User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
Page rendered in 0.6998 seconds
47 querie(s) executed
| ||||||||
Baseball Primer Newsblog — The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand Saturday, May 03, 2014[OTP - May 2014] House stadium funding package advances with Cuban baseball player provision
|
Login to submit news.
BookmarksYou must be logged in to view your Bookmarks. Hot TopicsNewsblog: OTP 2018 Apr 16: Beto strikes out but is a hit at baseball fundraiser
(612 - 9:38am, Apr 19) Last: manchestermets Newsblog: At long last, have you no sense of OMNICHATTER for March 19, 2017 (11 - 9:38am, Apr 19) Last: Crispix Attacksel Rios Newsblog: Braves sign Jose Bautista to a minor-league contract, will play third base (19 - 9:37am, Apr 19) Last: bigglou115 is not an Illuminati agent Newsblog: Deadspin: The Mets Previewed A Dark, Mets-y Future Last Night (14 - 9:26am, Apr 19) Last: The usual palaver and twaddle (Met Fan Charlie) Gonfalon Cubs: Home Sweet Home (56 - 9:23am, Apr 19) Last: Andere Richtingen Newsblog: Update: Cubs' Anthony Rizzo calls his shorter-season, pay-cut comments 'my opinion' (90 - 8:22am, Apr 19) Last: Hysterical & Useless Newsblog: OT - 2017-18 NBA thread (All-Star Weekend to End of Time edition) (2138 - 8:07am, Apr 19) Last: JC in DC Newsblog: Primer Dugout (and link of the day) 4-17-2018 (36 - 7:46am, Apr 19) Last: Hysterical & Useless Newsblog: OT: Winter Soccer Thread (1487 - 7:30am, Apr 19) Last: manchestermets Newsblog: A cautionary note about spring statistics, and other thoughts - Chicago Tribune (30 - 2:01am, Apr 19) Last: DFA Newsblog: Leave the gun, take the OMNICHATTER for April 16, 2018 (75 - 1:23am, Apr 19) Last: the Hugh Jorgan returns Newsblog: With Kiermaier sidelined into July, time for Rays to make some big moves (6 - 12:54am, Apr 19) Last: Walt Davis Newsblog: Ready Player One (18 - 9:34pm, Apr 18) Last: Walt Davis Hall of Merit: Latin American Players and Pitchers Home Page (68 - 8:01pm, Apr 18) Last: Dr. Chaleeko Newsblog: Diamondbacks' Taijuan Walker diagnosed with "UCL injury" (2 - 7:17pm, Apr 18) Last: shoewizard |
|||||||
About Baseball Think Factory | Write for Us | Copyright © 1996-2014 Baseball Think Factory
User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
|
| Page rendered in 0.6998 seconds |
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
That he did, and to that you can add the 1954 CIA-backed Guatemalan coup and the Bay of Pigs fiasco, which Eisenhower initiated and Kennedy didn't have the guts to abort.
But what you also have to realize was that the press of the time was overwhelmingly hawkish, particularly when it came to Latin America. About a month before the Cuban missile crisis came to a head, TIME invoked the Monroe Doctrine and called for a "swift, surgical invasion" of Cuba, which I guess they depicted something like this, but in reality may well have begun a third world war. If there was a single major editorial voice that framed the world in anything but the most orthodox cold war terms, it's hard to recall what it would have been.
Even by that standard, today"s poll shows a strong tilt toward the GOP:
Seems like all the metrics are lining up in one direction these days.
I was on vacation for 10 days and didn't look at BBTF once, so it can be done.
I am just going to pretend that Krugman posted this here:
CITE?
Good times :)
On the whole, though I'd prefer there be no prayer at all at government meetings, there's a long and continuous tradition of it, notably in Congress itself. It's often of a very ecumenical variety. But even the most ecumenical of prayers leave people out and offend atheist or agnostic consciences, and even the most ecumenical prayers are uttered by representatives of a given faith. Deciding whether a prayer is sectarian or ecumenical is hairsplitting and in itself a religious opinion. So from my non-lawyerly position I'd reckon this one was decided correctly, though there are doubtless about a million constitutional factors I don't know about.
