What's new
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.

timschochet’s political thoughts and commentary- back in here until the election is done (1 Viewer)

sho nuff said:
But the GOP congress has spent as well...as did previous GOP Presidents.  
Republicans haven’t been fiscally conservative in a while.
Right but they keep saying it as if it's true kind of like "the check is in the mail" or "don't worry I had a vasectomy". 

 
No because I honestly am not sure how deliberate it is. For me there is a distinction between the two. Not a big one but it’s there. 
Hes going to take away Trump's tax reform.  Full stop. You can tell by Kamala's tell, her smirk when Pence called her out on it. It as clear a lie as there ever has been.  

 
Hes going to take away Trump's tax reform.  Full stop. You can tell by Kamala's tell, her smirk when Pence called her out on it. It as clear a lie as there ever has been.  
Again not that clear. 
But the important part is: I hope you’re right. It’s something we need to do. I explained why earlier. If you disagree, let’s hear your reasoning. 

 
I love that the Lakers won. But some of their idiot fans at Staples are giving the rest of us a bad name. No masks, no social distancing. Just go home you fools. 

 
I've paid so little attention to the NBA I didn't even know the Lakers were good, never mind in the finals. I know LeBron wanted to pack up and go home because of the stuff that was going on in Kenosha but Jordan talked him out of it or something like that.

Really, I've never seen sports games halted because of this stuff. What a phenomenon. What hubris by everyone involved in those decisions. It's not a threat, guys, I really don't care if you play or not. I don't need my circuses, only my bread. Imagine how you'd fare if nobody cared and you had to work a real job. 

 
I've paid so little attention to the NBA I didn't even know the Lakers were good, never mind in the finals. I know LeBron wanted to pack up and go home because of the stuff that was going on in Kenosha but Jordan talked him out of it or something like that.

Really, I've never seen sports games halted because of this stuff. What a phenomenon. What hubris by everyone involved in those decisions. It's not a threat, guys, I really don't care if you play or not. I don't need my circuses, only my bread. Imagine how you'd fare if nobody cared and you had to work a real job. 
I do care if they play. Of course it’s important to all the people working with them who aren’t earning millions. But beyond that, I think it’s important to the mental health of the public to be able to enjoy sporting events. So I’m glad about the NBA, the NFL, and MLB. College football I’m less certain about. 

 
I've paid so little attention to the NBA I didn't even know the Lakers were good, never mind in the finals. I know LeBron wanted to pack up and go home because of the stuff that was going on in Kenosha but Jordan talked him out of it or something like that.

Really, I've never seen sports games halted because of this stuff. What a phenomenon. What hubris by everyone involved in those decisions. It's not a threat, guys, I really don't care if you play or not. I don't need my circuses, only my bread. Imagine how you'd fare if nobody cared and you had to work a real job. 
Also...good job by the NBA pulling it off...the bubble thing worked out pretty well for them getting through their playoffs.

 
I do care if they play. Of course it’s important to all the people working with them who aren’t earning millions. But beyond that, I think it’s important to the mental health of the public to be able to enjoy sporting events. So I’m glad about the NBA, the NFL, and MLB. College football I’m less certain about. 
"College football I'm less certain about." Spoken like a true Democrat drinking the media narrative. Hwarf.

 
Speaking of circuses, the Amy Coney Barrett (see? I remember her name now!) hearings begin today. The results are predetermined, which probably means less people will be watching than usually would for such a controversial candidate. 
I don’t mind the principle of originalism that she appears to espouse, if AI understand it correctly. I don’t think I agree it, but I respect it, in theory. The problem I have is that conservative judges like her never seem to apply it evenly in all cases. They want it applied to abortion and gay marriage. But when it comes to the Second Amendment suddenly they’re quite willing to tell you what the Founding Fathers would have thought of assault rifles. There’s not much consistency there. 

