Warren could be good. I'm not 100% sold that she can play the political game particularly well -- the "Pocahontas" thing should have been pretty gracefully manageable, but she kinda fumbled there a bit. Still, if the Democrat primary system can avoid being the train wreck it was leading up to 2016, I think she could go through that and prove that she's got what it takes. So, maybe.

I love Sanders, but he's divisive because of the "Socialist" thing, which is still quite a scary word for Cold War-era people. I think that is surmountable by calmly explaining exactly what his brand of Democratic Socialism means, but there's always going to be that easy Fox News narrative against him. So between that, age, and other factors, he's not a slam dunk.

Obama? I'm assuming you mean Michelle? Name recognition yes. Firsthand political experience, not so much. I don't think I've ever heard her say anything about wanting to get into politics directly.

I concur about Avenatti.

I hope the D's don't screw this up. All of these celebrity / political celebrity candidates seem risky and hit or miss to me. Might be better to go with a relative unknown -- somebody who's been through a hairy campaign or two (because we know Trump will attack and try to rattle) and knows how to walk the line between giving those attacks legitimacy by responding to them and seeming too milquetoasty by ignoring them. (Barack) Obama was quite good at having that calm outer demeanor while also having a quick wit and knowing when to get counter-jabs in. Seems like someone with those kinds of skills could really lure Trump into a bunch of pitfalls.

I think it was probably a sifted video that first got me to look up Kaepernick's actual statements from about 2 years ago when he started sitting out the anthem in protest. There's a great post-game interview where he made himself available and answered questions from many reporters etc. about his motivations, etc.


To me, it seems impossible to watch that with an open mind and come away with the Fox News narrative on the guy intact. He straight-up says that it wasn't ever meant to be taken as a slight on the military at all. He clearly and rather eloquently explains what it was/is about for him. He acknowledged that there would likely be consequences, which certainly came true.

Maybe he wouldn't be a QB in the NFL even if he'd have just kept quiet and been a good little conformist, but he got to a point where he didn't feel he could do that.

So, at least in my eyes, kudos to him for standing up for what he believes in. Even after losing his primary soapbox (being an NFL player), he's still putting the issue out there with Nike's help. I don't necessarily trust their motivations -- all publicity is good publicity, after all -- but after having heard his own statements I sure as hell trust his as being 100% genuine.

Surely the solution should rather be to fix the real problem of unequal opportunity in primary education?

Even given disagreement on this, surely the left(you?) can acknowledge that reasonable good minded people could disagree? Surely it's an over-reaction to call people racist for believing that choosing students based upon performance and not race is a good thing? One has to acknowledge that the counter example, of using race before merit as a selection criteria is in fact the very definition of racism?

More importantly to the Democratic party though, allow me to gift them moral justice and rightness on the issue. Even given that, practicality dictates that spending many years with a policies that choose certain people over more qualified others based upon race will create tensions. If you made that policy against say whites, or males, they might develop resentment. One might predict that they may even vote against those imposing that policy, arguably even willingly voting for a kind of racist orange haired loud mouth that they hope will end the policy discriminating against them based upon their race.

You might even argue it's starting to happen already...

This is true in Canada as well. If you ask a french person what nationality they are, they will ALWAYS say French before Canadian. In their eyes, they are French who happen to live in Canada, and French will always be their primary identity. Even within Canada, they are considered a "Distinct Society." Quebec has their own laws that are above and beyond the Federal laws. A lot of these laws pertain to maintaining their French status first.

Label laws in Canada say we always have to have French and English on everything you buy, but in Quebec, they don't require English. Same with signage.

So the French do have a different way of assigning their allegiances. To some it may be subtle, but it's actually pretty entrenched in their culture.

I think the primary problem would be 100% of the force is transmitted to one tooth at a time, not many like a chain does. Wear will be a problem.

Feel free to reply, nothing is more American than putting down your own government in a show of free speech.

Please try to stick to primary sources as I mostly have.

