Maybe the Walton family will have all this taken care of

When we ask for China's help with North Korea I'm sure the Taiwan call will be a big help.

TenuredVulture wrote:

thephan wrote:538 list of scholarly presidential rankings

Abraham Lincoln
Franklin D. Roosevelt
George Washington
Theodore Roosevelt
Thomas Jefferson
Harry Truman
Woodrow Wilson
Dwight D. Eisenhower
John F. Kennedy
Ronald Reagan
James K. Polk
Lyndon B. Johnson
Andrew Jackson
James Monroe
James Madison
John Adams
Barack Obama*
Bill Clinton
William McKinley
John Quincy Adams
Grover Cleveland
George H.W. Bush
Ulysses S. Grant
Gerald Ford
William Howard Taft
Jimmy Carter
Calvin Coolidge
Chester A. Arthur
Richard Nixon
James A. Garfield
Martin Van Buren
Rutherford B. Hayes
Zachary Taylor
Benjamin Harrison
Herbert Hoover
John Tyler
Millard Fillmore
George W. Bush
Andrew Johnson
William Henry Harrison
Warren G. Harding
Franklin Pierce
James Buchanan

* Projected

Yes there are 43 because Grover Cleveland is the 22/24 president.

So if we survived the bottom third of that list, we will be OK.

Kennedy is way overrated. So is Jefferson. Ford maybe could be bumped up a few slots. Grant is way too high. Obama will probably climb the rankings as the years go by. The worst over ranking on that list though has to be Wilson.

If I were to rank the list of Presidents based on how much they expanded the power of the executive branch, it would nearly match it. That's why Wilson is so high, and illustrative of how academics view presidential success through a very particular lens.

Ben Carson never lived in public housing. There goes that qualification. The only thing left is...???

Turns out Nancy Pelosi is a huge racist for noticing Ben Carson is unqualified to be HUD Secretary.

Monkeyboy wrote:Is it supposed to be scholars ranking the best presidents or a ranking of the most scholarly presidents? I thought it was the latter, but comments make me think it's the former.

I should have provided a reference (but since I am still at work I will not again), but it is 538's collection and reconciliation of a variety of Scholar Rankings of presidents with Obama guestimated on available data with its small sample size.

Of course if the Orange and Yellow cartoon character works with his henchmen (or vice versa) to flip everything BHO did on its head, then out a window then down the Potomac to become ocean pollution washing up home in Kenya, then all bets are off because like his obstructed presidency, his accomplishments will have been trashed.

Werthless wrote:If I were to rank the list of Presidents based on how much they expanded the power of the executive branch, it would nearly match it. That's why Wilson is so high

So these scholars consulted your executive power expansion ranking list? Such big clout on such a...n internet poster

still an interesting theory

Faithless elector from Texas voting against Trump, wants others to join him and support Kasich or some other alternative

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/05/opini ... trump.html

Obviously this isn't going to happen, but it would be heartening if a few other GOP electors joined him. Think there've been resignations by electors in at least Georgia and Texas of people who said they couldn't vote for Trump. Would've been better if they stuck around and sent him a message. If nothing else knocking him below 300 EVs would be amusing and probably really pissed him off.

Michael McDonald ‏@ElectProject
Washington: 154,226 voters (4.6% of total ballots counted) either cast a write-in vote or did not vote for president

I honestly am not sure what this is in a usual year, but this seems like a wild number

drsmooth wrote:

Werthless wrote:If I were to rank the list of Presidents based on how much they expanded the power of the executive branch, it would nearly match it. That's why Wilson is so high

So these scholars consulted your executive power expansion ranking list? Such big clout on such a...n internet poster

still an interesting theory

Wilson was awful. Treaty of versailles, indirectly leading to ww2. Sedition Act so he could jail political opponents. Instituted segregation across the administration workforce. Hard to argue he should be 21 spots above Chester Arthur, whose wiki page provides a good overview of his presidency... unexciting, but highly regarded by his contemporaries.

Werthless wrote:

drsmooth wrote:

Werthless wrote:If I were to rank the list of Presidents based on how much they expanded the power of the executive branch, it would nearly match it. That's why Wilson is so high

So these scholars consulted your executive power expansion ranking list? Such big clout on such a...n internet poster

still an interesting theory

Wilson was awful. Treaty of versailles, indirectly leading to ww2. Sedition Act so he could jail political opponents. Instituted segregation across the administration workforce. Hard to argue he should be 21 spots above Chester Arthur, whose wiki page provides a good overview of his presidency... unexciting, but highly regarded by his contemporaries.

