US Election 2016

[ShadySands]

I briefly considered volunteering to be a delegate when we held our caucus

 

But then I came to my senses and ran screaming all the way home*

 

 

*not intended to be a factual statement

[Calax]

 

 

The democratic race will only get interesting if Sanders starts publicly and vehemently calling out the DNC and Hillary for rigging the election, as well as calling her out for the criminal that she is.

 

It can also become interesting if Sanders continues to run for President even if he doesn't get the nomination.

 

An independent Sanders, along with an independent Trump, together with the two party stooges, all running for President, would make a really interesting election. As well as very probably see the end of the ~160 year duopoly on the White House, something the U.S. desperately needs, and a whole helluva lot of people want.

 

I don't see Sanders doing it though. Wish he would, and I've no doubt most of his supporters do too, but I don't think he has the balls. Hope I'm wrong.

I find you adorable in how tightly you stick to the extreme right's story.

 

"Hillary is a criminal!" Cried the right, "where's the charges?" asked everyone else.

 

"The wall will work!" cried the right, "But how will it be paid for and what laws will we have to suspend to build it?" asked everyone else

 

"The election is rigged!" Cried the right, "Ok, then how is Trump the GOP frontrunner, and Sanders still in range to take the election from Hillary?" asked everyone else.

 

You can rationalize a lot of things, but I sincerely doubt that Hillary being a "criminal" will every come to pass. And for a constitutionalist, you seem to ignore "Innocent until Proven Guilty" being a tenant of the Constitution (as established in Coffin v United States), and just blithely run around declaring guilt without evidence (beyond the rhetoric that has been spouted by those on the right since they realized Hillary was the presumptive nominee in last May)

 

 

Calling Hillary criminal is not exclusively the purview of 'the right'. Saying elections are rigged is not exclusively the purview of 'the right'. 'Far', 'moderate', or 'close'. In fact, people on both sides of your polarized world do both, especially in regards to the latter. 

 

'Criminal' has more meanings than just those in regards to illegality. Insofar as those particular meanings go however, being a criminal is not reliant on being convicted in a court of law that one is such, in fact the most successful criminals usually never even see a court of law.

So technically then, we're all criminals no? It's illegal to go past the speed limit, but we do it. Thus we're criminals. Your attitude that somehow she's guilty of something that nobody has indited her for, or provided concrete proof beyond "yeah, this thing is something that happened" with vague projections from the conservatives as to the illegality of it all. From the rumblings we're hearing, the reason for anything she may have done is because, the State Department as an apparatus failed at it's job of supporting it's boss.

Your comments on the wall are strawman bunk as well as fly in the face of reality.

 

Insofar as 'innocent until proven guilty'. That applies to legal prosecution, and I'm all for it, Hillary is no exception. However, a fundamental problem is that she hasn't been (and more than likely won't be) indicted. She isn't any kind of notable exception. There's an entire class of 'above the law' people out there, that get away with all sorts of things all the time if you haven't noticed. And if you really haven't noticed, your head is very deep in that sand.

 

Unpolarize yourself, expand your vocabulary, and get your facts straight.

 

Respectfully, you're the one who needs to wake up a bit. You act like Sanders hasn't caused any waves politically in this campaign and that everything is rigged for Hillary. And yet over the course of her campaign she's been forced to skew much further left than she'd want to try to keep the demographics that she was winning, while Sander's has done nothing but gain momentum. Meanwhile the republican side wishes it was Rigged because every person I talk to when the subject does come up, is ashamed to be affiliated with the Donald.

 

The reason I turn you into a stereotype (which to a degree you are) is because you slavishly adhere to the NRA and general republican talking points in a way that makes it incredibly easy. If you ever really vocalized a political opinion beyond "Red good, blue bad, guns good!" we might be getting somewhere, but as it stands you've yet to get away with the easily stereotyped talking points found on Fox News and in WoD's posting history.

 

You want to be taken seriously? Fine, provide credible evidence to 9/11 being an inside job, or Benghazi being Clinton's "Fault, or that she's a criminal who's committed treason. Back up your talk with more than just a talking points memo or somebody else saying something. Find the in context quote, do some work.

 

And before you ask, I do, just when I actually want to be serious about a topic with somebody who has something to say.

