US Election 2016, part II

[BruceVC]

 

 

 

I always knew she wouldnt be charged

 

There was no substantial evidence against her to begin with , it was mostly just allegations from people who dont like her  

 

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.

 

Your response seems  emotional, yes you were wrong. Its not my fault, I'm not sure why you venting on me?

 

What more about this email scandal should I educate myself on? My view on this topic hasn't really changed, I said I doubt the FBI will ever charge her due to lack of evidence ?

[Guard Dog]

Bruce, let my pose a hypothetical question. And I would like you to think about an answer. Assume for a moment that the use of a private server to conduct the business of the United States was no big deal. All the data on that server are still the property of the United States. Why do you think she had the data destroyed before complying with a court order to surrender the server?

 

This is the heart of it right here. Had she just said "Private server was wrong? My bad, sorry about that. Here's all the data" this whole thing dies three years ago.

Edited July 3, 2016 by Guard Dog

[BruceVC]

 

 

Well, the system is rigged in that the Democrats don't eat their own. As long as the DOJ is under the control of Democrats would not surprise me if a democrat candidate was caught red handed raping the corpse of an underage hooker he had just murdered didn't get charged. In fact anyone who criticized that decision would probably be called a bigot for being against his "underage hooker murder" lifestyle choices. What's worse is many Americans will do a Bruce is doing and just overlook it because they like the criminals politics.

 

In all seriousness that "meeting" between Lynch & Bill Clinton didn't just look bad... it WAS bad. But hardly a shock.

 

Now Hillary Clinton is not stupid. If she were and this private e-mail server were just a mistake in the name of convenience and privacy I'd look past it. But because she is not stupid then it looks more like a way of avoiding things like Congressional oversight and those annoying FOI requests. That begs the question "What is she hiding". And it takes on a new light when the Clinton Foundations takes in millions of dollars in donations by foreign interests who received favorable treatment from the State Dept. If none of this is true WHY did she feel the need to have all the data professionally destroyed before complying with the subpoena for her server?

 

Bruce, let me ask you a question, change the name Hillary with Donald Trump and keep all the facts the same. Would you still think this was nothing? I'm guessing no.

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?

[BruceVC]

Bruce, let my pose a hypothetical question. And I would like you to think about an answer. Assume for a moment that the use of a private server to conduct the business of the United States was no big deal. All the data on that server are still the property of the United States. Why do you think she had the data destroyed before complying with a court order to surrender the server?

 

This is the heart of it right here. Had she just said "Private server was wrong? My bad, sorry about that. Here's all the data" this whole thing dies three years ago.

I dont know why, it does concern me. I need to investigate a few things about this 

[Guard Dog]

 

 

 

Well, the system is rigged in that the Democrats don't eat their own. As long as the DOJ is under the control of Democrats would not surprise me if a democrat candidate was caught red handed raping the corpse of an underage hooker he had just murdered didn't get charged. In fact anyone who criticized that decision would probably be called a bigot for being against his "underage hooker murder" lifestyle choices. What's worse is many Americans will do a Bruce is doing and just overlook it because they like the criminals politics.

 

In all seriousness that "meeting" between Lynch & Bill Clinton didn't just look bad... it WAS bad. But hardly a shock.

 

Now Hillary Clinton is not stupid. If she were and this private e-mail server were just a mistake in the name of convenience and privacy I'd look past it. But because she is not stupid then it looks more like a way of avoiding things like Congressional oversight and those annoying FOI requests. That begs the question "What is she hiding". And it takes on a new light when the Clinton Foundations takes in millions of dollars in donations by foreign interests who received favorable treatment from the State Dept. If none of this is true WHY did she feel the need to have all the data professionally destroyed before complying with the subpoena for her server?

 

Bruce, let me ask you a question, change the name Hillary with Donald Trump and keep all the facts the same. Would you still think this was nothing? I'm guessing no.

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. 

