Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
Which Convention Was More Effective? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter TripItUp
- Start date
The General
Footballguy
I'd say next to no effect.
People who are into this just like their side still.
People who aren't into are pissed the speeches mess up their DVR.
People who are into this just like their side still.
People who aren't into are pissed the speeches mess up their DVR.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
Eh, neither. I think the loss of the convention environment turned them into a series of infomercials. On the plus side I think Biden did himself a lot of good with his steady performance. On the GOP side I think they showed they have a potential bench, albeit a short one. On the negative side the Dems' production was a little clonky and awkward. On the negative side for the GOP this might be the biggest mass public law breaking this country has ever seen.
Grace Under Pressure
Footballguy
Thought I saw a poll today that had 3% of likely voters saying they were still Undecided. These conventions aren’t changing anyone’s mind, swaying or influencing anyone.
And could possibly lead to some adverse health outcomes. It's outdoors, but these people, many of them older adults, are sitting very close for perhaps 2 hours, mostly without masks.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
I'll bet there are some who really want to wear a mask, but want to be PC, GOP-style. A solution would've been to have plenty of masks with flags or slogans.
rockaction
Footballguy
Didn't watch, no regrets about that. I don't think that the Democrats got any bounce, I think Trump might from his. That'll tighten the race up for sure if it happens. But other people saw Castro in him, too. Rod Dreher said his speech was "Castroite" in length. No surprise there.
zoonation
Footballguy
The GOP convention was certainly more effective in solidifying the reality that the rule of law is under siege in America. Just shred the Hatch Act. Not law anymore. When people compare Trump's America to Fascist Germany, they are not talking about the ultimate grotesque manifestation of that in the form of killing 6 million Jews. They are talking about the slow erosion of the rule of law, which ultimately made those atrocities possible. And that is the similarity. Trump is tearing away layers of the foundation of a functional democracy. And you just witnessed another example today.
Hatch Act? old news.
Hatch Act? old news.
The Commish
Footballguy
All of this....the only thing that will be interesting is closure in the money gap (if any) and even then, the money doesn't mean what it used to. I would consider it impressive if Biden closed the money gap in a week. I thought I was going to watch the GOP for the trainwreck factor, but never got around to it outside of it being on in the background. Didn't watch any of the DNC one either. I am going to be voting against Trump and trotting his kids, gun pointing dopes and/or GOPers trying to stay relevant out on stage isn't going to change that.
Boston
Footballguy
I think the lack of "Hollywood" (Eva Longoria...I still don't understand that) and having the personal stories by regular people was very effective for the GOP...Ann Dorn was the most powerful thing by far, so incredibly sad...I think the GOP showed great diversity with the speakers...also, came out of this with momentum for 2024 with up and comers like Scott, Noem, Cameron and Haley (although she was already pretty well known).
Rich Conway
Footballguy
More effective at what? Raising campaign donations? Convincing people to vote for the party? Garnering ratings? Quality production values?
I just didn't see to many "regular citizens" at the DNC telling us how good life is going to be under Socialism or how Joe Biden has touched their lives.
All I heard was, "Orange Man Bad".
(...and the MSM agreeing wholeheartedly)
However, I did watch the video of Rand Paul and his wife being attacked while leaving the WH last night.
(...and NOT on any major network "news" channel)
Socialism is going to be GREAT
I can hardly wait for Communism!
All I heard was, "Orange Man Bad".
(...and the MSM agreeing wholeheartedly)
However, I did watch the video of Rand Paul and his wife being attacked while leaving the WH last night.
(...and NOT on any major network "news" channel)
Socialism is going to be GREAT
I can hardly wait for Communism!
Last edited by a moderator:
sho nuff
Footballguy
Probably because a Biden administration does not equal socialism. And if all you heard was Orange man bad...you didn't actually listen to much of anything Id guess. As that is a completely false assertion of what it was all about.
Also...communism has nothing to do with...well, any of this.
So what again is the point of a post like this? What purpose does it serve other than to make bogus assertions hoping you get a big reaction?
johnnycakes
Footballguy
What everyone needs to know is that Trump and the Republican Party just LOVE socialism — a corporate socialism for the rich and the powerful.
If you are a fossil fuel company, whose carbon emissions are destroying the planet, you get billions in government subsidies including special tax breaks, royalty relief, funding for research and development and numerous tax loopholes.
If you are a pharmaceutical company, you make huge profits on patent rights for medicines that were developed with taxpayer-funded research.
If you are a monopoly like Amazon, owned by the wealthiest person in America, you get hundreds of millions of dollars in economic incentives from taxpayers to build warehouses and you end up paying not one penny in federal income taxes.
If you are the Walton family, the wealthiest family in America, you get massive government subsidies because your low-wage workers are forced to rely on food stamps, Medicaid and public housing in order to survive — all paid for by taxpayers.
This is what Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. meant when he said that “This country has socialism for the rich, and rugged individualism for the poor.”
And that is the difference between Donald Trump and us.
Trump believes in corporate socialism for the rich and powerful.