Bonus points for his key plot role in Die Hard with a Vengeance.

TenuredVulture wrote:

swishnicholson wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:



Kennedy is way overrated. So is Jefferson. Ford maybe could be bumped up a few slots. Grant is way too high. Obama will probably climb the rankings as the years go by. The worst over ranking on that list though has to be Wilson.

Denigration of Kennedy, Wilson and Jefferson I know runs with current scholarship, although I think in the case of Wilson and Jefferson there's a bit of overcompensation going on. Haven't heard the argument for the elevation of Ford, though.

Ford found himself President in almost an impossible set of circumstances. He was neither great nor inspiring, but he managed to leave the country in better shape than he found it. He should definitely be ahead of Grant.

I didn't even notice Grant up there. He was a disaster. Ford was a decent, honorable man and his repatriation of draft dodgers, and ceding of the Panama canal are to be applauded. I suppose his pardon of Nixon can also be viewed in that same light as a way to heal wounds, but I don't think we can clearly judge whether it was the correct move or not. But the economy went totally into the tank during his brief administration, and the mood of the country was perhaps as divided and pessimistic on all sides as it's ever been-Carter's "malaise" was inherited, not created by him. Leaving the country in better shape seems a stretch, unless you set the bar low at "going a couple years without the highest members of the executive branch being indicted." By no means was he a disaster, and the economy was not something he had a lot of control over (though WIN sounds even more stupid now than it did then). Given his short tenure and little lasting effect, I don't see how he's not in the bottom half.

Werthless wrote:Wilson was awful. Treaty of versailles, indirectly leading to ww2. Sedition Act so he could jail political opponents. Instituted segregation across the administration workforce. Hard to argue he should be 21 spots above Chester Arthur, whose wiki page provides a good overview of his presidency... unexciting, but highly regarded by his contemporaries.

I'm with you that Wilson was a pretty odd duck. But Clemenceau et al weren't goinng to do anything particularly more brilliant with post WWI Europe and colonies, so many hands contributed to continuation of the Long War.The other stuff, yeah, not highlights of his resume.


so, that's one guy. Does your correlation rely so heavily on the skew of this one mis-ranked POTUS?

they had wooden staircases in that huge oakland fire. they had no sprinklers. they didn't have proper fire exits.

regulations matter.

the Trump over USA tour continues today with a stop in North Carolina

pacino wrote:they had wooden staircases in that huge oakland fire. they had no sprinklers. they didn't have proper fire exits.

regulations matter.

Enforcement of regs also matter. Just a hunch, but my guess is people in a position to have taken action were sufficiently aware of the situation - that's a lot of people living in a place clearly not meant to be lived in - but didn't take action for whatever reasons.

Michigan's pilot program on drug testing welfare recipients was a bust. they busted no one.

poor people who seek out help to pay their bills tend to not spend that money on drugs.

Labor Secretary options being floated. Among them a name popular here:




Lou Barletta

My guess is he's passed over. Sane choice would be the 1 woman talked about, Victoria Lipnic, so probably it'll be the fastfood CEO or guy against financial advisers being required to act as fiduciaries

drsmooth wrote:

pacino wrote:they had wooden staircases in that huge oakland fire. they had no sprinklers. they didn't have proper fire exits.

regulations matter.

Enforcement of regs also matter. Just a hunch, but my guess is people in a position to have taken action were sufficiently aware of the situation - that's a lot of people living in a place clearly not meant to be lived in - but didn't take action for whatever reasons.

they were looking into it:

Oakland building inspectors had opened an investigation into the warehouse last month. Acquaintances and local authorities described repeatedly confronting Almena about what they saw as unsafe and unsanitary conditions for his children and others living there.

Noel Gallo, a city councilman who lives a block from the warehouse, said Almena essentially told authorities to “mind their own business.”

it's an interesting read.

i would imagine this is a byproduct of the cost of housing in the Bay Area. desperate people find what they can. the tenants found what they could.

Merkel is calling for a ban of burkas wherever possible. If you can't beat 'em, join 'em.