Edited July 3, 2016 by Guard Dog

[BruceVC]

 

 

 

 

Well, the system is rigged in that the Democrats don't eat their own. As long as the DOJ is under the control of Democrats would not surprise me if a democrat candidate was caught red handed raping the corpse of an underage hooker he had just murdered didn't get charged. In fact anyone who criticized that decision would probably be called a bigot for being against his "underage hooker murder" lifestyle choices. What's worse is many Americans will do a Bruce is doing and just overlook it because they like the criminals politics.

 

In all seriousness that "meeting" between Lynch & Bill Clinton didn't just look bad... it WAS bad. But hardly a shock.

 

Now Hillary Clinton is not stupid. If she were and this private e-mail server were just a mistake in the name of convenience and privacy I'd look past it. But because she is not stupid then it looks more like a way of avoiding things like Congressional oversight and those annoying FOI requests. That begs the question "What is she hiding". And it takes on a new light when the Clinton Foundations takes in millions of dollars in donations by foreign interests who received favorable treatment from the State Dept. If none of this is true WHY did she feel the need to have all the data professionally destroyed before complying with the subpoena for her server?

 

Bruce, let me ask you a question, change the name Hillary with Donald Trump and keep all the facts the same. Would you still think this was nothing? I'm guessing no.

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 

Edited July 3, 2016 by BruceVC

[Valsuelm]

 

 

 

I always knew she wouldnt be charged

 

There was no substantial evidence against her to begin with , it was mostly just allegations from people who dont like her  

 

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.

Edited July 3, 2016 by Valsuelm

[Longknife]

 

 

 

 

I always knew she wouldnt be charged

 

There was no substantial evidence against her to begin with , it was mostly just allegations from people who dont like her  

 

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.

 

Your response seems  emotional, yes you were wrong. Its not my fault, I'm not sure why you venting on me?

 

 

 

OMFG guys is it just me or did this just become comedy gold?

 

Look at this ****. Read my post where I initially quoted Bruce at the top (the one redneckdevil liked), now read what he just wrote here.

 

The self-awareness levels...oh my god.

Edited July 3, 2016 by Longknife

[Guard Dog]

 

 

 

 

 

Well, the system is rigged in that the Democrats don't eat their own. As long as the DOJ is under the control of Democrats would not surprise me if a democrat candidate was caught red handed raping the corpse of an underage hooker he had just murdered didn't get charged. In fact anyone who criticized that decision would probably be called a bigot for being against his "underage hooker murder" lifestyle choices. What's worse is many Americans will do a Bruce is doing and just overlook it because they like the criminals politics.

 

In all seriousness that "meeting" between Lynch & Bill Clinton didn't just look bad... it WAS bad. But hardly a shock.

 

Now Hillary Clinton is not stupid. If she were and this private e-mail server were just a mistake in the name of convenience and privacy I'd look past it. But because she is not stupid then it looks more like a way of avoiding things like Congressional oversight and those annoying FOI requests. That begs the question "What is she hiding". And it takes on a new light when the Clinton Foundations takes in millions of dollars in donations by foreign interests who received favorable treatment from the State Dept. If none of this is true WHY did she feel the need to have all the data professionally destroyed before complying with the subpoena for her server?

 

Bruce, let me ask you a question, change the name Hillary with Donald Trump and keep all the facts the same. Would you still think this was nothing? I'm guessing no.

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.

[Valsuelm]

 

 

 

 

 

 

Well, the system is rigged in that the Democrats don't eat their own. As long as the DOJ is under the control of Democrats would not surprise me if a democrat candidate was caught red handed raping the corpse of an underage hooker he had just murdered didn't get charged. In fact anyone who criticized that decision would probably be called a bigot for being against his "underage hooker murder" lifestyle choices. What's worse is many Americans will do a Bruce is doing and just overlook it because they like the criminals politics.

 

In all seriousness that "meeting" between Lynch & Bill Clinton didn't just look bad... it WAS bad. But hardly a shock.

 

Now Hillary Clinton is not stupid. If she were and this private e-mail server were just a mistake in the name of convenience and privacy I'd look past it. But because she is not stupid then it looks more like a way of avoiding things like Congressional oversight and those annoying FOI requests. That begs the question "What is she hiding". And it takes on a new light when the Clinton Foundations takes in millions of dollars in donations by foreign interests who received favorable treatment from the State Dept. If none of this is true WHY did she feel the need to have all the data professionally destroyed before complying with the subpoena for her server?

