Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[smjjames]

Found it, had to look in browser history because they don't have a live blog listing anymore:

http://fivethirtyeight.com/live-blog/march-15-primaries-ohio-florida-results-presidential-election-2016/?#livepress-update-24462591

She may have meant that Trump fits into the 'unsuccessful presidency' profile.

[origamiscienceguy]

what happens to rubio's delegates now?

[Baffler]

It's not exactly a list, but I expect if elected Hillary would be a slightly less charismatic version of Obama, slightly more active on gun control and the culture war but balanced by being less able to reach an agreement (though for what it's worth I think she'd do better than Bernie on that front.) Her subordinates speak very poorly of her, but I don't know what kind of influence (or how much) the president has in the way the bureaucracy under the executive branch runs so while I consider it a mark against her I'm not sure how big it is. Her apparent dislike for the military is worrying, considering one of the main duties of the president is as commander in chief, but again I'm not sure how big a mark against her that actually is. I have similar misgivings about her ability to effectively deal with foreign leaders, or pretty much anyone she can't just bludgeon from a position of extreme strength.

Bernie Neural Network; Trump also.

@HillaryClinton Keep guns out of the hands of people who have no health insurance.

@realDonaldTrump is the only candidate up here who should not be able to buy guns in America.

Solid.

And most of the Trump tweets are basically indistinguishable from the genuine article, with choice quotes like:

The problem is that the greatest social program is a job. You know which is in serious trouble. We're being fair.

I go to Saudi Arabia, and we have @realDonaldTrump steaks. We don't negotiate anything. I'm really proud of my success.

we really do have people that are stupid.

[mainiac]

@mainiac: That's just sad, man. So you can't name one thing that Clinton has said she would do if elected? I thought she had all these comprehensive plans and strategies.

I can name you a huge number of things she will try to accomplish.  Finish the medicaid expansion, minimum wage, equal pay, paid leave, banking reform as the high points off the top of my head.  However I can't tell you what she will accomplish because of Ecclesiastics 9:11 and the fact that republicans will control the house.

I'd consider it a win if most of the medicaid expansion got finished, the minimum wage got indexed, equal pay legislation got through and executive orders made up for the lack of bank reform legislation.  I dont think that's too crazy to expect.  But if the senate races turn out worse then expected or house republicans decide to go with more government shutdowns I wouldn't expect that much.

[Shadowlord]

First, she'll have a patsy invade a friendly country. Second, she'll use the crisis to power her bid to become President. Third, she'll manipulate others into forming a hostile alliance, and use that to justify emergency powers. Fourth, she'll raise a vast army of clones unexpectedly, and after an assassination attempt, accept the Senate's conferral of the title of Empress...

[Bauglir]

Bernie Neural Network

47 million times better than any Republican candidate.

I believe it!

[Vector]

New York Post is a tabloid, unfortunately. I'm certainly open to the idea, but I don't listen to the Daily Mail whether they agree with my POV or not.

The Post has been criticized since the beginning of Murdoch's ownership for sensationalism, blatant advocacy, and conservative bias. In 1980, the Columbia Journalism Review stated "the New York Post is no longer merely a journalistic problem. It is a social problem – a force for evil."

[mainiac]

Her subordinates speak very poorly of her,

Not only is nypost a tabloid, but it's a tabloid with British ownership. So you are taking tabloids which are famous for smears and british journalism which is famous for smears and combining them.

Oh, ninja'd.

[smjjames]

It's not exactly a list, but I expect if elected Hillary would be a slightly less charismatic version of Obama, slightly more active on gun control and the culture war but balanced by being less able to reach an agreement (though for what it's worth I think she'd do better than Bernie on that front.) Her subordinates speak very poorly of her, but I don't know what kind of influence (or how much) the president has in the way the bureaucracy under the executive branch runs so while I consider it a mark against her I'm not sure how big it is. Her apparent dislike for the military is worrying, considering one of the main duties of the president is as commander in chief, but again I'm not sure how big a mark against her that actually is. I have similar misgivings about her ability to effectively deal with foreign leaders, or pretty much anyone she can't just bludgeon from a position of extreme strength.

Yeesh, that sounds like a hell of an iron fist, could put Thatchers Iron Lady nickname to shame.....

Wait, did I somehow have a clue onto something when I tried to compare her to Thatcher?

New York Post is a tabloid, unfortunately. I'm certainly open to the idea, but I don't listen to the Daily Mail whether they agree with my POV or not.

The Post has been criticized since the beginning of Murdoch's ownership for sensationalism, blatant advocacy, and conservative bias. In 1980, the Columbia Journalism Review stated "the New York Post is no longer merely a journalistic problem. It is a social problem – a force for evil."

Oh, it's a tabloid on par with Daily Mail, nvm then.

It did seem really overboard compared with her generally cheerful personality.

[Baffler]

New York Post is a tabloid, unfortunately. I'm certainly open to the idea, but I don't listen to the Daily Mail whether they agree with my POV or not.

The Post has been criticized since the beginning of Murdoch's ownership for sensationalism, blatant advocacy, and conservative bias. In 1980, the Columbia Journalism Review stated "the New York Post is no longer merely a journalistic problem. It is a social problem – a force for evil."

