• Blog Entries

    • By Destino in ES Coverage
         1
      We’re still doing this?  Absolutely!  Despite all the compelling reasons to just let everyone go home and enjoy and extended offseason, this is not an option.  The games must be played, and therefore we the long-suffering fans will feel compelled to watch.  Even games no reasonable football fan would choose to watch like, for example, today’s Redskins Jets game.   

      Today’s convergence of sadness features the 30th ranked scoring offense (Jets 14.4 ppg) versus the 32nd (Redskins 12.0 ppg).  The first team to 15 wins!  With no playoff aspirations the compelling story lines for this game are largely limited to watching young players (hopefully) develop.  Dwayne Haskins gets his first home start and Derrius Guice is back from injury.   
       
      My, reasonable, goals for today’s game:  
      1- Score a touchdown 
      2- Score more than 17 points.   
      3- Haskins throws for 200 yards or more with no interceptions  
      4- Guice runs the ball at least 10 times and finishes at 3.5 yards per carry and healthy.  
       
      Hoping for a win at this point feels like setting myself up for disappointment, so I’m happy to settle for an entertaining loss.  
       
      Special thanks to @pez for some excellent Guinness beef stew.  If you absolutely have to stand in a frozen parking lot at 9am, the best place to do it is at the Extremeskins Tailgate with Pez and @Huly.  Great fans, great people. 
       
      The Redskins have declared for the following players as inactive: 
      Paul Richardson  
      Colt McCoy 
      Deshazor Everett 
      Chris Thompson  
      Ross Pierschbacher 
      Vernon Davis  
      Tim Settle  
       
      The Jets declared the following players as inactive  
      Nate Hairston  
      Darryl Roberts  
      Paul Worrilow 
      Matthias Farley  
      CJ Mosley  
      Jordan Willis  
      Leo Koloamatangi 
       
      1st Quarter - Redskins 0 - 6 Jets
      If you wanted to sit in the cold and watch a football game with some Jets fans at FedEx, but were worried that there were not enough seats available, I have good news.  There’s plenty of space available, so come on down and prove you’re a real fan by sitting though this in person.
       
      Jets dominated the 1st quarter even though they only scored 6 points.  The reason being that Washington managed only 13 yards of offense and a single first down.  
       
      Question: Is it still a check down pass if the QB never looks at anyone else?
       
      2nd Quarter - Redskins 3 - 20 Jets
      The Jets have achieved an insurmountable 13 point lead early in the 2nd quarter.  All hope is lost.

      Is there a more perfect example of the Redskins offense than their first scoring drive in the 2nd quarter?  Interception gives the Redskins the ball on the Jets 16 yard line.  They proceed to march 10 yards backwards before kicking a field goal from the Jets 26.  It's perfect.  Two or three more field goals we can call it a day. 

      The Jets score again and if feels like they are are just piling on at this point.  Three touchdowns in the first half for them, just three points for the redskins.  Our streak of no touchdowns has now extended to 15 quarters. 
       
      3rd Quarter - Redskins 3 - 20 Jets
      There is a spider slowly descending from the ceiling in the press box and it's the most interesting thing that's happened during the third quarter of this game. 
       
      I have decided to allow the spider to live, provided it does not touch me.  I'm off to get some more caffeine. 

      4th Quarter - Redskins 17 - 34 Jets
      The first wave of Redskins fans, the few that are here, started streaming towards the exits after that 4th Jets touchdown.  As if the Jets didn't have this game wrapped up in the 2nd quarter. 
       
      Jet have now more than doubled their average points per game and have matched their season high of 34 points (and they missed two field goals in this game). 
       
      TOUCHDOWN REDSKINS!  THE DROUGHT IT OVER!  Guice took a short pass from Haskins  all the way to the house.  2 point conversion is successful on a pass from Haskins to Quinn. 
       
      The Redskins score another touchdown!  This feels like an embarrassment of riches, even if we are still certain to lose this game. 
       
      End of Game.
       
      Let's review those reasonable goals I mentioned earlier:
       
      1- Success.
      2- Close enough, I'm counting it
      3- Haskins did throw for over 200, but unfortunately did have an interception. 
      4- Guice was not given the opportunity to run the ball ten times today.  He did however score on a 45 yard TD pass and finish the game healthy.  I'll take it.
       
      Even though the Redskins lost, it was good to see the offense show some faint signs of life and end the streak of games without a TD.  The team looked competitive for much of the second half, and perhaps they could have made this a fun game if they carried that same energy throughout.  It was good to see Guice and Mclaurin show out today.  I think both of them have a future with this team that I look forward to seeing. 

       
       

       
       
       
       
       
Rdskns2000

Presidential Election :11/3/2020- Trump the Impeached vs Superplanner Lizzie & some other Dems

Recommended Posts

14 minutes ago, bearrock said:

And yeah, politicians should say what they mean and mean what they say.  Voters shouldn't have to read the tea leaves to figure out which policy proposals will actually happen and which are just pandering.

