BruceVC

This is a very good post, its reasonable and convincing on resonates with me on some levels, I need time to consider what you say but once again a very good post But let me ask you two questions Do you want the EU to disintegrate and if so what would be the future ...as you mention do you suggest a new EU? What criteria and laws would bind it together... If you want the EU to survive what would your immediate or long term changes to the EU be that you feel the EU has to implement to sustain itself..you say things like " member states need to cooperate and support each other" but thats a little unclear as its not specific enough I would like to see EU work. I would like to see such cooperation as creating clear rules how EU as whole handles refugees and they need to be fair and balanced. We should ensure that no country left alone or or drowned by the problem. There needs to be clear and agreed rules how refugees are divided between countries, how those that don't get asylum are removed from EU. And it must be absolutely sure that registering and controlling refugees could cause problems for country as it can do now. Also EU as whole need to be in charge of refugee issues, like returning them to their home countries, providing shelters etc.. For example so that EU strikes deals with countries like Iraq and Somalia how their citizen can be returned instead of every member country making such deals in bilateral negotiations. Also I would recommend that EU creates refugee fund that pays refugee shelters, returning the rejected applicants, etc. Also EU need institution which job is to ensure that refugees are divided evenly all around EU. Also I would like to see EU institution and court that handles all the asylum applications in EU, because if their applications are accepted they are free to move everywhere in EU so it would be nice if there was uniform rules and institution which decides such things. Of course this are ideas that would mean that EU integrates more and such ideas aren't that popular these days. And things not related to refugee crisis. I would like to see EU finally to abolish mobile phone roaming charges. So that free movement is actually feasible in EU. (This just need cooperation) Also I would like see better economical support systems where member states that have problems because of asynchronous economical issues could get help and ensure that economical bend during crisis is as small as possible and economical crisis is as short as possible. So I would like to better investment and recovery fund systems that can react to problems that single member state face. Especially ECB needs methods how it can give economical support for states which economical growth/decline differs from other Euro countries. Also there needs to be better cooperation how taxes are paid over borders how assistances/pensions etc. are paid to other member states and how they are taxed and how those taxes are divided. Also EU needs clear tax haven rules to make sure that companies can't go around some member state's taxes by creating "office" in another. There are lots of this kind things that in my opinion needs to be better handled on EU level. Guys I have been thinking about making a post that you may or may not like Basically its the reasons the EU won't disintegrate but the refugees also wont go away...so if you want a valid reason why the EU won't disintegrate I can tell you but you may not like what I say because I have to be direct and I dont want you guys to think I'm being rude ?

Raithe you can't posting these types of jokes...I don't think some of our American friends are finding them funny

I did read your posts properly. You can just stop with the "poor me, nobody understands me" crap. There was no misunderstanding at all. The fact is that you just kept changing your story. Here's the sequence ...... And there we have it. In any case, the previous comments about relying on "credible" sources for polling predictions stand. Relying on FOX (or a bunch of guys at a convention) for an election prediction is beyond silly. And your go-to-source, CNN, credible or not, predicted an Obama victory. Check the link I provided. Okay let me explain in more detail, there is no contradiction in what I said. You made assumptions about what I was saying. I dont mind being proved wrong but this is not about that. You are suggesting my story is not true but if you feel something is unclear just ask me. I'm sure you wouldn't like someone questioning your integrity In Vegas I was attending a global Sales\Technical conference. During the day you are in courses and there is no time to discuss politics. There were about 3000 people at the conference with about 65 % being from the USA and the rest from around the world At lunch we all ate in a large hall, we could sit at any table. The tables could sit about 8 people and what would always happen all the South Africans would sit together but I made a point of always sitting with strangers so I could talk to people I didn't know. When I introduced myself to the people, who were almost always Americans, I didnt know and told them I was from SA they were always very talkative and very friendly and because the USA election was 1 week away someone would say something like "we were told not to discuss politics with foreigners but what do you think about Obama and our election next week " I use to play coy and let them rather tell me what they thought and without fail everyone single person at those tables was adamant that Romney would win These people were generally white Americans from the ages of 35-65 in various positions from sales managers to technical specialists but basically your hard working, tax paying standard American who were convinced of Romneys victory. So that is what I meant when I said " everyone I spoke to" ...obviously I didn't walk around Vegas asking random people about politics But when I went back to room and in the morning I use to watch Fox and MSNBC...but that was in the room I hope that explains in detail what I meant.

