Magox

Where to begin? That Obama wasn't born in the U.S. That's a big flaming Kook alert right there. Or that Most of the illegal immigrants that enter into this country from Mexico are rapists, murderers and criminals. That was meant to appeal to the lowest common denominator. It appears that it worked. Or that he "supposes" there are some good people that are illegal immigrants. Or that he says he WILL win the Latino vote. That is so delusional that it's kooky. That he says he will make Mexico build and pay for a fence across the US border. Or that when it was then shown by Obama his birth certificate he then later went on to say that he may be a Muslim. Or that he will be the greatest jobs president God has ever created. That's so egotistical that it's kooky. There is plenty to work with.

The only way I see this working is if there is a revolution that displaces the current regime with a more moderate form of Democracy in the next decade or so. I don't see that happening. There are consequential differences between Iran and the rest of the dictators overthrown from the Arab Spring. One is that Iran will crack down on dissent that threatens their power in a way we've not seen from the other countries. Two, the Revolutionary guard is absolutely loyal to this regime and they won't turn on the Ayatollah like we've seen other armed forces turn on their leaders like we saw in some of the middle eastern countries. It's a huge gamble but in my view not only pay off, but have terrible consequences follow.

Yes, the Israelis are an advanced civilization that positively contributes to the world who happens to be surrounded by a bunch of religious fanatics who wish them harm. Whereas the leadership of the Iranians want to expand their reach by investing in terrorist proxies throughout the region so that they can destabilize the Middle East in order to gain more power. Not surprising that you side with the country who chants "Death to America"

Humana's Medicare Advantage portfolio is Ginormous.

Yeah, that and the fact that if he was a "conservative" as he claims, why is it he feels compelled to only respond and criticize the board conservatives and never the liberals. It's not as if there is plenty of material to work with on that side.

Just admit that you are liberal. It's not a bad thing, just admit it already.

The deal has been generally praised? Yeah, sure if you had worked for a left leaning administration or foreign policy think tank or if you are European. From what I've read, the deal legitimizes Iran's right to pursue nuclear technology and research on advanced centrifuges after the 8th year and unlimited production on nuclear fuel in the next 15 years. It lifts the weapons embargo for import and export not only on conventional weapons but ballistic missiles. Even The presidents Joint Chiefs of Staff and Secretary of state just last week thought that was a horrible idea. It Frees up over a hundred billion dollars to a regime that is hell bent on expanding it's dominance in the region through proxies. They are actively fighting against forces we support on a couple different fronts and will undoubtedly only get worse. The president says that we will have unfettered access to their nuclear sites, even though that was a patently false statement, we have to ask for permission to gain entry and they still would have the ability to delay those visits. Do you really believe that countries like Saudi Arabia, UAE, Qatar, Syria etc will just sit idle? This will only accelerate the possibility of a nuclear arms race. What about our allies in the middle east? You think this will help our relationships with them? What about those Sunnis in Iraq that are not fans of ISIS but dislike the Shias even more? A lot of these Sunnis are the ones we hope become part of the resistance to ISIS, but with a deal like this it only makes it less likely. There are so many things to pick a part with this deal, it's ridiculous.

Shhhhh everyone, don't bother TYTT, he is on yet another one of his delusional conspiracy theories.

If he ran as an Independent, it wouldn't be so much as to help Hillary but more so out of spite. We've seen Trump lose before and he's as bad of a loser as they come. Unfortunately, he is such a provocative verbal bomb thrower and his hateful words are doing such damage to the GOP brand within the Hispanic community that for many Hispanics to give the GOP a fair consideration the GOP nominee and others will have to have their Sister Souljah moment, the only problem is not only will Trump bring you down into the depths of the murky mudslinging that is sure to follow, but I could absolutely see him at the very least threatening a third party run. Btw, Rand Paul is much more of a gentleman than this bafoon, but he's also very thin-skinned and I don't see Rand bowing out gracefully, at all.

Trump appeals to the lowest common denominator. The GOP has a bad brand as it is, then only worsens it.

Pretty much every time you enter into a debate you cheapen it. You don't do your advocacy any favors.

You remember Clockwork Orange? They should sit him down, forcibly peel his eyes open and have him watch hip hop videos every day of young white women being objectified by rappers.

In my view there is a huge difference between a minimum wage (which I support) and a "living wage". A living wage from my perspective basically means a wage that can sustain you through your monthly bills (generally speaking). A minimum wage is a floor. Now I generally support the market determining wages, however I do believe that there are some markets, specially in rural areas where there could be some market dislocations due to a variety of reasons, such as lack of job opportunities, overflow of under skilled workers relative to the job positions available etc that can distort what I could consider to be a "fair" wage. Yes, it's true that the worker as Azalin pointed out has the option to decide for or against taking that position, but sometimes that's a little easier said than done, specially when you really don't have that great of job skills and money to relocate to a higher paying city. On the other hand, I believe that minimum wages have probably hurt many people in more highly populated areas. I think since many companies knows that for low skilled positions they are able to pay X amount determined by the government. Where if that minimum wage hadn't been in place, it's very possible that they would have paid an even higher wage. In my view, it cuts both ways.

