BruceVC

Let me guess....the people who claim she is unqualified are......Trump and GOP supporters ? Well, I'd imagine Chrs Stevens, Sean Smith, Tyrone Woods, & Glen Doherty might claim she is unqualified. But they can't because they are dead. She ignored them, left the to die and then lied to their families and the whole country (but not to her daughter, the President, or her inner circle apparently) about what happened. But you don't want to hear about that do you Bruce? Wouldn't be "balanced" after all. Thats a cheap shot .....uncalled for and not relevant

Let me guess....the people who claim she is unqualified are......Trump and GOP supporters ?

No I didnt because it would be unfair to scrutinize either candidate's history in this way and then judge them on this type of past action Things like the email scandal matter to me And I am being balanced, I could post daily inconsistencies of things Trump says that are inaccurate but I only post the " big " things he says Are you really saying that a candidate's past performance in business and/or government isn't pertinent in judging their qualifications for POTUS? Or is that just a convenient excuse that lets you sweep uncomfortable things under the rug? Dont get mad with me because you think both candidates are worthless, all I'm saying is both people seem to have a history But since you did ask, obviously Clinton has more experience in government. This is irrefutable http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/8/27/1416000/-Hillary-Rodham-Clinton-The-Most-Experienced-Presidential-Candidate-This-Election-Cycle

No I didnt because it would be unfair to scrutinize either candidate's history in this way and then judge them on this type of past action Things like the email scandal matter to me And I am being balanced, I could post daily inconsistencies of things Trump says that are inaccurate but I only post the " big " things he says And right there you just fell into the biggest trap of this election. You can't make a positive argument for one candidate without mentioning the other. They are, without a doubt, the two biggest turds to ever float in the electoral bowl at the same time. The only positive statement anyone can make about either is "well at least they are not the other one". "turds " Oh by the way, it shouldn't be seen as huge negative because Johnson didnt know about Aleppo There is nothing the USA can do because its the Syrians and Russians who are bombing the city...and now the Russians have agreed with the USA to a peace deal but why would Johnson know about Aleppo ? http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2016/09/09/russia-us-reach-cease-fire-deal-syria/90147222/

So Putin has a very high popularity rating.....so what, its irrelevant when compared to the damage he has caused Russia. You do realize Russia has been in a recession for nearly 2 years? Please read this link....how can you not think a failure to manage any economy by any government is a failure of leadership http://money.cnn.com/2016/08/11/news/economy/russia-economy-recession-six-quarters/index.html

No I didnt because it would be unfair to scrutinize either candidate's history in this way and then judge them on this type of past action Things like the email scandal matter to me And I am being balanced, I could post daily inconsistencies of things Trump says that are inaccurate but I only post the " big " things he says

He also had his "enemies lists" and a reputation for being verbally abusive of family and staff. Of course low character and high character can certainly co-exist. No one is so bad they don't have some redeeming qualities or so good they have no flaws. Still, I'd take a person which is verbally abusive over one who is corrupt and won't resign any day. Are you referring to Hilary when you say " who is corrupt and won't resign any day. " That Hillary is corrupt (or at the VERY least irredeemably dishonest) is no longer a fact that can be disputed Bruce. I realize you picked you horse here and that's fine. As I posted before being dishonest or even corrupt does not mean she will not make an effective President necessarily. But you should be aware of what you are buying with her. And her bad qualities do not necessarily make Trump a better option for some folks. It's not for nothing we say elections here are about choosing the lesser evil. Just to be clear, we are saying she is corrupt because of the whole email scandal and her private email server? Do you read nothing that get's linked here? Seriously? That is one piece of a very, very big picture. The corruption is certainly debatable. Was she using the server to hide from FOI & Congress? Is the Clinton Foundation a pay to play vehicle for bribes, etc? We'll never know the truth. but there is a lot of evidence to suggest she not on the up and up. But her dishonesty about it all, and about many, many things she has said and done over the years is beyond dispute. She is a liar. She is a habitual liar. Even YOU would have to concede that. Why would I automatically believe something that is based on a subjective view of her motives? Sorry GD but neither the email scandal or Clinton Foundation is irrefutable proof of her dishonesty but if you can share other things she did I would like to read them? I know you think I'm biased but Im not....I always look at any accusation objectively Jesus Christ are you really going to make me do this again? Alright, but mister, you had best read ever last one of them! She claimed to be dead broke when they left the White House: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eyLhDz_ZvA4&feature=youtu.be , they were not. They were worth over $10M and each had just gotten $2M advances on their books: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2014/07/29/hillary-clinton-on-her-dead-broke-misstep-i-regret-it/ The whole sniper fire thing in Bosnia: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rZHO1vo762c She claimed she was named for Sir Edmund Hillary. She was six years old when he climbed Everest She claimed she tried to join the Marines in 1975, that wasn't true: http://dailycaller.com/2015/11/12/fact-checker-hits-hillary-for-claiming-she-tried-to-join-the-marines-video/ Even the FBI said she lied to them AND to Congress about her e-mail server She lied to the whole world about Benghazi: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jun/28/benghazi-report-points-out-obama-clinton-lies/ She was fires from a house judiciary job in 1973 for "unethical behavior". She and another lawyer wrote a "fraudulent legal brief". Need I go on? I haven't even gotten to Whitewater of the other good stuff. Thanks, I'll go through these before I comment Putin is a better leader than Obama......seriously? How is he a better leader....what has he done better than Obama?

