Valsuelm

Who's the bigger nitwit, Trump Bruce or (we) the people who keep engaging with and/or insulting him? There's a saying that applies here: 'Fool me once, shame on you. fool me twice, shame on me.' Many here are way past twice...

No doubt, that is the plan and hope of some.

Sometimes the obvious needs to be stated, as while you may see the obvious, it's clear to some that others do not.

Good question, not necessarily easily answered, but one worthy of the attempt at answering. As it is the 4th weekend, I'm limited on time, but would like to engage this in full in the coming days. A question for you though: What about Trump makes you think that "we are looking at a huge expansion of federal power and a continuation of the erosion of the separation of powers between the executive & legislature"? While I would agree that the unbolded is pretty much a given under Trump, or really almost anyone else (including Johnson, or even a retrospectively potential Ron Paul), I'm mostly interested your take on the underlined and bolded. As for the unbolded, to a very large degree that is out of the President's hands, especially at this late stage of the game. Congress has abdicated much if not most of their power to the executive and judicial branches over the last ~100 years. Worse than that, they've abdicated much if not most of that power to a giant unelected bureaucracy. A thoroughly corrupt bureaucracy that is somewhat beholden to the executive (and even to the legislative in some cases) for sure, but I think we'd both agree that bureaucracy should not be in the first place. It is what it is however. And as much as I'd like to see this be an election issue, it is not an issue on the minds of most Americans. Most Americans, red or blue (especially blue), accept the alphabet soup as a given at this point, rather than something that's very existence should be challenged. For the unbolded in my quote of yours to be properly addressed, we need good leadership in Congress far more than we need good leadership in the White House, as that is where this battle needs to be fought. Again though, I'm far more interested in why you think 'we are looking at a huge expansion of federal power' under Trump.

GD, that question you asked me sometimes is framed a different way because some folks think I'm biased on certain topics but its normally from people who dont really respect the principle of debate so I wouldnt really be too concerned about responding But with you its different as I do appreciate your efforts you put into our debates ....I have learnt a lot from you. For example I have changed my view on gun control primarily on the way you made your point But of course on topics like this we differ but thats fine and normal So if it was Trump I would be convinced he had something to hide because I dont think much of his integrity But I wouldn't assume the FBI was incompetent and if they decided to not charge him I would assume it was because of lack of evidence. Thats the difference, I trust the FBI to do there job and if there was real evidence against her they would have charged her I dont see the system as rigged You really don't see an issue where the Presidential Candidate... the ONLY viable Presidential Candidate of a major political party is being investigated for criminal conduct by a DOJ controlled by that same candidate's political party? But the FBI are the ones who have decided not to charge her....surly we not saying the FBI is under the influence of the Democrats and they not doing there job properly? First of all the FBI has decided nothing of the sort. And they can't charge her. All they can do is recommend a charge to the United States Attorney General. Who just had a "secret" meeting with Bill Clinton which no reporters or photographers were allowed to see. Do you REALLY think they were talking about their grandchildren? Now even of all of this is as dirty as it looks it does not mean Hillary Clinton will not be the 45th President of these United States. When your choices are between a corrupt and petty ex Senator and a billionaire blowhard who says the stupidest things imaginable you are screwed no matter what. Or you could stand by principles and support Gary Johnson or Jill Stein. I like Gary Johnson, he was on CNN State of the Union today But the news presenters ask the strangest questions or rather questions that are predictable, so the lady interviewing Johnson say " do you think Trump is a racist " How do you think he answered That is what annoys me about him. If I had been sitting in for him on Townhall last week I would have handled ALL of those questions very differently. Most of what they are asking are just using him as a catspaw to attack Trump. For the most part he should reject the premise of the questions. They all seem to built around the notion that nothing happens unless the federal government does it and that is simply not true. Gary is a shill. I'm sincerely surprised you haven't realized this yet. He is not the answer.

