PeterMP

Just to add, I also doubt Haley can lead a post-Trump GOP simply because she's a female non-Christian. Whatever comes after Trump is going to still be heavily "Christian". However, she also is where she is. And for her she either needs to back down, give up, and concede, and hope she's let back into the Trump/right wing sphere. Or double down and up the attacks on Trump and hope to unseat him. This in between of running and not directly and strongly attacking Trump doesn't give her any sort of future path forward IMO.

I'd be shocked if we see a post-Trump neocon GOP. I don't know what is after Trump, but I think the neocon movement is dead and anything post-Trump will mostly be isolationist with a few exceptions (e.g. Israel). The likes of Romney and Cheney (Liz or Dick) aren't coming back to lead a post-Trump GOP.

Realistically in today's NBA, many star players have a say in coaching. It isn't uncommon. Any time you have a super star, you can pretty much guarantee in today's NBA they've at least signed off on any coaching change. It is just the nature of the league. And you do that so you don't lose the super star as you suggested would happen with Milwaukee. I'd tend to agree with you that they'd be at risk of losing Giannis except for there is every indication that he's had a say in these changes. And that at least minimizes the chances of him leaving. Do doubt Giannis is frustrated, but I doubt he's going to leave over his frustration because he's probably had a say in all of the decisions. Also, it is to say they shouldn't hire a rookie coach, but there aren't a lot of top veteran coaches out there to hire, especially if Giannis nixed Nurse. If they decided Bud wasn't the answer, then there isn't anybody obvious with experience that is good to bring in. You get into the likes of Doc who has some pretty big warts.

There's a difference between being cast aside and actually having Trump be mad at you. Being cast aside by Trump still puts in you a situation to have access to the right wing media/lecture circuit. And maybe even reattach to yourself to a Trump administration if he wins. Having access to the right wing media and even a loose association with the Trump administration will put you in a better place to be important in 2028 than being cast out because Trump has decided to hold a grudge. It also puts you in a better situation to make money. I think Trump will lose an election rather than let her become important if she build an anti-Trump base and builds at all threat to him during this primary. I guess where that could do some good if after (another) Trump loss the GOP discards Trump. But it seems as likely, the GOP will continue to embrace Trump and would blame a Trump loss on Haley even if she has more strong but 2nd place finishes. And she'll end up with a GOP base that is mad at her and essentially locks her out of the GOP for at least the foreseeable future.

But it is likely that Giannis had input in the coaching hire for the same reason he probably had a say in firing Griffin. Story is they partly ended up with Griffin because Giannis didn't want Nurse. https://marcstein.substack.com/p/inside-the-bucks-sudden-dismissal And yes, that's what happen last year and that happens. But Giannis got hurt and missed some games. And despite that happening some times, every contenders objective at the start of the season is win their conference, get the #1 seed, and go into the playoffs healthy. Yes, the #1 seed sometimes gets bounced early. But that's still what teams want to do.

I think most people think that Giannas must have at least supported this if not out right pushed for it. That you'd fire a coach that has you in 2nd place in the conference and tied for 2nd place in the NBA if your super star was happy with the coach would be odd. It isn't like they are down at a 4-5 seed. They are in reasonable striking distance of having home court through the playoffs (3.5 games behind Boston).

I don't think that she can win the GOP primary with independents. It is important for the general, but thinking about winning the general doesn't do any good if you cant win the primary. If she can't cut into Trump's support than likely NH will be her high water mark. And to me you cut into Trump's support by hammering home he isn't who he was (he's losing his mental faculties), and he was never who he claimed to be (an outsider that would hold people with power that the MAGA perceive to have abused it accountable). If she's playing for a place at the GOP table, she'd be best to just drop out. Currently, unless you beat Trump there is no place at the GOP table without Trump's permission and staying in all she is doing is angering Trump.

Haley needs to decide if she's in it to win or playing for 2nd place. If she is playing for 2nd, she should drop out. Because Trump isn't going to forget. If she's actually trying to win, she needs to start attacking Trump. (He's old. Going senile. Isn't actually going to hold anybody responsible (Hillary wasn't prosecuted. Nothing happened to Comey, Fauci, etc. Epstein killed himself on his watch)

But his contract isn't an issue if he had a great year. His contract requires him to be great. And he's not. Brees made huge money in NO, and it was never a problem. The issue with Wilson is the quality of the play doesn't match the contract. Add me as somebody that doesn't think Cousins or Wilson make any sense. Unfortunately, there's nobody that is particularly attractive on the FA market given our situation.

