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)
- Thread starter timschochet
- Start date
![[scooter]](/data/avatars/m/22/22287.jpg?1659477690){kind=avatar}
[scooter]
Footballguy
Trump did not suggest, early on, that people wear masks.
The CDC issued a face-cover recommendation on April 3rd, to which Trump said, "You don't have to do it. I'm choosing not to do it".
timschochet
Footballguy
Do I have my month wrong? I don’t care. I’m not trying to revise anything. Others might, that’s not my interest.
dkp993
Footballguy
sho nuff
Footballguy
Im only surprised that some aren't just out blaming Biden being the expected winner as to why its going down now.
parasaurolophus
Footballguy
The WHO didnt change mask guidance until June. And even then they still werent favoring mandates as the solution. I dont even think they were advocating for all hospital workers to even wear them yet.
Here is the biggest problem with masks. The doctors came out so strong against mask use. There was actually mask scolding for people wearing masks. Then they changed. The argument has been that's how science works you simple caveman.
But that isnt how science works. Science would say, we have changed course because this new evidence here made us realize we were wrong. Take a look at this evidence for yourself. Look at this study, look at this study, look at this data, new discovery, etc.
The CDC literally presented nothing for their change. Doctors and scientists never issued retractions or clarifications over their previous "make it worse" comments. In fact the CDC still is full of poop on their site. Under evidence for effectiveness of masks they mention emerging evidence and it is hyperlinked. If you click the link and look at the list, you will see the first like ten links have nothing to do with masks. The first one mentioning it
Is from 2013!!!
The next link is from May 25, 2020. Obviously not used in their decision. And it is just a regurg of many other earlier studies going back to 2007.
The next one isnt even peer reviewed still.
The next one was a combo of hand hygiene and theoretical mask wearing re the flu.
They have another from 2009.
2012
and then another from May 2020.
[scooter]
Footballguy
That's small consolation for millions of people.
Also, it takes away one of Trump's talking points. I mean, a large component of Trump's re-election rhetoric has been (paraphrasing) "At least the stock market is up!" Take that away and his résumé becomes considerably less impressive.
parasaurolophus
Footballguy
Manster
Footballguy
I never said anything about why......I'm only talking investing strategy.....I don't really care about Trump v. Biden anymore......it's all a #### show. I'm just trying to take care of my own little world.
Manster
Footballguy
Oh, you mean like how "some" are blaming Trump? We shut down our economy, the stock market responded independently for the most part......but now we're paying the piper......like I said, good time to buy.
unckeyherb
Footballguy
I guess this is my issue with the whole mask thing. Fauci, on 60 minutes back in March or April I believe, definitively stated that people should not be wearing masks. He said at best they may stop a droplet from getting into your mouth but in reality, they will make people touch their face more due to shifting and re-setting it. The face touching is more of a transmission agent than droplets. He literally gave plausible scientific reasons for NOT wearing masks and when the interviewer asked him if he was definitive, Fauci laughed and said yes. Not because of a shortage, but because it does little to aid in protection from the virus and potentially could make matters worse. Has mask science changed in the last 6 months? Honest question. Masks have been around for a long time. There was presumably tons of data available to Fauci back when he made his claim. Has this data been debunked by new studies?
ETA and to be clear, I'm not an anti-masker, just honestly questioning the decision as I'm unclear of the new science or studies that caused the complete 180 over the last 6 months.
Last edited by a moderator:
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
My honest guess is that western scientists just sort of ignored the fact that folks in Asia have been wearing masks for quite a number of years. There probably wasn't a lot of good scientific studies showing the efficacy of mask-wearing, but the fact that it worked well for China, Japan, Korea, etc. got dramatically under-played and disregarded.
Goodell's Alias
Footballguy
Without getting into a whole lot of other stuff, the only new science required for such a 180 would be a reversal of the bolded, not a change in mask science (with regard to effectiveness). If scientists discovered that transmission is mostly via droplets or aerosol, rather than via fomites, that would completely explain a reversal of the mask position.
[scooter]
Footballguy
Which interview are you talking about? Are you talking about this one, where he says that "masks are important" to prevent infected people from infecting someone else?
