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.

Ted Kennedy , the liberal lion, attempted to conspire and collude with the Kremlin to defeat Ronald Reagan (1 Viewer)

HellToupee

Footballguy
I'm saying that there's plenty to cast aspersions towards Trump once the typical partisan rancor that the Dems have displayed since Reagan's ascendancy in the national party abets a bit.

People forget the rancor directed at Reagan, and then say, "Yeah, well he was an actor..." as if that excuses putting aside the head of SAG (or its form at that time) and the Governor Of California as accomplishments on the resume. Reagan, first and foremost a politician who had happened to have had been an actor previously.  

As far as Trump, I'm not sure what you're confused by. I've said plenty of times that you can find me squarely in the do not support camp but cannot see a viable alternative presented by the Democrats nor need to. And also that I think three-quarters of the stuff in the PSF is squared surely with mere partisan rancor.  And I wouldn't vote that ####e as soon as I'd vote conscience in rebuttal to anything. 
Your 1st paragraph cleared it up for me. Thanks.

I know you’re not a Trump supporter , you dislike him but act normal about it   :thumbup:

 

rockaction

Footballguy
Your 1st paragraph cleared it up for me. Thanks.

I know you’re not a Trump supporter , you dislike him but act normal about it   :thumbup:
As for the bolded, no sweat.

As for the second thought, thanks. I consider that a compliment. It would be nice if instead of the other side seeing me protest their protestations and assuming that not supporting non-support = support, they could imagine not rubbing the copper flake off of the coin and finding a con 

And I wouldn't change that accidental choice of words I just used for much, really. Well, maybe a cool album and t-shirt, but as far as usage goes, you get my drift.  

 

wikkidpissah

Footballguy
This is why I shrug at the partisan attempts with Trump. I remember, in reading history, because I had to research a book on Reagan, exactly how unhinged the left became with the specter of Reagan on the horizon. It was worse than the response Trump got, largely because after Reagan we'd had an intellectually challenged governor, a community organizer, and other interludes at the national level that seemed to make Trump almost inevitable. 

It's why I'm surprised by the vitriol and assuredness by the left, as if this hadn't been seen by the right before. If, as @SaintsInDome2006 points out, we can simply read history or other threads and be aware, perhaps I should either take his musings on Trump more or less seriousy, as the partisanship determines. I'm afraid Trump is still a Rohrschach inkblot for most, though, and anybody who has studied seriously or remembers the intimate workings of 1979 and 1980 need fess up a bit, if you catch my drift.  
agree and disagree. i honestly don't know if the Reagan tide could have been stemmed or stopped had the Dems not been handcuffed by a clueless but moral man in the White House, but it's entirely possible that brand of conservatism would never have gained sway without the hostage crisis.. i'm not sure that stagflation/oil crisis would have been enough. nonetheless, the Donks acted as would anyone trapped and their surprise that they could no longer marginalize Goldwater Republicanism with effeteness lost them the day. the Hostage Crisis made Reagan the "yes" guy and Carter the "no" guy when neither side was used to that role. the preternatural confidence of Reagan prevailed and the GOP (thanks to Lee Atwater & his valet, Roger Ailes) took the edge on exploiting 24-hr media in '84 the way the Dems had TV media in '60. at its outset, Reagan Republican was not a groundswell, it was a tidal wave which overwhelmed people who thought they had the high ground.

i see nothing relatable in that to the present day. Trump is the Democratic Party's fault. They little-leagued themselves into right field and Trump hit the ball right at em with 2 outs in the 9th, and they can no longer concentrate on what little political baseball they played well cuz EVERYTHING reminds them of the day they dropped the ball. everything is secondary to that for them, and their weak-field tantrums could easily lose to a new lesser, but Trump is capped and offers nothing 2nd time around but cartoon fascism where Reagan offered a sea-change.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

rockaction

Footballguy
Trump is capped and offers nothing 2nd time around but cartoon fascism where Reagan offered a sea-change.
See, this, in general, is what I agree with. Trump was destined to be a one-term, stick in the eye to the Democrats for a lot of people. And what we got was a tacking further to the left regarding Democratic policy prescriptions by the leading candidates for high office, especially on issues that not a whole lot of people outside of the PSF want to see left-wing tacking on.

So I was meaning to ask you, and then let it be, what your post about supporting the "socialist" wing of the Democratic meant? You made the statement in the "2020 - Good Race" thread but then maybe I didn't read it well. As a citizen first, and forgetting the parties, I'm actually with tim with respect to Biden. I don't have to worry about it because I'm in California, but if he's up in a swing state, I'm looking long and hard at him. 

