Derek 2.0

NASA is projecting there will be a solar flare powerful enough to knock out the World's power grid within a decade? Do you have a source?

That doesn't mater, it is a democratically elected body and those are the laws.........what percent of GOP members are "wacko tea party types"?

Young people can't be "extremists"?

New Poll: It goes back to the numbers game and the "vote splitting" among the moderates/mainstream: Trump: 30% Cruz: 12% Carson: 4% versus the combined "moderate/mainstream" field: Bush: 13% Rubio: 13% Kasich: 14% Christie: 6% Fiorina : 5% For a combined total of: 51% or ~enough to secure the Republican nomination, and of course, if one of the above was able to get Carson's supporters for a cushion, as the anti Trump/Cruz choice. I predict, after New Hampshire (if not South Carolina), Fiorina, Christie and Carson will fold.....unless a second place finish, I'd also expect Kasich to be not far behind. Further to that, and this poll was conducted before last night's debate, if Christie's attack on Rubio resulted in lasting damage to him, combined with Bush's above noted surge and his strong performance last night, we could see Bush ( by Nevada or Texas) become the GOP front runner........a come from behind not seen since his father lost to this guy........who started off as the front runner, stumbled early to George H Bush, then went onto win the nomination......

And the entire World is "vulnerable" to an asteroid or super virus.........yet, nobody is calling to invest trillions into combating said "threats"...

The Democrats very much so have their own extreme progressive element........more so than the Republicans made evident by the support of Sanders.

Its a moot point , the ability to make treaties (or end them) rest with the consent of the US Senate.......Obama's policy towards Cuba seeks to circumvent the US Senate.

Its moot, same with rail guns, sans funding...........No bucks, no Buck Rogers.

Saying and doing isn't the issue, its funding.......the SM-3 and the under development SM-3 block IIA are real capabilities........sea based lasers for ballistic missile defense aren't feasible until the USN builds new cruisers/destroyers with the ability to generate a far greater electrical output. That won't happen with current and near term building plans....... You want sea based lasers, they will need a nuclear powered 20k-30k ton cruiser.........and that is not happening absent a large funding increase, and moving away from Flight III Burke production.

That's fine, but the USN currently has the capability to do exactly that......its not theoretical. The question is funding to deploy it fleet wide, and keep said resources at sea (see USS Port Royal)......and for the Japanese and South Koreans to (and Europeans, and Canada) buy into the burden.

There is no perhaps, that USN has the capability, and a continual presence in the Sea of Japan to do exactly that......the question is why they didn't ....I would suspect this to be politics aimed at the Japanese and South Koreans, intended to see them redouble their efforts in sea-based anti ballistic defense.

And I'm more concerned with this administration's ROEs placed on the 7th fleet (and the Japanese), and why they didn't splash it.........must be an election year and the USN is looking to secure additional long-term funding for shipbuilding.

Until then, we can welcome North Korea (then Iran) to the 1950s.........entering a league that took a national effort from far larger economies.... Funny enough, the Clinton administrations chief negotiator over their North Korean no nuke/ICBM deal in the 90s, Wendy Sherman, was tapped by the Obama administration (Under Clinton's State Department) to negotiate the US-Iran deal...........

I think a little of column A and column B, but more so column C: I think Trump actually likes Ben Carson, well knowing full well that Carson and Cruz occupy the same space in the field. I think this is why Trump has been really vocal about the Cruz sandbagging of Carson during the Iowa primary, in addition, by having Carson in the race, natural supporters that would go to Cruz remain divided.....which helps Trump. With my tinfoil hat on, I wouldn't be surprised to learn that Trump was actually giving some money to Carson to keep him in the race to screw over Cruz.

I think the debates winners were Kasich and Bush.....Christie, Carson and Rubio weren't bad, but Rubio got sandbagged early over his age and experience, it could hurt him.....Trump got booed countless times (being a prick to Bush) and made a fool over some of his polices, but still got some good shots in.........Cruz was dressed down and embarrassed over his dirty tricks against Carson and some of his other promises........After tonight, I wouldn't be the slightest bit surprised to see Kasich and Bush finish higher in the primary, at the expense of Carson, Cruz and maybe Trump and Rubio.

Could not that be said of Democrats too?

"Young" leaders don't make mistakes?

Do these other human rights abusers clear their jails and asylums and send the residents to US shores?

Perception and reality are two different things........Christie doesn't have a snowballs chance in hell in winning the nomination.

So? Some of the richest men in the United States (Soros, Koch, Buffett and Murdoch), men that will influence heavily on the election, well still being very much active in their own companies, are in their 80s.

How is it hypocritical for the United States being opposed to a regime ~90 miles offshore from their country?

I'm biased towards Fury Road too......of the others, I've only seen The Revenant and The Big Short.....The Revenant would be a close 2nd, the Big Short was entertaining, but I felt I'd already seen it before (Evil Wall Street etc etc), but I wouldn't be surprised if Bale picked up Best Supporting Actor, if they don't give it to Stallone......Wouldn't surprise me if DiCaprio gets best actor. I do hope George Miller wins best picture/director for Fury Road though.......visual effects and cinematography should be givens for Fury Road, as its amazing in parts (and uses little CGI), like up there with Lawrence of Arabia in parts.

-Or- as stated in the article, the legacy Hornet lifespan was reduced by extended usage over the last 15 years, further compounded by Clinton era defense cuts, that cut the number of carrier strike fighter squadrons by 1/5th, increasing usage of existing aircraft. Likewise, both reducing the number of carriers down to 12 (from 15), eliminating the designated training carrier without replacement and not funding the required life extensions of the then remaining Kitty Hawk class in the 1990s....all of which resulted in a shortage of carriers in the fleet, which in turn pushed back the initial carrier trials of the F-35C back several years, due to operational usage over the last 15 years of the carrier fleet.

From your link: I notice you forgot to mention additional F-35s......... And more to the point: As I said, any additional aircraft will go to the fleet replacement squadrons......releasing legacy Hornets in said units, like the Blue Angels aircraft, to frontline units. None the less, the USN won't operate the Super Hornet out to anywhere the same timeline as our Hornet replacements.....if we get them that is.

Oh I know, but then Reagan was able to respond to his critics quite well......despite his age.