Has anyone ever told you you have this wonderful habit of stating absurdly bold claims as fact and then not bothering to reinforce that idea with any evidence whatsoever? I mean you don't even live in the USA, the media is *insanely* biased in favor of Clinton, and yet you consider yourself in a good enough position to deduce that most of her critics surrounding this email scandal are "mostly people that don't like her." You feeling guilty LK? Yes I would be also if I was you. After all you have misread and been wrong about Hilary from day one, you were one of those that made absurd and belligerent comments like " Hilary will NEVER be president, its not possible. Anyone who thinks she may actually be president is utterly uninformed " Try to see it this way "The Clinton administration is inexorably coming like a slow-moving locomotive " Please ****ing quote me when I said Hillary will never be president. **** me man, let's double that down: please quote ANYONE here saying Hillary will never be President, because I'm super curious if your claim has ANY basis whatsoever or if you've completely invented this stance. I distinctly recall saying anyone that thinks she's trustworthy is blind as all hell, I do not recall for the life of me that I said she has no chance. I wish she has no chance, but she's far too much money backing her. Seriously though Bruce, do you pride yourself on being mentally retarded? I'm saying it again: please quote me, because I'm 99% sure you are falsely recollecting things I've said such as "It's obvious as hell Hillary subverted the law" or "you'd have to be blind to think Hillary is trustworthy" and somehow your brain has magically re-aligned this into me thinking she has zero chance of being president...? The only possible chance I ever said something along those lines would've been months ago. I'm seriously very very curious where the HELL you're getting this from. And guilty for what? For sake of argument, let's assume I did say she'll never be president. I should feel guilty for making that claim? I should feel guilty for being wrong? Let me connect the dots in that misfiring brain of yours for you: I believe you are trying to state people should feel guilty for accusing her of wrongdoing. If the point is that people accusing her of wrongdoing should be something we feel guilty about, well one, lol no it's not because hell yes people have a right to demand an investigation and potential trial, and two she has not been absolved of any guilt yet and you are already celebrating and calling it as if the FBI themselves publically announced her innocence and their opinion that we should all buy her a brand new car as an apology. None of that ****ing happened: they interviewed her under shady pretenses (not the FBI itself, but Bill's talk with Loretta is hella shady) and we must wait and see what comes of it. You are quoting an article with blatantly obvious bias, as even the wording they choose is clearly chosen to make the issue seem as non-controversial as possible (example, they call it "a discussion of her email arrangements" instead of a criminal investigation into her email scandal, call it a "voluntary interview" instead of "questioning," and then even PR as to why she won't comment further). Dude, no joke, you seriously worry me sometimes. The post you just wrote? Delusional. No joke, no hyperbole, no exaggeration: your post I'm quoting is 100% delusional. You've somehow convinced yourself that Hillary is hereby innocent and cased closed, that I've stated Hillary has no chance of winning, and what's more you have this childish attitude like you've "won" over Hillary's opponents. Dude it's a CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION!!! It's THE ELECTION FOR PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES!!! If tomorrow there were some breaking story where Bernie smuggled 90% of campaign donations into Putin's Swiss Bank account, damned right me and every other damned American has an interest in seeing that matter investigated, because I want to know and understand the candidates I can vote for, lest I vote for someone I don't actually want. There is no "well hot damn, he's the candidate I stuck my claim in! I better childishly defend him to the death and immediately denounce anyone that dares claim that investigation is warranted" like you seem to think, because that would be childish and arguing in bad faith. This is serious business, and you're treating it like the Dallas Cowboys vs. the San Francisco 49ers. Grow the **** up or shut the **** up and don't bother us with your god awful uneducated opinions about politics. Bruce, for the love of God and for my sanity, please educate yourself for once in your life. It is PAINFUL to read this delusional **** from you and to see you argue politics so childishly. And before you say it: I'm not saying supporting Hillary makes you uneducated, I'm not saying supporting Hillary makes you childish. I'm saying you and your last ~3 posts make it crystal clear how little influence other's dissenting opinions have on your brain, and how you only seem to consult yourself on matters and even use your own confirmation bias to draw new conclusions completely out of left field, such as "Longknife said Hillary can never win." If the voice in your head told you that, kindly ask that voice to quote me, because I got news for you: Bruce's Mind Voice #2 might be full of it. You may as well have directed those 5 paragraphs at your wall. It would have potentially yielded more fruitful results.

Saw these guys live some years back in Tuscon before they were headlining. I was there working with another band at a stadium music festival. Some good acts were there, but Muse stole the show and made me a fan. Prior to them hitting the stage, I'd barely known of them. Absolutely amazing live band. If you get a chance, see them. Also, this Blu-Ray is awesome.

I'd wager Air has spent some serious time listening to Genesis. The melody immediately reminded me of Banks's work on 'Firth of Fifth'. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gw89pFrOGw0

Paulson should be in jail, for a long long long long time..... The guy is the purest form of scum. His endorsement of anyone or anything should raise any astute person's eyebrows and cause them to concernedly question. If the guy said I should eat my favorite ice cream that I've been eating for years, I'd have second thoughts about ever doing it again.