I guess I'm a little dull today. I read it quickly twice, but am just coming to intellectual fruition today. Coffee was late. Dumb it down for me. You seemed to qualify the statement before you even made it by talking about unwieldiness of our institutions, which immediately made me think -- you may have even pointed it out -- of the problem with American "bigness."  I lost you a bit after that. If you feel like responding, where does the vote go and why?

 
Last edited by a moderator:

rockaction

Footballguy
Yes, let's not express any common courtesy or respect to a family mourning a death because they aren't visiting this website.

All bets are off unless you post here!
This, apart from anything that's going to get me suspended, strikes me as a really weird requirement, one that is utterly unable to be followed mixed with a little bit of diktat. Paul Markham is the only news I can find about a Kennedy dying, and while he was apparently a "witness" and "confidant" of Kennedy, there's no way this shouldn't be discussed here at any time, regardless. The man was the MA District Attn'y from 66-69, and is clearly a public figure to be discussed. 

I'm not sure where this comes from. Let the moderators do moderating jobs. 

 

rockaction

Footballguy
i had a sitch w my peeps the last half hour. just starting to answer it now.
Oh, I hope that didn't come in any way across as pushing. You don't even have to answer it and life takes precedence. It's just that it had started -- or I could see it getting started -- to get lost in a PSF Mod fight. That's all. And I usually don't ask direct questions of people in the PSF, but you warrant a bit differently, IMHO. 

But eager to read your response if you do.  

 

wikkidpissah

Footballguy
See, this, in general, is what I agree with. Trump was destined to be a one-term, stick in the eye to the Democrats for a lot of people. And what we got was a tacking further to the left regarding Democratic policy prescriptions by the leading candidates for high office, especially on issues that not a whole lot of people outside of the PSF want to see left-wing tacking on.

So I was meaning to ask you, and then let it be, what your post about supporting the "socialist" wing of the Democratic meant? You made the statement in the "2020 - Good Race" thread but then maybe I didn't read it well. As a citizen first, and forgetting the parties, I'm actually with tim with respect to Biden. I don't have to worry about it because I'm in California, but if he's up in a swing state, I'm looking long and hard at him. 

I guess I'm a little dull today. I read it quickly twice, but am just coming to intellectual fruition today. Coffee was late. Dumb it down for me. You seemed to qualify the statement before you even made it by talking about unwieldiness of our institutions, which immediately made me think -- you may have even pointed it out -- of the problem with American "bigness."  I lost you a bit after that. If you feel like responding, where does the vote go and why?
not dull at all. i am actually fine with Trump, then DTJ, then bypassing Eric (because he'll press buttons because of the colors alone) to hop str8 to Barron because it hastens the inevitable crash, but i take a lot of crap for that kind of cynicism.

i wouldnt vote for Hillary on a do-over, and Good Ol' Joe is Hillary. continued stasis, by which the foxes get to suck the eggs right out of the hen's butts, is the goal of both parties. that's why we'll crash. on this side of the crash, about the only thing we can do is pitch the battle, L v. R. sneaking the welfare/drone state past a hobbled party w a capped candidate appears, to this radical, to be the shark move here. i am in a directly-opposite-so-exactly-the-same position on the left as a Goldwater/Birch Republican in 1962. let's get some real eminence for radical policies while we can and see what we can do with it. we know that Hillary 2020 is worse than Trump 2020 because it's no better than one more Band-aid on a sucking chest wound. it's becoming more attractive for the leftleft to just take its ####### shot day-by-day. i'm in a ramblehead, so will need questions to clariufy

 

rockaction

Footballguy
not dull at all. i am actually fine with Trump, then DTJ, then bypassing Eric (because he'll press buttons because of the colors alone) to hop str8 to Barron because it hastens the inevitable crash, but i take a lot of crap for that kind of cynicism.

i wouldnt vote for Hillary on a do-over, and Good Ol' Joe is Hillary. continued stasis, by which the foxes get to suck the eggs right out of the hen's butts, is the goal of both parties. that's why we'll crash. on this side of the crash, about the only thing we can do is pitch the battle, L v. R. sneaking the welfare/drone state past a hobbled party w a capped candidate appears, to this radical, to be the shark move here. i am in a directly-opposite-so-exactly-the-same position on the left as a Goldwater/Birch Republican in 1962. let's get some real eminence for radical policies while we can and see what we can do with it. we know that Hillary 2020 is worse than Trump 2020 because it's no better than one more Band-aid on a sucking chest wound. it's becoming more attractive for the leftleft to just take its ####### shot day-by-day. i'm in a ramblehead, so will need questions to clariufy
Yeah, I think what you're saying is what I'm thinking you're saying, but let me do one of those things they now call "active listening," which really means to provide a brief summation. 

