Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Maurile Tremblay

Admin
  • Content Count

    45,900
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    14

Maurile Tremblay last won the day on February 12

Maurile Tremblay had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

21,169 Excellent

About Maurile Tremblay

  • Rank
    Footballguy

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Previous Fields

  • Favorite NFL Team
    San Diego Chargers

Recent Profile Visitors

46,850 profile views
  1. Debate analysis by David Frum: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/09/trumps-losing/616543/
  2. https://twitter.com/coldxman/status/1311140651711574016 Trump's last answer should be a deal-breaker for undecideds. The subtext of the question was, "If you lose fair and square, will you tell your supporters to stand down?" There's only one right answer to that, and it matters. Instead, Trump answered, "Not if it's unfair." He framed his answer as a a reasonable "if-then"–after all who would concede to a fraudulent election? But we all know there's no "if". Should Biden win, Trump will *certainly* say it was unfair–whether it was or not. It's just his nature. Given what we know about Trump's habit of saying everything is unfair to him, what his answer amounts to, in practice, is a *guarantee* that he will not concede if Biden wins. It's anti-Democratic and un-American. It should be a deal-breaker.
  3. CBS News/YouGov snap poll: 38% of voters said the debate made them think better of Biden compared to 24% who said the same of Trump. 42% said the debate made them think *less* of Trump compared to 32% who said the same of Biden. https://twitter.com/NumbersMuncher/status/1311149451646513153
  4. The betting markets have been weird over the past few months, but for whatever it's worth, Biden is up 3.7% (and Trump is down 2.8%) post-debate
  5. Let me elaborate on this a bit. I think I can do a decent job of being impartial when it comes to constitutional analysis. I'm strongly pro-choice, but I think Roe v. Wade was probably decided incorrectly, and I'm not certain whether stare decisis should rescue it. I would repeal the 2nd Amendment if I had my druthers, but I think the majority opinion in Heller seems fairly persuasive. I'd love to reduce the influence of money in politics, but I believe the decision in Citizens United was sound. I hate hate hate what some states are doing to suppress the votes of minorities, but I believe the statutory provision struck down Shelby County was constitutionally shaky. Returning to abortion, I can also easily imagine my opposite: someone who is strongly pro-life but who accepts that the right to privacy described in Griswold is on solid footing and its extension in Roe to cover abortion is natural enough. It shouldn't be that hard to avoid conflating the constitutional issue with the object-level policy issue. If I were strongly pro-life to the point of believing that abortion is morally similar to murder, I would not necessarily feel the need to judicially recuse myself from a case about whether there's a constitutionally protected right to abortion. But if I were strongly pro-life to the point of believing that abortion is morally similar to murder and I worked as a guidance counselor, I would not be comfortable counseling a teen who was unsure about what to do with her unwanted pregnancy. My personal views would prevent me from giving competent, objective advice in that situation, and I wouldn't be the right person for the job. In that case, I could be impartial regarding the existence of a legal right to choose abortion even if I couldn't be impartial regarding the wisdom or rectitude of actually choosing it in some particular circumstance. Similarly, I'd guess that plenty of judges who morally oppose the death penalty could be impartial regarding the legality of capital punishment even if they couldn't be impartial regarding whether a particular defendant deserves it.
  6. He definitely should not. The whole point of an independent judiciary (appointed for life) is that judicial seats are not supposed to be politicized, and are not supposed to be voted on. It's fine to vote based on a candidate's general approach to appointing judges, but not on specific names.
  7. And it would be such an easy answer. He should memorize Lindsey Graham's speech about how Republicans won't confirm a nominee in 2020 and repeat it word-for-word except for replacing "Republicans" with "Democrats" and "confirm a nominee in 2020" with "pack the court in 2021."
  8. As one of the most "radical" political people on this forum, that's a great way to throw away your vote. You simply cannot change this country by voting 3rd party. It isn't designed that way. Getting a third party to actually win a few states would shake things up. Unfortunately, that's not an option. The most you can do is get a third party to receive a baker's dozen votes in some state rather than a plain old regular dozen. Which might make some difference, I guess...
  9. I've been saying this forever about every TV talk show with multiple guests. It would be so simple.
  10. "Ain't gonna be no rematch." -- Apollo Creed "Don't want one." -- Rocky Balboa
  11. I do think Biden has been much better in the last 15 minutes or so.
  12. I have the same bias as you, but I don't view the debate the same way. Trump actually seems mentally sharper than Biden because Biden keeps getting flustered by the interruptions. They're distracting him and interrupting his flow. Trump is lying with the same frequency as normal, but independents (who generally haven't been paying enough attention to know better) will give those lies credit because they are stated confidently. I'll be interested in seeing polls later, but I think Trump is probably winning this debate in the minds of independents.
  13. Don't post about other posters. Post about substantive topics.
  14. I'm curious as to what circumstance you would be deciding #1 without considering whether a particular defendant will be put to death. None. The issue relevant to recusal isn't "whether a particular defendant will be put to death." The issue is whether I can be impartial. Do you not believe that #1 and #2 can be rather different in that regard?