Not really, Going into Iowa nobody quite knew who was the leader. There was a heavy suggestion of Trump but Carson, Jeb and Cruz all had decent support with everyone kinda laughing off Trump. The reason you got that sense of "Romney was almost the winner" was because that's what SOLD for CNN, Fox, and MSNBC. They wanted you to tune in till midnight eastern time for you to see the results. They did the same in 2008 even though that was a MUCH more lop sided fight. Simply because that earned them ratings that meant money. A lot of the issues we see in our modern political system is because this stupid stuff SELLS, if we actually voted based on who would run the country best, Clinton would be almost a shoe in because she can wheel and deal better than most CEO's. Instead we're told that being able to "have a beer" with your candidate is more important. Funny enough I was in Vegas and I did watch MSNBC and Fox only because we don't get them in SA and yes they both seemed very confidant Romney would win Fox was particular embarrassing ...I promise you they had this guest who was some sort of actuary or economist who came on and "could prove that Obama would lose.....he was 100 % certain " I c You getting cheeky young man Not really, Going into Iowa nobody quite knew who was the leader. There was a heavy suggestion of Trump but Carson, Jeb and Cruz all had decent support with everyone kinda laughing off Trump. The reason you got that sense of "Romney was almost the winner" was because that's what SOLD for CNN, Fox, and MSNBC. They wanted you to tune in till midnight eastern time for you to see the results. They did the same in 2008 even though that was a MUCH more lop sided fight. Simply because that earned them ratings that meant money. A lot of the issues we see in our modern political system is because this stupid stuff SELLS, if we actually voted based on who would run the country best, Clinton would be almost a shoe in because she can wheel and deal better than most CEO's. Instead we're told that being able to "have a beer" with your candidate is more important. Funny enough I was in Vegas and I did watch MSNBC and Fox only because we don't get them in SA and yes they both seemed very confidant Romney would win Fox was particular embarrassing ...I promise you they had this guest who was some sort of actuary or economist who came on and "could prove that Obama would lose.....he was 100 % certain " I certainly hope you're not relying on the talking heads on CNN, MSNBC, or FOX News for predictions regarding the Election...let alone anything of importance. I guess I gave Bruce too much credit for thinking he might have been basing his observations on creditable sources. Guys lets just put this to bed once and for all, we dont get Fox or MSNBC in SA so yes CNN is one of my authoritative sources of political commentary Now I have to assume you guys don't watch CNN or you only watch the local US CNN....do you watch the international CNN? Its VASTLY different to local US CNN. They have numerous guests and highly informed commentators who are objective and get the political predictions normally right You guys must know people like Wolf Blitzer, Anderson Cooper and John King....these are the types of people who comment on the US politics. They live, eat and sleep politics and to suggest they uninformed is patronizing And you're crawfishing ........ First your source was "everyone", then it was "everyone at a convention", then MSNBC and Fox and now it is CNN. Let me know when you decide where you want to land with your "source" for the facts, okay? That sort of flexibility is worthy of Donald Drumpf. No you didnt read my post properly and now you accusing me of inconsistency....you see Kgambit how people misunderstand me I said when I was the USA 1 week before the election I watched Fox and MSNBC because we dont get them in SA But in SA I watch CNN, BBC, Sky and Al-Jazera...but we dont get Fox or MSNBC