 

Bruce, let me ask you a question, change the name Hillary with Donald Trump and keep all the facts the same. Would you still think this was nothing? I'm guessing no.

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.

[BruceVC]

 

 

 

 

 

 

Well, the system is rigged in that the Democrats don't eat their own. As long as the DOJ is under the control of Democrats would not surprise me if a democrat candidate was caught red handed raping the corpse of an underage hooker he had just murdered didn't get charged. In fact anyone who criticized that decision would probably be called a bigot for being against his "underage hooker murder" lifestyle choices. What's worse is many Americans will do a Bruce is doing and just overlook it because they like the criminals politics.

 

In all seriousness that "meeting" between Lynch & Bill Clinton didn't just look bad... it WAS bad. But hardly a shock.

 

Now Hillary Clinton is not stupid. If she were and this private e-mail server were just a mistake in the name of convenience and privacy I'd look past it. But because she is not stupid then it looks more like a way of avoiding things like Congressional oversight and those annoying FOI requests. That begs the question "What is she hiding". And it takes on a new light when the Clinton Foundations takes in millions of dollars in donations by foreign interests who received favorable treatment from the State Dept. If none of this is true WHY did she feel the need to have all the data professionally destroyed before complying with the subpoena for her server?

 

Bruce, let me ask you a question, change the name Hillary with Donald Trump and keep all the facts the same. Would you still think this was nothing? I'm guessing no.

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.

 

I agree on this, its weird but its like the majority of presenters...not all but most....will always take the conversation to the point of " Trump is  a bigot, remember that " 

 

For me  that has become a  distraction now and almost theater where its more about discussing " did you see what Trump said " 

 

But Trump also makes things worse for himself with his direct attacks on the media, he gets very personal and its unnecessary 

[Meshugger]

LF: No need to get upset about Bruce's antics. He has confessed of being brought up in matriarchal household with little to no father figures or heroes, which also explains why his arguments sounds like a something a girl would make on the school playground with the same arrogance that comes with it, as boys don't hit girls. A normal man knows that that kind of attitude would get him beat up or even put behind the sauna as we say in Finland, but he simply doesn't understand for the reasons i just stated.

 

If you drop all assumptions of him arguing like a man among men, but as a little Daisy trying asserting her dominance as queen hen of her pack and you can have a chuckle and move on.

 

As for the Hillary case, i am still waiting for the scapegoat(s) to appear or to be found.

[Leferd]

 

 

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?

 

 

Except that it's not how it works. The FBI (or any other Federal law enforcement agency seeking a federal indictment) works together with the prosecutor (U.S. Attorney's Office) who presents the evidence to a federal grand jury --which makes the judgment to indict based on whether there is enough evidence for the accused to have committed the crime.

 

The Attorney General is not part of the process and it would not be ethical for her to be involved with the process, and she has EXPLICITLY stated that she will not be part of the process.

[Longknife]

No really though: Is Bruce a troll? If not I think a part of me and my faith in humanity just died today.

[Guard Dog]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Well, the system is rigged in that the Democrats don't eat their own. As long as the DOJ is under the control of Democrats would not surprise me if a democrat candidate was caught red handed raping the corpse of an underage hooker he had just murdered didn't get charged. In fact anyone who criticized that decision would probably be called a bigot for being against his "underage hooker murder" lifestyle choices. What's worse is many Americans will do a Bruce is doing and just overlook it because they like the criminals politics.

 

In all seriousness that "meeting" between Lynch & Bill Clinton didn't just look bad... it WAS bad. But hardly a shock.

 

Now Hillary Clinton is not stupid. If she were and this private e-mail server were just a mistake in the name of convenience and privacy I'd look past it. But because she is not stupid then it looks more like a way of avoiding things like Congressional oversight and those annoying FOI requests. That begs the question "What is she hiding". And it takes on a new light when the Clinton Foundations takes in millions of dollars in donations by foreign interests who received favorable treatment from the State Dept. If none of this is true WHY did she feel the need to have all the data professionally destroyed before complying with the subpoena for her server?

