Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

How do you identify politically


How would you describe your political views?  

207 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

31 minutes ago, The Gator said:

Just anecdotally, but for my money, fatguy is one of the most intellectually stimulating posters here.  

I would be surprised if he does not constantly challenge his own views to ensure that they evolve appropriately.

:goodposting:

It's probably the WORST person outside MT, to attempt to apply this little quip to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Ramblin Wreck said:

Sure I don't believe I have done that though I did admit in one of these threads that there are plenty of posters who claim to be not be liberal but take the liberal side of every political discussion that occurs.  Also, it's been damn near impossible to even have a policy discussion on this board for years because the usual suspects turn everything into Trump and sides.  I wonder if that will change next January

Well, that and there is only policy proposals coming out of only part of our legislature (this can't be stressed enough IMO...both sides need to be engaged in writing legislation).  I can't wait for the day we get back to comparing the two proposals of the parties.  We might get our chance with this next stimulus bill actually.  There's a not small portion of the Dem bill that I am not a fan of.  Want to see what the GOP response is.

Edited by The Commish
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, dgreen said:

I wonder if this post is an example of why he doesn't engage with you anymore.

The problem is, people in this forum characterize everyone with opposing views as not wanting to use facts and believe they are too good to lower themselves to debating the other side.  Whatever his reasons maybe, what I see is the typical belittlement and dehumanization of the other side.  We are too good to even have a discussion with you.  His whole post was purely passive aggressive.  What a crook of cowardness.  

  • Laughing 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, The Commish said:

Well, that and there is only policy proposals coming out of only part of our legislature (this can't be stressed enough IMO...both sides need to be engaged in writing legislation).  I can't wait for the day we get back to comparing the two proposals of the parties.  We might get our chance with this next stimulus bill actually.  There's a not small portion of the Dem bill that I am not a fan of.  Want to see what the GOP response is.

It will be interesting to see what they can agree on. My girlfriend hasn’t been able to work since May due to a diagnosis of Ovarian cancer and dealing with chemo. I’m her caregiver and help her with things like filing her unemployment. I agree the $600 extra per week is too much but they need to get this addressed ASAP. As well as the end of not being able to evict people. That will affect so many people. As far as the stimulus checks. I’m not sure how much they help. She got one, I didn’t and won’t this time.

Edited by John Blutarsky
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, jon_mx said:

Just a few months back, every new poster who came in this forum with a conservative or pro-Trump slant was labeled an alias or a troll.  The mods kind of put an end to that tactic, but now this forum is using dismissive tactics more and more.  There are probably only a couple posters who will engage me about real points I raise.  Most try to nitpick some small irrelevant aspect of my post to attack or just completely mischaracterize my point and ignore the meat.  There is an active effort to squash opposing viewpoints.  

For the most part...any new poster that comes in guns a blazing will be labeled that...that existed pre-Trump.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, John Blutarsky said:

It will be interesting to see what they can agree on. My girlfriend hasn’t been able to work since May due to a diagnosis of Ovarian cancer and dealing with chemo. I’m her caregiver and help her with things like filing her unemployment. I agree the $600 extra per week is too much but they need to get this addressed ASAP. As well as the end of not being able to evict people. That will affect so many people. 

That sucks to hear about your GF JB.  Well wishes to her and a quick recovery.  

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, dkp993 said:

For a guy who’s overtly hypersensitive to personal attacks this seems not cool. 

I am making a point.  Let's make me the lone black guy in the office.  One office mate tells me, 'well I am glad you are here'.  And then another office mate pipes up and says "I used to engage with you on a regular basis. I don't do so anymore.  It's not because I'm racist." and then five people nods their heads and say I agree.  Really, what jerks.  Nobody should be put in that position.   But that is the environment that persists in this forum.  It is extremely hostile.  

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, jon_mx said:

I am making a point.  Let's make me the lone black guy in the office.  One office mate tells me, 'well I am glad you are here'.  And then another office mate pipes up and says "I used to engage with you on a regular basis. I don't do so anymore.  It's not because I'm racist." and then five people nods their heads and say I agree.  Really, what jerks.  Nobody should be put in that position.   But that is the environment that persists in this forum.  It is extremely hostile.  

