BruceVC

Who's the bigger nitwit, Trump Bruce or (we) the people who keep engaging with and/or insulting him? The people who engage him. It's clear by now he's either a troll or an idiot, either way it's a waste of time. Anyways someone on Trump's staff browses /pol/ Hey if you guys want me to screw off, I can take the hint. No need to be put off, I want to debate with you. You are about as capable of debating as Helen Keller is at driving a car. Well use that energy to get involved in the next email scandal debate I want to have with GD Because I have realized this whole email issue has not been settled and I have new links to share

Who's the bigger nitwit, Trump Bruce or (we) the people who keep engaging with and/or insulting him? The people who engage him. It's clear by now he's either a troll or an idiot, either way it's a waste of time. Anyways someone on Trump's staff browses /pol/ Hey if you guys want me to screw off, I can take the hint. No need to be put off, I want to debate with you. I just ask you debate in good faith which means if you have a question or issue with me and I respond then please respond back But we have been debating like that lately?

But for example watch this video He makes highly inaccurate generalizations about Liberals, he says Liberals dont like Capitalism and justify the fall of the USSR Now this is not accurate at all...so why would he say this? This is his interpretation because of the social discourse between the political parties in the USA but even then its not accurate. How many Democrats dont believe in Capitalism or would admire the USSR?

Who's the bigger nitwit, Trump Bruce or (we) the people who keep engaging with and/or insulting him? There's a saying that applies here: 'Fool me once, shame on you. fool me twice, shame on me.' Many here are way past twice... Trump is not stupid, thats definitely not true But that doesnt mean his political strategy will work or he has not made several terrible decisions in his attempts to be the Predisential choice ....for me the worst thing he has done is alienate the minorities, short term objective to appeal to some Republican sentiments. But this will cost him the final election and he will have no one else but himself to blame Minorities vote Democrat, because they largely support big government, and being the Republican candidate, he can't exactly overtly promise more government. Trump is trying for the white vote, and he has the highest support for a republican amongst blacks in forever, mostly because of his anti-immigration stance. So many people outside of the USA typically have completely misunderstood the rise of Trump and what it means...and it has been a complicated affair that confuses even Americans I was confused for several weeks but now I understand but to give you an example this is what people outside the USA may think and remember certain will always be negative about the USA Most people : are just shocked and concerned as they only see the Trump rhetoric and think he is racist. But basically everything Trump has said or done has been strategic Some people : " This just confirms what white Americans really think, they racist" Now I always correct this view because 11 million white people voted for Trump but there are 200 million white people in the USA ....its unfair attack on white people Muslims in SA : They already think the USA wants to destroy Islam so now they faced with open Islamophobia and realize things can get worse Some White Men in SA : Trump is right .....this is exactly what the USA needs !!! These white people have issues with various minorities and love the fact Trump is able to insult groups they have been forced to recognize ...like women Most women in SA : Just think he is terrible .....terrible Some religious groups in SA : They do think Islam is a religion of violence and is backward so any anti-Muslim rhetoric works Me : Trump represents a low bar for white people. I understand why many white Americans feel the USA under Obama has lost its way, I dont agree with that view but my view is obviously my view, but this blind support for everything Trump says has surprised me. He has said many things that just take white men backwards ....not forwards. For example when did we think its okay to make public and crude personal attacks on women?

So I consider you someone who absolutely can discern whats relevant and ignore whats not real But there are people like Vals who really believe what he says and thats where I have my issue. He panders to certain spurious and misinterpreted views that people on the Internet have about topics like " liberals " In RL what is wrong with being a liberal, I consider myself a liberal in RL yet he is basically saying I'm a fake and a hypocrite

I know you support some of his views and there is nothing wrong with that as you will naturally agree with some of what he says, thats normal. It doesnt mean you are a racist But for example, when did IQ become relevant? You are born with a high IQ...and I find it hard to be only White and Asian races can be born with high IQ? But it was his view on SA that really annoyed me....trust me it was biased and had many racist undertones

Have you read the books? They simply the finest fantasy I have ever read and they add a different and better insight into the characters and overall narrative

Funny enough this makes sense, they are very similar in many ways Neither Putin or Edrogan care much about things like human rights rights do not exist anywhere in the world. all we have are privileges that our leaders allow us to have and that they can revoke any time. the difference between countries like russia, turkey, china and countries like US of the members of EU, is that the former don't need to cook up a convenient excuse first. So in the past I would have ignored these types of comments as anti-Western propaganda But since you live in the EU I would like to try to give you a more positive view on things because anyone aligned to the West understands the pressure on the EU and I am very committed to the EU but end of the day you also want EU citizens to believe in it If you dont mind sharing what privileges have you lost or how do you feel you are being treated unfairly?

