Elizabeth Warren?...Bernie Sanders?...Tim Kaine?...Julian Castro?...Sherrod Brown?...Corey Booker?...Al Franken?...
If I was forced to put money on who Hillary Clinton will pick as her running mate/veep, I think I'd ultimately go with the person who best simultaneously accomplishes two specific things:
1. Represents/reinforces the image Hillary wants/needs to project upon her own self (i.e. a true progressive who also works across the aisle to get things done).
2. Is unquestionably qualified to step in as President of the United States.
In many ways I think it comes down to a very similar calculus to what Bill Clinton used to pick Al Gore as his running mate in '92.
So, with that, my pick for Hillary's pick is Sen. Amy Klobuchar (MN). And I will add, she's probably the most likable/natural person Hillary could choose as well - thus making her a Joe Biden-esque pick too!
Chris Christie?...Newt Gingrich?...Ben Carson?...Sarah Palin?...Scott Brown?...Bob Corker?...Mike Pence?...Jeff Sessions?...Tom Cotton?...Mary Fallin?...Joni Ernst?...(and several other people you've never heard of, and will never hear of again)...
Nearly everything Trump has done this election has been unpredictable. Often the unpredictability has been accompanied with the generation of outrage - outrage not just by his opponents but often also by his own Republican Party. So, with that in mind, as I try to do the impossible and predict Donald Trump's future pick for running mate, I find myself focused on picking someone who fits the following five points of criteria:
1. Who is garnering almost zero attention by the media on the topic (and thus would be perceived as a complete unexpected surprise)?
2. Who would fit the criteria Trump himself has outlined regarding Washington and/or Military experience? (In conjunction with this, Trump has also indicated that he likes the idea of picking someone who has previously run/shown interest for the presidency)
3. Who has Trump not previously attacked (and/or attacked their family) - and likewise not attacked Trump back - so that the person could in reality be a viable option?
4. Who would actually accept the job if Trump offered it? (This eliminates a ton of people)?
5. Who would totally piss off the Republican establishment and grassroots activists? (Think John McCain wanting to pick Joe Lieberman in 2008)
When I try and fit all 5 things into one person, I am left with one candidate: Fmr. Sen. Jim Webb (D-VA)
If for no other reason(s), items 1 and 5 would be addressed by the fact that Webb is technically a Democrat (and once again, countless Republicans would lose their effing minds).
Item 2 is addressed by his professional experience as Sec. of the Navy in the 1980s under Reagan (back when Webb was a Republican) and then as a US Senator from Virginia last decade (note: Webb switched parties and ran for office in response to his opposition to the Bush Administration and the Iraq War -- Tim Kaine ultimately took over his seat).
Webb briefly ran in the Democratic Primary this election cycle and also previously lobbied for the opportunity 8 years ago to be picked by Obama as his veep (conventional wisdom is that amongst several issues, Webb failed to make Obama's short list mostly because he would've proved very problematic with women voters ... something tells me Trump would be unfazed by that). There was also a lot of chatter following Webb's withdrawal from this election primary that he would leave the Democratic Party and run as an independent third party (that ultimately did not happen of course). Lastly, Webb has since publicly voiced harsh opposition/criticism of Hillary while simultaneously making sure to be very moderate/cautious in his public comments about Trump.
Trump/Webb '16 ... it's hard to imagine ... and for that very reason I think it has a better chance to actually happen than perhaps any of those names I typed out at the beginning of this.
**FYI - Larry David as Bernie got all the attention, but Alec Baldwin is hilarious as Webb in the skit too!**
The idea that we decide whether or not to try a minor as an adult in our judicial system based at times on the severity of the alleged offender's crime, is absolutely unacceptable!
If someone is a minor, than they're a minor. If they're an adult, then they're an adult.
Can the issue of minor vs. adult be more convoluted than just a birth date/physical or mental age, of course! But the decision of whether or not to hold someone accountable for their actions as a minor or hold them accountable for their actions as an adult, should not be based on whether or not we're satisfied with the severity of the punishment associated to a minor being convicted.
The penalty for a minor committing a crime has parameters that we already determined were permissible for a minor (and likewise determined penalties outside those parameters were not permissible), and we shouldn't skirt those parameters because a young person did something really really horrible. If minors in certain circumstances deserve a judgment beyond the parameters, then we should simply revisit changing those parameters.
