BruceVC

Trump needs to accept his level of responsibility, its as simple as that. This link represents the views of some of his supporters...this should worry you Meshugger http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/man-punched-protester-trump-rally-hints-violence-article-1.2560288

Trump has a real cheek, claiming he can take no responsibility for violence at his rally's http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/donald-trump-rally-st-louis-features-protests-article-1.2561617 Trumps rhetoric is a direct contributing factor towards violence we see at these gatherings http://time.com/4203094/donald-trump-hecklers/

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/03/11/politics/donald-trump-chicago-protests/index.html I see the Trump rally in Chicago was cancelled due to protesters....I should feel bad for Trump, I know I should but I don't

And when Hilary is nominated as the Democratic candidate...what then? Would you be surprised....or would you still not be surprised?

No need for me to try harder, history speaks for itself and I don't support this revisionist view of history from some that " Serbia was the victim in conflicts like Bosnia and Kosovo ' Sorry, brah

No, no. The bombing of Belgrade was necessary to prevent Serbian aggression in Kosovo and to stop human rights abuses perpetuated by the Serbs , it made sense and worked https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO_bombing_of_Yugoslavia

Statutory rape I know it sounds inconsistent but in SA in the rural areas we have young girls, 13-15, who literally could be running households as there are no parents and the grandparents normally are involved. So some of these young girls are pregnant so the idea behind this legislation is not to criminalize young people having sex who now also have the responsibility of being parents and running households

Yes this is basically correct In SA it is legal for people to have sex from the age of 12-16 with each other But you can't be 17 and have sex with someone who is 12, then its statutory rape

I think you should post links to the audio and transcripts of these radio talk shows. http://www.702.co.za/ http://www.powerfm.co.za/ There are podcasts you can download of specific guests but they dont record the political debates, but you can listen live as they have streaming. I'll be phoning 702 in about 40 minutes to discuss an inordinate fine one of corporations is receiving in Nigeria. So you can hear me live, my name is Bruce from Randburg Here is the live streaming address, I'll make it easy for you http://www.702.co.za/listen-live

Over a period of a fortnight, it's roughly a 50/50 split between spending time at the clients place(s) and working from home. I try to visit our head office once a month. Nice, its like my job. I work on projects so I also travel about 50/50

Not quite out in the country side yet, took the first and best apartment I could get to have a roof over my head. Not that it makes much difference at this time of year. It's as cold and miserable as Scandinavia, so a disproportinal amount of time is spent indoors anyway. I've actually never been to the UK when it hasn't been winter. Looking forward to experience it through spring, summer, fall etc. So besides the inside of offices or whatever is next to the m3, m4, m25, m23, m20 etc. I haven't had much of a chance to experience what the country has to offer yet. I get along quite well with the locals though, wherever I go, whether it be Cornwall, Sussex, Essex, Surrey, Kent or the Greater London area. If you have lived off German food for a year, anything else is considered a delicacy (I've mentioned it before, one of my pet peeves with Germany was the atrocious quality of the "food" products in the supermarkets and grocery stores, specialty stores may be exempt from that generalisation) Yeah, summer in the UK is soooooooo nice Great long days and the sun sets late but the winters can get depressing. Are you travelling a lot for work?

That sounds normal to me, in SA most dog lovers do that Post a picture of him? I like Dachshunds

I did, unfortunately she quickly ran out because she had to get to work so I'm all alone right now. Did you hire an escort? No, I have a girlfriend and would not pay some poor woman in a bad situation for sex. My bad....but KP you mustn't see hiring an escort in a negative light You could treat her very well in the same way as any girl so the overall experience is a good one It isn't how I treat them, its the situation they're in with pimps and other unpleasant realities of prostitution. I know you liberals think turning everything into a commodity to be sold is good, but I have no desire to contribute to a situation that turns women into products to benefit pimps and treat said women like slaves. Not to mention it's illegal and I don't want to end up in jail. Oh no I'm not talking about a hooker who has a pimp, I mean a professional escort. They dont have pimps, there cliental would be businessmen. So you would hire them for an evening, you can have dinner, movies and you dont have to have sex ...its more about the company Regardless I really like my girlfriend and don't see the point in paying for (subpar)company or sex, which I find...strange to begin with. Yes of course, I'm not suggesting you get a escort now....you are clearly in a happy relationship But if you ever single, Houston has some nice ladies