We believe in a democratic socialism that works for the working families of this country. We believe that in the wealthiest country in the history of the world, economic rights are human rights.
Last edited by a moderator:
Last edited by a moderator:
So....the State would control all of this?
A government has no role in controlling this.
It's only responsibility is to give every one the same opportunity to work within the system.
Only the pursuit of happiness is guaranteed...not the results.
Putting the word, "Democratic" in front of "Socialism", doesn't make "Socialism" smell any better....
Last edited by a moderator:
zoonation
Footballguy
With the greatest respect, you can’t honestly believe this. “Social democracy “, as that term has normative meaning in the context of America’s future, refers to the system of government adopted by effectively every other western first world democracy on earth. Systems of government that have been i. Place in the western world for decades.
yelling “”Venezuela” and “Che” is strawman’s strawman.
Dinsy Ejotuz
Footballguy
Voted Dem. Given that he's ~9 points down, Trump needed to do more and it doesn't look like he did it. No change coming out of the conventions helps Biden. The debates are the last chance to really move the needle now.
tri-man 47
Footballguy
Um, didn't the RNC give us an unusual dose of "Donald Trump has touched my life?" (Unusual in the sense that that has not been the narrative over the past four years.)
And didn't the RNC give us a heavy dose of "Biden (and Dems) Bad?"
Sand
Footballguy
Tell you what, try for a month to eschew everything produced by your friendly oil company. Your electricity, transportation (yes, even if you have a Tesla), plastics, MRIs,etc.
Then come back and trumpet how evil they are.
Some of the insanity on the left hand side of the field is unreal.
Last edited by a moderator:
The General
Footballguy
Joe Biden the crime bill author, the war monger, the guy who says no earned dollars under 400k will be taxed...the socialist
Bottomfeeder Sports
Footballguy
KiddLattimer
Footballguy
Bottomfeeder Sports
Footballguy
I think he is just teasing you once again. ETA: Don't get those hopes up too high.
Last edited by a moderator:
The Commish
Footballguy
The next "socialist" policy I see from Biden will be the first. "Socialism" to the right has literally become the word to mean "something I don't like". I can't think of a single policy out there, not one, where the politicians are advocating for the government to take over the production, distribution and allocation of the industry.
KiddLattimer
Footballguy
Exactly... Biden has been a single step left from the Republican party for 40 years, he's not changing nowThe Commish said:
The General
Footballguy
pollardsvision said:
The Commish
Footballguy
And I love these "after the fact" subjective/vague polls where we have no criteria other than personal opinion. This is guaranteed to be riveting discussion 
Rich Conway
Footballguy
Is that a socialist policy? For starters, public education is until unrelated to socialism.
That said, is this such terrible policy? What makes "exactly 13 years" the "correct amount of government funded education? Why not 17? Why not 15? Why not an even 10 or an even 20?
The Commish
Footballguy
That's as "socialist" as public K-12 school. If you have a problem with public schools as a concept then I can see why you'd have a problem with extending that four years. Otherwise it comes across as just an arbitrary line in the sand based on (assuming here) some political talking point one's heard in the past.
Last edited by a moderator:
Yes it is socialist, see below. Regarding free college, I think it is a horrifically bad idea. In simplistic terms, it is human nature that if you have no skin in the game, you tend to put in commensurate effort. But this is not the thread for such discussion.
Socialism is a spectrum. Free college is more socialist than not. And how does that work by the way? Are all colleges free or do we set up a series of government colleges? If all, you should be aware that elite private universities charge little to no money to needy kids who qualify to get in. Actually pretty much all colleges do similar. So we help the people who need it. Pretty good system if you ask me.
Rich Conway
Footballguy
OK, so you see 17 years as "more socialist" than 13 years. Fair enough.
How many years is the "correct" amount of government funded schooling? Why that number instead of N-1 or N+1?
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
Last edited by a moderator:
The Commish
Footballguy
No....socialism is where the government (community) takes over the creation, distribution and allocation of an industry. Anything else you make it is fodder. This is the problem with the current "conservative" definition of "socialism". It really has no meaning other than "something we don't like" Just about every single thing they are labeling as "socialism that is going to destroy our country" is something that already exists and works relatively well in this country. Education is a good example of that. 13 years of education is fine, but 17 is a bridge too far and on the precipice of destroying the country as we know it. It's completely illogical.
"How it works" is a great question for another thread, but whether you know it or not, in asking your questions you acknowledge the difference between a socialist solution and what would likely happen here (not socialist at all). For it to be socialist, the government would have to set up schools, run them and control them leaving no option for any other avenue to education. I defy anyone to find a politician's solution that suggests this at all. We don't even do this in K-12. This is why I said "free college is as 'socialist' as K-12"....that's to say it's not "socialist" at all for that very reason. All the proposals I have heard is for the government to pay tuition and fees for students provided they get the grades necessary to get into that institution. If you had a scale of "scholarship" as one extreme and "socialism" at the other, that solution would be significantly closer to "scholarship" than "socialism".
