Predicto

1 minute ago, Warhead36 said:

Nobody has a chance of dethroning the Warriors anyway except maybe the Timberwolves if they can add a little bit more. Probably need to upgrade the coach too, not sure about Thibs winning a ring.

Not true, because injuries and other disruptions are a fact of life in the NBA.   Beating the Warriors in a 7 game series when they are at full strength may be unlikely, but beating the Warriors if Steph gets hobbled again, or KD goes down, or Draymond gets suspended, or Klay gets busted with weed on a road trip to Indianapolis... that definitely is possible. 

You want to be the team that is ready to pounce if that opening presents itself.  It's stupid to plan to wait for a dynasty to end.  

Next on Fox and Friends:  Our sources tell us that Senator Grassley was blocking the release of the transcript out of concern that it would show that the Democrats were colluding with someone or something.  He wanted to protect them.

Steve Doocy: "Why would Dianne Feinstein betray her own party like this?  So weird."   

17 minutes ago, Hersh said:

 

As I have less knowledge of their system, how does Green get his with in the Warriors offense? I feel like LeBron’s passing ability, ability to drive and finish or kick and if he’s willing to set those screens that he could average a triple double for the Warriors while scoring less. 

 

But I’ll defer to the Warriors fan here.

The difference is who is moving and who is still.  Green typically gets the ball at or above the top of the key, stands still for a moment and surveys all the moving shooters, and throws to the spot where one is just coming free for an open shot (or a backdoor cut).  All the shooters are constantly moving - the passer is not.  That is why the pass can come at any time.  And if people leave Green open to double Steph, Green takes a jumper to keep them honest.  Green typically scores only about ten points a game, but he leads the team in assists.

Lebron, in contrast, sets himself up as the scoring thread.  He is the one moving - he drives down the lane and forces the defense to make a decision because he rarely gets stopped one on one when he has a head of steam up.  The shooters leak to the corners and stay there.  If someone doubles Lebron's drive, he kicks to whichever of the shooters has been left open.  That pass is always made at the same time - at the end of the drive.

Both systems work, but they are very different.   I'm not saying that Lebron could not be highly successful in the Warriors' system - he can pretty much do anything on a basketball court.  But having Durant's outside shot is even more valuable, because it creates so much more space for everyone.  Who do you stick with when Steph sets a screen for Durant?    

Now imagine if Lebron sets a screen for Steph.  You know what to do.  You stay outside with Steph and the other defender drops back into the lane to take away the drive from Lebron.  Lebron can take the outside shot, you can live with that. 

Make sense?  

13 minutes ago, Hersh said:

 

Their efficiency would not go down adding any of those players. They would simply have a slightly different style. Not to say Durant isn't a brilliant fit for the Warriors.

The Warriors offensive style is based on constantly running around screens to get open first, which determines where the passes will go.  Everyone is constantly moving, and the pass can come at any time.   Klay and Steph run almost three miles per game weaving all over the place.

Lebron's (or Giannis's) way is the opposite, and requires shooters to stand around in preset places.  They have to be there and not move so then when Lebron drives, the defender has to make a decision and Lebron knows exactly where to throw the kick out.  If the shooters are endlessly moving around like the Warriors do, there will be no way to make the correct pass in the split second that Lebron has to make that decision.   

You would have to rework the Warrior's offense entirely to take full advantage of Lebron or Giannis's offensive skills.  

10 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

I believe I specifically stated the early 80s.  People fought and there is the famous McHale clothes line (and I'm pretty sure he didn't get ejected for that, which is why such plays happen), but there are plenty of old videos of games back YouTube.  Play-in and play-out, there was less contact.

You are correct, sir.  There were more fights (because the penalties for fighting were less) but overall there was less contact (and less defense in general).

28 minutes ago, Hersh said:

 

That's not really a good standard cause what the Warriors have around Durant. There are a few stars that would make the Warriors just as good as they are now cause any team can only be so good. Lebron, Anthony Davis, a health Leonard, Giannis. 

Nah.  The reason Durant is so good for the Warriors is because he is so deadly from outside.   Everything about the Warriors offensive dominance begins with them being able to score efficiently from anywhere on the court at any time.  Leonard is the only one of those 4 that would be just as good for the Warriors as Durant because he is the only one that is superior from distance.  Although Lebron sometimes gets hot from deep, his real unstoppable skill is power drives for a dunk or a kick out to shooters if the double comes.  That's not Warriors basketball.   

