons but one of the main factors are the various characters and personalities and then each season its the new "baddies " you get introduced to. Each one is so unique and believable And the writing is so clever

Yip, thats what happens in a police state.... they force you to wear seat belts I'm surprised you cant challenge this type of law through some kind of Constitutional court lawing?

People are always telling me how bad my English is on forums so your view is not unique but at work I do quotes and documentation all the time but I use Spellcheck so that generally fixes everything

I'm glad you realized I was joking, people on this forum generally think I'm serious when Im joking Sorry about my English, what would you say is the problem....grammar or structure or words....or all of them ? /

I was only teasing you earlier about the UK, half my family live there and they are now committed to BREXIT So of course I dont think people who voted to leave are bigots, in fact I got very annoyed by the " assessments " of people that anyone who voted to leave was clearly " an older, white racist "

Of course you meant it as an insult. Let's not kid ourselves. You didn't passive aggresively complemented Fighter. It's hypocritical and we all know it. Wowzers Dont you guys have jokes in Poland? You realize what it is suppose to mean.....its not suppose to be serious?

Yes, that will be added to the list of his crimes once the election is over....but nothing can be done now

Yes of course its possible

Wait, wait. - The guy dissappears from Iran in 2009 in Saudi - Appears in 2010 in the US at the Pakestani embassy, demands to be sent back to Iran, claims to be held against his will by the Saudis and the US - Gets talked about in Hillarys email, on her unsecured server a few days later - Sent home nine days later to Iran via Pakistan - The Irani authorities arrest him, convicts him for treason and executes him today The implications are simply disasterous. No need to jump to conclusions young grasshopper.....as I mentioned the article is not confirmation You wouldn't just assume people are guilty would you? Dont you prefer evidence

No those are your words, this latest critique looks to me like your standard misunderstanding? She mentioned him in e-mails discussing US intelligence. Those e-mails were compromised. Iran executes him. It is not necessarily a connected sequence of events (post hoc ergo propter hoc after all) but it would be impossible to deny that there is a possibility that had Hillary used a secure e-mail server, like she was SUPPOSED to do, this man might be alive today. But Bruce it is of small use to discuss this with you. If Hillary Clinton herself told you flat out to your face she did something criminal you would convince yourself it wasn't true. No thats unfair, I extensively studied the email scandal issue I looked at every angle as I felt this was important and the truth is if Hilary was guilty I would have distanced myself from her So I'm not blind to any faults Then you will acknowledge then there may be a connection between her "extreme carelessness" and this mans execution? Do we really care about this guy? He was killed by the Iranian government but the reason is hearsay even in the article " It would appear possible that discussion on an unclassified — and quite possibly hacked — email system about a person who was hanged as a spy will have a chilling effect on others who might want to engage in espionage for the United States " So now how can we realistically say she is responsible? I wouldn't even accuse Trump of this type of thing with such weak evidence But GD you realize Iran dislikes the USA and is responsible for funding and resourcing Shia militias during the Iraq invasion that killed and harassed American troops for years. I am not being dismissive but we dont know why he was actually executed...the article is speculative?

You're trying to make a joke, I think? But you're only confusing me. It's funny how liberals axt like they support the homosexuals, yet their first go to insult is implying homosexuality on their opponent. Why do you assume if I say someone is gay that is a bad thing? You see because you are a bigot you think it must be an insult if someone is asked " are you gay "

No those are your words, this latest critique looks to me like your standard misunderstanding? She mentioned him in e-mails discussing US intelligence. Those e-mails were compromised. Iran executes him. It is not necessarily a connected sequence of events (post hoc ergo propter hoc after all) but it would be impossible to deny that there is a possibility that had Hillary used a secure e-mail server, like she was SUPPOSED to do, this man might be alive today. But Bruce it is of small use to discuss this with you. If Hillary Clinton herself told you flat out to your face she did something criminal you would convince yourself it wasn't true. No thats unfair, I extensively studied the email scandal issue I looked at every angle as I felt this was important and the truth is if Hilary was guilty I would have distanced myself from her So I'm not blind to any faults

No those are your words, this latest critique looks to me like your standard misunderstanding?