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 (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter timschochet
- Start date
Goodell's Alias
Footballguy
Yes, most Americans followed the recommendations of scientists. Once scientists learned more (and yes, changed their original stance that was based on some questionable logic of wanting to preserve mask availability for health care workers) and began recommending masks, most Americans acknowledged science and moved forward. Others specifically refused masks because Trump and Fox News told them to refuse. You may find a few true libertarians here and there who think mask usage infringes on their rights, but these are few and far between. Thoughtful libertarian types would instantly recognize that mask requirements are no more intrusive than requirements to wear clothes or shoes (admittedly, you may find a few hardcore libertarians who are also against those requirements, but virtually none who refuse to comply) . But most mask deniers do so specifically because of Trump, Fox News, and other "conservative" sources told them that wearing masks is genuflecting to the evil left.
parasaurolophus
Footballguy
When people saw an asian person in America wearing a mask and snickered I am pretty sure it had nothing to do with listening to scientists.
Goodell's Alias
Footballguy
Hey sure, if you want to suggest that very early on, before most Americans knew anything about COVID, that many behaved in a racist fashion, I'm not going to argue.
parasaurolophus
Footballguy
GoBirds
Footballguy
The bolded is false, small business.....the backbone of our country.... was helped tremendously which I just provided first hand evidence of. Left opinion pieces aren't for me Tim but thanks for sharing.
Bottomfeeder Sports
Footballguy
Alright this is going to go off in all kinds of directions.
Except mandatory seat belt laws (outside of NY) were the brainchild of the Reagan administration as a counter to the Supreme Court telling them that an executive order could not rescind the requirement for either automatic seat belts or air bags. You remember when no one would ever pay $600 for an air bag until Chrysler in desperation discovered otherwise? I also don't think that seat belt laws are something that conservatives can claim to have been against while liberals were for them. No one except Detroit (i.e. automakers) was for them. Oh and law enforcement. The heart tug testimony of a Maryland State Trooper explaining how he stopped a car because the child wasn't properly in a child seat only a few minutes later to find the parent (driver) dead in an accident was retold over and over the year Maryland joined the club. Not sure it was effective in actually changing attitudes but I remember several state delegates and state senators claiming it changed their mind. (Of course it was Maryland in the mid '80s so these are all party machine democrats.)
Oh, just to be clear - I'm not arguing conservatives were for seat belt laws, just that they weren't alone. I guess the hypothetical here is to wonder what would have happened if consumers rejected air bags like the industry had claimed would happen? Would the states that held out on mandatory seat belts have jumped sooner to avoid that cost?
Bottomfeeder Sports
Footballguy
timschochet
Footballguy
We agree that small businesses are the backbone of our country.
I find your last sentence disappointing. Do you really limit your reading to that which agrees with what you already believe? I know that, sadly, most people are inclined to do this, but I was sort of hoping that folks in this forum were above that limitation.
parasaurolophus
Footballguy
I hate seatbelts. I wear it, but I didnt for a long time. Wasnt until I had kids. And got seat belt cutters.
Ramblin Wreck
Footballguy
Great. Another alias breaking the 50 post rule. My wife hates Trump more than anyone that posts on this forum and she's against masks due to health reasons. Who knows if she's correct or not but she doesn't follow her the word of her political party as gold and thinks for herself. Some of you should try that at times.
The Commish
Footballguy
Do you mean she's against them for everyone because she believes they are a health risk for everyone or do you mean that she sees there are reasons for some not to wear them because they have health issues. I agree with the latter and there are steps those people can take to stay out of the public eye and keep themselves protected if they can't wear the mask. Those who have mask issues are relegated to staying home and out of public circulation best I can tell...and for them, that sucks. If it's the former, I'd like to understand that position more...not sure I've heard that one yet.
