timschochet
Footballguy
Today I spent about 2 hours in the office and 7 hours on the road looking for locations for an ice cream parlor.
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
timschochet's thread- Mods, please move this thread to the Politics Subforum, thank you (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter timschochet
- Start date
John Bender
Footballguy
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
Oh. By the way. The election results for Florida and Ohio should be in soon.
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet
Footballguy
It's a chain. Bruster's. They have 200 stores back east but only a couple so far in So Cal. Very difficult to find spots for them because they need end cap locations with patio space.
McGarnicle
Footballguy
John Bender
Footballguy
BeaverCleaver
Footballguy
7 hours on the road means.....one hour actually driving and 6 hours sitting in the car posting in the FFA.
timschochet
Footballguy
There is a lot of stopping. But not quite 6 hours worth. But it would take you about 2 hours to make the drive that takes me 7.
timschochet
Footballguy
The numbers and exit polls look very good for Hillary to beat Trump in Ohio and Florida in November- that is- if Trump is the nominee. He should be but this is so screwy who knows how it goes down? I can say that if it were anybody but Trump he would already be declared the nominee.
Shula-holic
Footballguy
Really? There was one near my old office building that was little more than a trailer sitting on an empty lot across from a grocery store.
timschochet
Footballguy
Chris Matthews just suggested that Hillary name John Kasich her running mate. Never gonna happen but damn how much I would love that.
timschochet
Footballguy
More very good numbers for November for Hillary- Hispanics represent nearly 25% of all Floridians, but only 9% of Republicans tonight: the lowest total in 50 years. And that 9% voted heavily for Marco Rubio.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
And now... for some analysis.
timschochet
Footballguy
So what is the real story of this election? IMO, it's this: since 2009, the Republican party has become extremist on two major issues:
1. immigration
2. Cooperating with Democrats.
The rest of the nation is at a very different place from where the bulk of the Republican party is.
1. immigration
2. Cooperating with Democrats.
The rest of the nation is at a very different place from where the bulk of the Republican party is.
timschochet
Footballguy
Getting chippy in the other political threads again. Come on in, let's have some quiet, thoughtful debate. No name calling, no insults in here. Everybody welcome!
lakerstan
Footballguy
I asked this in the Trump thread, but this is supposed to be a kinder, gentler thread, so I'll ask here too...
If Trump didn't run, who do you think would have been the Republican nominee? Even though Cruz is second, I'd have a hard time believing he would be. Maybe Rubio or even Bush?
If Trump didn't run, who do you think would have been the Republican nominee? Even though Cruz is second, I'd have a hard time believing he would be. Maybe Rubio or even Bush?
timschochet
Footballguy
Donald Trump is having an incredible night. There's really no other way to spin this. Sure he lost Ohio, but he's winning nearly everywhere else. Rubio's out, Kasich is too far behind, and Cruz has yet to prove that he can win anyone beyond Christian conservatives.
Trump had bad press all weekend starting Friday night but it didn't seem to matter for him. His support is remarkable. Those who read my summary of Joe McCarthy will see similarities here- not in their presentation, or what kind of men they were- they're very different- but how criticism seemed to only make them more popular. Just like Trump, McCarthy would say outrageous things, tell incredible lies, and every time he was caught his popularity would rise.
But it's important to note that McCarthy's popularity was limited to the Republican party and some independents- he was never liked by the majority of the American public. But he was insulated being in a Republican held Senate. All we know so far about Trump's popularity is that it's strong among Republicans. Even more than McCarthy he is unpopular among the public as a whole (a lot of this is due to the increase in mass media over the last 50 years.) Now, unlike McCarthy, Trump has to enter into the national arena for the first time, running for President in a general election. In a sense, this is the equivalent of McCarthy facing the Army/McCarthy hearings, televised for the first time. We'll see if Hillary can play the role of Joseph Welch...
Trump had bad press all weekend starting Friday night but it didn't seem to matter for him. His support is remarkable. Those who read my summary of Joe McCarthy will see similarities here- not in their presentation, or what kind of men they were- they're very different- but how criticism seemed to only make them more popular. Just like Trump, McCarthy would say outrageous things, tell incredible lies, and every time he was caught his popularity would rise.
