^^um, Cain wasn't in this debate??? You are missing Walker in your summary at the bottom (but you do mention him up in your bloc), unless you are referring to Walker as Cain in the biblical sense (which would make sense to me).

Also, we know Iran is a bad actor, so are many other countries we deal with, but that shouldn't stop us from trying to negotiate them not obtaining nuclear weapons - actually it's exactly the reason why we should be negotiating. The reason they didn't bring up those details you mentioned about the Iran deal is because I don't think those points are even true. Besides, "we need a butter, tougher deal" and beating your chest is all the base really needs to hear, why go into detail of its not required?

8/13/2015 7:28:21 AM

^ Sorry, I was thinking of Carson and wrote down Cain (who was in 2012) and then counted at the end 10.

I'd put Walker in the Same group although I thought Bush did better than he did.

Quote :

"Also, we know Iran is a bad actor, so are many other countries we deal with, but that shouldn't stop us from trying to negotiate them not obtaining nuclear weapons - actually it's exactly the reason why we should be negotiating."

Then why provide Iran an out clause on the agreement that they can invoke at any time with no penalty that allows them to further their cause to obtain nuclear weapons? What does this agreement gain that is guaranteed to last?

All the focus on Israel is also all wrong. Sure, be pro-Israel, but stand up on stage and say "I'm pro-Jordan". Jordan, a country that is completely getting fucked by this Iranian-Saudi Grand War in the Middle East, has been a solid dependable ally of the U.S. and at current rate, this country will not exist in 20 years. And I don't care for the Saudis any more than I do the Iranians at this point.

I really wish we had a Democratic debate to see what Clinton, Biden, O'Malley, Webb, and Sanders think before the vote.

[Edited on August 13, 2015 at 9:13 AM. Reason : .]

8/13/2015 9:02:28 AM

https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.documentcloud.org/documents/2165399/full-text-of-the-iran-nuclear-deal.pdf

Quote :

"Dispute Resolution Mechanism 36. If Iran believed that any or all of the E3/EU+3 [USA, Russia, China, Germany, France, UK] were not meeting their commitments under this Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), Iran could refer the issue to the Joint Commission for resolution; similarly, if any of the E3/EU+3 believed that Iran was not meeting its commitments under this JCPOA, any of the E3/EU+3 could do the same. The Joint Commission would have 15 days to resolve the issue, unless the time period was extended by consensus. After Joint Commission consideration, any participant could refer the issue to Ministers of Foreign Affairs, if it believed the compliance issue had not been resolved. Ministers would have 15 days to resolve the issue, unless the time period was extended by consensus. After Joint Commission consideration – in parallel with (or in lieu of) review at the Ministerial level - either the complaining participant or the participant whose performance is in question could request that the issue be considered by an Advisory Board, which would consist of three members (one each appointed by the participants in the dispute and a third independent member). The Advisory Board should provide a non-binding opinion on the compliance issue within 15 days. If, after this 30-day process the issue is not resolved, the Joint Commission would consider the opinion of the Advisory Board for no more than 5 days in order to resolve the issue. If the issue still has not been resolved to the satisfaction of the complaining participant, and if the complaining participant deems the issue to constitute significant nonperformance, then that participant could treat the unresolved issue as grounds to cease performing its commitments under this JCPOA in whole or in part and/or notify the UN Security Council that it believes the issue constitutes significant non-performance."

Quote :

"Terd Ferguson: The reason they didn't bring up those details you mentioned about the Iran deal is because I don't think those points are even true."

There it is, straight from the document text.

[Edited on August 13, 2015 at 9:48 AM. Reason : /]

8/13/2015 9:43:43 AM

You said:

Quote :

"And the agreement itself states in a chapter that any party (Iran or the U.S.) can withdraw from the agreement with short-term notice and no repercussions, so Iran can get what they want in the short-term and at a later point in time invent a reason to withdraw."

but that's not the case, there are repercussions. From your link, the very next paragraph:

Quote :