First of all the FBI has decided nothing of the sort. And they can't charge her. All they can do is recommend a charge to the United States Attorney General. Who just had a "secret" meeting with Bill Clinton which no reporters or photographers were allowed to see. Do you REALLY think they were talking about their grandchildren? Except that it's not how it works. The FBI (or any other Federal law enforcement agency seeking a federal indictment) works together with the prosecutor (U.S. Attorney's Office) who presents the evidence to a federal grand jury --which makes the judgment to indict based on whether there is enough evidence for the accused to have committed the crime. The Attorney General is not part of the process and it would not be ethical for her to be involved with the process, and she has EXPLICITLY stated that she will not be part of the process. That's contrary to everything I've read on the subject. She would decide if the case was presented to the grand jury to start with, no? Which begs the question from where and from whom have you read regarding the subject matter? Look, we have senior career FBI agents, analysts, other specialists, and their supervisors making sure the investigation is done by the book and as thorough as possible. To which they are working directly with the jurisdictional U.S. Attorney's office -- led by a career senior Assistant U.S. Attorney (if not the chief of the division), and a team of AUSA's and paralegals, and with support of the U.S. Attorney. The U.S. Attorney General is not going to overrule her U.S. Attorney. These guys and gals know what they're doing and don't mess around. If they believe there is enough evidence of criminal wrongdoing, they will present it to the Grand Jury seeking an indictment. Federal cases going to court have a 92% conviction rate. If they don't believe they have enough evidence, neither the FBI or the USAO will seek an indictment. Pure and simple. The AG is not part of the decision making process. WOD, this whole incident actually should be about one question " did Hilary delete that data to hide something criminal " ...everything else can be explained. I dont think she deleted that data to hide something criminal but perhaps something embarrassing

Volo !!! Thats a terrible thing to say

Yes I agree he actually sprouts racist views but its done surreptitiously But to be fair people sometimes agree with him because he always speaks some truth which resonates with many white people on certain level...a guy like him is similar to Trump with how he creates support. So for example they will say " crime is a problem " ( knowing many American think crime in some states is a problem ) but then he will say " Latinos are the issue " ( now a biased and bigoted generalization ) yet people still support him because " he is opposed to crime ". They only focus on what he said that applies to them But yes I think he is a racist but hides behind his intellectualism

Its not ideal but Im leaning towards Teresa May Gove is an intellectual but he lacks....charisma?

Who's the bigger nitwit, Trump Bruce or (we) the people who keep engaging with and/or insulting him? The people who engage him. It's clear by now he's either a troll or an idiot, either way it's a waste of time. Anyways someone on Trump's staff browses /pol/ An idiot.. Its nice knowing you never have to explain or justify certain comments hey KP....for example if I'm idiot can you give me a few examples of where I've said something and its been wrong ...as in my account of history is flawed 3 examples would be nice but somehow I dont think you will acquiesce to my request, thats okay its a forum. Its easier to make an emotional point that is not based on facts

Dude I was raised by a single mother, that's not a valid excuse. And look just so we're clear: I'm not blind to the fact I'm essentially screaming at a wall, I'm just too stubborn to give up, because it pains me to imagine someone like Bruce in any position of power exhibiting such a thought process while doing their job. Holy hell, think of all the chaos. Surely we can reveal this as a troll once and for all. Surely we can actually get through to him. I refuse to give up on trying, no matter how hopeless that is. I dunno if that's just stubborness, because I need to be able to sleep at night or because I hold a belief in the need to try or you can't critique such stupidity since you've done nothing to try and fix it yourself, but yeah, I refuse to stop trying. LK do you mind if I just add to this You see you conflating debates on the Internet like GG where there is no definitive "correct " answer to things like this Hilary being charged incident..and there is a definitive answer So now we having a normal debate where many times there is in fact only two possible answers, you had a certain view and I had a another. But one of us is wrong and one of us is right...its not a big deal but I can see you not use to it And also lets say I am a troll, how would you even begin to reveal this? Its like Oby, even if he is a troll he cant and wont change now But what exactly would you say makes me a troll?