But it's important to note that McCarthy's popularity was limited to the Republican party and some independents- he was never liked by the majority of the American public. But he was insulated being in a Republican held Senate. All we know so far about Trump's popularity is that it's strong among Republicans. Even more than McCarthy he is unpopular among the public as a whole (a lot of this is due to the increase in mass media over the last 50 years.) Now, unlike McCarthy, Trump has to enter into the national arena for the first time, running for President in a general election. In a sense, this is the equivalent of McCarthy facing the Army/McCarthy hearings, televised for the first time. We'll see if Hillary can play the role of Joseph Welch...
Zegras11
Footballguy
The Future Champs
Footballguy
Trump and Rubio were even with non Cuban Hispanic voters; Rubio dominated with Cuban voters. Kinda surprised at the non Cuban Hispanics.
timschochet
Footballguy
This is a fascinating question.
If we go back to examining 2012 with the knowledge of this last year, it's pretty clear that the base of the Republican party really did not want Mitt Romney. They went from one person to another looking for somebody else, either colorful or anti-establishment. But their choices were Bachmann, Cain, Gingrich, Santorum, Perry! I mean there was nothing there. The only one that was real at all was Newt, and for a time I really believed he was a threat to be the nominee, despite having no money and no staff. But Romney poured millions into Florida and destroyed him. And even after that Mitt still couldn't lock up the race- remember how Missouri went to Santorum late? My point is that the anti-establishment fervor was already there, and had been since 2009 and the rise of the Tea Party.
So let's go to 2016 and assume that Trump doesn't run. The most colorful candidate after Cruz was Christie, yet he was an anathema to the right ever since he hugged Obama. (It's ironic to me that the press made so much of that bridge story but Republican voters couldn't give a damn about it- it was the Obama hug that they hated.) So it wasn't going to be Christie. Jeb had the money but the voters didn't want another Bush. Rubio never could solve his immigration problem. Katich too centrist. So who does that leave? I would have to say Ted Cruz almost by default.
timschochet
Footballguy
Non Cuban Hispanic Republican voters in Florida aren't going to be a whole lot of people I suspect.
timschochet
Footballguy
No Bruster's. But I love Farrells. Used to go there as a kid all the time. There were about 3-4 of them, but they all closed down in the late 80s. They've since opened up one right next to Knott's Berry Farm, and it does very well.
Southern California is mostly dominated by Baskin-Robbins, Coldstone Creamery, and a whole bunch of frozen yogurt places (Yogurtland, etc.) There's a few of these gelato places opening up. Also popular with teenagers lately are these yogurt places where you put your own toppings on and they're weighed. Some of those places are rocking the entire weekend.
jwb
Footballguy
Which would be a general election trouncing. Hillary would beat him badly. So maybe it's good for the Republicans that this is happening to them? Because trotting out the tired same old same old wasn't going to work - they've lost 5 out of the last 6 popular votes.
jwb
Footballguy
I was in Sydney last week at a conference, and at meals all anyone wanted to talk about was Trump, and they wanted to know how things had gotten this far. The best way I found to explain it was that we now have five political parties (Social conservative, right wing nationalists, establishment R, establishment D, socialists) crammed into two, and that a parliamentary system might actually be preferable - at least there they need to work together to find common ground to forge majorities, and things actually get done as a result.
timschochet
Footballguy
I don't think it is.
Before Trump ran, I half suspected that someone like Cruz was going to win the nomination, get trounced, and then the Republican party would either split in two or reassess. I've been making that prediction since at least 2010.
But I did not predict Trump. Trump is an anomaly to our system; he's an authoritarian demagogue. I think his nomination is a long term disaster for the Republicans. I don't know how or when they recover from this.
jwb
Footballguy
I think this is where we are heading, truthfully. Maybe that's good. There are too many people, too many ideas, too many opinions, and entirely too much shouting to get anything meaningful done.
timschochet
Footballguy
But the reason we don't have a parliamentary system is to avoid this sort of extremism, because with two parties it's not supposed to rise to the top. You know in Israel there is a group of orthodox rabbis who represent maybe 3% of the population, but they get to be a part of major decision making because the Likud needs to them to keep their winning coalition. We've always been able to keep that from happening here- until now.
jwb
Footballguy
You probably answered this earlier somewhere, but do you think Trump can win the general election?
Zegras11
Footballguy
timschochet
Footballguy
John Bender
Footballguy
Maybe while you working with BLM to create violence some Trump supporter can que up a terrorist attack.
