smjjames

Perhaps I misunderstood your intent back there, I apologize.

Are you doing that just because he has the word socialist attached to him? I swear you're doing it to get a kick out of annoying the liberals around here. *goes off into diatribe about how the word 'socialist' has been misused so much that it is meaningless and is just a way of getting out of providing any details or concretely arguing against specific things, yadda yadda yadda* Andrew Yang: Entrenepruer guy, his page has lots of ideas ranging from small stuff to large picture stuff, but that seems to be pretty much it, ideas rather than solid policy proposals. Seems more like he's just trying to get his ideas out there. Even though he is the son of Taiwanese Chinese immigrants and not mainlander Chinese, his last name might be an issue for some. His site barely has any foriegn policy stuff, though it sounds like he is aiming for America First without the alienation of allies. Marianne Williamson: Oprahs spiritual advisor, don't know anything else about her. Wouldn't be surprised if she has some odd beliefs about stuff. Amy Klobuchar: The fact that she is a pragmatic and is well liked (or at least respected) on both sides of the aisle and works on both sides of the aisle should be an asset though, no? Seems like it'd be a plus for a VP. Pete Buttigeig: Mayor of a city/town in Indiana, don't know much of anything about him. Got rave reviews from CNNs town hall though apparently. Bernie Sanders: UNSECCESSION!!!! BWAHAHAHA! Jay Inslee: He's trying to run on a single issue campaign, watch for others co-opting parts of his ideas. Kirsten Gillibrand: I think you spoke a little too soon on scandals, she just got caught up in her own #metoo hypocrisy moment. Not a full blown scandal, but still. Elizabeth Warren: The whole Native American ancestry stuff is problematic on it's own IMO, a while back I saw an op ed making the point about if she claimed to be such an advocate for Native Americans, where was she in some of the recent clashes. I haven't made any set in stone opinions about any of the candidates yet. Also, I'm thinking of voting strategtically (or maybe it's tactically?). Since I'm in a mostly Republican district and I vote as independent, I'm thinking of voting for whoever is opposing Trump on the Republican side. The Democrats will have plenty of votes among themselves, so, it's an opportunity to undermine Trump in the primary. Edit: what the? Modifying it on mobile got rid of the enter key spaces..... *fixes*

Are you referring to DACA? The Democrats were in the minority in the House in 2012. Anyways, yea, she's previously said that Trump is unfit to be President, so, theres plenty of hypocrisy to go around.

Sounds more like they only care about the money than getting rid of them due to allergies.

Why not both?

Wouldn't they get rid of them faster if they went lower price? What about the local equivalent of the SPCA?

I'm gonna call BS on your source for a lack of details of what exactly the Democrats are doing to allegedly 'give illegals voting rights' and just going 'ARGLEBARGLE! BROWN PPL GONNA VUTE!". Looking elsewhere to get the information that article lacks, I believe you're referring to the automatic voter registration stuff? It has stuff like a constitutional amendment to repeal Citizens United, which would be easier to do via normal legislation or through the courts than a constitutional amendment, so, yeah, it's obviously not meant to be serious. As for Pelosi, pretty sure she was pushed into doing the HR 1 thing by the new freshmen/women class. Seems like she is having trouble managing the leftward push. Obviously, she is doing what she can, but she's pretty much dealing with the Democrats version of the Tea Party movement.

The shirt in the background should have been a clue.

Saw that one on CNNs site. Some catchers are also complaining that it would alter the way catchers do their thing as it was described as having an art to it.

Saw that one on the BBC news site a while ago. The other outrageous part for me though is that they were at first thinking of taking away a disabled family members wheelchair. Why would they even think of doing that in the first place, never mind that it's illegal? Taking away the dog like that was bad enough, but even thinking of taking away something essential to a disabled person? That's something they should be fired for IMO.

Plus, it's applying a method to something which can't easily be boiled down to a batting average. It seems to put emphasis on battles fought/led, which is why Alexander the Great is so down low and Napoleon so high up, rather than tactical or strategic brilliance.

There seems to be some confusion between various sources, some are saying that the DNC is barring them from hosting a debate, others are saying that the DNC is not allowing Fox to air or broadcast the debates. If they don't want Fox to host a debate, fine, that's their choice, but outright blocking them from airing it alltogether is IMO a big mistake as it shuts out the chance to introduce the candidates to voters who do watch Fox but aren't neccesarily fanatic loyalists to Trump.