Ramblin Wreck
Footballguy
She thinks you should make your own choices about your health just as she should about her own health. But she damn sure doesn't think she should be locked in her house because someone else thinks she should wear a mask (Basically Tim's stance that the government should force people to wear them or levy strict penalties against people). Full disclosure - she does wear a mask when going inside a store but she won't if she's outdoors and around people.
dkp993
Footballguy
What your wife is doing is the appropriate middle ground imo and is something I believe (hope is more accurate) most reasoned people do or can get behind. Like most things these days the mask message has polarized many into an all or nothing stance and the middle slowly vanishes.
gianmarco
Footballguy
Here's the sad thing in all of this:
I truly believe if Trump did ONE single, simple thing in all of this, we'd all be much better off.
All he had to do was wear a mask and advocate that we do the same. With that one, simple task, there's no doubt that his followers would have gone along with it, a significant number of lives would have been saved, and we'd have been able to open up a lot more a lot sooner than we can right now. It would have been free branding/promoting if his supporters started donning Trump 2020 or MAGA masks.
That's what is so mind-numbingly infuriating about where we are now.
I truly believe if Trump did ONE single, simple thing in all of this, we'd all be much better off.
All he had to do was wear a mask and advocate that we do the same. With that one, simple task, there's no doubt that his followers would have gone along with it, a significant number of lives would have been saved, and we'd have been able to open up a lot more a lot sooner than we can right now. It would have been free branding/promoting if his supporters started donning Trump 2020 or MAGA masks.
That's what is so mind-numbingly infuriating about where we are now.
Last edited by a moderator:
The Commish
Footballguy
got it...and the health reasons you mentioned above?
I too am a "people should be making the correct decisions on their own" person. The part I struggle with is when they aren't making the correct decisions and as a direct result putting others at risk, what do we do then?
Ramblin Wreck
Footballguy
Why do you decide what the correct decision is though? If someone is at risk, shouldn't they take extra precautions? Or perhaps they should be the ones locked at home?
The Commish
Footballguy
I don't decide...the science does. I don't quite understand the "either/or" approach many keep insisting on. It's not "you or me do the right thing", it's "both of us do the right thing" in my view. I don't know how many different illustrations/examples we have to go through to show that when two people interacting with each other are both doing the right thing, it's better than just one of them or neither of them. So when someone says what you say to me here, my answer is "yes, they should take extra precautions and so should you". Anything on the health reasons you mentioned above?
Zow
Footballguy
I don't think it's that complicated -- they support an authoritarian application of the policies and principles they agree with vehemently oppose the implication of those they don't. As such, the following principlies/policies seem very authoritarian yet are supported:
1. Trump not leaving office if he loses/running for indefinite terms.
2. Mandatory pledge of allegiance in schools.
3. Mandatory Christian prayer in schools.
4. Issuance of numerous executive orders as made by Trump.
5. Countrywide abortion ban.
6. A wall around the country/travel bans.
7. Federal executive deciding which states get relief funds.
I would assume that any true libertarian would be appalled by the above yet I would wager that if you polled a random meaningful sample size of Trump supporters that there'd be a majority of support for the above.
AAABatteries
Footballguy
IMO, there’s a pretty simple reason you need to enforce masks in public (not outdoors). There’s too many #######s out there who won’t stay home or wear a mask when sick.
The Commish
Footballguy
This is pretty much it. Seems that there are those that see it as the other person's responsibility.
Last edited by a moderator:
Bottomfeeder Sports
Footballguy
To the author the fetus is an innocent human being that liberty need to be protected against any forceful interference, but to the mother the unwanted fetus is an invader consuming valuable materials from her leaving behind toxins. Threatening her health, even life, and her property. Why is it that the author's perspective should win?
The non-aggression principle does not apply to trespassers. Especially those committing aggression against others. So pick whenever you want for when life begins. From the perspective of the one making the abortion decision, even if that perceptive is foreign or even disgusting to you or me or that author that line is irrelevant. (As always!)
But I will say this author did better than the last time this argument was made in masking that she values her sense of morality over someone else's liberty. She values her perspective over that of someone else. And she will use, or at least promote the use of the coercive power of the state to achieve her goals.