The shooter did use the flag as a symbol of his hatred towards blacks. Other than that, not much else.

Great point LA. You pretty much obliterated his advocacy.

Yes....There has never been a better determinant for the value of products and services than the "market", and I'm very certain that there never will be either. Are you advocating that some bureaucrat is able to determine a uniformed fair wage from private companies than the market? Is that what you are suggesting?

It's not the responsibility of an employer to pay "living wage" but to pay a "fair" wage.

Those comments from the pope are music to evo morales' ears.

I was just gonna say "American Prospect, Really?" But, I figured that would be a lazy response. So I read it. And what a waste of !@#$ing time, !@#$ you Lybob for making me read that garbage that some would call an article. Basically it was a piece completely based on opinion with two references to other articles that are related to the war. One didn't even have to do with "faulty intelligence" but more so the risks of the outcomes of the war and the other, which basically didn't take the administration's word as fact (which is responsible journalism) and began to question certain things that administration was saying.

The case that you are making is that regardless of the information provided, if you happened to have gotten it wrong then you are fired for life specially considering the damage that this particular decision has and is continuing to cause. Fine, I can accept that reasoning, however I do believe that is a faulty way to view things. If you were to tell me that someone has a history of voting for interventionist forms of foreign policy and that this particular vote was just yet another confirmation of what you suspected of that candidate and you are ideologically a non interventionist, then in my view you'd have a valid rationale behind your decision. But that's not what is happening here. What's happening here is that this is a litmus test. Litmus tests in my view are for ideologues. I can't begin to describe my view on litmus tests, I find them to be completely nonsensical. Litmus tests eliminate reason and the ability to evolve on positions. Haven't we all got it wrong before? Haven't we changed our views on certain things after more light had been shed? I certainly have. Reddog brought up the point that there were other politicians who had voted against the authorization of war and inferred that since they were the ones who got it right that they must have viewed all the intel and came to a different conclusion than the ones who voted for the authorization of war based on the very same intel. Ok, let's go with that. However, when you look at the politicians who voted against the authorization of war, coincidentally the vast majority of them are politicians who are either non interventionists or quasi pacifists that live in states and districts that line up with their ideologies. I don't believe that they read the intel and came to a different conclusion than the other 75% that vote for the authorization of war. I don't believe that was a coincidence. That was purely ideologically and politically driven. In other words, not what Reddog was saying.

Nearly 75% of the House and over 75% of the Senate voted for the war. The one's who did not vote for it, the great majority of them are politicians who in most circumstances would hardly ever vote for any authorization of war. And you know what? In this circumstance they were right. But let's not pretend that they were provided different intel than the other 75% of those that did vote for it or that they had some sort of epiphany leading them to this decision, it was just a vote that fit their ideology. Which is a non interventionist form of foreign policy that plays well with the constituents that vote them in.

If you are telling me that being provided faulty intelligence and happening to believe in that information is a sin, then I disagree with that characterization. Now if you are telling me that if you were a politician and that you knew that the intelligence was inaccurate and you went to war anyway, then I'd agree with what you are saying. I happen believe that most politicians that voted for the war relied on that intelligence as being accurate and that their intentions and votes for the authorization of war were not for any other reason than them believing that S. Hussein did indeed have weapons of mass destruction. In regards to my response to Reddog, he's a virtually a singular issue based voter. Everyone is free to vote on the issues that matter to them, and I'm free to mock anyone who I believe to be a irrational single issue based voter.

So what determines your vote more than anything is how someone voted on the war based on faulty intelligence more than a decade ago? Get a grip, man.

What happened to many of the local municipalities and state governments here in the US was a microcosm to what happened over in Greece. Public sector unions corrupted officials with support for their campaigns and in return they wanted more local/state jobs, even higher wages and ridiculous worker protections. We had a couple RE/Dot.com bubbles that gave us a false sense of security believing that we could just continue to keep doing these things. Of course, it was unsustainable. Once the bubble burst, there wasn't the tax revenues nor the funding through the bond markets to keep up all these jobs, hence the massive state/local government layoffs throughout the 2008-2012 time period. Similar thing occurred in Greece. There was never any problem with foreign creditors buying up their crappy bonds chasing after those high yields. One thing that the world wide downturn did achieve is that it forced these creditors/investors to examine their finances a little more closely. After a while, with crashing revenues and a horrid fiscal picture, everyone bailed. It's not that Greece in itself is the risk, its who is the next shoe to drop? That's the risk. Of course, Greece is in quite the dilemma. They are being told by those mean old Germans who are primarily the ones who have been bailing them and other irresponsible southern European countries out, how to run their finances. How many government jobs they have to ax, the pensions they promised have to be reduced and what the newer higher accepted tax rates will look like. People are ignorant, pretty much everywhere. Yes, they elected these fools that made these decisions. But many of these people now have to go through a very painful down sizing process. So I feel bad for many of these folks. Unfortunately, it is a necessary evil. The only way they will get through this are with draconian measures. This is what happened a couple years ago, and of course the Greek people were upset that the Germans were dictating their lives, hence the new uber left wing party came into power, promising to stand up against the Meanies from the North. Well, they got what they wanted.