The proper advice: Stop talking about guns or risk incurring huge losses in 2014.

I don't see how you can support the death penalty and be against Big Government at the same time.  

Isn't giving the Government the power to kill its own citizens the biggest Government power grab of all?

A jury and judge are required for the death penalty to be ordered, so to speak. Government bureaucrats merely carry out these orders. The government certainly does not have carte blanche authority to kill its own citizens. The second amendment was created to prevent such tyranny.

I suspect that capital punishment will never again be suspended nationwide, but who knows? Most folks who oppose capital punishment are too young to remember the crime wave of the 1980s. I personally feel like most murderers who were executed got what they deserved, but I do feel like guilt needs to be proven without any doubt. I can think of little worse than executing an innocent person.

A diverse population of 330 million people combined with serious mental health issues that most people would rather ignore or marginalize than anything else.

If somebody wants to prevent these tragedies, they should be advocating for a national discussion about mental illness. It is the common denominator. Even if all guns could be taken away, which they cannot, we've seen with 9/11 that planes can be turned into WMDs, and we all recall the Oklahoma City Bombing. In other words, preventing access to guns is not only unfeasible but it alone could not prevent sick people from finding ways to kill a lot of people (e.g., it is not a stretch to imagine somebody sick like the Newton killer deciding to drive their car into a crowd of dozens of children if they were unable to find guns; would we attempt to outlaw cars after such a tragedy?).

Gotta be Jerry Brown.

If the Democrats could not win after eight years of Clinton, with unemployment at 3% and rising income levels coupled with a tamed deficit, how in the world are they going to win after eight years of Obama?

Seriously? That's much more dependent on the nominees than anything else. On paper, Obama probably should have lost in November, or at the very least it should have been neck and neck.

People care less about the economy when it's actually good. The economy was a pressing issue in 1992, but in 2000 it was as much about integrity with Clinton's shadow hanging over the race. In 2004, it was foreign policy. With a recession in full-swing, it was back the economy in 2008.

And with the economy still in the doldrums come 2016, how will this lead to a more favorable outcome for Democrats relative to 2000? If you think the economy is going to boom over the next three years, I've got some ocean front property in Arizona to sell you.

Hillary will not run in 2016 because 2016 will not be winnable for the Democrats.

And, well, there are communists and then there are communists, but you wouldn't know anything about that.

The days of differentiating are over.

Get the Gringo, an absurd Mel Gibson straight-to-video type of flick that tries so very hard to be Payback.

It was kind of disturbing though how casual they were about things like gunning down parents in front of their children (even if the parents were particularly despicable and unsympathetic individuals) and how that one guy didn't seem to care too much about threatening to open fire on the onlooking civilians if they didn't leave soon. Of course that's probably how most soldiers operate.

For most soldiers, that sh**t bothers them after the fact. Obviously they cannot afford to allow it to bother them when they are in danger.

The best film of 2012 is Argo IMHO. Have yet to see Silver Linings Playbook, though.

The seat can barely hold him. I presume he gets booked for two seats when he flies commercial?

If the Democrats could not win after eight years of Clinton, with unemployment at 3% and rising income levels coupled with a tamed deficit, how in the world are they going to win after eight years of Obama?

It is incredibly difficult for a party to win three presidential races in a row. In fact, it has only happened once in the post-WW II era and that has more to do with this than anything else:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUXz4wFDAo0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Io9KMSSEZ0Y

Since he has so many friends in high places, I would say he is going to win re-election if he wants it. I would certainly not bet against him. A few clever ads, a weak opponent, and he can probably get the approval rating back above 50% in no time.

In Democratic Disney World, price-and-wage controls can "keep a lid" on inflation, and recessions are caused by the Fed not keeping the overnight rate near zero!

Get this man the Nobel Prize in Economics!

Raising the retirement age for SS/Medicare to 70 for those who are under 50 today would do a lot to ensure the solvency of these programs.

Some guy who has worked in a coal mine since he was 18 should work till they are 70?]

No, he should spend all of his income each month by living paycheck-to-paycheck until he is no longer able to do his job at some point in his 50s. And then he should blame other people for failing to plan for his own future.

I suspect the percentage of coal miners who make it to 65 is about the same as the percentage of coal miners who would make it to 70: Virtually zero.