As for OWS - what would the be the point of concrete suggestions to reduce the influence of wall street and wealth in the US Government? The only Democrats this message appeals to are the Librul Bogey men in Conservatives' Heads. Or maybe Barbra Lee.
If they shouted "more socialism now" would that satisfy you as a concrete suggestion? And IIRC (I never really followed the story)... OWS and the all WTO protests are pretty much the same people. Does the concrete step of "End US Participation in the WTO" carry any weight with you?
Is it really such a leap from the observation of Wealth Inequality to the concrete step of "Redistribute Wealth"? I think we can all agree that "Trickle Down" hasn't quite made the cut in the last 30 years (and I note that this theory -- Supply Side Economics -- was originally expounded right around when WI started skyrocketing)
What a surprise that the Off Topic Politics thread actually has a link to one of the leading political news stories of the day. Perhaps the fingers-in-their-ears crowd are in denial. Of course, as I've said many times, they are free to link to all the polls that are favorable to the Dems, or anything else, for that matter. But whining about what I post? Really, that's the best you can do?
Wow. Talk about lack of self-awareness. if that were in the Olympics, YC, I'd bet my 401K on you to win gold.
YC, have you read Piketty's book? I'd also bet my 401K you haven't.
The problem with this decision is that it apparently dropped the requirement that the governing body had to make any kind of effort to diversify the sectarianism. It looks like it was always Jesus Jesus Jesus and the rest of you can just deal with it. I've personally never minded prayers at public functions, since I never pay any attention to them, but I can see in this case why non-Jesus types might be a bit steamed.
My solution to all this BS: A constitutional amendment that required all public gatherings to open with a minute of SILENT meditation, so Christians and Jews and Muslims and Rastas could pray to themselves to their little hearts' content while the rest of us checked the upcoming pitching matchups in peace.
there seems to have been a concerted effort the past week in the media to paint an extremely rosy (for the GOP) 2014 election narrative
here's
an example.
Such articles concentrate on one or two relatively favorable for the GOP polls, ignore recent Dem favorable polls and seem geared to create a misleading impression of either what happened in 2010 or what is happening or not happening) now.
1: Obama's favor-ability polling isn't getting any worse (or better) (And is far far far better than where Dubya's was at the same point in his presidency)
2: Generic Congressional polling has been between GOP +1 to Dems +2 for 5+ months- and that hasn't changed.
3: Senate polling continues to be between the GOP gains 4, 5 or 6 seats (they need 6 to flip the senate, currently RCP has them picking up 4)
4: GOP favorability continues to lag FAR behind both the Dem's and where it was for the GOP at this point in 2010.
5: Back to generic congressional ballot, the GOP lead by pretty healthy margins for all of 2010- except for May and June when the Dems pulled roughly even - the Dems have lead most of 2014- except the GOP has essentially pulled even now.
A couple weeks/a month ago, I thought I saw signs that the polls were breaking Dem, well I was wrong, the polls don't seem to be going anywhere- but the desire to read a story or narrative into random polls results seems to be gaining speed so I guess we are in the media's campaign season
It's kind of hard to argue that the 1st amendment was meant to ban a practice that was engaged in by the actual drafters themselves, both before and after it was drafted and enacted.
Any way, one thing I noticed (actually I've noticed before but just not commented on) is the the current SCOTUS has 6 Catholics and three Jews.
In case anyone wonders, of the grand total of 112 Justices, 91 have been Protestant, including 33 Episcopalians but just 1 Lutheran.
Which is true, but a bit misleading, since the liberal justice with the biggest "liberal" gap (Stevens) had a gap that was slightly less than the conservative justice (O'Connor) with the smallest "conservative" gap. And while the four liberal justices favored "liberal" free speech over "conservative" free speech by relatively narrow margins, Scalia's conservative bias of over 3 to 1 was reflected in the opinions of Roberts, Alito and Thomas, in Alito's case roughly 4 to 1.
The article puts it this way:
To which I'd once again say: Thanks for nothing, Ralph.
Fine by me. But if you're an atheist, the Muslims aren't your friend.
One would think, but it hasn't stopped gun-grabbers from trying to nullify the Second.
Show up and sing "Rock Me Amadeus" as loud as you can during the prayer time. If they complain, tell them Falco is your lord and savior.
Paranoia strikes deep.
