Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

zftcg

Members
  • Content Count

    6,499
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

zftcg last won the day on October 23 2018

zftcg had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

3,045 Excellent

About zftcg

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://
  • ICQ
    0

Previous Fields

  • Favorite NFL Team
    Washington Redskins

Recent Profile Visitors

4,542 profile views
  1. Yes, I saw the same report. I don't have any specific answers to your questions, but I do know there are a lot of people who had already registered immediately after the ballot initiative passed whose status was thrown into question by the new legislation, so this would potentially help them. You are right that the deadline was yesterday, though I do believe that's only for the primary and they would have plenty of time to register for November's election. One thing that sucks is that all this confusion could hold down registration and voting regardless of the ultimate decision. And you don't have to be a professional cynic to wonder if that wasn't the intention all along.
  2. I was once the foreman of a jury. As we deliberated, it became clear that there was a solid majority in favor of acquittal, but we had a few holdouts. Eventually those people came around and we voted to acquit. What I found really fascinating was the different paths people took to get to acquittal, and seeing how their brains worked in real time. Some of the rationales I thought made sense, others didn't, but I realized it wasn't my place to question them. (The one exception came when the final holdout seemed to be giving in simply to go along with everyone else so they would stop badgering her; I told her that wasn't an acceptable reason, and I refused to send the verdict to the judge based on that alone.) Point being, it's important to recognize that, not only will people sometimes disagree with you, they will approach the problem from a completely different perspective that you might find non-sensical, but which doesn't necessarily make it wrong.
  3. Another one in that group, for me at least, is Cenk Uygur. I actually went to college with him -- he was a senior when I was a freshman -- and he was that right-wing bomb-throwing columnist that every college paper loves to hire to get people stirred up (or at least they did back in the '90s. No idea if that's still the case.) Now I see him on TV as the ultimate BernieBro and I just can't. One thing I will say -- especially in the era of Never Trump -- is that I've gained a lot of respect for people who are willing to stand up for principle, even if it means burning bridges with former colleagues. I know there are plenty on the left who want to snipe at, say, Bill Kristol, but I refuse to do so, even if there's still plenty I don't like about the guy. Because I think what he's done takes courage, and I want to honor that. Anyway, we're getting further afield from the OP, so I'll just say that I think it's kind of fascinating how political evolutions can range from admirable to understandable to unseemly. Or, as the British philosopher David St. Hubbins put it, it's such a fine line between stupid and clever.
  4. I've wondered exactly where I would draw the line. For example, I once heard an interview with a reformed skinhead who now helps other people transition out. Obviously, a guy like that is completely praiseworthy, especially considering that he was recruited into the movement as a scared, confused teenager. I think in the examples I cited, it has something to do with them still being pundits. It's the hubris of thinking that people still want to hear what they have to say. If they just went about quietly doing good work and atoning for their past sins, I might be more sympathetic. But I admit I don't have a really good handle on what drives my emotional reaction to them.
  5. That's almost certainly true; I know that I will. But why is that a bad, or hypocritical, thing to do? The nature of our two party system is that you frequently have to choose between the lesser of two evils. The idea that liberals must, for the sake of intellectual consistency, throw their votes away on protest candidates, thereby ensuring Trump a second term, is ridiculous. And for the record, I would say the exact same thing about evangelicals and Trump. They're not hypocrites for voting for him, but they are for rationalizing their support and backing him so enthusiastically. Come talk to me when liberals start doing that for Bloomberg.
  6. I keep hearing this, but it's not true. He was a Democrat until he decided to run for mayor in 2001 (since he knew he didn't have a chance in the Democratic primary, and the NYC GOP was basically a desiccated husk that he bought on eBay). Since then he's switched back and forth as circumstances demanded to suit his short-term political needs. I'm not defending his behavior at all, just trying to set the record straight.
  7. I generally agree with you -- and certainly in @NorvilleBarnes's case -- but I make one exception: I remain eternally skeptical when people move from one political extreme to the other, no matter which way they go. Prime example is David Horowitz, who was a radical leftist member of the Black Panthers and then became a right-wing pundit. In the other direction (if somewhat less extreme), David Brock went from writing right-wing hit pieces for The American Spectator to founding Media Matters. There's just something about people like that that prevents me from ever trusting them, even when they're saying things I agree with.
  8. First of all, thanks for sharing. I don't agree with you, and I don't completely understand what caused the shift. (Actually, and correct me if I'm wrong about this, but I sense that you don't completely understand it either. That's not meant as a criticism -- complex decisions like this often involve multiple interacting factors, and I think lots of times people can feel very certain about their destination even if they don't totally comprehend every step of the journey.) Anyway, I think all of us can benefit from hearing your perspective.
  9. I only voted for him in one of his three elections (2005). The first time, I thought he would do a terrible job. Then in 2009, I wanted him to win but was so enraged by his move to eliminate term limits that I cast a protest vote for Bill Thompson (as it turned out, a lot of other people had the same idea as me and Thompson almost won). In addition to the term limits stuff, there were plenty of things he did that I opposed (stop and frisk, his closeness to Wall Street), but he governed competently, hired lots of good people (highly underrated skill) and did a lot of good for the city. I'm white, so I can't speak directly to the experiences of minorities under Bloomberg, but I will say he was significantly better in that respect than Rudy had been (low bar, I know), and I certainly never felt during that time that he was "rampantly authoritarian".
  10. That's kind of where I'm leaning. Problem is I think all the other leading Dems have major flaws as well.
  11. Not a Bloomberg supporter, but I keep hearing this facile comparison and it's crap. I lived in a city governed by Bloomberg. I live in a country governed by Trump. You can't convince me there isn't a difference.
  12. OK, I just realized that I didn't know myself; I thought it was still Pena Nieto. So with that, I would like to announce that I am suspending my campaign for the Democratic nomination. I'm sure you all will be relieved to not have to see my TV ads blanketing your airwaves. It's worth pointing out that both Bush and Obama had similar moments in their first presidential campaigns. Bush failed a "pop quiz" where he didn't know the leaders of Taiwan, Pakistan, India or Chechnya. Obama was in a debate with Hillary where neither of them seemed to know the name of Russian president Dimitry Medvedev.
  13. I said I understood the reasons! You didn’t have to explain it to me! But yeah, I do think it’s a step forward that it’s become an issue for Bernie and Biden because of specific reasons, rather than the mere fact of their age. I think that was much less true for Dole and McCain (although they were also hurt by running against much younger opponents).
  14. It’s funny how we talk a lot about Biden‘s and Bernie’s age/health but not Warren’s or Bloomberg’s. I’m not complaining or saying I don’t understand the reasons for it, it’s an just interesting commentary on changing assumptions around age. Prior to 2016 Reagan was the oldest president ever elected to his first term, and every one of these candidates is older than he was in 1980 (as is Trump).