The sad thing is, in both cases these positions represent the opinions of a vocal minority. Far from all liberals are gung-ho about climate change, and even amongst conservatives the religious nutcases are a small minority.

It's funny, in most other developed countries climate change is predominantly the concern of non-Globalists. Liberals are typically economically conservative and ethically progressive. Just looking at the definition of the word "liberal", as-in "for personal freedom", it seems to me that the term is seriously misused in the States.

He's not nearly as ambitious or out there as people make him seem to be. Forget about the term socialist for a minute, no party in Europe would think Bernie anything more than center-left, he's way too moderate for that. His proposals are very likely to work well for the US, but I do agree that they will require a significant change in the way the government is run to make it more efficient and (more importantly) effective.

I don't necessarily agree with the exact list you're proposing here, but clearly the US would benefit from a complete retooling of the government apparatus. I think you need the following:

• Start by getting rid of the electoral college, in this day-and-age the people get enough info about the elections and each candidate's platform without having to rely on state representation. Just use the popular vote.

• Without the electoral college, there will be a better chance of getting rid of the two-party system. Ultra-right or ultra-left wing parties are absolutely necessary, but they need to be counterbalanced by moderate parties instead of just their polar opposite. I'd say a right-wing "Tea Party", a Conservative Party, a Liberal Party, a Green Party and a left-wing Socialist Party should all be viable candidates.

• With a real multi-party system, votes should not be afraid to support more nuanced positions. It almost guarantees that the rough edges of even the most extreme positions will never affect policy due to the need to form coalitions. Even is the Tea Party were to be voted in, they'd need the conservative party which would defend it's moderate positions.

Very likely, especially if the others drop out soon enough it could become a nice three-way fight.

He's definitely a con artist, and I'm sure he has what one could generously call "street smarts". He's still a dumb-ass motherfucker in the ways that matter though, no way that he can bone up on all the foreign policy stuff, legislation, ... and be an effective president. Best case scenario, he'll be surrounded by great seasoned advisors and his presidency will be like all the others, worst case scenario he thinks he doesn't need them and does his own thing.

I'm with you on Carly, I cannot understand how such a pathological liar (about her track record, accomplishments, the planned parenthood thing, ...) ever got the light of day.

I looked it up, Axlin is referring to this: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter … mate-chan/

So, while he did not say that climate change was responsible for ISIS (which is what you originally claimed, Axlin), he's clearly stating that there is a direct link between global warming and terrorism. I sincerely disagree with the narrative that he's pushing here and am very disappointed that he's not backing down from that statement. Yes, a point can be made that climate change and extreme weather events in poor countries are contributing factors to the rise of terrorism, but no way is it the most important. He's clearly overstating the link to get more support for his climate change plans, which of course takes away from other, more important causes of terrorism that absolutely need to be addressed.

Having said that, as far as foreign policy is concerned, he is the closest thing to a non-interventionist of the bunch after Paul (incidentally the only republican that I could see myself voting for), so I still think that Sanders is the best choice of the front runners when it comes to foreign policy. And if you're a non-interventionist, or a secularist (i.e. if you like Paul), and given Paul's inability to gain traction, I don't think there's a better alternative than Bernie.

Thanks for pointing it out though, I hadn't seen that clip before. It's a damn fucking shame he's really holding on to that position...

My argument wasn't about the music they made, it's about the fact that they went out and made (or tried to make) a name for themselves, prove their worth as iconic musicians without the banking on the GNR name alone. Axl could've done the same and he chose not to, for whatever reasons he might have had. I think we'll agree that if protecting the legacy was one of them, he hasn't been particularly successful on that front. Otherwise this reunion wouldn't have been the big bang it's turning out to be.

Really? To me CD is about as derivative of the UYI's as you can get. The only exceptions are Shackler's and Scraped (which I actually like a lot, my favorite tracks on the album), and Riad (ugh...). Axl has just as much of a "go-to style" as Slash.