Right, the decades-long gun bans in D.C. and Chicago were just an urban legend.
Politics makes strange bedfellows.
Sam convinces me to pray. And pray hard.
You're for local rights until you're against them, I suppose. You're a paranoid loon.
A risky maneuver since it may lessen enthusiasm for Hagan among Obama fans who brook no criticism of the President, and it also highlights that Hagan is so vulnerable that she chose to adopt this unusual tactic. If this is her best option, that says a lot.
Yes, though of course they weren't monolithic on that as they weren't on anything else. James Madison and George Mason are often invoked as opponents of such prayer. (I know Mason didn't sign the Constitution, but he was a Convention delegate and a very influential thinker among them).
Honestly, on prayer as on guns I tend not to give a #### what people did in 1787. I'm more impressed by the fact that prayer at state meetings is a continuous and living tradition. To ban or restrict it is a radical step. I see Andy's point that today's decision sanctions imbalance. But such imbalance is pervasive and deeply-rooted. Those governing bodies that value diversity (like Congress itself in recent years) will continue to value it. And if your local zoning board has some hardshell chaplain who offends you, stand up and ask that the nice Franciscan or the thoughtful rabbi give the next invocation. Local government in particular is a lot more pliable than people think.
What the hell are you talking about?
YC trolling about Sen. Hagan trolling! Very elegant.
Note that this projection doesn't include GOP wins in what are widely regarded as Toss-Up races in North Carolina and Colorado.
Drink!
Requirement? Don't think that is an accurate statement of prior decisions. In any event, the Court Majority did indicate that the result could be different if it could be shown that the pattern of prayers denigrated, proselytized or betrayed an impermissible governmental purpose. All this decision did is apply the same standard for prayer at local legislative bodies that had previously been applied to Congress and state legislatures.
How desperate are some Republicans? This desperate: Scott Brown's latest step stirs the pot
LOL.
Requirement? Don't think that is an accurate statement of prior decisions. In any event, the Court Majority did indicate that the result could be different if it could be shown that the pattern of prayers denigrated, proselytized or betrayed an impermissible governmental purpose. All this decision did is apply the same standard for prayer at local legislative bodies that had previously been applied to Congress and state legislatures.
The town of Greece apparently made no effort to recruit non-Christians to lead the opening prayers for eight years when they were offered exclusively by Christians. Since then, even though according to Justice Kennedy, the town had "tried" to recruit "members of various faiths" to lead the prayers, they still had only two. The lack of results may call the town's effort into question, but again, though I'd much prefer a silent prayer, it's so far down on my list of concerns about organized religion that IMO it's an issue that's barely worth fighting about. I'm much more concerned when the Biblical thumpers try to force their dogma into the nation's textbooks.
50.49% isn't a toss-up?
Why would you link to a single poll instead of a polling average?
GCB is at R+0.6, and was D+0.8 as recently as a couple of days ago. Why create a bogus meta-narrative where none exists? I don't get your motivation. Is it to "tweak the liberals" on the board? All it does is coarsen the discourse and make the board less interesting.
50.49% isn't a toss-up?
Well, my point was that there are a couple more close Senate races that are possible GOP pick-ups. It is also true that one of the Senate races that the Washington Post currently forecasts as a GOP victory is by a very narrow margin. Different point than mine, though.
Someone else alluded to the polling average, and by the time I could follow-up, a more recent poll showed something a little different. Time will tell whether that newer poll is detecting an actual shift (or is more or less accurate) from the earlier polls. However, the pollsters & political writers did most of the touting of the poll's significance. But if anyone wants to pretend it is unimportant, go right ahead.
All it does is coarsen the discourse and make the board less interesting.
Really? Seems to me the epithets & insults crowd are the ones coarsening the dialogue. Perhaps you'll get around to critiquing them some day. Surprising how many people are irritated by substantive posts just because they don't fit their preferred outcome.
So I guess in this case the guy in the ambulance is chasing the lawyer, instead of the other way around.
Well, that's what five justices say, and contrary to what some of the lawyers here have said in numerous threads in the past, the law and the constitution is whatever five justices of the Supreme Court say it is on any given day, so I can't really argue the point. And as I said, in this case I don't really care one way or the other, since it shouldn't be all that hard to tune out a brief invocation.