Lol.....so you now admit he's Putin's bitch mumbling around Putin's cock that's firmly in his mouth....you just don't care? And you wonder why we think you're a ridiculous Russian troll? Sad.

I'd rather have a reasonably intelligent and rational person who reverses a depression we should have avoided than an infantile blowhard that bankrupted the treasury like he does with so many of his businesses who's under the thumb of our enemies.

Yep, he's blown far more money in 500 days than Obama did in 8 years, golfed way more, fired more of his own people for cause, fired more of his own people without legitimate cause, had infinitely more convictions and charges brought, been immersed in scandal since before taking the oath, plead guilty to massive frauds against students, defrauded multiple charities, and destroyed our international standings (except with dictators who are warming to us)....what you call winning.
If a sex tape of him with his daughter came out, you would congratulate him on winning by fucking a hot blond and dismiss the complaints of infidelity and incest as pure liberal Trump hating, and probably accuse Obama of the same crimes...rationality about Trump is not one of your traits.

Really, delusional much? You were probably just as certain the Republicans were going to take California....where they aren't even on the ballot. I can absolutely argue the point that the midterms look good for democrats and horrible for Republicans, especially since your ilk now calls the majority of them rinos they won't vote for. Time will tell, but right now it sure looks like a blue wave, but maybe not a tsunami.
Thinking Republicans are poised to do well in this election is irrational thinking that ignores the primaries.

It's a glock. It has no external safety.

You can always pull the trigger on a charged glock and it will send the striker.

This is why I call B.S. on the idea that glocks have a safety.
Trigger dingle-berries as a primary 'safety' is a retarded concept.
If you can pull the trigger and fires, it isn't safe.

-scheherazade

Poor Bob, the BBC light ribbing over Trump's anemic "biggest inauguration audience ever in the nation's history" dwarfed by the wedding crowd upset you? Snowflake. ;-)

Not a memory lane of me saying that.
I called it for Trump when the DNC got caught....actually before then but not with certitude until then. I knew he was right, he could murder someone publicly in cold blood and not lose a vote, because his supporters are morally bankrupt tribalists. I knew decades of philandering, often with his friends wives, pussy grabbing, daughter lusting, school fraud, charity fraud, repeated bankruptcy, thousands of lawsuits, hush money, mob/Russia ties, a long history of cheating the little guy, blatant racism, being narcissism personified, and having zero capacity for honesty had no effect on them, it was clear that Clinton, whose voters had morals, was a huge long shot at best when the primary underhandedness came to light, she only drove the right to the polls, not the left. They couldn't have created a more polarizing candidate with more baggage.

Never underestimate the stupidity and gullibility, or count on the morality of the American voter or you'll look the fool like these people did.

@HenningKO --

Not that I want to defend them (the R's that publicly defend or at least refrain from going negative on Trump), but I think the end of the video pretty well explains their thought process.

They want to stay in office. If they oppose Trump *now*, they create a big problem for themselves in their primaries. Who likes Trump? Evangelicals. Who shows up and actually votes in primaries? Evangelicals. Many of these guys are in states so overwhelmingly red that as long as they are on the ballot in the general election, they are almost assured the victory. But go against Trump now, and it won't be their name next to that (R), it'll be some Evangelical appeaser that booted them out in the primary.

Is that a rather spineless and amoral line of reasoning? Yes. Is it notably lacking in the public service motivation that we would like our elected officials to have, and instead motivated entirely out of shamelessly corrupt self-promotion? Yes.

Is that sort of reasoning and motivation unique to Republicans? Hell no. You can't spell incumbent without getting "bent". I think we need term limits on all these fuckers.

agree, but here the explanation of lead time bias and overdiagnosis bias is reasonably good.
it's important to note that the studies were regrading primary care physicians who should know about screening and bias, but they are not cancer specialist (oncologist).
The male coming to see doctor asking for a PSA test because a celebrity said they should has presented a problem as doctors are afraid of litigation despite poor evidence for random PSA being a useful screening test. I believe the use of PSA as part of a 'medical' is far more common in the USA than Uk.