Yeah a lot of them died in childhood and never paid a penny into the system.  Childhood deaths skew those numbers a lot.  Once people made it to 18 and started paying taxes chances were high they would see their 65 birthday.

Do you care to share your source?

What didn't happen was they didn't get some crazy $100,000 cardiac cath and quadruple bypass and then a few years later an expensive chemo and multiple oncological surgeries to keep them ticking till 80+ in a nursing home.  Sure some kind of rationing of healthcare would be a common sense practical way to address the true problem but of course it wouldn't be as fun as watching a 70 year old guy dig coal out of a mountain.

So your solution is have a panel of bureaucrats who say to people, "No, you cannot have Medicare treatment after paying into the system for half a century; we need to ration and you need to die in palliative care!"?

Personally, I think it would make more sense to keep the current system solvent by simply raising the retirement age to 69 or 70. Seems a bit more tasteful than bureaucratic death panels, who will ration alright but I am pretty sure some people will get more rationed than others. For example, having the right political connections will get you bumped to the top of a waiting list, and you can forget about having to worry about denial of treatment. That is how government-run anything works: We're all equal, but some of us are more equal than others.

Yes give a guy making a quarter million a year a huge tax break and send 70 year olds to the coal mines.

It is a huge tax break for coal miners, too, unless of course they decide to live paycheck-to-paycheck rather than saving for their retirement. If they chose not to be a part of a union that negotiated a pension that kicks in at a reasonable age, that was their choice. If they wish to not plan for the future, that is their choice. People have to take responsibility for their choices, of course.

Eliminating taxes on capital gains, interest and dividends would provide a powerful incentive to invest more towards retirement. I do not see a problem with providing incentives for people to take the initiative and plan better for their retirement. It strikes me as far more prudent than telling people not to worry because the government will take care of them (that's a scary thought!)

And I will stress that my proposal is only for those who are under 50 today, giving those people time to adjust to the change (the alternative is business-as-usual, and those under 50 today may not end up having SS/Medicare for the whole of their life since the system will likely become insolvent without changes such as an increase in the retirement age). Nobody is saying that we raise the age to 70 for those who are currently nearing their anticipated retirement age of 65.

Thune/Rubio Vs. Biden/Newsom

If Democrats could not win after eight years of Clinton, they will not win after eight years of Obama. Biden will get to be the John McCain of 2016. GOP race will likely be a bloodbath. Going with the generic Evangelical Christian at this point. Rubio for VEEP obviously.

You're back? Uh oh.

It is 2013, not 2012, so there is no need to worry. America lost after Romney lost, but we move on. No need for excessive partisanship in off-years, anyway.

define your terms: Does off year mean non election year or non-Presidential election year? (with regards to 2014)

Odd-numbered years, I suppose. We only have special elections and some gubernatorial races. There is an excuse for hyper-partisanship in presidential years, or even right before midterms. No such excuse in years like this. I think most of us on here right now, in February 2013, are here as political junkies rather than partisans even if we were extreme partisans last November. For example, you will not see any partisan trolling from me on the 2016 board until late 2015 at the earliest. At this time I am merely a political junkie, not a partisan.

He needs to reconsider challenging Christie rather than going for the Senate. Then again, he is probably more interested in being a pseudo-celebrity rather than actually governing.

What is more disturbing to me than the questions about his sexuality is the fact he wears color contacts. That is odd for a political figure. But, again, I could care less so long as he decides to challenge Christie and defeats him.

Who cares so long as he beats Christie? I don't care if he marries McGreevey so long as he deposes of Christie this November.

He definitely strikes me as gay, something I also suspected of McGreevey, but I could care less in this case. He needs to defeat Christie.

After Savages, I'm ready to call him a terrible director who got lucky a couple of times.

I think it's just a matter of an artist being great in his prime and really dropping off the map over time. I mean, he has not really made a good film since Nixon, which was almost 20 years ago.

The "dark" in the title is apt. The recreation of the actual operation is as gritty as cinema gets.

Not amazing like the original, but still good. The original had the "shock" factor going for it.

Thune/Rubio Vs. Biden/Newsom

If Democrats could not win after eight years of Clinton, they will not win after eight years of Obama. Biden will get to be the John McCain of 2016. GOP race will likely be a bloodbath. Going with the generic Evangelical Christian at this point. Rubio for VEEP obviously.

