Actually, he's said clearly and repeatedly that wages are too HIGH in the US and should go down, so any inkling that he thinks we should raise them in any way is a 180 switch. It's also a total cop out that he could use for any topic....'I'll just leave it all to the states....so I don't have to do a damn thing as president and nothing I say makes any difference.'
It should be no surprise to anyone. He's written about how he operates, and not keeping your word and changing your position by the moment while insisting everyone else follows along with his 'new deals' is a large part of that methodology....as is lying about facts and threatening anyone that contradicts him with lawsuits or just 'taking his ball and going home' (which doesn't work when you are in business or government) etc.
The whole 'self funding' thing was a fraud from the beginning....and a clear one. He LOANED his campaign money, he didn't spend his own money. He ALWAYS planned to pay himself back with private donations, and you can be sure he's paying himself an enormous interest and massive 'fees' on those 'loans', which means he's actually MAKING money on the campaign, not spending a dime of his own. You can be certain he'll get every dime back and then some....no question.

Also....you should note, this is not a news program (not that they're better) so should not be subject to the requirements of fact, honesty, and clarity we SHOULD (but don't) insist on with 'news' organizations.

I have an admitted bias towards Sanders, but the fact he leads by larger numbers in all polls against Trump, even Fox's poll, I think speaks volumes about where the voting public is at. They want an outsider.

If they think that Trump's, apparent fascism will turn voters to Hilary, they are mis-reading the voting public. What is more likely to happen is voter apathy, especially among independent voters if there's even a hint of real controversy coming out just in time for the general election. Democratic turn out keeps going down, so they can't count on their base to make it up. Also, Trump has already started to change his tone, to bring down his rhetoric to appeal to the general populous. If they think they'll stick a flip-flop label to him, it won't stick. Trump is on a whole other level in the public mind for some reason.

This election is too important to let the Republicans win and I don't know if they get that or don't care because Trump has donated tons in the past to them so they are willing to take a chance with him in. We'll lose what little respect in the world that we managed to gain since Bush's wars that Obama built back up. We'll lose our bids for the Olympics and World Cup, both of which are heavily in our favor at the moment, but a Trump presidency, at least at current rhetoric levels, would turn the voting committees off, and might turn them off even if he tones the no Muslims can visit, bit off. The very perception of hate in this nation will turn them off vetting us when there are other qualified bids. Then there's the Supreme Court vacancy, it would be great to throw back the fact they wouldn't vet the moderate they asked for by name, and have a liberal as a President and take back over the Senate in one election and get a far more liberal nominee passed, at the going rate we may continue to have a court leaning to the right if Trump wins.

Would Sanders get to push much of any of his agenda? No. The Republicans and even many Democrats would push back. Congress will continue to be deadlocked against the President like it is against Obama, perhaps to even higher levels. But it will move the conversation. The fact that he wins period would show where the American public actually wants to go.

I'm seriously concerned about what's going on. It's like they want to give the presidency to Trump.

Something more must have happened to injure the guy. That kick clearly didn't break his collar bone as he can be seen using both arms, even going down into a sort of push up position. Furthermore it didn't land anywhere near his ribs, so I don't see how that could have broken them.
Feel like there must be more to this story.

I especially liked the repeating "clearly did not violate established procedures or tactics" part, but no indication that they understand that all that means is the established procedures and/or tactics need to be changed so they know they can't kick people who have surrendered and complied. It sounds a lot like they didn't learn anything and will be paying out more, and larger settlements in the future until the amount is large enough to wake them up.

I also liked the "Edwards acknowledged in his testimony that Wilkens had begun to comply with his commands when he landed the kick, but said he was unable to stop the kick because he “already had the muscles fired” in his right leg." part, like he still doesn't know there's video of him taking 2 steps forward then kicking all while the motorcyclist is going down to his knees. Just so much fail.

EDIT: Oh, I missed the brake fade part. I notice the hood dip, then rebound as he hits, then quickly lets off the brake, accelerates slightly, and turns right into the bike to ram it. Brake fade might let him roll forward slowly, it would not let the front of the car raise up like the brakes were released and accelerator hit, and would not turn the wheel in the direction of the biker. That wasn't brake fade, no way, it was an intentional ramming. I'm a bit surprised that wasn't brought up in court.

This scenario could only go down at Comic-Con

I'm imagining a racing-stripe of drool going down the back.

So for those who might know, will this movie go down as the worst batman film ever and or the worst portrayal of batman? I don't watch superhero films, just curious if affleck will be saddled with being in or being the worst batman of all time.

My mistake.
I'll admit, his delivery is going down hill these days. I've been a fan for a LONG time, but he's not as good as he once was by far.
I get especially annoyed when he gets upset when his audience groans at a bad taste joke, it's like he doesn't understand that's a POSITIVE reaction to a bad taste joke, and indicates his audience understands it's in bad taste. You would think he would know that after 3+ decades in snarky 'comedy'.