Not really, Going into Iowa nobody quite knew who was the leader. There was a heavy suggestion of Trump but Carson, Jeb and Cruz all had decent support with everyone kinda laughing off Trump. The reason you got that sense of "Romney was almost the winner" was because that's what SOLD for CNN, Fox, and MSNBC. They wanted you to tune in till midnight eastern time for you to see the results. They did the same in 2008 even though that was a MUCH more lop sided fight. Simply because that earned them ratings that meant money. A lot of the issues we see in our modern political system is because this stupid stuff SELLS, if we actually voted based on who would run the country best, Clinton would be almost a shoe in because she can wheel and deal better than most CEO's. Instead we're told that being able to "have a beer" with your candidate is more important. Funny enough I was in Vegas and I did watch MSNBC and Fox only because we don't get them in SA and yes they both seemed very confidant Romney would win Fox was particular embarrassing ...I promise you they had this guest who was some sort of actuary or economist who came on and "could prove that Obama would lose.....he was 100 % certain " I certainly hope you're not relying on the talking heads on CNN, MSNBC, or FOX News for predictions regarding the Election...let alone anything of importance. Not really, Going into Iowa nobody quite knew who was the leader. There was a heavy suggestion of Trump but Carson, Jeb and Cruz all had decent support with everyone kinda laughing off Trump. The reason you got that sense of "Romney was almost the winner" was because that's what SOLD for CNN, Fox, and MSNBC. They wanted you to tune in till midnight eastern time for you to see the results. They did the same in 2008 even though that was a MUCH more lop sided fight. Simply because that earned them ratings that meant money. A lot of the issues we see in our modern political system is because this stupid stuff SELLS, if we actually voted based on who would run the country best, Clinton would be almost a shoe in because she can wheel and deal better than most CEO's. Instead we're told that being able to "have a beer" with your candidate is more important. Funny enough I was in Vegas and I did watch MSNBC and Fox only because we don't get them in SA and yes they both seemed very confidant Romney would win Fox was particular embarrassing ...I promise you they had this guest who was some sort of actuary or economist who came on and "could prove that Obama would lose.....he was 100 % certain " I certainly hope you're not relying on the talking heads on CNN, MSNBC, or FOX News for predictions regarding the Election...let alone anything of importance. I guess I gave Bruce too much credit for thinking he might have been basing his observations on creditable sources. You getting cheeky young man Guys lets just put this to bed once and for all, we dont get Fox or MSNBC in SA so yes CNN is one of my authoritative sources of political commentary Now I have to assume you guys don't watch CNN or you only watch the local US CNN....do you watch the international CNN? Its VASTLY different to local US CNN. They have numerous guests and highly informed commentators who are objective and get the political predictions normally right You guys must know people like Wolf Blitzer, Anderson Cooper and John King....these are the types of people who comment on the US politics. They live, eat and sleep politics and to suggest they uninformed is patronizing

Not really, Going into Iowa nobody quite knew who was the leader. There was a heavy suggestion of Trump but Carson, Jeb and Cruz all had decent support with everyone kinda laughing off Trump. The reason you got that sense of "Romney was almost the winner" was because that's what SOLD for CNN, Fox, and MSNBC. They wanted you to tune in till midnight eastern time for you to see the results. They did the same in 2008 even though that was a MUCH more lop sided fight. Simply because that earned them ratings that meant money. A lot of the issues we see in our modern political system is because this stupid stuff SELLS, if we actually voted based on who would run the country best, Clinton would be almost a shoe in because she can wheel and deal better than most CEO's. Instead we're told that being able to "have a beer" with your candidate is more important. Funny enough I was in Vegas and I did watch MSNBC and Fox only because we don't get them in SA and yes they both seemed very confidant Romney would win Fox was particular embarrassing ...I promise you they had this guest who was some sort of actuary or economist who came on and "could prove that Obama would lose.....he was 100 % certain "

Neither of those guys are gonna be the nominee in this cycle and I don't see Rand making it past the primary in 2020. I agree about Hillary being the wrong candidate though, and could see someone like Kasich or Romney 2.0 beating her. Its interesting you guys feel Clinton would be beaten by the likes of Kaisch, it not the first time I have heard that On what evidence do you have to support this, lately various polls and even the last Presidential election have got the predictions wrong. I remember I was in the USA 1 week before the last election and everyone was predicting Romney would win ....and he didn't Your memory stinks and doesn't conform to the actual facts. The majority of polls were predicting an Obama victory. Here's a brief summary of 2012 from RealClearPolitics: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_election_romney_vs_obama-1171.html or better still, this one : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationwide_opinion_polling_for_the_United_States_presidential_election,_2012 Just look at the 2012 post convention polls and particularly the ones right before the election. As for 2016 here are the poll summaries from RealClearPolitics : http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/2016_presidential_race.html Summary (which covers up to 5 different polls) is Clinton leads Trump and trails against Rubio, Kasich and Cruz. Then you weren't looking at all the right places at all. https://web.archive.org/web/20121029234812/http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/29/oct-28-in-swing-states-a-predictable-election/?hp 538/Nate Silver had Obama at a 74.6% chance of winning with 50.4% of the vote exactly one week before the Election. He was off by 0.2%, winning with 50.6% of the popular vote. No my memory is fine But I was at a convention and everyone there was saying Romney would win..okay so I'm wrong about that one What about the Iowa Republican caucus....pollsters and media were horribly wrong ?