"the foxes get to suck the eggs right out of the hen's butts"

I think you think the system, as we come into it now, is so big and so untenable that it needs some radical shaking up. If that comes in the form of deconstructing systemic corporate fascism or the like (my words, not yours) then that is a welcome response to "too big to fail" or any of the other catchphrases that allow the "big" corporations, gov't., etc., to directly reap the products of that which they do not sow, but merely take. 

"If we can pitch the battle, L v. R"

This one is confusing me. I get the Goldwater/Birch reference of '62 w/in the Republican Party, I get having radical ideas gain steam while another party sits over or presides over its own gutting of its own stale ideas by acquiescing to the center of the other party. You're hoping Trump 2020 happens, that he's a seriously limited candidate and politician, but we hopefully get him, limit the bleeding being done to the country (which everyone can see, in your estimation) by passing welfare state deal after welfare state deal through the legislature and hold off on meaningful new boots-ground/war endeavors until all the actual policies gain a foothold, by which time they won't work, by which time we will then get a more radical left at the ready with some real radical Rx for the vox populi.

That seems to be what you're saying, at least to me. 

So 2020...Trump over Biden or losing to one of the socialists

By 2022...he's a hollowed out shell. No way can anybody follow his lead. Must have more welfare state/crony capitalism

2024...who knows, maybe by that time AOC and Mayor Pete and cohorts take over the Democratic leadership and lead us down the path toward a more radical conception of humanity and state.  

 
Last edited by a moderator:

wikkidpissah

Footballguy
Yeah, I think what you're saying is what I'm thinking you're saying, but let me do one of those things they now call "active listening," which really means to provide a brief summation. 

"the foxes get to suck the eggs right out of the hen's butts"

I think you think the system, as we come into it now, is so big and so untenable that it needs some radical shaking up. If that comes in the form of deconstructing systemic corporate fascism or the like (my words, not yours) then that is a welcome response to "too big to fail" or any of the other catchphrases that allow the "big" corporations, gov't., etc., to directly reap the products of that which they do not sow, but merely take. 

"If we can pitch the battle, L v. R"

This one is confusing me. I get the Goldwater/Birch reference of '62 w/in the Republican Party, I get having radical ideas gain steam while another party sits over or presides over its own gutting of its own stale ideas by acquiescing to the center of the other party. You're hoping Trump 2020 happens, that he's a seriously limited candidate and politician, but we hopefully get him, limit the bleeding being done to the country (which everyone can see, in your estimation) by passing welfare state deal after welfare state deal through the legislature and hold off on meaningful new boots-ground/war endeavors until all the actual policies gain a foothold, by which time they won't work, by which time we will then get a more radical left at the ready with some real radical Rx for the vox populi.

That seems to be what you're saying, at least to me. 

So 2020...Trump 

By 2022...he's a hollowed out shell. No way can anybody follow his lead. Must have more welfare state/crony capitalism

2024...who knows, maybe by that time AOC and Mayor Pete and cohorts take over the Democratic leadership and lead us down the path toward a more radical conception of humanity and state.  
you're deadbang on with "the foxes"

i can explain L v R by ranking my American scenarios by preference:

1 - i get to see the crash in my lifetime, make my way as the homeless Poet Laureate of San Luis Obispo and get to watch Sara Palin run the country from the machine-gun turret of a MadMax jeep while i glean enough information from how we crashed to become the Diderot of my time

2 - Peteyjudge wins (he will, btw) and makes people see the value of citizenship again. it will only postpone the crash because he's not enough of a reformer, but Americans who actually care can see what actually matters before the collapse.

3. America continues, made evermore non compos mentis by their day2day selfishness, until it crumbles like Rome and a new set of Puritans exploit the darkness 

all else is dross

 
Last edited by a moderator:

rockaction

Footballguy
Okay, got it. 

I'm sort of going with the likelihood that we won't crash just yet but some version of 2 and 3 happens along the way to the next one where we'll actually need the corny internal Boy Scout-esque citizenship pledges and stalwart relative do-without that the Puritans had.  

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Users who are viewing this thread

Top