First, we don't want to become S. Korea or Japan. And I'm certainly for giving the Obama generation of Dreamers citizenship. And that's where I think if you actually enforced the laws made the lack of workers here legally clear to everybody, that might be something easier to get passed. By not enforcing the laws allowing pretty large numbers of people come in and work illegally they are helping cover up the problem. But again, the job thing is almost certainly temporary, especially when you consider what AI and automation are supposed to do to the job market over the next 10+ years. And while we might have jobs, we don't have housing for people that they can afford working those jobs. And the housing issue seems to be a much stickier issue. If we want to do something to raise median income to match the increase costs of housing, then I think a large amount of immigration might make sense. But otherwise, it isn't something that I think makes a lot of sense.

Everything I said about Obama is in the CATO report. The things for Biden are a little harder to fine. But for example, things about them changing their policies on going after employers is public. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/12/us/politics/biden-workplace-immigration-raids.html But some of it is a lack of reports. For example, when I do a search for fines illegal hiring all of the hits I find either have to do with illegally hiring under age workers or are about changes in the law in the UK. While if you reset the time frame and do a search when Obama was President, you get things like this. https://www.ice.gov/news/releases/washington-apple-orchard-fined-millions-following-ice-audit Even going through pages of results using the search on the ICE page brings up things from other older administrations but not Biden. If Biden is fining or arresting employers for hiring illegals, they certainly aren't advertising it. 1. We should enforce the laws we have. That's pretty straight forward, I think, especially as we have the ability to change them (e.g. do things like increase the number of temporary work visas). I actually think that's part of the Democrats problems in general. And actually hurts the ability to do things like getting comprehensive immigration reform passed. If companies (including small businesses and farmers in rural areas) were very short on workers, prices were going up as a result of labor costs, and that was clear to everybody, then I think it would be more likely comprehensive immigration reform passes. Democrats ignoring laws to make things better in the end just comes back and hurts them and everybody else. 2. Allowing illegal immigration to increase due to what is almost certainly going to be a temporary low unemployment level (anybody really believe that there won't be another recession sometime and unemployment won't go back up) would be stupid/unethical. Then what happens to the people that have been in this country illegally (potentially for years)? Are you then going to go back to fining employers for hiring people illegally and force the people out of the US? Are you going to let them stay even though unemployment is higher? These are people's lives. To just ignore laws that you might enforce later because it is temporarily convenient (and beneficial to us) and ignoring the long term consequences for those people and the countries they've come from is a huge issue for me. 3. I think it hurts Biden and even other down ticket and local Democrats. I think not having a plan to deal with illegal immigration is a loser. And that's why you're seeing Democratic mayors push back them. To say, well unemployment is low so we're okay with lots of illegal immigration hurts your ability to get people elected. (This link says Democrats have an 18 point deficit on the GOP on immigration. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/joe-biden/biden-immigration-border-plan-voters-senate-negotiations-rcna125151)

Obama fined companies more money than any other President for hiring people here illegally (easily). Deported more people than Bush. Arrested more people for hiring people illegally than Bush (and I believe more than any other President). And made it mandatory for local officials to cooperate with the federal government on deportations. And even organizations like the Cato Institute called his legacy "mixed". https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/obamas-mixed-legacy-immigration I'm pretty sure that all of those numbers are way down with Biden. My understanding is that Biden has essentially eliminated enforcement of hiring people illegally unless there is evidence the employer is mistreating the people and ended any real employment verification raids unless there is evidence the employer is illegally using child labor. And has eliminated required participation with S-COMM or it's replacement PEP (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priority_Enforcement_Program) by local governments. People are coming here because they can find and get jobs. That didn't happen as much under Obama partly because of the Great Recession, but also partly because of how much he went after employers for hiring illegals. Which historically was the Democrats answer to illegal immigration. To my knowledge, Biden has pretty much abandoned that approach and not really replaced it with anything (that is at all effective).

Two of them are this year's draft and are likely to be high picks. It looks like they'd be like the 17th and the 27th currently so those picks don't have a lot value. Then the protections on the other one haven't be released. The issue to me would be them keeping Sikiam. I'd not be excited about giving Sikiam a max contract.

What TX is doing is awful, immoral, and certainly seems illegal. But can somebody explain to me why the Democrats have moved so far left in immigration. Was just a reflective thing from Trump being so far right? Do they think that being that far left is driving votes?