 
Speaking of circuses, the Amy Coney Barrett (see? I remember her name now!) hearings begin today. The results are predetermined, which probably means less people will be watching than usually would for such a controversial candidate. 
I don’t mind the principle of originalism that she appears to espouse, if AI understand it correctly. I don’t think I agree it, but I respect it, in theory. The problem I have is that conservative judges like her never seem to apply it evenly in all cases. They want it applied to abortion and gay marriage. But when it comes to the Second Amendment suddenly they’re quite willing to tell you what the Founding Fathers would have thought of assault rifles. There’s not much consistency there. 
I honestly think, given the examples you use, that you don't understand it or are conflating originalist, textualist, and structuralist arguments. Something about your summation strikes me as wrong. Originalism simply asks what the Founders, by using various sorts of evidence, would have thought of a contemporary problem. It does not have differing methods between issues, it is itself a method, if you will.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
"College football I'm less certain about." Spoken like a true Democrat drinking the media narrative. Hwarf.
Well first off I reject the whole silly phrase “media narrative” with its absurd implications of deliberate storytelling. 
But that aside, the reason I’m less certain is because the  professional  leagues are able to pay for more testing, distancing, bubbles, etc, which all increase the safety factor for the athletes, who also happen to be paid professionals. College sports are less safe for various reasons. 

 
I honestly think, given the examples you use, that you don't understand it or are conflating originalist, textualist, and structuralist arguments. Something about your summation strikes me as wrong. Originalism simply asks what the Founders, by using various sorts of evidence, would have thought of a contemporary problem. It does not have differing methods between issues, it is itself a method, if you will.
More generally, if you look at the philosophy of a highly-educated person who has spent a lot of time thinking about a particular issue, and your surface-level understanding of the situation leads you to believe that they're making a blindingly obvious error, there's an extremely high likelihood that you're the one that's grossly misunderstanding the argument.

 
I honestly think, given the examples you use, that you don't or are conflating originalist, textualist, and structuralist arguments. Something about your summation strikes me as wrong. Originalism simply asks what the Founders, by using various sorts of evidence, would have thought of a contemporary problem. It does not have differing methods between issues, it is itself a method, if you will.
I probably am conflating terms. I’m not a lawyer. My understanding is that Barrett is one of those who believes that we accept the Constitution as written and that decisions like Roe vs Wade are wrong because they create law out of thin air. Is that originalism? Textualism? I don’t know what the proper phrasing is. 

 
More generally, if you look at the philosophy of a highly-educated person who has spent a lot of time thinking about a particular issue, and your surface-level understanding of the situation leads you to believe that they're making a blindingly obvious error, there's an extremely high likelihood that you're the one that's grossly misunderstanding the argument.
Ha! Could very well be. 
I invite you to educate me. 

 
I probably am conflating terms. I’m not a lawyer. My understanding is that Barrett is one of those who believes that we accept the Constitution as written and that decisions like Roe vs Wade are wrong because they create law out of thin air. Is that originalism? Textualism? I don’t know what the proper phrasing is. 
So you literally don't know what you're talking about -- originalism?  textualism?  who knows? -- but you're totally comfortable assuming that Barrett is making a clear intellectual error.

That's courageous.

 
So you literally don't know what you're talking about -- originalism?  textualism?  who knows? -- but you're totally comfortable assuming that Barrett is making a clear intellectual error.

That's courageous.
Actually I’m not accusing her of making any error at all. What I wrote is that if I understand her correctly I think I disagree with her, and I think there is a contradiction among people in the past who have expressed a similar POV, But Im absolutely open to the idea that I don’t understand her correctly. 
As an aside, I love your style of humor, even when it’s directed in the form of subtle insults towards me. 