"37. Upon receipt of the notification from the complaining participant, as described above, including a description of the good-faith efforts the participant made to exhaust the dispute resolution process specified in this JCPOA, the UN Security Council, in accordance with its procedures, shall vote on a resolution to continue the sanctions lifting (The US can Veto any effort to continue sanction lifting in the security council). If the resolution described above has not been adopted within 30 days of the notification, then the provisions of the old UN Security Council resolutions would be re-imposed (That means all of the old sanctions would be reinstated), unless the UN Security Council decides otherwise. In such event, these provisions would not apply with retroactive effect to contracts signed between any party and Iran or Iranian individuals and entities prior to the date of application, provided that the activities contemplated under and execution of such contracts are consistent with this JCPOA and the previous and current UN Security Council resolutions. The UN Security Council, expressing its intention to prevent the reapplication of the provisions if the issue giving rise to the notification is resolved within this period, intends to take into account the views of the States involved in the issue and any opinion on the issue of the Advisory Board. Iran has stated that if sanctions are reinstated in whole or in part, Iran will treat that as grounds to cease performing its commitments under this JCPOA in whole or in part."

8/13/2015 10:36:10 AM

So in what part of the deal does it say we have to close all our bases in the Middle East, remove our navy from the Persian Gulf, decommission our stealth bombers, and get rid of all our own nuclear capability? The idea that we gave up anything in this deal is a total fucking myth. Iran is less than a flea compared to us. They are a tiny country, with a tiny economy, and a tiny military. We could reduce everything they've built in the last 30 years to rubble in a matter of weeks. Not their nuclear infrastructure, everything. They pose absolutely zero threat to us (and for that matter, all of our ME allies) by any conventional means. The only threat they ever posed was as a destabilizing actor if they obtained nuclear weapons. This deal gives us the opportunity to take that off the table without a single bomb dropped, single shot fired, zero lives lost, while still reserving the right (via the might) to send them back to the stone age if they don't comply. I've yet to hear one single reasoned argument how this is a bad thing, not even close.

[Edited on August 13, 2015 at 10:43 AM. Reason : .]

8/13/2015 10:42:26 AM

I agree we could fuck Iran up, but its the aftermath that I want no part of.

Iran is 3x bigger than Iraq, has 3x more people, has 3x the military capabilities of Iraq (post gulf war that is) and has a crap ton more urban areas that would probably result in the kind of house-to-house fighting that the US lost a ton of soldiers in during the Iraq war.

I think we need to be real about what a REAL conflict with Iran would look like, its pretty damn costly any way you cut it IMO.

8/13/2015 10:53:41 AM

Quote :

"but that's not the case, there are repercussions. "

so if the deal is withdrawn they go back to the status quo, after a period of time where their previously blacklisted entities were allowed to move their money around and Iran bought arms to ship to stockpile at home as well as send to Yemen and Syria amongst potentially other places

how is that punishment?

Quote :

"Iran is less than a flea compared to us. They are a tiny country, with a tiny economy, and a tiny military."

Less with the arrogance. They are a mid-sized country that is a regional power economically and militarily in a region that is very volatile in the past, present, and future, and its location in the world means it can easily influence Central Asia, North Africa, and Eastern Europe directly, and the rest of the world indirectly via the world oil market.

It's like Turkey. "Turkey are not important for who they are. They are important for where they live."

[Edited on August 13, 2015 at 11:00 AM. Reason : .]

8/13/2015 10:55:37 AM

Quote :

"Iran is 3x bigger than Iraq, has 3x more people, has 3x the military capabilities of Iraq (post gulf war that is) and has a crap ton more urban areas that would probably result in the kind of house-to-house fighting that the US lost a ton of soldiers in during the Iraq war."

Yeah, but our military capability, especially when it comes to what we can do from the air, is 3x what it was during Desert Storm where we fucked up Saddam's entire military and Iraq's civilian infrastructure in 2 weeks. No one's talking about house to house fighting, and obviously the repercussions of an aerial bombardment would be immense, which is why this deal is so critical.

^It's not arrogance, it's fact. Iran is a mid-sized country compared to other developing nations, but it's nothing compared to us or any country with a modern economy. Their military is mostly cold war Russian garbage. Their navy is practically a bunch of fishing boats.

8/13/2015 11:05:48 AM

Air power by itself is incredibly overrated. Sure, you can bomb a building, but you can't control the ground. That's the lesson of the Iraq War and why Rumsfeld's Theory of War of minimal force involvement has been discredited. (A person I know and deeply respect when he came back from his 2nd time in Iraq around '06, I asked him how were things thought for a second and said "Rumsfeld should be lined up on a wall and shot.")

