Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

huthut

Members
  • Content Count

    1,011
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

786 Excellent

About huthut

  • Rank
    Footballguy

Previous Fields

  • Favorite NFL Team
    San Francisco 49ers

Recent Profile Visitors

2,581 profile views
  1. I would not be surprised if every endorsement Bloomberg has is preceded by a significant contribution to the endorser. Just flat out buying every aspect of the primary process.
  2. If Sanders is ahead in delegates or total votes, even if by 1, and does not receive the nomination, whoever does get the nomination will lose to Trump. On more left forums there is already the concern that the DNC and media are intentionally trying to sink Sanders campaign, and there will be plenty of hurt feelings about it. I mean, if he is behind in delegates or whatever there will still be supporters who stay home, but if it appears to be "stolen" from him, I think it will be significantly more widespread. Pretty much any scenario with a brokered convention drops the democratic nominees chance at winning significantly.
  3. I am not religious, but from an outsider perspective, to me the bulk of Evangelical Christianity seems to be pretty much as opposite to the teachings of Jesus as you can get. Take from the poor, give to the rich, let the sick die, hate thy neighbor etc. I am probably under-informed about the good things that they are doing, but that is essentially my snap reaction. You would find better Christians among the crowd at a Marilyn Manson concert.
  4. If her name was playbook he could just say he was listening to his coaches.
  5. I have never really understood why stock prices and such matter when talking about the health of the economy with respect to job availability and other worker related metrics. The vast majority of people do not have any significant stock holdings, and the stock prices have no reflection on how "beneficial" the increase in stock price is for the average worker. A good way to get a nice stock bump is to lay people off, while from a perspective of having the most people gainfully employed and contributing to the economy that is obviously a bad thing. Pundits always talk about the NASDAQ or whatever going up as if that translates to something meaningful, when it probably only effects 5% of people. Stocks could triple overnight and there would still be the same people driving uber for 5 hours after working a shift because they don't make enough money, and it will never trickle down to them.
  6. The Senate is wholly undemocratic. It kind of made sense when the states were a looser collection of entities 200 years ago, but it does not really have much purpose now, also with the significant widening of differences in population between states now vs then. Abolish the senate, give their roles to the house, expand the house to 4000 people or something. Now we have a much better local representation in the government, without being held hostage by some small % of the population.
  7. Doesn't really seem like there is much middle among NH Democratic Primary voters based on the response to this question: https://i.imgur.com/yVEisaY.png It seems like Warren is not making anyone happy by saying and then going back on M4A.
  8. Might be different if it is a caucus where you know it will take 4 hours, vs mail in ballots or some other lower effort method of voting, but I have no idea if my initial premise is correct, so not going to think to hard about it. I probably could not find time to vote in a caucus, even if I would want to. Luckily I have like 3 weeks to vote by mail.
  9. I was reading something about bad turnout, and apparently part of it was "I am voting for whoever wins, I don't really care who", so they did not bother to waste time caucusing for hours. I cannot find where I read that at the moment, so no idea if it is true or not.
  10. "Hell no I don't want my taxes raised to pay for healthcare!" <Pays $15,000 a year to Anthem/Aetna/whoever for them to immediately deny any claim until you call and contest it>
  11. Obama did not run as a centrist, he just turned out that way. Plus he was a much better speaker than 99% of other candidates, they will not get the same amount of votes without his charisma. And the economy crashed right before the election (though I think he would have won either way). Clinton was before modern history where the Republican Party is driven by Fox News/Stormfront, and Perot was also in the election mucking stuff up. None of those are nearly as similar as the examples I mentioned. But you probably already knew that.
  12. Maybe, but we have proven time and time again, centrists will lose - even to historically terrible candidates. Unless I am forgetting President Kerry and President Hillary Clinton. I would rather take a chance with something new, rather than something that has failed numerous times in recent history.
  13. I agree, it would be two candidates where their voters are enthusiastic about their message, as opposed to one candidate where the voters will turn up no matter what, and the other that maybe you will vote for because they are not Trump, if the lines are not too long.
  14. I agree, which is why we do not need a centrist candidate whose message is "vote for me and I will continue to do nothing", further leading to 0 voter enthusiasm. New and young voters are not going to wake up eager to vote on election day when the message is "Republican policy, just a little slower". From https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/02/03/us/elections/results-iowa-caucus-polls.html (about 75% down the page)- Sanders completely swept the field with people who did not vote in 2016 or 2018. It would be nice to be able to further break that down between people who were not old enough to vote, and people who just chose to not vote, but either way that is a real population of new voters who will vote to remove Trump, not some hypothetical, finicky, most likely not existing, undecided voter who you need to beg and coddle with terrible policy to MAYBE have them not vote for Trump.