Who's the bigger nitwit, Trump Bruce or (we) the people who keep engaging with and/or insulting him? There's a saying that applies here: 'Fool me once, shame on you. fool me twice, shame on me.' Many here are way past twice... Trump is not stupid, thats definitely not true But that doesnt mean his political strategy will work or he has not made several terrible decisions in his attempts to be the Predisential choice ....for me the worst thing he has done is alienate the minorities, short term objective to appeal to some Republican sentiments. But this will cost him the final election and he will have no one else but himself to blame

But ironically my views based on " sounds like a something a girl would make on the school playground with the same arrogance that comes with it, as boys don't hit girls " happen to be correct in this case ...strange that I also reject this notion öf " arguing like a man " , thats 1980's and sexist. Nowadays we just debate like people in a debate, there is no " mans way to debate " But ironically my views based on " sounds like a something a girl would make on the school playground with the same arrogance that comes with it, as boys don't hit girls " happen to be correct in this case ...strange that I also reject this notion öf " arguing like a man " , thats 1980's and sexist. Nowadays we just debate like people in a debate, there is no " mans way to debate " Case in point. You have absolutely no idea what i am talking about and just throw killing words to end the discussion, while thriving over the attention given from everyone talking about you. Not really, you the one who started talking about me....you raised it not me I cant help it if you want to make assumptions about what motivates me

No I'm not a Troll and I'm sure we have discussed this many times where I have mentioned it annoys me when people say that about me as its just as excuse to avoid a debate " waaaaaaaaaaaa...BruceVC is a troll...I'm going to ignore him .....waaaaaaaaa "

But ironically my views based on " sounds like a something a girl would make on the school playground with the same arrogance that comes with it, as boys don't hit girls " happen to be correct in this case ...strange that I also reject this notion öf " arguing like a man " , thats 1980's and sexist. Nowadays we just debate like people in a debate, there is no " mans way to debate "

GD, that question you asked me sometimes is framed a different way because some folks think I'm biased on certain topics but its normally from people who dont really respect the principle of debate so I wouldnt really be too concerned about responding But with you its different as I do appreciate your efforts you put into our debates ....I have learnt a lot from you. For example I have changed my view on gun control primarily on the way you made your point But of course on topics like this we differ but thats fine and normal So if it was Trump I would be convinced he had something to hide because I dont think much of his integrity But I wouldn't assume the FBI was incompetent and if they decided to not charge him I would assume it was because of lack of evidence. Thats the difference, I trust the FBI to do there job and if there was real evidence against her they would have charged her I dont see the system as rigged You really don't see an issue where the Presidential Candidate... the ONLY viable Presidential Candidate of a major political party is being investigated for criminal conduct by a DOJ controlled by that same candidate's political party? But the FBI are the ones who have decided not to charge her....surly we not saying the FBI is under the influence of the Democrats and they not doing there job properly? First of all the FBI has decided nothing of the sort. And they can't charge her. All they can do is recommend a charge to the United States Attorney General. Who just had a "secret" meeting with Bill Clinton which no reporters or photographers were allowed to see. Do you REALLY think they were talking about their grandchildren? Now even of all of this is as dirty as it looks it does not mean Hillary Clinton will not be the 45th President of these United States. When your choices are between a corrupt and petty ex Senator and a billionaire blowhard who says the stupidest things imaginable you are screwed no matter what. Or you could stand by principles and support Gary Johnson or Jill Stein. I like Gary Johnson, he was on CNN State of the Union today But the news presenters ask the strangest questions or rather questions that are predictable, so the lady interviewing Johnson say " do you think Trump is a racist " How do you think he answered That is what annoys me about him. If I had been sitting in for him on Townhall last week I would have handled ALL of those questions very differently. Most of what they are asking are just using him as a catspaw to attack Trump. For the most part he should reject the premise of the questions. They all seem to built around the notion that nothing happens unless the federal government does it and that is simply not true. I agree on this, its weird but its like the majority of presenters...not all but most....will always take the conversation to the point of " Trump is a bigot, remember that " For me that has become a distraction now and almost theater where its more about discussing " did you see what Trump said " But Trump also makes things worse for himself with his direct attacks on the media, he gets very personal and its unnecessary

