BruceVC

10 second google search Sorry I did know about this story, Howard Dean is perfectly entitled to vote for Hilary Clinton He has been a supporter of her for ages, he is a very astute politician. I honestly find it unreasonable and arrogant that the people of Vermont think he has no right to vote for who he feels is the correct candidate I'm not why this even became an issue,,,isnt the principle of voting in the USA sacrosanct where people are allowed to vote for who they want? Or do we break traditional rules because the people of Vermont now like Sanders?

Stop being obtuse Bruce. The controversy was the fact that if Sanders won the democrat nomination he'd be willing to "override" that in favour of Clinton. To put it crudely. I'm not with you? I dont know the details ....sorry what do you mean?

Links? Volo let me decide if what she said is insulting....we both know you tend to jump to conclusions

No And some of the US members are not

Volo please dont tell me you support Trump?

No GD....now thats going too far .....she is NOTHING like Trump She doesn't intentionally insult people and feel the need to keep telling people how great she is....its actually almost an insult to compare her to Trump

I will happily discuss Hilary Clinton as I am huge supporter of hers I understand that most of the American members on this forum are opposed to her, thats fine of course. People must support who they feel is the right candidate. But the view of Hilary Clinton on these forums is not the view that her mainstream supporters have of her and this applies to the majority of Democrat supporters So why Hilary Clinton, she has been preparing for this for years after losing to Obama. She has shown numerous qualities I admire that generally women need to do naturally when dealing with men. What do I mean...am I being sexist? No of course not. She had to accept her husbands cheating and losing to Obama yet she didn't throw a tantrum and walk off in anger....no she quietly continued to work towards her common goal She has ample experience and she firmly supports the important Obama legacy..she is the right candidate and represents the Democratic establishment. Sanders is a nice guy but he has made so many populist comments if he was elected he would be hard pressed to actually deliver Clinton has suggested nothing extreme and even during her debates what she say she wants to do she can substantiate I would suggest you seriously start preparing for a Clinton presidency....dont assume she wont make it

Some people will exaggerate those types of so called SJ crimes Of course he isn't sexist ...but some of his supporters can also be extreme. Like attacking Howard Dean for voting for Hilary

But I cant recall this kind of jokes about a USA presidential candidate ?

You right...but I still think you guys put up with a lot

I hear you and remember I made a post once where I asked don't you American forum members ever get tired at all the constant views and opinions that people who dont live in the USA constantly have about the USA And I'm well aware I am one of those people but most of us wouldn't like you guys always commenting on our countries ...yet you guys seem almost fine. So trust me you getting a little annoyed is not only normal its looooong overdue And I realize you probably don't feel that way now but it would be a normal reaction IMO

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/84229-us-elections-2016/page-23?do=findComment&comment=1781968 On the 1/03 ..I suppose you may have been joking ?

Yes...remember the whole comment about jokes and UK children, that was very out of character for you

Okay, sorry I took so long to respond. Guys I'll make the post, I am busy tonight but I'll do it tomorrow

What? They decided they didn't want the monarchy, so they went ahead and created their own brand of aristocracy and complain when they aren't nice. Besides, if you can't poke fun at politicians and would-be politicians regardless of which country they happen to be from, what's the point of life? Buts what strange is Gfted1 never really complains about things yet he snapped at you which is unusual for him For me I have tried telling our American friends how people outside the USA really don't like Trump and think he represents what Americans actually think....I'm not sure what its like in the UK but in South Africa people really don't understand the USA and I hear two types of comments generally I cant believe Trump is winning....whats wrong with the people in the USA ....why dont they stop him ( they assume people are supporting Trump because his supporters are racist or anti-Muslim ) I knew the people in the USA were like this, this just supports what we all know (this is from the anti-Western people ) Anyway your jokes are a good reminder that Trump is not considered your normal USA presidential candidate....would there normally be this type of disrespect ?

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