Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

ericttspikes

Members
  • Content Count

    5,552
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

2,234 Excellent

About ericttspikes

Recent Profile Visitors

7,121 profile views
  1. Is it just me, or are the captions kind of botched in Narcos: Mexico 2? Sometimes during prolonged Spanish dialog the caption pacing is fine; they leave it up on screen to read, but then sometimes they just flash a caption for a millisecond or sometimes seem like they don't caption parts. I can generally tell what's going on but seems like I miss some stuff. I don't remember having that issue on previous seasons. I do like this show though.
  2. It's gotten to the point that I enjoy the look and soundtrack of the show more than the story, which is a problem. Also, Maitland's wife is really annoying.
  3. Couldn't that individual Boeing employee who digs his policy simply go to Bernies web page and donate up to $2800? I honestly don't know since I've not only never contributed anywhere close to the legal individual donation limit to any candidate ever, but I also don't work for a corporation. I guess still don't really see the distinction since I believe an individual can only donate up to $5K to each PAC, which doesn't seem like that much more than the individual limit. I always thought PACs were simply end runs around the ban on union and corporate donations.
  4. Google NETPAC is a way Google employees to make political contributions. They support free and open Internet, cybersecurity issues, employment policies, etc. https://www.opensecrets.org/members-of-congress/contributors?cid=N00000528&cycle=2020 I assume it's something similar from Boeing, but not sure. What is true is that Bernie has received the most donations from Boeing, 2x as much as Trump. https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/toprecips.php?id=D000000100&cycle=2020 I'm all about demonizing greed, but IMO, Bernie and Warren in particular blur that distinction. When Warren attacks Bloomberg by saying ""Now some people have figured out it'd be a lot cheaper to spend a few hundred mil just trying to buy the presidency than paying that wealth tax," and sells mugs saying "billionaire tears", I don't know. That just isn't really a fair assessment of Bloomberg in particular when you see his tax policy proposals. Or when Bernie, who has raised somewhere north of $25B says, "We do not believe that billionaires have the right to buy elections". Come on. Do multi-millionaires who have amassed a $25 billion dollar campaign war chest have the right to buy elections? I get that it's better to beat the guy up because he's wealthy, but maybe it would be better to actually compare policies and not pretend to be above it all? They are all playing the game and using real money to do it. Sure, Bloomberg would pay less than what Warren and Sanders are proposing because they aim above their bracket and put the bullseye directly on the uber wealthy (or the "Ultra Millionaire Tax" as Liz calls it), but Bloomberg would pay $1.2 billion more under his tax policy than under the current system and has a broader wealth tax (over $5 million a year) than Warren and Sanders. His policy would still account for $5 trillion in new government revenue over a decade. Seems reasonable.
  5. Fair enough. Based on our current system, none of them can be president without money either. Sanders and Warren are incredibly wealthy people who seem to have their heart in the right place. I will also vote for them if they are the choice. But I have my doubts their vision can hold up to attack leaving us back to square 1; having an amoral, lawless conman running the show. I think they are smart capable people who will try. Those two candidates in particular do demonize wealthier people than themselves in debates on on the trail, often painting wealth as the root cause of problems instead of pointing to the fact it's really how wealth is amassed and used that matters. They are gobbling up and spending billions too. Bernie in particular has cultivated an images of mom and pop funding him while he flys coach and rails against the 1%, yet he takes money from Unions, Colleges, Google, Boeing, etc. Nothing wrong with that, but he isn't exactly upfront about it. One can argue being funded by Postal Workers and Colleges is benign, but they aren't paying for the fun of it. The Colleges in particular will have a huge stake, and potential windfall, in a Sanders presidency. Again, I don't see anything wrong with that except that Sanders and his supporters sometimes act like capitalism itself is the problem.
  6. I agree. We are a well on the road to being a corporate Republic. Not sure there is any putting the genie back in the bottle without incurring a lot of collateral damage. I will say the demonization of wealthy people in a capitalistic society has never made sense to me. There are bad people and there are good people; rich or poor. Is Bill Gates evil because he has billions? I don't know the guy but how he uses his money speaks volumes on the kind of person he is and aspires to be. There really was never a mystery about Trump; he is a stingy guy who cheated, stole and ripped off people in his private business and continues to be that same person in his public service. Bloomberg has a track record on how he has used his money and do think it speaks to values he'd bring to his public service as well. Unlike Trump, Bloomberg has donated $8 billion to causes that effect climate change, combating opioids, education, and gun control issues. Bloomberg, Gates and Buffett are guys who have signed the Giving Pledge, vowing to donate at least half of his wealth the charity. Plenty of other rich guys like Trump aren't willing to do that.
  7. He has a special interest of one. If he didn't have $60B and ran for president he'd be railed for getting money from somewhere; wine cave fundraisers, Saudi princes, Russian Oligarchs, Oil and gas CEOs, NRA, Big Pharma, book deals, speaking engagements, Google, unions, PACs, etc.
  8. Trump got impeached trying to stop Joe Biden, the guy who's now run for president 3 times and has never won a presidential primary....there isn't enough lols over that genius move.
  9. time to dust off those tricorn hats and teabags
  10. But is he a lunatic who snorts Adderall?
  11. Market will love him and he doesn't appear to be an unhinged narcissistic crook. Everything else is just noise.
  12. So Barr sent Nunes to South Bend? That makes it better. https://twitter.com/kyledcheney/status/1226540472539238408
  13. Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Herbert Camacho would restore dignity to the office.