Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

TobiasFunke

Members
  • Content Count

    41,999
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    41

TobiasFunke last won the day on March 25

TobiasFunke had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

27,293 Excellent

About TobiasFunke

  • Rank
    Footballguy

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Previous Fields

  • Favorite NFL Team
    Washington Redskins

Recent Profile Visitors

17,583 profile views
  1. There's no way they can keep it buried, the public demand will be too great and now that there's no finding of collusion or conspiracy there's no national security argument to be made. It is remarkable to see the President's closest allies try to keep a document that supposedly completely vindicates him and makes his haters look foolish from seeing the light of day, though.
  2. Right on cue: What a weird step to take in defense of a totally exonerated man, especially since the resolution didn't place a specific timeline on publication
  3. Did I get the number wrong? My bad. If you give me the exact number I'll correct it! (btw you are literally the only person who has even mentioned UNC in the last couple pages of the thread other than people copying and pasting the lines for the next round of games)
  4. My very favorite thing about Ripleys is how he always spends a couple months pretending he's some new level-headed Duke fan poster and definitely not the guy whose had like eight different aliases banned, but ultimately he just can't help himself. Don't ever change, gb
  5. I don't understand why you're portraying an election as a strategic decision that can be executed. There is no chance for "all those groups to unite, make concessions, and meet somewhere." It might sound nice in theory, but so does Trump resigning and retreating from public life and taking his grotesque, felonious family with him. Both of those things are equally likely to happen. There's going to be a primary battle, and it's gonna be productive at times and ugly at times, and the candidate preferred by people engaged enough in the process to vote in the primaries will win. So given that, the best way to approximate the cooperative effort among the "good guys" that you're talking about is to realize (1) the things that bind all of the people who want Trump out are MUCH stronger and more important than the things that divide us, and (2) a far-left progressive and a left-leaning centrist will probably end up governing in roughly the same way, considering the likely makeup of the next Senate, so these divisions are basically irrelevant anyway. Fight all you want about who the nominee should be based on politics or electability or whatever ... just as long as we all keep those two things in mind. That's my perspective, at least.
  6. I like how your new avatar is a beverage and your new posting style is so transparently thirsty. Good synergy there.
  7. FWIW the odds haven't moved much on the 2020 elections over the last week or so. Still about 60/40 Dem win based on a quick search. I think most people know this is gonna blow over quickly and Trump do something newly absurd to distract us, like comment on a military widow's nice rack or talk about the Jews killing Jesus at the White House Easter Egg roll, and we'll be right back where we started.
  8. 1. I have no idea. Probably some, yes. I'm thinking blue collar workers who resented the perceived "elitism" of the Dems, the people who handed Sanders his surprise primary victory in Michigan. 2. Probably some, see above. 3. I honestly don't think it matters one bit. His base is completely removed from reality. If the Dems nominated Joe Manchin, the Trump/Fox News propaganda machine would be calling him "Joe Marxist" by the end of the day. Not sure I understand the rest of your question. Obviously nominating a progressives has positives and negatives. Nominating a centrist has positives and negatives. There's no way to know which positives outweigh which negatives. That's why I'm just kinda sitting out the primary, just planning to vote for whoever I personally like the best with only a side glance at electability, and then planning to devote all my energy to helping that person beat Trump, no matter who it is (within reason, obviously).
  9. Independent =/= moderate or centrist This has been explained ad nauseam. Regarding your plan to win over some of those centrists- you're absolutely right, that might swing the 2020 election. But so might other things. Bringing black turnout back to its 2008-2012 levels, for example. Or a Latino voter surge, which many expected in 2016 but didn't really happen (that seems tougher, not sure how to unlock that one). Or make an unprecedented jump in young voter turnout, which is a big part of how the Dems did so well in the midterms. Or they can get back to their blue collar union roots, which obviously helps them in the Great Lakes which is where most of the action will be. There are a lot of ways to win or lose the 2020 election, and nobody knows exactly how any of them will play out. Anyone who says otherwise is full of it IMO.