Jayrod
Footballguy
I think the real cause is that change SEEMS to have happened very fast in this country. Older voters are in shock at what has happened to the nation they were born in. Look at the hot button issues; gay marriage, transgenders, legalizing pot, abortion, death penalty, secularization of schools, civil rights, women's rights, anti-police rhetoric,etc. The people who remember the 50's or 80's fondly do not like all of this change and how fast it has come. They have children and grandchildren that live in sheltered pockets where they look upon grandpa's era as the golden age of America and they don't like this America either. People are pissed at the PC, pro-choice, church bashing, LGBT rights stuff that is shown on their precious TV's every night. Why do you think Duck Dynasty was so popular? There is a whole segment of the population that feels left behind and they are latching on to Trump as a savior.
Me personally, I think Trump is an awful person and while I sympathize with certain aspects of what I described above he is not the answer. I voted for Kasich today because I don't trust Cruz and I couldn't bring myself to support Bernie over Hillary. So I voted for the guy I actually wanted to win even though I know he can't. I've never felt more helpless. But Trump vs Hillary? Even Bernie or Cruz are nothing like what I want to vote for. If it is Hill v Trump I'm voting 3rd party. I hate what both of them represent.
lakerstan
Footballguy
I think a Cruz nomination would have resulted in a landslide Hillary win, so it's debatable that Trump may be the best hope for the Republicans......and completely ironic.
jwb
Footballguy
This is prettymuch how I see it too. There's a huge segment out there that doesn't focus any any one particular issue - they more seek scapegoats for the overall changes they don't like.
Whether it's true or not, they feel like "immigrants get everything free" / "gays are being pushed on us" / "so when is White history month?" / "You can't say Merry Christmas anymore.., what BS". And they are fearful of terrorism / Muslims.
I don't want to talk about education level, because many in this group are educated, but they definitely aren't introspective enough to understand why things like "Black History Month" actually matter. They don't remember that basically the only black they ever learned about in school were the 20 minutes given to George Washington Carver and/or Harriet Tubman**. They don't understand that nobody is keeping them from saying "Merry Christmas", that the entire "War on Christmas" is essentially "hey, public monies/govt really should't promote one religion over another".
I sympathize with the GOP who are GOP because of true economic / trade / tax issues. While I may not agree with everything, it's at least a reasoned debate not based on emotion and misinformation.
** seriously, my fourth grade history book featured 100 important people in history, each given 2-3 pages. There were 98 white men, GWC, and Susan B Anthony.
msommer
Footballguy
timschochet
Footballguy
57. Thinner
Richard Bachman (Stephen King)
1984, 309 pages
horror
Stephen King wrote 7 novels under his pseudonym, Richard Bachman, I have chosen 2 of these for my top 100 list. The others are just OK with me, though I know a ton of people love The Long Walk; I thought that was basically a one-note short story stretched into a novel for no reason.
Thinner begins as a rather typical King horror story (which is by any other standard, excellent) about an overweight guy cursed by a gypsy who starts losing weight until he becomes too thin to live. What turns this into an extraordinary novel is the twist that King adds in the last 3rd of the book; the protagonist is good friends with a mafia boss straight out of The Godfather or The Sopranos; the mafia boss goes to war against the gypsies to get them to lift their curse.
As befits Bachman, who unlike King is apparently a pessimist. the novel does not have the happy ending that most King novels do. In fact the ending is horrific, reminiscent of the old E.C. horror comics of the 50s (of which King was a rabid fan.) Like most Stephen King novels written in the late 70s and early to mid 80s, this is suspense fiction written at white heat. Nobody in the late 20th century can touch this guy as a pure plot driven story teller.
Up next: E.L. Doctorow's classic novel about the start of the 20th century...
Richard Bachman (Stephen King)
1984, 309 pages
horror
Stephen King wrote 7 novels under his pseudonym, Richard Bachman, I have chosen 2 of these for my top 100 list. The others are just OK with me, though I know a ton of people love The Long Walk; I thought that was basically a one-note short story stretched into a novel for no reason.
Thinner begins as a rather typical King horror story (which is by any other standard, excellent) about an overweight guy cursed by a gypsy who starts losing weight until he becomes too thin to live. What turns this into an extraordinary novel is the twist that King adds in the last 3rd of the book; the protagonist is good friends with a mafia boss straight out of The Godfather or The Sopranos; the mafia boss goes to war against the gypsies to get them to lift their curse.
As befits Bachman, who unlike King is apparently a pessimist. the novel does not have the happy ending that most King novels do. In fact the ending is horrific, reminiscent of the old E.C. horror comics of the 50s (of which King was a rabid fan.) Like most Stephen King novels written in the late 70s and early to mid 80s, this is suspense fiction written at white heat. Nobody in the late 20th century can touch this guy as a pure plot driven story teller.