I've asked this many times- if you truly believe this, why come around? What are you getting out of the psf? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, jon_mx said:

I am making a point.  Let's make me the lone black guy in the office.  One office mate tells me, 'well I am glad you are here'.  And then another office mate pipes up and says "I used to engage with you on a regular basis. I don't do so anymore.  It's not because I'm racist." and then five people nods their heads and say I agree.  Really, what jerks.  Nobody should be put in that position.   But that is the environment that persists in this forum.  It is extremely hostile.  

Ok. Whether I agree with this or not it has nothing to do with my point. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, jon_mx said:

It would be nice if the majority believed they had to act cool.  

Sure.  But understand when you rail against personal attacks here you probably shouldn’t personally attack.  

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, KarmaPolice said:

I've asked this many times- if you truly believe this, why come around? What are you getting out of the psf? 

Because I think it is more important to understand the other side and be able to converse with them than it is to just have your ideas go unchallenged.  I see a lot of smart people here, but too many of them are unwilling to drop their biases and concede anything.  The few good conversations though, makes putting up with the normal BS worth it. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Captain Cranks said:

That's pretty difficult when many of us aren't willing to look in the mirror and figure out what we can do better, wouldn't you agree?

I look in the mirror just fine.  The mob mentality in this forum far more overpowering and is who really needs to examine themselves.  It like once in a blue moon does anyone acknowledge what crappy tactics are being used on their side. I don't come in here to start fights.  When someone engages me in a civil manner, I am very civil.   

Edited by jon_mx
  • Thanks 1
  • Love 1
  • Thinking 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sorry, Jon, but here's where the disconnect happens for me.  If it's constantly 'the other side' and everyone thinks in this manner, you get the dynamic that you apparently despise.  Everyone can improve their communication.  Everyone can improve their introspection.  Everyone can do less namecalling and speak with less condescension.  If your attitude is, 'not me, but you guys', then I don't think you should expect anyone else to behave differently.  

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Captain Cranks said:

I'm sorry, Jon, but here's where the disconnect happens for me.  If it's constantly 'the other side' and everyone thinks in this manner, you get the dynamic that you apparently despise.  Everyone can improve their communication.  Everyone can improve their introspection.  Everyone can do less namecalling and speak with less condescension.  If your attitude is, 'not me, but you guys', then I don't think you should expect anyone else to behave differently.  

Certainly everyone can improve.  But when you outnumber someone 8 to 1, it should be incumbent upon those 8 people to be a bit more sensitive instead of piling on.  When I see a crappy post towards me, I never see someone pipe up and say that was uncalled for.  What I see are 8 likes.  

  • Like 3
  • Love 1
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Boston said:
30 minutes ago, Ramblin Wreck said:

Sure I don't believe I have done that though I did admit in one of these threads that there are plenty of posters who claim to be not be liberal but take the liberal side of every political discussion that occurs.  Also, it's been damn near impossible to even have a policy discussion on this board for years because the usual suspects turn everything into Trump and sides.  I wonder if that will change next January

It won't.

Here is how I see it.  I am going to paint with a broad brush here for sake of keeping my verbose self from writing for days as I qualify everything to fit a more nuance perspective.

With Trump the "pro Trump" group are those that primarily celebrate the Trump personality.  These are guys (not being used to denote gender) that simply don't care about whether or not what Trump say (and by extension they repeat) is factual.  While they have beliefs and opinions that could be discussed because of the context of promoting those beliefs without giving an inch this group is next to impossible to have a discussion with.

Then there are those that just want Trump to stop tweeting, but otherwise defend his policy choices.  Are these people "pro Trump"?  They say no.  While this group might be open to a policy discussion arguing over whether or not they are pro or anti Trump takes over most discussions.

Then there are those that have asserted conservative principles forever that "hate" how Trump is tossing those principles to the side internally, but just can't admit to it in public.  

Then there are the "never Trump" conservatives.  Some are quiet some are loud.  Many don't want to be called conservative any longer.  Those that a are loud seem to take the "liberal side of every political discussion that occurs" because all of these discussions are about Trump.  

Then there are the moderates and liberals.  For the purpose here they might just as well be "never Trump" conservatives.