 
I probably am conflating terms. I’m not a lawyer. My understanding is that Barrett is one of those who believes that we accept the Constitution as written and that decisions like Roe vs Wade are wrong because they create law out of thin air. Is that originalism? Textualism? I don’t know what the proper phrasing is. 
Yeah, please don't take my correction as harsh. Bigbottom and Henry are better at this than I, but I think what you're thinking of when you're thinking of Roe v. Wade is the criticism that judges are creating policy and rights where there is no explicit grant of these rights -- or the right to make policy from the bench -- given in the Constitution. It doesn't necessarily implicate originalism as a method; the criticism of policy-influenced decisions is jurisprudential at heart. Originalism could lead one to very much believe in privacy rights for other reasons -- it does not preclude reaching one decision or another. LIke I said, it's a method whereby you try to ascertain what the Founders would have done with a contemporary problem.

 
IK makes a possibly unintentional point, too. All of these jurisprudential theories, ways of looking at the Constitution, they all bleed ito each other at some point. There's often no way to neatly say that a thing is originalist or textualist, they all influence the other at times. IOW, you could say that original intent of the Sixth Amendment is textual, that is, that one can read it and know what it means without too much deviation from the text. That is neither conservative nor liberal, and that the two parties can't seem to address this without rancor or casting aspersions is one of the great downfalls of our 20th and 21st century.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Yeah, please don't take my correction as harsh. Bigbottom and Henry are better at this than I, but I think what you're thinking of when you're thinking of Roe v. Wade is the criticism that judges are creating policy and rights where there is no explicit grant of these rights -- or the right to make policy from the bench -- given in the Constitution. It doesn't necessarily implicate originalism as a method; the criticism of policy-influenced decisions is jurisprudential at heart. Originalism could lead one to very much believe in privacy rights for other reasons -- it does not preclude reaching one decision or another. LIke I said, it's a method whereby you try to ascertain what the Founders would have done with a contemporary problem.
You know part of this with me comes down to a simple question: how much of this debate is honest people arguing different competing legal theories of how best to interpret the Constitution, and how much of it is people that want their viewpoint on issues like abortion or gun control to “win”, and therefore are grabbing on to any argument they can that will best bring about that desired result? I’ve always been suspicious that, on both sides, the latter is actually the driving force. 

 
I’ve always been suspicious that, on both sides, the latter is actually the driving force. 
That's been really the problem since Bork. That people believe that the latter is actually the driving force. I know neither here nor there nor what's in men's and women's hearts, so I don't judge. I think most judges try to fairly apply the law neutrally and within the tripartite structure of our Constitution. Do they always? Not really. Your hero Douglass was probably the most egregious about this that I can remember. He and Brennan. But that's for another day and we'll get bogged down if we do Court history (not to mention it being above my pay grade).

 
You know part of this with me comes down to a simple question: how much of this debate is honest people arguing different competing legal theories of how best to interpret the Constitution, and how much of it is people that want their viewpoint on issues like abortion or gun control to “win”, and therefore are grabbing on to any argument they can that will best bring about that desired result? I’ve always been suspicious that, on both sides, the latter is actually the driving force. 
Well, I agree with you on that one.  I'm not sure that that critique applies especially well to individual justices, but I'm positive it applies to 99% of non-lawyers who chime in on this sort of thing.

 
Not trying to offend the supreme court historians. But isn't Amy Coney Barrett just going to vote with the Republican point of view 100% of the time? Or 99 out of 100 times, maybe breaking ranks on something non-controversial? That's what is expected when nominated, no? It seems like discussing their "interpretation" style thorough past decisions and writings is something that was done in some wonderful past time when stuff like that mattered.

Trump is nominating young people he expects to side with him 100% of the time. Sorry if that's buzzkill, but I suspect this is understood as well. 

 
Not trying to offend the supreme court historians. But isn't Amy Coney Barrett just going to vote with the Republican point of view 100% of the time? Or 99 out of 100 times, maybe breaking ranks on something non-controversial? That's what is expected when nominated, no? It seems like discussing their "interpretation" style thorough past decisions and writings is something that was done in some wonderful past time when stuff like that mattered.

