Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

976 Excellent

About VandyMan

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender

Previous Fields

  • Favorite NFL Team

Recent Profile Visitors

3,501 profile views
  1. I say stick to the whistleblower rules that were in place at the time the whistle was blown. Not against changing the rules, but rule changes should only affect future whistleblowers.
  2. On the bolded, I'm sadly uninformed on Pete's foreign policy goals. I was under the impression that he's the more moderate centrist Dem candidate and assumed (perhaps wrongly) that he would NOT pursue a "left-wing version of foreign policy". Guess I need to do my homework. Off the the Pete thread now...
  3. I might be on an island, but I think his campaign was WILDLY SUCCESSFUL. The point of his his presidential campaign wasn't getting the D nomination. The point was to gather money and attention to boost his run for US Senate.
  4. Maybe. Very few people are going to have high level experience in every category. Foreign policy is often a weakness for candidates whose background is...Governor, US Rep, private businessman, etc. Any candidate is going to have to assemble knowledgeable teams to aid in him every category. The ability (skill?) to ascertain which people would best serve them in such capacities is paramount, and the level to which we trust the candidate to get the right people is critical to many voters' analysis. I never trusted Trump to actually surround himself with "the best people", but the reasons I didn't trust him to do that are beyond a lack of experience. Mayor Pete might really be better in that department. Or, more cynically speaking, he might be just as good at convincing people that he will be good at it.
  5. Same here (TN). While I thought HRC would have done a great job as POTUS, she had zero chance of getting any electoral votes from this state. My 3rd party vote was not about any candidate at all, but just lashing out at the Dems because they had written off states like ours a decade ago. But I don't think our 3rd party vote was meaningless. On the good side, it seems like the Dems are going back toward a 50-state strategy (compete everywhere). On the bad side, this decreased the margin by which Trump lost the popular vote.
  6. That only kicks in when there are enough states signed on to reach 270 electoral votes. So far they are short of that number. Removing Trump is a priority for a lot of folks. If Trump wins again while NOT winning the popular vote, that could push more states to sign on. To that end, there's some value in voting for the "not Trump" candidate who is most likely to beat Trump (eg. the Dem candidate) even in states like CA.
  7. Oh, they're consistent. Always setting you up for the next heartbreak.
  8. Ds are voting based on hate? With such a large electorate, it's probably possible to find people voting based on hate but I wouldn't think that's a significant percentage in the D camp. Unless you're using "hate" to encompass people who just think Trump's deviation from accepted norms are institutionally bad for our country, those who disagree with his policy positions, those who feel he is too temperamental to reliably execute the office's duties, etc. Is that what you meant?
  9. I believe the term of art being bandied about is "pressure campaign". Not sure why. It seems unnecessarily ambiguous. Maybe media types are being overly cautious with their language here.
  10. Interesting pattern you got there... 1988-96: R, D, D 2000-08: R, D, D 2012-20: R, D,
  11. I really don't remember exactly how the debate about tax reform went. What was the argument against focusing almost all the cuts on the lower+middle classes?
  12. I've never heard this band mentioned by anyone else, ever. Good old days.