To me if Trump loses and leaves the political scene (at least as far as posters are willing to let that happen) we aren't going to be spending time arguing over Biden's larger than life personality and his need to stroke his ego with :bs: claims or defend his mistakes as not being mistakes with his sharpie.   If we get rid of this chatter then some of the other discussions can form.  There won't be a mob response because those "never Trump", moderates, and liberals that are all lumped together above won't be lumped together without the common ground of Trump.  Those that now defend Trump's policy choices won't need to separate themselves from his tweets.

While there will always be the unfair labeling, the attack the poster and not the idea, etc.  And there will always be the "usual suspect" regulars.   I think that with the removal of Trump and the removal of those that are all in on #winning and #liberaltears that conservatives and liberals and moderates alike will crawl out of the woodwork and post a bit more.   And a few of the policy discussions will happen again.  And there will be more ideas flowing and hopefully more care about a good faith attempt to be accurate in the facts,

Maybe I'm just an optimist, but I think there is a longing from lots of people to get back to this.  It just can't happen while we live in a world where a simple fact like  how large the inauguration crowd was is something debatable.

 

 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, KarmaPolice said:

I've asked this many times- if you truly believe this, why come around? What are you getting out of the psf? 

Not specific to Jon but I think you are hitting the nail on the head (frankly its already been driven through the floor-board)...most don't come around.  But for some reason folks are arguing that.

There are six exceptions, lol

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, djmich said:

Not specific to Jon but I think you are hitting the nail on the head (frankly its already been driven through the floor-board)...most don't come around.  But for some reason folks are arguing that.

There are six exceptions, lol

It is funny that the question is not why do we only have 6, but why are those 6 still here?  It is like damn, we need to up our game.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, John Blutarsky said:

It will be interesting to see what they can agree on. My girlfriend hasn’t been able to work since May due to a diagnosis of Ovarian cancer and dealing with chemo. I’m her caregiver and help her with things like filing her unemployment. I agree the $600 extra per week is too much but they need to get this addressed ASAP. As well as the end of not being able to evict people. That will affect so many people. As far as the stimulus checks. I’m not sure how much they help. She got one, I didn’t and won’t this time.

That sucks!  I have a history with cancer in my family to the point where I'm taking this "it's a matter of when, not if" approach.  I just feel like it's coming.  For the bold (if I am reading correctly), it seems like $600 a week isn't enough much less thinking of reducing it if we still have to worry about evictions.  I sort of feel like if we are going to encourage people to stay home, they need the piece of mind of knowing their bills will be paid.  The problem here comes in the management of funds etc...can be really expensive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, jon_mx said:

I am making a point.  Let's make me the lone black guy in the office.  One office mate tells me, 'well I am glad you are here'.  And then another office mate pipes up and says "I used to engage with you on a regular basis. I don't do so anymore.  It's not because I'm racist." and then five people nods their heads and say I agree.  Really, what jerks.  Nobody should be put in that position.   But that is the environment that persists in this forum.  It is extremely hostile.  

I guess we all approach things in our own way. If someone told me that they used to engage with me but don't anymore, I imagine I'd either :shrug: and ignore the post because I don't really care or, if I do care, I'd ask them what changed so that I could understand where they are coming from and evaluate things based on what I learn. Yes, that's harder to do if I feel the original comment was an attack. But I guess I didn't see his original comment as an attack. Either way, and regardless of how I'd actually respond to an attack, I think it's usually best to respond to attacks without my own attacks.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, dgreen said:

I guess we all approach things in our own way. If someone told me that they used to engage with me but don't anymore, I imagine I'd either :shrug: and ignore the post because I don't really care or, if I do care, I'd ask them what changed so that I could understand where they are coming from and evaluate things based on what I learn. Yes, that's harder to do if I feel the original comment was an attack. But I guess I didn't see his original comment as an attack. Either way, and regardless of how I'd actually respond to an attack, I think it's usually best to respond to attacks without my own attacks.

You are better at that than I am.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, jon_mx said:

You are better at that than I am.  