In that same interview, he does say "Right now, in the United States, people should not be walking around with masks" -- but that was in early March, when A) it was believed that there were very few infected people on the streets of the USA, and B) we didn't have conclusive evidence about asymptomatic superspreaders.
And, even then, in the same interview, he said it was "fine" for 85% of the people to wear masks in public, and that the "point" of his quote was to prevent a shortage of masks for people who need them. So, if he really believed that people "should not be wearing masks" (your exact words, not Fauci's), then he would not have stated that there were "people who really need them".
Shutout
Footballguy
Hello. I am on vacation and just saw this while taking advantage of some blistering fast Internet. I think it was https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2020/08/13/important-issues-in-the-2020-election/. May have to check the date (1st debate, 2nd debate that was cancelled, etc).
timschochet
Footballguy
Thanks. The date is August 13. Perhaps there was hope then that we were past the worst of COVID. But I have a hard time believing that even then it was 4th on the list. I would imagine it’s easily #1 at the present time.
timschochet
Footballguy
After the election, we are going to be confronted by a story which we will be asked to believe, perhaps for the rest of our lives. Here is the story:
If not for the pandemic Trunp would have won easily.
A whole lot of people believe this already and pretty soon everyone is going to believe it. Except that there no evidence to support it. In January of 2020 Trump’s approval rating was underwater just as it had been his entire Presidency. He had just been impeached with the approval of the majority of Americans, who also demanded that the Senate trial include witnesses; this demand was ignored by Senate Republicans. As seen in 2018, Trump had already lost the support of suburban housewives. In head to head matchups he was losing to most of the Democratic candidates. My own position was that, so long as it wasn’t Bernie Sanders, Trump would lose because the public was exhausted with him.
Covid has made things far worse for Trump because it exposed his incompetence and hurt the economy. But he would have lost anyhow.
If not for the pandemic Trunp would have won easily.
A whole lot of people believe this already and pretty soon everyone is going to believe it. Except that there no evidence to support it. In January of 2020 Trump’s approval rating was underwater just as it had been his entire Presidency. He had just been impeached with the approval of the majority of Americans, who also demanded that the Senate trial include witnesses; this demand was ignored by Senate Republicans. As seen in 2018, Trump had already lost the support of suburban housewives. In head to head matchups he was losing to most of the Democratic candidates. My own position was that, so long as it wasn’t Bernie Sanders, Trump would lose because the public was exhausted with him.
Covid has made things far worse for Trump because it exposed his incompetence and hurt the economy. But he would have lost anyhow.
jm192
Footballguy
Who cares?
Doesn't matter why Trump loses or lost. Do we really care about getting the hypothetical correct?
I think the election will be closer than the polls. I think it was always going to be close.
But to pontificate on who wins in an alternate reality? What good does it do?
timschochet
Footballguy
Many of us love history. We love thinking about why things happened and what if.
These things are important to me.
tri-man 47
Footballguy
I would say a fair analogy is the restriction on indoor smoking, such as/particularly for airplanes. It seems very odd that people resist wearing a mask on a plane ...many even getting themselves banned from airlines because of this. But I can't remember the last time someone tried to smoke on a plane on the logic that, darn it, it was their right to do so.timschochet said:
AAABatteries
Footballguy
Lol at still debating masks - I don't care who you want to blame, just wear a freaking mask.
Mile High
Footballguy
dkp993
Footballguy
Apparently in California they make you wear a mask that you’re never allowed to take off under any circumstances and are required to eat through. It’s called a “special” mask.
*at least according to our POTUS at his rally today in AZ. Also California is canceling Thanksgiving.
[scooter]
Footballguy
You guys are both wrong. The #1 current issue in American politics is: social media likes.timschochet said:
So sayeth one of Trump's Executive Vice Descendants
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
I think despite everything, Trump would have probably won reelection if he had handled the pandemic competently. Granted he was never going to do that because the guy just isn't wired that way, which partially explains why his administration was such a train wreck up to the covid outbreak. But regardless this was an opportunity for Trump to score some wins fairly easily, and he blew it.
The Commish
Footballguy
Who cares? If one wants to be "man, if only we didn't have the bad breaks and all those turnovers and the other team wasn't better and we scored more points, we'd have won" guy, let them.