Biden is looking more and more like he's going to run.

Anyways, I don't agree that WoWs success was due to being able to talk freely and openly on the internet because forums existed right from the very beginning and plenty of MMORPGs older than WoW had just as much free speech as most everybody else. WoW of course, had it's terms of service like everybody else. You can definetly act like a jerkass in WoW, theres nothing stopping you from doing so, but you can still get booted because it's being run by a private company, not the government. Is English not your first language? I don't get the sense that english isn't their first language, though the formatting is strange, like they typed it up in notepad with word-wrap off and then copied and pasted or something. But can you parse that? Parse? Not really, it's very rambly and stream of consciousness as hurlshot said.

Is English not your first language? I don't get the sense that english isn't their first language, though the formatting is strange, like they typed it up in notepad with word-wrap off and then copied and pasted or something.

Nice troll, heh. (and no, I didn't fall for it).

I think Trump is just playing up to his base here, because you know, 'owning the libs'.

I wonder how it'd look when adjusted for population size? Obviously part of the reason why we pay so much more is because we have so many more people, but that doesn't mean it can't be less expensive. @Gifted1: No idea either. It'd require a deeper analysis. The average of comparable country averages shows a similar plateu-rise-plateu-rise pattern, if less pronounced and it happens at about the same time as the US one, so... theres some factor that influences the US one more than the other countries. Drug companies maybe?....

Trump lost in New York As I said though, it's one thing to lose a state which is solidly for the other party and one to lose a state which should have been a feaseable win for that candidates party. And of course, both candidates had the same state as their home state (Clinton as adopted New Yorker, Trump as New York born and bred), so, one of them is going to lose it regardless. A check on wiki and a bit of google fu shows that in Polks case, it was that the Democrats had lost ground in Tennesee quite recently and there was some dynamics with a third party appearing and possibly stuff with the big issue of the day, Texas annexation. He also lost his birth state of North Carolina. As for Woodrow Wilson, I can't seem to find out exactly why, but I think I'm getting hints that he alienated a lot of people in NJ despite once being a popular governor. That loss was in 1916 though, not his initial run in 1912.

CNN article says 14, but it feels bigger than that, and yeah, you'd only vote for Libertarian. Or maybe independent or Democrat turned Libertarian, but even then, they'd be LINO's (Libertarian In Name Onlys).

You’re forgetting Trump, who lost NY https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_States_presidential_election , though Florida is practically a second home state for him. Then again, it's one thing to lose a home state which is already solidly for the other party and another to lose a home state which should be a feaseable win for that candidates party.

I looked and his full plan isn’t up yet, but the statement seems boilerplate and the four points and pillars look standard, nothing to be awed about or differentiate from the pack yet

Al Gore didn’t run a single-issue campaign though, Inslee is, that’s the main difference between the horses to power and relevancy. Kind of reminds me of O’Malleys campaign. While his wasn’t explicitly single issue on global warming, it was heavily centered around the issue, and he didn’t get very far. It doesn’t necessarily mean that a climate change centered campaign would fail at the Presidential level since there’s so many other factors, it does show potential limitations. I fully expect the other candidates to co-opt his ideas or even build on them should any of it gain traction. I haven’t actually looked at his platform yet though, perhaps I should, just out of curiosity.

As I said elsewhere: With all the hyperventilating and misinterpreting over the Green New Deal, IMO, I don't think they are slippery sloping themselves enough or whipping themselves into a frenzy enough over precedence, what if a Democrat decides to sieze all guns! COMMENCE HYPERVENTILATING! heh. And Al Gore using private jets. Theres plenty of hypocrisy to go around with politicians. Not sure if that comment is at Inslee or Cuomo? I don't know how extreme either guys gun policies are though, and only crazies and hyperventilators think that kind of thing is an actual serious thing that would happen (meaning I'm taking your comment as tongue-in-cheek rather than serious). Anyways, I thought Cuomo ruled himself out months ago, like, over six months ago. There was also something about former Gov. Hickenlooper possibly jumping in later this week, so, that one remains to be seen.

It's not so much a lack of western style nationalism than a cultural misunderstanding. The thing is that we aren't a nation-state like, say, France is, so, we could be forgiven if we thought it was easy to have a national identity without being a nation-state. Still, it's a mistake that could have been avoided and zoraptor has a point in that doing it the way we did it in Iraq would cause the same kind of problems in places where it was stable.