You're back? Uh oh.

It is 2013, not 2012, so there is no need to worry. America lost after Romney lost, but we move on. No need for excessive partisanship in off-years, anyway.

Inject hard currency into the economy by covertly buying up all of the drugs the Yakuza is selling. Turn around and export the drugs to interested buyers overseas who are willing to fork over foreign currency. Stick the foreign currency in a vault, print more Yen and repeat process.

Bizarrely enough, this is economically sound, but what's the point of deflationary forex buying if one is to counteract that with money printing? I suppose the ratios would have to be carefully managed. And is this enough money to really change things?

Also, this is highly illegal. But I suppose it could be a sting operation- arrest buyers and seize assets, which is actually something I would support. Every time I hear something like "$60 million dollars of cocaine seized" I always think about what a waste it is. Sell the stuff, arrest the buyers, pocket the money and drugs, repeat ad nauseam. I would think this would inject enough uncertainty and distrust in the international drug market to cause it to gradually dry up.

You might actually be on to something here.

It was a quick tongue-in-cheek comment, but when you've been battling deflation for this long perhaps it is time to start thinking outside-of-the-box? You're best off simply printing Yen, using the funds to purchase drugs at a premium, turn around and re-sell the drugs to somebody else at a discount, and then repeat the process. No point in exporting the drugs in exchange for foreign pieces of paper. The whole point would be to expand the money supply and create inflation rather than continuing to struggle with deflation. It is hard to predict to what degree this would have an impact on the money supply, let alone what the unintended consequences would be. Japan is probably not the best place to run such an experiment since I suspect demand for drugs is much lower there relative to most other developed countries.

While this is all tongue-in-cheek, it is worth noting that Miami had a much higher velocity of money in the late 1970s/early 1980s relative to everywhere else in the country. Nowhere else came close. Just saying...

But Thune loses all of his luster when you remember that he wouldn't be going up against a black liberal in the next election and that his profile is the exact kind of thing the Republicans are trying to move away from. They want a guy with charisma or someone who can appeal to chief demographics, not John Thune. Rubio does both of those and Christie has the former in spades.

I thought the whole running gag about Thune was he only got serious traction after polls came out showing Generic Republican was consistently running a few points ahead of Obama.. and Thune is Mr. Generic to a tee.

A winning combination is Romney's toned-down rhetoric on social issues with Thune's religion and humble/clean background (i.e., Evangelical Christian, not Mormon; modest means, not worth $200 million). Rubio's job as the running mate is to repair relations with Latinos. Both of them are attractive and youthful in appearance, which will appeal to females (big, fat, loud-mouth Christie is slightly less toxic to women than Gingrich). Unlike most Republicans, Thune can even appeal to moderates who care a lot about the environment. He also has more charisma than some of you think (let's not forget that he unseated Daschle in 2004).

The biggest downside is lack of executive experience. If he were a governor, he'd be the perfect candidate.

There are pissed off Republicans who will be helping Democrats try to unseat Christie next year. Even if he survives re-election, will Republicans nominate a pro-choice candidate for president? Yeah, right.

Ryan just does not click the right way with many voters. He did the best he could last year, but most voters just do not like him. There is something about him that just rubs many people the wrong way. He should probably stick to Congress and aim for being Speaker someday down the road.

It is hard to see Rubio winning among Republicans in IA, NH or SC, so it is difficult to envision him gaining the early momentum necessary to win. He will still do well, and will probably be the running mate no matter who wins the nomination.

Rand Paul is far more pragmatic and slick than his father, so he could be a contender, but probably not considering his opposition to various entities you do not mess with if you want to become POTUS.

Santorum is and always will be a joke. He never would have gained traction if Romney had been an Evangelical Christian from Michigan rather than a wealthy Mormon from Massachusetts. The same applies to Gingrich. Hard to see Rick "Oops" Perry coming back from the grave, but I suppose anything is possible. He has more powerful backers than anybody else on the list, so it is hard to completely write him off.

Clinton/Patrick vs Christie/Martinez.

Thune/Rubio Vs. Biden/Newsom

If Democrats could not win after eight years of Clinton, they will not win after eight years of Obama. Biden will get to be the John McCain of 2016. GOP race will likely be a bloodbath. Going with the generic Evangelical Christian at this point. Rubio for VEEP obviously.