Fair enough. Everyone in America is allowed to own a Brown Bess musket, and a flintlock pistol.
I do.
Oh please. The same time the USA Today poll was in the field, there were three other polls that showed D+5, D+1 and R+1. Which one did you post? The one that showed R+4. There's only one reason why you posted the poll you did.
Here's a link to one (of many) poll of polls: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/generic_congressional_vote-2170.html
Spare us all the breathless updates. Creating narrative from randomness is the lowest form of political journalism.
Putting aside that this retort is too clever by half — does anyone believe, e.g., the First Amendment doesn't apply to glossy magazines or the internet? — being allowed to carry a pistol would be a big improvement for people in states like New York and New Jersey, where obtaining a carry permit is about as likely as winning the lottery.
Clinton +9.4 over Paul
Clinton +9.0 over Christie
Clinton +10.8 over Bush
Clinton +12.4 over Huckabee
Clinton +9.3 over Ryan
Clinton +14.0 over Cruz
Clinton +14.4 over Rubio
Shades of the Seven Dwarfs. And mercifully they didn't ask about Santorum or Gingrich or You Betcha.
Obviously it's way to early to say that much about 2016, but the point remains that you can't beat a somebody with a nobody, and right now a big bunch of nobodies is pretty much what the Republicans have.
I'll reiterate what YC said, I don't see the point in him posting any averages at all. Why should he? Is it some kind of mystery to somebody what and why he's posting? And even if it was, so what? Bizarre complaint.
There's no constitutional requirement to allow the unrestricted sell of assault rifles* either. There's just a particularly rich and powerful lobby connected to that position and a highly politicized majority on the bench who prefers those guys donations to the donations of "liberals."
*wherever you may define that term to draw the line; doesn't really matter one way or the other
I'm not following the Yammering Clapper and his incessant poll sniping too closely. Has he moved on from 2014 midterms (where there's a fundamental advantage for the GOP to pick up some seats in both houses) to the 2016 general (where there's no similarly forecastable advantage at all?)
LOL. At least half those "nobodies" have a longer list of accomplishments than Hillary Clinton, whose main "achievement" over the past 20-plus years was "standing by her man," Slick Willie.
It's hilarious how people who bash the Bush family dynasty give Hillary such a free pass. Nobody in modern American politics has ridden someone's coattails like Hillary has ridden Bill's. The State Department's p.r. flack couldn't even name a single Hillary accomplishment at State, but to hear the lefties talk, we shouldn't even bother with an election in 2016 because Hillary is so super-qualified.
Being the wife in a co-equal power relationship with Bill Clinton equals a "free pass" on the hubby's coattails. Being born George HW Bush's son equals "accomplishment." Interesting.
Still LOL. Hillary Clinton was First Lady of Arkansas and the First Lady of the U.S., not the co-governor and co-president. Given that Bill treated her like a doormat for decades, Hillary plainly didn't even share "co-equal power" within her marriage.
Being power-hungry and sharing "co-equal power" are two very different things.
I never said being George HW Bush's son was an "accomplishment." For someone who so often accuses others of being bad at "reading for comprehension," you're not very good at it yourself.
To give equal measure, I do wonder how ###### we'll be without Clinton running. Although a bit more harrowing, it is rather more interesting.
Still LOL. Hillary Clinton was First Lady of Arkansas and the First Lady of the U.S., not the co-governor and co-president.
Oh fer pete's sake. She was certainly a wilting flower all those years and since, wasn't she. I know being IN government is a horrible sin for conservatives, but I'll take those qualifications in a heartbeat.
Yes, more qualified than Obama.
No, she's a centrist and plenty horrifying to the more liberal left, but to the practical progressives, she'll be the battle I choose. I'm not principled enough to follow the Green Party candidate into the ditch, my apologies.
Without Hillary, Bill doesn't win those offices. You don't understand power couples very well. They don't operate on silly notions of Protestant gender roles quite like you seem to think is appropriate.
Dubya Bush, on the other hand, was a terrible businessman who failed up at every endeavor, until his father's name got him elected to a governorship and the presidency.
You're killing me, Sammy. You're killing me.