To your points....
When a parent takes the kids side over the teachers....well, that depends on what the issue is, but on it's face that's also coddling. The implication/infrence is that it would be about the child's behavior in class, or their academic performance, and in either case taking the child's side over the teacher is teaching them that they are more important than the authority, and/or that their word is going to be taken over an adult in authority, and their POV or opinion is the only one that matters. That's terrible, and sets them up for failure and/or prison later.
Not telling a child to shut the fuck up when they are rudely interrupting adults DOES breed poorly mannered narcissists, as it's teaching the child that what they have to say is the MOST important thing, far more important than the adult discussion they are interrupting. That's terrible, bad manners, completely unrealistic, and not good for the child's development into a decent human being. Children are not adults, and 99.9% of the time what they want to say/ask is not important. Even in those rare cases where it is important, not teaching them to not interrupt creates mannerless narcissistic douchebags that never allow other people to speak and believe their every fleeting thought is golden.
Asking a kid where they want to go to dinner....OK, that's stupid. If you just ask them, the child isn't automatically in control. If you always ask them at every meal and defer to their whim over the wishes of adults (which is what I think he meant, but not what he said), that's coddling and breeding a narcissist that believes his is the only opinion that matters to anyone and should always take precedent over other's needs/wants.

The thing about this is that they are going down a hill and travelling between 40-60 kph on a 1 lane road with no shoulder. The cars behind should have no expectation that they should do anything other than they did because to 'invite' a car to pass in a situation like that is to put yourself in mortal danger. as you'd have no idea what will happen once that car is next to you. It's much safer to ride in a group for this very reason, and the whole group should be treated as one vehicle. The cars should do exactly as this girl did and hold back until she could pass safely in the other lane. Just without all the rage;) If a slow moving vehicle like a tractor was driving down the highway, it would be the same deal.

If you want to look like a total weirdo going down the bunny slope, this is the way to go!

A foetus is a living entity. You'll be going down a fairly preposterous set of arguments that go against all of our understanding of life if you try to maintain that it isn't a living entity. It is in many ways a parasite that has latched onto the mother's body and is trying to suck nutrients from it long enough to be able to be born. The foetus releases hormones to fight against the mother's immune system to prevent the mother's body from rejecting this invasion by such a vastly different genetic entity. At least, that's one way to look at it. There are many others that are correct. None of those suggest that the foetus isn't a living entity.

It is somewhat true that the foetus is part of the mother's body. Her body certainly envelopes the foetus' and the foetus couldn't live without it.

To say that it's her choice whether to terminate is clearly not true. The state has permitted women to make that decision in some places around the world, in some periods of time. It certainly isn't an inalienable right as you seem to be suggesting. It's a fight that women have had and continue to have in order to be able to express control over the bodies and lives. A simple expression of what you think should be the law isn't an argument for why the law should be that way.

It always amazes me how bad the actors were back then. "We're going down!" with no expression on his face. Good take guys, can you try doing one where you do a bit of acting this time, maybe? Look a bit concerned you're crashing a plane?

Wait, Sony couldn't Trademark 'Lets Play' but some podunk YouTubers managed to do it with 'React'? Looks like Sony has been hiring the wrong lawyers.
Hopefully the Fine Brothers will go down in flames for this and a weenie roast will be held in their honor.

Automation is not the only problem, true. But here is the funniest part. Everything in a free market is commodified. That is for sale. This includes life saving services even. I.e., a free market. And yet people somehow complain when corporations invest in politics. They claim that investments should not be made in that sector, which I laugh at...

But anyways, to suggest that corporations will lower prices (I.e., profits) just because transportation costs go down is ignoring traditional responses. Lets say grocery stores--which have enormous competition and have been failing let and right--jacked up prices because of rising fuel costs...then fuel went to 1.70 a gallon. Whew, those (lack) of savings are rolling on in... When the labor becomes 0 dollars, we shall see exactly that back...

Now, with that said, hell yeah automate driving. I never implied we shouldn't. Just the 39,000 lives saved, insurance costs, etc are worth it. But I am pointing out a cumalative stacking of bad effects coming up (which have already been slowly hitting.)

yeah..i am with @VoodooV on this one.

the man was not working.
was not wearing any company logos or identification,yet loses his job.

for what?
being an insensitive racist idiot?

public shaming?
all for it,and it might even change a few hearts and minds.inject a little empathy in an otherwise rigid and narrow worldview.

losing his job?
eeeeeeh..i think some people are taking the social warrior thing a tad too far,and are not being far sighted in their execution.

sure..we can hate on this racist asshole and ridicule him for his idiocy,but what happens when the PC police find something that YOU do offensive or inappropriate?

would you still be as confident in losing your livelihood?

i have been following this case in canada where this graphic designer is facing 6 months in jail for criticizing and disagreeing with two feminists.these women are trying to make the case that his criticisms,in the form of tweets,constitutes harrassment.

he lost his job.
is 80k in the hole,and the case has been ongoing for three years.

so there is already a frightening amount of this PC police,social warrior fascism having actually consequences.

so where do we draw the line?
who is going to arbitrarily monitor that line?
who decides what is offensive and what is not?

you start going down this road and that line will become more and more blurred until the first amendment is toast.

i am finding it more and more disturbing that people are beginning to think that being offended somehow equates to a right.that their little world,their minute and tiny habitat should be protected from offensive language.

unless you are ok with destroying peoples lives for being an idiot or an asshole.

social warriors:morality police concerned with their own little habitat,but they have your best interest as well.

oh goodie....