It's like all those conspiracy movies, but it is actually happening. I can believe this, it may be a bit late but I hope they do stop Trump....but its doubtful

I did, unfortunately she quickly ran out because she had to get to work so I'm all alone right now. Did you hire an escort? No, I have a girlfriend and would not pay some poor woman in a bad situation for sex. My bad....but KP you mustn't see hiring an escort in a negative light You could treat her very well in the same way as any girl so the overall experience is a good one It isn't how I treat them, its the situation they're in with pimps and other unpleasant realities of prostitution. I know you liberals think turning everything into a commodity to be sold is good, but I have no desire to contribute to a situation that turns women into products to benefit pimps and treat said women like slaves. Not to mention it's illegal and I don't want to end up in jail. Oh no I'm not talking about a hooker who has a pimp, I mean a professional escort. They dont have pimps, there cliental would be businessmen. So you would hire them for an evening, you can have dinner, movies and you dont have to have sex ...its more about the company

I did, unfortunately she quickly ran out because she had to get to work so I'm all alone right now. Did you hire an escort? No, I have a girlfriend and would not pay some poor woman in a bad situation for sex. My bad....but KP you mustn't see hiring an escort in a negative light You could treat her very well in the same way as any girl so the overall experience is a good one

I did, unfortunately she quickly ran out because she had to get to work so I'm all alone right now. Did you hire an escort?

Exactly my point right here! The constitution of the Unites States specifically FORBIDS the Federal Government from interfering with the governance of the states except in the execution of the responsibilities assigned to the Federal Government by the Constitution. Social things like gay marriage is not among those. That he thinks he can is a problem! That he does so and gets away with it is a bigger problem! I hear you but surly if the objective is positive then it should be fine? GD are you worried about a Trump presidency ...in the sense he may do something really dumb like attack Iran What do you think he would do first if he became president ...I think real Obamacare? No, it is NOT OK if the outcome is positive. Didn't you read my post in #93? A good end NEVER justifies a bad means. Dictatorships and Oligarchies are not made overnight. The Constitution is the supreme law of the United States or there is no law but what the current body politic decides. I've posted this before but the question everyone needs to ask themselves is 'Do you trust the people in government? Do you trust the people who will be there 10 years from now? 20 years from now?" The only rational answer is "No!" Trump appears to favor a non interventionist foreign policy which suits me fine. As for what he's going to do, who the hell knows? He hasn't said anything intelligible yet except promise to do things no President can do like raising tariffs on Mexico. Well Mexico is a signatory of NAFTA. We have a treaty with them meaning you CAN'T raise tariffs on them. Either he thinks he can and that's a problem. Or he knows he can't and he full of s--t and that is a problem. I understand your point, you see the Constitution as sacrosanct and you cannot change it But what if the Constitution became a stumbling block to progress...so people found a way to bypass it. Like the Gay Marriage Bill...you realize if the Supreme Court hadn't intervened you would still have states that would be refusing to allow two people who are in love to get married, of course these would be same sex couples But thats not fair GD...the USA is not about discrimination Ok, this is a far more complex subject than can be worked over in the few lines I have time to write. Although I am pleased with the outcome I don't like the means by which Obergefell was decided. It stems from this: marriage in the US is a legal contract. That gives the court jurisdiction over it. It never should have been than and this whole mess would have been headed off long ago. I'd love to dig more into this but I have to leave for work now. Later GD

A bit lazy of me because I'm at work right now. The rundown Wiki page about the event My own tl;dr version, Maastricht Treaty was about the ever increasing integration and erosion of national sovereignty, giving that up in favour of the EU institutions. In true democratic nature, the "Eurocrat" politicians in Denmark were horrified when the voting results became official and promptly decided a new referendum was needed (and they would probably repeat that until the stupid people finally voted the way they were supposed to). In order to prevent a repeat of the first result, Denmark got 4 exemptions added to the agreement that pretty much left the country out of those key elements and letting the Danes have more autonomy in areas that other countries weren't offered (because the politicians there never asked people if they wanted it, they simply signed away chunks of sovereignty to Bruxelles at the time). I voted no at the second referendum too, but sadly the second result was a yes (with the key elements of the Maastricht treaty not applying to Denmark). It's also the reason Denmark could keep it's own currency for example. Gorthie I meant to ask you, how are you enjoying the UK? You staying in the countryside right...whats your routine like, found any good restaurants or places you like to go to You know my family are from the UK so we have strong tries