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-commander-idUSKCN11D12K Is no one concerned about this comment where Trump said Putin is a better leader than Obama?

Remember its about " proving how tough the USA is " as far as Trump is concerned He would attack the Iranian navy, destabilize the Uranium enrichment deal and in turn make the entire ME more chaotic and unmanageable all because he " wants to show Iran cant bully the USA " Why?

He also had his "enemies lists" and a reputation for being verbally abusive of family and staff. Of course low character and high character can certainly co-exist. No one is so bad they don't have some redeeming qualities or so good they have no flaws. Still, I'd take a person which is verbally abusive over one who is corrupt and won't resign any day. Are you referring to Hilary when you say " who is corrupt and won't resign any day. " That Hillary is corrupt (or at the VERY least irredeemably dishonest) is no longer a fact that can be disputed Bruce. I realize you picked you horse here and that's fine. As I posted before being dishonest or even corrupt does not mean she will not make an effective President necessarily. But you should be aware of what you are buying with her. And her bad qualities do not necessarily make Trump a better option for some folks. It's not for nothing we say elections here are about choosing the lesser evil. Just to be clear, we are saying she is corrupt because of the whole email scandal and her private email server? Do you read nothing that get's linked here? Seriously? That is one piece of a very, very big picture. The corruption is certainly debatable. Was she using the server to hide from FOI & Congress? Is the Clinton Foundation a pay to play vehicle for bribes, etc? We'll never know the truth. but there is a lot of evidence to suggest she not on the up and up. But her dishonesty about it all, and about many, many things she has said and done over the years is beyond dispute. She is a liar. She is a habitual liar. Even YOU would have to concede that. Why would I automatically believe something that is based on a subjective view of her motives? Sorry GD but neither the email scandal or Clinton Foundation is irrefutable proof of her dishonesty but if you can share other things she did I would like to read them? I know you think I'm biased but Im not....I always look at any accusation objectively

He also had his "enemies lists" and a reputation for being verbally abusive of family and staff. Of course low character and high character can certainly co-exist. No one is so bad they don't have some redeeming qualities or so good they have no flaws. Still, I'd take a person which is verbally abusive over one who is corrupt and won't resign any day. Are you referring to Hilary when you say " who is corrupt and won't resign any day. " That Hillary is corrupt (or at the VERY least irredeemably dishonest) is no longer a fact that can be disputed Bruce. I realize you picked you horse here and that's fine. As I posted before being dishonest or even corrupt does not mean she will not make an effective President necessarily. But you should be aware of what you are buying with her. And her bad qualities do not necessarily make Trump a better option for some folks. It's not for nothing we say elections here are about choosing the lesser evil. Just to be clear, we are saying she is corrupt because of the whole email scandal and her private email server?