 

Bruce, let me ask you a question, change the name Hillary with Donald Trump and keep all the facts the same. Would you still think this was nothing? I'm guessing no.

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.

 

I know exactly what he is. And if Hillary & Trump are equally bad where does one turn? I realize you will tell me Trump is the "lesser of two evils" and perhaps he is in some ways. But under either 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. IMO there is no "lesser" evil.

[BruceVC]

LF: No need to get upset about Bruce's antics. He has confessed of being brought up in matriarchal household with little to no father figures or heroes, which also explains why his arguments sounds like a something a girl would make on the school playground with the same arrogance that comes with it, as boys don't hit girls. A normal man knows that that kind of attitude would get him beat up or even put behind the sauna as we say in Finland, but he simply doesn't understand for the reasons i just stated.

 

If you drop all assumptions of him arguing like a man among men, but as a little Daisy trying asserting her dominance as queen hen of her pack and you can have a chuckle and move on.

 

As for the Hillary case, i am still waiting for the scapegoat(s) to appear or to be found.

But ironically my views based on  " sounds like a something a girl would make on the school playground with the same arrogance that comes with it, as boys don't hit girls " happen to be correct in this case ...strange that 

 

I also reject this notion öf " arguing like a man " , thats 1980's and sexist. Nowadays we just debate like people in a debate, there is no " mans way to debate " 

 

No really though: Is Bruce a troll? If not I think a part of me and my faith in humanity just died today.

[Guard Dog]

 

 

 

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?

 

 

Except that it's not how it works. The FBI (or any other Federal law enforcement agency seeking a federal indictment) works together with the prosecutor (U.S. Attorney's Office) who presents the evidence to a federal grand jury --which makes the judgment to indict based on whether there is enough evidence for the accused to have committed the crime.

 

The Attorney General is not part of the process and it would not be ethical for her to be involved with the process, and she has EXPLICITLY stated that she will not be part of the process.

 

Correct, I was referring to the US Attorney in general when I said the AG because that is like referring to the President on the actions of a cabinet member. Accurate but not precise. 

[BruceVC]

No really though: Is Bruce a troll? If not I think a part of me and my faith in humanity just died today.

No I'm not a Troll and I'm sure we have discussed this many times where I have mentioned it annoys me when people say that about me as its just as excuse to avoid a debate 

 

" waaaaaaaaaaaa...BruceVC is a troll...I'm going to ignore him .....waaaaaaaaa "  

[Longknife]

LF: No need to get upset about Bruce's antics. He has confessed of being brought up in matriarchal household with little to no father figures or heroes, which also explains why his arguments sounds like a something a girl would make on the school playground with the same arrogance that comes with it, as boys don't hit girls. A normal man knows that that kind of attitude would get him beat up or even put behind the sauna as we say in Finland, but he simply doesn't understand for the reasons i just stated.

 

If you drop all assumptions of him arguing like a man among men, but as a little Daisy trying asserting her dominance as queen hen of her pack and you can have a chuckle and move on.

 

As for the Hillary case, i am still waiting for the scapegoat(s) to appear or to be found.

 

Dude I was raised by a single mother, that's not a valid excuse.

 

And look just so we're clear: I'm not blind to the fact I'm essentially screaming at a wall, I'm just too stubborn to give up, because it pains me to imagine someone like Bruce in any position of power exhibiting such a thought process while doing their job. Holy hell, think of all the chaos. Surely we can reveal this as a troll once and for all. Surely we can actually get through to him. I refuse to give up on trying, no matter how hopeless that is. I dunno if that's just stubborness, because I need to be able to sleep at night or because I hold a belief in the need to try or you can't critique such stupidity since you've done nothing to try and fix it yourself, but yeah, I refuse to stop trying.