Neither of those guys are gonna be the nominee in this cycle and I don't see Rand making it past the primary in 2020. I agree about Hillary being the wrong candidate though, and could see someone like Kasich or Romney 2.0 beating her. Its interesting you guys feel Clinton would be beaten by the likes of Kaisch, it not the first time I have heard that On what evidence do you have to support this, lately various polls and even the last Presidential election have got the predictions wrong. I remember I was in the USA 1 week before the last election and everyone was predicting Romney would win ....and he didn't

Nice Story ...that sounds picturesque the whole bees incident

You forget who you're asking. Nah....Meshugger is normal to me, remember when Zora compared him to me

Hurlshot if you disagree with what I say maybe you raise the points you find incomprehensible Everything I said about that video I can support ....in fact I could have been much more dismissive

The reality of the matter is that Bernie on the democrat side and Trump on the republican side are winning votes is the natural result of the establishment ignoring the needs of its constituents, often thanks to the media pushing to what electability is or should be. It's a top down movement, and in a country based on revolutionary principles, they better start to listen now, or the day of the rope dawns nearer. That's not unique to any state, society, empire or civilization, historically speaking, and she is highlighting the forces that are at bay. Not really, Hilary Clinton will be the nominee so that fight agaisnt establishment is over and who can say if Trump will become the Republican candidate. But thats something the Republicans need to resolve I'm not sure what fundamental changes Trump will make that his supporters think will reshape American society....but lets see

The South is a gigantic number of delegates, though, and while he's projected to do better outside of it, he's not projected to do so well he can make up for being absolutely crushed in the South, which is why he's currently projected to lose. He's also currently losing in Florida and Michigan, the latter of which he needs to be winning, and the former of which he needs to be at least sort of close...Oh I'm not expecting Berne to win, or even hoping for it tbh. I'm expecting/hoping Bernie to draw in enough support to drag on the primary long enough to publicly expose the Democratic party for the undemocratic institution it is and to show how liberals for are spineless corporate lapdogs instead of the defenders of the working class they larp as. At the very least I'd like to see the primary process challenged, as it is pretty stupid. As I mentioned I liked Sanders...he genuinely seemed to care about a more fair society...you just cant tear down whats working to achieve this

Small things like these makes me a happy bunny. I am not getting it, what makes you happy about this? Exposing the establishment as the globalist frauds they are. I'll be honest I have read that Twitter debate about 3 times and I'm not getting it Howard Dean wants to Vote for Hilary...a reasonable and prudent choice. What is the link to the establishment...or is that the other link you referring to? Having a dense day perhaps? They are exposing themselves right in the open. Here, have a video about what's brewing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8VMZSXzy7O0 That was a very tedious video to sit through....that women is anti-Obama, anti- Democrats and anti-Hilary...she represents a sector of Trump supporters. I reject basically everything she says. The Republican party has been fractured by Trump, of course Romney will oppose him as he represents the Republican establishment ...I support the establishment but they left it too late One of the many spurious points she makes is dismissing the GOP security leaders criticism of Trump..read this. Its not unfounded http://warontherocks.com/2016/03/open-letter-on-donald-trump-from-gop-national-security-leaders/ Anyway her view doesn't represent the views of the Democrats or Republican establishment and its her own biased view..so I'm not sure why you think this is fact and proof of the end of Western establishments ?

Howard Dean (ex governor of Vermont) is superdelegate (meaning that he has one delegate vote in democratic national convention where 130k people that voted in democratic primary in Vermont are represented by 16 delegates) for Vermont, so he is member of DNC establishment and his vote counts much more than your typical democrat. I didnt know what a super delegate meant, thanks for explaining But does it change my point? Hilary Clinton is going to be the Democratic nomination....its basically inevitable Millions of Americans feel she is right person to be the next president. Howard Dean feels the same way, why should he vote for Sanders? 86% of people of Vermont voted Sanders so they would like to see that Dean would factor in will of people of Vermont when he cast his vote and people in that twitter thread aren't that pleased of his answer that he don't represent people and will vote according to his own views. Okay I see, so basically people in Vermont feel Howard Dean doesn't have a right to vote for who he feels is the right candidate....he must do what the majority of people in Vermont do Seems a bit selfish and unreasonable to me ?

