Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Sweet J

Members
  • Content Count

    10,321
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

2,977 Excellent

About Sweet J

  • Rank
    Footballguy

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Interests
    Stuff

Recent Profile Visitors

10,387 profile views
  1. I don't understand. Bernie seems to be gaining momentum. This scares me. Something fishy going on.
  2. The fact that you think he's been a "successful" businessman is mind blowing.
  3. You are arguing in bad faith. You are taking a specific situation and trying to imply that it happens more broadly. Yes, political appointees (including Schedule C politicals) can be let go. But "typical" federal employees can't. And no, there is no great history of protected federal civil servants being fired by "both sides" because of political speech. We really need to have some standards for this board.
  4. I like Bernie and all, but I'd blow a gasket if all student loans were forgiven, regardless of where a person went to school, regardless of the amount, and regardless of a person's financial responsibility. It would be opening pandora's box for people to borrow WAY beyond their means.
  5. On second thought, there isn't any need to weigh in on this.
  6. BATSIGNAL activated! I thought I'd come in here an make a lighthearted post. But then I took a look upthread. Whooopsies, just gonna back away slllllooooooooowly.
  7. I appreciate what you are saying, but I've got to push back on this. Let me try an example. Please let me know your thoughts: Your buddy marries a skank. You tell him "Don't get married. She's nasty and will cheat on you. She's a hoor. She'll be running around with other guys. You need to get this thing annulled now." Etc. etc. During the first year or two, you try to point out all the ways she is doing him dirty. But he says that there is no definitive proof. And you are just out to get her because you hate her. The third year, you have pretty dependable proof that she is cheating on him. It's a little confusing, but for anyone taking the time to look at it, it's there. If you present this proof to him that she is cheating (witnesses, audio, even her kinda-sorta admitting it on tape), and he said: "I'm discounting all your proof because you had it out for her from the beginning." You would think he's a lost cause, right? "I'm not going to believe these pictures of her cheating because you always hated her" would be the craziest response ever. That's what this excuse for Trump sounds like. You can say: "I don't believe your proof." Or even: "I believe your proof but I don't think it rises to the level of impeachment." But: "I'm not going to address your proof at all because you never liked him from the beginning" is . . . I don't know, man.
  8. hmmmm. You have to see the last one, man! I'm convinced you will be with me on this one. I think I like the 9th better than the 8th. But still liked the 8th well enough.
  9. The women I know in the "mom's demand action against guns" groups on Facebook are full anti-Bernie mode. It's like nails against a chalkboard. I may have to start unfriending people.
  10. Yes, I should have made that clear. I think the mean we'd regress to is two parties, in whatever fashion. And I can dig the advocacy for changing the status quo. I'd love to look at something like ranking candidates on a ballot with 1st, 2nd, 3rd choice, etc. Someone a lot smarter than me could work out the details and the downstream effects.
  11. The argument against third party (for me) is reason based: It is simply not the way our system of representative democracy was set up with winner take all voting. I still remember my PoliSci 101 professor proofing it out. A third party can't live long-term, because if it ever came close to happening, it would get gulped up by the smaller of the two remaining parties. Now, a system COULD be created so that a third (or forth, or fifth) party is viable long term, but the very nature of how we elect representatives would have to change. Saying "i'm not going to vote for one of the main two parties until a third is viable" is as effective as saying "I'm not voting for one of the main two parties until the Electoral College is abolished." I mean, sure, maybe the system will be fundamentally altered so that it happens. But I don't think not voting is going to speed it along.
  12. I'm convinced Bernie pulls ahead. I'm terrified that Clinton dems will get cold feet or buy into the Bloomberg narrative that Bernie can't win, and try and contest the convention. Good grief.
  13. The more time that goes on, the more fired up I am about getting on the Bernie train. I like his ideas. I like him. He's a good guy. I'm a little afraid he'll be demonized by the right, but EVERYONE coming out from the Dem side is flawed (as a candidate) in some way. I don't think Bernie is any more flawed (as a candidate) than the others. And I've been saying this for a year now: Bernie will appeal to the same rust belt working class white voters that Trump stole from Obama (and before that, Clinton). At heart, I think Bernie comes across as the populist that Trump pretends to be. And I HATE that when I see anti-Bernie stuff on my facebook feed from my "liberal" friends, I feel compelled to correct or argue, Bernie-bro style. I'm trying to be respectful. For example, I haven't called Bloomberg trash once in my responses. Even though he's . . . well, trash (I say this as someone who would vote for Bloomberg over Trump).