GD, that question you asked me sometimes is framed a different way because some folks think I'm biased on certain topics but its normally from people who dont really respect the principle of debate so I wouldnt really be too concerned about responding But with you its different as I do appreciate your efforts you put into our debates ....I have learnt a lot from you. For example I have changed my view on gun control primarily on the way you made your point But of course on topics like this we differ but thats fine and normal So if it was Trump I would be convinced he had something to hide because I dont think much of his integrity But I wouldn't assume the FBI was incompetent and if they decided to not charge him I would assume it was because of lack of evidence. Thats the difference, I trust the FBI to do there job and if there was real evidence against her they would have charged her I dont see the system as rigged You really don't see an issue where the Presidential Candidate... the ONLY viable Presidential Candidate of a major political party is being investigated for criminal conduct by a DOJ controlled by that same candidate's political party? But the FBI are the ones who have decided not to charge her....surly we not saying the FBI is under the influence of the Democrats and they not doing there job properly? First of all the FBI has decided nothing of the sort. And they can't charge her. All they can do is recommend a charge to the United States Attorney General. Who just had a "secret" meeting with Bill Clinton which no reporters or photographers were allowed to see. Do you REALLY think they were talking about their grandchildren? Now even of all of this is as dirty as it looks it does not mean Hillary Clinton will not be the 45th President of these United States. When your choices are between a corrupt and petty ex Senator and a billionaire blowhard who says the stupidest things imaginable you are screwed no matter what. Or you could stand by principles and support Gary Johnson or Jill Stein. I like Gary Johnson, he was on CNN State of the Union today But the news presenters ask the strangest questions or rather questions that are predictable, so the lady interviewing Johnson say " do you think Trump is a racist " How do you think he answered

I dont know why, it does concern me. I need to investigate a few things about this

GD, that question you asked me sometimes is framed a different way because some folks think I'm biased on certain topics but its normally from people who dont really respect the principle of debate so I wouldnt really be too concerned about responding But with you its different as I do appreciate your efforts you put into our debates ....I have learnt a lot from you. For example I have changed my view on gun control primarily on the way you made your point But of course on topics like this we differ but thats fine and normal So if it was Trump I would be convinced he had something to hide because I dont think much of his integrity But I wouldn't assume the FBI was incompetent and if they decided to not charge him I would assume it was because of lack of evidence. Thats the difference, I trust the FBI to do there job and if there was real evidence against her they would have charged her I dont see the system as rigged You really don't see an issue where the Presidential Candidate... the ONLY viable Presidential Candidate of a major political party is being investigated for criminal conduct by a DOJ controlled by that same candidate's political party? But the FBI are the ones who have decided not to charge her....surly we not saying the FBI is under the influence of the Democrats and they not doing there job properly?