Exactly my point right here! The constitution of the Unites States specifically FORBIDS the Federal Government from interfering with the governance of the states except in the execution of the responsibilities assigned to the Federal Government by the Constitution. Social things like gay marriage is not among those. That he thinks he can is a problem! That he does so and gets away with it is a bigger problem! Not directly related to the US election, but similar sentiments is what keeps most Scandinavians (and the UK) from ever having developed warm feelings for the entire European "Union" concept. Free and open markets, etc. yes. A super national construct telling individual countries how they should run their countries, no. Proud voter of "No!" to the Maastrict treaty in 1992 What does that mean Gorthie? The Maastrict treaty And you say that you are firm believer of EU I kid, but it is treaty that created EU. Yes I did recognize the name but to be fair the post I'll make later is about the EU now ....not when it was created

Exactly my point right here! The constitution of the Unites States specifically FORBIDS the Federal Government from interfering with the governance of the states except in the execution of the responsibilities assigned to the Federal Government by the Constitution. Social things like gay marriage is not among those. That he thinks he can is a problem! That he does so and gets away with it is a bigger problem! I hear you but surly if the objective is positive then it should be fine? GD are you worried about a Trump presidency ...in the sense he may do something really dumb like attack Iran What do you think he would do first if he became president ...I think real Obamacare? No, it is NOT OK if the outcome is positive. Didn't you read my post in #93? A good end NEVER justifies a bad means. Dictatorships and Oligarchies are not made overnight. The Constitution is the supreme law of the United States or there is no law but what the current body politic decides. I've posted this before but the question everyone needs to ask themselves is 'Do you trust the people in government? Do you trust the people who will be there 10 years from now? 20 years from now?" The only rational answer is "No!" Trump appears to favor a non interventionist foreign policy which suits me fine. As for what he's going to do, who the hell knows? He hasn't said anything intelligible yet except promise to do things no President can do like raising tariffs on Mexico. Well Mexico is a signatory of NAFTA. We have a treaty with them meaning you CAN'T raise tariffs on them. Either he thinks he can and that's a problem. Or he knows he can't and he full of s--t and that is a problem. I understand your point, you see the Constitution as sacrosanct and you cannot change it But what if the Constitution became a stumbling block to progress...so people found a way to bypass it. Like the Gay Marriage Bill...you realize if the Supreme Court hadn't intervened you would still have states that would be refusing to allow two people who are in love to get married, of course these would be same sex couples But thats not fair GD...the USA is not about discrimination

Exactly my point right here! The constitution of the Unites States specifically FORBIDS the Federal Government from interfering with the governance of the states except in the execution of the responsibilities assigned to the Federal Government by the Constitution. Social things like gay marriage is not among those. That he thinks he can is a problem! That he does so and gets away with it is a bigger problem! Not directly related to the US election, but similar sentiments is what keeps most Scandinavians (and the UK) from ever having developed warm feelings for the entire European "Union" concept. Free and open markets, etc. yes. A super national construct telling individual countries how they should run their countries, no. Proud voter of "No!" to the Maastrict treaty in 1992 What does that mean Gorthie? The Maastrict treaty

Exactly my point right here! The constitution of the Unites States specifically FORBIDS the Federal Government from interfering with the governance of the states except in the execution of the responsibilities assigned to the Federal Government by the Constitution. Social things like gay marriage is not among those. That he thinks he can is a problem! That he does so and gets away with it is a bigger problem! I hear you but surly if the objective is positive then it should be fine? GD are you worried about a Trump presidency ...in the sense he may do something really dumb like attack Iran What do you think he would do first if he became president ...I think repeal Obamacare?

They vote option that other party didn't propose regardless of what the proposition was. That is at least the feeling that I get from the news. That is also true I'm afraid...there is political gridlock. The Republicans basically will try to oppose Obama on anything they can But for me the main difference is Obama believes that the Federal government needs to sometimes intervene in the states to achieve a more equitable society....like the Gay Marriage Bill Republicans are tired of big government spending and interference in how they run the states Other people can correct me or add something else

Elerond do you know what the primary difference between the Republicans and Democrats is nowadays ?