Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Bottomfeeder Sports

Members
  • Content Count

    20,318
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1,495 Excellent

About Bottomfeeder Sports

  • Rank
    Footballguy
  • Birthday 04/10/1964

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Melissa

Recent Profile Visitors

12,450 profile views
  1. Cool! You are quoting the guy that wanted the president and senate to be "for life". The monarchist. But it was not in accordance to what he lays as a defense for the trial part of impeachment to be best handled in the Senate. "Where else than in the Senate could have been found a tribunal sufficiently dignified, or sufficiently independent? What other body would be likely to feel CONFIDENCE ENOUGH IN ITS OWN SITUATION, to preserve, unawed and uninfluenced, the necessary impartiality between an INDIVIDUAL accused, and the REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PEOPLE, HIS ACCUSERS?" Yeah that describes the GOP in the Senate. Sure thing! ETA: We'll ignore that Hamilton offers no such "standard for removal".
  2. Can you link to quotes where the founding fathers were speaking of political parties at all, yet alone in the context of impeachment? While I don't want to get carried away and say something stupid like the founding fathers had no understanding of political parties, it wasn't until the debates of the 1790s that there were political parties beyond those that aligned geographically. The constitution was written and ratified by then, by the time Washington warned of the dangers of such things in his farewell address. Now on the other hand I have repeatedly linked this article on what founding fathers actually said, how it was interpreted in 1974, etc. And this article was written prior to the events surrounding this impeachment process. So sure when I say things like it is a matter of my opinion aligning with (in this case) "The 1974 House Judiciary Committee". The facts clearly align with the above. And actions to undermine an election would be as about as textbook of an example as possible. The details are off, but the point is addressed directly by George Mason. Again while the exact details are different, obstruction of congress is also explicitly discussed The idea from Lisa Murkowski that "The voters will pronounce a verdict in nine months, and we must trust their judgment." was also explicitly rejected. And I simply can't imagine that the founding fathers would have ever believed that impeachment would not be high divisive to support the idea that it is wrong to impeach when the country and Senators or split. When the jurors are also corrupt. So sure, just in my opinion!
  3. I don't remember the exact results and it has been a quarter century or so but I recall that Catholic women are in the neighborhood of being about 30% more likely to have had an abortion than Protestant women with the primary difference that causes this being one I'm guessing most anyone can guess.
  4. "Medicare for All" is intentionally vague. Some versions do away with private insurance, some don't. Buttigieg, for example, wants people to have a choice between public and private options. Warren's and Sanders's versions, I believe, would not include a private option (though I don't have all the different permutations memorized). But I don't think any make providers salaried employees of the government in government run hospitals and doctor offices. There may be "single payer" as in the government which would have undeniably an even greater deal of influence on the practice of medicine, but beyond insurance at least at first most aspects would remain private. ETA: Thought I was at the end of the thread. Realize now I was several hours and a page behind. Glad no one else made this point.
  5. Isn't there some requirement that most federal things can only be named after people that are deceased? Assuming that this isn't a figment of my imagination then I would think that this would be evidence that Trump is behaving more like a dictator [wanna be] than adhering to American democratic norms. Or evidence that Trump is now a ghost.
  6. The question is whether or not the previous president that wasted 6+ years trying to build a consensus that was not going to happen consistently stated that it took "we" to achieve big things had an unshakable faith in the power of ordinary Americans rather than himself was exhausted and couldn't get out the door fast enough wanted to be a dictator that remained in office forever. You said because at the end of his term he started issuing executive order to accomplish what he couldn't do legislatively was evidence for this, I stated that trying to do it legislatively for 6+ years was evidence to the contrary. None of those observations or reasonable conclusion I made are partisan at all. What is "blinded by pure partisanship" is projecting what one side is doing to the other side. And labeling oneself an independent doesn't negate this. But if you want to go back to a president on the other side. Do you think W wanted to stick around beyond 2008? Or was enough, enough?
  7. I agree with Jon. The Senate had everything they needed to know that Trump was guilty of the charges and that these were text book definition of what Madison, Mason, and Randolph had written about as far as removal prior to an election when the discussion of impeachment was going on during the Constitution convention and later during ratification. Witnesses were only really needed to provide a defense but there was none. Cowering to Trump's supporters whims on the other hand is not something that decent people should "get over".
  8. Yes his reluctance to use executive orders to try to accomplish anything once congress was obstruct everything mode is the evidence that your points are utterly ridiculous!
  9. The Obama who campaigned and constantly expressed that he couldn't do anything but we could do everything? That Obama? The Obama that was worn down at the end and couldn't wait to get out the door? Lots of silliness here!
  10. Did you pay attention to who those workers were and who was using "serious economic condition" as justification to reduce promised raises? Who was "the hater" doing the "fear mongering" with "serious economic condition" such that "cannot sustain such [2.5%] increases" .
  11. It can't be easy for all the haters, all time high after all time high following the years of fear mongering. Like this hater - Title 5, United States Code, authorizes me to implement alternative plans for pay adjustments for civilian Federal employees covered by the General Schedule and certain other pay systems if, because of “national emergency or serious economic conditions affecting the general welfare,” ...
  12. Are we discussing the "national emergency or serious economic conditions affecting the general welfare” somewhere around here? This is a couple of days old so I could have missed it.
  13. I keep seeing this thread title and start wondering what Stoney Case did? Sorry for the tangent.
  14. "Our simulations show that student debt cancellation results in an increase in GDP, a decrease in the average unemployment rate, and little to no inflationary pressure over the 10-year horizon, while interest rates increase only modestly." Page 50 Would that not benefit everyone? Not arguing that there aren't better or more appropriate ways to add modestly to the federal debt, but instead asserting that the macro impacts at least have such arguments. (Of course it is probably those with high student loan debt doing these types of analysis.)