By THE EDITORIAL BOARDOCT. 14, 2015

It was impossible not to feel a sense of relief watching the Democratic debate after months dominated by the Republican circus of h**ers, ranters and that very special group of king k**lers in Congress. For those despairing about the future of American politics, here was proof that it doesn’t have to revolve around candidates who p***e themselves on knowing nothing or believe that governing is all about destroying government.
Civility was a big winner on Tuesday night, and the discussion of real issues was refreshing. But what stood out most was the Democratic Party’s big tent, capable of containing a spectrum of reality-based views. All five candidates – including two refugees from what had been the Republican Party, Lincoln Chafee, a former Republican senator, and Jim Webb, Secretary of the Navy in the Reagan administration – have real records. They also have real differences on important issues — national security, foreign policy, gun safety, financial reforms. Those differences illuminate the choices that have to be made in governing, some likely to be successful, some ineffective.

The debate probably won’t change much in the polling. Hillary Rodham Clinton reminded us why she’s the front-runner, with her experience, command of the issues and strength in communicating ideas. She seemed both at ease and fearless. It helped that the candidates actually valued time to discuss issues. One of the biggest applause lines was Senator Bernie Sanders’s quip to Mrs. Clinton, “the American people are sick and tired of hearing about your damn emails.” Supporters of Mr. Sanders embraced his passionate critiques, but his performance may not convert those skeptical of his ability to broaden his appeal.

The biggest point of agreement was on income ine******y, the central theme of the Sanders campaign and one that was been put on the top of the agenda by the other candidates as well. The question, of course, is how to reduce it in an economic system that has been moving toward ever greater ine******y. Mr. Sanders said he would change the tax code to have the wealthiest pay a lot more, with new revenues going to education, free college tuition and health care for all. Mrs. Clinton would also raise taxes, and said she supported reining in “the excesses of capitalism so that it doesn’t run amok,” though it’s not clear what that would take, given the trajectory we’re on.

There was agreement on the need to raise the minimum wage (Senator Sanders proposes $15 an hour; Mrs. Clinton gave no firm number) and specific views on how to improve financial reform efforts – break up the big banks or improve the Dodd-Frank financial reform bill. Regarding unauthorized immigrants, there was agreement that they should be allowed to purchase coverage on the health exchanges, but Mrs. Clinton, unlike the others, did not support giving them government subsidies.
On guns laws, there was great divergence. Mr. Webb has earned an A rating from the National Rifle Association; Mr. Chafee and Martin O’Malley, the former governor of Maryland, have Fs; Mr. Sanders said he had received a D-minus, but had a tough time explaining his v**e against the Brady Bill. He seemed so determined to continue pandering to his gun rights constituency in Vermont that he got lost in the odd idea that he is more in touch with rural v**ers than the governor of Maryland and ended up undermining his image as the righteous t***h teller.

On foreign affairs, there was disagreement over the American role in the war in Syria and against the Islamic State. Mrs. Clinton supports a no-fly zone in Syria, an idea opposed by Mr. Sanders and Mr. O’Malley. Likewise on surveillance and security issues, Mrs. Clinton defended her support for the Patriot Act, which allowed the National Security Agency to create a vast secret surveillance program, while Mr. Sanders opposed the act and said he would shut down the program.

These are healthy and necessary disagreements on difficult challenges that America faces. There is no one way to achieve a more economically equitable and just society, but these Democrats have that common aim. Their discussion showed a capacity to absorb facts and adjust plans to consequences. The Republican candidates may have a lot of fun campaigning for office, but they haven’t a prayer of knowing what to do if they ever entered the White House.

Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook and Twitter, and sign up for the Opinion Today newsletter.

Hit your mother over the head and stab someone and you rise to the top of the GOP. What a great organization today's GOP has become. Shoot kids in classrooms and believe the NRA is coming to get your guns. K**l healthcare and watch people die. Send the military into another war and whatch these kids die.
(K**L K**L K**L THE GOP LOVES TO WATCH AMERICANS DIE)

(ELIMINATE SNAP AND WATCH LITTLE KIDS DIE OF STARVATION)

(ELIMINATE EVERYTHING AND ALL THE TAKERS WILL DIE AND YOU WON'T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT LOSING YOUR GUN.
__________________________________________________________
Hey friend;
Good to see you on here but with all due respect, you don't believe what you are posting. You are way to smart to be buying into the Democrat line of propaganda. Not attacking, but this sounds like KHHH1 drafted the scrip for this post

(IF ALL ELSE FAILS MAKE DAMM SURE YOU BLAME OBAMA HE IS A MUSLIM, MARXIST C*******T SOCIALIST KENYAN GAY TERRORIST I DON't KNOW HOW YOU CAN BE ALL THOSE THINGS

The cowardly carson campaign wants debates to be streamed over the internet.
So carson is not only a coward, afraid to face tough questions. but also stupid, by eliminating TV coverage, he will reduce the usual conservative base of geezers, coots, and post menopausal biddies who do not use the internet.

Personally, I think all conservatards should be banned from TV, mush less noise pollution, and the fools at fox would have less sucking up to do.

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/ben-carson-campaign-recommends-debate/2015/10/31/id/699975/

How long before Hillary drops out?

Another day, another poll to rattle former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's p**********l campaign.

