Skins24

😂😂

^^ Absolutely no possible way that is by accident.

18 minutes ago, WashingtonRedWolves said:

I would love to take barkley from the giants and have him take over for Brob completely

Take over for BRob as back up to CRod?

Sure.

But, looks like we're going to be passing it 60 times a game, so definitely not worth spending FA money on a RB.

21 minutes ago, Destino said:

Anyone know if all these failed or flawed attempts to land on the moon will have an impact on the Artemis timeline? As I understood it in phase 1 a whole bunch of equipment was to land in the moon before advancing to the crewed phases. Doesn’t seem like that part of things is going well 

I don't think these attempts will have much of any affect, as these are all under CLPS - Commerical Lunar Payload Services - and some fails were expected...

VIPER though, planned for later this year, is the biggest (contracted) so far, and I believe most tied to Artemis (they're sending a rover which could be used by future manned crews.) We need that one to go smooth.

3 hours ago, Bang said:

The Fat ****ing orange guy is a Russian asset. He hasn't even really tried to hide it.

And the biggest problem (at least with this, lol) is that he doesn't even know. To purposely be one would require a certain level of intelligence that he has not yet displayed.

Frontline has many amazing documentaries.

One of them, Putin and the Presidents, gives a pretty good run down of how each of our past few presidents (from Clinton to Biden) have had to deal with this man. Which is insane considering Bush and Obama were two termers.

Putin, being KGB, knew how to play Trump like a fiddle. Though I imagine it didn't require much.

In the meantime, over at Google, they had to stop 'ol Gemini. Well, the creating images of people portion. 

Just a tad too 'woke'

😂

6 minutes ago, 88Comrade2000 said:

Simple solution, amend the constitution to where the president serves only one term  of 5 years.  Then that way you will get different people in government. 5 years is enough for a president to do what they want.  Rarely does anything significant get done in a president’s second term; especially in the modern era of politics.

I'd have to further digest the ramifications, but I think I'd even be down for 6 years. Since you're not inaugurated until after the new year anyway.

But yeah, it's insanely difficult to pass a constitutional amendment under normal circumstances. Could you imagine trying in the modern political environment 😄

19 hours ago, PokerPacker said:

Who's not letting you decide?  There's a primary.  Biden won in a state that he wasn't even on the ballot in.

lol, technically correct. But remember, it's career suicide to challenge the incumbent.

As an example -  Joe Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt wins in 2064, from then until 2068, no other person presents themselves, or even attempts to be a legitimate alternative candidate because it was already decided once he won in 2064, just go with Joe.

Yes, you can technically write someone in during the Primary and say you're deciding to vote for someone else. But your vote is absolutely meaningless as no other real options have been put forth.

16 hours ago, PeterMP said:

 

So when that person did something you didn't like or was close to Trump in the polls you could complain how the party picked Biden's possible replacements and how it wasn't good fair and the people should pick?

 

(I'm a little confused about the Trump conversation.  People did win against Trump.  They've lost.  People didn't run against Biden because they likely made the calculation that if they did they would lose.  The people that ran against Trump likely did so because they actually thought they could win (i.e. that Trump would be weak enough with his history and court cases to be beaten, and it appears they were wrong.)

I do believe that maybe the wrong post was quoted? Sincerest apologies if I'm missing something.

For the first part, I'm not seeing how that matches up. What I said in that post was that there shouldn't be an all or nothing approach when it come to the incumbent. This is irrespective of party. There should always be quality, knowledgeable, inspiring leaders in the pipeline.

In the case with Biden, it was known 10 years ago he was old. It would have been wise to have someone under his wing, or just in general, learning the ropes. Developing the relationships. Becoming that inspiring leader who could step up and step in with no lag in the quality that is presented.

For the second part, I'm a little confused as well, lol.

I talked about Trump in 2020, as an example of how atrocious it was that no other legitimate alternative candidate was available. 1) Because again, once they win, it's basically hands off for the next 8 years (no matter how bad they are.) and 2) There was the fear of alienating a chunk of the base, putting the party above the well-being of the people.