Howard Dean (ex governor of Vermont) is superdelegate (meaning that he has one delegate vote in democratic national convention where 130k people that voted in democratic primary in Vermont are represented by 16 delegates) for Vermont, so he is member of DNC establishment and his vote counts much more than your typical democrat. I didnt know what a super delegate meant, thanks for explaining But does it change my point? Hilary Clinton is going to be the Democratic nomination....its basically inevitable Millions of Americans feel she is right person to be the next president. Howard Dean feels the same way, why should he vote for Sanders?

The South is a gigantic number of delegates, though, and while he's projected to do better outside of it, he's not projected to do so well he can make up for being absolutely crushed in the South, which is why he's currently projected to lose. He's also currently losing in Florida and Michigan, the latter of which he needs to be winning, and the former of which he needs to be at least sort of close... There's nothing to misunderstand, Bruce. That's good, because you are, after all, the one making all the posts that you are constantly making that have made us regard you this way. Barti you make me laugh But please can you admit I have been a very constructive and positive view when it comes to you, we may have a few disagreements but I would think you generally agree with me ?

Small things like these makes me a happy bunny. I am not getting it, what makes you happy about this? Exposing the establishment as the globalist frauds they are. I'll be honest I have read that Twitter debate about 3 times and I'm not getting it Howard Dean wants to Vote for Hilary...a reasonable and prudent choice. What is the link to the establishment...or is that the other link you referring to?

Small things like these makes me a happy bunny. I am not getting it, what makes you happy about this?

Every disagreement I've had with you where you failed to provide a coherent argument to support your view, let alone evidence to support it, has convinced me more of the strength of my position and the weakness of yours. So I suppose you exist as an example of how views can be reinforced by a clueless opposition and you're influential in getting people to believe the opposite of what you advocate for. Yes, I feel you have definitely misunderstood me if thats what you think I blame myself for that negative view you have ...but I am trying to change that. We just need another chance to debate about an interesting topic

KP please tell Sharp what an important influence my posts have on your perspective...I think he thinks no one cares what I say

But I would take Romney any day over Trump....wouldn't you? But you would never vote republican regardless, so no one cares which republican candidate you prefer. Well I haven't aligned generally with the Republican presidential candidate over the last few years but I am not completely anti-Republican. My view on US politics is more nuanced than that. How do you know no one cares? I have legions of people on this forum who formulate there entire view on global politics on what I say I could try to inform you but I'll be honest it will be loads of hard work to get you to understand my view....but if you are prepared to work hard and listen to what I say I'll educate you Neither you or Bruce can even vote, so your point seems a little silly. Thats true...also I'm not sure why not being a US citizen would have any relevance on me commenting on US politics ?

Drowsy I would really like you to read this book...its called Civilization. The author is one of the worlds most respected Historians, he is one of those writers who has the ability to explain facts in a way that is interesting. It answers many questions about the West..I think you will appreciate it http://www.niallferguson.com/publications/civilization

But I would take Romney any day over Trump....wouldn't you?

Your cognitive dissonance and hardcore ignorance is showing. Evidence of censorship on this very forum is linked on this very page below, and that is by no means an isolated incident of censorship in the land of Obsidian in my experience. On the wider scale that I was referring to (I was not limiting my observation to this particular forum), there are cases of various forms of censorship, in particular in schools, that make national news almost every day. If you look into the Foundation for Individual Rights in Higher Education ,or even the ACLU (they are less consistent in fighting censorship, but they do often fight it) you can find an in recent times ever increasing number of censorship cases, often (though certainly not always) driven by sentiments the SJW crowd holds dear. Much more could be said, but given your usual immature ignorant response, I think it's likely a waste on you. Vals I agree with Hurlshot on this one I think you are exaggerating...but just to be clear about what you are suggesting. Are you saying the SJ movement represented by SJW is influencing institutions like schools?