KevinG

word

http://www.stereogum.com/1866192/stryper-frontman-denies-he-is-ted-cruz/news/ Freaking awesome

such a weird story.

Funny is how the "Biden rule" is now the prevailing way the senate does things. I wonder if the Senate now will follow all his ideas. If you take the "Biden rule" as it is and face value (which as BleedOrange has stated that it far more nuanced than that), it still does not make it right or a precedent that the senate should follow. It would have been wrong if a Dem controlled senate did it in 1992, just as it is wrong for a GOP controlled senate to do it now. It also should be noted that Biden was talking a hypothetical, whereas the situation we are in is actually happening.

My Senator (Ron Johnson - WI) actually said that he would feel differently about a SCOTUS nominee if a conservative was president http://host.madison.com/ct/news/local/govt-and-politics/ron-johnson-would-be-more-likely-to-accommodate-a-conservative/article_0609b89a-f59b-57e0-b541-e00c77e65bd5.html If anyone thinks this is anything but politics at this point and is about letting the American people decide. I have heard the line now, the pick is about keeping balance to the court. I guess that is why GHW Bush picked the flaming liberal Clarence Thomas to replace Thurgood Marshall.

Like I said. If the Senate refuses to hold hearings and vote, whatever nominee Clinton puts up will be way more liberal. McConnell really has choice here. Either he can back down and hold hearings, or obstruct, and roll the dice after November. Man McConnell is pretty screwed here.

Well this is not the gay, transgendered, abortion doctor, communist, that they GOP feared, or the progressive left wanted. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/merrick-garland-supreme-court-nomination_us_56e85c4ce4b065e2e3d788f0?75nchl2oiqhipsc3di A middle of the road pragmatist. I think basically a nominee that the Right can't find fault in (but I am sure they will). If the senate stalls until January 2017, I would bet if it is Clinton or Sanders in WH the nominee will not be so moderate. And if it Pres Trump, God help us.

Trump warns of bad things happening if he isn't the nominee With the increasing violence by his supporters and no calls from Trump to back off (in fact any times encouraging violence). I could see this happening. If there is a brokered of contested convention, I am sure there will be fights on the convention floor. Bob Schieffer on the CBS Morning News recounted a meeting he had with a high ranking (unnamed) GOP senator. In which the senator said, the Bernie people don't like the Clinton people, the Clinton people don't like the Bernie people. But within the Republican party the diff

Yeah I am talking about a brokered convention. This is how it works. http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/contested-republican-national-convention-work/story?id=37003821 Still unlikely, but possible. Saw something where Paul Ryan might be considered. That would be a mess.

I didn't question the validity of your statement, I just was confused on why Dem voters are switching (which I explained). Rubio is done. Now we are left with Trump, Cruz and Kasich. I could see Kasich coming out on top.

To me that makes no sense whatsoever. What makes you think Dem voters would they will vote for Kasich? The prevailing thought is that either Sanders or Clinton would easily trounce Trump (and probably destroy the GOP as well). If you are going to switch over why not vote Trump, give him the victory and nomination. Thus continue to expose the out and out racist, xenophobic, misogynistic characteristics of Trump and the base who now support him? Also even though the polls don't show a close race (54 to 43, Clinton Sanders), and it is a winner take all state, I think it would be important t

This proves it. Trump is a monster. http://gawker.com/will-this-truly-disgusting-fact-about-donald-trump-be-t-1764981903

Unfortunately they have to play a majority of their games against the Cubs, Cardinals and Pirates. Those wins have to come from somewhere.

George Wallace had some similar rallies back in '68. I don't remember him openingly supporting violence against protesters. http://archives.chicagotribune.com/1968/10/30/page/8/article/wallace-clips-detriot-speech-short-as-violence-breaks-out

Is what I did any different from the myriad of other lies and claims that Trump has said. He has no respect for the truth or the American people. So why shouldn't I just claim he is racist any time he speaks? What I said seemed true on the surface, but it wasn't. But that doesn't matter. The truth is gone. It is just who says it the loudest and first.

You mean it is not ok to make a rash, incendiary statement, when do don't have all the facts? And then double down on those. Apparently it is ok for the GOP frontrunner. Figured it was OK if I did it. The truth or burden no longer matters. I said it was racist, it is.

:eyeroll Not gonna play that game. You are being wilfully ignorant.

"They have his name, probably ISIS related." Mr Trump said. Just straight up racist. Protesters need to stop. They are doing nothing but making Trump a martyr. Instead of reporting on the horrible things this man says (and the things the protesters what brought attention to). We get stories about how his rallies have been interested. Places like rust belt will decide this race. These protests are not helping win over that population.

In what world is that a possibility anymore? Like it or not he is the GOP frontrunner and the probably nominee of the party. Unfortunately at this point it is the media's duty to talk about him. He is news, he is newsworthy. What the media has failed to do is actually do any reporting on Trump himself, actually discuss his views. Point out what a bigoted, horrible person he is, point out what a poor business man he really is. And when they did Trump just turned it back and criticized the media. Remember when he refused to participate in the FoxNews debate because Megyn Kelly was unfair

I think it is all the play that Romney set out awhile back to stop Trump. Republicans in Ohio vote for Kasich, in FLA vote Rubio. That way it will keep Trump from getting his 51% of the delegates. Thus bringing a brokered convention and keeping Trump from being the nominee. Notice Romney did not endorse anyone. Seem to be maybe he might make a play at a brokered convention. That would be interesting. I agree with BleedOrange. It will be an interesting Tuesday. If it plays out like Romney wants, it will be a shit show for sure.

Anytime I gun story, I say, oh I am not gonna get involved into this one and After about a day or so I realize it is fruitless and a waste of my time. Anyway, how about the GOP debate last night? It seems that Rubio, Cruz and Kasich are pretty much resigned to the fact that Trump will be the GOP nominee. What was interesting without the childish and boorish behavior of the previous debates, it shows that these four guys do not have much of plan for anything and they tend to speak in half truths and fear.

I have heard it otherwise http://crimeresearch.org/tag/accidental-gun-deaths/ But regardless the automobile industry / government is far more open to solving issues and making their product safer for society. Whereas the gun manufacturers fight any hint of regulation. In fact is there any other industry so vehemently fights efforts to make their product safer?

I don't think anyone here is suggesting that in case. I think what people are relishing in, is the irony that a pro gun person, was accidently shot because she did not take the care in securing her gun. No gun show loophole, or firearm restriction would have prevented this. Everyone can see that. However this woman broke the law by not having her handgun securely encased. This woman, who so clearly loved her firearms and America simply refused to obey a law and she suffered the consequences. I never said you felt we don't need gun laws. I think anyone who has read this forum knows

Clearly seatbelt laws are unconstitutional. Any further restrictions on the non use of seatbelts will infringe on my rights as an American. Any freedom loving individual will not change their mind, because of this incident. These seatbelt incidents have become all too commonplace in today's society. I suppose we could argue about seatbelt laws and not change anyone's mind, until another seatbelt related tragedy comes up.

Why should we have seat belt laws? It is obvious that the mother ignored it. No amount of seat belt legislation would have stopped this mother from not safely securing her child in the car.