No bump for Sora?

Nothing is Real Anymore

Another link with more general info (on Sora and the University of Penn. being the first Ivy League to offer an undergrad in AI)

https://www.cnet.com/tech/computing/ai-and-you-openais-sora-previews-text-to-video-future-first-ivy-league-ai-degree/

10 hours ago, Captain Wiggles said:

The real problem with this picture, is how many people actually pull in instead of backing in

Ugh!

I'm sure we'll get a random day or two in mid-late March or early April where it snows for no reason, but yeah, for the DMV, it's a safe assumption that winter is just about done.

There are no signs of any sustained cold air any time soon.

49 minutes ago, skinsmarydu said:

I see you didn't read or understand mine.

Gavin will have a strong stance next term.  Right now, we have the best there is.

I see it. And I know there is nothing that could be done now.

And if he is the best, then so be it. But let us decide that.

Quote

We won't know anyone this knowledgeable again for a long time, so I need him to do his best this next 4. 

Knowledge is gained by teaching. Why has this knowledge not been passed down or around?

In a perfect system....not even perfect, in a better system, one person wouldn't hold all the cards. There's no benefit to that.

1 hour ago, tshile said:

Because when 40% of your base (pick whatever significant number you want) has a cult like following, you’re going to lose them even if a challenger succeeds.

And alas, we sacrifice the good of the people for the benefit of the party. That's what this system does.

35 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:

But that has to be considered in the context of all the good stuff Biden has done, that probably no other potential candidate could have done, as has been repeatedly described above (and which you seem to just ignore).

Ignore?

I've added to the good things he at least tried to do.

But THIS is my issue. "Probably no other potential candidate could have done." We will never know because it was already decided no one should even try to build upon, or improve on the things he's done. Given his age, THAT is not cool. Years. Decades even, of knowledge and know-how could have been passed on to other inspiring or potentially inspiring leaders. So one could say, 'You know what, you rest, I've got it from here.'

Again, this is not a Dem issue. Both sides do this. Unnecessarily.

3 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:

 

You don't seem inclined to actually listen to what people in this thread are saying.  

Such as?

I've seen all the post saying Biden is the best the Dems have.

No one else inspires them like him. No one else has done the things he has done. And so on...

And I see that as being an issue. I'm well aware they are well past anyone doing anything now. That has not been my suggestion. For the past four years, and even beyond, folks should have been groomed and mentored so that there are other inspiring leaders. Leaders who could actually step in or up nearly seamlessly.

47 minutes ago, tshile said:

This will never happen. 
 

it’s not in the party’s interest to have a legit primary when they’re the incumbent party. The money and time spent, plus the backlash an intense primary can create (like fracturing the bloc), means they won’t ever like that idea. You have to have someone that’s willing to commit career suicide if they can’t take on the incumbent, which obviously doesn’t happen (if you had a chance to possibly win, why would you risk your career? Instead we get randoms with zero chance)

 

I don’t think it’s a good way to do things but it seems obvious that’s the way it will continue to be. 

Right.

Not in the party's interest. Which sucks.

Look at 2020. Career suicide or a huge risk challenging Trump?? HOW? That should never be. But it was. We could have ended up with 8 years of Trump over cowardice and "that's just the way things are."

Current. You may be dismissive of or not worried about Biden's age. But there is absolutely no doubt each and every misspeak or mistake will be harped from the other side, and no doubt that will play well with their base. And honestly, how is it not a legit concern? This is the most stressful job in the universe (as far as we know) and he is not getting younger. The next few years are trending to be far more stressful (at least on the international stage) than the previous four. He's had during his career, a couple of brain aneurysms, cancer, COVID who knows how many times. There has been no one being groomed or under his wing, building report, building those relationships or anything like that, so this dude can slide into his well earned retirement? Because...._______?

