Kim Davis for President?

Well, it's not like the bar can get any lower, right? Right?

For all of their "claims" about how LGBTs want "special rights"

THEY are the ones actually demanding them-for themselves and their ilk (and sometimes even getting them). I note that some in the KY legislature are/were primed to give Davis "special dispensation" (see: "special&quot to refuse to issue same-sex marriage licenses (despite the obvious illegality in doing so).

This whole thing has been an embarrassment, frankly

It reflects bad on our country IMHO that our President worked with other countries to complete this agreement only to have Congress come in and demand that an agreement that was already hammered out and does not legally require their advise and consent be subject to a vote. While this agreement is going to go through no matter what, a filibuster, where there is no final vote in Congress prevents the world from having to see the embarrassing spectacle of the Congress rebuking an international agreement and President Obama keeping the US in the agreement by vetoing their junk resolution of disapproval. These sort of shenanigans are likely to severely undermine future Presidents' efforts to work with the rest of the world to craft agreements to diplomatically resolve problems (but maybe that is the whole point of this- at least from the Republican side of the aisle).

I will support whoever the Democratic nominee no matter who he/she is

As such, I would be fine with Biden and he seems like a genuinely nice and smart guy but I don't think he's got much of a chance- he's never run well in the multiple primaries he's been in and he'd basically be occupying the same space ideologically as Hillary (which could unnecessarily weaken Hillary, who I still think is our strongest candidate in the general).

Awesome news!

though I heard that they weren't guaranteed to filibuster, at least not so far. It would be better for there not to have to be a vote in the first place and watch the Republicans' heads explode after all of their obstructionist filibustering during the first 6 years of Obama's Presidency.

When did President Obama take the threat of military force "off the table"?

He just isn't using it as the first option, which is what Cheney and most Republicans are probably having difficulty understanding. Speaking of which, what did THEY do about Iran when they were in office- when it literally was "bomb first and ask questions later"? What did they do about North Korea, which got nukes while he was co-POTUS and is being run by somebody who is almost certainly a real nut?

I continue to be perplexed by comments

That this email issue is going to sink Clinton. I will bet money that it will barely be mentioned (if at all) and anybody already predisposed to vote for won't care at all IMHO. It's seriously a nothing burger so far. I would put the chances of some kind of disastrous revelations coming from it at well less than 50/50.

She's had so many avenues/opportunities to get out of this situation

and she's stupidly holding firm. Allowing her to be released if she simply refuses to interfere gives her another "out". But she's not even going to go for that.


At some point, I would think that even her supporters might think she's stupid/nuts?

I understand your concern

but I'm not sure she has a lot of ground to stand on, nor how much political hay some political opportunists would be able to make out of it (though some will, of course, try). She was given due process to argue her case in the courts and lost repeatedly and SCOTUS denied her last appeal. Most people probably understand this. Nothing short of a Christian theocratic state will satisfy some people but they are by no means in the majority.

Anybody made a MLK comparison too?