[Wrath of Dagon]

Guys within the Republican voting system people are now discussing the Rule 40 (b) which is defined as 

 

" Rule 40(b), which requires a presidential candidate to win eight states to qualify for the nomination" 

 

So I'm confused, if only Trump has won 8 states how can he not be the Republican candidate....assuming no one else wins 8 states which doesn't seem to be the overall trend despite Cruz's  success in places like Iowa and Wisconsin ?

From what I understand all rules expire just before the convention. Then it's up to the rules committee to propose new rules which will be voted on by the delegates. Since Cruz has so far been very successful in getting his own people picked for everything (even in the states he lost) he's got a good shot of making all rules favor him. Also he might win a majority of delegates in 8 states, if he hasn't already.

 

 

"Nope Zor. It is about spitting on the face of people who voted. Should go by votes period or why bother with the pretense. Oh yeah, for pretend."

 

Don't vote for someone who can't be bothered turning up, easy solution/ prevention. No one should expect Bernie supporters who actually turned up to recuse themselves in order to preserve a margin because some Hillary types had better things to do than what they were selected for.

Normally you vote for the candidate, you have no idea who the delegates will be. 50 years ago the popular vote mattered very little, the party organization actually picked the delegates. In some states that's still the case. In most other states the party organization still decides who the delegates will be, although they're bound to their candidate on at least the first ballot.

[BruceVC]

 

From what I understand all rules expire just before the convention. Then it's up to the rules committee to propose new rules which will be voted on by the delegates. Since Cruz has so far been very successful in getting his own people picked for everything (even in the states he lost) he's got a good shot of making all rules favor him. Also he might win a majority of delegates in 8 states, if he hasn't already.

 

 

Thats interesting, now if the rules committee decides to not recognize Trump I imagine there will be huge outcry from the Trump camp...wouldn't that be the realistic outcome? I may not like Trump but it would seem odd with all his success in the votes that he isn't the nomination

[Wrath of Dagon]

There you hit on the essence of why all hell might break lose at the Republican convention.

[Bartimaeus]

I mean, Trump already threatened to run third party if he didn't win the nomination - I can't imagine he would renege on that promise if he was actually cheated out of the nomination. He might not end up winning very many votes as a third party candidate in the general election, but it'll be enough to sabotage the Republicans, I am sure.

[Wrath of Dagon]

Apparently you can't be on a lot of state ballots as an independent once you were on the ballot as a Republican, and it's difficult to get on the remaining ballots this late in the game, and he'd have to spend a lot of his own money, and all this basically for nothing because there's no way to win splitting the Republican vote unless Sanders is the Democrat nominee and Bloomberg decides to get in (which in itself is too late by then). So I don't see Trump doing that just to get revenge.

[Agiel]

Wounded by abortion backlash, Trump seeks help from a seasoned pro

by @dick_nixon

 

Trump is fatter than he looks on television, and more disheveled.

 

He’s teetotal, but you wouldn’t know it. Yellow skin, big pores. He trails some awful French scent behind him—leather, lavender, orange peel, all that crap. He sweats.

He sank into our sofa like one of those TV accident lawyers, or a corrupt ombudsman.

 

 

“_Dick,” he said.

I told him my friends call me “Mr. President.”

 

His people called after the Chris Matthews interview on Wednesday, asking if we’d go see him on Fifth Avenue. I said kiss my ass. I don’t go to Fifth Avenue for Kissinger, and I sure as hell won’t go for Trump.

 

So he came out to New Jersey late Friday night. A decoy car, no cameras, all that cloak-and-dagger business. As much for our protection as his. Still, Ziegler was against it, as was Mrs. Nixon. They think if you lie down with dogs you get fleas.

 

But as you know, I have some experience at winning things in the press. And no dumb piece of paper, “non-disclosure agreement,” or ****ty-ass landlord will stop me.

 

“Matthews,” he said. “For years, dozens of people have told me he is really, really not an honest person. I don’t know. They tell me this, now I see it for myself. He comes at me like a sick, starving dog, and for what? Because he can’t get right with God? It’s sad.”

 

I agree.

 

“So what I’m looking for, _Dick—Mr. President. I beg your pardon. I’m a New Yorker, we don’t stand on ceremony. Look: you and I are both negotiators.”

 

That’s true.

 

“I’m rich. I’m very, very, very rich. I didn’t get that way by taking bad advice. You want good meatloaf, go to Jean Georges. You want home runs, talk to Reggie Jackson. I’m sitting here now, in your amazing home, because you, sir, can make a deal.”

