That has little to do with it. It doesn't matter who she is or what she supports. Bernie is viewed as a socialist. If she has a 1% chance of working with congress, he has 0%

It shouldn't. They should choose based on the issues, not based on how the other political party will react.

That's where we diverge. Bernie is viewed as a socialist. The devil himself could get more passed so long as he isn't a socialist.

The republicans have been looking for a way to prevent her from being potus for as long as I can remember. They might actually have a chance with the emails, but at the end of the day, the centrist democrat always has a better shot than the guy perceived as a socialist. It’s just the truth.

It’s not really based on that. It’s much more simple: whatever chances Bernie has of getting things through congress, Hillary’s are greater by a wide margin. No matter what he stands for or what he says, Bernie will always be the “socialist.” Agreeing with him on anything would be a political poison pill for…

... I read that as agreeing with my comment—if Bernie is pilloried, that’s pretty much saying “no” to him regardless of what it is.

Nah. Clinton is basically a centrist. They hate her husband, they hate the way she has skated by through an endless stream of scandals, but when no one is looking, her policies don’t seem that bad to them.

So why even hold an election? The point is, if there is a 1% chance of Bernie getting something done with the republicans, Hillary has a 10% chance.

I’m not denying that, but her policies are much closer to acceptable than Bernie’s as far as the republicans are concerned. I don't think it's close, really.

Her family name is the bane of their existence, but if the republicans had to choose one set of policies from the two, it would be Hillary without a doubt.

That’s a little better. I would still want some type of mental state requirement such as knowing it was stolen (this could be somewhat flexible—for example, after a certain period of time, there is a rebuttable presumption that the person did know it had been stolen) and failing to report it within a certain period of…

Maybe he can dunk, but that first photo is ridiculous. No way that goal is regulation. Look at where his head is. If that’s a regulation goal, then he could dunk on an 11 foot goal.

C’mon. The motivation for the suit is clearly to teach Lee Daniels’ and others a lesson: don’t bring that shit up. There isn’t a chance of winning, but Lee still has to pay tens of thousands to defend against it (it could easily be 100k+). Also, it is also a way of telling everyone the past allegations are bullshit…

1. Not possible currently. You would need new legislation.

Ah. Thanks. I assume there must have been someone noteworthy that also did not know who she is. Otherwise...I still don’t get it.

So I’ve gathered that this is a joke. On a more serious note, I have no idea who this woman is and had never heard about her until today.

They’re STILL not going to change it? What a fucking god awful organization the NFL truly is.

I’m very upset about what you said about my coat. I made it outta your mother’s pubic hair.

Stop destroying the narrative with your unwelcome dose of reality. Everyone here would just like to continue living in their own fake world.

No. It says more about how much room deadspin has to grow. Anyone who reads this site a couple times a week should have immediately gotten the joke or at least looked for it.