BruceVC

There are several contributing factors towards the violence, Trump is not the only reason but he is big part of it There have been many examples of protesters opposed to Trump being attacked at his rally's http://time.com/4090437/donald-trump-violence-protests-republican-debate/ http://www.pea****-panache.com/2016/01/trump-supporters-attack-silent-protesters-rally-21169.html http://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/2016/03/03/trump-protester-cincy-white-supremacist-attacked-me/81288954/ The list goes on and on. Trump has basically become famous because he "speaks his mind and isn't PC " ...people strangely assume that because the Trump campaign is self funded that must mean Trump " speaks the truth " No, the reason people practice a degree of PC etiquette is not because we pander to minorities who make unreasonable demands or because people are uninformed about the reality of the world its because its a global world where we need to respect different cultures and sometimes its better to be diplomatic if we want economic and political cohesion and harmony So you can think Trumps " anti-PC " is cool and constructive...but its not and this violence is a result of this I can't remember seeing this type of violence at other US elections?

Yeah I agree....the whole law has several major flaws in it, you have just highlighted one But the government is trying to do the right thing considering the social reality of young pregnancies

No I obviously wouldn't select these people....I wouldnt have to. There are many people who share my views both politically and ideology and would be more than happy to contribute towards these types of social developments

No of course I dont want someone like Trump killed.....geez louise that is going too far. I don't hate the guy and wish him harm. I am just opposed to his political strategy and objectives for the USA But he has created this environment where there is this level of violence at rally's, he started it by his very offensive public views...his success is exactly because he is going against established but unpopular political institutions. He gained support through his populism and invective...but the negative side to it is there really are people who don"t like him and will cause issues at his rally's

Thats okay Oby, the West has learnt its lessons about the reality of getting involved in the ME In summary its not worth it, Russia will learn the same lesson....except it will be a harsher lesson for Russia because of the dysfunctional state of the Russian economy

Volo why do you think its wrong if only I decide what is considered free speech? That would not be practical or realistic, I would have tribunals of people who decide these things So it wouldn't just be up to me, I'm not arrogant Does the inherent evil in what you're proposing truly escape you? "inherent evil " sounds a bit dramatic don't u think?

Volo why do you think its wrong if only I decide what is considered free speech? That would not be practical or realistic, I would have tribunals of people who decide these things So it wouldn't just be up to me, I'm not arrogant

It was Sanders supporters and other leftists disrupting Trump's rallies, I've never seen any Trump supporters trying to disrupt Sanders rallies. As far as cancelling, it was the right call, there was a near riot inside as it was, and apparently they were planning to rush the stage if Trump showed up. Sure, there are elements of people disrupting some of Trumps rally's But aren't people allowed to do that...freedom of speech and the US Constitution ? Bruce, you're hopeless. Freedom of speech doesn't mean you can deny someone else their right to free speech. The protesters outside the rally is fine, but they have no right to go inside the rally and disrupt it. Did you not see it on TV? People were fighting already even though Trump didn't show up. If he did it would've been a riot. What would people say if someone got killed as the result of him continuing? It was clearly not safe. Also, US is not Weimar Germany, the comparison is ridiculous. Yeah....WOD I do get confused, if I could create laws in a country like the USA it would be simple I would allow freedom of speech but not if it offends people on certain levels..trust me there would be much less social acrimony

I suppose he didnt want to criticize his supporters because of how many of them had been treated at other trump events? Or how other protesters had been treated at other events even if not Trump supporters

I haven't laughed this hard in a while. It was Sanders supporters and other leftists disrupting Trump's rallies, I've never seen any Trump supporters trying to disrupt Sanders rallies. As far as cancelling, it was the right call, there was a near riot inside as it was, and apparently they were planning to rush the stage if Trump showed up.Sure, there are elements of people disrupting some of Trumps rally's But aren't people allowed to do that...freedom of speech and the US Constitution ? Yes. In fact the police assured Trump it was safe for him to hold the rally but he pussied out anyways. But I dont blame him for cancelling this particular rally, the protesters seemed very belligerent .....Trump rhetoric is also to blame but under the circumstances I can understand the rally being postponed

It was Sanders supporters and other leftists disrupting Trump's rallies, I've never seen any Trump supporters trying to disrupt Sanders rallies. As far as cancelling, it was the right call, there was a near riot inside as it was, and apparently they were planning to rush the stage if Trump showed up. Sure, there are elements of people disrupting some of Trumps rally's But aren't people allowed to do that...freedom of speech and the US Constitution ?

This whole US political race is very entertaining for you hey Baro

Guys in Canada ( Malc, Volo and Oerwinde) Did you guys watch the Obama\Trudeau press conference at the White House It was cool, the men disagreed on somethings but there was lots of common ground...they even joked about Americans immigrating to Canada if Trump wins

Thats a good post Leferd, I hope everyone reads it

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/03/11/politics/donald-trump-chicago-protests/index.html I'm not sure what you mean? Yes I am Hilary supporter, many people are. I'm not sure what you getting at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qQoOtrHG96k I refuse to believe that you are SO blind that you cannot see that line for what it is. That line was obviously a rehearsed humblebrag that she was told to say. That line is akin to "I have a confession to make. If elected as president, I cannot help but spend three hours out of my day each day donating money to starving orphans and sick puppies. I'm sorry America, I hope I haven't let you down with this, but it's just who I am. I can't stand to watch those poor things suffer, even if it gets in the way of my work." I'm sorry, but I firmly believe you have to be an idiot to not see the intent behind that line. It's a humblebrag. A dishonest humblebrag that her campaign told her to try and drop into the debate somewhere, where she gives this impression she's ashamed of something that the American people would actually view as a good thing. And yeah, it's not even true. The very fact that that statement was made contradicts the context of the statement itself. I reference that line because it's easily the most painful line of any debate I've seen thusfar. It is, in my opinion, the epitome of lying in politics, yet apparently people can't pick up on that. If you are asked a question about why the American people don't trust you, and your only response is to attempt to lie to them again, then wow. That should say worlds about Hilary as a candidate and as a politician, but instead, the world being what it is, of course there's thousands of idiots that buy into it. In my world, that line would singlehandedly unravel and tank her campaign, since it's just so obvious and filled with so many delicious ironies that only sink her credibility, but I know we don't live in my world. So all I can do is sit here in awe at the fact that Hilary could not have delivered a more obvious political line/lie and she's not even gonna need to pay for it because people are just that stupid. I'm sorry LK but I watched that video and there is ABSOLUTELY nothing strange, disingenuous or unexpected about she said. Maybe she believes it, I believe she believes it ...and I thought her " natural politician " comment was suppose to be a little impertinent, it made me chuckle So I'm not sure why you think that clip should put people off her?

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/03/11/politics/donald-trump-chicago-protests/index.html I'm not sure what you mean? Yes I am Hilary supporter, many people are. I'm not sure what you getting at

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