That's also why guerillas in recent times have become so effective for smaller groups in comparison to conventional forces. The easiest way to combat air power is...




(are you ready for this)




...to give them nothing to shoot at.

Quote :

"^It's not arrogance, it's fact. Iran is a mid-sized country compared to other developing nations, but it's nothing compared to us or any country with a modern economy."

That is arrogance. An invasion of Iran would be a nightmare, simply due to the mountainous terrain. That's also why it would never happen. Any person or politician that talks about invading Iran like it's a serious possibility I know is a fucking idiot when it comes to geopolitics.

[Edited on August 13, 2015 at 11:17 AM. Reason : .]

8/13/2015 11:14:16 AM

No one is talking about invading Iran. We're talking about wiping out their infrastructure and ability to project force of any kind. That we can do entirely from the air. The geopolitical consequences of it are exactly why this deal is a good thing, and as I said, I've yet to hear a single line of reasoned thought that argues otherwise. The point is that if all else fails and Iran decided to race ahead to a nuclear weapon, they can and will be stopped.

[Edited on August 13, 2015 at 11:21 AM. Reason : .]

8/13/2015 11:17:04 AM

Quote :

"No one is talking about invading Iran. We're talking about wiping out their infrastructure and ability to project force of any kind. That we can do entirely from the air."

They've done a pretty good job in the past 10 years projecting force in Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Bahrain, and Argentina. No air strike will be able to remove that capability.

8/13/2015 11:19:57 AM

Quote :

"They've done a pretty good job in the past 10 years projecting force in Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Bahrain, and Argentina. No air strike will be able to remove that capability."

Sure, but do you really want to get into the sordid history of all the fucked up things we've done in the Middle East and South/Central America over the past 60 years? Or what we did to Iran itself to deserve their ire? This is not an argument against the nuclear deal.

[Edited on August 13, 2015 at 11:29 AM. Reason : .]

8/13/2015 11:27:48 AM

Find me someone that's pure and I'll produce a tooth fairy.

You're contradicting yourself here. In one post you say Iran are a nothing country, military, and economy with fishing boats for a navy, and in another you act like them having a nuke is very credible.

The nuke itself I consider a Trojan horse. I do not think Iran cares about nuclear weapons beyond the threat of them gives them leverage in negotiations to get what they really want, which is no different than the North Koreans, but unlike the North Koreans, the Iranians are not batshit loony. But what the nuclear agreement does do is allow Iran a period of time to get what they really want via their finances and military supplies, and once they have those, it doesn't matter what happens then because they have what they need. At which point the nuclear agreement can conveniently disappear, and it won't matter for Obama, because he's no longer the president in 17 months, it'll be his successor's job to clean things up. Meanwhile people still die in Syria in the Iranians' and Saudis' attempts to redraw the borders in the Middle East.

[Edited on August 13, 2015 at 11:42 AM. Reason : .]

8/13/2015 11:39:24 AM

Quote :

"so if the deal is withdrawn they go back to the status quo, after a period of time where their previously blacklisted entities were allowed to move their money around and Iran bought arms to ship to stockpile at home as well as send to Yemen and Syria amongst potentially other places how is that punishment?"

I see two huge consequences of an Iranian withdrawal.

First many Iranians are pretty well educated, somewhat middle class (for that region anyways), and interested in participating in the global economy. In reality, I don't think most of them give a damn about proxy wars around the world. Once they get a taste of capitalism, the ability to have a decent job and build wealth, American TV, etc, I really don't think they are gonna want to go back. Iranian politics are in flux (see the green movement, and electing a president that ran on a platform of opening the nation up) and those changes led directly to this agreement. If sanctions get reinstated, the government will only hold onto power by force. Common Iranians know what new sanctions mean for them.

If Iranians withdrawal, you will see much higher support for war/bombing campaigns/whatever both here and among the other nations that have signed the agreement. It'll be pretty immediate IMO, with all of the current hawks going on TV to say "I told ya so." I think the Iranians know this too.

And lets not forget the alternatives to the agreement: A war or various conflicts with Iran, probably encouraging them to build a bomb or we sit around with the current status quo sanctions..... and they eventually build a bomb. Neither of those are winners either IMO.