54 minutes ago, Jumbo said:

 I would say that your thoughts here are pretty mainstream when framed as ideals and goals to shoot for and they've been a common theme since I voted in 72. 🙂

 

And things sometime bring those ideals to life. Before my first vote, JFK fit your premise. Bill Clinton too. Al Gore was a pretty decent realization of the dynamics you mentioned though he had the establishment component having served as VP for Bill. Certainly Obama was a huge representation of the process and the voters turning to the kind of candidate you describe. 

 

So the suggestion I get from your posts that this finding a younger forward thinking dem nominee is some constantly neglected event over recent decades isn't accurate.

I get your post and do not necessarily disagree with any of it.

But what you describe is more so "fresh" faces coming in with the other party in control. JFK came in after Eisenhower. Clinton and Obama came in after Bushes (that's what she said?)

And this is certainly not limited to the Dems. Repubs were stuck with Trump in 2020 for what I'm describing (though that was the most within party competition, that I've ever seen.)

Say it's a close race between Candidate A and Candidate B for the party nom. Candidate A wins. We won't hear from Candidate B again for 8 years. Why not 4 years?

Let the people decide they want to stick with Candidate A, don't decide that for us.

Quote

I look at the best of fresher faces in the Dems and see a lot I like, but no one I think would be able to better in legislation than what Biden has actually done so far in fact. Not even close.

How would anyone even know that when, purposely, no one is given a chance?

It's a systemic issue that won't be solved any time soon because we have just accepted it.

11 minutes ago, Wayne_Millner said:

Am I the only one who wants to draft a QB at #2 (Daniels) but also start the season with Howell as QB1?

I mean...

What are our goals going in to this season?

And is that the best way to develop future QB1 when old/current QB1 also needs development?

28 minutes ago, Warhead36 said:

Yeah for sure. Its a balancing act. Do you pay a little extra to make sure your prized rookie gets an experienced vet in the QB room with him? There isn't really anything Howell can teach him, he's not at that stage of his career.

How much would it cost to keep Jacoby Brissett around?

Pretty sure we have the $$...

DC native and Tuskegee airman Mr. William Fauntroy Jr. unfortunately passed away late last year. Earlier in the year, I had the absolute privilege of hearing him speak. Man, he had stories for days 🙂

He was one of those, where you could just sit and listen to him all day!

Found this video that provides a sample:

https://youtu.be/FVK2QMEUtZ4?si=apMhP-ryJCX5RLVb

Thank you Mr. Fauntroy.

16 hours ago, Larry said:

...

This is the team that successfully got the GOP to take cutting Medicare and SS off of the fiscal cliff negotiating table.  

 

The team which has successfully wiped out probably 1/3 of the Russian military, without using a single American combat troop.  And only costing us some Army Surplus gear.  (And a lot of intel.  

 

A team which has strengthened NATO.  (To the point where Putin is ordering the GOP to attack it.  And the GOP is carrying out the order.)  

 

A team which passed an economic stimulus package that is so goot that numerous Republicans who voted against it are trying to take credit for it.  (Insert campaign commercial footage here.)  

 

A team which successfully negotiated a bipartisan bill to fund Israel, Ukraine, and help the border crisis.  (Until Donald Trump ordered them not to pass it, because it would make the Dems look good.)  

 

A team which has successfully maneuvered the GOP into not intentionally harming the economy by shutting down the government.  Twice.  Despite elements in the GOP attempting to blackmail the entire Party into doing exactly that.  

 

Starting to see the pattern? 

I'll even add - when Biden was VP, if we had listened to him then, and trusted his foresight, there's a good chance things may have played out different. He was the one, even back then, pushing for arming and strengthening Ukraine.

All the rest, all good stuff. Nevertheless, perception is everything.

I'll reiterate. We've been down this road before. Not in 2020, but in 2016. And I'm seeing signs of history repeating itself.

'all you have are these polls, that we can ignore, because it's too early'

Ok, you keep doing that.....again.

9 hours ago, PokerPacker said:

There is no one guaranteed to widen the gap.  You talk about what a gamble it is to go with the guy who's a proven winner having already gone though the political character-assassination wringer and defeated Trump, and then propose we should bring in somebody (not much in the way of suggestions) who will be better than Biden to reduce the gamble.  But that somebody will be an even bigger unknown how they will pull through such character assassination as happens in a national political campaign, thus introduce huge uncertainties... you know, gambling.