He also had his "enemies lists" and a reputation for being verbally abusive of family and staff. Of course low character and high character can certainly co-exist. No one is so bad they don't have some redeeming qualities or so good they have no flaws. Still, I'd take a person which is verbally abusive over one who is corrupt and won't resign any day. Are you referring to Hilary when you say " who is corrupt and won't resign any day. "

Bit rich when you consider how Trump behaves like a low level forum troll. Certainly are a lot of trash backing Trump watching his rallies, but not sure of the percentage I'm surprised people seem to think " Trump hasn't really offended anyone "

No, it isn't unprecedented. He have had a few candidates with no experience and no love for their fellow man run and even win. Aaron Burr, George Wallace, John Tyler (who actually became President when William Henry Harrison died), and William Randolph Hearst were all bombastic and crude in ways to make you think Trump isn't so bad. There have been many with no prior political experience like Andrew Jackson, Woodrow Wilson, Zachary Taylor, Ulysses Grant, Dwight Eisenhower all won. They were all Army Generals (except Wilson) before running for office. Ross Perot, Wendell Wilkie, Horace Greely, Winfield Han****, Winfield Scott all lost. There are others but that's all I can think of off the top of my head. We've had Presidents who were not good people too. John Adams and his son, Richard Nixon, Warren Harding, and Lyndon Johnson were all reputed to be men you would look you in the eye, tell you to go f--k yourself then help you do it. Trump is hardly unprecedented. We've had a whole gallery of rogues, scoundrels, and pretenders along the way. No you misunderstand me, I dont mean Trump is so bad and malicious it is unprecedented...as I mentioned numerous times most of the offensive things Trump has said are strategic and all about a political objective ...he miscalculated the impact of some of his comments but thats just hubris I mean the way Trump has won the Republican nomination and the strategy he has employed has been so effective because of the exciting political period the USA is going through Its the overall political campaigns that are unprecedented

It is odd because I never realised how many people are so unhappy with Obama, I like Obama and I support most of his global policies and some of the domestic ones like the Gay Marriage Law Anyway this election is very exciting...cant wait to the actual election date

Oh no I'm fine saying " some of Trumps supporters are bigots "...surly we dont need to dispute this? You can say what you want about Hilary Clinton's supporters? Its not going to change her support base really This election and the whole " Trump rise to power " reality is unprecedented in US politics. I am surprised you think this is normal?

Come on dude....lets be honest Tump villied 11 million Latinos as part of his official strategy, lets not even attempt to suggest Trump hasn't been offensive

Trump started that ball rolling.....its now become a normal strategy

Why do you doubt some of Trumps supporters are bigots...they are, trust me

http://www.msn.com/en-gb/video/news/trumps-direct-appeal-to-black-voters/vp-BBvQdZr Guys this is the reason African Americans (AA) wont be voting for Trump, watch the beginning part of the video He is very offensive and rude at that part....