Trump is nominating young people he expects to side with him 100% of the time. Sorry if that's buzzkill, but I suspect this is understood as well. 
I don't know why you'd think that.  Trump's nominated two justices, whom have both ruled against Trump's wishes already.  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Not trying to offend the supreme court historians. But isn't Amy Coney Barrett just going to vote with the Republican point of view 100% of the time?
No way. See Roberts, John and Obamacare, taxation vs. mandate

I get what you're saying though. When the rubber meets the road, she'll be there on their side. Well, it's likely why they are indeed nominating her. Whether it comes from judicial interpretation leading to policy or just policy qua policy is the question we were having.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
tonydead said:
For milk and stuff?   Fine by me, no way it offsets the alternative. 
I think your frame of mind here is extremely naive. Trump’s tax cuts do not give you more spending power; quite the opposite. Unless you’re in the .1% (and if you are, great!) you’re worse off than you would be without them. 

 
unckeyherb said:
I don't know why you'd think that.  Trump's nominated two justices, whom have both ruled against Trump's wishes already.  
And I’m sure this one will too. But not on ACA. Based on her writings, she’s going to find it unconstitutional, using Scalia’s logic (which was deeply flawed on this issue and, IMO, many others.) 

 
So this article claims an authoritarian streak among Trump supporters: 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2020/10/12/trump-voter-authoritarian-research/

I’m not buying it. The anti-mask movement, foolish as it is IMO, is indicative of a libertarian streak among conservative Americans, and that would be in direct contradiction to authoritarianism. So is the pro-second Amendment movement. So is the fear of socialism which permeates the language of so many Trump supporters. 
This is a complicated subject. Yes in some ways serious Trump supporters do support certain aspects of authoritarianism, as does Trump himself. But in even more ways they don’t. 

 
The article goes on to claim that Trump supporters, and Republicans in recent years, are more anti-democratic than Democrats. Now this is possible. Conservatives traditionally have had a healthy fear of democracy, healthy in the sense that they do not want “the mob” to take away precious individual rights by majority decision. It can be argued that in recent years, this healthy fear has transformed itself into an unhealthy obsession, so they are unable to discern any difference between tyrannical efforts of oppression and reasonable public health and safety concerns. 
But being anti-democratic doesn’t necessarily mean being pro-authoritarian. For conservatives, the alternative to democracy isn’t more power to the state, it’s “leave us alone.” Of course this often does not apply to minorities or the disadvantaged. In those cases most conservatives seem to favor a strong “law and order” approach- the closest they come to authoritarianism. 

 
I think your frame of mind here is extremely naive. Trump’s tax cuts do not give you more spending power; quite the opposite. Unless you’re in the .1% (and if you are, great!) you’re worse off than you would be without them. 
This is far from reality, I’m not in the .1% and his tax laws has saved us tens of thousands of dollars per year as a small business owner. You are spreading falsehoods. 

 
So this article claims an authoritarian streak among Trump supporters: 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2020/10/12/trump-voter-authoritarian-research/

I’m not buying it. The anti-mask movement, foolish as it is IMO, is indicative of a libertarian streak among conservative Americans, and that would be in direct contradiction to authoritarianism. So is the pro-second Amendment movement. So is the fear of socialism which permeates the language of so many Trump supporters. 
This is a complicated subject. Yes in some ways serious Trump supporters do support certain aspects of authoritarianism, as does Trump himself. But in even more ways they don’t. 
The anti-mask movement among Trump supporters is exactly an authoritarian thing.  They're not forgoing masks due to some libertarian ideal; they're forgoing them because Father Trump told them to.