8/13/2015 11:56:44 AM

Quote :

"The nuke itself I consider a Trojan horse. I do not think Iran cares about nuclear weapons beyond the threat of them gives them leverage in negotiations to get what they really want, which is no different than the North Koreans, but unlike the North Koreans, the Iranians are not batshit loony."

This is the first thing you've said that makes any sense. I also agree that Iran doesn't care about getting a nuclear weapon. For that matter, so does the CIA and the Mossad. The reason they don't is because they know that it would lead to their ultimate demise for the reasons I've outlined in the posts above. They know the western world will not allow them to have a nuclear weapon, but they also know that we're willing to do almost anything to avoid a military conflict. This is all Bush's fault, by the way, the disaster that was Iraq showed Iran we simply don't have the stomach for another prolonged military conflict in the region. That doesn't mean that we won't or can't, just that we really really don't want to.

So the question becomes, what do we do about Iran and their regional aspirations? Well, the first thing we've done is pump up all our Sunni allies to where they also have military and economic superiority over Iran. Now we don't have to provide a counter-balance to Iran's power any longer, Saudi Arabia and the other Persian Gulf nations can do that.

The other thing we've done is work to drive down the global price of oil. That means for Iran to continue their economic expansion, it has to come via something other than fossil fuels, which practically forces them towards a more progressive, inclusive, and ultimately peaceful society. Iranian society isn't a whole lot different from ours at the end of the day. Their cities have a mostly educated and progressive population, while the rural areas are extremely religious and backwards thinking. We want to empower the urban population while marginalizing the religious leadership, which is where the majority of the opposition to this deal is coming from. That should speak volumes to you.

[Edited on August 13, 2015 at 12:04 PM. Reason : .]

8/13/2015 12:01:27 PM

I'm looking forward to Donald Trump winning the Republican primary and JEB Bush or Scott Walker running as independents.

8/13/2015 12:12:04 PM

Quote :

"Iranian politics are in flux (see the green movement, and electing a president that ran on a platform of opening the nation up) and those changes led directly to this agreement. If sanctions get reinstated, the government will only hold onto power by force. Common Iranians know what new sanctions mean for them."

This is the problem with liberals (I don't mean the American definition of liberal, I mean the classical definition): they're not willing to pick up a gun literally or figuratively to fight for what they believe in. You saw it in Egypt. The media like dumbass idiots focused on all these people happy to see Mubarak gone. You had a bunch of liberals in Cairo excited they were going to have democracy. Democracy comes and the Muslim Brotherhood took charge. Those same liberals then stood in the background and quietly approved a coup.

Iran actually has a lot of what you state now. Ahmadinejad was the polar opposite of what some people walking around Tehran thought politically. It's just those people are not allowed to run the government and at the end of the day, the people running the country know that if they push hard enough, those people will go along and not push back.

Quote :

"If Iranians withdrawal, you will see much higher support for war/bombing campaigns/whatever both here and among the other nations that have signed the agreement."

Russia and China will never support anything of the sort seeing it as western interventionism which they're both against and color me skeptical on France and Germany supporting it.

Quote :

"And lets not forget the alternatives to the agreement: A war or various conflicts with Iran, probably encouraging them to build a bomb or we sit around with the current status quo sanctions..... and they eventually build a bomb. Neither of those are winners either IMO."

Iran are in war and various conflicts now. It's been slowly building over the past 4 years. The Turks, our NATO ally, recently got involved in Syria, officially to dismantle ISIS. This is really a war between the Iranians and Saudis, I don't care for the Saudis at all but they're our ally, and now the Turks are in it officially. I guess we can wait until a half dozen more states are involved, but this is pretty much World War I on an Arabian Peninsula level and Iran are one of the bigger agents.

8/13/2015 12:12:06 PM

Quote :

"This is the first thing you've said that makes any sense. "

I've backed up everything I stated, provided a documented link to my original point, rebutted, and am happy with my discourse. You're allowed to disagree with everything except chapter 36 of the Iranian bill.

Quote :

"So the question becomes, what do we do about Iran and their regional aspirations? Well, the first thing we've done is pump up all our Sunni allies to where they also have military and economic superiority over Iran."

The Saudis have a lot of shiny equipment but their military are not effective because they don't train them, and if they effectively trained their generals and colonels that means they could potentially overthrow the royal family out of power.