Well, I think it's just part of who I am. And it's not how I always am in every circumstance. I do sometimes fire back, but, yes, I mostly consider that a weakness and something that I shouldn't do. I understand it's harder for some people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, The Commish said:

That sucks!  I have a history with cancer in my family to the point where I'm taking this "it's a matter of when, not if" approach.  I just feel like it's coming.  For the bold (if I am reading correctly), it seems like $600 a week isn't enough much less thinking of reducing it if we still have to worry about evictions.  I sort of feel like if we are going to encourage people to stay home, they need the piece of mind of knowing their bills will be paid.  The problem here comes in the management of funds etc...can be really expensive.

Thanks. No, I feel the $600 a week is too much. People shouldn’t make more money by not working. I hope they can find a way to adjust it to a percentage of the earnings each person had made. However, the unemployment computer systems are severely out of date and likely can’t do that for quite a while.

Edited by John Blutarsky
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, John Blutarsky said:

Thanks. No, I feel the $600 a week is too much. People shouldn’t make more money by not working. I hope they can find a way to adjust it to the earnings each person had made. However, the unemployment computer systems are severely out of date and likely can’t do that for quite a while.

Just give everyone $600 a month whether they work or not.  Once that is done then except for those that are paying for the privilege to work somewhere no one will be earning more money by not working than they would if they were.   Personally I'd prefer to be more generous, but lets agree on the concept first and work out the details later.

  • Like 2
  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Bottomfeeder Sports said:

Just give everyone $600 a month whether they work or not.  Once that is done then except for those that are paying for the privilege to work somewhere no one will be earning more money by not working than they would if they were.   Personally I'd prefer to be more generous, but lets agree on the concept first and work out the details later.

What? The population of the US as of 2019 was 328 million people.  $600 a month to everyone now is $196 Billion a month.   Who would agree with your concept of giving everyone $600 a month?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, John Blutarsky said:

Good luck with that.

Thanks!  Momentum has been slowly building for about fifteen years in these forums and the nation at large.  Still a long way to go but I'll keep plugging away to try to win converts to enact the conservative alternative to the welfare state.  

  • Thanks 1
  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Captain Cranks said:

Representative of what?  The FBG sample is not an accurate representation of the U.S population as a whole.  I don't think it's a stretch to assume, on average, we're more highly educated, more likely to have white collar jobs, and less likely to live in rural areas than the average U.S. voter.  Those demographics are definitely not Trump's bread and butter.  

A large majority of my clients are pro Trump and they are largely well educated, wealthy, and intelligent.  Right or wrong I see things completely opposite of how you do.

  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, John Blutarsky said:

Thanks. No, I feel the $600 a week is too much. People shouldn’t make more money by not working. I hope they can find a way to adjust it to a percentage of the earnings each person had made. However, the unemployment computer systems are severely out of date and likely can’t do that for quite a while.

I guess my confusion is in the "they are being paid too much but we also need to keep them from being evicted because they can't pay their rent"  Something's not adding up there.  Help me understand what I'm missing.  Maybe I am not understanding your initial comment/concern around evictions?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Captain Cranks said:

Representative of what?  The FBG sample is not an accurate representation of the U.S population as a whole.  I don't think it's a stretch to assume, on average, we're more highly educated, more likely to have white collar jobs, and less likely to live in rural areas than the average U.S. voter.  Those demographics are definitely not Trump's bread and butter.  

We have to remember to define "educated" here AND we have to account for those ridiculously wealthy guys.  I know there are some footballguys that qualify for that still, but it's not many.  Those incredibly wealthy guys will back anyone who keeps them growing and putting the bill on the backs of the middle/lower classes.  They are absolutely in his demographic.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, The Commish said:

I guess my confusion is in the "they are being paid too much but we also need to keep them from being evicted because they can't pay their rent"  Something's not adding up there.  Help me understand what I'm missing.  Maybe I am not understanding your initial comment/concern around evictions?

https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/emergency-bans-on-evictions-and-other-tenant-protections-related-to-coronavirus.html

I never said anything specifically about helping to pay rent. As far as evictions I was addressing this. In addition, I am all for expanded unemployment benefits as I said just as long as the person getting benefits isn’t getting more than they were when they were working. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, John Blutarsky said:

https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/emergency-bans-on-evictions-and-other-tenant-protections-related-to-coronavirus.html

I never said anything specifically about helping to pay rent. As far as evictions I was addressing this. In addition, I am all for expanded unemployment benefits as I said just as long as the person getting benefits isn’t getting more than they were when they were working. 