Her subordinates speak very poorly of her,

Not only is nypost a tabloid, but it's a tabloid with British ownership. So you are taking tabloids which are famous for smears and british journalism which is famous for smears and combining them.

Oh, ninja'd.

They're literally just pasting quotes from the guy's book though. Calling the New York Post liars I can understand, but Kessler is the source, not the Post.

[misko27]

[We need a wall around]   Donald "My net worth is many, many, many times Mitt Romney" Trump. I think that what American democracy is about. @DeepDrumpf @realDonaldTrump,

Can I vote for this bot to be memer-in-chief? Is that a thing I can do?

New York Post is a tabloid, unfortunately. I'm certainly open to the idea, but I don't listen to the Daily Mail whether they agree with my POV or not.

The Post has been criticized since the beginning of Murdoch's ownership for sensationalism, blatant advocacy, and conservative bias. In 1980, the Columbia Journalism Review stated "the New York Post is no longer merely a journalistic problem. It is a social problem – a force for evil."

Her subordinates speak very poorly of her,

Not only is nypost a tabloid, but it's a tabloid with British ownership. So you are taking tabloids which are famous for smears and british journalism which is famous for smears and combining them.

Oh, ninja'd.

They're literally just pasting quotes from the guy's book though. Calling the New York Post a liar I can understand, but Kessler is the source, not the Post.

The New York Post is famous for double entendre headlines. They always harassed my school and published all sorts of nonsense about it, and it became a thing to not talk to any Post people lurking outside out school after it let out for fear of letting them take your words out of context.

[RedKing]

So, let me this straight....Bernie would be ineffective because he couldn't get anything through Congress, and that's his own fault.

Clinton won't be able to get anything through Congress because the Republicans control it (and very likely still will after November) and that's the Republicans' fault?

Seems legit.

So in the end, neither will be very effective, but dammit we have to vote for Clinton because pragmatism is better than idealism, regardless of similar outcomes (which sounds more like anti-pragmatism).

@Shadowlord: BUT WHO WAS JAR-JAR?

[Baffler]

-quotesnip-
The New York Post is famous for double entendre headlines. They always harassed my school and published all sorts of nonsense about it, and it became a thing to not talk to any Post people lurking outside out school after it let out for fear of letting them take your words out of context.

Okay, they take things out of context. Tell me then, what is the true meaning behind these passages?

“Hillary was very rude to agents, and she didn’t appear to like law enforcement or the military,” former Secret Service agent Lloyd Bulman recalls. “She wouldn’t go over and meet military people or police officers, as most protectees do. She was just really rude to almost everybody. She’d act like she didn’t want you around, like you were beneath her.”

Within the White House, Hillary had a “standing rule that no one spoke to her when she was going from one location to another,” says former FBI agent Coy Copeland. “In fact, anyone who would see her coming would just step into the first available office.”

While running for US Senate, Hillary stopped at an upstate New York 4-H Club. As one Secret Service agent says, Hillary saw farmers and cows and then erupted. “She turned to a staffer and said, ‘What the f - - - did we come here for? There’s no money here.’ ”

[mainiac]

So, let me this straight....Bernie would be ineffective because he couldn't get anything through Congress, and that's his own fault.

No, Bernie will waste time with socialized healthcare legislation which anyone with access to wikipedia could do a whip count on and see it will never get passed.  After that he will move on to incremental legislation where he may or may not be completely obstructed.

Hillary Clinton will start with the incremental legislation where she may or may not be completely obstructed.

but dammit we have to vote for Clinton because pragmatism is better than idealism, regardless of similar outcomes (which sounds more like anti-pragmatism).

I wasn't giving a comprehensive explanation of the Clinton platform.  I was responding to the assertion that Clinton would be "glacial" which seemed to imply that it was her fault that republicans won the 2012 state elections and gerrymandered the fuck out of congress.

Tell me then, what is the true meaning behind these passages?

An ex secret service agent badmouthed Hillary Clinton for personal enjoyment and personal profit.

[RedKing]

So, let me this straight....Bernie would be ineffective because he couldn't get anything through Congress, and that's his own fault.

No, Bernie will waste time with socialized healthcare legislation which anyone with access to wikipedia could do a whip count on and see it will never get passed.  After that he will move on to incremental legislation where he may or may not be completely obstructed.

Hillary Clinton will start with the incremental legislation where she may or may not be completely obstructed.

Again, I'm not seeing much difference in the end result.

Let's tackle this differently, since we seem to agree than a Republican-controlled Congress will continue to obstruct a Democratic President, regardless of who it is.

Let's imagine for a glorious, rainbow-colored minute that a Trump ticket causes tremendous downticket pressure and erodes GOP control of the House and flips the Senate. Further Republican disarray and infighting and fragmentation causes the House to flip in 2018.

Now....with a Democratic Congress at their disposal, compare/contrast these two parallel universe Presidencies. What does Earth-1's President Clinton achieve that Earth-2's President Sanders fails to? Because if the outcome is still functionally the same, I'm not seeing any compelling argument to vote for Clinton over Sanders.