 

You want me to save you from this abortion mess.

 

“No. No. No. No. Matthews is not going to do that again. Believe me. Believe me. Still, it created an impression that Donald Trump is against women.”

I poured Pepsi into a glass. I sipped it and looked at him for a good 10 seconds.

 

“You let Chris Matthews, who is to politics what the glee club is to high school, bamboozle you on national television—"

 

“No. No. Look. _Dick. Can we be honest with each other?”

 

“Sure. That’s what men do. And you let Matthews, through some kind of bizarre Platonic inquiry, hoodwink you into saying women should be punished for abortions. My God, you looked like the Three-card Monte mark who lost his shirt on the Red Queen.”

 

"I beg your pardon? What is that? Who uses that kind of language? If you'd let me talk for a minute, please—“

 

“You wanted to get to Cruz’s right. Some of them do want to punish women, after all. Falwell is with you. Hell, why not bring in more? But you were so busy trying to screw Michelle Fields—metaphorically, for once—that you didn’t look past your shoelaces.”

 

Trump stared at me like I sized up his wife’s legs.

 

“The worst thing you can do in politics is surround yourself with people who say nothing but ‘yes,’” I said. “I know a thing or two about that.”

Trump leaned over and jabbed a finger at my chest.

 

“Excuse me. Excuse me. Only one of us has ever in his life gone out a loser. One of us has hung his head in public like a rat. And we know it’s not Donald Trump.”

 

I drank more Pepsi. It was very cold. Very satisfying.

 

“No one but your son and that thug Lewandowski is loyal to you. That’s the measure of a man. You don’t know how to be subtle or avoid traps. No one cares to teach you. Your head is too far up your own ass on this. And I think you know it.”

 

Trump stood up like a fellow in a bar who’s about to attempt a left hook and miss.

 

“Look, pal. I own many, many golf courses. I am friends with every restaurant manager in the City of New York. They love me. I keep them running. I will make it so you don’t dare show your face in public again—“

 

“I hate golf. I only played it because Ike did. And I’m a hell of a lot older than you. I’ve spent more at ‘21’ than you did on your first two wives. I can take it.”

 

Trump bit his lip and turned to march out. He may have muttered “Give my best to Plastic Pat,” but the tape is unclear.

 

“I’ll give you one thing for free,” I said.

 

That stopped him.

 

“Stay the hell off abortion. A Republican has to be against it, but stay off it. Look at Bush Senior. His only move against abortion was Clarence Thomas, and he was bullied into it. Or look at us. Sure, we hung abortion around McGovern’s neck. But did we do a single goddamn thing to get in the way? No. Because you need women. It’s their own business, and more of them will always be on the abortion side.”

 

Trump started with the usual bluster. “It could be that I misspoke.”

 

“Bull. It doesn’t matter now, of course. What I just said, my God, it’s not rocket science. The first rule of negotiation is to preserve flexibility. Always anticipate the unique exception. How dumb are you?”

 

He was sputtering now. "Oh, oh, oh. Here we go. This from a guy who accepts mediocrity. Who takes care of the lazy! If I give an order to blow a safe, my people will blow it so fast your head will spin. Or they're fired. What did you do? Who did you fire, _Dick?"

 

The Pepsi was finished now. As Trump spoke I went to the record player. Victory at Sea seemed a good choice.

 

I dropped the needle into the groove.

 

“You could run tape of Mrs. Clinton shooting Vince Foster in the head, and she’d respond with you wanting to lock up Mrs. O’Malley who has too many mouths to feed," I told him. "And she’d win.”

 

“It’s won't get that far,” Trump said. “Believe me. Believe me.”

 

“But that’s what you thought all along, isn’t it? The whole campaign. It wouldn't get so far.”

 

The music swelled. I thought of Iwo Jima.

 

“And now it’s difficult. Cruz is picking off your delegates, and is about to win Wisconsin on Tuesday. Kasich won’t die. So you’re trying to set the house on fire and blame somebody else.”

Here Trump took a breath. He blinked and twisted his lip like he was having a stroke, then held his thumb and forefinger like a pistol. He shook them at me.

 

“I think many, many bad things are going to happen to you in the future,” Trump said. “It’s very sad. At your age. Very sad. But you’re going to have to pay a price.”

Then he left the house.