Are you counting just wages or benefits too? I am having a difficult time understanding how anyone could be against 600 extra dollars a week during a pandemic. Who really cares if they make more money than usual for 6 to 9 months? In the grand scheme of things we are talking what an extra 18,000ish thousand dollars per person if they collect until the end of the year. The horror. 

Edited by msudaisy26
  • Like 2
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, msudaisy26 said:

Are you counting just wages or benefits too? I am having a difficult time understanding how anyone could be against 600 extra dollars a week during a pandemic. Who really cares if they make more money than usual for 6 to 9 months? In the grand scheme of things we are talking what an extra 18,000ish thousand dollars per person if they collect until the end of the year. The horror. 

I am fully supportive of people getting extra unemployment benefits like they have been. I just feel they shouldn’t make more than they were when they were working. That’s not cold. I agree they should get extra money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, John Blutarsky said:

https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/emergency-bans-on-evictions-and-other-tenant-protections-related-to-coronavirus.html

I never said anything specifically about helping to pay rent. As far as evictions I was addressing this. In addition, I am all for expanded unemployment benefits as I said just as long as the person getting benefits isn’t getting more than they were when they were working. 

Ok thanks...is this more effective than lifting the bans but providing people enough money to pay the rent?  Seems like more than one way to skin this cat.  The second way seems to have less overhead and impacts fewer people (thinking of the landlords not getting paid right now forcing them to keep people there who can't pay rent...that would be a burden lifted off them while affording the jobless money to do what's necessary).  :mellow: 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, John Blutarsky said:

I am fully supportive of people getting extra unemployment benefits like they have been. I just feel they shouldn’t make more than they were when they were working. That’s not cold. I agree they should get extra money.

That is why I asked if you are counting just wages or wages and benefits. I don't care if they make a little more money. Some of them need it for benefits lost, for jobs that aren't coming back, for staying home with kids because schools might not open back up and a lot of other reasons. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, The Commish said:

Ok thanks...is this more effective than lifting the bans but providing people enough money to pay the rent?  Seems like more than one way to skin this cat.  The second way seems to have less overhead and impacts fewer people (thinking of the landlords not getting paid right now forcing them to keep people there who can't pay rent...that would be a burden lifted off them while affording the jobless money to do what's necessary).  :mellow: 

Why is this hard to understand? I support extending the ban to evict people and extending extra unemployment benefits as long as those unemployment benefits don’t provide more money than when the person was working. Before Covid the ban to evict people didn’t exist and unemployment benefits were much lower. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, John Blutarsky said:

Why is this hard to understand? I support extending the ban to evict people and extending extra unemployment benefits as long as those unemployment benefits don’t provide more money than when the person was working. Before Covid the ban to evict people didn’t exist and unemployment benefits were much lower. 

I am wondering why you have a problem with the bolded. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, msudaisy26 said:

That is why I asked if you are counting just wages or wages and benefits. I don't care if they make a little more money. Some of them need it for benefits lost, for jobs that aren't coming back, for staying home with kids because schools might not open back up and a lot of other reasons. 

Unemployment is for wages. There are other options for people that may need other assistance. I’m being supportive and yet once again here getting misunderstood due to the nature of this place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, John Blutarsky said:

Unemployment is for wages. There are other options for people that may need other assistance. I’m being supportive and yet once again here getting misunderstood due to the nature of this place.

Unemployment is for wages normally. During this pandemic they have changed the rules for unemployment. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, John Blutarsky said:

Huh? Why should people get paid more to not work?

Because it is a pandemic. Not because they got fired or laid off. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, John Blutarsky said:

Why is this hard to understand? I support extending the ban to evict people and extending extra unemployment benefits as long as those unemployment benefits don’t provide more money than when the person was working. Before Covid the ban to evict people didn’t exist and unemployment benefits were much lower. 

It's not hard to understand.  I understand exactly what your position is...I'm asking if there's not a better way. 

For instance, I lose my full time job at company X paying $12 an hour.  If I work 40 hours a week, that's $480 an hour.  I get the sense that you believe the $600 compensation isn't appropriate because it was $480 a week before, it's $600 now.  I am getting an extra $120 a week I shouldn't be.  Is that a fair characterization of your position so far?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
  • Create New...