Up next: E.L. Doctorow's classic novel about the start of the 20th century...
timschochet
Footballguy
Great article on the positive effects of free trade and why the TPP might be good after all:
https://www.google.com/amp/www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2016/03/18/the_mistaken_bipartisan_attack_on_free_trade_130017.amp.html?client=safari#
https://www.google.com/amp/www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2016/03/18/the_mistaken_bipartisan_attack_on_free_trade_130017.amp.html?client=safari#
NorvilleBarnes
Footballguy
timschochet
Footballguy
I'm counting down my 100 favorite novels of all time. I've been doing this for some time.
The Future Champs
Footballguy
Shoot. I thought you were trolling your own thread as well, which would be sweet schtick indeed.
timschochet
Footballguy
56. Ragtime
E.L. Doctorow
1975, 270 pages
Historical fiction
Doctorow's short novel deals with the first years of the 20th century, and a uses a fictional family to discuss certain historical figures that interest him from the era: some of them important to history (Henry Ford, JP Morgan, Emma Goldman, Harry Houdini, Matthew Peary), others long forgotten (Evelyn Nesbitt, Coalhouse Walker, Jr.) Although the characters and story go all over the place touching on different aspects of the era, it's Coalhouse Walker, the black ragtime pianist who became an anarchist that comes to dominate the last two thirds of the book. It's almost as if Doctorow seems to be saying: sex, stardom, immigration, poverty, great wealth, exploration and achievement- all of these are important aspects of the American experience, but in the end the racial struggle overwhelms everything else.
The book is funny, fascinating, and probably more lyrically written than many of the other novels on this list. It's considered a literary novel; (it made the Random House top 100 of the 20th century.) But mostly because of the Walker scenes, there is no lack of suspense. The book was made into a terrific movie directed by Milos Forman, and a less successful broadway musical (IMO, but then I'm kind of a Broadway snob.) I want to add that for historical baseball fans, there is a great scene in this novel in which the main characters attend a very early game of the New York Giants at the Polo Grounds, and both players, managers, and crowd is described in great detail. That passage alone makes this a worthy read for those interested in this topic.
Up next: John Grisham's novel about jury tampering...
E.L. Doctorow
1975, 270 pages
Historical fiction
Doctorow's short novel deals with the first years of the 20th century, and a uses a fictional family to discuss certain historical figures that interest him from the era: some of them important to history (Henry Ford, JP Morgan, Emma Goldman, Harry Houdini, Matthew Peary), others long forgotten (Evelyn Nesbitt, Coalhouse Walker, Jr.) Although the characters and story go all over the place touching on different aspects of the era, it's Coalhouse Walker, the black ragtime pianist who became an anarchist that comes to dominate the last two thirds of the book. It's almost as if Doctorow seems to be saying: sex, stardom, immigration, poverty, great wealth, exploration and achievement- all of these are important aspects of the American experience, but in the end the racial struggle overwhelms everything else.
The book is funny, fascinating, and probably more lyrically written than many of the other novels on this list. It's considered a literary novel; (it made the Random House top 100 of the 20th century.) But mostly because of the Walker scenes, there is no lack of suspense. The book was made into a terrific movie directed by Milos Forman, and a less successful broadway musical (IMO, but then I'm kind of a Broadway snob.) I want to add that for historical baseball fans, there is a great scene in this novel in which the main characters attend a very early game of the New York Giants at the Polo Grounds, and both players, managers, and crowd is described in great detail. That passage alone makes this a worthy read for those interested in this topic.
Up next: John Grisham's novel about jury tampering...
Your idea of "great article" seems to be anything with an opinion that agrees with you. This is a terrible article. There are absolutely no details on why TPP will be beneficial, and no facts of any kind, just a lot of ranting about how Trump and Sanders are wrong, ### #### it!
timschochet
Footballguy
Well no, I think there were a lot of good points made. For instance:
The free trade argument feels like a rerun of what I covered in my first reporting job in Pittsburgh in the late 1970s, when foreign competition began to challenge the steel industry. Management and labor joined forces to plead for protection, arguing that lower-cost foreign steel was being "dumped" in the United States by the Japanese and others. But that argument wasn't true. Japanese mills had lower costs because they had innovated -- building new, super-efficient blast furnaces and rolling mills while the American industry slumbered. If the protectionists had won back then, they would, in effect, have imposed a tax on all American consumers to support bad management and high costs in the steel business.