Zow
Footballguy
This premise, as the author states, relies on the premise that life begins in the womb. And if that were a universally accepted premise I’d agree with her. But, as should be obvious, this is a heavily debated premise so the author’s argument falls apart right there the author also concedes she’s likely still influenced by her catholic upbringing. As such, the basis of this article - by overlooking a key difference in the abortion debate - is about as silly as arguing that libertarianism opposes the right for a civilian to carry a weapon because guns are inherently evil. Finally, the author admits her viewpoint is a minority viewpoint.
With the above in mind, and recognizing the difficulty of defining when human life begins (I frankly think the age of viability as discussed in Casey is as good of an argument as any), I’ll defer to the general libertarian principle that less government regulation is better. As such, opposing abortion bans - at least to the age of viability - seems to more closely align with libertarian principles.
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
Zow
Footballguy
I agree. And when a particular law/maxim/policy is silent on a point, we look to other general theories to determine its intent and where it might land. Here, where libertarianism is staunchly against government bans as a general principle, I think its rational to say that a libertarian probably wouldn't be in favor of a countrywide ban on all abortions (which was my original statement).
Chaz McNulty
Footballguy
I commend your wife for wearing masks indoors. I think that's all everyone wants.
It's curious to me her take on the bolded. Mask wearing isn't about your health. It does very little to protect you from the virus. Mask wearing is about protecting your neighbor. It only seems to be a political thing in the US. There is only a tiny percentage of people in other countries that bang the 'taking away my rights drum', when it comes to mask wearing.
I liken wearing masks to shoveling the sidewalk in front of your house in winter. It's the polite thing to do.
timschochet
Footballguy
Any Coney Barrett sounds extremely well qualified. If I were a US Senator, I could not, in good conscience, vote against her simply because I am concerned that, based on her judicial philosophy (as best I understand it) will vote against things that are important to me.
I would vote against her based on the principle that it’s too close to the election, within 60 days. That seems like a reasonable objection to me.
I would vote against her based on the principle that it’s too close to the election, within 60 days. That seems like a reasonable objection to me.
timschochet
Footballguy
On the larger issue of Supreme Court reform, I remain firmly opposed to increasing the number of Supreme Court justices, mainly because I haven’t heard a compelling argument in favor of it. The most consistent argument that is being made is, in crude terms, “oh look what McConnell has done with this trick of turning down Garland and then 4 years later pushIng through Barrett! Now it’s going to be a 6-3 conservative majority which means an end to Roe, and the only way to fix that is to pack the Court!” Not real convincing, and the best response I have heard, beyond the obvious one of harming the integrity of the courts independence, was made by Joe Biden last year; he pointed out that if Democrats add 3 judges, then Republicans add 3 judges in a few years, and pretty soon you’ve got 50 judges on the court, and it’s completely ridiculous. And he was completely right.
I also want to add to this that, solely in political terms, even attempting to pack the court would be a disaster for Democrats IMO. I think enough moderate Dems would ally with Republicans to oppose the move, and the public would show resistance as well. All of this happened in 1937 when FDR tried it. We’re a vastly different country than we were in 1937 but not, I believe, on this issue.
I also want to add to this that, solely in political terms, even attempting to pack the court would be a disaster for Democrats IMO. I think enough moderate Dems would ally with Republicans to oppose the move, and the public would show resistance as well. All of this happened in 1937 when FDR tried it. We’re a vastly different country than we were in 1937 but not, I believe, on this issue.
timschochet
Footballguy
However, there have been some other issues of Supreme Court reform that have been raised:
1. Limiting the terms of justices.
2. Having a retirement age for justices.
3. Having clear recusal rules.
I am neither for nor against any of these proposals at the moment but I’d like to hear further discussion about them.
1. Limiting the terms of justices.
2. Having a retirement age for justices.
3. Having clear recusal rules.
I am neither for nor against any of these proposals at the moment but I’d like to hear further discussion about them.
Mookie
Footballguy
What judicial philosophy? She won't answer any questions on where she stands.
