Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Arsenal of Doom

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

2,140 Excellent

About Arsenal of Doom

  • Rank
  • Birthday 07/27/1970

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
  • ICQ

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Highlands Ranch, CO

Previous Fields

  • Favorite NFL Team
    Denver Broncos

Recent Profile Visitors

15,662 profile views
  1. I feel reasonably confident now saying Biden is going to get over 50% of the total popular vote. Even in states Trump is still likely to carry easily it won't be by the margins he did in 2016, and large states like Texas and Georgia will be tighter. That combined with fewer votes going to third parties should easily tip Biden 2-3% points above Clinton's 48.5%.
  2. This was pretty much Rich's point wasn't it? You don't agree with the analogy because you reject the underlying premise. Just like others would reject the premise of buying votes, because there are presumably no conditions about voting tied to the fines be paid.
  3. This is what's happening, but I'm curious if it's the right time investment for Biden. Polling suggests there are very few undecided voters and the debates won't change anyone's mind. Trump could pull down his pants and take a dump on stage and his 42% will swoon over how well he did. Turning out voters and making sure their votes are counted is everything at this point. That said, I do think the debates are more important for Biden than Trump. In part because I think most people assume Biden will do better and come off as more Presidential. He can afford a few small gaffes but anything major or significantly underperforming could be a problem.
  4. I don't think they need to do it. But in a properly functioning Representative Democracy they'd probably avoid voting on anything significant that is obviously out of line with what the voters want. If there is a bipartisan aid/relief bill being passed, or continuing budget resolution, of course they can and should vote on it. In the case of a Supreme Court appointment, they have the option to vote present or just not vote.
  5. In theory I like the idea of having the court comprised of a mix of political and institutional appointments. Say, 15 judges 10 of which are nominated by the President and 5 nominated by unanimous consent of a panel from within the court, who would presumably be more apolitical by nature of their nomination. In practice though I think it suffers from the same problems I articulated above about just adding judges. It seems perfectly reasonable, but could just be used as an excuse to start adding more political appointments.
  6. In the current example, Gardner represents a state that voted for Obama in '08, '12, Clinton in '16, and in the current polls Gardner and Trump are both trailing by double-digits. If they do in fact both lose here as expected, I don't think it takes much detective work figure out that if he votes to confirm a Trump appointee he's not representing the opinion of the majority of Colorado voters/citizens. Of course most of that was true when he was voting for Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, voting to repeal Obamacare, etc. That's part of why he's trailing by 10 points.
  7. Sure. Personally I think they should able able to vote on everything, including court appointments. You'd just hope they do so in a way that is representative of the people in their state.
  8. I don't think just adding Justices appointed by the party of the President and whoever holds the Senate is a great idea. Would it feel equitable right now, considering how Republicans have managed the process the last 4 1/2 years? Sure. But in 4 or 8 years the next time Rs come back into that power alignment, and they will, they could just add seats themselves and feel perfectly justified doing so.
  9. It'd just be another data point of Republicans not caring about the will of the people and doing whatever they can to maintain power. My current Senator Corey Gardner is likely to lose by 10 points in a State voted for Clinton in 16 and will do so overwhelmingly for Biden. Sure he could vote to confirm a Trump appointee, and it will be a giant middle-finger to CO citizens either way, but especially after he's been voted overwhelmingly out of office.
  10. Yes, I think Garland should have gotten a vote and been appointed. In which case it would be reasonable for Trump to make this appointment.
  11. It's stupid how good this show is compared to how good it should be in theory.
  12. I put it at a 4. There are likely to be ballot issues around the high volume of absentee/mail-in ballots. I think the Democrats made a bit of a mistake focusing so much on mail in ballots early on, when the push should have been more about broadly expanding access to safe voting options. More early-voting, more polling stations, etc., in addition to expanding secure mail in voting. I live in a 100% mailed ballot state and it works great, but some states will have higher reject rates on those ballots. Awareness is high though, so I think people will vote early and carefully. If that's the case it hopefully it won't be an issue.
  13. Enjoyed the last season and finale. The show had a lot of ups and downs but I think it went out on a high note, and I always enjoyed the main cast. I'll particularly miss Fitz and Simmons, love those characters and am happy they resolved their story the way they did.
  14. They should hold up fine on their own as long as you have a basic understanding of Cap, Thor, Iron Man, Spider-Man and Hulk. It's a bonus that you've at least seen Black Panther.