I suspect it is a few things, including @@DCGoldPants point above, and the Republicans lying about previous in private testimony. The other thing a close door deposition does, it allows them to grill him for hours over small details and then if he makes one mistake declare that he "lied" (suggest that he committed perjury) without saying what he "lied" about (e.g what brand of tooth paste he bought at a CVS in 2005). Why do you think the Republicans have refused to do it publicly? It isn't like they only have one crack at this if it is in public. They could do a public hearing, look at his answers, and then issue another subpoena if they want to ask more/further questions (in public) if they want.

They do happen. I don't how often there are private depositions and then public testimony to say it is "usually". I think sometimes that happens. And certainly some times Congress starts by doing things in public. Famously, the steroid baseball hearings are a case of where people testified only in public. https://www.ctinsider.com/sports/article/Lawyers-negotiating-deposition-3298461.php And there's nothing specifically that gives Congress the authority to a behind closed doors hearing/deposition first (based on what I know). And so if he wants open to the public, that would seem to be reasonable/legal.

The problem mostly seems to be a matter of infrastructure and not having enough charging stations, and people not being properly prepared. Any electric car isn't as efficient in the cold so if you charge on a regular schedule you're going to run it very far down in the cold. That would be common for all cars. For Tesla here, part of the issue appears people's dependence on not a home super charging. The super chargers need time/energy to accept the charge in the cold. So if you run the car pretty far down without giving the car time/energy to prepare and it is cold, you're in trouble. You can tell the car on the way to the charging station that you are going to use the super charge, and it will prepare. It appears a lot of people didn't do that. Got to the charging station, then told the car to prepare, which takes time/slows down the charge in cold, created a backup, and that left other people stuck in line without much charge and in some cases their batteries die. So more super charging stations and people preparing more a head of time solves the problem. Another option would be to have in door heated charging stations. Tesla's are very popular in Norway (top selling car). https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/tesla-extends-lead-norway-evs-take-record-82-market-share-2024-01-02/ That isn't happening because Tesla's have an inherent design flaw that prevents them from working in the cold.

You are aware that he has offered to testify in front of Congress if the hearings are public. Unlike others that have been recently held in contempt and just not complied. He's actually seems willing to comply. And it isn't actually clear if Congress has the authority to compel him to testify in private. It is generally recognized that they can investigate and compel testimony, but there is nothing written that actually says they can choose to make it public/private. And this part is questionable at best: "The Justice Department then sought a plea bargain so absurdly generous that it fell apart in open court, with a prosecutor admitting to the judge that he had never seen any deal like it." At least being charged for a gun crime in his case is extremely rare which would suggest the plea bargain wasn't generous.

Because they don't think (and likely have polling data showing) it would have done any good. So they are fighting for 2nd and VP nom. and/or a place at the table in 2028. With a slim hope that other things will remove Trump from their path in 2024 (a conviction or serious health issue).

I'm not a big Howell fan. I was in here much earlier in the season saying Howell wasn't good enough, and they were likely going to need another QB, especially thinking he's coming into the 3rd year of his deal. However, he's better than a lot of QBs on those lists above him. First year, long year, new offense, bad OL, questionable skill players. He got worn down physically, mentally, and probably emotionally over the season and played much worse at the end then his ability. In the right spot, he could definitely get a team to the playoffs, but he also has limits. And so you need another QB.

The problem is that Trump doesn't have to have be tied with Biden in every demographic or even have 20% of the African American vote to win. One issue is you are starting with a false a narrative and building from there. Hillary got essentially the same number of people voting for her in 2016 as Obama had in 2012 and nobody ever said Obama was an awful candidate that people wouldn't vote for. The problem was that Trump far out performed McCain or Romney. Then Biden exceeded Hillary's vote totals by quite a bit. But all that needs to happen for Trump to win is a return to 2016 Democratic vote levels as a percent of the voting population (which despite the narrative pushed by some weren't historically bad (again she performed very similar to Obama had 4 years before)). In two elections, Trump has pushed Republican turnout to above the historical norm. It will almost certainly happen again. To beat him, the same will have to happen for Democrats. The other thing I'll add is that people talk about polling being very early. I think for many elections that tends to be true as people are still getting to know the candidates. I don't think that's true here. I think people know Biden and Trump and there will be little movement in the polls. If you go back to last election, the polls between Biden and Trump were especially consistent going back to a year before the election with Biden leading the whole way and essentially never being more than 10 points up. On Jan. 12 of 2020, Biden had about a 5% lead. He ends up winning by about 5%. https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_biden-6247.html What has happened since then is that Biden's favorability has plummeted. And there's no reason to think it is going to improve (e.g. the economy is doing really well. It isn't likely it is going to start doing even better.) Trump's while low has stayed consistent. I don't think much can happen to drive him lower. This election is going to be close, and ignore Trump's lead in the polls at your own peril.