You would be wrong, and I suggest expanding your horizons to include more people of different mindsets, so you are not wrong about such things in the future. There's a lot of folks who support Trump for a variety of reasons. Those are the ones that have been on his bandwagon for many or more months. The 'voting for Trump so we don't get Hillary crowd' hasn't yet factored in all that much. A good many, if not most of the folks in that crowd are still dazed and confused of sorts. They haven't yet come to terms with the idea that they will need to vote Trump if they don't want Hillary Clinton in office. Almost every Bernie supporter I know, as well as even many diehard lifetime red voters are in this crowd.

And there we have it... smh. All you have there is a bit of rubbish to sell some papers that won't go anywhere, or what historians (if there are any) will one day list as a major factor leading up to a civil (if not wider) war. British Parliament, the EU aristocrats, the globalist/banker elite ignore the will of still currently peacefully voting British majority at their very great peril. That said, I'm not sure some very evil MFers aren't actually angling for war at some point out of all of this. Either way the hubris at play currently measures off the charts.

LOL

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6rq7o-qUHc

Do you sincerely believe this? Sheesh! if you do. As it certainly isn't so. I wouldn't even levy that accusation at Hillary's camp. Both campaigns know what they are doing methinks. While Hillary herself might be an incompetent sociopathic Eviloid, her string pullers are at least competent, if not still sociopathic Eviloids.. Get those 'The Great Valsuelm has spoken!' posts ready.

I dislike just using one or two polls to make an argument, but FiveThirtyEight grades WashingtonPost/ABC News as an A+ pollster. There's something to that. Looking at the big picture, Clinton has had a steady, and sometimes huge lead in the aggregate over Trump since the start of the campaign season. It's getting closer to final bell and Clinton's been more than capable of absorbing Trump's haymakers. Final bell? The main event hasn't even kicked off yet. No haymakers have been thrown by Trump at Hillary yet, nor vice versa. All that's happened is some pre main event jibjabbing by the contestants. The ass whoppin of Hillary is coming, worry not.

WoD pretty much said it. Obama, Hillary, Bill, Georges B., et al are/were playing as much for team U.S.A. as Merkel, Cameron, Hollande et. al. are playing for team Germany, U.K., France, respectively and etc... which is to say they are only doing so in name only. All are/were bought and paid for globalist shills who would as soon see the nation they are supposed to be leading burn as any other to achieve the goals of the people who hold their strings. In my opinion its because most of our spineless lapdog politicians were useful sock puppets for the USAs interests in Europe, a foothold in the door so to speak and an ally amongst what may be a future enemy. It is not in the people of the U.S.A.'s interest for the EU to even exist. Obama and Hillary supporting 'remain' has nothing to do with furthering the interests of the people of the U.S.A., nor is near anything else they ever do or say.

You've got nothing but irrelevance on the subject at hand. Bring something to the table, or go away. Sorry your ego was bruised. I had thought you were above projection.

Historical context, please. The forward Christian thinkers that fought for religious tolerance and the separation of Church and state were a product of the aftermath of the incredibly bloody massacres that were perpetrated in Europe by Christians, for -on the surface- religious reasons, for over a hundred years. It is not possible to understand modern Western culture without the religion wars of the 16th and 17th centuries. So yeah, Christians. But only after they figured out that maybe, maybe, burning the heretic, killing the mutant, purging the unclean wasn't the best way to go about it. How about we try to foster the same kind of self-reflection within Islam rather than going full-on Der Stürmer at the drop of a hat? --- Regarding the Muslim rape gangs. While appalling, it's a drop in the ocean, sadly. Look up the numbers of child sex trafficking involving Eastern Europe. Hint: the mafias controlling that trade are run by white kingpins, and directed mostly at Western European white customers. edit: sure guv'nor, no more talk of Muslims. For all the good it does anyway... In the vast majority of the posts I ever make on any given topic on this forum, historical context is considered (frankly, hence my point of view on many things as I have deep knowledge of the history (I generally don't opine when I don't know, I listen)). The one you reference, is not one of the exceptions. I'm more than well aware of the situations which you bring up, however, in the context in which I was writing, they are a combination of acknowledged and irrelevant to the point I was making.

