KevinG

That sure is a nice "meme" but of course it does not take in account delegate counts (and delegate math), which is what really matters here. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/22/us/politics/delegate-count-leaving-bernie-sanders-with-steep-climb.html?_r=0 Clinton is in a far better position going forward. Yes things could certainly change, but the momentum is in her favor. And it will be really tough to be beat Trump at this point http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/23/politics/republican-delegate-math/ (warning auto play) What will matter most of all for Trump is he needs to get 51% of the d

It's funny, I don't know if it is the social circles I run in, or the town I live in (Madison WI), or what, but I have not run across one person who supports Trump (actively or inactively). I haven't seen any Trump bumper stickers and or yard signs. Heck, even the right leaning members of this board seem to be resoundly anti-Trump. Not to say he doesn't have support, he clearly does. It will be interesting to see what is going to happen if Trump does get the nomination, what will the establishment do? What will moderate Republicans do?

Read this, interesting how the Rust belt is gonna play a huge roll. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/how-donald-trump-becomes-president_us_56cb5429e4b0928f5a6c9ead NAFTA and TPP are going to be issues for Clinton. Played around (and I know it is early) with some electoral math and of course the first one I came up with was a 269 to 269 tie http://www.270towin.com/maps/5n04d That would be a shit show.

Taft did it. Really don't know how he did as Chief Justice, but there is a precedent. Oh yeah there would be huge conflicts of interest, especially with Obamacare lawsuits coming in.

But the question begs, does that make you (assuming she is the nominee) 1. Still vote for her (begrudgingly) 2. Vote for the Republican 3. Vote 3rd party 4. Not vote Really any option but 1, would end up with a Republican in the White House and then any progressive dream is set back decades. Took me the the longest time to figure out AuH20. Nice work on that one. About Clinton, she is probably one of the shrewdest politicians out there. I think she can play the game with the best of them and will be able to use her office more effectively than Obama did, or than Sanders w

I so badly want to be part of the former. I want to like Bernie, I want to support him, but I got burned (no pun intended) in 2008 with Obama. He came riding in with this Hopey and his Changey and really 8 years later it is more of the same. Not to say he hasn't been good and we are far better off then 2008, but the progressive ideals have not come to fruition. Not necessarily inaction by the President, mostly because how he has been stymied by Congress. I think if Sanders is elected it will be another frustrating 4 years of inaction and two party fighting. Clinton, I feel has a better h

That is the biggest thing that scares me about the Pro-Bernie folks. In all likelihood Sanders is done and Clinton will be the nominee. I have heard people say if Bernie doesn't win the nomination then then they will vote for Trump. Which is really boggles the mind. Clinton has a long row to hoe to get the enthusiasm that Bernie has built up. If the Bernie supporters either stay home or vote for Trump, then the progressive ideals that Sanders has talked about have no chance of ever coming true.

Clinton and Trump win. Jeb is done. Interesting Saturday. BTW Trump is a terrible horrible person, anyone who says the things he does can be nothing more.

semantics aside, my point is you have an opinion about me. Correct or not, but it is no less valid to you. It is based upon my interactions with you. I don't see why my opinion of Justice Scalia is met with such scorn, because of his death, the position he held and anecdotal evidence. and BTW the line through is just a text formatting thing, you'll see it on the top of text box. You can do all kinds of fun stuff like indent, bullet, sub script, super script. Fun fun fun.

Of course, I didn't know him (and nor did you BTW) and I am sure that if I did, I may feel differently. I knew he was really good friends with the Notorious RBG. But I have no reference on how he was personally. I only have the reference of his public statements. If I was at restaurant and I overheard someone saying some of the statements Scalia said, I would consider that person an asshole, racist, homophobe. Yes that person may be a super nice guy to his friends (who may have different views from him or whatever), have a family, etc., but that doesn't mean he didn't say or mean those

Understood, but it seems like there is an aversion to pointing out the man's many faults just because he died. He was a giant asshole while alive. I disagreed with him on almost every stance he took. Am I glad he is dead, no, of course not. I do not take glee in anyone's death. But I will not shed a tear for him either. The question remains do we have to treat him with kit gloves and not remember for who he was and what he did. His record stands, his actions stand on their merit. I suspect we have very different views and attitudes towards Justice Scalia. But just because he is dead

I guess who on the left would that be? I can't think of one of prominence as Scalia that would cause a similar grave dancing situation. Scalia did say some pretty terrible things, not to say the grave dancing is justified, but just because he died doesn't mean we have to make him a saint.

