bearrock

On the Biden policy angle, I think student loan issue is another place where Biden and his administration shows their chops as competent people who just knows how to get things done in Washington.   Early on, the narrative swirled around how is he going get massive student loan forgiveness past Congress.  When the new law approach failed, they looked for other avenues to get a lot of forgiveness across the finish line.  That's just good, competent governing as the Chief Executive.

13 hours ago, Fergasun said:

Can we talk about this? 

 

With Donald Trump, its "We don't care if he is a rapist, racist, terrible human being, hypocrit -- we (or Republicans) are voting for his policies!"

 

With Biden, "Who cares about his policies!  He's too old!"

 

Did Nate Silver say that he did something like go on C-Span and link Biden's appearances?  I linked on in this thread last week.  I watched it.  Biden does look older, he does look like he has lost a bit.  He is 81.  But he's not thr drooling idiot right wing talk is putting him on about. And his opponent is 77. 

 

If the GOP is serious about the age thing go with Haley.  

I just think the vast majority of the votes, if not almost all of them, are baked in.  These two are as known as known gets in terms of their candidacy.  Is there really anything left to unearth that will change people's opinion of either of them?  Trump's new legal outcomes may make those who despise Trump hate him even more or reaffirm their indifference or their view that Trump is the victim of a witch hunt.  Or some may plan to vote for Biden as anyone but Trump vote and some may vote for Trump for their own reasons.  But I don't think there's anything between now and November that will swing who they would choose as the President.  It's almost entirely going to come down to turnout.  I think the malleable turnout portion of Biden's supporters are more likely to go cast a vote against Trump more so than go cast a vote for Biden.  Many have made credible and persuasive arguments for why Biden has done a good job as POTUS.  But if those haven't convinced a voter by now, I'm not sure what will in the future.  If a voter, as it stands, feels like Biden's age and Harris as VP makes that ticket a bad choice to the extent that they will vote for Trump, my guess is that they will find a reason to vote for Trump anyway.   And to that extent, if Biden campaign wants to reassure voters that Biden can still do the job (not to turn back people who left for Trump, but to assuage voters who may stay home), that's probably better done closer to November.  Or it may be that the campaign doesn't feel those doubts can be assuaged or anyone feeling those doubts have not been affected to the point of risk staying home.  Either way, they probably plan to run a campaign against Trump moreso than a campaign for the incumbent.  

23 minutes ago, Warhead36 said:

Anyone hear Anthony Rendon's comments yesterday? Dude basically doesn't enjoy playing baseball at all and admitted as much. So glad we didn't pay him(but still love the guy for helping us win a ring).

Tbf, his actual quote is not that bad.  I would even say it's fine and probably the norm (or should be anyway).

https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/39558347/anthony-rendon-baseball-never-top-priority-me

Quote

The injury-plagued former All-Star said his enthusiasm for baseball has remained the same throughout his career before being asked whether his perspective on the game has changed.

Quote

"It's never been a top priority for me," Rendon said. "This is a job. I do this to make a living. My faith, my family come first before this job. So if those things come before it, I'm leaving."

Quote

he also emphasized that baseball remains a priority -- even if it isn't his top priority.

 

"Oh, it's a priority for sure, because it's my job," he said. "I'm here, aren't I?"

I mean how many people place job above family and ,if applicable, faith?  If they do, I would say that's screwed up priorities.  If it is a priority like he said, just not a top one, it's fine.  If his numbers haven't been so disappointing since he signed with LA, this probably doesn't make as much noise.

6 hours ago, ixcuincle said:

https://theathletic.com/5280722/2024/02/16/nationals-stephen-strasburg-contract-retirement/?source=user_shared_article?

It's a terrible decision.  Should have taken out an insurance policy.  If the policy was cost prohibitive, it should've been a huge red flag and a sign that the contract may be bad idea.  Having signed the contract without an insurance policy in place, you live up to the contract.  Dragging a can barely lift my arm Strasburg to training camp for some kind of meaningless leverage in buyout negotiations is how you torpedo the team's reputation with the rest of the players in the league.  

Is there any positive press for Bobby Johnson at all?  I seriously can't seem to find anyone who seems positive on this hire.