"Judge Barrett, do you think it's OK for the POTUS to randomly shoot and kill someone walking down Fifth Avenue?" "That depends. I would not be able to decide that issue until it was properly framed, briefing and argument were complete, and the matter was submitted to the Court." And on and on.
Since the result of this sham is predetermined, she isn't compelled to answer any questions, and why would she? An evaluation of her qualifications, background, experience, temperament, philosophy, and critical thinking skills don't matter to the POTUS or the Republications. All that matters is that she is devoutly Catholic, a literalist, is young, and that she is sworn in before the inauguration. Court stacking indeed.
massraider
Footballguy
I have no idea why anyone would watch this.
whoknew
Footballguy
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
I'm very strongly in favor of (1) and (2). Actually, I don't really care about having a retirement age aside from the fact that we should not be sitting around ghoulishly hanging on the life expectancy of 80 year-olds. There needs to be a clear mechanism for rotating justices off the supreme court after a fixed number of years.timschochet said:
Shutout
Footballguy
I agree on the stance of not packing the Supreme Court. I do not think it is any benefit to put partisan tactics to what is supposed to be a non-partisan judicial branch.timschochet said:
I don't have great confidence that Joe Biden would still agree with that stance but it is somewhat reassuring to know that in 1983 and then again in 2005 Joe Biden spoke to the senate about this and both times was against it and listed it as a foolish endeavor.
Re: the bold, I don't want to get into a back and forth but I would like to see if I can list my side for this and then hear others' side why they think it is different. I am completely okay with the confirmation going through at this time and would be if it were Obama in the WH right now and here is why:
-There are some who say something like "the people should have a say" and because of that feel like this is a limbo status but it's not because there are no periods in our government where we have a powerless president. A president voted out can, and is obligated, until the swearing in of the new president occurs, to continue to act as our president. If Russia declared war on the USA on December 2 and Trump lost the election, we would not wait until January 20 to get back to them and act. Our President can still ask Congress for action.
So, In 2015, we, the people, elected our leaders to represent us and when we did that it was under the condition that we grant your to represent us for four years until January 20, 2021. During the last election, we said that for a 4 year window, you represent us and we will come together in 4 years and if we collectively like you, we will continue and if not we may decide to let someone else do the job. So, we did have a say. As a result of that, the current representatives are doing their job, as agreed upon, for the timeframe agreed upon.
-in the 200+ years of our country there have been 29 times when a vacancy has come open during an election year and all 29 times the sitting president, regardless of what party they represented, has done their job and put forth a nomination. Unsurprisingly, in the years when the senate aligned politically with the sitting president, the majority of these nominations passed and when opposed, they did not. Although it can certainly be argued that it was partisan driven and not the best thing for our country at times, that is remarkably consistent and seems to be that the person on the job did their job each time.
For those two reasons, primarily, I don't see anything wrong with either party doing what they have consistently done and I don't see it as misrepresentation of the people because the people we put into office in 2016 and 2018 are, as we understood when we voted them in, authorized to act until the next election. Saying otherwise would not be logical in reasoning that it is too close to an election because it is effectively saying "I am NOT allowing the decision to be made by the people who voted these people in at the time of the occurrence."
-Supreme Court Justices are lifetime appointments also, so, in effect it weakens the argument further because nothing could be farther from the stated reasoning in a case like this because we could literally all be democrats and vote in all the justices we want and then for the next 40 years every single president could be republican and 80% of the country could be republican and it wouldn't matter one bit as those justices all were from a different "people's choice" that, although the country would clearly be aligned opposed, they would have to live with until, literally, death in some cases.
Shutout
Footballguy
I don't know where I stand on this because I don't know an honest good solution because if you set term limits to justices it becomes blatantly more like what it is not supposed to be in that it becomes partisan and a bargaining chip and it becomes problematic for the foundation of what it is supposed to be in that it should be about judicial law.
I don't think our country wants to be in a position where we are fighting like cats and dogs over abortion, race, discrimination, rights in the supreme court every 10-15 years. I can't imagine people living in our society where we hang on person "x" and their chance of being confirmed because if they are that means Roe vs Wade gets flip flopped...and then maybe flip flopped again in ten years. Imagine that dinner conversation:
Daughter: Mom, why don't i have any brothers and sisters? and why am I here?"
