That would be a huge step forward. I hope that they carefully evaluate their self-defense laws at the same time, because it would be a shame for one of their newly-armed citizens to get in trouble for using a gun to defend himself against attack.
Impeaching Koskinen is necessary, but not sufficient. It is telling that so far Congress has managed to do absolutely nothing about the IRS scandal beyond asking a lot of questions and complaining that the IRS hasn't answered them.
Of course not. I'm sure Dickerson is completely unbiased. He's just asking questions of the candidates about the topics that he's going to ask questions about during the debate. I can't imagine how that might enable them to produce better responses on stage.
You mean the debate won't consist of the moderators asking the candidates to attack each other for 2 hours like the Republican debates?
After terrorizing two generations over a mathematical error, I can safely admit that no one working in the climate science field will ever admit this. They will go to their graves preaching thermogeddon to empty snow-covered auditorium seats.
An author whose work I enjoy more than her politics wrote the above on her blog. While cancer isn't something I would wish on anyone, and the economics of health insurance are definitely complex, this particular pair of ideas placed so close together demonstrate such a dramatic lack of self-awareness that I felt it warranted comment.
Did it never cross her mind that, having just gone through significant and expensive health care treatments, her employer may have been feeling the financial pinch of raised healthcare rates or (if they self-insure for their employee's medical costs) that her own health care costs had a direct impact on the company's bottom line?
Evidently not even enough to feel a little gratitude towards a company that just in the last year or so paid for the cancer treatments that saved her life.
Awwww, isn't that cute. Ezra Klein's little venture-capital-funded blog project thinks they have a tech team worth calling a tech team. Notice how, if you are a cishet white male with technical knowledge, you are wrong if you explain too much, or if you explain too little, if you are surprised your non-binary-gender differently-abled colleague asked a question and also if you are not surprised that they asked a question. You're just wrong, period, so shut up and let zer do the talking. Unless they ask a question.
You don't go out and collect signatures for ballot access if you don't expect to run. It's something that isn't very visible, so it's easy to skip if you don't really intend to participate in the "real" primary. A candidate like, say, Kasich (just to pick a name out of a hat at random) who exists only as a distraction and to split the base vote in a particular state really only needs to run a ballot access program in that state and any states that come before that state. Such a candidate doesn't need to be "first" or even put in a lot of effort to obtain ballot access while polling very low, because they can use the low polling as an excuse.
That Trump put in the effort and turned in his results first suggests that he's paying attention to the requirements and doing better than the other so-called serious candidates at that.
So yeah. I think he's serious.
Trump is still not my top pick, but he's got a monopoly on taking the immigration issue seriously. I'd rather have him than any of the Establishment candidates.
Nation's largest Obamacare co-op under investigation
That is, it's under investigation in addition to closing this year, and in addition to canceling policies a month early. If the Obamacare co-ops were anything like the Solyndra debacle, there's going to be a lot of boodle that went to Friends of Obama rather than anything related to caring for sick people. And that's always going to be true of any health care system run by politicians.
I think I've figured out what the Democrats are thinking here. I think they have decided that every voter swayed by the gun control issue is either a white male they have already lost, or a white female they didn't have much chance with in the first place. These people are being written off. By supporting gun control, Hillary and other D candidates are hoping to attract financial support from Bloomberg and other big name D backers, and give their inner-city constituencies something to get excited about other than the color of Obama's skin. If they can run up the urban vote high enough, they can swamp the rest of us, and Hillary's gun control negatives have been around a long time and are already baked into her unfavorable numbers.
How do we beat it?
I think we need to make sure that every new gun owner, everyone who got into the gun culture 2.0 after the Clinton era, needs to be told about exactly how bad it was under the Clintons and how bad it will be again if they don't keep her -- and the rest of the D's pushing this topic -- out of the White House.
Remember, Obama ran for the White House on "I don't want to take your guns" twice. We all knew he was lying and he proved it in his second term. Hillary and the D's are making this a campaign issue this time around. If they win, they will claim a mandate.
Remember, we tried Hillary's assault weapons ban for 10 years and it had absolutely no impact on crime -- because criminals don't use "assault weapons" for their normal crimes, they use concealable handguns obtained illegally. And those who do use "assault weapons" (usually in statistically rare mass shooting events) don't really care about magazine size, pistol grips, or bayonet mounts. They will use whatever they can get their hands on, and they will attack in a gun-free zone so it won't matter what kind of gun they have since no one else will have one until the police arrive.
... the media would have no standards at all, as this article demonstrations:
I'm no tax law expert, so I won't be getting into the weeds on whether the error described in this article is serious or not, or whether it's actually what the potential audit is about. I will say this, though: the idea that the IRS can make up for purely political targeting of one party by declining to investigate the other party sounds sketchy. Especially when that other party is already being investigated by the FBI and there are serious accusations of fraud.
The Democrat party thrives on this double standard. When they are in power, they attack ruthlessly. When they lose power, suddenly it would be improper to return the favor. And the media play along by ensuring there is always room in the memory hole for what the Democrats did to deserve payback.