The poll has about 40%+ support for either candidate.  If I were to take a guess about why about 71% says age is an issue for Biden but only 39% for Trump, I think almost all Trump supporters would have age as an issue for Biden and age as not an issue for Trump.  You would have some Biden supporters who would have age as an issue for both (but choosing Biden for other reasons).  Then you have the 80 is the new 60 crowd, who doesn't view age as an issue for either.  I tend to think it's a sign of Trump supporters being a lot more enthusiastic in their support of Trump vs Biden supporters in their support of Biden.  Which may actually be a bigger hurdle for Dems to overcome than Biden's age.  I think Dems have to hope once the general election cycle starts and Trump is fully at center stage, the small sliver of the electorate who are undecided (really?  still undecided?) or lukewarm to apathetic about supporting Biden realize or remember that Trump is unacceptable.

1 minute ago, Dr. Do Itch Big said:

Am I the only who feels like chiefs caught the 49ers sleeping at the end. Final play to win the game looked easy. 

Romo broke down why Hardman had a step (the motion gets the secondary to momentarily shift their eyes towards the direction of motion, Mahomes snaps exactly when the eye shifts with Hardman turning opposite direction at snap).  It's a great play design and call by Reid, executed to perfection by Hardman and Mahomes.

I just hope in my lifetime, DC is lucky enough to find our Brady/Mahomes.  Absolutely amazing.

5 minutes ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

Everybody says Kyle, McVay, Ben Johnson are the best playcallers in the game.  
 

Reid has been the best offensive play caller since those guys were 12. 

I just thank the Good Lord that he's no longer in Philly. 

18 minutes ago, Fergasun said:

Democrats still believe in the incumbancy advantage.  And they don't want the expense of a primary. Biden should have said between November and January of 2022 to 2023 he would just do one term.

 

Obama was also sinking at this point in 2012.  To be frank, GOP should be pushing out Trump for Nikki due to the same reasons.

 

I think Dems just think that age will be a wash for them both.

I disagree.  I think Dems see less of an upside to a primary challenge against an incumbent president vs the downside.  Replace Biden with another candidate and you still have the same demonization just for a different reason, only you just went through a bitter intraparty primary and likely have a fractured base.  All for what?  To court the hypothetical voters who won't vote for a Biden/Harris ticket but will vote for someone else?  If a person's opinion of Trump isn't negative enough to hold your nose to whatever complaint you might have about Biden and show up and vote for him anyway, really skeptical on the prospects of such a person, after the general campaign hatchet job, voting for the eventual dem nominee.

50 minutes ago, ixcuincle said:

I'm a moderate but Biden is a legit awful choice for the democrats. if they lose in November it's on them. 

 

 

 

To the extent that there's a sliver of the voters that would either stay home or show up to vote for Trump if Biden is the nominee vs show up and vote for another Dem nominee, if they are enough to swing the election, pretty sure Dem loss in November would be on those voters.  Biden gets plastered with issues du jour because he's the Dem nominee.  If Newsom, Sanders, Whitmer, or whoever else was the nominee, they would be the next devil incarnate.  Either Trump and overturning of Roe/prospect of federal ban on abortion drives enough voters to the polls for a Dem candidate or they won't.  I don't think there's a Obama 2008 like candidate that people are clamoring to vote for on the Dems' side.

Edit: double post

48 minutes ago, ixcuincle said:

SC leaning towards state overstepping their bounds and they're right. 

 

rare Trump w

I think Dems need to refocus the discussion.  Let's not forget that after a 5 day trial, a court found that yes, Donald Trump as a sitting president committed insurrection.  And for all the hyper technical legal arguments Trump put forth during his appeal all the way up to SCOTUS, that fact finding has never been disturbed.  

5 hours ago, Califan007 The Constipated said:

- Anyone else bugged by the "One state should not determine who the president is" argument the SC justices used?...Because if that's the case, we need to immediately obliterate the electoral college.

 

Yeah, there's a fair bit of hypertechnicality going on (some might say intellectual dishonesty).  To me, the one state determining argument is nonsensical for the reason you stated (FL 2000 anyone?).  I think the argument would have to be that given the language in section 5 giving Congress the power to enforce, when it comes to a national election, it's Congress and Congress alone that can enforce section 3 (this is still pretty hypertechnical and incorrect imo, but better than we can't have a single state decide the national election drivel)

Quote

- Not to mention, was it ever brought up during their arguments that its not Colorado (or any state) that would be doing this to Trump, but rather it's Trump who would be doing this to himself?...Unlike the age requirement or country of birth, participating in insurrection activities IS something he had control over.

 

This to me raises another issue that I feel the court is going to gloss over.  All qualifications are categorical (I believe Justice Kagan touched on this).  You are either 35 or you are not.  You are either a natural born citizen or you are not.  You are either an insurrectionist or you are not.  When a candidate's qualification is challenged, it has typically been the states that determine other eligibility categories like age and natural born citizenship.  It would be subject to review by higher courts as to whether the ineligibility ruling is sound, but there is no mechanism for ensuring a single national determination on eligibility for other categories.  The only plausible argument for treating insurrection differently is section 5 (and as strained a reasoning as it may be, I think Roberts will work very hard to build a narrow consensus that can have liberal justices sign on so that it is not a 6-3 ruling)

Quote

- Does this mean that no states are allowed to have any laws regarding whose names can be added to the ballot? For instance, if Colorado says in order to have your name on ballots for any and all elections, you have to file to be on the ballot at least 30 days prior to the election--and then if a candidate doesn't attempt to file until 5 days before the election--does the state still have to put that candidate on the ballot, regardless of their laws? Or does that mean those types of filing laws are now considered illegal when it comes to federal elections?

Yeah, very few things about the US election is national.  There's going to be some mental gymnastics to reach the conclusion on why insurrection disqualification needs a national mechanism.

Quote

- Can Colorado follow Texas' lead  and what they did when it came to the SC ruling over the border...and determine that SC decisions have no jurisdiction over how they run elections and keep Trump off the ballot anyway? lol...hey, if Texas can ignore their ruling, right?

I mean that's a constitutional crisis.  And to me, the attempted cure would be way worse than the disease.  I may not like the fact that Trump can commit insurrection and run for office again and I think we need a clear amendment to specify that a President is indeed covered and lay out a clear mechanism for disqualification (not because I don't think he is disqualified under the current Constitution and set of laws, but to lay rest any argument to the contrary), a blatant disregard of SCOTUS ruling is a red line for me.

13 minutes ago, Fergasun said:

And the biggesr question of all?  Why wasn't Trump charged with the Federal insurrection statute?

The prosecuting team probably had concerns about whether the evidence would be sufficient to establish criminal intent for insurrection beyond a reasonable doubt.  That's not to say that evidence is not enough for a civil determination or for lay people to have opinions.  And having debatable amount of evidence for a criminal conviction is obviously far cry from establishing Trump did not commit insurrection.

8 minutes ago, Fergasun said:

Hello bozos!  Everyone wants you to conduct a review of the record and apply the law.  We don't want you to say "states can't disqualify him, but we won't either". 

SCOTUS would be saying that Congress has to put the enforcement mechanism in place and in the absence of such a mechanism, there is no way to enforce section 3.  This obviously runs contrary to some historical  examples of states enforcing section 3, but that's why I think they will carve out the distinction based on this disqualification being issued against a candidate for a national election.

Quote

It makes no sense that Congress has to enact a statute to disqualify, and then can lift the disability after the election with 2/3rds vote.

It would be a statute that specifies how an insurrection allegation would be adjudicated (it need not be a criminal proceeding) and lay out the procedure for disqualifying a presidential candidate.  It would be generally applicable to every candidate accused of insurrection like a criminal statute that applies to everyone accused of committing that crime.  2/3rd vote would remove the ineligibility from a specific candidate like a pardon would clear the conviction of a specific criminal.

5 minutes ago, Jumbo said:

 

That's part of what I said, too. It's muddy enough to serve as an out of you're looking for one. Gorsuch daid there is a clause giving a process for charging and trying someone for insurrection, using that term specifically.  But the Colo atty said it was written twenty years prior to the amendment and was lacking somehow in relevance to this matter.

 

But again, and like you, I am in too deep to have as a valid authoritative take, legally.

It's the federal criminal insurrection statute that has disqualification as an additional penalty that is pre 14th amendment.  So there's really not a viable argument that this was the method chosen by Congress to enforce section 3.

I think the vote will be heavily in favor of Trump remaining on the ballot in the following way:

Majority holding decided on the narrow question on whether anyone other than Congress has the power to enforce section 3 on disqualification of a national candidate.  I think almost all justices will join and say no.  

I think Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson, possibly joined by Roberts, will write a concurrence that points out that the majority opinion does not address whether President is covered by the 14th amendment, whether Trump did indeed commit insurrection, nor whether the procedure used in Colorado is sufficient to satisfy any due process concerns.  If Roberts is not joining anyway, then the liberal justices may go further and say they see no issue with Colorado's finding and that such issue is not what the court's ruling is based on.  Jackson may issue a separate concurrence or possibly joined by all liberal justices that says states have the power to enforce section 3 against state elected representatives.

Thomas, Alito will issue a concurrence that specifies that Trump is not covered by the 14th amendment, that Colorado proceeding was a sham and therefore not sufficient to protect due process concerns nor make a convincing showing that Trump committed insurrection.  

Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barret will issue a concurrence that specifies that President is not an officer under the United States within the meaning of section 3.

21 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

How long will it take for the court to release their decision? Isn’t it like a month of two after arguments usually?

There's no typical timeline.  Sometimes decision can be shortly after oral argument or at the end of the term (June).  It just gets issued during that term.  In this case, you'd expect the opinion to be issued shortly (at least a decision staying the CO sup ct decision prior to Super Tuesday).

21 minutes ago, Warhead36 said:

Not a surprise considering Snyder doesn't even know how to use e-mail.

Wait, for real?

6 hours ago, Fergasun said:

I don't disagree with the Beal contract, but what in the draft record was really horrible?  Picking outside of the Top 5 consistently is not good for getting NBA talent. 

 

Johnny Davis was a horrible pick -- but even he was picked at 10.  Everyone else has been meh, but not really horrible.  

 

I was reading what the expected value of draft picks was.  Pretty much pick order is a good predictor of future value with 1 through 5 having really good value, and falling off a bit going through it. I think Kispert, Rui and Deni have pretty good value for what they are.  They could just be average.  Don't look at the redraft... 

 

 

 

 

Lot of people thought in this thread Haliburton was the obvious pick over Avidja.  But the fact that they were consistently drafting outside the top 5 illustrates the failure of team building.  They got stuck playing subpar basketball with Beal as the franchise centerpiece, always being below average, but not terrible enough to land premium picks.  And then they gave a dumbass supermax to Beal the year of the Wemby sweepstakes.  Aside from it being a terrible contract, it's just a terrible decision to double down on mediocrity in the year they should have been shooting for a top pick.  

Kind of meh about Kingsbury.  Kelly would be kind of concerning.  But Matt Canada is just wtf.  What on earth about his tenure in Pittsburgh inspires another hire as OC?

Edit:  thank goodness Canada was fake tweet

1 hour ago, oraphus said:

you honestly obtuse enough to believe that FOs and coaches don't agree to wink nod contracts prior to satisfying all the legal requirements prior to an 'official' offer?  what are you 12?

So I assume you were able to Google the fact that you had no idea what you were talking about when it comes to the Rooney Rule?  Now you move on to speculations, assumptions, and insults.  Nice.

If Commanders wanted Ben Johnson so badly that they were willing to violate the tampering rule and the Rooney Rule, they could have easily satisfied the Rooney Rule before Detroit got knocked out and extended an official offer to Johnson on Sunday evening instead of scheduling an in person interview on Tuesday.  There is absolutely no benefit to be gained by violation of the rules here instead of doing what I outlined above.  The fact that they were actively interviewing 4 other candidates in between Detroit's loss and Johnson's scheduled interview is far more consistent with Keim and Schefter's reporting (that Johnson was never a lock).  The fact that Seattle also shifted gears to Macdonald, someone they did not even virtually interview, despite an in person interview with Johnson also supports that Johnson didn't interview well. 

The Detroit blogger's allegation would mean that the Commanders brass completely unnecessarily violated two important hiring rules and also added to their idiocy by having a standing offer to Johnson and still conducted multiple interviews while the offer was outstanding.  That would lead Johnson to think WTF and would also lead other candidates (present and future), agents, league personnel to all think it's amateur hour at Ashburn and their words can't be trusted. 

Even if Commanders were willing to violate the tampering policy and extend a "standing offer" prior to elimination (for whatever good that does), they would at least save themselves from one major violation by fulfilling the Rooney Rule way earlier in the hiring cycle.  

There is zero evidence beyond one reporting that Johnson had some sort of a standing offer.  The timeline makes no sense and the reporting by other top reporters specifically refute the story that Commanders decided on Johnson.  Use some of that common sense ffs.

17 minutes ago, oraphus said:

They interviewed Bienime for HC job. I am not peddling anything.. just using this thing called google and common sense.. you should try it. its not any more or any less legitimate than what Keim said. I admire you.. you dont let things like common sense get in the way of your thoughtless drivel. 

Then you should try googling whether an internal interview qualify for one of the two required Rooney Rule minority interviews

1 hour ago, oraphus said:

\

Kind of a dumb argument... "there are no reports that an offer was made, because no one would admin to it"   well... there are no reports that no offer was made so it must be false.  

Here is one...

nobody here know anything about what's actually transpired, we're all guessing based on crumbs we can find on the internet. Then there are 'save face' stories written specifically to cover FO behinds so they dont look bad, so please dont be so naive as to think that any story written post fact by team paid reporters is absolutely true. You can choose to believe whatever you want.

 my incredible pessimistic view has been mostly right the last 30y with horrible ownership and coaching. I can smell crap from a 100 miles away at this point. You should change your name to Stockholm_Syndrome... "hey we have a new owner! so he is going to be awesome by default" 

 

 

 

So what is the detail of this particular allegation?  Commanders had a standing offer since when?  Prior to Sunday evening violates the league hiring policy.  Prior to Monday after their interview with Weaver violates the Rooney Rule.  So either Commanders flagrantly violated league hiring rules or the standing offer was from Monday to Tuesday morning?  This is the stupid allegation you want to peddle?  Seriously?

17 minutes ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

Literally not one credible source has reported it. When I asked you to link them, you just said "in this thread."  

 

Not ONE credible source has reported it.  And they won't.  Because it didn't happen.  

 

You DO NOT make an offer to a candidate you haven't spoken to in person.  The timeline doesn't jive either.  

 

You're getting yourslef into a pretzel based on fake news.  I wouldn't do that if I were you.  

 

EDIT: I will drop this if you can link a credible source.  Which, I don't think you can.  Until then, I'm going to continue to say I haven't seen one, and I'm going to continue to push the truthful and accurate narrative it didn't happen.  

10 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

I'd add the clownshow would be if they actually offered Ben Johnson the job after a bad zoom interview and before they interviewed him in person.    That would be wild.

 

https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/39416878/washington-commanders-hire-dan-quinn-head-coach-biggest-questions

John Keim, ESPN Staff WriterFeb 1, 2024, 12:16 PM ET

While Johnson's withdrawal from consideration Tuesday surprised the team, it did not result in panic, one source said. Washington had not yet settled on one person, even if Johnson was considered a top target. Nobody had been offered the job. 

 

 

And until Sunday evening, it would have been a flagrant violation of league rules.  

13 minutes ago, HTTRDynasty said:

It’s not just about this decision. It’s about what it portends going forward. 

Did you read the tweet I shared?

Did you hear the Garafolo interview that tweet is based off of?  Garofalo specifically said not to say that Peters was undermined.  He talked about how Johnson was not the leading candidate after his interviews.  Think of it this way.  Schneider said he wanted Lions and Ravens to lose so he can move forward with the interview.  He had Johnson high enough on the list to do virtual interview with him but not Macdonald. So supposedly Schneider and other Washington brass all concluded after the interview that Johnson is not their top choice (to the extent that Seattle started the interview for Macdonald despite no virtual interview), but Peters was pounding the table for Johnson?  That's a reasonable take based on a tweet from a blogger who is speculating off of a Garofolo interview where Garofalo specifically said not to say Peters was undermined?  I guess I have far less esteem for bloggers than you.