Hillary has the charisma of a doormat, and when it came to politics, Bill apparently trusted Dick Morris — Dick Morris! — more than he trusted her. Hillary might have saved Bill a time or two by
patheticallydutifully "standing by her man," but Gennifer Flowers or one of his countless other floozies could have done that.Somebody should tell Sammy about Bush's time with the Texas Rangers Baseball Club.
And yet, when it came time for the presidential election, George HW Bush's son won twice, while the "wife in a co-equal power relationship with Bill Clinton" (what in the hell is that, anyway?) never made it there, having gotten beaten out by an unknown and unaccomplished 47 year old black man in Racist USA.
Not real perceptive, Sam. Bill was the talented politician. Hillary may have had other talents (I presume she was a decent enough lawyer) but she can't measure up to him in politics. And this comes out in her debating, which is decidedly cringeworthy.
Even that deserves an asterisk. Bill Clinton was pretty good at getting himself elected, but at the national level he was a bit of a disaster for his party, costing Democrats their 40-year lock on the House of Representatives in 1994, as well as control of the Senate. Neither chamber was reclaimed during the remainder of Clinton's presidency. And how did Bill campaigning for Hillary work out in 2008?
Hillary will be in serious trouble if the Republicans nominate Barack Obama.
Perhaps he can buy BBTF - a sports-related entertainment venture.
And we also delve into politics and economics, so YES , WE'RE JUST LIKE FiveThirtyEight !
case in point, before anyone knew that todd akin didn't think a woman could become pregnant if she wasn't aroused by a man raping her, he was a 6 term congressman. as one of 435 republican candidates for the house, noone really paid any attention to him, but as the senate candidate in a competitive race, that stuff tends to draw a lot more attention.
and it may have even sunk another senate race since richard mourdock decided to borrow akin's gascan and talk about how rape is a gift from god if it results in a pregnancy.
Really? You don't know what a power couple is? And in 2008 Obama was hardly unknown.
Bill Clinton is a very talented politician. Too centrist for my taste, but still very good politically. Blaming Bill for the end result of the Southern realignment that began in the 60s is ridiculous. And Barack Obama is one of the better campaigners in recent memory. Losing a hard fought battle against him, especially with the Iraq vote against her, is hardly a disqualifier.
Have to agree with Clapper here. Clinton was partly responsible for losing the House in '94 and that single event has had terrible repercussions that we are still trying to extricate ourselves from to this day.
Boy, I remember those arguments from 2007-2008... Obviously, I was on the side of the Dems losing the House and the Senate under Clinton - but you're right, there were factors beyond Bill's control.
That said, Bill's instincts for his own political survival did, I think, hurt the Dems overall. Like most southern Democrats - he was at best, a lukewarm union guy. Union political power was likewise falling - but NAFTA was a mortal wound that only hastened it. Likewise, there was very little in Clinton's bag for the liberal wing of the party -- indeed, 3rd/New Democrat/Sister Souljah moments -- Clinton quite calculatingly took plenty of shots at the party's left flank to burnish his own centrist credentials to cling to an increasingly smaller share of older, whiter voters that were winnable.
Plenty of liberals have voiced plenty of disappointment with Obama, too, of course -- but I think the scraps to the left from the current administration trump those from the Clinton presidency. From a tone and tenor perspective, like plenty of liberals, I wish Obama would more forcefully make the case for progressive governance -- marshaling examples from Lincoln (Railway/infrastructure, the '62 Homestead Act, etc), Teddy Roosevelt (trust-buasting, square deals), and FDR (an obvious and long list) -- but at minimum, he doesn't go out of his way to buy into the Reagan-esque myth of government being the problem.
I'll have no problem voting for Hillary... I think she's plenty competent and while she's too close to the left/right divide for my tastes, at least she's on the left side of it... but I certainly hope her 2016 campaign doesn't end up being tied to some longing for the 90s.
Mortality Drop Seen to Follow ’06 Health Law
Wide Impact of Climate Change Already Seen In US, Study Says
LOL. At least half those "nobodies" have a longer list of accomplishments than Hillary Clinton, whose main "achievement" over the past 20-plus years was "standing by her man," Slick Willie.