5 minutes ago, pjfootballer said:

No contact in the 80s? I don’t know what you guys were watching, but players were hammered anytime they came down the lane and it got worse in the 90s. Brawl ball in the 90s created a lot of rule changes. I remember a lot of fights in the 80s for hard fouls. 

The 90s was much more physical than the early and mid 80s.  Those 80s Celtics and Lakers teams were running and passing and scoring easily.   

It wasn't until the Bad Boy Pistons at the end of the decade that everything got mucked up and slowed down.

52 minutes ago, BenningRoadSkin said:

 

I say dude is 33 years old and can't defend like he used too.

Would the Warriors be better with Lebron?

Perhaps not, because Durant is a perfect fit for the Warriors.  On the other hand, I think the Cavs are better with Lebron than they would be with Durant.  And I think adding Lebron to almost every team in the NBA (certainly every team in the East) instantly gives that team a good shot to get to the finals.  I don't think you can say that about Durant.  

Lebron is having the best season of his career.  He's a cyborg and he's still the best player in the Association.   

1 hour ago, stevemcqueen1 said:

 

I'm not sure the Wizards say yes to that deal.

True.  There are a lot of genuinely stupid front office people in the NBA.  Ernie Grunfeld might be one of them.

You think you can get Anthony Davis for John Wall in a 1:1 trade?   

I'll have some of whatever you are smoking.  

3 minutes ago, Sacks 'n' Stuff said:

Say there are three parties. For the presidential election, the number of electoral votes ends up being

 

Candidate 1: 264

Candidate 2: 186

Candidate 3: 88

 

Who is president?

The house of representatives decides, using one vote per state.  In other words, the Republican will win, because the GOP controls so many smaller, low population states.   

And by the next election, the third party will have had its ideas and voters absorbed by one of the existing parties, or it will be far down the road in the process of replacing that existing party.    Bull Moose Party, anyone?

6 minutes ago, tshile said:

More of a joke, less of a stab at your credibility

 

 

 

Both are weak points around here, to be honest. 

2 hours ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

The question is also should you only vote party or judge each candidate based on their own merits.  

The question is whether you punish a party that has gone insane and clearly needs a housecleaning, regardless of how you feel about their current stance on some issues.   You don't have to become a Democrat. 

If you are "too centrist" do that, I think you have lost your way.   Or you are not really a centrist, but just play one on TV.

5 minutes ago, tshile said:

Oh **** you're old

 

I had no idea

lol  it was actually 33 years ago.

And I know exactly what I am talking about on this particular subject.

1 hour ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

So you post a link that says it isnt possible.  I point out the link doesnt say that.  So you refer to history?  History is a poor source for saying what isnt possible, only showing what hasnt happened yet. History told us it was impossible for trump to get elected.

 

Anyways, point being not that we need a 3rd party per se bit that just voting team is a mistake 

30 years ago, I wrote my batchelor's thesis in part on this very subject.  You can wishful think all you want for a third party option, but it isn't going to happen unless it replaces one of the other parties.  

You know what?  If people truly want a new party option, the best way for that to happen would be for everyone to vote Democrat for a couple of elections.  If the abomination that is the current GOP loses all political support, a replacement will rise up quickly from the ashes.  We can't have multiple parties in our system, but the system won't let a single party dominate for too long either. 

The USA is like the Sith. 

2 hours ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

Only as long as we the people allow it.  You are right though, I cant reinvent it.  Only WE can.  

We would need a constitutional amendment.   Our constitution is structured from top to bottom for 2 parties and only two parties. 

Sometimes, when things are dire enough, people have to get off of their centrist asses and vote against the scoundrels, so they will find it necessary to be less scoundrel-y in order to earn back your centrist vote..  

3 hours ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

Its nothing personal.  I know plenty of people who vote R, D, and 3rd all on the same ballot.  What gets me is people acting as though someone who doesnt vote straight D is the problem here.  Many people vote according to the issues they feel strongest about.  If neither candidate is acceptable, they may choose write in.  This "team voting" for either side is how we have gotten into this ****ed up situation in the first place, in my opinion.  

These are not ordinary times.   The current GOP is a rotten pumpkin.  You have to throw in the compost for an election or two so that actual honest conservatives with actual honest conservative ideas can get back behind the wheel.  

This is not because the Democrats are without fault.  It is because the GOP has utterly lost its way.  

14 hours ago, NoCalMike said:

These tax cuts work the same every time. It is basically a one-time small amount payoff to people in exchange for permanent tax cuts for the ultra wealthy.  People receive their tax rebate or check or however it is distributed, are happy for a day, go out and spend it....then pretty much return to their lives seeing no effect what-so-ever going forward.