"A jury of your peers." (not your parent's peers) ... Those words should mean something!
in general people speaking in public/to strangers who say "happy holidays" instead of "merry christmas" do not choose those words because the person they're talking to might find the term "merry christmas" offensive....that would be f@cking retarded - "retarded" as in "retarded thinking" not "retarded" the offensive expression people say "happy holidays" instead of "merry christmas" because some people in society don't celebrate christmas. some people celebrate hanukkah (def just used spell check on that one). some celebrate kwanzaa (that one too). some celebrate solstice (regrettably, that one too...also used it on "regrettably"). and some folks celebrate other things i've never even heard of or even necessarily (spell check every effing time on "necessarily/necessary") care to hear about. and (partially due to it being xmas season) i really want to convey to them that i hope they enjoy the holiday that they celebrate as much as i hope to enjoy mine.
side note: christmas is about giving to others not others giving to us. and what's more giving than accommodation?
Only 18 states have a minimum wage higher than the federal standard.
The minimum wage reached its (inflation-adjusted) historic high in 1968, when it was raised from $1.40 to $1.60 per hour. Adjusted for inflation that would come to $10.55 per hour (in 2012).
However, per capita income excluding current transfer receipts — that is, the personal income earned in the economy, excluding Social Security and other government programs, adjusted for inflation — has grown by 100.6% since 1968.
In other words, if minimum wages had kept pace not with just inflation alone but rather with overall income growth in the American economy, it would now be $21.16 per hour.
Democrats are currently proposing a minimum wage increase to $10.10/hr. Democrats are also proposing that the minimum wage be tied to inflation and automatically increase accordingly.
$10.10/hr @ 40hrs/wk = $404/wk ($21,008/yr)
30.3 million workers would get a raise if the minimum wage was increased to $10.10/hr.
The most recent NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll (taken 2 weeks ago) found that 63% of Americans (including 47% of self-identified Republicans) support raising the minimum wage to $10.10/hr.
One more thing...
In conjunction with the $10.10/hr minimum wage increase proposal, Democrats are also including a raise in the minimum wage for "tip" workers (waiters, bartenders, drivers, etc.). The proposal would set the minimum wage for tip workers at 70% of the regular minimum wage.
The current (federal) minimum wage for tip workers is $2.13/hr.
If the standard minimum wage was $10.10/hr, then the minimum wage for tip workers, if set at a 70% threshold, would translate to $7.07/hr.
An increase from $2.13/hr to $7.07/hr would raise the annual income of tip workers by $10,275.
Today we learned that from the moment he fired the first bullet into Sandy Hook Elementary's glass front doors to the moment he fired the last bullet....into himself...less than 5 minutes passed. Adam Lanza fired 152 bullets....152 fucking bullets in less than 5 minutes.
Here are two undeniable facts:
1. Adam Lanza used 30 round magazines in his military weapon. As a result he had to reload his semiautomatic Bushmaster .223 assault rifle 4 times.
2. Had Adam Lanza had 10 round magazines, he would have had to reload 14 times.
During one of the four reloads, his gun jammed, at which time six children were able to escape.
20 children (and 6 adults) were not able to escape amongst the barrage that that killing machine made possible.
So....Rand Paul deserves props (cannot believe I just typed that) for actually doing a real filibuster. This is what's supposed to be required. I also have to admit that I understand and respect his position...to a point. Obviously he's taking the issue to an unreasonable place (I expect nothing less from him). Accusing those who don't agree with him (specifically the president) of "shredding the Constitution"...it's too bad he's not trying to have a real debate. That being said, at least he's doing something....something that aligns with his actual convictions (please don't misinterpret that to mean I don't think he's a political hack...cuz he is).
The problem is...his position is completely ideological and void of reality and common sense. Not to sound like a NeoCon-Republican but....9/11 is the obvious example that we all need to reflect on when discussing this issue.
The passengers of flight 93 forced down and crashed a plane in PA that was ultimately destined to crash into the Capital. Prior to it's crashing, an order had been given to shoot it down from the sky before it had an opportunity to be flown into a building in DC. Does Rand Paul find that order unconstitutional?
What if we had had the same reaction time for the planes headed to the twin towers? Would it have been unconstitutional, illegal, and wrong to shoot those down? Should we have instead allowed the planes to crash and kill thousands of innocent people?
Make no mistake, shooting down those planes would have been an example of the president (without any initial oversight) ordering military action that would directly result in the killing of non-combatant americans within american borders.
This is obviously the extraordinary circumstances that Holder is referencing.
Now, don't get me wrong, we should definitely debate this (we must publicly debate and discuss this). We should define the limitations regarding it. Unfortunately an irresponsible, disingenuous, and crazy person is the one who had the courage to be the first person to stand up at the podium.
