What does the President actually do? A few main things:

Chief Diplomat for foreign relations.
Commander in Chief of the military. (although legislature has some checks on that)
Appointing Supreme Court justices.
Presidential Pardons.
Veto power over Legislative bills.

Anything on any Presidential candidate's agenda that doesn't fall under one of those headings is hot air. Considering that, which of the candidates would actually be a better president?

Chief Diplomat role: Hillary wins here, pretty handily. Trump is generally hated by anyone outside of the US. Bernie isn't as smooth and well connected as Hillary. Interestingly enough, this is one area where I think Obama really shines. He's a good talker, and he increased the level of respect that other countries viewed the US with. Some of that was having a very easy act to follow -- Bush and the wars sent us pretty close to rock bottom in terms of how the rest of the world saw us, but Obama is legit as a diplomat even without the bonus of simply being an extremely welcome reprieve from Bush.

Commander in Chief: This one is more open to interpretation, but I think Bernie wins here. He had the right view on Iraq wars when most didn't, and a totally solid track record for a long time. Clinton acts like she was always on the correct side of that also, but she voted for Bush's war when she was in the Senate. Bernie didn't. Whatever she says to try to justify that doesn't change the simple facts of it. Trump could be pretty apocalyptically bad as Commander in Chief, but on the other hand he'd have the legislature and Joint Chiefs to keep him in check if he was doing anything truly insane. I think he's definitely the worst of the three, but I think saying a vote for him is a vote to "let the world burn" is a bit overly dramatic.

Supreme Court appointments: Sanders wins here by a LANDSLIDE. He's got the right idea on all of the judicial topics of the time, and knows exactly how important this is. Hillary is a massive corporate tool. She knows who pays her, and she'd definitely be looking out for their interests when it comes to stuff like Citizens United challenges, etc. I even think that Trump would be massively better than Clinton in this area.

Pardons: I'm specifically thinking of Ed Snowden here. Trump and Clinton both say he is a "traitor". Sanders at least acknowledges that Snowden's revelations did a lot of good, but still says that he should come home and face a trial. So that makes me think he's the best of the three -- but Jill Stein of the Green party says she would pardon Snowden, which makes her my favorite on this particular hot-button issue for me.

Veto powers: Opinions are going to vary on this one. I think Sanders wins considering that he simply stands by his record in the Legislature, which I think he deserves to be proud of. Clinton is a flip-flopping weasel of a politician, and she could easily swing things in favor of her corporate overlords with her veto power. Trump is a wildcard, but the inherent nature of veto power means that he can't do anything truly crazy with it unilaterally -- the worst he could do is get veto-happy and grind the legislature to a standstill (which they tend to do all on their own anyway) or pass something terrible (which would be more the fault of the legislature).


Depending on how any individual voter evaluates those topics, and how the prioritize them, I think it is perfectly reasonable for someone to think that any of the candidates would make a better president than any of the others. Personally, I think Sanders is the best of the three, but honestly I'd prefer incompetent President Trump to very dodgy President Clinton.

Not to mention that they have scent glands like skunks (and all other weasels I think). They can be removed, but the smell never goes completely away.
I had a pair as a teenager. They are illegal in California, so I had to give them up when my family moved here from Texas. Not cool.

Yeah, he works for Breitbart and he looks part used car salesman and part televangelist, and yet I can't argue with most of what he says on Gamergate. I do have to give him credit for trying to cover something that most other journalists either couldn't, wouldn't or didn't know how to cover. But yes, he probably is a weasel.

Oh, Rand Paul spoke like his father and that's what Maher loved about Ron...if I remember correctly Maher was foaming at the mouth to denounce Ron Paul. He would have swallowed a million gallons of Islamic jizz in order for one man to vote against Ron Paul...fuck Maher, little cock-weasel.

I can't help it. It's my nature.

Still, I doubt that the seagull willingly gave a ride to that little weasel.

How'd the weasel get out onto the lake? Did it ride out there on the back of a hummingbird?

@blackfox42, I think it's both water logged and injured badly, or it should be able to swim away faster than the weasel.

He weaselled his way right into my heart.

"May be the cutest *weasel* yet". This isn't a ferret, although they're related.

Too bad OP didn't get a shot of the all-white body and black tail-tip. That just adds to the cuteness.

The wizard had mostly retired by the time of the quakes.

And yeah, it reminded me of New Orleans too.

The day after the quake hit I was talking with some friends, and we were discussing the future of Christchurch. Some people left, some people felt there was no future, but most of us thought some good could come out of it. We could have a future city, built around sustainability; somewhere that would attract people to live in it.

Right now, I don't see that happening. In some ways, this needed a dictatorship, but instead everything has been buried in committees and insurance companies have tried to weasel out of everything and made peoples lives a misery.

I still hope we'll get something cool out of it, but I'm no longer as confident as I once was. Too much short term thinking and bitching about spending too much money.

False dichotomy, weasel words, excluded middle. It's possible to mistrust the police and be a thinking person.

While we're at it, check this out: link.

The Obama administration's rhetoric regarding the NSA review panel is just as delicious an example of weasel words as I have ever seen.

No, choggie my love is correct.

As someone who hasn't lived in Texas since you were 13, you do not hold an insiders perspective and therefore should not speak as if you do.

This video exists because all of us "typical texas freedom hating right wingers" are SCREAMING by the thousands to stop these insane laws in their tracks. We're far from the only state with these types of laws on the books or attempting to weasel their way onto the books. And these laws are making it to the books not because people are so pro-life and against reproductive choice, it's because these laws are making someone with much more power a lot of MONEY.

The problem is not that your average poor stupid fuck red neck hill billy cousin fuckin po dunk texas trash is actually in favor of this shit, the problem is $$ in government. And thats a problem common to the entire GLOBE. No matter what superior state you're typing from your high horse in.

No pop goes the weasel? Me disappoint.

I don't watch the show but based on what I read and saw I am guessing that the Idiot in question was in some kind of leadership position. If that is correct then Ramsay may not have been asking him to bitch about his team mates so much as evaluate them as a leader has to do sometimes, and in turn, evaluate the Idiot's skills as a leader. The Idiot may have decided that he wasn't comfortable with this and tried to weasel out of it by getting his team mates to critique themselves. I thought the basic conflict was honest enough but I do agree that Ramsay didn't have to go on trading f-bombs with the Idiot for as long as he did and added more drama than necessary.
Meanwhile, the Idiot thought maybe he could get more career mileage by getting into a dick waving contest with Ramsay, of course if he acts like this with all his other bosses it could be a short career. (again I could be misreading a lot of this)