The Saudi military is currently in Yemen trying to reinstall Hadi in charge after he's been overthrown by the allegedly Iranian-connected Houthi rebels. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudi_Arabian-led_intervention_in_Yemen https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yemeni_Civil_War_(2015)

Quote :

"Iranian society isn't a whole lot different from ours at the end of the day. Their cities have a mostly educated and progressive population, while the rural areas are extremely religious and backwards thinking. We want to empower the urban population while marginalizing the religious leadership, which is where the majority of the opposition to this deal is coming from. That should speak volumes to you."

That mostly educated and progressive population can take control of the country then. Until then, they're powerless.

[Edited on August 13, 2015 at 1:51 PM. Reason : /]

8/13/2015 1:29:50 PM

Take all that shit to another thread.

This is the thread of Trump.

8/13/2015 2:24:35 PM

http://blackbag.gawker.com/is-donald-trump-running-a-false-flag-campaign-to-help-h-1723925057

8/13/2015 3:11:31 PM

Quote :

"I wanted to use our time tonight to directly deal with an attack launched on me today by the left and the media. A couple questions came in on this subject, so I want to address it head on. Today I was accused by the press as having done research on fetal tissue. It simply is not true. The study they distributed by an anonymous source was done in 1992. The study was about tumors. I won’t bore you with the science. There were four doctors' names on the study. One was mine. I spent my life studying brain tumors and removing them. My only involvement in this study was supplying tumors that I had removed from my patients. Those tissue samples were compared to other tissue samples under a microscope. Pathologists do this work to gain clues about tumors. I, nor any of the doctors involved with this study, had anything to do with abortion or what Planned Parenthood has been doing. Research hospitals across the country have microscope slides of all kinds of tissue to compare and contrast. The fetal tissue that was viewed in this study by others was not collected for this study. I am sickened by the attack that I, after having spent my entire life caring for children, had something to do with aborting a child and harvesting organs. My medical specialty is the human brain and even I am amazed at what it is capable of doing. Please know these attacks are pathetic attempts to blunt our progress. Now lets get to answering your questions. Nancy in Arkansas wants to know how my mother is doing. Nancy, you know my mother is the only reason I stand here today. I surely would have been lost if it were not for her. She is an amazing woman. If she were the Secretary of Treasury, I assure you we would have a surplus. My mother was very ill when I announced my candidacy. The family was called in by her doctors. We surrounded her and prayed as did millions of you. She began to eat again. She has her strength back. She is doing as well as we can expect. Thank you for asking. The next question is from Bill. He wanted to know if it was true that I was offered a slot at West Point after high school. Bill, that is true. I was the highest student ROTC member in Detroit and was thrilled to get an offer from West Point. But I knew medicine is what I wanted to do. So I applied to only one school. (it was all the money I had). I applied to Yale and thank God they accepted me. I often wonder what might have happened had they said no. Last question as it is getting late. A young nurse in Ohio wants to know how many patients did I treat during my career. I treated over 15,000 patients in some 57 countries. We lived in Australia for a while as well. One of the most gratifying moments of each day is when I run into a former patient like I did tonight. My patients were all quite ill. I love seeing them with their families living normal lives. I think it is more gratifying than serving in Congress. Speaking of serving in Congress. I constantly get asked how could I possibly become President when I have no political experience. Here is what I say. The current Members of Congress have a combined 8,788 years of political experience. How is that working out? People forget that of our 56 founding fathers who risked it all to sign the Declaration of Independence, Five were Doctors. Good night, Ben"

[Edited on August 14, 2015 at 12:21 AM. Reason : Sounds like one of those "it depends what the definition of the word is, is" situations]

[Edited on August 14, 2015 at 12:25 AM. Reason : also: http://thinkprogress.org/election/2015/08/01/3685871/carson-black-lives-matter/]

8/14/2015 12:20:42 AM

Just caught the tail end of a Scott Walker interview on Faux News. They wrapped it up and his final words were, I shit you not:

"I can make our country great again" (aka Trump's campaign slogan)...then he realizes what he just said and had an oh shit look on his face, and fumbled out..."for future generations".

I guess even Walker is even buying into The Donald LOL

8/15/2015 12:34:45 AM

http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/08/14/432080520/fact-check-was-planned-parenthood-started-to-control-the-black-population

8/15/2015 2:12:39 AM

Jeb said "the Iraq war turned out to be a pretty good deal". Really Jeb for who? Halliburton, defense contractors? It was one of the gravest mistakes in US history.