 

The GOP banks on the same thing every time that people will be happy enough with their bribe.

 

Remember folks, "The Tax Bill sells itself...." but just to make sure, we will be spending millions of dollars to help sell it, just in case.

Yep - that is exactly how the Bush Tax cuts went.  And people fell for it, including much of the Tailgate at the time.  

14 hours ago, PeterMP said:

 

There's no doubt that much of where we are is related to Reagan and the right's (and to tie into another thread, the baby boomers (not all, but in general)) inability to admit the truth.  Reagan was an awful President.

 

His economic philosophy was wrong.  Trickle down economics didn't work.  Reducing the complexity of the tax code did not cause economic growth (and the wealthy and corporations just altered their behavior to continue to avoid taxes).

...

14 hours ago, PeterMP said:

Most of the problems we have can be traced back to the decisions made during the Reagan administration.

The explosion of the national debt in particular.  Excessive tax cuts actually can cause a short term boom, but the long term effect of enormous deficits makes it harder and harder to sustain the economy as years go by.   

Saint Reagan said "deficits don't matter" and frankly, he was right - deficits don't matter when it comes to maintaining the GOP's popularity (and that's all that matters to them).  

3 hours ago, PleaseBlitz said:

Meh, it was declared a mistrial.  Bundy was not deemed not guilty.  The judge basically called for a do-over because the prosecutor ****ed up on a procedural matter.  

yep.  They will just have a do-over.

1 hour ago, nonniey said:

It won't be rolled back. The Tax Bill was easy to attack because of the primary purpose (and effect) was reducing the corporate tax rate. But attacking that is just politics (Dems can easily say it is a tax reduction for the rich and use that line to attack Republicans). You go back a couple of years and you'll find both sides discussing the need to reduce the corporate rate as the current tax structure hurt US competitiveness and encouraged businesses to keep earnings overseas (or worse move their HQ entirely overseas).

 

Bottom-line reducing the corporate tax rate which is the most substantial result of this bill greatly benefits the US and Schumer and company know this. So although they may use this as an issue to win seats they won't repeal that aspect of it if they are successful in regaining the three branches of Government.  

 

 

What the?  Reducing the corporate rate is not the most substantial part of this bill.  Reducing the corporate rate was the cover for shoving through all the rest of the bill, the really damaging stuff.   

2 hours ago, Riggo-toni said:

GHWB was a hardcore Keynesian like his mentor Tricky Dick. His 1990 budget deal, which he claimed to have been forced into, created $2.12 in new spending for every additional tax dollar, with spending cuts to occur after 92...like a devout Keynesian, he wanted to try to tax and spend the country into prosperity, ignoring the fact that his recession has been caused by a credit crunch which his policies actually aggravated.

 

I'm not sure you understand what Keynesism really is.     

3 hours ago, Riggo-toni said:

Well you got what you wanted long term. Between father and son, the Bush family completely betrayed the Reagan movement and turned the GOP into its current incarnation of big government theocrats.

Umm, not seeing that at all.

Bush Elder was the last of the responsible Republicans.  Reagan was the one who proved you don't have to be responsible, just charismatic and populist.  Reagan led directly to Trump.  

12 hours ago, techboy said:

 

Just what are Predicto's credentials in the area of Constitutional Law, anyway? Is he an expert?

 

I think we should Vwah Dare him before moving further...

 

 

8 minutes ago, twa said:

 

H Bush set up the Clinton good yrs.

 

Are you reading my lips?

Actually, Clinton rode the tech boom.  Neither Clinton nor Bush deserves the credit for that one.

16 minutes ago, NoCalMike said:

We've seen how this plays out all ready.  The only question is who & what the GOP will blame when it fails miserably again.

The GOP always passes off economic and fiscal pain into the future so that when Democrats get elected and try clean it up, they get blamed by the voters for the mess.  They are INCREDIBLY good at that. 

Millions of voters think that Bush created a great economy, Obama messed it up, and it has just gotten good again because Trump was elected.   

The GOP understands and appeals to the ignorance of the typical voter in a way that the Democrats will never be able to.  

21 minutes ago, AsburySkinsFan said:

In criminal cases all assets acquired as a result of the illegal activity are subject to confiscation. I don’t see why his legacy would get to stand just because everything he did after illegally taking office was done after the election.

Because the constitution provides the only means for removing sitting federal judges, and it takes precedence over everything else.