You could probably go to http://feelthebern.org/bernie-sanders-on-education/ And read this:

Pitchers and Catchers reported yesterday (for the Cubs anyway). Spring is just around the corner. 'bout time to start a new baseball thread. Yeah!

This is the Trump effect. Crazy sells, crazy gets your name in the news, crazy gets you talked about. Gone are the days where rational politicians say and do what is right for the country.

First time on the internet?

Or people should stop jumping to conclusions or trying to infer things that are not there. What is interesting on this whole "pillow-gate" thing is how quickly people will jump to the most illogical conclusion, because of the nature of the story. Because of a slight miswording it was called suspicious, sketchy, and murder (not all here, but elsewhere). People have the desire to see the worse in an outcome or try to make everything like the shows on TV. TV is TV for a reason, it is a fantasy. Real life is often times more boring. Sometimes there is murder and terrible things, but looki

No, but when I murder someone to make sure my liberal agenda is forced on the nation and America is completely destroyed, I leave the murder weapon on the dude's face, just to make sure the conspiracy nuts out there would have something to talk about. Clearly by bringing it into question you wanted to question the circumstances around the man's death. No, you did not have to say murder, but what else does your comment imply? Scalia's death is not suspicious, it is not sketchy, it is an unfortunate thing. The man was 79 years old, overweight, a smoker, with a high stress job. And t

https://www.facebook.com/AlexanderEmerickJones/videos/10153919891063459/ Dude, he was totally murdered. This way Barrack Hussein Obama can install a Muslim caliphate to force everyone to gay marry and have abortions, while taking away our guns. That is the most logical explanation. Cause, I am sure he thought it would be super easy to do and not cause a constitutional crisis of any kind.

In other non Supreme court related news, we had our spring primary election today. It was the first where WI residents were required to show ID. So glad the integrity of this election is upheld. Not like the previous 40 times I have voted. All of those are suspect. In Wisconsin it is easier to buy a gun then it is to vote. Both are rights guaranteed by the constitution. Yeah Democracy!

Here is the thing. No matter what would have happen or what hypotheticals you can present, no person will answer honestly. Of course democrats would try to block this (and if they say they wouldn't they are lying). They are all hypocrites, we get it. Every person is a hypocrite. That is pointed out. Everyone here understands that. There is hypocrisy and there is doing the right thing. The right thing to do is to allow a nominee to be presented to the Senate and the Senate will vote. Pointing out what happened before or what people said before should not enter into the equation. Th

I am not sure why you are dwelling on they past I am sure that regardless of how they actually felt in 2007 they would say he was wrong, now. Both parties have been caught on both side of this issue. Schumer as you presented and McConnell on the other. They are all hypocrites. Sure we can continually finger point and say the Right did this 20 years ago, the left did this 15, blah, blah, blah. But it means nothing. It does not inform or guide the actions in our current situation. It actually obfuscates and confuses the matter. There is one right course and has been a right cours

Just took a couple of minutes to write to my Senator, Ron Johnson. He like the others on the Right have said we should wait until the next president, blah, blah. Be interested to see if he writes back and what he will stay. I still can't find anyone who can give me a reason for delaying action on a nominee until the next president. All I hear is the Americans should decide, which makes no sense, since they already decided, when they elected Obama by 5 million votes and clear electoral college victory.

The thing that is exacerbating the whole thing is who Scalia was. He was the most conservative member of the court and with his death Obama will nominate a liberal justice, thus shifting the balance of the court for decades. If say the Notorious R.B.G had died the nomination / confirmation process would be going a lot easier. And with the next president will probably nominate another 2 or 3 more in the next 8 years. But there is no constitutional test or requirement that conservative justices have to be replaced with conservatives. It is just the breaks.