Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Arsenal of Doom

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Arsenal of Doom

  1. It's part of this survey: https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2021/09/15/majority-in-u-s-says-public-health-benefits-of-covid-19-restrictions-worth-the-costs-even-as-large-shares-also-see-downsides/ You have to scroll for it so here is the part they were referencing
  2. Medicare Part D? Ironically, a popular entitlement expansion. ETA - depending on how you define high-profile, you could probably argue that the prison reform passed under Trump qualifies
  3. Saw Shang Chi last night. I liked it but it has some pacing problems. The beginning and ending are great but the middle third of the movie was a slog for me. The final battle REALLY pays off though.
  4. The "My Life as a Weapon" Hawkeye series in the comics is one of the best runs of any comic in the last 20 years, and the D+ series is supposedly going to draw on that. Kate Bishop is also one of my favorite characters, so I'm really looking forward to seeing her in the MCU. On the other hand, I have never really been a fan of Jeremy Renner in the role and his setup in the MCU limits how much they can bring in from the comics (Hawkeye is a notorious bachelor in the comics and My Life as a Weapon plays that up a lot). So I'm looking forward to it but keeping my expectations kinda low. How good Kate is will probably swing it one way or the other for me.
  5. If I had to bet money it would be on Immortus, with a different actor than the one playing Kang. Everything from the Timekeepers to Raovanna to the Void (Limbo) fits in the Immortus backstory. They can introduce the future version without giving too much away, or even referring to him as Kang at this point. A Loki variant would be a huge let down, and they'd have some serious selling to explain a future Loki trying to maintain a single timeline where Loki always dies. They have left the unexplained nexus events for Sylvie and Sylvie/Loki together hanging though, so it's possible they will try to wrap those in somehow.
  6. yada, yada polling sucks, etc. but: What was your total family income in 2019? Under $50,000 35% of voters Trump 44 Biden 55 $50,000-$99,999 39% Trump 42 Biden 57 $100,000 or more 26% Trump 54 Biden 42 https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/11/03/us/elections/exit-polls-president.html
  7. Point of clarity, the DOJ did not launch an investigation. Barr changed the standing DOJ policy to allow for an investigation of fraud if there are "substantial" allegations before the election is certified. The previous rule is that the DOJ would only be involved after certification to avoid the obvious, and now present, conflict of interest of the Executive Branch investigating an active election it is a part of. To the best of my knowledge, no such investigation has actually been announced and the career DOJ official that oversees those investigations resigned.
  8. And I believe if the electors have not voted by the time Trump's term ends, we will have President Pelosi being sworn in. ETA - Cap already covered this
  9. Dave Wassermann’s Twitter feed and anything but election coverage on TV
  10. Sticking with 95-100. This election just isn't as has never been as close as the last one, and the only last minute "surprise" is COVID cases and deaths spiking heading into Election Day while Trump continues to pretend it's not happening. There's no complicated inside baseball to this. Trump is an historically unpopular President, in the midst of flailing through a crisis.
  11. 95 out of 100. There is basically nothing indicating Trump has much of a path to win. He's in a significantly worse polling position than he was 4 years ago at both the state and national level. A low turnout election he barely won, with a more undecided voters, and more third party noise in both polling and election results.
  12. I feel reasonably confident now saying Biden is going to get over 50% of the total popular vote. Even in states Trump is still likely to carry easily it won't be by the margins he did in 2016, and large states like Texas and Georgia will be tighter. That combined with fewer votes going to third parties should easily tip Biden 2-3% points above Clinton's 48.5%.
  13. This was pretty much Rich's point wasn't it? You don't agree with the analogy because you reject the underlying premise. Just like others would reject the premise of buying votes, because there are presumably no conditions about voting tied to the fines be paid.
  14. This is what's happening, but I'm curious if it's the right time investment for Biden. Polling suggests there are very few undecided voters and the debates won't change anyone's mind. Trump could pull down his pants and take a dump on stage and his 42% will swoon over how well he did. Turning out voters and making sure their votes are counted is everything at this point. That said, I do think the debates are more important for Biden than Trump. In part because I think most people assume Biden will do better and come off as more Presidential. He can afford a few small gaffes but anything major or significantly underperforming could be a problem.
  15. I don't think they need to do it. But in a properly functioning Representative Democracy they'd probably avoid voting on anything significant that is obviously out of line with what the voters want. If there is a bipartisan aid/relief bill being passed, or continuing budget resolution, of course they can and should vote on it. In the case of a Supreme Court appointment, they have the option to vote present or just not vote.
  16. In theory I like the idea of having the court comprised of a mix of political and institutional appointments. Say, 15 judges 10 of which are nominated by the President and 5 nominated by unanimous consent of a panel from within the court, who would presumably be more apolitical by nature of their nomination. In practice though I think it suffers from the same problems I articulated above about just adding judges. It seems perfectly reasonable, but could just be used as an excuse to start adding more political appointments.
  17. In the current example, Gardner represents a state that voted for Obama in '08, '12, Clinton in '16, and in the current polls Gardner and Trump are both trailing by double-digits. If they do in fact both lose here as expected, I don't think it takes much detective work figure out that if he votes to confirm a Trump appointee he's not representing the opinion of the majority of Colorado voters/citizens. Of course most of that was true when he was voting for Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, voting to repeal Obamacare, etc. That's part of why he's trailing by 10 points.
  18. Sure. Personally I think they should able able to vote on everything, including court appointments. You'd just hope they do so in a way that is representative of the people in their state.
  19. I don't think just adding Justices appointed by the party of the President and whoever holds the Senate is a great idea. Would it feel equitable right now, considering how Republicans have managed the process the last 4 1/2 years? Sure. But in 4 or 8 years the next time Rs come back into that power alignment, and they will, they could just add seats themselves and feel perfectly justified doing so.
  20. It'd just be another data point of Republicans not caring about the will of the people and doing whatever they can to maintain power. My current Senator Corey Gardner is likely to lose by 10 points in a State voted for Clinton in 16 and will do so overwhelmingly for Biden. Sure he could vote to confirm a Trump appointee, and it will be a giant middle-finger to CO citizens either way, but especially after he's been voted overwhelmingly out of office.
  21. Yes, I think Garland should have gotten a vote and been appointed. In which case it would be reasonable for Trump to make this appointment.
  22. It's stupid how good this show is compared to how good it should be in theory.
  • Create New...