BruceVC

You know, in my head I'm still a young buck but then you get reminded how much time has passed. Getting old is the worst. I was brushing my teeth the other day and took a good look and my face in the mirror. I look just like my father did now. How the heck the that happen? But if I'm having a mid-life crisis of some kind I'll just drown it in good bourbon. That does not solve any problems true. But it does offer a respite. Bourbon never ceases to make things better

Don't think she has authority over the military enough to 'use' it. At least she probably won't surround herself with devils like GWB did with Clark, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld. Hillary is as bad as any of them. She doesn't need to surround herself with them. Nah she is fine, I would suggest you consider a reality where she becomes the next USA president...compare her to Trump and his ideas of how to " make America great again " ( This is one of the many Trump contradictions. The USA is already great, I'm not sure how much more great Trump can make it ? ) And this video Drowsy keeps posting with some sound bites about Hilary taken out of context is no reason I have lost any faith in her and I encourage others to ignore them as well

Bruce has always been a supporter of Hillary. Indeed, I am But I like Sanders, its just I believe Hilary is better suited overall to be the next US president I thought you didn't like his economic policies. Yes thats correct, well I don't like his more radical economic ideas like the whole restructuring of the financial sector and big business But I don't dislike him on a personal level as he really seems to care about people in the USA who are battling financial So I want Hilary to get the nomination but I won't be very disappointed if Sanders gets it as he also respects most of the Obama legacy

Bruce has always been a supporter of Hillary. Indeed, I am But I like Sanders, its just I believe Hilary is better suited overall to be the next US president

Yeah, this view that " people only vote for Hilary because she is a women " definitely doesn't apply to the vast majority of Democrats We can see this as Sanders initially was no competition to Hilary but as the months have gone by he has gained more and more support....if Democrats only cared about gender then Sanders wouldn't be doing so well Democrats vote on the policy objectives of candidates....if they believe the candidate and like what they hear then they would support that candidate. Its the same as the Republicans And Hilary Clinton basically represents the Obama legacy which many Americans support and want to continue. It makes sense to me, I would vote for Hilary if I could

But foreign policy is Hillary's weak point. Sanders has been consistently right on every matter since the nineties, while Hillary has taken the wrong side. Her brief job as Secretary of State consists mostly of failures like the "Russian reset button". Experience does not mean that you have been a bobblehead on a shelf in the Obama administration, you must point to situations where Hillary's own unique advice and insight has shifted the course of the US to the better. If not, she would be replaceable by anyone. Frankly, I can't think of any such situations, on the contrary with her views I think she might be toxic to US foreign policy. Yes Clinton has been following the standard " Obama idea of foreign policy " ..but for me this is exactly the right policy so why would she decide to redefine it? So for example, The USA respects the veto of the UNSC even if flawed like the initial required military intervention in Syria The USA is not automatically agreeing to the views of historical " friends" around military intervention. So despite massive pressure from the likes of Israel and Saudi Arabia the Obama administration did not just bomb Iran. They followed the path of negotiations The USA is prepared to let other countries take the military lead in regions where typically it was the USA who had to lead. Its okay if there is a perception that Russia " outmaneuvered" the USA in Syria. Its fine if Russia resolves the conflict one way or another I like Sanders but what are some examples of him being on the right side of policy decision since the 90'S ...I feel this would be a subjective debate

No they don't tend to be better, Western countries are better as they offer there citizens overall the best quality of life This is an irrefutable fact. And its not about the view that " white people are running Western countries" its because in Western countries certain laws and views exist that are enforced and end of the day despite criticism these laws are the best way to ensure a happy and prosperous society So in Africa most people want a working and economically transformed continent ....but you still have certain countries where leaders disregard good governance and human rights. This in turn leads to social and political instability and lack of investment. So in the African context certain leaders need to realize that rhetoric is not enough to achieve the required economic transformation ...you need to actually implement the required laws and enforce them

You guys are funny But it does matter, the views of your average South African will be generally echoed throughout the African continent Surly misplaced perspectives about the USA from a whole continent ....thinking how racist the USA is should concern you Patriotism Barti...patriotism Barti. It should matter if Trump is creating a very bad impression around the USA and its citizens? Do you think they'll start to think of us so negatively they'll stop coming here illegally? Good point WOD and one of the great contradictions that permeates much of this anti-Western sentiment No of course many people will still criticize the West but will happily immigrate to a Western country

You guys are funny But it does matter, the views of your average South African will be generally echoed throughout the African continent Surly misplaced perspectives about the USA from a whole continent ....thinking how racist the USA is should concern you Patriotism Barti...patriotism Barti. It should matter if Trump is creating a very bad impression around the USA and its citizens?