Thanks. As someone who knows how to use excel, and is pretty good at it (I would have formatted the sheet in a far more intuitively readable way) and regularly works with people who are also competent at using excel, it sometimes eludes me how people can be so bad at it, as it is far from rocket science. I've little doubt you are right though and it's likely just pure failure on the part of the person who made the excel sheet, rather than my failure to interpret their BS. But hey.. I make mistakes and sometimes don't see **** too... Note for anyone not familiar with excel: really, it's amazing how many people makes sheets with this simple program who have no idea what they are doing. It is sometimes my bad when I assume people know what they are doing. I challenge anyone to tell me what those asterisks are, and I thank you if you can do so.

So you think Wikipedia just created those cases out of thin air? That none of those rape cases happened and Wikipedia made them up? BTW, those are all cases that have been investigated, put on trial, and the Muslim rapists were convicted. So it was not like Wikipedia just invented them. Because raping is solely a muslim business .... riiiiiiiiiiiight... give me a break... *sighs* Rape gangs and sexual grooming are Muslim businesses. I have not heard of any other demographic group that do those things on such a large scale. For example: Chinese or Koreans do not have rape gangs targeting white women. Chinese or Koreans do not groom little girl for sexual slavery. Yet we keep reading about how Muslims - in particularly Pakistanis (who are unfortunately called "Asians" by the British media) - consistently commit those atrocities. Here you have and example of Christian performed gang rape https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/05/27/dozens-of-men-took-part-in-the-gang-rape-of-a-brazilian-teen-the-the-video-made-it-online/ Which is actually uncommon. As I said: Which is a pattern. Which is a culture of Islam. FYI: the founder of Islam himself was a bandit warlord in his late life who was going around pillaging, plundring, raping and abducting women as sex slaves. That was what Mohammad did. That is what Islam was founded on. And that is what Islam is. Mohammad was a brutal warlord; he was not a hippy who renounced violence and went around preaching non-violence; he was not a prince who renounced power and wealth to pursue enlightenment. Mohammad was not a peaceful man in his life. So what makes you think Islam is any different from the behaviors of its founder? Ok let's judge now all Christians by Bible verses, too: You may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT Apples and Oranges at best. a) Leviticus is Old Testament. Most Christian denominations put oodles more emphasis on the New Testament than the Old, if they even refer much to the Old at all. Hence they are Christians, not Jews. b) It was Christian nations that abolished slavery (the overt form anyways) first within their own nations, and then campaigned to abolish it worldwide. Not Muslim, not Jewish, not Animist, Buddhist, Hindu, or whatever else. Christians. c) It was almost exclusively Christians (albeit not all of them, for quite some time), mostly of the Protestant flavor that fought tirelessly, bled, and died for the liberties which you now enjoy. Not Muslims, Not Jews, not Animists, Buddhists, Hindus, or whatever else. Christians. d) Actions speak louder than words. There is indeed a problem with many of the immigrants in Europe, as well as elsewhere. Many of these problems are via Muslims. e) Actions speak louder than words. If a book you believe in to at least some degree saying to do X or X is ok is one thing, actually doing it yourself is another. f) Many modern Muslims do indeed believe they are at war with 'the west' and Christianity. Some of them do live within the borders of western nations. That is a problem. Likewise it would be a problem if the roles were reversed (and occasionally they have been). I could go on... possibly all the way through the alphabet even.... but, the point should already be made.