There's no question his approval was in the crapper....it has been from the very beginning. He couldn't afford to alienate anyone. There's no question he's alienated people with his handling of COVID from average "do the right thing and unify the country" people to seniors who feel like he's brushed them to the side. I can easily see him winning again where people are fat dumb and happy because their pocketbooks are full and there is far less enthusiasm to vote.
timschochet
Footballguy
You’re the second person to ask “who cares”? First off, every presidential election is meticulously dissected in dozens of books written with an eye for posterity, and some of them, like The Making of the President 1960 and Game Change turn out to be classics because nerds like me devour them. So the quick answer to the question is: I care.Who cares? If one wants to be "man, if only we didn't have the bad breaks and all those turnovers and the other team wasn't better and we scored more points, we'd have won" guy, let them.
There's no question his approval was in the crapper....it has been from the very beginning. He couldn't afford to alienate anyone. There's no question he's alienated people with his handling of COVID from average "do the right thing and unify the country" people to seniors who feel like he's brushed them to the side. I can easily see him winning again where people are fat dumb and happy because their pocketbooks are full and there is far less enthusiasm to vote.
Second, I think it matters because losses, much more than wins, tend to reshape the political party in question. I believe Trump is going to lose pretty badly, and this loss will transform the Republican Party, but it how it does so will be largely dependent on the perception of why Trump lost.
timschochet
Footballguy
I agree with this too. It doesn’t contradict my point. The odds were against Trump’s re-election, IMO, but he could have turned things around.
The Commish
Footballguy
How it changes will be largely dependent on how people vote. If you think Republican politicians vying for your vote aren't completely focused on what's going on, you're fooling yourself. However, you are NEVER going to see them admit publicly what they are observing. You're missing the forest for the trees here IMO.
parasaurolophus
Footballguy
If trump barely loses, which i just cant see, then i think he probably would have won if not for covid. But based on early voting turnout, i dont see how he doesnt get trounced.
timschochet
Footballguy
Now in the event that Trump wins, (still around a 10% chance so certainly not impossible by any means) it will be the Democratic Party that will be reshaped following what would probably be the most demoralizing defeat in its history. Most pundits expect that if this happens, the moderates left in the party will he swept away in favor of the progressive Bernie and AOC types. Perhaps. But it will be important to note that such a loss will mean that Trump was largely successful in his attempt to paint the Democratic Party as more extremist and socialist than it currently is. And if that worked, then an even more leftist party is going to have trouble winning national elections, seems to me.
But I am really hoping we never have to find out.
But I am really hoping we never have to find out.
quick-hands
Footballguy
So how worried are you about a packed SC. Statehood for DC and Puerto Rico. And end of the filibuster? Seems populist to me. No?
Widbil83
Footballguy
Tim, any comment about the NYT and MSM using a coffee boy who nobody knew and painting them as some high ranking official for 2 years? Even the Never Trumpers are dragging the MSM today.
https://twitter.com/ajdelgado13/status/1321536593258315776?s=21
https://twitter.com/ajdelgado13/status/1321536593258315776?s=21
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
Packing the supreme court: very bad. I will instantly regret voting for Biden if this issue gains any traction after the election. If there is one item that could cause me to wash my hands of electoral politics, this would be it. On a closely related topic, I have started keeping notes on all the people who suddenly came out in opposition to judicial review starting September 19, 2020. Some of those were people I respected, and obviously I was wrong about them. (I'm talking about media figures, not people here in this forum).
Statehood for DC and Puerto Rico: I don't have much of an opinion on this one either way. I'm mildly opposed to statehood for DC, and I don't know enough about Puerto Rico to weigh in, but I'm open to persuasion in both cases.
Ending the filibuster: good. This filibuster is largely a historical accident never anticipated by the founders. It's become silly ever since they eliminated the need for senators to actually stand up there and talk. There's no good argument that I can think of for requiring a super-majority for routine, ordinary legislation when there are already a bunch of veto points already baked into the system. I supported Harry Reid getting rid of the filibuster for most nominations, I supported McConnell ditching it for SCOTUS nominations, and I'll support anybody who abolishes it altogether.