They are Eurosceptic, they want to end free movement, dissolve the Euro, keep the common trade bloc, promote traditional family roles, are pro gun rights, etc. With multiculturalism a failure, immigration driving low skill wages down making the poor poorer, and the leftist feminist drive to destroy the traditional family I can see the appeal But some of these objectives seem inconsistent, you cant have the EU and the single market without the Euro as the currency and the central government in Brussels It surprises me people keep bringing this up as a reasonable objective ? More and more people are seeing this as a mistake and wish to decentralize, return to old currencies and work as partners instead. People are witnessing the erosion of the things that matter the most to them(their people, culture, heritage and identity) and the EU is actively collaborating in its acceleration and people are getting fed up with it. A soft democratic process of removing political power from Brussels, abolishment of the multicultural project (which is ironically enough destroying our cultural differences), forced integration, enforced borders and a sound policy of return of refugees will alleviate the worst of sociatal grievances and ensure a calmer future for all europeans nations. Then they can finally make the necessary structural changes to make sure that their central banks are not privately owned and controlled by their governments instead in order effectively destroy the cancer called 'globalism' (for more information on the last part, i would like to refer to the documentary 'The Princes of the Yen'). If not, then we will be heading into a manufactured crisis with a resulting war and a final death in the vein of the poem 'The Hollow Men' by T.S. Eliot. You raise some good points that are relevant to you and your personal experience which I'm sure is shared by many others in the EU In the past I have been a little condescending by these types of comments and said things like " you think you want this but you dont really " ....but I'll explain in more detail what I really mean When you say " People are witnessing the erosion of the things that matter the most to them(their people, culture, heritage and identity) and the EU is actively collaborating in its acceleration " what if you gained these things by leaving the EU but the consequence was the crash or utter dysfunction of your economy? You see basically every person on this forum who lives in the EU has probably only known about life in the EU, its not anyones fault but you guys all live in first world countries where the EU and your governments are functional. You are use to this and unintentionally take this for granted You complain about lack of sovereignty and immigrant quotas being enforced and I understand these things matter but imagine a failed healthcare system, broken government institutions, high unemployment or a government simply not caring what its citizens think. This the reality many countries and there citizens face outside the EU I am not fearmongering but I cannot see how any current member state , outside the UK, could in this current reality of such tight economic integration leave the EU and gets it old currency back and somehow be able to sustain its economy outside the EU....the economic impact would be so severe to the average citizen it would almost unimaginable So imagine a failed economy outside the EU but you have your sovereignty back ...would it matter ? Countries in Europe in recent memory have been utterly destroyed in wars, famine and have had economic depressions. Despite all that, the people in those countries have survived, thrived and risen again thanks to the people inhabiting the land, namely families, traditions and each other at large. That's what kept society together, it was the very foundation of their society and people were ready to die to protect it. When an economic crisis starts anew, it will be a lot more violent if there is no such underlying foundation or if it has been heavily subverted into something meaningless. It was the same thing with empires of older history, as then the legitimacy of the state came from the sovereign and the nobility. They were the foundation of those states and once that was removed, oh boy. An economy in itself is no foundation for any society. This is an interesting post, I never thought about the first paragraph and you correct What I mentioned about leaving the EU is not something I want to ever prove I'm right about, I would rather be wrong but its something I have to mention because there is real context

I am going to assume you being serious, you have all these issues with Trudeau and its irrational and illogical No one who wants to have a serious debate about his character would accuse him of what you saying...so since I assume you being serious this is not about him at all but rather the fact you resent what he claims he stands for. But volo he does take gender equality seriously, many people do like me. You have to get over this unnecessary insecurity about what gender equality means ....its not about the marginalization of men. No women who believes in feminism wants to be better than men, well some do like radical feminists but they don't count So you mustn't feel insecure every time I bring it up ....now maybe you dont think this at all but unless you can produce links about Trudeau faults that you mentioned this is exactly what I think you actually feel ?

Volo, well done. You have found one of ways to actually annoy me even though I know I should ignore it and now you are forcing me to respond .....even though I know you dont care in the way you should I never said anything of the sort, I had several detailed chats to Raithe and my predictions so far have been correct So why dont you produce the links where I said that?

It's not the industry per se that worries the politicians. It's the financial services sector which makes up 78% of the GDP. The Brits are the true masters of Banking, making the Swiss look like amateurs. They've just been better at keeping a low profile and maintain their tax havens and general lack of transparency on the channel islands, London and Gibraltar. If they suddenly can't do all those less visible transactions without scrutiny through the already existing channels, it might cause more than just a few sleepless nights. They might even start frowning. 100 % correct, half my family live in London and work in the banking sector Its the strength of the UK financial sector in the UK that I was alluding to earlier when I said the UK has some clever people and can survive BREXIT But I find on this forum and other mediums some people have an understandable but unnecessary automatic dislike of the banking sector and I felt that I may actually create some bias towards the UK if I came across as saying " the UK can survive leaving the EU easier than many other countries because the core strength of The City (London financial sector ) is not at all dependant on being part of the EU. This is a huge advantage to the overall sustainability of the UK once it leaves the EU

This is an excellent example of an interesting anecdotal story that I always find interesting You are very good at making posts that are detailed but captivating, Gromnir also has that talent