I'm not proposing anything.

But this is one of the biggest flaws of our system. The only reason why that somebody would be an unknown and not have gone through the political character assassination wringer is because it was already decided (for us) four years ago that no one will do that. Out of tradition.

'oh, but one party, one voice'

I get that. But if you fresh ideas. Different perspectives. A better way of handling things. You're going to sit on that for 8 years, just hoping for the best during those 8 years?

Who does that serve? The party or the people?

3 hours ago, PleaseBlitz said:

Gotta admire the argument "Can someone on the Dem side, please explain why the risk is worth it? Are there seriously no other viable Democrat candidates?" when the Republicans are going to overwhelmingly nominate a rapist. 

. 

That was exactly my point...

I'm willing to bet cash money we'll go to bed Tuesday night, still wondering if the worse nightmare, for the majority of this blue Earth, is still a possibility.

You're telling me there was/is no one who could widened that gap more comfortably?

29 minutes ago, tshile said:

the same way he did last time?

302 EC votes

Just to add - I’m not saying it will happen. I’m saying it’s silly to say it can’t happen. 
 

because we have history of it already happening once. 
 

and what you have are a bunch of meaningless polls. 
 

I’ll put my money on bets using election results, including ballot initiatives, over cable news click-generating polls 8 months before the election when the GOP primary isn’t even over and Biden has yet to begin campaigning.

When the winner can be decided with a flip of one or two states, I do not consider that a blowout..

The 'why' question still remains. What does a 81 going on 94 year old bring to the table that NONE of the other millions of democrats can bring? Why even risk it being that close?

Also, I couldn't care less about the polls.

I have eyes and ears. And I've been to nearly every state in the U.S. 

It'll be close...

4 minutes ago, tshile said:

to start declaring what the election will look like this far out is beyond silly.

 

personally I’m trying to stick to just the criticisms individually, as opposed to painting myself into a corner of declaring he will lose or barely win. A blowout win by Biden certainly seems in the cards to me - and will remain such until we see him aggressively campaigning and spending his money, and his polling continues to suffer. 

We've been down this road before...

Do you think Trump voters are suddenly going to change their minds/votes?

I'm seriously asking. How does Biden get to that blowout win?

We saw aggressive campaigning and spending money in 2020 with the one BILLION+ dollars raised...

4 minutes ago, The Evil Genius said:

 

I'd think winning the popular vote by 4.5% or more, like 2020, is very possible. That's a blowout. Only the EC and how it's badly thought out keeps it from being a blowout in other terms. 

Still...my question still remains. Against Donald J. Trump....that is the best the Dems can do??

*

And don't worry, I can at least partially answer for you

I am probably one of the most optimistic human beings on the planet. I know Trump's popularity is more of a reflection of where we are are as a society. I just don't want it to be that way...

11 minutes ago, The Evil Genius said:

I would add that this idea that Biden is a terrible candidate flies in the face of his recent rankings. 14th all time? That's top third, right?

I think people underestimate, just how much we've changed. Even from four years ago.

I don't see that being relevant.......

The fact that Trump is a candidate....the fact that Trump is the leading candidate for the other side speaks to that.

That this won't be a blowout win for Biden, speaks to that.

I don't get it....

Can someone on the Dem side, please explain why the risk is worth it?

Are there seriously no other viable Democrat candidates? If they lose, and Trump becomes President, it will be 100% their fault.

And for what? You're not putting up another candidate out of tradition?? I need help understanding the why...

Not that it matters much

Me searching for a way the U.S. survives any of this (a narcissistic delinquent child in an old man's body vs. a man who's as mentally sharp as a plushie in an old man's body) intact:

So Friday night/Saturday morning will definitely be more than a quick flash of snow.

Widespread 2"-4" for the region. Similar to the events in January.

Enjoy.

Looks like La Nina may be making a return next year to ruin winter again.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/07/weather/el-nino-super-winter-climate/index.html