Terminalxylem
Footballguy
Mask science was, and still is imperfect. Same goes for other public health recs, as it’s nearly impossible to study things like optimal physical distancing, percent virus that is aerosolized, role of fomites, etc. Nearly all the recommendations were based on “expert opinion”, tradition and a smidge of experimental data.unckeyherb said:
That’s not to say we haven’t learned a lot about SARS-CoV-2 in the last six months - it’s a novel infection, so just about everything we know about it is new. And while there still aren’t large scale prospective, randomized controlled trials showing NPIs work, we have enough observational, real world experience to use as a basis for policy.
Dr_Zaius
Footballguy
I agree with your second paragraph, but the problem is that the reasons for a loss are usually fundamentally unknowable, and as subject to motivated reasoning and bias as everything else surrounding politics. After Romney's loss there was a big push for the Republican party to mirror the Democrats on immigration as the only way to stave off irrelevancy. That might be true in the future (and I imagine is something you'd welcome), but Trump won in 2016 while doing the exact opposite. If Biden were to lose, will he lose because he is too moderate? Because Harris is too liberal? Because he's simply too old? You'd get a deluge of people clamoring to push the party in their preferred direction using anecdotes and half-truths.
Last edited by a moderator:
sho nuff
Footballguy
The bolded was a big part of the warning in 2016 to not vote for him...that he wasn't wired in a way to care and listen and do what is right.
timschochet
Footballguy
Great questions.
1. I am opposed to packing the court. But I can’t blame the Democrats that want to do it based on what McConnell pulled with Merrick Garland and Amy Coney Barrett. He is the one the broke tradition and said, we’re going to use our power to achieve our goal and damn precedence. So who can blame Dems for behaving the same way? I can’t. Nonetheless I’m opposed pretty strongly. I don’t think it will happen.
2. Puerto Rico yes but we’d better be prepared to pour money into it because from what I’ve seen when I’ve been there, the infrastructure of the country is not up to American standards. On DC I suspect it’s unconstitutional but I proposed an alternative: for the purposes of Senate and Presidential elections make their vote part of Virginia- that way they would effectively have a Senator and impact on the electoral college without being an actual state.
3. I’m pretty indifferent to this. You’re welcome to convince me why I should care about the filibuster.
whoknew
Footballguy
We may have talked about this before so forgive me, but on the packing the court issue - are you just against it because its being done for purely partisan reasons and if the Dems pack it, then the GOP will, etc? And someone needs to be the adult in the room and say, "Enough."
That's where I come out - but I'm not against S.Ct. reform in general. I'm open to expanding the Court, term limits, Mayor Pete's 5-5-5 plan, whatever. But I think these things should be discussed to see what the best plan is and probably phased in over time.
ETA: In other words, I don't think 9 is some magic number that's just perfect. But if we are going to change it, I want to know why. And it has to be for a better reason than, "Because I want to get my guys on the Court."
Last edited by a moderator:
sho nuff
Footballguy
Pretty much agree on all 3 here. I can understand court packing...and there is precedent (albeit long ago) for increasing to match the number of lower/circuit courts as mentioned in another thread. But it seems unlikely given what the people want. And the slimmest majority the Dems may have in the Senate...I think they know they don't have the votes for it either.
timschochet
Footballguy
From what I understand the identity of the writer was kept very secret and only a couple of people at the NYT knew. Whether they misrepresented the importance of the person is a matter of interpretation.
But the editorial, if I remember correctly, was about how those people working for Trump were aware of his craziness and weren’t about to let him destroy our democracy. And so now that we’ve learned this guy’s identity the biggest question I have is, why wasn’t it somebody higher up? Why wasn’t it all of them?? IMO the embarrassment belongs not with this writer or the New York Times but with all those who have worked for Trump during the last 4 years and who kept their mouths shut.
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
That's correct, yes. I'm open to some flavor of judicial reform, particularly term limits and regular, predictable openings spaced out evenly over presidential administrations. But whatever happens needs to be phased in during some future administration when it's just not a partisan thing.
sho nuff
Footballguy
Like all the others...he also wasn't just some coffee boy as was posted yet again here.