Because of the shirt/meme shown around the 0:23 mark, where people ask "God, why do you allow violence in our schools" to which the reply is "I'm not allowed in schools". Remember that the Christian Right STRONGLY loves guns and are the biggest advocates of gun rights.

Every mass shooting, the Christian Right comes out and screams that it is a lack of God in schools and in our society that is causing the problem, not guns. It is never guns. It is the lack of God, and then violent movies and games, and mental health (which if true, then one would have to wonder why the GOP passed a law, which while it hasn't taken effect yet, makes it easier for mentally ill people to get a gun, and why every version of the repeal and replace Obamacare include massive cuts to mental health programs). Of course, other countries, as noted, doesn't include forced prayer in school, which the Christian Right wants to see returned, and they don't have the school shooting problems.

Basically, it is the Christian Right's fault. They have made fighting against gun control one of their major platforms. And as the Christian Right makes up the vast majority of Christians in the US (or at least the loudest, and near 100% guaranteed to get out and vote... which is why there won't be a Blue Wave 2018), they control the message. So the "God isn't allowed in schools" argument comes up every single school shooting as one of the most oft-repeated reasons for them. Just watch Fox News or any of the primary Christian programming like Jim Baker and 700 Club, and it is the lack of God in schools, the fact that there's a war against Christianity why we have these shootings.

The US is a country where a full 40% of the population believe the universe is under 10,000 years old. Where saying "happy holidays" is a war on Christianity, and that Christianity is the most attacked faith in the world, which proves that it is the one true faith. And this isn't hyperbole on my part, this is what they teach in the Christian Right churches, movies, shows, televangelists and the like (I used to be among their numbers). They honestly see attempts at controlling guns as an attack on their faith. They honestly ignore Jesus saying that it wasn't an eye for an eye and that he said those who live by the sword will die by it, and think that the right to own and defend oneself as a divine right from God himself. So they bring the lack of God as the reason for all these shootings in the US.

No. While we're both wrong about their primary purpose (which after looking it up on their website is education and training people in firearms use), their other purpose is (from their about page):

"as a major political force and as America's foremost defender of Second Amendment rights"

https://home.nra.org/about-the-nra/

"Downvote for lying".

Oh really? Lol.

I've produced peer reviewed research supporting my views. StukaFox produced none.

There are opposing research papers of course (it is a contentious issue). But it takes a very short sighted person to produce a limited set of ABS data (lol, 2 years) and a Snopes article to declare that I'm wrong. Keep in mind I mentioned in my first comment that there were studies on this topic.

Good points.

I'm not a gun nutadvocate, but I have friends who are. I have shot a fairly wide range of guns with them, including an AR-15. For myself, I only ever owned BB guns and a .22 pellet air rifle, for target shooting and varmint control on my family farm. I did go pheasant hunting with borrowed 20 and 12 gauge shotguns a couple times.

My friend that owns the AR-15 is a responsible gun owner. Do I think he needs it? Hell no. But he likes it. Do I need a PC with an i7 processor and nVidia 1060 GPU? Hell no. But I like it.

So I guess it becomes a question of to what extent the things that we like can be used for negative purposes. My nVidia 1060 is unlikely to be used to facilitate a crime (unless games or bitcoin mining get criminalized). However, even though AR-15s might be one of the primary firearms of choice for murderous wackos, the percentage of people that own AR-15's who are murderous wackos is also extremely low.

If banning AR-15s would significantly reduce the rate of mass shootings and/or the average number of deaths per incident, it could be well worth doing even though it would annoy many responsible owners like my friend. ...But, I just don't think that would be the case. Not by itself.

I think we're at a point where we NEED to do something. If the something that we decide to do is to ban AR-15s, well, so be it I guess. But I don't think we'd be pleased with the long-term results of that. It'd be cutting the flower off of the top of the weed. We need to dig deeper, and I think that registration and licensing are sane ways to attempt to do that.