I do not like the idea of Newsom anywhere near a national ticket, the guy's a slimeball.

Newsom is pathologically ambitious and would probably jump at the opportunity to significantly raise his national profile and create a springboard for 2020. Not sure many other people would agree to be sacrificial lambs with Biden.

Yeah... ask Palin and Ryan and Edwards how that went for them

Newsom is like Kerry was: Could care less about being Lt. Gov., Gov. or even Sen. Simply wants to be POTUS. The benefits of going from Lt. Gov to VEEP nominee vastly outweigh the costs for Newsom. Win or lose, and the Biden ticket will almost surely lose, Newsom will have positioned himself as the front-runner for the nomination after Biden is out of the picture whether that is 2020 or, in the unlikely event of Biden winning, 2024. There is no other way for Newsom to achieve this result. His chief bargaining chip in getting Biden to select him: Access to fund raising sources in California, of course.

Clinton/Patrick vs Christie/Martinez.

Thune/Rubio Vs. Biden/Newsom

If Democrats could not win after eight years of Clinton, they will not win after eight years of Obama. Biden will get to be the John McCain of 2016. GOP race will likely be a bloodbath. Going with the generic Evangelical Christian at this point. Rubio for VEEP obviously.

I do not like the idea of Newsom anywhere near a national ticket, the guy's a slimeball.

Newsom is pathologically ambitious and would probably jump at the opportunity to significantly raise his national profile and create a springboard for 2020. Not sure many other people would agree to be sacrificial lambs with Biden. If Biden gets the nod, as I suspect he will since it will be obvious by 2015  that Democrats are in a world of hurt after more than half a decade of a poor economy under Obama, I do feel like many people would be uninterested in losing with him. Newsom will be one of the few who wants it.

Thune/Rubio Vs. Biden/Newsom

If Democrats could not win after eight years of Clinton, they will not win after eight years of Obama. Biden will get to be the John McCain of 2016. GOP race will likely be a bloodbath. Going with the generic Evangelical Christian at this point. Rubio for VEEP obviously.

Unfortunately, Politico is completely right. I do think a Communist threat is alive and well. It is pervasive, not only in academia, but the business world, in politics, in the military. I would not be surprised if the whole scandal with Gen. Petraeus is the official coverup of a communist power play.

Believe it or not, this country has been overrun by Communists, Socialists, and Anarchists, but this time they've truly inflitrated the highest levels of academia and government. One should only look here from my view point in the Kremlin on the Hudson, and see the Communism is truly rampant amongst the student body and the faculty, that I would say some two thirds of my peers adhere to either Communism, Socialism, or Anarchism. The economics department is perhaps the only bulwark of common sense. I would not be surprised, ludicrous as it sounds, that the large amount of Ivy Leaguers in the business world today are in fact a mass infiltration, a third column designed to collectivize and overthrow it once the signal for Revolution is given. It is a long time coming, let us not forget that the red flag itself flew over Morningside Heights in 1967. Where did these radicals go? Let us also not forget that our very Attorney General, Eric Holder, was one of the hostage takers in 1967!!

Let us not underestimate the detrimental value of the defeatists and the cosmopolitans, those who wish to see the acendance of Socialistic states like China and Russia, people, again who seem perfectly normal and esteemed, like Fareed Zakaria the plagiarist and Thomas Friedman, who preach that we should just live with the rise of China. These people have infltrated our society and esteemed institutions like the Council on Foreign Relations. I have been there! I have seen those defeatist Communists! So sadly the threat is very real, and omnipresent in all sectors in our society. We need a national reaction to flush them out. We should be greatful to Poltico for speaking out.

Yes, we need a national enema. Eventually the next Ronald Reagan will appear to rid us of those who seek to destroy America. There will be hell to pay.

Politico, I don't appreciate how you obviously believe this tripe with all your heart. I don't like that about you.

I am not interested in coddling communists. There is no shortage of communists in America, regardless of whether many communists self-identify. Simfan knows it, I know it, you know it, and everybody else knows it. It is time to start discussing what is really happening in America, particularly in the hallowed halls of educational establishments across the country. Tens of millions of minds have been destroyed by the work of these communists, and the nation will not survive if we do not change course...