8/15/2015 2:00:28 PM

^ trump is saying Iraq was a mistake, and he wants to make the countries in the region pay the US for what we expended on their behalf.

8/17/2015 3:14:40 PM

New FOX poll out

Quote :

"Trump 25, Bush 9, Walker 6, Carson 12, Cruz 10, Rubio 4, Huckabee 6, Fiorina 5, Paul 3, Kasich 4, Christie 3, Perry 1, Santorum 1, Jindal 1, Graham 0"

8/17/2015 3:31:04 PM

Funny how the least religious and most religious candidates are on top.

Really is a fissure in the republican party now. Very bizarre and fascinating.

8/17/2015 4:19:04 PM

Regarding Trump, and other republicans' calls to end birthright citizenship:
http://reason.com/archives/2010/08/11/born-in-the-usa

Quote :

" On March 27, 1866, President Andrew Johnson sent a message to Congress vetoing the landmark civil rights bill it had just passed...“the entire race designated as blacks,” Johnson complained, it would also make citizens out of “the Chinese of the Pacific States, Indians subject to taxation, [and] the people called Gipsies.” He wouldn’t sign it. So the Radical Republicans of the 39th Congress passed the Civil Rights Act of 1866 over the president’s veto. ... Last weekend, House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) told NBC’s Meet the Press that overhauling the 14th Amendment is “worth considering.” ... Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has said much the same. “I think we ought to take a look at it—hold hearings, listen to the experts on it,” McConnell told The Hill. "

8/18/2015 12:50:21 PM

it's wild to watch how far down the drain they're willing to go

8/18/2015 1:01:23 PM

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2015/08/17/donald_trump_s_policy_proposals_the_frontrunner_gets_specific_and_makes.html

8/18/2015 4:04:12 PM

Quote :

"“On paper, it certainly does provide protections. There are just some holes,” said Larry Levitt, a senior vice president at the non-partisan Kaiser Family Foundation, which has studied the law extensively. If enacted with as little as oversight as outlined, Walker’s plan would likely lead to coverage at levels even lower than pre-Obamacare. “At the talking point level, Governor Walker’s plan sounds an awful lot like Obamacare,” Levitt said. Look a bit deeper, though, and “there are some big differences.” For instance, the popular prohibition against denying coverage to individuals with chronic conditions such as cancer only is in place if the patient had maintained continuous insurance. Those who let their insurance policies lapse are potentially locked out of private coverage for life. Separately, pricing discrepancies between genders and ages could return. The extremely poor would still have access to health coverage, although it would not meet the current standards. There are no limits to out-of-pocket health costs, although Walker would allow Americans to set aside more money for their own health care tax-free."

http://time.com/4002142/scott-walker-obamacare/

Looks like Walker wants to do away with coverage for people with pre-existing conditions... not sure how popular this will be. I have a few Republican friends this would impact.

8/18/2015 5:37:28 PM

It is difficult to maintain continuous coverage when you rely on your workplace to supply said coverage.

8/18/2015 10:23:33 PM

I would argue it's more difficult to maintain continuous coverage without your workplace providing it.

8/18/2015 11:15:13 PM

Quote :

"egarding Trump, and other republicans' calls to end birthright citizenship"

What's wrong with this. One of the few things I agree with Republicans on. We are one of the only nations that grants citizenship to a baby due to their mother merely jumping the fence (or "coincidentally" being in the USA for vacation during late in their third trimester for Chinese women).

8/19/2015 1:54:38 AM

Walker's healthcare plan is a disaster and would lead to even more medical bankruptcy in addition to many losing their coverage who are subsidized now.

8/19/2015 12:24:42 PM

^ theres nothing republicans can do that looks like a "repeal" of obamacare that doesn't result in a worse situation.

Republicans could close the medicaid gap, remove the individual mandate, change the full-time working hours back to 40, allow an exemption for young workers covered by a school or parent's plan, all of which they can market as fixing Obama's shoddy work, but repealing the law would just make things worse at this point.

The exchanges seem like an objectively good idea no matter what the rest of the insurance system looks like, i'm not sure how they can be against this. To think if they were interested in good governance from the beginning, rather than playing for their political team, we could have had a better system by now. Republicans have held congress for a few years now, and the law hasn't been adjusted at all-- and problems are just as much on them now, as Obama.