Mom: Because in 2020 I couldn't and in 2025 and 2028 I could."
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
The specific proposal that I like is to have each justice serve a single 18-year term. That's plenty of time for them to have an impact, and it's long enough for them to be somewhat insulated from political considerations, but not so long that they sit on the court for multiple decades. (Most of us remember the Thomas confirmation hearings. That was when I was in college! There's no reason for a person to serve in one position for that long).
Stagger the terms so that one justice gets replaced every two years. Then every president gets two justices per term. No random flukiness like Trump getting to appoint three. We would need to come up with a way for handling unexpected vacancies (deaths, early retirements), but we do that for legislators now.
Any reform in this area should be tied to a renewed understanding that the senate confirms the president's nominee except in truly unusual circumstances. Kavanaugh would qualify as unusual, and so would Harriet Miers. Garland and Barrett would not. Obviously this sort of exercise inherently involves some good faith on the part of senators, but it would be easier to maintain a sense of good faith if the stakes were lower in confirmation battles.
AAABatteries
Footballguy
1 and 2 are great ideas and should be implemented. It's ridiculous that we don't do this already.timschochet said:
On 3, I'm not exactly sure what you have in mind but at first glance I'd say I wouldn't be in favor of changing that.
timschochet
Footballguy
This is a reasonable argument but I disagree with it, mainly because I don’t think it’s as urgent as a war or other emergency. And remember that I am offering a very slim timeline here: 60 days before the election. If it had been done in August I’d still be good with it, that’s not too soon for me.
I basically feel that, short of emergencies like war or economic or medical catastrophe, Presidents should withhold from making important decisions of a long lasting nature during the 60 days just prior to a national election.
Chaz McNulty
Footballguy
Why not just increase the court size so that replacing one justice does not have such an impact? More justices would also make it harder for the court to be divided by purely partisan lines. More chance that someone dissents the odd time. I think more justices would improve the system.
Add 2 in 2021, add 2 in 2025, and add 2 in 2029.
Add 2 in 2021, add 2 in 2025, and add 2 in 2029.
timschochet
Footballguy
Well right now the judge himself or herself makes the decision, and no explanation is necessary. I’ve heard it suggested that perhaps other judges could make the decision. I don’t know.
dgreen
Footballguy
If they lose the election, should they also then withhold from making important decisions for the rest of the term (about 11 weeks until Inauguration Day)?
Shutout
Footballguy
Good faith is the key word there. LOL..Hang on to your butts!
I think a term limit could work. I have heard people say why its hard to put any number on it and their reasons make sense when you hear them but I would think that, given a SC justice salary, it would not be a hinderance to their life if they moved onto the private sector at some point.
Shutout
Footballguy
Would that not be the very definition of a lame duck, powerless president? Would that not be a very significant global weak point for us if our competing world powers knew there was a 2 month window at times where they could enact sanctions, renege on agreements that, while not war, are undoing things that had been long-worked into agreement? Would those things not possibly be very detrimental to countries that need help from other countries to keep from being run over by aggressive regimes and strife?
In that vein, I assume that would mean that an exiting president would never have the power to pardon people who would obviously raise eyebrows but since there are no voting ramifications on a lame duck president, they do it (and I'm saying they all do it..not a specific president)?
I just do not see a logical way to limit a president based on just the thought that its too close to something and because of that I can't find a compelling reason to do it since we the people voted and we knew going in it was under these rules (4 years and an option....maybe). So to say "well... i just don't have a good fact based reason to say this is a problem (because if I did, we would have legislation as a whole review and amend it) but it feels off so let's not do it". I just don't think that is enough given we have a history of doing this for 200+ years and it hasn't caused true issues other than someone on either (both) sides could easily say "well that person got a lifetime appointment and 75% of America hated them for 40 years." If that is the case then the real issue isn't allowing a sitting president to do their job; the issue is addressing the root cause and look at something like term limits as Ivan mentioned.