I'll touch on this and I think sort of echo @Warhead36 At some level Williams gets dinged because of his athleticism. He makes plays that get people open. But that then means he's not necessarily consistently throwing into the narrow spaces you need to be successful at QB at the NFL level and not always/necessarily clearly reading defenses and processing information the way I think you need to be successful at QB in the NFL. Also he's struggled more against better teams where his athleticism isn't the difference maker it is against some weaker team and I think there's some questions. (But admittedly USC's roster isn't great so as a whole his team is at an athleticism deficit when they play better teams). And then I have similar concerns with Maye (and add in a point that @KDawg made about his mechanics in tendency to drift at the top of his drop instead of just delivering the ball or taking off). My preference for a QB would be a guy that has gone to a top flight school and so yes is surrounded by high end talent, but then has also shown that with that high end talent he can compete with other high end teams. That Maye and Williams were at schools that aren't like that to me that makes it hard to read how good they are at the less obvious things (but still things I think you have to be to really be successful at QB especially as you transition from that 1st to 2nd contract for the most part) and makes me feel a little uncomfortable. I also think we've seen some teams getting QBs not at the very top of the draft and then being very good with them when they are on their rookie deals. I understand how important QBs are, but even the most important position on the field can be over valued. I wonder if we've reached a point where many teams are putting too many assets (in terms of draft picks and salary for guys not on their 1st contract) into QB. And then teams that are finding value lower in the draft without the salary and pick investment are actually better off. With all that said if Williams is there at 2, I don't know how you not take him though.

In terms of his tweet and them being upset that she wouldn't be fired, I'm pretty sure they thought she was still at MIT and wanted confirmation because she's still on MIT's web site and based on the web site she still has a MIT e-mail. https://neri.media.mit.edu/ She might not be full time/regularly paid faculty, but it seems unlikely that MIT is years behind in updating their web page of people that no longer have any kind of affiliation with MIT.

I'll add this years draft with next years supposedly awful QB draft makes making a move down especially interesting. If you take a guy at 10 and in the 2nd round and run with Howell if you decide that Howell or the guy in the 2nd round are your answer, there's a good chance you'll get good value next year for the guy you took at 10. Some team is going to be desperate for a QB next year. And if it is a bad QB draft, they might be willing to take a chance on the guy that you took at 10 this year and give you good value for him. Now that I'm not sure how you can account for, but it does add a level of complexity I think you have to at least consider.

First, you can plan on low probability events happening. That's why people do things like get insurance. Second, Cousins was just an example. I didn't say specifically day 3. I just said not at the top of the draft. When you start looking at people taken in the first round but not at the very top your list changes a lot. If we hadn't drafted RGIII and traded down to 15 (from 6 which is where our pick was) and taken Cousins at 15, we still would have had a lot more resources to build a team around Cousins. And yes, later round draft picks that are successful tend have stacked rosters, but that's partly because getting your QB lower in the draft allows you put assets to other things. The two things go hand in hand. Which was my initial point. If you are putting a lot of assets into your QB that means that you have fewer assets to put to other things. It is easier to build a stacked roster around a rookie QB taken later in the draft because you don't have many assets into your QB. In this case, we could trade out of 2, to like 10, take a QB at 10, pick up assets, and take a QB in round 2 and still have excess value left over to put to build the roster (i.e. for going from 2 to 10, we'll pick up more than a 2nd round pick). Now go back and look at your list taking into account QBs taken that were taken 10 or later compared to the ones taken in the top 10. Then take into account for the fact that you've got 2 QBs and not just 1 and more picks to build a better roster. Now, I'm not saying they should do that. But if you look at the general stats, I think the numbers work in the favor of that sort of move. This is where you need to be able to evaluate talent and understand value. Doing just 1 of them isn't good enough. It has been along time since we had somebody that actually understood both. That's a bit misleading because the Vikings had to a pay a premium for Cousins. Him here on a rookie deal with the assets put into getting RGIII wouldn't have been the same. The Vikings put a lot of assets into a getting a QB. They didn't do it in terms of draft picks, but in terms of salary.