 

 

 

No I'm not a Troll and I'm sure we have discussed this many times where I have mentioned it annoys me when people say that about me as its just as excuse to avoid a debate 

 

" waaaaaaaaaaaa...BruceVC is a troll...I'm going to ignore him .....waaaaaaaaa "

 

 

This is not something you should be proud of, since 1) If anyone's avoiding debate, it's you. You've glossed over counter-arguments TWICE now and 2) The alternative to being a troll is that you must be one of the most mentally challenged individuals I've ever had the displeasure of speaking to.

Edited July 3, 2016 by Longknife

[Leferd]

 

 

 

 

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?

 

 

Except that it's not how it works. The FBI (or any other Federal law enforcement agency seeking a federal indictment) works together with the prosecutor (U.S. Attorney's Office) who presents the evidence to a federal grand jury --which makes the judgment to indict based on whether there is enough evidence for the accused to have committed the crime.

 

The Attorney General is not part of the process and it would not be ethical for her to be involved with the process, and she has EXPLICITLY stated that she will not be part of the process.

 

Correct, I was referring to the US Attorney in general when I said the AG because that is like referring to the President on the actions of a cabinet member. Accurate but not precise. 

 

 

Well, considering the fact that you were stating that Attorney General Loretta Lynch is a member of the same party as Hillary Clinton, and that she would choose not to indict Secretary Clinton. You and others here are more than implying impropriety specifically on the part of the Clintons and the Attorney General.

 

I was merely pointing out that the Attorney General is not part of the process to make an indictment.

[Valsuelm]

I know exactly what he is. And if Hillary & Trump are equally bad where does one turn? I realize you will tell me Trump is the "lesser of two evils" and perhaps he is in some ways. But under either 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. IMO there is no "lesser" evil.

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.

Edited July 3, 2016 by Valsuelm

[Guard Dog]

 

 

 

 

 

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?

 

 

Except that it's not how it works. The FBI (or any other Federal law enforcement agency seeking a federal indictment) works together with the prosecutor (U.S. Attorney's Office) who presents the evidence to a federal grand jury --which makes the judgment to indict based on whether there is enough evidence for the accused to have committed the crime.

 

The Attorney General is not part of the process and it would not be ethical for her to be involved with the process, and she has EXPLICITLY stated that she will not be part of the process.

 

Correct, I was referring to the US Attorney in general when I said the AG because that is like referring to the President on the actions of a cabinet member. Accurate but not precise. 

 

 

Well, considering the fact that you were stating that Attorney General Loretta Lynch is a member of the same party as Hillary Clinton, and that she would choose not to indict Secretary Clinton. You and others here are more than implying impropriety specifically on the part of the Clintons and the Attorney General.

 

I was merely pointing out that the Attorney General is not part of the process to make an indictment.

 

And you are correct, but she does have influence over the process. And just to be clear I didn't imply impropriety HAS happened, just that it wouldn't surprise me if it does.

 

I don't think it would surprise you either. And I don't think it would matter to you. As a practical matter when you fill out your ballot in November you are going to have three choices, Trump, Clinton, or neither. You preferred political views will demand you choose Clinton. If your principles demand a different choice you can certainly follow them but you'll do so knowing you are giving up any choice on influencing the outcome, small as that may be. It's a choice only you can make.

 

I've made my choice, wouldn't begrudge anyone else theirs. 

[Meshugger]

 

LF: No need to get upset about Bruce's antics. He has confessed of being brought up in matriarchal household with little to no father figures or heroes, which also explains why his arguments sounds like a something a girl would make on the school playground with the same arrogance that comes with it, as boys don't hit girls. A normal man knows that that kind of attitude would get him beat up or even put behind the sauna as we say in Finland, but he simply doesn't understand for the reasons i just stated.

 

If you drop all assumptions of him arguing like a man among men, but as a little Daisy trying asserting her dominance as queen hen of her pack and you can have a chuckle and move on.

 

As for the Hillary case, i am still waiting for the scapegoat(s) to appear or to be found.

But ironically my views based on  " sounds like a something a girl would make on the school playground with the same arrogance that comes with it, as boys don't hit girls " happen to be correct in this case ...strange that 

 

I also reject this notion öf " arguing like a man " , thats 1980's and sexist. Nowadays we just debate like people in a debate, there is no " mans way to debate " 

 

No really though: Is Bruce a troll? If not I think a part of me and my faith in humanity just died today.