Bottomfeeder Sports
Footballguy
Except for @Sinn Fein's argument that the each associate justice should "head" a federal circuit (hopefully I represented it well enough) I haven't really heard any arguments on why the court should be one size or another. I guess if I was asked I'd argue that 9 seems to have been a good working number for quite a while and I'm not sure if anything has changed to alter that thinking. So while I think I could be persuaded that 11 works better than 9 or maybe 13 or even 50 (probably not), but I don't really see that debate happening. I think it is fool's errand to get into a game of one upping each other, especially since pretty much the entire federal bench was nominated by Republicans. Where are we getting that 75th justice from?
But for sake of argument lets pretend that there will be a compelling argument for changing the size. Maybe @Sinn Fein's or maybe someone else's. I think that while we are writing in term limits in a new constitutional amendment, we should add that the addition of a justice requires that we wait until at least the next presidential term before adding a nominee. Yes I know this makes it a campaign issue, but I think it also reduces the temptation to roll the dice and add a justice for purely partisan reasons. In addition I think even if the legislation adds two or ten justices it should be one per presidential term. I guess we could also set term limits at 2 times the number of justices, which would also seem to act as a disincentive as long as existing justices are stuck to the term they had at the start (i.e. can't add justices to keep a favorable court around longer.)
But all of this seems silly. No one is getting a constitutional amendment through absent a real crisis. Nine justices seems to work. If the court goes "activist right" like many fear it would seem to be politically beneficial to push the country left. Roadblocks to progress sure, but the nation is going to move left no matter what. And slower than I'd like and faster than most others would choose (prefer) either way. And I can see 51 of 51 GOP Senators voting as a block for just about anything, I can't see 51 out of even 99 democrat Senators doing the same any time soon.
But for sake of argument lets pretend that there will be a compelling argument for changing the size. Maybe @Sinn Fein's or maybe someone else's. I think that while we are writing in term limits in a new constitutional amendment, we should add that the addition of a justice requires that we wait until at least the next presidential term before adding a nominee. Yes I know this makes it a campaign issue, but I think it also reduces the temptation to roll the dice and add a justice for purely partisan reasons. In addition I think even if the legislation adds two or ten justices it should be one per presidential term. I guess we could also set term limits at 2 times the number of justices, which would also seem to act as a disincentive as long as existing justices are stuck to the term they had at the start (i.e. can't add justices to keep a favorable court around longer.)
But all of this seems silly. No one is getting a constitutional amendment through absent a real crisis. Nine justices seems to work. If the court goes "activist right" like many fear it would seem to be politically beneficial to push the country left. Roadblocks to progress sure, but the nation is going to move left no matter what. And slower than I'd like and faster than most others would choose (prefer) either way. And I can see 51 of 51 GOP Senators voting as a block for just about anything, I can't see 51 out of even 99 democrat Senators doing the same any time soon.
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
I would be cool with paying SCOTUS justices for life, even after their term expired. That's a small price to pay to remove any appearance of there being a revolving door from the judiciary to the private sector.
timschochet
Footballguy
My answer is yes. No long term decisions during the last 4 months of a Presidential term, except for emergencies.
Mind you I would never be in favor of making this into law for some of the reasons you mention, and also because “emergency” is somewhat of a subjective idea. But it should be common practice (and up until now it has been.)
Shutout
Footballguy
Then it sounds like you advocate for then is to simply not have a traditional period. Just elect a person and make it like the British Prime minister. You lose, you got 24 hours to get your stuff out of 10 Downing Street and that is it-next man up. So we, as Americans could understand that this is simply a 3 year, 8 month term. But then what happens when someone dies at 3 years, 6 months? uh oh, we need to wait again?
When you look at it like that, and you see the historical pattern of how every president has had 4 years and "if it happens on my watch, i do my job", then it kind of makes sense, to me, to just say it is the way it works and, again, if the issue is causing heartburn over longevity, then let's simply address the lifelong appointments as the virus and not the timing.
