Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

prefontaine

Members
  • Content Count

    4,548
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1,057 Excellent

About prefontaine

  • Rank
    Footballguy

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    DFW

Recent Profile Visitors

7,417 profile views
  1. Hopefully Adrock qualifies for the next debate.
  2. I'm not sure how you can come to this conclusion unless you define conservative as a Trump supporter. And even if so, up thread, knowledge dropper pretty clearly stated he'd like a challenger.
  3. This crazy Ivan shtick just hasn't producing any tangible results. This has got to be driving Republicans crazy too because abandoning all GOP principles and getting nothing is just forcing them to eat turd sandwiches. They are stuck running on protectionism and strong arm tactics. They don't believe in it but speaking out against it is electoral death since Trump has convinced enough of their base that this is somehow good. Populism is a scary thing.
  4. They were specifically trying to avoid a kid's table to give everyone a fair shake.
  5. I'd disagree. Every candidate should want to be vs Biden, particularly the 3 you mention. They are going to get movement vs him, not vs Warren or others.
  6. I don't think there's any "may" to this. Biden has run for President twice and been an unmitigated disaster twice. He's already all over the place this time and he's not even really campaigning. For all the best vs Trump he has going, it's only because he's likable and other candidates are less known. He's a terrible campaigner. I like Biden from this field. I don't want the Dems to nominate a progressive candidate because I want to be sure it's someone I can stomach. But Biden may be a worse candidate than Kerry was. I really want Harris to make a charge.
  7. Agree with both of you. I'm just saying it's not like we don't have women in positions of power in this country. We certainly do today. When Ferraro was nominated as VP, it was a reach pick because there just weren't many women that had the traditional gov/sen/SOS background. Today there are a myriad of women that have the experience and background to match any man. I definitely understand the desire to push it since we've had 250 years of men, but at this point, it's inevitable. this thread moved too fast - trying to respond to TF and MT and 3 replies n between
  8. I think Speaker of the House and Secretary of State are both higher ranking in the grand scheme of things (not in Presidential succession obviously). After President, these are the two highest profile positions in our government.
  9. I find that odd but maybe it's just because of my agnosticism towards "sides." I don't find as I've aged that my opinions have been swayed much. The rest of the world evolves but sadly, I do not. Quite possibly I'm not noticing my own bias. But when I rejoined this board after a 7-8 year hiatus, I went back and read some of my old posts. My two thoughts were how surprised I was how little my views had changed and that I used to be smarter. It's when I realized that every day forward I will be dumber than the last (though hopefully wiser).
  10. That's interesting and I imagine it is because Republican selections have skewed towards youth. It's tough to find the right balance of young and known quantities. And maybe they have felt the need to roll the dice since the Dems controlled the Senate for most of the 20th century. But my post was really more about @IvanKaramazov seeming to suggest he was okay with the Senate not voting on Garland because Republicans have had a hard time getting conservatives through the Senate. I find that I often agree with him but this is an area I really really break with his thought. I don't even really understand the point either as all of the GOP moderate nominations in recent history have been with a Democratically controlled Senate. When the opposing party controls the Senate, Presidents have always moderated their picks. I think Garland is a perfect example of that. *** And even still, Clarence Thomas was approved in a 43-57 Senate ***
  11. Well, sure. But he's not the sharpest spoon in the drawer. He's not going to think on his feet and be able to navigate that without saying something worse. Just answering Hodor over and over when he was stuck was not his worst moment.
  12. I find this comment interesting. I'm not a SC historian and don't remember all the details. But while some of the fights have been ugly - particularly on the right leaning justices - few were nominated as moderates. In my adult lifetime (pre-Trump), Renquest, Scalia, Thomas, Alito and Roberts were all nominated as conservatives. Roberts drifted after but no one questioned it at the time. Souter and Kennedy were moderates (or unknowns) but you're going back to the 80s for that. Garland was by far the most moderate pick by either side since. Only 2 nominees since Nixon - Bork (which became Kennedy) and Miers (Alito) - were not confirmed. So really only Bork went to a moderate and while I was in HS so I don't remember everything around this, this pick in hindsight, seems like an incredibly dumb choice.
  13. I can't believe I'm about to defend Jared freaking Kushner. But.... If he says yes, his FIL is going to lose his mind. If he says no, people may be mean to him at Martha's Vineyard. What's a poor boy to do?
  14. No they aren't tolled - at least there is no mechanism for it. However, up until this point, we haven't had many criminals occupy the White House and AFAIK there has never been criminal prosecution of a former President. So it may well have to be litigated if someone was bound and determined to indict. I stayed at a Holiday Inn Express.