Unfortunately for you, Joe, those "accomplishments" aren't likely to include the presidency, which is kinda sorta the point. But maybe Cruz or Rubio can sign up a Cuban ballplayer or two and give you some pointers on how to do it.
Ladies and Gentlemen, the next President of the United States!
Mild disagreement. I don't think his policies did much regarding unions per se and I think globalism is largely inevitable (with both good and bad). What I blame Clinton for is the finance laws and other antitrust stuff that was weakened. There was a whole pile of regulation that was stripped away and I think large amounts of that helped lead to the meltdown we have seen in the last decade.
The overall "sell out" to corporate interests has really hurt America. Not that corporations are evil, but they need a counterbalance and with both parties kissing their @$$ that counterbalance is missing.
Since it's unsatisfactory just to say that, I'll add...
Judging Clinton vis a vis the party depends upon a calculation of how toxic the Democratic brand was in the 1990s. Clinton's view basically was that everyone hated Democrats (far different than his articulation by 2008) and so his only chance to survive was to run against Democrats all the time. If he was accurate, then running against Democrats didn't speed the dissolution of the party and prevented a Republican president.
But if Clinton was wrong, if Democrats were viewed as a normal political party--vaguely unpopular but not poisonous--then his decisions to run (gleefully) against the party's brand play a bigger, even if still marginal, role in explaining the evaporation of congressional Democrats (who could not run around the party's values when their leader said they had no values worth respecting.) And his anti-political message (both parties stink) played a marginal role in encouraging left-affiliated people to look to Nader in 2000. Why should they believe the Democratic Party meant anything? Clinton didn't seem to believe that.
I waffle back and forth on my own judgment, and I don't think anyone can say for sure. And I do think that Clinton has worked to build up a Democratic Party brand since 2004, with great success. I wish he had done so in the 1990s.
Democrats hoped Clinton would be a Reagan. Instead he turned out to be an Eisenhower. But maybe that was all that it was possible to be in that climate.
On unions, I go back and forth on how central Clinton was in this. The Democrats had been purging unions from power in every primary since 1972 (when McGovern ran explicitly as an anti-union candidate and Clinton and Hart were volunteers) through 76 and 80 (when Carter's promise was to purge union party) and 88. The exception was 84 when Mondale beat back Hart. And in 92 Clinton was the explicitly anti-union candidate. My question is not where he stood but rather whether the whole party establishment had become so anti-union that there was no gap between Clinton and anyone else (except Gephardt who sat it out.) Was there any credible Democrat who would have opposed NAFTA? And was labor and industrial policy doomed even before NAFTA? Those are close calls, to my mind. I dislike Clinton's position but don't want to overrate its influence. Now, Carter, that's a different story. That is someone who truly fired missiles into U.S. industrial policy, and had the most effective anti-union agenda in 20th century history. Next to him, Coolidge was a piker.
It seems like both parties share blame equally, as both were enthusiastic cheerleaders of all those ideas, which makes sense given they were bought and paid for by the same interests.
I think he was wrong on the long term trend, but it worked for him. In retrospect I think Team Blue was hit by the realignment of Southern states. Large chunks of the electorate were realigning (Southern conservative Democrats and moderate northeastern Republicans used to exist, in large numbers), and trying to cobble together a win from that landscape is tricky. Things are much more stable(partisan wise) now than then.
Whether or not you want to swallow the Harry and Louise BS that the Clinton Health Care proposal was "left wing", there's no question that Hillary's heavy handed and tone deaf promotion of it was perhaps the major factor in the 1994 Democratic debacle. If anyone's "forgotten" that, it's more likely they just weren't around at the time to have noticed it in the first place.
Wait, wait, wait...
Hillary Clinton's resume is being sold quite a bit short if anyone thinks Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, or Rand Paul come anywhere close... She's been Secretary of State, Senator from New York, on the board of directors of the largest company in the world (something she certainly doesn't brag about to Democrats), first or only (I forget) female faculty member at Arkansas school of law, honors student and first student commencement speaker at Wellesly, Yale Law, and worked at pretty prestigious, albeit somewhat radical California law firm.
In fact, you could add Rubio + Cruz + Paul and maybe you've got an equal resume... Cruz's educational chops match Clinton's... I suppose Rubio+Cruz+Paul would equate her government experience... and I guess Rand Paul is a self-certified ophthalmologist... Oh, and I suppose both Cruz and Paul have rather (in)famous crank dads like Hillary has a rather (in)famous lecherous husband...