Well, well, well. What do we have here in the donor list? (Those who in bold are those that got my attention at first glance) $25 million + Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation * Clinton Giustra Enterprise Partnership (Canada) * Fred Eychaner * Frank Giustra, The Radcliffe Foundation Nationale Postcode Loterij * The Children's Investment Fund Foundation $10-25 million AUSAID Stephen L. Bing COPRESIDA Tom Golisano Government of Norway The Hunter Foundation * Kingdom of Saudi Arabia * The Victor Pinchuk Foundation Cheryl and Haim Saban & The Saban Family Foundation * The ELMA Foundation Theodore W. Waitt $5-10 million S. Daniel Abraham Sheikh Mohammed H. Al-Amoudi Susie Tompkins Buell Fund of the Marin Community Foundation * C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group, Inc. * Commonwealth of Australia, DIICC * Elton John AIDS Foundation Government of the Netherlands Irish Aid J.B. and M.K. Pritzker Family Foundation * John D. Mackay Denis J. O'Brien * Michael Schumacher State of Kuwait The Coca-Cola Company * The Rockefeller Foundation The Swedish Postcode Lottery * The Wasserman Foundation * $1-5 million 100 Women in Hedgefunds Absolute Return for Kids (ARK) Jay Alix Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa Nasser Al-Rashid American Federation of Teachers * Angelopoulos Foundation * Gianna Angelopoulos Anheuser-Busch Foundation Smith and Elizabeth Bagley * Barclays Capital Mary Bing and Doug Ellis Fidelity Charitable Gift Fund * Blue Cross and Blue Shield of North Carolina * Richard Blum and Blum Family Foundation * Booz Allen Hamilton * The Eli and Edythe Broad Foundation * The Sherwood Foundation * Richard and Jackie Caring * Gilbert R. Chagoury Christy and John Mack Foundation * Cisco * Citi Foundation The Clinton Family Foundation * Clinton-Bush Haiti Fund Stephen J. Cloobeck * Roy E. ****rum * Victor P. Dahdaleh & The Victor Phillip Dahdaleh Charitable Foundation The ERANDA Foundation * Robert Disbrow Dubai Foundation Duke Energy Corporation Entergy ExxonMobil * Issam M. Fares & The Wedge Foundation * Joseph T. Ford Wallace W. Fowler Friends of Saudi Arabia Fundacion Telmex Mala Gaonkar Haarman GEMS Education * Ariadne Getty * GIZ - Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale * The James R. Greenbaum, Jr. Family Foundation Vin Gupta * Worldwide Support for Development * Hewlett-Packard Company * Hult International Business School * Humana Inc. * ICAP Services North America * Inter-American Development Bank * Sanela D. Jenkins Robert L. Johnson * Walid Juffali Dave Katragadda Kessler Family Foundation Michael and Jena King Laureate International Universities Lukas Lundin MAC AIDS Fund The Marc Haas Foundation * Microsoft * Lakshmi N. Mittal James R. Murdoch Norad (Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation) * NRG Energy, Inc. * OAS S.A. OCP Corporation Open Society Institute Jonathan M. Orszag * Peter G. Peterson Foundation * Pfizer Inc * PGA Tour, Inc. * Presidential Inaugural Committee Princess Diana Memorial Fund Procter & Gamble * Stewart Rahr Paul D. Reynolds Robertson Foundation Newsmax Media Inc. * Salida Capital Foundation Donald L. Saunders * Joachim Schoss Bernard L. Schwartz Walter H. Shorenstein Arnold H. Simon Bren Simon * Amar Singh Carlos Slim Helú & Fundación Carlos Slim Michael Smurfit * Harold Snyder Sol Goldman Charitable Trust * Steven Spielberg Standard Chartered Bank * Starkey Hearing Foundation * Starkey Hearing Technologies, Inc. * State of Qatar Sterling Stamos Capital Management, LP The Streisand Foundation * Suzlon Energy Ltd. Swedish Postcode Foundation Swiss Reinsurance Company * Nima Taghavi * Tenet Healthcare Corporation * The Annenberg Foundation The Boeing Company The Dow Chemical Company * The ELMA Philanthropies Services (U.S.) Inc. The Ford Foundation * The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. * The Government of Brunei Darussalam The Howard Gilman Foundation The New York Community Trust * The Roy and Christine Sturgis Charitable & Educational Trust The Sidney E. Frank Foundation The Sultanate of Oman * The Walmart Foundation The Zayed Family Thomson Reuters Torres-Picón Foundation * Toyota Motor North America, Inc. * Tracfone Wireless, Inc. * T.G. Holdings U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC) * UK Department for International Development ( DFID) United Arab Emirates * Verein Aids Life The Walton Family Foundation * Rilin Enterprises * Gerardo Werthein Frank White * The Wyss Foundation * YPY Holding Limited * This list. Where exactly did you get it? I'd like to send it on to some folks I know outside of Obsidian land. What numbersman said, check the link and scroll down to the 25k+-donors file (it's an excel-file). One can hope that Merkel follows in his footsteps next year. Long live Assad!? Well, they don't call him "Can't Mossad the Assad" without reason. Thanks. I'd done that before. However it opened only to the $25k list. I did not notice the first time that one had to scroll left. Any idea what the asterisks represent? I can't seem to find where that's defined. First time I'd heard Assad called that. Though it's fitting. Israel would have offed him many years ago if they could have, and no doubt they've never stopped actively trying. Truly though, Assad falling would be very very bad for world politik given who wants him gone and why. Long live that guy indeed. And the Mossad can't get to their ultimate home in the deepest depths of hell fast enough. F them forever.

Make a new post. Else many will miss your essay.