The court isn't really liberal leaning. Before Scalia died it was a 4-4 spread for the most part. The outlier is Justice Kennedy, who has a libertarian view on things and tends to be the swing vote on 5-4 rulings and has made both what would be considered liberal and conservative decisions.
Ok, fair enough. However hasn't the court ruled in what could be considered a liberal way over the past several years? Maybe my perception is wrong but I had the impression that at least most (not necessarily all of course) of the landmark cases the supreme court has had over the years had a liberal connotation to them.
When it comes to marriage equality and things like reproductive rights, perhaps. But like I said, Kennedy is clearly a libertarian, so championing privacy above anything else isn't necessarily a liberal viewpoint. For politicians it might be different, but a Justice is only supposed to interpret the constitution in regards to court cases, not to make a value judgment, impose morality on issues, or tow a party line.
Doesn't answer anything, and do you use that program or do you know anyone who has? I know there are such programs out there, but that doesn't mean it makes life much easier.
I hope so, because conservatives are truly hurting the country's development.
I don't see how there are engineers without jobs though Im at a university where these engineering firms constantly hold on campus job fairs weekly. The business program does as well. Science positions are always available at every biomedical and science consulting, technical support, and both research and development. Again unless they are doing something irrelevant in science (population ecology of earthworms in an urban environment) then they ought to have jobs.
--- Double Post Merged, , Original Post Date: ---
At this point in the stage, for the primaries, delegates are usually given out on the proportion of the vote received (spare South carolina which the winner gets the majority off the 50 + and a few from the congressional 7 congressional disctricts), and you typically get the nomination if you cross the threshhold needed.
I dont think that makes sense, the voter turnout in Nevada was just lower than it was in 2008 by 1/3rd, turnout can only be affected by excitement in the candidates especially considering the high turnout in other states. Perhaps Nevada voters just arent that compelled by Sanders?
--- Double Post Merged, , Original Post Date: ---
To be honest I wouldn't even trust trump on that. Trump is a demagogue, he would say anything that he thinks will get him media attention and support from the people he somehow appeals too.
I think you're forgetting about Kasich who had similar results to Bush. The difference is he isn't funneling the same amount of money into his campaign.
I honestly have no clue of who that is. Perhaps because of the not funneling money part... Well, to be fair I do remember some republicans from the first debate who seemed to be well within the realm of reasonable (as in pointing out climate change is a thing and the iran deal being worth a shot although it's depressing that the bar for reasonable is set so low) however none of them ever got or has any traction.
You would vote for a candidate based on climate change? Why? I do not think we ought to impose even more regulation of companies. Its contrary to growth