8/19/2015 1:31:01 PM

Quote :

"The new PPP poll revealed independent candidate Deez Nuts is polling at 9 percent in the Tar Heel state. Running as an independent from Wallingford, Iowa; population 197, Deez Nuts has gone viral and has a large fan base. Related: Meet the most interesting 2016 candidates you've never heard of The poll done in July showed Trump leading the Republican field at 16 percent. The newest survey of N.C. shows Trump has risen steeply to 24 percent, while all others are lagging behind. Ben Carson is Trump's biggest competition right now in North Carolina, polling at 14 percent. According to PPP, Trump leads the GOP with moderates, 'somewhat conservative voters,' 'very conservative voters,' men, women, middle-aged voters, younger voters, and seniors. See full poll results here. Jeb Bush is polling at 13 percent, Ted Cruz at ten percent, Mark Rubio at nine percent, and six percent each for Carly Fiorina, Mike Huckabee, and Scott Walker. The survey shows Hillary Clinton is still leading with Democrats in North Carolina at 55 percent. Bernie Sanders is trailing Clinton with 19 percent."

http://abc11.com/politics/trumps-momentum-grows-in-nc-still-leading-gop-/947054/

8/19/2015 2:21:08 PM

Quote :

"The Daily Beast claimed in a post Wednesday night to have tracked Mr. Nuts down, and reported he's actually a 15-year-old named Brady Olson."

lawl

8/19/2015 8:58:04 PM

Fuck it, I'd probably vote for Deez Nuts.

8/19/2015 11:18:31 PM

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/08/jeb-bush-crypto-makes-it-harder-for-the-american-government-to-do-its-job/

This is pretty much complete insanity. Either crypto works or it doesn't, you can't backdoor it without backdooring it for everyone.

I don't expect Jeb to personally understand this, but presumably he has to have a technical advisor with a basic understanding of what cryptology is?

I guess we can assume where Hillary stands on the issue... i'd assume Berne is pro-crypto.

8/20/2015 12:30:04 AM

Turns out, he's a Bush.

8/20/2015 12:56:28 AM

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/wp/2015/08/19/kasich-if-i-were-king-in-america-i-would-abolish-all-teachers-lounges-where-they-sit-together-and-worry-about-how-woe-is-us/?postshare=221440019533013

This guy should thank his stars he's been elected for any type of office.

[Edited on August 20, 2015 at 7:12 AM. Reason : Guy]

8/20/2015 7:11:54 AM

At least he's honest... It works for trump.

8/20/2015 7:47:36 AM

^^ if this were a sketch, the next candidate would say, "oh yeah? well I'd shit in their coffee mugs and give them poisoned apples!"

[Edited on August 20, 2015 at 11:03 AM. Reason : .]

8/20/2015 11:01:31 AM

Kasich is one of the more reasonable candidates, but his problem is a history of foot in the mouth comments like this

8/20/2015 12:11:50 PM

Who votes for these incompetent dingbats I don't see how they manage to get a majority vote for any office. Do the local pastors in the Midwest damn anyone to hell that doesn't vote for a candidate with a -R by their name?

8/20/2015 9:29:11 PM

8/21/2015 1:16:09 AM

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/donald-trump-just-stopped-being-funny-20150821#ixzz3je3wE91A

8/23/2015 11:18:19 AM

http://www.gallup.com/poll/184814/hispanics-frown-trump-not-rest-gop-field.aspx

GOP is a buncha idiots. Immigrants could have been their trojan horse in future elections-- they're generally more conservative than Americans in their actual views, but Republicans can't stop their prominent politicians from saying racist things.

8/24/2015 5:57:36 PM

Quote :

"A Monmouth University poll out Tuesday finds Donald Trump leading among South Carolina Republicans with 30% support, followed by retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson at 15%. No other candidates register in double digits. South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham, who has sparred repeatedly with Trump in recent weeks, is well behind at 4%."

http://onpolitics.usatoday.com/2015/08/25/trump-carson-south-carolina-republican-poll/

Seems like Republicans at least are following Europe's lead and becoming increasingly xenophobic. I also wonder now too how Trump would do in the general-- would his stances resonate with independent voters and democrats?

8/25/2015 11:21:23 AM