The protectionists failed, and the steel industry collapsed. People suffered in the transition: The population of Allegheny County got smaller, older and poorer from 1980 to 1995, as steel jobs vanished and workers moved or retired, according to the University of Pittsburgh's University Center for Social and Urban Research. The region's real median household incomes were also stagnant or declining.
But over time, the disruptive whirlwind of change created new jobs and greater incomes, thanks to dynamic new businesses that spun up around the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center and Carnegie Mellon University.
Census Bureau data show that in the Pittsburgh metropolitan area, per-capita incomes roughly doubled from the beginning of steel's downturn in 1978 to 2014. In inflation-adjusted constant dollars, average personal income rose from $23,239 in 1978 to $45,231 in 2014. Over that time, average incomes in the Pittsburgh area grew faster than in Pennsylvania and the U.S. as a whole.
The bipartisan protectionism of Trump and Sanders has focused its attacks on the Trans-Pacific Partnership, the trade deal the Obama administration negotiated with 11 other countries. Economists who have studied the TPP carefully argue that this assault is badly misplaced. In a new paper published by the Peterson Institute for International Economics, Robert Z. Lawrence and Tyler Moran estimate that between 2017 and 2026, when TPP would have its major impact, the costs to displaced workers would be 6 percent of the benefits to the economy -- or an 18-to-1 benefit-to-cost ratio. So focus protection on that 6 percent.
Even economists who think free trade has harmed U.S. manufacturing see benefits in the TPP. David Autor, David Dorn and Gordon Hanson argued last year that although import competition helped produce a "momentous decline" in U.S. manufacturing, "We believe blocking the TPP on fears of globalization would be a mistake." They note that the pact would promote trade in knowledge industries where the U.S. has a big advantage, and that "killing the TPP would do little to bring factory work back to America."
These are, IMO, reasonable arguments, based on evidence. You can choose to disagree with the writer's conclusions, but he's not just saying Sanders and Trump are wrong, wrong, wrong. He's explaining why.
So in response, you just reposted the article? No, there were no conclusions based on evidence. The steel mill "evidence" amounted to: the steel mills closed, and (some) people got wealthier, therefore steel mill closings made people wealthier. Pretty much the same as the magic rock that keeps tigers away, I guess.
The article itself provides no data whatsoever on the TPP. It also conveniently ignores all the stuff in TPP that has nothing to with free trade.
As usual, you miss the point on why so many are against TPP. It's not because of free trade, it's because TPP in particular, and many other "trade deals" in general, aren't really about free trade at all, but are about screwing over citizens at the expense of the rich and powerful. No one is arguing that all tariffs are good for the country. No one is arguing that trade is bad. The argument is that TPP isn't a trade deal in the first place.
The article itself provides no data whatsoever on the TPP. It also conveniently ignores all the stuff in TPP that has nothing to with free trade.
As usual, you miss the point on why so many are against TPP. It's not because of free trade, it's because TPP in particular, and many other "trade deals" in general, aren't really about free trade at all, but are about screwing over citizens at the expense of the rich and powerful. No one is arguing that all tariffs are good for the country. No one is arguing that trade is bad. The argument is that TPP isn't a trade deal in the first place.
timschochet
Footballguy
I've heard this argument, over and over again, from you, from Slapdash, from others. I reject it. TPP is mostly about free trade, and most of the people who oppose it oppose ALL free trade agreements. There are no free trade agreements that I'm aware of that didn't produce the exact same "screwing over citizens at the expense of the rich and powerful" rhetoric from populist sources. It's always the same argument. So forgive me if I find the "Oh we're not really against free trade" argument to be slightly disingenuous.
Looky, we still have a few people making #### in the US, let's do another trade deal and let some quasi slaves replace them.
Anyone supporting this crap after all the evidence on the table is worse than a Trump supporter. Worst case Trump is a bigot. Being a bigot is far better than being a supporter of slavery. Worse yet is supporting slavery at the expense of middle income Americans so the slave owners can inflate your real estate market in your home town.
Anyone supporting this crap after all the evidence on the table is worse than a Trump supporter. Worst case Trump is a bigot. Being a bigot is far better than being a supporter of slavery. Worse yet is supporting slavery at the expense of middle income Americans so the slave owners can inflate your real estate market in your home town.
Similar threads