Has anyone ever told you you have this wonderful habit of stating absurdly bold claims as fact and then not bothering to reinforce that idea with any evidence whatsoever? I mean you don't even live in the USA, the media is *insanely* biased in favor of Clinton, and yet you consider yourself in a good enough position to deduce that most of her critics surrounding this email scandal are "mostly people that don't like her." You feeling guilty LK? Yes I would be also if I was you. After all you have misread and been wrong about Hilary from day one, you were one of those that made absurd and belligerent comments like " Hilary will NEVER be president, its not possible. Anyone who thinks she may actually be president is utterly uninformed " Try to see it this way "The Clinton administration is inexorably coming like a slow-moving locomotive " Please ****ing quote me when I said Hillary will never be president. **** me man, let's double that down: please quote ANYONE here saying Hillary will never be President, because I'm super curious if your claim has ANY basis whatsoever or if you've completely invented this stance. I distinctly recall saying anyone that thinks she's trustworthy is blind as all hell, I do not recall for the life of me that I said she has no chance. I wish she has no chance, but she's far too much money backing her. Seriously though Bruce, do you pride yourself on being mentally retarded? I'm saying it again: please quote me, because I'm 99% sure you are falsely recollecting things I've said such as "It's obvious as hell Hillary subverted the law" or "you'd have to be blind to think Hillary is trustworthy" and somehow your brain has magically re-aligned this into me thinking she has zero chance of being president...? The only possible chance I ever said something along those lines would've been months ago. I'm seriously very very curious where the HELL you're getting this from. And guilty for what? For sake of argument, let's assume I did say she'll never be president. I should feel guilty for making that claim? I should feel guilty for being wrong? Let me connect the dots in that misfiring brain of yours for you: I believe you are trying to state people should feel guilty for accusing her of wrongdoing. If the point is that people accusing her of wrongdoing should be something we feel guilty about, well one, lol no it's not because hell yes people have a right to demand an investigation and potential trial, and two she has not been absolved of any guilt yet and you are already celebrating and calling it as if the FBI themselves publically announced her innocence and their opinion that we should all buy her a brand new car as an apology. None of that ****ing happened: they interviewed her under shady pretenses (not the FBI itself, but Bill's talk with Loretta is hella shady) and we must wait and see what comes of it. You are quoting an article with blatantly obvious bias, as even the wording they choose is clearly chosen to make the issue seem as non-controversial as possible (example, they call it "a discussion of her email arrangements" instead of a criminal investigation into her email scandal, call it a "voluntary interview" instead of "questioning," and then even PR as to why she won't comment further). Dude, no joke, you seriously worry me sometimes. The post you just wrote? Delusional. No joke, no hyperbole, no exaggeration: your post I'm quoting is 100% delusional. You've somehow convinced yourself that Hillary is hereby innocent and cased closed, that I've stated Hillary has no chance of winning, and what's more you have this childish attitude like you've "won" over Hillary's opponents. Dude it's a CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION!!! It's THE ELECTION FOR PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES!!! If tomorrow there were some breaking story where Bernie smuggled 90% of campaign donations into Putin's Swiss Bank account, damned right me and every other damned American has an interest in seeing that matter investigated, because I want to know and understand the candidates I can vote for, lest I vote for someone I don't actually want. There is no "well hot damn, he's the candidate I stuck my claim in! I better childishly defend him to the death and immediately denounce anyone that dares claim that investigation is warranted" like you seem to think, because that would be childish and arguing in bad faith. This is serious business, and you're treating it like the Dallas Cowboys vs. the San Francisco 49ers. Grow the **** up or shut the **** up and don't bother us with your god awful uneducated opinions about politics. Bruce, for the love of God and for my sanity, please educate yourself for once in your life. It is PAINFUL to read this delusional **** from you and to see you argue politics so childishly. And before you say it: I'm not saying supporting Hillary makes you uneducated, I'm not saying supporting Hillary makes you childish. I'm saying you and your last ~3 posts make it crystal clear how little influence other's dissenting opinions have on your brain, and how you only seem to consult yourself on matters and even use your own confirmation bias to draw new conclusions completely out of left field, such as "Longknife said Hillary can never win." If the voice in your head told you that, kindly ask that voice to quote me, because I got news for you: Bruce's Mind Voice #2 might be full of it. Your response seems emotional, yes you were wrong. Its not my fault, I'm not sure why you venting on me? What more about this email scandal should I educate myself on? My view on this topic hasn't really changed, I said I doubt the FBI will ever charge her due to lack of evidence ?

GD, that question you asked me sometimes is framed a different way because some folks think I'm biased on certain topics but its normally from people who dont really respect the principle of debate so I wouldnt really be too concerned about responding But with you its different as I do appreciate your efforts you put into our debates ....I have learnt a lot from you. For example I have changed my view on gun control primarily on the way you made your point But of course on topics like this we differ but thats fine and normal So if it was Trump I would be convinced he had something to hide because I dont think much of his integrity But I wouldn't assume the FBI was incompetent and if they decided to not charge him I would assume it was because of lack of evidence. Thats the difference, I trust the FBI to do there job and if there was real evidence against her they would have charged her I dont see the system as rigged

Has anyone ever told you you have this wonderful habit of stating absurdly bold claims as fact and then not bothering to reinforce that idea with any evidence whatsoever? I mean you don't even live in the USA, the media is *insanely* biased in favor of Clinton, and yet you consider yourself in a good enough position to deduce that most of her critics surrounding this email scandal are "mostly people that don't like her." You feeling guilty LK? Yes I would be also if I was you. After all you have misread and been wrong about Hilary from day one, you were one of those that made absurd and belligerent comments like " Hilary will NEVER be president, its not possible. Anyone who thinks she may actually be president is utterly uninformed " Try to see it this way "The Clinton administration is inexorably coming like a slow-moving locomotive "