Sure, Trump knows how to get maximum exposure from the press that generally benefits him and he is a successful businessman But that doesn't mean he understands the negative impact of some of his more controversial policies

Things like Bernie being too soft and not on the attack feeds to my musings about him just being controlled opposition and never really threathening her place as the nominee. But at the same time, he gets almost the same treatment as Ron Paul got back in 2012 by the media (think of the false accusations like the manufactured "BernieBros-scandal"). Maybe the interests just intertwine, or he's just a meek character, who knows. All i can say, i find it amusing that she got 86% of the black vote in South Carolina, compared to someone who actually marched with MLK and got arrested while protesting during the Civil Rights-era, all while she was campaigning for Nixon. Oh, and Milo thinks that Rubio is a flaming homo. This is hysterical. The issue with attacking Hillary is that the Clintons are party royalty and an attack on her would trigger a lot of liberals and could potentially hurt him in the primary. I'd say he should do it because framing himself as the crusader for better economic status for the lower classes and Hillary as a Wall Street shill would both weaken her and differentiate him from status quo Democrats. But as you said, he's getting the Ron Paul treatment and the debates are scheduled at times when people aren't likely to watch so perhaps the DNC decided it wants Hillary so perhaps there isn't anything that can change that. And I asked my friend's roommate if he thought Rubio was gay and he said that Rubio looks like a bottom. Make of that what you will. KP do you think Hilary is a Wall Street shill...thats seems a little unreasonable ?

Yes but he can still do some serious damage to the perception of the USA that people have...this is irritating and takes years to undo Already most people in SA think " the support for Trump and his offensive and racist comments is actually what all Americans have always thought.,..now we seeing the the real face of the USA ".....its complete BS but people think that

Its true....much of what you said did worry me immensely and set off my SJ warning bells But you have been right about several things so I want to recognize that

They probably went home back to Syria....so technically they aren't lost ? Most of them are most likely still in Germany or other EU countries. They just live with their relatives or other acquaintances illegally in Germany or they seek asylum in other countries with possible new name or live in those countries illegally (similarly with relatives or other acquaintances). And then some of them are victims of human trade. Okay ...well thats not a good outcome, lets rather say they went back to Syria...settled down, white picket fence, a large family and a dog in some quiet Syrian neighborhood Now doesn't that sound better than your view of what happened

They probably went home back to Syria....so technically they aren't lost ?

Attacking Hilary would go against what Sanders' strategy. As he has stated from beginning of his campaign that he will not smear other candidates but tries to win what he has to offer. Hillary gets run quite freely with his foreign policy expertise because Sanders has even less and his focus is in domestic politics. Although Sanders strategy not attack his opposition has worked quite well for him, because it was something fresh in US politics and his opponents that attacked him suffered because of those attacks instead of him. I would say that Sanders would not be as serious contender as he is without that strategy. And GOP side the leading candidate is one that owns every attack against him and makes them seem as his strengths. Which is caused that more Trumps opposition smears him more popular Trump becomes. You can see Clinton's expertise in politics how she has adopted Sanders like strategy to avoid direct smear towards Sanders and how she has also adopted lots of things from his campaign so that it don't look so unique anymore. Especially as said adoption strategy seems to work for her quite well. Also foreign policy is not Sanders strong point...he doesn't have too much insight on these types of matters

How unusual.....draconian implementation of laws in a Muslim country

Nah, Liberty isn't being lost ...it just feels that way because of the necessary intervention by the Federal government End of the day even the Obama\Clinton\Sanders ideal of a prosperous middle class still requires the actual people to work hard...you can't legislate economic transformation But we yes we do need to ensure big business can do its job

WOD do you hunt in Texas? I mentioned to you how I met several Texas hunters in SA....hardcore guys, real outdoor survivalists. The type of people who could live in the wilderness if necessary

Yes but the outcome will still be secretive, unless you saying the outcome will become public record later?

But the only way you could reasonably blame the West for wanting to depose Gaddafi is if you believe the Arab Spring was a creation of the West....do you believe that? Yes and no. But western want to depose Gaddafi had little to do with Arab Spring, it just give them opportunity do something that they had wanted to do for long time before that point. And fact that people in Libya wanted to depose Gaddafi give west absolution of responsibility of their actions in Libya. I must admit that I just can't comprehend your reasoning why Arab Spring would anyway remove/lessen responsibility that west has over their actions and decisions. Yes I agree to a certain degree...once the Libyan conflict started the West wanted to depose Gaddafi, I also wanted that. He was dictator who abused his country and his people I would add 6-8 current African leaders that I wish would be removed from power and arrested for numerous crimes...people like Gaddafi never had a real election when he was in power....not once, not once in 40 years . He was never the legitimate leader of Libya And the reason I keep bringing up the Arab Spring is that was the reason in places like Libya and Syria there was a civil war...irrespective of what the West did once these conflicts started the West is not to blame for causing them

Thats a good question, I'm glad you asked that. That article is a cleverly written piece of anti-Clinton propaganda. It was created for one reason, to besmirch Hilary Clinton and to try to erode her integrity. Its common in politics, it contains just enough " information " to make you think its credible but then consider points they make That campaign has been widely reported by Reuters and other media outlets, but it officially is classified as a “Top Secret/Special Access Program” (SAP), meaning only a limited number of people whose names are on a special list are allowed to learn details about it. A spokesman for NGA did not immediately respond to requests for comment. CIA spokespeople declined to comment. It was unclear what the congressional committees that received the classified reports, the House and Senate intelligence and foreign relations panels, will do with them. The contents cannot be discussed publicly. The committees requested intelligence reports in connection with their efforts to ensure that government secrets are appropriately protected. So in fact basically we have NO idea if she was vindicated, chastised, supported.....its very incoherent the whole thing