  10. Not to sound like a broken record, but this has always seemed like the more interesting question to me. Even if the campaign had colluded with Russia there's very little that they could have accomplished that Russia couldn't do on their own anyway, given their obvious interest in electing Trump for their own purposes. Of course "NO COLLUSION" grab the headlines while these briefings take place in secrecy and the public will likely never know what is said. Trump is very good at framing questions for his benefit. Or lowering the bar, some might call it.
  11. I'm happy with the news. I think what many people are experiencing is confusion. The campaign and administration did a lot of weird things regarding this issue, and Russia having some leverage on Trump was the Occam's Razor explanation for a lot of it. Now we know it wasn't because of some massive collaborative conspiracy, which is certainly welcome news, but it leaves a lot of other questions unanswered. All the lies about campaign contacts, all the lies about business contacts, firing Comey, the anti-NATO talk, the Helsinki debacle, the lessening sanctions, the platform change on Ukraine, the secretive G-20 meetings where Trump had the notes destroyed, the secret Oval Office meeting with Kislayk ... I understand the man is inept, but having all that ineptitude trending in the same direction (benefiting Putin and secrecy over national security, Western allies and transparency) is quite a coincidence. It's reasonable for people to feel like there are a LOT of questions that need answered, now that we know that one popular explanation is not the correct one.
  12. 2016 is not the example you think it is; in fact it goes against your argument. Dems nominated the well-known center-left politician, GOP nominated the extremist wild card that everyone assumed would struggle to win over centrists.
  13. In 2008 there was a very prominent belief that Clinton was the "safe" choice and that running a more progressive African-American instead reduced the chances of a Dem victory. I don't really understand your second point, but I think the formula isn't nearly as simple as you make it out to be. You seem to be assuming that there's like 125 million people out there, 50 million of whom will vote D and 50 million of whom will vote R and the winner will be the person who wins more of the remaining 25 million. But it's not that simple. For example that's not how Trump won and it's not now Obama won. They won over some independent voters, but they also picked up the margins they needed by activating voters who hadn't voted much before- in Obama's case, young people and African-Americans, in Trump's case non-college educated white voters. Since we don't really know which formula is the best and we can't really guide the process anyway, I say we just vote for who we like and then agree to quickly unite behind that person, whoever it may be.
  14. I don't understand this sentiment. "The Dems" don't get to strategize and choose candidate, despite what the BernieBros think. They have an open primary and the voters pick the person. If the voters pick Biden, so be it. If the voters pick Sanders, so be it. Whoever it is, we all need to get behind them and fight like hell Also, IMO nobody has any idea how electability will work. Everyone thought Clinton was more electable than Obama, that was wrong. Everyone thought a boring center-right candidate running on establishment conservatism was the best chance to defeat Obama, that was wrong. Everyone thought Trump was doomed both in the primary and the general, that was wrong. Sometimes winning over centrists is the key, sometimes picking up newly energized voters to expand the base is the key (that's what happened in 2008 and 2016). I say we let the excellent field of candidates run their issue-centered campaigns, like they have been, and everyone just picks the one they like the most. So far so good IMO. I think the process has been very healthy and above the board. The biggest scandals of the process so far are Warren botching the Native American testing, Klobuchar throwing stuff and the Sanders/Sirota mess, all of which are small potatoes as far as campaign scandals go. The only thing I think we need to do to beat Trump during the primary process is pressure out candidates that have no shot after Iowa and New Hampshire. You don't want a messy, divided convention. Gotta have the candidate when they get to Milwaukee.
  15. Seriously? The guy had a GOP House and Senate and he couldn't get his two signature campaign promises (the wall and Obamacare repeal) passed. That's pretty much the exact opposite of getting what you want when the deck is stacked against him. That's having pocket aces and losing half your chips to 2-7 offsuit. BTW no rich famous billionaire backed by a massive Murdoch-led media propaganda machine and hundreds of other billionaires ever "has the deck stacked against them." That's, like, not a thing.