Public Policy Polling, a Democratic firm, found her on Tuesday trailing Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., by seven points in New Hampshire's first-in-the nation Democratic primary. It was the second poll to get such a result.

Why is this happening? Clinton's c****ation as the Democratic nominee was once taken for granted. Some of it has to do with left-wing Democrats' justifiable sense that she is not one of them but, rather, an entitled millionaire who cuts an odd figure as a populist champion of the middle class.

Most of it is due to her lamentable but characteristic decision six years ago that she was above federal laws and regulations governing t***sparency and secrets. She has done many deeply questionable things over the decades and gotten away with them, but the decision she made as she entered the State Department in 2009 may prove to be her undoing.

Clinton set up a secret, private, unsecured email server in her own house and used it to conduct all State Department business. In the process, she not only thwarted Freedom of Information Act requests for her correspondence, but also exposed top secret classified information and sensitive conversations about America's high-level diplomacy as easy bait for minimally competent hackers.

Clinton has given Americans every reason not to trust her. This is the main reason she already trails comparatively unknown Republicans in states such as Michigan, Pennsylvania, Florida and Ohio.

The newest poll showing Sanders' lead in New Hampshire actually predates the latest chapter in her tale of concealment and deception. Clinton's email problem became known in March. She asserted then that there was no classified information whatsoever on her server.

Months later, it was revealed there was classified information within her email account, including "top secret" information. At that point, she and her supporters tried to characterize her role as that of an unwitting "passive recipient" of such information.

Then this was also exposed as a lie. Recently released emails show that Clinton discussed sensitive enough matters by email that large and small sections of her conversations have been redacted in their publicly released versions and formally marked as classified to protect national secrets. Because of the sensitive topics she discussed, these emails are considered classified from their inception; the chronology of their formal classification is immaterial.


Even sensitive information from America's foreign allies was c*********d by Clinton's recklessness. One email from the Clinton cache released in July pertained to then-British Foreign Secretary David Milliband's 2009 trip to Afghanistan. A five-page message from his aide was forwarded to Clinton's unsecured private email address by her longtime aide Huma Abedin. In its publicly released version, nearly every word of it is redacted and marked as classified until the year 2029.

Why is Clinton struggling? Because she broke the rules and then repeatedly offered false explanations and excuses. Is she electable? It should be easy to give a resounding "no" in answer to that question, but Democratic primary v**ers may not come to that conclusion in time.

Even so, there is also the possibility, as Vice President Joe Biden smells blood in the water and considers a p**********l run, that Clinton herself will prefer a semi-dignified early exit from the race rather than a battle to the end and ignominious defeat.

If state e******n boards are so stupid that they will allow someone to v**e without verifying US citizenship then illegal's deserve to v**e! This is honestly one of the most ridiculous posts I have run across in a while and of course conservatives swallowed it hook line and sinker. Hispanics tend to v**e democrat because conservatives spit on them every chance they get--this is the same with all minorities. Even something like this is denigrating because you are using them to spread a lie and create unnecessary fear of i*****l a***ns and immigrants in general. The clock is ticking on the republican party because conservatives are such h**e filled cretins. Don't blame democrats because you've alienated yourselves from all minorities. You've done this to yourselves. When you sit there and spew h**e at anyone and everyone who isn't conservative don't be surprised when they stop v****g for you!

The Republicans at least have a wide open field. We have much to choose from. Hillary just marches in and the dumbass Democrats bow down. She acts entitled and they don't care. She tells them she's for the little person. They don't realize she means as long as the little person is opening her door, cleaning her house, mowing her lawn and not letting Bill do their daughter. The same people that rail about a CEO making 50 million never mention the Clintons making a 100 million for giving speeches'. Then to top it off she is a liar. It's proven. Look Dem's v**e for Sanders. I don't agree with any of his political views (except the breaking up of the big banks) but he seems like an honest person. Hillary's not the anti-Christ but she'd steal his crown if he turned his back.

This qestion has been tossed out several times on OPP. I think this is a pretty good answer. even without the photos which I can not get to post... You have probley all seen them. Agroup of fools and thugs. But they can set around and smok, use phones and grab a snack...

Maybe this is also what a right wing m*****a dreams of being...

n Waco, Texas, when one of the deadliest, bloodiest, most violent rampages in modern America happened, the National Guard wasn't called in, the perpetrators weren't beaten or pepper-sprayed, nobody was hogtied or humiliated, the dogs weren't brought out to intimidate anyone. Hell, they didn't even handcuff them or take their phones away. Instead, they just sat them down on the sidewalk peacefully.

Time after time, all around the country, protestors—particularly African-American protestors—have been brutalized by police. That's why, in part, it is so disturbing to see men, apparently all white men, who actually murdered and maimed others, treated with so much dignity and deference.

Americans don't really despise violence, even murder. That's why the Sons of Anarchy, a popular (and extremely violent) television show covering motorcycle gangs, exploded in popularity and why this bloodbath in Waco is being called "the real life Sons of Anarchy" all over the world.

Notice, though, how few images of dead bodies in Waco are being shown in the media. Notice the lack of dialogue about bad parenting or absentee fathers. Notice how the men aren't really being called thugs—even though everything about them fits this definition.

It's a race thing and if you don't see it, you're either blind or lying.