Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
******Official SCOTUS Thread****** (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter squistion
- Start date
The Commish
Footballguy
We know...don't worry, we see you. Many of us just wish you didn't love it SO much.BladeRunner said:
Grading on a curve requires one to have a single objective standard. You don't have that when you're comparing two individuals to each other. That is NOT grading on a curve. That is "lesser of two evils" in this case.
Herb
Footballguy
Otherwise known as "how I choose who to vote for now."
I remember the criteria used to be a candidate that I believed in. Now I just pull the lever for the jerkwad sociopath that seems slightly less crazy and slightly less likely to attempt a coup than the narcissistic criminal they're running against.
whoknew
Footballguy
He also lied to the Senate during his confirmation hearing. People always leave that out.
Ramblin Wreck
Footballguy
BladeRunner
Footballguy
Always fair and balanced with your posts
Yeah, he's something else.
"TEAM BLUE!!! GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO TEAMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM!!!"
The Commish
Footballguy
Pretty much. Ive witten in more candidates than I can count. Not allowed to do that in this state
BladeRunner
Footballguy
Then allow me to give you a choice for your consideration in 2024. Two words: Blade....Runner.
Write it in!!!
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
That's cool. I think we've both spelled out our positions pretty accurately, although for the record I do want to note that I'm not "equating" Trump and Bill Clinton, just noting that there were similar in this one particular dimension. Trump was a worse president than Clinton, and I said so here in this post that must have escaped your notice:
I know it's hard to follow long, convoluted posts like this, so let me unpack it a little for you. When I said that Trump was "the worst president in my lifetime," I meant that every other president that I lived under was better than him. Clinton was president from 1993-2001, which represents one eight-year subset of my life, so that statement applies to him too. Trump was worse than Clinton, which implies that Clinton was better than Trump. Which implies that they are not equivalent. I'm sorry that I didn't say that explicitly earlier. I can see why it caused you confusion and harm. That must have been very traumatic for you and I promise to do better in the future.
So there is no similar misunderstanding, let me say for the record that Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush I, Clinton (already noted), Bush II, Obama, and Biden are also all better than Trump. Now, to be clear, I'm not equating those presidents, just noting that they all share the "better than Trump" property.
If you need additional resources explaining the difference between noting a similarity between two things and equating those those things, PM me and I'll see if I can find something on YouTube for you.
Last edited by a moderator:
squistion
Footballguy
https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/1509140899854438403 (with link to NYT article)
Breaking NYT:
Susan Collins is a YES on Ketanji Brown Jackson.
Breaking NYT:
Susan Collins is a YES on Ketanji Brown Jackson.
Philo Beddoe
Footballguy
At least Tgunz is consistent and open about his ideology. He’s not masquerading on an anonymous message board as an independent/centrist/conservative while non-stop bash-posting the righties and the repubs and praising this abomination of an administration.
As a side note, interesting the modern left is now calling for the outright impeachment of an SJC because they don’t like his spouses politics.
Politico
A professor of law at U of Baltimore to boot. AOC the face of the modern left has also weighed in.
As a side note, interesting the modern left is now calling for the outright impeachment of an SJC because they don’t like his spouses politics.
Politico
A professor of law at U of Baltimore to boot. AOC the face of the modern left has also weighed in.
Amused to Death
Footballguy
Amazing the narrative the right is spinning on this. Amazing, yet not surprising.
Philo Beddoe
Footballguy
Amused to Death
Footballguy
Read the article you linked. You think the issue is his wife's political involvement or his conflict of interest?
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
Thomas was appointed by a Republican, and he votes in ways that Republicans like. So for Republicans, this is about his wife's political involvement and for Democrats it's about his conflict of interests.
We all know that if Thomas were appointed by a Democrat and if he voted in ways that Democrats like, Republicans would be screaming about conflicts of interest and Democrats would write this off as a sexist attack on his spouse. It's cute to watch folks pretend otherwise.
Amused to Death
Footballguy
his failure to disclose income from right-wing organizations, recuse himself from matters involving his wife, and his vote to block the Jan 6th commission from key information must be investigated and could serve as grounds for impeachment. - AOC, 3/29/22
Please point out the part of the quote that says its because of Ginny Thomas's politics.
Amused to Death
Footballguy
I don't disagree. But right now we have this issue at hand. We can discuss if/when the tables are turned.
Philo Beddoe
Footballguy
When have the opinions of an SJCs spouse been applied to other justices? Also, what evidence is there that she called for violence and the riots at the Capitol?
If you can explain the deafening silence on Ginsberg, which you can't, you have no basis to attach any of this to Thomas.
timschochet
Footballguy
This is absolutely correct.