Chief of Staff to the Sec of Homeland Security isn't some low low low level position. The guy has some insight into what is going on...
I believe he was called a senior official...how was he not?
Last edited by a moderator:
dgreen
Footballguy
Going back a little to the Senate choosing between the Barrett confirmation and a stimulus. I don't think the primary criticism should be that they chose Barrett INSTEAD of a stimulus. I think the criticism should be that they acted like they can't do both. This could just be total ignorance on my part about how the Senate works, but I don't get why they logistically couldn't do both.
Since they only did one, they are criticized for choosing the SCOTUS. But, from their perspective, I think that makes sense. It's certainly not popular, but it can make sense. They can easily argue that - again, in a world where they had to choose between the two - they chose the one that they believe will have a 30+ year affect in their favor and their constituents' favor. A stimulus can have long-lasting affects too, but they aren't refusing to do a stimulus; they are just not doing it YET. There will be a stimulus. For many, many people, it definitely sucks that it will come months later. But, I'm confident it will happen. Had they chose stimulus over SCOTUS, then the stimulus would be done earlier and that seat would likely be lost for 30+ years. I think it can make sense from their perspective that this was the right thing to do.
Since they only did one, they are criticized for choosing the SCOTUS. But, from their perspective, I think that makes sense. It's certainly not popular, but it can make sense. They can easily argue that - again, in a world where they had to choose between the two - they chose the one that they believe will have a 30+ year affect in their favor and their constituents' favor. A stimulus can have long-lasting affects too, but they aren't refusing to do a stimulus; they are just not doing it YET. There will be a stimulus. For many, many people, it definitely sucks that it will come months later. But, I'm confident it will happen. Had they chose stimulus over SCOTUS, then the stimulus would be done earlier and that seat would likely be lost for 30+ years. I think it can make sense from their perspective that this was the right thing to do.
timschochet
Footballguy
If we’re going to have this discussion we need to add the fact that in 2016 they refused to consider Garland 9 months prior to the election because they argued that the public had the right to have their vote accounted for. That position which was held by Mitch McConnell and the Senate Republicans until the moment RBG died, when they completely reversed themselves and shoved through an appointment in barely over 30 days, has to be part of the consideration.
dgreen
Footballguy
Bottomfeeder Sports
Footballguy
Cross out the "easily" and I think that absent some other cause for an economic collapse that Trump is reelected. Even now despite the pandemic this election is uncomfortably too close. Sure Biden might blow out Trump in popular vote and/or even have an impressive electoral college victory but the second is only going to happen with a bunch of way too narrow state victories. It shouldn't be this way. Joe shouldn't be questioning how confident we are. There should be no doubts right now from anyone including Trump supporters and even Trump fans that Trump is going to be blown out by Biden in Reagan '84 or Nixon '72 fashion. But it is not! And because of that I think that if Trump could have escaped 2020 without much of anything coming up he wins. Which is a sad indictment.
Widbil83
Footballguy
The editorial was a complete misinterpretation as was his identity. This was fake news 101. There is going to be a lot more victory laps like this in the future against the MSM.
https://twitter.com/donaldjtrumpjr/status/1321587153453928449?s=21
Bottomfeeder Sports
Footballguy
A couple of things has really surprised me about Trump. While I never thought he was "wired" to care about or be capable of managing much himself I had figured his ego would be such that he would have delegated things in such a way to mitigated this. I never had it in me to imagine his enduring fans and that 6/12/2017 cabinet meetings filling this need.
So that was 2016. Early in 2020 when things were starting to go bad I posted somewhere around here that despite all of his flaws I have to think that Trump is well aware that the fastest way for a north eastern mayor or county executive to be shown the door is to mishandle a snow storm. To not quickly have the streets cleared so people can get out and about. So I expected that Trump would be throwing White House fits to clear the streets to get things back to normal. I again failed to imagine that Trump would just declare the streets cleared and tell people all is good and to get out.
I guess I'm just not imaginative enough. I'd like to think in this case that is a good thing.
Joe Summer
Footballguy
Conservative media outed the wrong person, used their cancel culture empire to get her fired, and still hasn't apologized for the error.