"However, the agency reports found some emails included passages that closely tracked or mirrored communications marked “top secret,” according to the sources, who all requested anonymity. In some cases, additional classification markings meant access was supposed to be limited to small groups of specially cleared officials. Under the law and government rules, U.S. officials and contractors may not transmit any classified information – not only documents – outside secure, government-controlled channels. Such information should not be sent even through the government’s .gov email network." At least 22 emails had info from documents marked "top secret" or above. Over a thousand emails with some level of classification sent over the public internet. Each instance of mishandling classified info is a felony. WOD that article mentions the general rulings are confidential and so is the final reports Why would you have an opinion on something where there is no substantive evidence?

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/mar/29/arms-libya-rebels http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/05/28/emails-show-clintons-interest-in-arming-libyan-rebels-despite-prohibitions.html http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/feb/1/hillary-clinton-libya-war-push-armed-benghazi-rebe/?page=all http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/06/world/africa/weapons-sent-to-libyan-rebels-with-us-approval-fell-into-islamist-hands.html http://www.reuters.com/article/us-libya-usa-order-idUSTRE72T6H220110331 For starters Yes but as I mentioned the Libyan rebels were already fighting Gaddafi before the USA sent this assistance, in other words the civil war didn't need the West to sent military equipment for the rebels to fight Gaddafi http://www.reuters.com/article/us-libya-rebels-weapons-idUSTRE73B5C220110412 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1363780/Libya-US-ask-Saudi-Arabia-supply-weapons-rebels-bid-oust-Gaddafi.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8606541/France-supplying-weapons-to-Libyan-rebels.html http://www.news24.com/Africa/News/Libya-rebels-ask-for-extra-arms-20110721 http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-13966976 http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/apr/19/libya-rebels-will-receive-25-million-from-us/?page=all http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/worldtonight/2011/04/a_libya_hypothesis_the_rebels.html http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/libyan-rebels-cant-win-fox-admits-so-we-need-a-traitor-in-gaddafis-circle-2329677.html http://www.reuters.com/article/us-libya-idUSTRE7270JP20110330 Libyan rebels may already been fighting against Gaddafi, but their change to win Libyan military was estimated to be non-existent without help from west. Yes but my point being they would have killed Gaddafi even if the West hasn't helped him You believe the West has to take responsibility because they helped the rebels but I'm saying countries and people need to accept there own actions ....Gaddafi was killed by the rebels. I still fail to see how the West is responsible My point was that rebels wouldn't have been able to kill Gaddafi without help from west and people in west need admit consequences of their actions too (they supported, even demanded deposing Gaddafi and his supporters, they give arms to rebels that had ties to Al-Qaida and other terrorist groups, they used their superior military strength to destroy Libya's national army, important infrastructure, legal institutions that kept peace in the land, without these actions current situation in Libya would be different and Gaddafi probably would still be alive) But the only way you could reasonably blame the West for wanting to depose Gaddafi is if you believe the Arab Spring was a creation of the West....do you believe that?

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/mar/29/arms-libya-rebels http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/05/28/emails-show-clintons-interest-in-arming-libyan-rebels-despite-prohibitions.html http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/feb/1/hillary-clinton-libya-war-push-armed-benghazi-rebe/?page=all http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/06/world/africa/weapons-sent-to-libyan-rebels-with-us-approval-fell-into-islamist-hands.html http://www.reuters.com/article/us-libya-usa-order-idUSTRE72T6H220110331 For starters Yes but as I mentioned the Libyan rebels were already fighting Gaddafi before the USA sent this assistance, in other words the civil war didn't need the West to sent military equipment for the rebels to fight Gaddafi http://www.reuters.com/article/us-libya-rebels-weapons-idUSTRE73B5C220110412 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1363780/Libya-US-ask-Saudi-Arabia-supply-weapons-rebels-bid-oust-Gaddafi.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8606541/France-supplying-weapons-to-Libyan-rebels.html http://www.news24.com/Africa/News/Libya-rebels-ask-for-extra-arms-20110721 http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-13966976 http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/apr/19/libya-rebels-will-receive-25-million-from-us/?page=all http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/worldtonight/2011/04/a_libya_hypothesis_the_rebels.html http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/libyan-rebels-cant-win-fox-admits-so-we-need-a-traitor-in-gaddafis-circle-2329677.html http://www.reuters.com/article/us-libya-idUSTRE7270JP20110330 Libyan rebels may already been fighting against Gaddafi, but their change to win Libyan military was estimated to be non-existent without help from west. Yes but my point being they would have killed Gaddafi even if the West hasn't helped him You believe the West has to take responsibility because they helped the rebels but I'm saying countries and people need to accept there own actions ....Gaddafi was killed by the rebels. I still fail to see how the West is responsible