Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

turnerj0

Members
  • Content Count

    22
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

59 Excellent

About turnerj0

  • Rank
    Footballguy

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Ohio was the first state I thought of. Purple state that is incredibly important in elections. The variable north/south feel of different areas of the state that someone mentioned. Home of the second most US presidents and many others who would probably be considered among the country's greatest people (Wright Brothers, Neil Armstrong, etc.). Reflects America's sports passions (one of the most football crazy states, home of the first professional baseball team).
  2. Rereading All the King's Men right now. One of my favorite novels ever, and seems particularly relevant right now.
  3. What? The President of the United States is embracing violence. He made multiple pro-violence statements at his rallies, including saying “I’d like to punch him in the face,” saying “maybe he should have been roughed up,” saying “part of the problem is nobody wants to hurt each other anymore”, and offering to pay the legal bills of supporters who physically harmed people protesting against him. He praised a Republican Congressman who was convicted of physically assaulting a reporter. He has praised extra-judicial killings by multiple leaders of countries around the world. He has advocated killing the families of enemy combatants. He has described white supremacists as "very fine people". And just last week he threatened violence against his political opponents. The leader of our country is a white supremacist who not only condones violence, he craves it because he sees it as a political opportunity. That is the reason this is a much bigger deal than radical Islam (which is also a big deal).
  4. Yes that is what I meant. Should have been more clear. The Republicans distilled a complex issue into one word that was easy to remember, and every time people heard the word it evoked a visceral feeling that there was something dirty and not right. Most of the public, probably even many of those that support Trump, surely have the same feeling about him and his administration, that there is something bad going on there. But even for the relatively small percentage of the population that finds time to pick up the NYT and glance at the latest article detailing the evidence of some illegal behavior, that will never stick. It is too complex and there is too much of it, so even those paying attention forget in a couple days. However, you can sum up all the terribleness by continually referring to the chaos and corruption in the administration. Every time a Democrat does a TV interview, every time there is a tweet about the administration, call it the Chaos and Corruption Administration. It will even fit in chyrons so that people in the airport just glancing at the TV but otherwise not paying attention will associate those words with the administration. Eventually it will stick because it feels right. That visceral feeling can be a powerful force when the election comes, much more than the details of any of the scandals.
  5. Yep I think this is right. Aggressively investigating Trump (and finding a pattern of criminal behavior) should keep the Democratic base fired up (and in a scenario where both bases turn out high numbers, there are more Democrats than Republicans) as well as keeping evidence of Trump's misdeeds in the public consciousness for the few actual swing voters that are out there. In all likelihood, the multiple investigations will find sweeping evidence that Trump, his company, and everyone associated with them have been involved in such extensive criminal activity that they are in effect, if not name, essentially a mob organization. Democrats will be able to hammer home this point when people start paying attention in the summer of 2020. But, to Tim's point, they have to be smart about how they play this. Benghazi was successful because it was a short, easy to understand message. The extent of Trump's criminality will be difficult for the public to truly grasp, so the Democrats need to be good with the messaging. They should start right now. Why not use a simple phrase like "Chaos and corruption" every time they refer to the administration? It is simple, easy to digest, easy to remember, alliterative so that it sticks in the mind, and even Trump's most ardent supporters can't deny that it is a feature of Trump's White House. Hammer that for two years. No Democrat should ever refer to the president or his administration without calling it the "chaos and corruption" administration so that it sticks in the mind of the public. As more and more evidence of evidence of wrongdoing comes out it will only solidify the message. And is Trump becomes increasingly unhinged and erratic in his behavior, it will solidify it as well.
