The 2016 Presidential Election Trainwreck

[Jeff Lebowski]

I just hope she bangs better looking women than Bill did once she's in office.

[BlueK]

Your analysis may be spot on. We will never know what continued hard line sanctions would have entually resulted in either. So it will be what it is.

In 15 years who is scarier having a nuke, Iran or Korea?

N. Korea is much scarier having nukes.

[imanihonjin]

Yes of course. Because as we all know, everyone on the far right treats Hillary with nothing but dignity and respect.

Difference is, it wasn't just the far left going after Palin. It was pretty much everyone but the far right who supported her. If the media joined in to blast Hillary to the extent that they blasted Palin you wouldn't hear the end of it from the left. It is the same with any minority who is elevated in the conservative sphere (or judge (e.g., Clarence Thomas)). It is bad to be sexist or bigoted, unless of course you are being sexist or bigoted toward someone on the right because then sexist or bigoted comments are just the truth.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Difference is, it wasn't just the far left going after Palin. It was pretty much everyone but the far right who supported her. If the media joined in to blast Hillary to the extent that they blasted Palin you wouldn't hear the end of it from the left. It is the same with any minority who is elevated in the conservative sphere (or judge (e.g., Clarence Thomas)). It is bad to be sexist or bigoted, unless of course you are being sexist or bigoted toward someone on the right because then sexist or bigoted comments are just the truth.

You have been watching too much Fox News.

[imanihonjin]

You have been watching too much Fox News.

Oh, burn. What an original remark.

FYI, I hate cable/network news, but if I do watch, I always, always watch MSNBC. How could you not? It is so comical and such a train wreck watching the likes of Al Sharpton, Rachel Maddow, Larry O'Donnell that I can't help but tune every now and again while at the gym.

[Omaha 680]

N. Korea is much scarier having nukes.

I disagree. Religious fanatics who want to hasten the end of the world are much scarier with a nuke than a tinpot communist clinging to the 20th century.

[scottie]

They must have polled the same people that are saying they are voting for Trump.

That doesn't even make sense.

It does to me and with my deepest apologies I am not going to waste my time explaining it to you.

'71, how does it make sense to you? Why would the people who say they are voting for Trump also "place [Palin] head and shoulders above the current crop of Republican hopefuls"?

[Nakoma]

Maybe because the people in both polls are crazy?

[Omaha 680]

'71, how does it make sense to you? Why would the people who say they are voting for Trump also "place [Palin] head and shoulders above the current crop of Republican hopefuls"?

Kind of makes sense to me. People who would consider voting for a sideshow like Trump over real, substantive candidates like Walker or Kasich are the same kind of people who would think Palin is a political mastermind.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Come on, people. There was no poll. This guy writes a popular political satire column.

[PaloAltoCougar]

I disagree. Religious fanatics who want to hasten the end of the world are much scarier with a nuke than a tinpot communist clinging to the 20th century.

I used to feel this way, but not so much anymore. I may be naively optimistic, but I doubt very much Iran would ever actually use a nuke, since it would mean the instant incineration of their country. And despite their religious fervor, I think the mullahs and everyone else in positions of power in Iran care more about their survival than what awaits them in paradise. But what if they were to slip a nuke into the hands of some terrorist? My thinking (or at least hope) is that they know the radioactive signature of a nuclear blast is traceable to its source, and that an Iranian nuke that's detonated by someone else will have the same consequences as one they delivered themselves. and thus they should be very careful about inventory leakage. We're back to mutually assured destruction, with the key players taking whatever steps are necessary to keep things in check.

I'm still certain Iran wants nukes, and will get them, to maintain and burnish their rep as the key player in the Middle East. I just don't think they'll use them.

[BlueK]

I used to feel this way, but not so much anymore. I may be naively optimistic, but I doubt very much Iran would ever actually use a nuke, since it would mean the instant incineration of their country. And despite their religious fervor, I think the mullahs and everyone else in positions of power in Iran care more about their survival than what awaits them in paradise. But what if they were to slip a nuke into the hands of some terrorist? My thinking (or at least hope) is that they know the radioactive signature of a nuclear blast is traceable to its source, and that an Iranian nuke that's detonated by someone else will have the same consequences as one they delivered themselves. and thus they should be very careful about inventory leakage. We're back to mutually assured destruction, with the key players taking whatever steps are necessary to keep things in check.

I'm still certain Iran wants nukes, and will get them, to maintain and burnish their rep as the key player in the Middle East. I just don't think they'll use them.

Agreed. N. Korea (and by that I mean their dictator) is currently acting scared, unstable and irrational. Iran, not really.

[Moliere]

So One thing is for sure, John Kerry is a much better sec of state than Hilary Clinton could even dream of being. Kerry gets stuff done with Iran and Cuba. What did Clinton do in her 4 years?

[Omaha 680]

Come on, people. There was no poll. This guy writes a popular political satire column.

I can't keep up with all the satire columns/sites/shows. There is more sarcasm than genuine commentary.

[falafel]

Come on, people. There was no poll. This guy writes a popular political satire column.

I can't keep up with all the satire columns/sites/shows. There is more sarcasm than genuine commentary.

I missed it as well, despite the fact that the link had the word "humor" in it.