Last edited by a moderator:
The Commish
Footballguy
And this nonsense that "you have no skin in the game" completely defies the concept of scholarship. If it were true, full ride scholars would be dropping out of school left and right, yet that doesn't happen. It's almost like casting generalities and dispersions like that is probably not a wise thing to do.
Personally I think that adulthood, which coincides pretty well with HS graduation, is a good point for a person to decide the first step on their path, be it employment, military, trade school, college, mission/Peace Corps, etc.
That being said I believe some European countries have an extra year in their equivalent of HS; if this helps young adults to select their path, I'm open to that discussion.
Good point, I should have clarified that. In today's model, full ride scholars tend to have shown the work ethic to have earned those scholarships, through commitment to athletics, arts, academics, etc. Full ride need-based scholars have typically risen through adversity to qualify for college; you know, that thing many inner city kids accomplish despite liberal hysterics that it is impossible in our systemically racist system.
In your "don't call me Socialist because we didn't actually build the schools, we just collect all of your money and decide how to distribute it" model, every shmuck who gets into college is now on a "full ride." I propose that those are not the same.
caustic
Footballguy
We have some numbers — ABC News / Ipsos Poll:
Did you approve or disapprove of what DEMOCRATS said and did at their convention?
Overall
Approve 53% (+11)
Disapprove 42%
Republicans
Approve 11% (-72)
Disapprove 83%
Democrats
Approve 91% (+85)
Disapprove 6%
Independents
Approve 51% (+8)
Disapprove 43%
Did you approve or disapprove of what REPUBLICANS said and did at their convention?
Overall
Approve 37% (-22)
Disapprove 59%
Republicans
Approve 80% (+63)
Disapprove 17%
Democrats
Approve 4% (-90)
Disapprove 94%
Independents
Approve 39% (-18)
Disapprove 57%
Did you approve or disapprove of what DEMOCRATS said and did at their convention?
Overall
Approve 53% (+11)
Disapprove 42%
Republicans
Approve 11% (-72)
Disapprove 83%
Democrats
Approve 91% (+85)
Disapprove 6%
Independents
Approve 51% (+8)
Disapprove 43%
Did you approve or disapprove of what REPUBLICANS said and did at their convention?
Overall
Approve 37% (-22)
Disapprove 59%
Republicans
Approve 80% (+63)
Disapprove 17%
Democrats
Approve 4% (-90)
Disapprove 94%
Independents
Approve 39% (-18)
Disapprove 57%
Rich Conway
Footballguy
I can see the argument that government funded schooling should stop at adulthood. However, that just begs the question of when adulthood is reached. 18 = adulthood is, obviously, just as arbitrary as 13 years of schooling, considering that in many cases, we use 21 as the definition of adulthood (legal drinking age, for example). One can easily make the argument that human brains aren't fully formed until 25, and that would be a more appropriate standard for adulthood.
Last edited by a moderator:
Joe Summer
Footballguy
Whoa. Not good for Republicans at all. 17% disapproval of their own convention is a shocking number to me, especially when compared to Trump's abnormally high approval ratings within the party.
I wish the poll had asked a followup question to find out what Republicans didn't like about the convention. Maybe they liked the messaging but disliked the Hatch Act violations?
I also noticed that the poll showed a slight dip in favorability for Trump -- he's now at 31% -- while Biden's favorability has jumped 6 points in the past 2 weeks (he's now at 46%).
In 2016, both Trump and Clinton had historically low favorability numbers -- Trump was at 36.3% and Clinton was at 38.8%. It's one thing to make up a 2.5% deficit against someone who is almost as unpopular as you are........but it's a completely different scenario when you're trying to make up for a 15% deficit against a guy who has a net positive rating.
TripItUp
Footballguy
Joe Summer
Footballguy
Awful schtick right here. The polls are biased (except when they agree with me).
- ABC has a reputation of the most conservative mainstream network aside from Fox, and has the highest ratings for reliability. (link)
- the poll was actually conducted by IPSOS, which has a B- rating from 538. (link)
- the same poll showed Trump with better numbers last week, so even if they're biased (which they're not), it's still a terrible sign for Trump.
The Commish
Footballguy
Well, first I (The Commish) don't have a model. However, every model I've seen has had a standard for acceptance. I.E. they have to have the grades/portfolio, extracurriculars to get into the schools they want. I've seen not a single plan as you frame it with the bold. Do you have one you can point me to? I'd like to read that plan. I thought it was rather obvious, but maybe not, that "every kid should be able to go to college" <> "every kid should get into the school they want".
The rest is a pretty good, nonsensical rant that I'd address, but it's definitely for another thread and I'd just be repeating myself from the last time someone said something similar.
The Commish
Footballguy
I can't....at least not when people die on the sword of "we have to give all these corporations tax breaks so they can compete in the global economy". It's completely illogical to have that position and also hold the position of "well, individual, you're on your own to figure things out. We know there is a global market out there you have to fight in and we know other countries do what they can to help their citizens succeed, but we aren't going to do that. You'll figure it out. Good luck"
Similar threads
- Poll