  6. Do you think self-identification is a good measuring stick as to whether someone is conservative or liberal? I don't. I imagine most people spend less time over the course of their entire life thinking about the definition of these words or whether the policy positions they support actually reflect one or the other than I spent reading the thread you just started on this subject. A person's self-identification likely has more to do with other factors like their parents' identification, the identification of the pundits they listen too, etc. than it does any nuanced consideration of the issues. That's the reason for the disconnect between your position and Tim's, and the reason millions of people who claim to be conservative according to the small-government definition can support Trump, who by any measure is one of the most intrusive, pro-government politicians we have ever had.
  7. I kind of agree with PJB that complete rejection is not the way to go. While the shutdown is clearly Trump's fault, the general public who doesn't follow every detail of the news everyday and has a short attention span won't keep all of the blame on him forever. I think Tim and others were correct when they suggested the Democrats should at least give the appearance of trying to negotiate to keep the pressure on Trump. More importantly, a counteroffer at least keeps open the possibility of finding some kind of way to open the government and help all the people hurt by the shutdown. I like the idea that someone mentioned earlier about linking barrier money to analysis of the USMCA and its benefits on our economy. Ask the CBO to do an analysis of how much money the USMCA would generate over NAFTA (to be honest I don't know if this is within the CBO's purview, but I assume it is). Democrats counter Trump's proposal with a proposal of 2 billion for non-barrier border security, 2 billion for humanitarian aid, 1 billion for fighting the opiate epidemic, and up to 7 billion for barriers with the stipulation that the barrier cannot be a concrete wall, and that money for barriers will only be appropriated up to the dollar amount that the CBO says the country will definitely bring in on the USMCA above what would come in with NAFTA. In exchange, DACA immigrants are protected for 8 years. I have no idea what Trump would do, but this would put the ball back in his court. If he rejects it, it reinforces public opinion that he is primarily to blame for the shutdown. If he supports it, at least part of his base could turn on him. It would also increase the pressure on moderate Senate Republicans to reopen the government. And obviously there is 0% chance any wall would actually ever get built under that proposal.
  8. https://twitter.com/murphymike/status/1082067367528620032
  9. Has anyone tried to challenge this in courts? I honestly don't know. I agree that it is BS and wish someone would.
  10. This is why I am sure the national emergency talk is just bluster, but I'm secretly kind of hoping Trump is dumb enough to try it. Obviously it would go nowhere, but in the inevitable lawsuits when the administration tries to demonstrate that there is actually a national emergency, it will shine a spotlight on how completely FOS they and this entire line of thinking are.
  11. I never said anything about race. Interesting that Trump supporters project just like their fearless leader. There are a number of reasons that Trump is deserving of hatred and opposition beyond his obvious bigotry. First and foremost is his description of the free press as the "enemy of the people". Anyone who has heard Trump say that or seen him post it in a Tweet and takes any position beside complete opposition should be condemned as being fundamentally anti-American.
  12. I'm conservative and feel perfectly at home on this board. But that's because I am actual conservative and believe in conservative principles and American values, not the non-sense that the GOP is peddling. Mr. Ham's characterization seems to be spot on. The current manifestation of the GOP is not conservative. But they are worthy of hatred from any American from any side of the political spectrum who actually cares about our country.
  13. The original post and thread title also conflate households with individuals. Basically the title of the threat is misleading at best and I think it is fair to simply call it a lie. CIS makes a distinction and offers an explanation for the use of households as opposed to individuals, but the explanation seems pretty dubious.
  14. Sorry if someone else has mentioned this; having a little trouble keeping up with the thread. A couple of weeks ago there were reports that Trump was going around asking everyone how loyal they thought Pence was. I assumed at the time this was why.
  15. Partisan? I am a conservative who has voted Republican in every election prior to this year, who is staunchly pro-life, and who wants to see conservative judges appointed. That doesn't change the fact that Kavanaugh has no business being one the Supreme Court. But back to the original topic, I have no idea whether Heitkamp deserves to be a Senator or not. I don't know as much about her overall record as I should. Like you, I respect her for casting a vote she knew would lose her an election. The people in her state had every right to vote her out. I simply wih more elected officials would take a stand about what is right rather than what is popular in their districts.