I somewhat understand the turnaround on prison reform, the Clintons are very politically savvy and knew that broaching the subject in the 90's would just make them look "weak on crime" and their opponents would have pounded them on the subject, but it seems that this issue is finally getting a turnaround and probably in part due to legal weed/failed drug war and a growing minority populace that sees the justice system as biased. Much like gay rights/marriage, it was something that the left wanted at the time but many dems had to take a different public stance in order to stay "electable". A reverse of this is how Mitt had to disavow himself of his own health plan that the ACA was based on.

Remember the fun days of when "flip-flopping" was a way to get your opponent on the defensive?

Yeah I agree that at the time it wasn't exactly politically savvy to endorse serious criminal justice reform. The U.S. was just coming off record crime levels and the downturn in violence was just beginning it's sharp downward trend. I appreciate that Obama has at least initiated the conversation on the presidential level...sets a course for subsequent admins. Do I think he could be doing a lot more? Yeah, I do...let's see what happens in the final 1.5 year of his term.

Roger Dorn wrote:Yeah I agree that at the time it wasn't exactly politically savvy to endorse serious criminal justice reform. The U.S. was just coming off record crime levels and the downturn in violence was just beginning it's sharp downward trend. I like that Obama has at least initiated the conversation on the presidential level...sets a course for subsequent admins. Do I think he could be doing a lot more? Yeah, I do...let's see what happens in the final 1.5 year of his term.

The apocolypse, obviously.

Hillary isn't going to upset her buddies in Big Prison

Speaking of Hillary, she might be facing criminal charges about her private e-mail account.

well, the update is it may be less about her, more about State. My hunch is it's sure to be confusing, inconclusive, and a net positive for the campaign accounts of several congresspersons and POTUS candidates

That makes no sense

It makes perfect sense if you view Trump as an attention-whoring performance artist, which is all this is

But how does he make money?

Unless he breaks laws the money has to go towards the operation of a campaign

"unless"

Same as all the other candidates, his media and personal appearance fees will skyrocket after he drops out. He doesn't need to form a 3rd party. He could form some kind of lobbying firm, or leave politics altogether. Whatever he does, dominating the airwaves for the next 6-9 months will be very profitable for him.

Trump is running because he's a major narcissist who loves nothing more than being the center of attention. He's having the time of his life. Whether he's running just as a gag, because he actually believes what he's saying, or because he's trying to help another candidate, I dunno.

Given how much money he's worth and the losses he's taken already to his brand, I don't know how you can look at this and think he's running to make money (or if he is, that he's succeeding in that goal). Trump the billionaire real estate mogul/reality TV star would pull in much better appearance fees than Trump the billionaire real estate mogul/reality TV star/wildly unpopular presidential candidate. Forming a third party would cost him money, not make him money. The amount of $$ even the best lobbyists make is a rounding error to Trump, not that anyone would pay for him to lobby for them.

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/gop-primaries/249186-poll-trump-doubles-nearest-competitor-in-2016-race

New poll shows Trump out to a double digit lead over the rest of the field.

Every now and then I wonder if Trump is a closet liberal who is trying to aid Hilary's campaign.

One of Senate Foreign Relations Committee chair (a position which theoretically makes him a Senate "leader") Bob "Gomer Pyle" Corker's prominent tv soundbite objections to the Iran deal is that it "codifies" Iran's nuclear program* - the implication being that this process 'improves', 'protects', even 'accelerates' its existence and its progress toward creation of an inevitable nookuler arm'geddin.

Gee, Bob, so you're saying regulations - "codification" - of production practices by big complex human organizations is a good thing? A positive, activity-fueling, results getting thing? Not job-killing? Not inevitably innovation, results, or industry-retarding? How can all that codification be super-good for Iran, and simultaneously super-horrible for, say, coal mining, or telecom, or the environment, or health care?

And before our purported "free marketeers" jump in to explain the subtleties of Senate leader Bob's economic/foreign policy theories, let me underscore that I'm more amused by Bob's casually ignorant cornpone hypocrisy than interested in the manifold ways in which his positions are the very model of coherent policy leadership

*"What I think you have actually done in these negotiations is codified a perfectly aligned pathway for Iran to get a nuclear weapon..."

The Nightman Cometh wrote:Every now and then I wonder if Trump is a closet liberal who is trying to aid Hilary's campaign.

This makes much more sense than him running to help Jeb Bush.

Chris Christie, of all people, had the audacity to call for more tunnels under the Hudson after really bad transit woes crippled things.

And Trump's the unserious one.

what's wrong with more tunnels? is it because infrastructure projects are prohibitively difficult in countries that care about workers and worker compensation?

No,because he previously rejected money from the feds for said tunnels because NJ 'couldn't afford it'.