But for those of us trying to be honest, it shouldn’t matter. All that should matter to us is: did Thomas do something wrong here that would warrant his removal from the bench?
From what I’ve read my judgment is no. That could change with more information or compelling arguments I haven’t considered. But right now I don’t see enough here to impeach him or ask him to resign.
BladeRunner
Footballguy
So the left is so mad about the Merrick Garland nomination and Trump being able to nominate 3 SCOTUS judges that now they're just basically trying to get a nominee by throwing any s### at the wall hoping that will stick?
They're going to go with the Brett Kavanaugh strategy? Just make something up out of thin air and go with that as an attack since they can't get a justice via the normal process?
This is where we are at now? Unbelievable. And attacking a woman to boot too. Sexist and racist all wrapped up in one.
They're going to go with the Brett Kavanaugh strategy? Just make something up out of thin air and go with that as an attack since they can't get a justice via the normal process?
This is where we are at now? Unbelievable. And attacking a woman to boot too. Sexist and racist all wrapped up in one.
Last edited by a moderator:
sho nuff
Footballguy
Nothing about what is being said about Thomas is sexist or racist. Why continue to throw out such rhetoric and continue to paint false narratives all the time?So the left is so mad about the Merrick Garland nomination and Trump being able to nominate 3 SCOTUS judges that now they're just basically trying to get a nominee by throwing any s### at the wall hoping that will stick?
They're going to go with the Brett Kavanaugh strategy? Just make something up out of thin air and go with that as an attack since they can't get a justice via the normal process?
This is where we are at now? Unbelievable. And attacking a woman to boot too. Sexist and racist all wrapped up in one.
What was made up out of thin air?
Last edited by a moderator:
dkp993
Footballguy
BladeRunner
Footballguy
"conflict of interest" B and S.
The BS is so bad here that not only did I have to spell it out, I also had to add the emoji on top of it.
sho nuff
Footballguy
He ruled on a case that involved keeping records of his wife’s communication from the committee. That is not made up."conflict of interest" B and S.
The BS is so bad here that not only did I have to spell it out, I also had to add the emoji on top of it.
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
I think Thomas should be impeached and removed from office three years from now.
That's the sort of compromise that should make everyone happy.
That's the sort of compromise that should make everyone happy.
dkp993
Footballguy
I can totally understand have opinions on the severity of the situation. But disagreeing on it’s severity does not make it made up. He was the lone dissenting vote on a case that involved his wife and also failed to report significant income she received. These things actually happened. Nothing is made up."conflict of interest" B and S.
The BS is so bad here that not only did I have to spell it out, I also had to add the emoji on top of it.
BladeRunner
Footballguy
We could probably start a whole nother thread on conflicts of interests perpetrated by the Democratic party and its Representatives and how they have done nothing about that.
Let's not act like this is a real problem. It's only a problem when the other side does it so to scream about it now and act all fake outraged about it is nothing more than revenge for Garland and Trump's three nominations.
In any event, this conflict of interest strategy is nothing but BS in the first place.
Last edited by a moderator:
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
Bill Clinton was going around collecting six-figure speaking fees while his wife was running for president, a race that everything thought she would win. I vividly remember people telling me at the time how unfair it was to punish Hillary for that, and after all isn't Bill entitled to earn an income to help his family scrape by?
I'm not interested in any lectures about conflicts of interest from people who hand-waved that one.
I'm not interested in any lectures about conflicts of interest from people who hand-waved that one.
dkp993
Footballguy
THAT is a very different discussion. IK outlines that argument very well in the post below imo. But your argument here is VERY different then your post that started this exchange. You said this is “made up out of thin air”. It’s absolutely not.
dkp993
Footballguy
Agree, but that’s also a different argument. It’s not the acceptance of the fee that’s being called the issue, it’s his lack of reporting it. That’s very different.
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
His wife shouldn't have been running for president while she was directly profiting from his speaking fees, which any reasonable observer would have seen as a conflict of interest. Disclosure doesn't fix the problem. This is why justices are supposed to recuse themselves, as opposed to just noting the COI and ruling on the case anyway.
sho nuff
Footballguy
Oh look…another, yeah but what about the democrats.
No…its a problem whether its democrats or republicans.
dkp993
Footballguy
Again I agree. You and I are in alignment on the overarching issues here. I am just pointing out what you brought up with Clinton is different then what’s being accused of for Thomas. Disclosure IS one of the issues at bar with him.
George Costanza
Footballguy
My take is this - I don't think there is any way Clarence Thomas didn't know what his wife was up to. Ginni was spouting some truly crazy QAnon nonsense in her efforts to play up the election lies in her texts, and it's a bit shady that Clarence was the only no vote on turning over documents to the J6 Committee but, aside from recusing himself from anything related to J6, I don't see him either resigning, or being impeached no matter how loud the chorus gets.
