KevinG

He clearly did not care about his children. As a father myself, there is no cause worth me leaving my children. Unfortunately he will be seen as a martyr. He will be raised up in the eyes of these anti-government types as someone who stood up against an oppressive tyrannical force. But really he needs to be viewed as a person who abandoned his 11 children and his wife.

So is that just your feeling or do you actually have facts to back up that statement? The DNC would never have FoxNews host a Democratic debate. I am not sure that is from direction by Clinton, or just a long standing rule. This debate is hosted by FoxNews and the RNC. Trump is refusing to participate in the debate, because he is afraid of hard or unfair questions.

That's OK, he'll just needs to shoot someone to stay even in the polls. Heck, if he shot someone who is black he would probably go up in the polls.

As I said a few posts before, there has been no president that hasn't had some political experience. I don't know about governors.

Out of our 44 Presidents, only 17 (18 if you count Clevland twice) have previously held the office of governor http://governors.rutgers.edu/on-governors/us-governors/governors-and-the-white-house/governors-who-became-president. Of those 17 men it is a mix bag on how "great" or their effectiveness was as President. There were some truly great Presidents (FDR, Teddy, Jefferson) some truly terrible (GWB, Andrew Johnson) and the rest meh. So the notion that a governor makes a great, good, or acceptable president because of executive office experience really does not ring true. And is furth

More in common does not mean better than, or greater than.

There was a debate last night? Debbie Wasserman Schultz is the worst DNC chair. She is such a shill for Clinton. If the Republicans win the White House most of the blame will go to her.

Seems to be their M.O. something goes against their narrative pretend it does not exist. Looking at you Iran prisoner release. I wonder what Fiorina has to say about this.

If that were true there would be little foreign policy experience on the ticket. The knock against both Bernie and Warren is they have no foreign policy experience. At this point it is only speculation, VP are not picked until the nominations are wrapped up. Also I don't think she would actually do it (either for Bernie or Hillary). She is an incredible voice in the Senate and would not be tied to the agenda of the president. It would be a poor move for her politically.

The same thing could be said about Donald Trump. Again, conservatives, look at your party. This is who you associate with. This is what the TEA party has brought us. Other than Donald Trump (who failings do not need to be explained), we have Ted Cruz, who would flatly refuse to deal with a party that over 50% of the country voted for. The GOP is a party of embittered childish, bigots.

As far as I know she is no longer on TV, even Fox news dropped her. I think you are right in your assessment of her endorsement. But she does speak to a large segment of the right wing, so her endorsement cannot go unnoticed.

I can't remember where I saw the headline but I thought it funny. "Former politician turned reality star endorses former reality star turned politician." Of course she endorses Trump, they are truly cut from the same cloth. But way to totally turn your back on the person that brought in the public eye [McCain]. What this will do is bring Cruz supporters over to Trump. But remember you GOPers out there, your leading candidate is a racist, misogynistic, blowhard who wants to bang his daughter. In a way I understand her point. PTSD is a terrible, horrible thing and is seve

Is it just me, but as Bernie as closed in on Hillary the debates have gotten less substantive. Nothing like the circus of the GOP bitch fest, however.

Who is to say it wasn't. Or at least a result of having an open line of communication with Iran? If the Iran deal was not made tour best friend's friend would still be a prisoner, and more than likely the 10 sailors. It is really unfortunate that you and the right refuse to give credit where credit is due.

It clearly no longer matters. He could drop trough and lay a huge Cleveland steamer right on the chest of Ted Cruz and he would go up 3 points.

Because I did not win in powerball last night, my dream of Billionaire playboy by day, costumed vigilante by night was officially crushed. Though I did win 4 dollars with the powerball thanks to Ron Santo.

So the STOU last night. Fairly good speech, lots of plans, nothing of it will get done. Like the veiled shot at Trump. Really the tone was interesting in comparison to the stump speeches of the GOP. And kinda what I was trying to get at yesterday. What was really interesting yesterday was the backdrop of the capture of the 10 US sailors by Iran. There were so many statements by the Right about how this shows the failure of the Obama foreign policy, Iran is testing a weak president, criticizing Obama for not mentioning this in the STOU, etc, etc. BUt of course low and behold the sailo

So I guess this begs the question, is this a result of the Obama presidency's foreign policy? Or is this emblematic of the world in constant change? I am not absolving the President of everything, but there is quite a lot you say there (some of it not exactly true, but whatever). And of course you failed to actually answer the question, critically are we as a nation better off than 2008?

Tonight is President Obama's last State of the Union address. Tomorrow many pundits and political candidates will dissect and parse every word and phrase and who applauded at what, etc. But today I look back at the now 7 years of the Obama presidency. You hear from the GOP candidates and the Right, what a disaster Obama has been and how he has ruined America, etc. But in all honestly, whether you agree with his policies or not the country is in far better shape than it was 8 years ago. I am not saying he has made it a shining utopia, but what we were looking at in when it took office in 2

So let me get this straight? You believe that a judge in Alabama banned gay marriage in his state, because no one has stopped the Oregon rancher standoff? Wow. Well in that case send in Seal Team 6 and shoot these mother f'ers square in the head. Consequences be damned!

Your rhetoric in previous and future posts say otherwise. But I guess I'll take you on your word. Why do you think nothing is being done about this? Are you a member of the Sheriff's department and have knowledge of the inner workings of the negotiations? Also what makes you believe they are threatening anyone? Isn't a measured approach and the desire for safety for all the best outcome? At this point in time there is no threat to the police or the public at large. Why put this group under siege, back them into a corner and have their only option to use violence and esc

I believe we are on the same page. When this ends if they are not prosecuted to the fullest extent of the laws, it will be a travesty. I read somewhere there was a meeting to end the standoff, but was rejected. http://huff.to/1UAwACQ But the good news is they are pretty much out of the news.

My comments about revenge or the use of force in general was not directly pointed to you, I am sorry if you misconstrued my point. Though you did use the term dealt with, which seemed sinister, especially in agreeing with John Smith. My comments in regards to violence and revenge was more pointed to John Smith, when he said things like this: And this: BTW Lon Horiuchi is an FBI sniper who was at Ruby Ridge and Waco and charged with manslaughter. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lon_Horiuchi In my mind these two statements clearly are advocating the use of force, if not deadly forc

I am not saying they shouldn't be punished or it should be let go. They broke the law, they should be arrested and tried in court and sentenced accordingly. What I do not want to see happen is the police and get into a shootout with these people. The situation has to be defused, without anyone getting injured or killed. Cliven Bundy should have been jailed for his actions. It seems to me that there is a segment on the left that sees this as a way to get some sort of revenge. It has been brought up here and elsewhere, "If they were black, etc." they would be dead, or the national guard

Maybe if this was 1991 or something. Yes these guys are militants, terrorist or whatnot. But look at what they are doing. They are not walking in a crowded building and shooting up the joint or strapping suicide vests to themselves. They are occupying a building in the middle of nowhere that is not currently being used. Harm (and to some extent inconvenience) to the public is not an issue. They are trying to make a statement, the media attention is just feeding in on that. Law enforcement needs to end their occupation, agreed. But they need to end it peacefully. They need t