 

It’s all on tape, like I said. I guess the son of a bitch didn’t expect it. In any case, I’m not worried. I knew McCarthy and Roy Cohn. Lee Harvey Oswald wanted to kill me.

 

I've got the record playing. I'm still here.

 

-------

 

Richard Nixon never left us. With the help of playwright Justin Sherin, he continues to speak his mind as @dick_nixon on Twitter.

Edited April 9, 2016 by Agiel

[Valsuelm]

 

 

 

The democratic race will only get interesting if Sanders starts publicly and vehemently calling out the DNC and Hillary for rigging the election, as well as calling her out for the criminal that she is.

 

It can also become interesting if Sanders continues to run for President even if he doesn't get the nomination.

 

An independent Sanders, along with an independent Trump, together with the two party stooges, all running for President, would make a really interesting election. As well as very probably see the end of the ~160 year duopoly on the White House, something the U.S. desperately needs, and a whole helluva lot of people want.

 

I don't see Sanders doing it though. Wish he would, and I've no doubt most of his supporters do too, but I don't think he has the balls. Hope I'm wrong.

I find you adorable in how tightly you stick to the extreme right's story.

 

"Hillary is a criminal!" Cried the right, "where's the charges?" asked everyone else.

 

"The wall will work!" cried the right, "But how will it be paid for and what laws will we have to suspend to build it?" asked everyone else

 

"The election is rigged!" Cried the right, "Ok, then how is Trump the GOP frontrunner, and Sanders still in range to take the election from Hillary?" asked everyone else.

 

You can rationalize a lot of things, but I sincerely doubt that Hillary being a "criminal" will every come to pass. And for a constitutionalist, you seem to ignore "Innocent until Proven Guilty" being a tenant of the Constitution (as established in Coffin v United States), and just blithely run around declaring guilt without evidence (beyond the rhetoric that has been spouted by those on the right since they realized Hillary was the presumptive nominee in last May)

 

 

Calling Hillary criminal is not exclusively the purview of 'the right'. Saying elections are rigged is not exclusively the purview of 'the right'. 'Far', 'moderate', or 'close'. In fact, people on both sides of your polarized world do both, especially in regards to the latter. 

 

'Criminal' has more meanings than just those in regards to illegality. Insofar as those particular meanings go however, being a criminal is not reliant on being convicted in a court of law that one is such, in fact the most successful criminals usually never even see a court of law.

So technically then, we're all criminals no? It's illegal to go past the speed limit, but we do it. Thus we're criminals. Your attitude that somehow she's guilty of something that nobody has indited her for, or provided concrete proof beyond "yeah, this thing is something that happened" with vague projections from the conservatives as to the illegality of it all. From the rumblings we're hearing, the reason for anything she may have done is because, the State Department as an apparatus failed at it's job of supporting it's boss.

Your comments on the wall are strawman bunk as well as fly in the face of reality.

 

Insofar as 'innocent until proven guilty'. That applies to legal prosecution, and I'm all for it, Hillary is no exception. However, a fundamental problem is that she hasn't been (and more than likely won't be) indicted. She isn't any kind of notable exception. There's an entire class of 'above the law' people out there, that get away with all sorts of things all the time if you haven't noticed. And if you really haven't noticed, your head is very deep in that sand.

 

Unpolarize yourself, expand your vocabulary, and get your facts straight.

 

Respectfully, you're the one who needs to wake up a bit. You act like Sanders hasn't caused any waves politically in this campaign and that everything is rigged for Hillary. And yet over the course of her campaign she's been forced to skew much further left than she'd want to try to keep the demographics that she was winning, while Sander's has done nothing but gain momentum. Meanwhile the republican side wishes it was Rigged because every person I talk to when the subject does come up, is ashamed to be affiliated with the Donald.

 

The reason I turn you into a stereotype (which to a degree you are) is because you slavishly adhere to the NRA and general republican talking points in a way that makes it incredibly easy. If you ever really vocalized a political opinion beyond "Red good, blue bad, guns good!" we might be getting somewhere, but as it stands you've yet to get away with the easily stereotyped talking points found on Fox News and in WoD's posting history.

 

You want to be taken seriously? Fine, provide credible evidence to 9/11 being an inside job, or Benghazi being Clinton's "Fault, or that she's a criminal who's committed treason. Back up your talk with more than just a talking points memo or somebody else saying something. Find the in context quote, do some work.

 

And before you ask, I do, just when I actually want to be serious about a topic with somebody who has something to say.

 

 

You're delusional kid.

 

Most of what you say above is straight out of lala land. The most simple to refute is I am no fan of the NRA, very rarely watch FoxNews, and have never in my entire life said 'Red Good'. I'm not sure if I've ever even mentioned the NRA on this forum,, but I've stated many a time (even recently) my stance to at least some degree on the other two.

 

Also, if 'every person [you] talk to when the subject does come up, is ashamed to be affiliated with the Donald.', you obviously haven't spoken to too many people, as folks who are proud to be affiliated with him are pretty common.

 

In regards to the rest, I'm not going to waste my time. You clearly won't drink if you're lead to water.

Edited April 9, 2016 by Valsuelm

[Valsuelm]

Apparently you can't be on a lot of state ballots as an independent once you were on the ballot as a Republican,

 

Source?

[Calax]

 

You're delusional kid.

 

Most of what you say above is straight out of lala land. The most simple to refute is I am no fan of the NRA, very rarely watch FoxNews, and have never in my entire life said 'Red Good'. I'm not sure if I've ever even mentioned the NRA on this forum,, but I've stated many a time (even recently) my stance to at least some degree on the other two.

 

Also, if 'every person [you] talk to when the subject does come up, is ashamed to be affiliated with the Donald.', you obviously haven't spoken to too many people, as folks who are proud to be affiliated with him are pretty common.

 

In regards to the rest, I'm not going to waste my time. You clearly won't drink if you're lead to water.

Source? There's "Many" people who are happy to be affiliated with Benito Mussolini, but most italians are ashamed of the fact he existed. Again, just because you happened to read on a propaganda site that "Trump is awesome" doesn't make it true (or that background checks will make the government take your gunz away).

[Meshugger]

"I have friends ashamed of politician guy X" weighs little as an argument for or against anyone. The mongols still hold Gengis Khan in a quite high regard despite he was the destroyer of civilizations, so now what?

 

However, "i do not support candidate X because reason Y will not be beneficial for nation Z" does.

[Raithe]

Again, cheap shots from the non-American side of things...

 

[Valsuelm]

Again, cheap shots from the non-American side of things...

 

 

Cute girl.

 

I wouldn't cast stones, living in England, as there's certainly no shortage of wussies over there, including the afeared of Trump kind. 

 

Trumpphobia seems to be a thing.

[Hurlshort]

"I have friends ashamed of politician guy X" weighs little as an argument for or against anyone. The mongols still hold Gengis Khan in a quite high regard despite he was the destroyer of civilizations, so now what?

 

However, "i do not support candidate X because reason Y will not be beneficial for nation Z" does.

 

That is a pretty narrow way to view Temujin though.  

 

Although I may be missing your point.  

[Meshugger]

 

"I have friends ashamed of politician guy X" weighs little as an argument for or against anyone. The mongols still hold Gengis Khan in a quite high regard despite he was the destroyer of civilizations, so now what?

 

However, "i do not support candidate X because reason Y will not be beneficial for nation Z" does.

 

That is a pretty narrow way to view Temujin though.  

 

Although I may be missing your point.  

 

 

Touché

[Calax]

In other political news, Hastert (former Speaker of the House) is being arrested and accused of molesting four boys.

[Wrath of Dagon]

 

Apparently you can't be on a lot of state ballots as an independent once you were on the ballot as a Republican,

 

Source?

 

I can't be expected to remember a source for everything I ever heard. Google is your friend.

 

 

 

"I have friends ashamed of politician guy X" weighs little as an argument for or against anyone. The mongols still hold Gengis Khan in a quite high regard despite he was the destroyer of civilizations, so now what?

 

However, "i do not support candidate X because reason Y will not be beneficial for nation Z" does.

 

That is a pretty narrow way to view Temujin though.  

 

Although I may be missing your point.  

 

That's right, he killed so many people he actually reduced the level of CO2 in the atmosphere. He's the greenest conqueror in history!

 

In other news, we can't afford to secure our borders, but we sure can afford to secure someone else's : http://intelligencebriefs.com/us-to-fund-24-9-million-electronic-security-surveillance-on-the-tunisia-libya-security-wall/

[BruceVC]

 

I can't be expected to remember a source for everything I ever heard. Google is your friend.

 

 

 

"I have friends ashamed of politician guy X" weighs little as an argument for or against anyone. The mongols still hold Gengis Khan in a quite high regard despite he was the destroyer of civilizations, so now what?

 

However, "i do not support candidate X because reason Y will not be beneficial for nation Z" does.

 

That is a pretty narrow way to view Temujin though.  

 

Although I may be missing your point.  

 

That's right, he killed so many people he actually reduced the level of CO2 in the atmosphere. He's the greenest conqueror in history!

 

In other news, we can't afford to secure our borders, but we sure can afford to secure someone else's : http://intelligencebriefs.com/us-to-fund-24-9-million-electronic-security-surveillance-on-the-tunisia-libya-security-wall/

 

Come on Vals, WOD is right....you are very adept at finding links, we all are

 

WOD how come very few people on this forum who live in the USA will say how they proud to be US citizen or that the USA is the greatest country in the world? Its not like people would or should say it all the time...is it considered boasting? I respect that you are prepared to say it, I say it and its true but of course other places are also great ....but I am not sure why people dont say it?

[BruceVC]

http://www.brookings.edu/research/opinions/2016/04/07-trump-plan-to-build-wall-is-really-dangerous-klein?utm_campaign=Brookings+Brief&utm_source=hs_email&utm_medium=email&utm_content=28244458&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-_NQ5uJD5awaywG8GU6DkekE-zHVLqkPFBvfWJPHKkFnvgzGearHMfBqovkDzIr8aPncqGyTiUUxn7XLUd0pZHp2E3wdg&_hsmi=28244458

 

 

Guys another major issue with the Trump Wall

[Wrath of Dagon]

Says an Obola/Clinton operative. Has he ever heard of valid ID?

Edited April 9, 2016 by Wrath of Dagon

[BruceVC]

Says an Obola/Clinton operative. Has he ever heard of valid ID?Ye

Yeah ,,,,I did notice that on another article but to be fair we shouldn't just assume he is  wrong or biased but you raise a very good point....its actually seems like a real and valid criticism unless he means illegal citizens who wouldn't have ID ?

[kgambit]

 

Apparently you can't be on a lot of state ballots as an independent once you were on the ballot as a Republican,

 

Source?

 

 

They are called Sore Loser Laws (they apply equally to both parties not just Republicans).  45 states have them; Arizona, Delaware, New York, Oklahoma and West Virginia do not.   To clarify things, it doesn't apply to states that did not hold a presidential primary or in a large number of states with existing precedents that clearly establish that they do NOT apply to presidential elections.  There are two states where it might matter: Texas and South Dakota and that's even assuming that one of the candidates who doesn't secure his nomination has the stones to declare and run as an independent.     

[Valsuelm]

 

Says an Obola/Clinton operative. Has he ever heard of valid ID?Ye

Yeah ,,,,I did notice that on another article but to be fair we shouldn't just assume he is  wrong or biased but you raise a very good point....its actually seems like a real and valid criticism unless he means illegal citizens who wouldn't have ID ?

 

 

The entire piece is a bunch of propagandic bunk predicated on a many assumptions and a few big lies. The first paragraph holds dishonesty and it goes on from there.

 

Also, Brookings, and most other 'think tanks', are rarely if ever a good source for much of anything, especially on economics. Such 'non *cough* *choke* -profit' institutions have agendas which tend to line up nicely with their source(s) of income, errr patrons.

[BruceVC]

 

 

Says an Obola/Clinton operative. Has he ever heard of valid ID?Ye

Yeah ,,,,I did notice that on another article but to be fair we shouldn't just assume he is  wrong or biased but you raise a very good point....its actually seems like a real and valid criticism unless he means illegal citizens who wouldn't have ID ?

 

 

The entire piece is a bunch of propagandic bunk predicated on a many assumptions and a few big lies. The first paragraph holds dishonesty and it goes on from there.

 

Also, Brookings, and most other 'think tanks', are rarely if ever a good source for much of anything, especially on economics. Such 'non *cough* *choke* -profit' institutions have agendas which tend to line up nicely with their source(s) of income, errr patrons.

 

Vals I'm glad you came back, I would like to ask you a few questions about Longknifes  review of me 

 

Please understand I am honestly not offended or pretending to be fine and I  dont want to put you on the spot. I just want to get your view on a few things but as usual I have no issue if you would rather not discuss it

Edited April 9, 2016 by BruceVC