Personally, I think Clarence Thomas is a horrible SCJ, but that's what we've got and I don't see it changing. I do agree that if the same situation involved a liberal justice, the right would be screaming the same way many on the left are now. If laws were broken, I will always be consistent in my view that whoever breaks the law should be held accountable no matter which side they are on. I think that's the only way we should view crime.
Personally, I think Clarence Thomas is a horrible SCJ, but that's what we've got and I don't see it changing. I do agree that if the same situation involved a liberal justice, the right would be screaming the same way many on the left are now. If laws were broken, I will always be consistent in my view that whoever breaks the law should be held accountable no matter which side they are on. I think that's the only way we should view crime.
dkp993
Footballguy
HellToupee
Footballguy
As a total aside from the topic this isTrumps appeal to a large percentage of his base. Almost the polar opposite of every mainstream republican politician
whoknew
Footballguy
This is such a silly argument. If something is a conflict of interest, its a conflict of interest. If people were wrong about the Clintons, then they were wrong then. That doesn't make them wrong now when bringing this issue up about the Thomases.
crackattack
Footballguy
It was the cutsey answers conservatives got around here when Clinton or H. Biden etc are brought up. Especially topics pertaining to conflicts of interest with non elected individuals like a SCJ or H Biden or B Clinton while his wife was running.
Conservatives got the lovely, sincere, note worthy replies of "well, don't vote for them". Or the wonderful responses of "oh! I didn't know Hunter or Bill was up for election!".
So my advice to liberals is this: Don't vote for Ginni or Clarence!! Sounds about right.
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
No, but it does make them hypocrites and it's a very reliable signal that a person is arguing in bad faith.
Maybe I'm the weird one, but it seems to me that there has been a sizable uptick in overtly bad-faith argumentation in this forum in particular over the past couple of years. I suspect its because we've run off a lot of the better posters from yesteryear, or maybe it's just because our national political conversation has become more stupid. I've tried to stop engaging with those folks so much, or at least I've resolved to stop taking them seriously.
Last edited by a moderator:
dkp993
Footballguy
It’s this. The rise of Social Media and reality TV has precipitated the great dumbing down of America. Unfortunately I believe the long slow descent has only just started.
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
n/m duplicate post.
Last edited by a moderator:
tommyGunZ
Footballguy
No, this isn’t absolutely correct, it’s the opposite. IK’s “both sides” excuse is the lamest popular narrative in politics and the results are that it disincentivizes good faith by rewarding bad actors while punishing those doing the right thing.
tommyGunZ
Footballguy
Was I acting in bad faith when I voted for George HW Bush in 1992? Yet I’m hypocritical for suggesting that Democrats presently take sexual assault far more seriously than Republicans? I don’t know how one can follow American politics the last 20-30 years and come to any other conclusion.
I’m not around these parts often these days but I tend to agree that there seems to be a lot more bad faith arguments put forth. My opinion is that since the Republican Party has become a party completely divorced from reality with no interest in good governance and rational policy, their supporters almost have to argue in bad faith. Because once you get past the Hannity/Tucker smokescreen and analyze the facts, almost every political controversy they drum up turns out to be nonsense.
Rich Conway
Footballguy
It's both of these, although in fairness, we don't know for sure that "we've run off a lot of the better posters". We only know for sure that a lot of them aren't here any more. For all we know, they found some new, better forum and didn't tell us about it.
Rich Conway
Footballguy
Just to clarify something here...
HRC had a conflict of interest because her husband was earning speaking fees? Or, HRC had a conflict of interest because her husband was earning speaking fees while talking about overtly political topics and more or less campaigning for the Democratic party? I'm on board with the latter but not the former. Had he been earning speaking fees for talking about, say, how to pick up girls, I don't see any conflict of interest.
fatguyinalittlecoat
Footballguy
It doesn’t matter what he’s speaking about. The conflict of interest comes when Hillary is President and the groups that have put huge $$ in the Clintons’ bank accounts call up and ask for favors. The groups were paying “speaking fees” but a big part of what they were likely trying to buy was influence, not just 30 minutes of Bill saying he feels their pain.
Rich Conway
Footballguy
Boy, that's a tough one. Ex presidents routinely earn six-figure speaking fees without any implied promise of influence. We're not trying to prevent the spouses from earning their living doing whatever they would have done anyway. I think that's why the current argument is that GT should go right ahead and do whatever nutty stuff she wants, just that Thomas should recuse himself when it involves his wife.
Last edited by a moderator:
