• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


About mistertim

  • Rank
    The Doctor
  • Birthday 10/19/1977

Profile Information

  • Redskins Fan Since
    Since birth
  • Favorite Redskin
    Old Skins: Darrell Green New Skins: Sean Taylor
  • Not a Skins Fan? Tell us YOUR team:
    There are no other teams. Just groups of people who wish they were the Redskins.
  • Location
    Northern VA
  • Interests
    guitar, physics, redskins, film
  • Occupation
    Network Engineer

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I totally get you and those are all important to me as well. And if we look at the rest of Western world those are important to other nations too. I'm not arguing that those things don't need to be on the agenda and shouldn't be pursued. But they're simply aren't going to change overnight. So I'm just arguing that proposing huge and immediate flips in how we deal with those problems are a) completely unrealistic and b) prone to turn off more moderate and even moderate liberal voters. It sucks but sometimes things have to be taken slow at first. There are a ton of things that many of us want to see change drastically (as they're so drastically tilted in the other direction at the moment) but some pragmatism should be practiced. Also, don't forget this: absolutely none of the more broad and sweeping progressive ideas are going to be implemented soon, even if the next POTUS is Warren or Bernie. None of that stuff will ever get through the Senate, even if the Dems take it back in 2020. Bills like that are still subject to filibuster rules so unless they get a super majority (which won't happen) that stuff will get immediately blocked. Not to mention that we have a right wing SCOTUS right now that will probably overturn it anyway. Now, a Dem Senate could then decide to invoke the nuclear option for regular bills (if it's even possible) but that would open up an entirely now and absolutely insane can of worms. Then the majority of the Senate could get anything through as long as they had the House and the Presidency. There would be almost no real checks. Remember what happened when the Dems did the nuclear thing with judicial nominations? Welp, then the Republicans did it with SCOTUS nominations. And now the Rs are also absolutely packing the lower courts with right wing judges...it completely backfired.
  2. My worry about this is trying to do it too fast. As what I guess I'd call a "left leaning moderate liberal" I'm fine with a more progressive agenda but trying to push it all at once will backfire. The right wing got more and more far right over decades; IMO that's why they were able to do it. I'm not advocating that we go far left, BTW. I'm just pointing out that trying to do too much at once can very much backfire and can push some of the more moderate or even mostly liberal voters away from the Dems. Maybe not towards Republicans but it could make them more likely to either sit out or vote independent.
  3. All I'm saying is that at times he's good at leaving himself outs when he says things. It gives him some limited deniability since he'll say "I heard that someone said <x>, I don't know about it, but someone said it" instead of "Yeah I think this person did this". We've seen it many times and it can give him that tiny bit of wiggle room to claim he didn't actually do or say anything wrong. Others have talked about this as well (including Michael Cohen)...when he doesn't want to get himself in trouble he'll make suggestions instead of orders. Everyone knows what he's doing but you can't really prove it. Again, like a mobster as opposed to a business owner. And I'm absolutely not saying he's some strategic mastermind in any way (I'm sure by now you know me well enough to know that). Generally he's a complete idiot who owns himself all the time. I believe this is more a tactic that he learned about a long time ago (probably from Roy Cohn) and he's just been doing over and over so many times for his entire life that it's basically an instinct to him. It's pure muscle memory as opposed to any sort of foresight and tactic. But it can be effective in a situation like this when all he has to do is just enough to give supporters a way to yell "SEE? HE DIDN'T EVEN SAY IT!"
  4. I would agree with you 99% of the time. But on this I disagree. Trump has shown a pointed aptitude for this multiple times in the past and it most likely has to do much more with pure experience over a lifetime of doing it than it does with any sort of strategic or tactical intelligence. It's more of an instinct to him as opposed to foresight. He's very good at saying things without fully saying them in a way that would make him completely culpable.
  5. mistertim

    Is this the best Defensive Front we've had in years?

    I dunno if he'd ever do 15+ sack seasons, to be honest. He's always hot and cold and only seems to really show up in 4-5 games per year and that's where he gets most of his sacks. And it's really hard to put up elite sack numbers consistently that way. He's been a very good OLB but not great or elite. He's also consistently on the left side so he's going against less talented Tackles. If he were always lining up on the right throughout his career I think he would have been less effective against the more athletic LTs as he doesn't really have the burst or bend to take those guys on. That being said, he's been super durable/dependable, a great teammate, and seems to be a genuinely good dude. I have absolutely no bad feelings about him whatsoever. As far as him declining, I think it's still early and he generally does tend to get off to a slow start. He's coming off of a 13 sack season so I'd be pretty surprised if he went from 13 to 4 or 5 or something, without any injury issues hampering him.
  6. 90% chance his supporters will cite the passage in the WSJ article where the source said he didn't believe Trump offered any quid-pro-quo for Ukraine's help on that July 25th call, and say that that exonerates him. But that was only one call; the complaint apparently cites multiple things. So even if Trump didn't actually mention it specifically on that call, it doesn't mean it wasn't mentioned elsewhere. That being said, Trump is actually somewhat good at being slippery when it comes to **** like that. As has been said before, he really acts more like a mob boss than a business owner. He'll say stuff like "You don't really want to do that, do you? With the things we talked about?" or "It would be a shame if something happened" instead of making a direct threat. He probably did the exact same with Ukraine. So I'd be surprised if he actually said out loud "I'll only give you the aid if you investigate and smear my political opponent for me". It's still going to be pretty damning. However, the Republicans in the Senate will do nothing. Because this will not sway Trump's base at all. Zero. They'll actually turn it around and scream about Biden for hours instead; it will only embolden them. And he won't lose his Senate and House Republican enablers unless he loses his base. They're all terrified of his base because if they go against him they're likely to get primaried and booted, and all they care about is staying in power.
  8. Another one that they drag out constantly is the whole "you all in the media are ignoring the REAL huge lawbreaking here by the other side!" argument. Rudy trotted that one out in his interview with Cuomo. Going on and on about the huge lawbreaking by Biden and his son...which, from what I've read of it, is pretty much a debunked conspiracy theory and doesn't actually have any factual evidence behind it.
  9. Remember that there are reports of the whistleblower complaint involving multiple incidents, not just the phone call with the "promise". If true I'm thinking that the whole thing could involve a promise as well as concrete actions to act on the promise, one way or the other (punishment for not doing what they asked or reward for doing it). If that's the case then it could mean much more serious trouble for Trump as it would involve, as you said, "actually doing something". By the way the Trumpistas are going ape**** over this, I'm thinking it could be something super damning like that. Historically they only send Crazy Uncle Rudy out to "preempt" and spin upcoming damaging information when they're really worried about it. One interesting comment I read about this whole situation is that the administration may be in quite a pickle when it comes to trying to squash it. If the WH argues that the whistleblower can't disclose his or her information because it's a subject of national intelligence, then the whistleblower law is quite clear: the ICIG has jurisdiction and the information shall be transmitted to the Intelligence Committees. DoJ has no authority or jurisdiction. On the other hand, if the WH tries to argue that it's a matter of executive privilege and not an Intelligence matter, then the information is not subject to intelligence secrecy laws. So then the whistleblower is more or less free to tell whomever they like. There aren't any laws against breaking executive privilege...the only recourse is to fire them. I'm wondering if deep down Barr knows this and has told them as much, which is why they're now sending Rudy out to basically admit that Trump was talking about Biden + aid to Ukraine, but pre-spin it to make it sound innocuous. The fact that they're sending him out and going crazy trying to bury this is pretty bad.
  10. Sending Rudy out was basically tipping their hand. They do that when they know they could be seriously ****ed by damaging info that's coming out so they send out Rudy to do advanced damage control and try to set the narrative ahead of time. I have no clue why they continue to feel this is a good idea as he's failed spectacularly at it every time in the past and almost always makes the situation worse in the end. He's a screaming lunatic who ends up owning himself whenever he's questioned. In the above interview with Cuomo he gets outmaneuvered by the dastardly and brilliant tactic of "asking the same question twice within a 30 second time period".
  11. I think it has to be something like that. I don't see much else that could be serious enough to where an IC professional would find it sufficiently alarming and urgent to file a whistleblower complaint and then for the IG to agree and approve it; and I'd think that bar would have to be even higher when you're talking about the president. So we may be looking at a sitting POTUS dangling aid money for a country if they would investigate one of his political rivals at home to help his re-election chances. Jesus Christ, if that isn't impeachable what is? Straight up murder?
  12. You can always tell how freaked out these ****sticks are by how loud they yell and how quickly they change the subject to Hillary, Obama, or something else. Or how quickly they get to the phrase "Deep State". Using that standard of judging, they're seriously shook.
  13. No way in hell we're giving up Guam. It's small but strategic. Westernmost point in the US (or US territories) and has 3 military bases.
  14. What in the world are you even talking about? Is this just you throwing **** against the wall to see what sticks? Since when can DC residents go to other states and vote? They can vote in presidential elections but they still have no real representation in the House and no representation at all in the Senate. So how about my actual point? Why shouldn't DC be a state when there are other states with the same or less population that get full representation?