I think being the spouse of a governor and two term president also counts for something, if only knowing your way around politics. And "resume" is dramatically overrated for presidents. Once you pass a minimum threshold of knowledge and experience (a bar HRC vaults over), character, organization ability, leadership and so on play a much larger role in one's success than resume.
EDIT: And what Morty said in 286 is true as well. Allies matter.
Yeah, but typically I go by the technical term: "rich people."
Hillary was not "co-equal" to Bill -- he was the one winning the elections -- and this isn't a qualification for president anyway, certainly not when compared to George Bush the younger, who actually won two presidential elections (plus one for governor, as opposed to Hillary taking over for a long time Democrat in the Senate from an ultra-liberal state and then getting appointed to the do-nothing job of Secretary of State).
I don't think she has a "cadre of ideologues" around her. I wish she did! I think she has a cadre, perhaps, but of loyalists, some of whom are utterly mainstream Democrats, some of whom are moderates who see themselves as to the center of the party, and most of whom seem to be the classic Clinton social-liberal, economic-conservative types.
That is an ideology though.
So Donald Sterling is more powerful than Barack Obama, because he has more money? While money and power and transferable to a degree, equating money and power totally and assigning HRC to being "some rich guy's wife" might make you feel better, but is not reality.
As I said though, resume is way overrated and HRC passes any rational bar for experience.
I have little doubt she'd be a terrible president. I disagree with Obama on most issues but I'll say this for him: he got his socialist agenda passed, via Obamacare.
But at least now we can put to rest the myth of "the Clinton Machine" helping her in a presidential campaign.
Well, we certainly saw the impact of global warming in the northeast this year, with frigid temperatures throughout a long winter.
Lol.
That was an add-on. Deserving of an LOL or not, why not respond to the main point?
Yes, Ray. You did. While you are snarking here in an attempt to be ironic, your ignorance of the facts actually leads you to write a true statement.
Due to global warming we have seen massive ice cap losses in the Arctic.
Due to ice cap losses in the Arctic, temperatures in the far north are generally higher than normal. (Alaska had a heat wave while you were freezing this winter.)
The high temps in the far north generates high atmosphere weather patterns that distabilize the jet stream, leading to a wobbly oscillation rather than the standard jet stream we are accustom to.
The wobbly oscillation in the jet stream means that while the western band of the US was in massive drought and unnaturally warm weather, the central and eastern US was getting the down spike of the oscillating jet stream, and arctic temps were dropping much lower than normal in that region.
Elsewhere across the globe, Australia experienced a massive heat wave and the Earth as a whole continued to warm apace.
You may note, in the future, that we call it "climate change" for a reason, and notably that when we do refer to global warming, we do not call it "Northeastern United States where Ray lives warming."
the problem with your polling posts is that you post and discuss polls the way fanboy trolls ruin MVP/HOF/All star game threads by talking up their favorite player and denigrating the other's teams'
You discuss political polling the way KEVIN would talk about Redsox prospects- if a guy had good minor league numbers all you would hear would be MLEs and how his guy put up better numbers in A+ at age whatever than some random superstar did, if Kevin's guy did not have good MLEs, then suddenly MLEs were irrelevant because, well just because.
So where does she rate on "character, organization ability, leadership and so on"?
I've noted that. And the "reason," of course, is so that you can attribute any change -- warmer, cooler, more snow, less snow, wetter, dryer, more hurricanes, fewer hurricanes -- to "climate change."
Global warming wasn't quite helping the liberal cause to redistribute wealth in this way, given that the directional wasn't always pointing towards "warming."
So your considered opinion is that she learned nothing during the years in Arkansas and again during eight years living in the White House? OK then, yeah.
And then main point is, do you think she has the requisite resume to be President? Who does have that resume, if she does not?
I think we forget how incensed those women supporters were that their chosen one was bested, and even that it was by a black man, that did not soothe the savage breast. Remember how they didn't want her to endorse and support Obama? It was supposed to be a woman's time, and they were pissed, and they were virulent, on those grounds alone. That, to me, reeks of ideology.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main