TobiasFunke

Members
  • Content count

    27,062
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

3,284 Excellent

About TobiasFunke

  • Rank
    Footballguy

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

14,282 profile views
  1. I'm not really a gun guy so I can't say for sure. What are the potential complications of mandated child safety locks and loading indicators, as recommended here? Practical complications,I mean. I'm aware of the political complications. Feel free to PM so we don't take the Trump thread off track.
  2. Strasburg had a crappy outing yesterday afternoon, Nats' lead in the NL East is down to 4.5 games. Also the whole "bigoted lunatic accepts major party nomination for president and launches into a frightening hour long rant of demagoguery and intolerance" thing was a bit of a downer. Mostly the baseball though.
  3. Sure is. Of course according to CDC data, an average of 62 children under the age of 14 were accidentally shot and killed annually from 2007-2011. Assuming the rate is consistent that projects to just under a thousand dead children during that 2001-present time frame. Since 200 dead Americans is 200 too many, I assume you also agree that 1000 dead American kids is 1000 too many? Maybe we should focus on some simple, non-discriminatory, non-repressive actions that might have saved the lives of those babies and toddlers and elementary school kids buried with accidental bullet holes in them (something that happens here far more often than everywhere else in the first world) before we move on to the more difficult and complicated question of how possibly prevent or reduce those 200 terrorism-related deaths (something that we already do better than the rest of the first world anyway). Whaddya say?
  4. I got news for you, friend. There were Muslim-related terrorist attacks before 2001 too. And Bush was speaking nine days after 3,000 Americans were killed in a terrorist attack by fundamentalist Islamic radicals. In the 15 years since I believe there have been fewer than 200 Americans killed by such attacks. What's changed is that an obnoxious loudmouth realized he could achieve political success by playing to the irrational fears of gutless #######.
  5. Even for a shtick account, it takes some kind of chutzpah to say that attacks in Munich and Paris "make it seem like America can't get anything done" and are therefore somehow good for the candidate who just two days ago threatened to skip out on our NATO obligations. Do you think people don't know where Munich and Paris are? Five stars for this one, top notch fishing.
  6. Absolutely, without question. Here's W on September 20, 2001: Nine ####ing days after September 11. Contrast that with the way Trump and the gutless Republicans who go along with his demagoguery speak about Muslims today.
  7. During the primaries he was introducing a lot of subjectivity into his analysis, which he copped to. His current projections are purely objective. In fact if you want to remove even the objective data that he has subjectively determined to be relevant (economic trends and whatnot) he offers a "polls only" option. My guess would be that if anything, Silver is a little too high on Trump right now. Objective models can't account for variables like his projected skill at debating, or his apparent struggles with running a disciplined organization. I think that's why he's giving Trump slightly better odds than Vegas is right now. Not that this would be at all reassuring, of course. Even if he only has a 30% chance to win, that still means he's got about as much chance of winning the presidency as Buster Posey does of getting a hit in a given AB. I'd feel a lot better if he were closer to Jon Lester territory.
  8. Indeed, and we get along well so hopefully you know I mean no disrespect by this: I really don't think you're getting the depth of my/our opposition to Trump at all. What I'm seeing from him and his supporters is the worst thing I've seen in national politics in my lifetime, by miles. This isn't just the usual "you suck/ no, you suck!" routine we go through every election cycle. This is uniquely horrifying and embarrassing. If I could I would happily concede the next three presidential elections to "conventional" Republicans like Kasich, Bush or Rubio in exchange for a Democratic win this November ... and I don't even really like Clinton that much.
  9. You can't believe anyone would dispute the idea that the success of a presidential candidate's speech can be measured by how much it disturbs people who oppose the candidate? Even setting aside the principle of the thing, the logic here is also pretty terrible. The idea of a nomination speech isn't just to rally the base and annoy the opposition, it's also (primarily, some would say) to win over undecided voters. Assuming that, I would think the reaction you'd want from opponents is grudging credit, or maybe nitpicking the content in an effort to discredit the speech or minimize its positive effect. Not opponents saying "holy ####, what the #### was that nightmarish authoritarian mess!!??!?!?!" followed by a mad scramble to social media to condemn the content and/or to the opposition's website to make a donation.
  10. So THIS is been the problem with my gambling strategy to date- I've only been betting on events where people don't know what was going to happen! Should have stuck with betting on events where the outcome was already known. In retrospect I suppose this strategy should have been more obvious to me.
  11. Perhaps they will, although I seriously doubt it. Trump is uniquely revolting among the major party nominees in my lifetime, worse than anyone else from either party my an enormous margin. But if they do feel this way I won't take that as evidence that Clinton did a great job. If anything I'd take it as evidence that she needs a more inclusive and positive message that doesn't make the people who dislike her feel like this.
  12. Setting aside party politics, it's really awful that you think a "having a good night" can or should be measured by how much a politician disturbs and alienates half of the people he seeks to govern. The sentiment you express here would never cross my mind . I sincerely hope you never feel about a candidate from any political party the way millions of Americans felt about Donald Trump last night and this morning.
  13. link As for your "so what" question, I guess you'll have to ask Donald Trump that. Hes the one who keeps bringing it up.
  14. I don't want to ignore avoiding injuries' concern here, though. He is right, we should be talking more about last night's speech instead of focusing on Trump's insane, rambling, uninformed comments this morning or any of his previous insane, rambling, uninformed comments. To that end, here is Charles Pierce on Trump's speech last night. I agree with every word: Nobody chanted, "Yes, you will." Times were too serious for that. The situation was too dire. Actual wolves were at the door. The terrors were real, and not imagined. Fear didn't need to be stoked. Fear was the resting pulse of the nation and democracy was being threatened with murder, and not. There was no need for passages like this: That is how men with ribbons and gold buttons speak to people from balconies. That is how kings talk, and not particularly bright ones, either. God save the Republic, because I don't know if we're up to the job any more. link. Because it should be re-read and shared.
  15. He was ####ing horrifying last night. It was dystopian, authoritarian garbage, played to people's worst fears, and was also completely full of ####. Better? Now then, what old stories is he being attacked with here?