 

 

 

 

LF: No need to get upset about Bruce's antics. He has confessed of being brought up in matriarchal household with little to no father figures or heroes, which also explains why his arguments sounds like a something a girl would make on the school playground with the same arrogance that comes with it, as boys don't hit girls. A normal man knows that that kind of attitude would get him beat up or even put behind the sauna as we say in Finland, but he simply doesn't understand for the reasons i just stated.

 

If you drop all assumptions of him arguing like a man among men, but as a little Daisy trying asserting her dominance as queen hen of her pack and you can have a chuckle and move on.

 

As for the Hillary case, i am still waiting for the scapegoat(s) to appear or to be found.

But ironically my views based on  " sounds like a something a girl would make on the school playground with the same arrogance that comes with it, as boys don't hit girls " happen to be correct in this case ...strange that 

 

I also reject this notion öf " arguing like a man " , thats 1980's and sexist. Nowadays we just debate like people in a debate, there is no " mans way to debate " 

 

No really though: Is Bruce a troll? If not I think a part of me and my faith in humanity just died today.

 

 

Case in point. You have absolutely no idea what i am talking about and just throw killing words to end the discussion, while thriving over the attention given from everyone talking about you.

[BruceVC]

 

 

LF: No need to get upset about Bruce's antics. He has confessed of being brought up in matriarchal household with little to no father figures or heroes, which also explains why his arguments sounds like a something a girl would make on the school playground with the same arrogance that comes with it, as boys don't hit girls. A normal man knows that that kind of attitude would get him beat up or even put behind the sauna as we say in Finland, but he simply doesn't understand for the reasons i just stated.

 

If you drop all assumptions of him arguing like a man among men, but as a little Daisy trying asserting her dominance as queen hen of her pack and you can have a chuckle and move on.

 

As for the Hillary case, i am still waiting for the scapegoat(s) to appear or to be found.

But ironically my views based on  " sounds like a something a girl would make on the school playground with the same arrogance that comes with it, as boys don't hit girls " happen to be correct in this case ...strange that 

 

I also reject this notion öf " arguing like a man " , thats 1980's and sexist. Nowadays we just debate like people in a debate, there is no " mans way to debate " 

 

No really though: Is Bruce a troll? If not I think a part of me and my faith in humanity just died today.

 

 

 

 

LF: No need to get upset about Bruce's antics. He has confessed of being brought up in matriarchal household with little to no father figures or heroes, which also explains why his arguments sounds like a something a girl would make on the school playground with the same arrogance that comes with it, as boys don't hit girls. A normal man knows that that kind of attitude would get him beat up or even put behind the sauna as we say in Finland, but he simply doesn't understand for the reasons i just stated.

 

If you drop all assumptions of him arguing like a man among men, but as a little Daisy trying asserting her dominance as queen hen of her pack and you can have a chuckle and move on.

 

As for the Hillary case, i am still waiting for the scapegoat(s) to appear or to be found.

But ironically my views based on  " sounds like a something a girl would make on the school playground with the same arrogance that comes with it, as boys don't hit girls " happen to be correct in this case ...strange that 

 

I also reject this notion öf " arguing like a man " , thats 1980's and sexist. Nowadays we just debate like people in a debate, there is no " mans way to debate " 

 

No really though: Is Bruce a troll? If not I think a part of me and my faith in humanity just died today.

 

 

Case in point. You have absolutely no idea what i am talking about and just throw killing words to end the discussion, while thriving over the attention given from everyone talking about you.

 

Not really, you the one who started talking about me....you raised it not me

 

I cant help it if you want to make assumptions about what motivates me 

[Bartimaeus]

Case in point. You have absolutely no idea what i am talking about and just throw killing words to end the discussion, while thriving over the attention given from everyone talking about you.

 

Who's the bigger nitwit, Trump Bruce or (we) the people who keep engaging with and/or insulting him?