 
The article goes on to claim that Trump supporters, and Republicans in recent years, are more anti-democratic than Democrats. Now this is possible. Conservatives traditionally have had a healthy fear of democracy, healthy in the sense that they do not want “the mob” to take away precious individual rights by majority decision. It can be argued that in recent years, this healthy fear has transformed itself into an unhealthy obsession, so they are unable to discern any difference between tyrannical efforts of oppression and reasonable public health and safety concerns. 
But being anti-democratic doesn’t necessarily mean being pro-authoritarian. For conservatives, the alternative to democracy isn’t more power to the state, it’s “leave us alone.” Of course this often does not apply to minorities or the disadvantaged. In those cases most conservatives seem to favor a strong “law and order” approach- the closest they come to authoritarianism. 
Where does a desire to have the right to discriminate against people indirectly for the government in the name of religious liberty fit into all of this?  I mean specifically Thomas and Alito's recent statement "...enables courts and governments to brand religious adherents who believe that marriage is between one man and one woman as bigots, making their religious liberty concerns that much easier to dismiss."  Which seems to be setting the stage for https://www.aclu.org/cases/fulton-v-city-philadelphia.  

Seems to me that this is about reserving and fighting for the rights for "real Americans" while as you kind of noted stomp on the rights of "others".  That is not a defense of liberty, it is a defense of selfishness.

 
The anti-mask movement among Trump supporters is exactly an authoritarian thing.  They're not forgoing masks due to some libertarian ideal; they're forgoing them because Father Trump told them to.
I don’t agree. I’ve watched these ridiculous anti mask protests in Huntington Beach, talked to some of these people, and read their comments in pro Trump sites. They view being forced to wear masks as an infringement on their liberty. 

 
Where does a desire to have the right to discriminate against people indirectly for the government in the name of religious liberty fit into all of this?  I mean specifically Thomas and Alito's recent statement "...enables courts and governments to brand religious adherents who believe that marriage is between one man and one woman as bigots, making their religious liberty concerns that much easier to dismiss."  Which seems to be setting the stage for https://www.aclu.org/cases/fulton-v-city-philadelphia.  

Seems to me that this is about reserving and fighting for the rights for "real Americans" while as you kind of noted stomp on the rights of "others".  That is not a defense of liberty, it is a defense of selfishness.
Most evangelical conservatives want “religious liberty” and also support Donald Trump but I don’t think this issue would be considered a primary concern for most Trump supporters. 

 
This is far from reality, I’m not in the .1% and his tax laws has saved us tens of thousands of dollars per year as a small business owner. You are spreading falsehoods. 
Not a falsehood. It’s an opinion, backed by a lot of reason and evidence. President Trump did not make any spending cuts in order to make those tax cuts, which means he borrowed money to do it. So those tens of thousands a year you “saved” are from a big credit card which you will be required to pay back, with interest.

But even beyond that there are compelling arguments that many or most people, including many or most small businesses, were not helped even in the short term by the tax cuts. I am linking here an opinion piece from Mother Jones. I fully realize that this is a leftist source which may cause you and others to mock it without reading it. But I urge you to do so anyhow because some of the facts cited are pretty interesting and may cause you to reconsider your position: 

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2020/06/trumps-tax-cuts-were-a-disaster-naturally-republicans-want-even-more/

 
Most evangelical conservatives want “religious liberty” and also support Donald Trump but I don’t think this issue would be considered a primary concern for most Trump supporters. 
Maybe not the specific example of being able to deny marriage or foster children to gay couples, but the concept of reserving my rights - we need to open up fully for the low risk people (at most half the population) while the rest can be locked inside - while trampling on others is the cause, not liberty. 

 
Like wearing seatbelts. The USA was late to the game on wearing seatbelts, compared to other countries. Reagan was on the wrong side of history.

When New Seat Belt Laws Drew Fire as a Violation of Personal Freedom
Good example. There is a long history of conservative/libertarian opposition to public safety proposals. As I wrote, it’s rooted in some very healthy principles, but at times (such as now) it can become fanatical and a hindrance, IMO, to good society. 

 
Maybe not the specific example of being able to deny marriage or foster children to gay couples, but the concept of reserving my rights - we need to open up fully for the low risk people (at most half the population) while the rest can be locked inside - while trampling on others is the cause, not liberty. 
What you’re stating here is, of course, the reality, but it’s not ever stated by these folks and honestly I don’t think they think of it that way. 

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top