It's not necessarily about pandering.  It's often about the difference between campaigning on something and trying to get it into law, as every president has had to deal with.

But if people want to wait to vote for someone who isn't going to pander, or propose things they may compromise or change their mind on later, they might as well never vote.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
12 minutes ago, visionary said:

It's not necessarily about pandering.  It's often about the difference between campaigning on something and trying to get it into law, as every president has had to deal with.

But if people want to wait to vote for someone who isn't going to pander, or propose things they may compromise or change their mind on later, they might as well never vote.

 

I'm not waiting for someone who isn't pandering though.

 

I'm telling you I don't like what they're pandering to.

 

Your response is to ignore it because it doesn't matter. 

 

I don't agree with that. Don't tell me what you stand for, and when I say I don't agree with it, tell me to vote for you anyways cause you're not going to (be able to) implement what you stand for.

 

Also, I don't mind compromises or changing their mind later. I'm all about compromise, i get mocked here for 'fence sitting' regularly, and I change my mind way too much to hold that against someone else.

 

We're watching campaigns pitch very specific policies. You're telling me to ignore it. That's not right. Trump sucks, but I 'm not going to blindly support massive overhauls of things because another 4 years of trump will also suck. Most of what these people are proposing is irreversible. If I vote for them, they win, and they implement it then it's done - it'll be that for the rest of my life.

 

You're seriously downplaying the ideologies that fighting this battle and what the long term ramifications are of them. 

 

If the Dems can't field a moderate candidate that appeals to moderate voters then that's their fault, it is not the moderate swing voters responsibility to change their views and desires and vote for a progressive; or worse, just accept that they're going to get something they don't want.


It's on the Dems and the GOP to appeal to voters. Not the other way around.

Edited by tshile
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Some things shift drastically though. I doubt Obama could have scored the nomination in 2008 if he was openly pro gay marriage at the time. That was still seen as the extreme left position. Now, I doubt any Dem could get the nomination without being pro gay marriage.

 

10 years and the position became mainstream in the party. The question is, did the party come to the voters position..or vice versa?

Edited by The Evil Genius
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
23 minutes ago, tshile said:

 

I'm not waiting for someone who isn't pandering though.

 

I'm telling you I don't like what they're pandering to.

 

Your response is to ignore it because it doesn't matter. 

 

I don't agree with that. Don't tell me what you stand for, and when I say I don't agree with it, tell me to vote for you anyways cause you're not going to (be able to) implement what you stand for.

 

Also, I don't mind compromises or changing their mind later. I'm all about compromise, i get mocked here for 'fence sitting' regularly, and I change my mind way too much to hold that against someone else.

 

We're watching campaigns pitch very specific policies. You're telling me to ignore it. That's not right. Trump sucks, but I 'm not going to blindly support massive overhauls of things because another 4 years of trump will also suck. Most of what these people are proposing is irreversible. If I vote for them, they win, and they implement it then it's done - it'll be that for the rest of my life.

 

You're seriously downplaying the ideologies that fighting this battle and what the long term ramifications are of them. 

 

If the Dems can't field a moderate candidate that appeals to moderate candidates, then it is not the moderate swing voters responsibility to change their views and desires and vote for a progressive; or worse, just accept that they're going to get something they don't want.


It's on the Dems and the GOP to appeal to voters. Not the other way around.

I'm not saying to ignore it.  I'm saying that we should be reasonable and take the chances of these things happening or changing into account when we decide our vote, along with everything else.

 

Who we vote for comes down to a decision we make, based on whatever calculations or justification we use.  Whether or not a party appeals to us (and I think they should try to appeal to as wide an array of people as possible), they do not cast the vote for us. If we would rather not vote for a certain policy and refuse to vote for either party's candidate, or prefer the suffering and chaos of Trump's policies to what the Dems might do, that is on us for making that choice, whatever our reasoning for doing so.

Edited by visionary
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, The Evil Genius said:

Some things shift drastically though. I doubt Obama could have scored the nomination in 2008 if he was openly pro gay marriage at the time. That was still seen as the extreme left position. Now, I doubt any Dem could get the nomination without being pro gay marriage.

 

10 years and the position became mainstream in the party. The question is, did the party come to the voters position..or vice versa?

 

I think the party came to voters on that one. The whole thing seemed to be a poll calculation. Which is fine, i'm not trying to shame them for that

(Though I do roll my eyes when I hear a politician talk about how important it is to respect a certain type of people or whatever, when 2 years earlier they were on the other side and only changed as public opinion changed... you changed your mind, I get it, but don't be the smoker that quit smoking and now lectures smokers on how what they're doing is wrong...)

 

It's actually sort of the issue I take with the rhetoric the left-leaning posters here use all the time. They talk about how the country has been dragged to the right.

 

In terms of social issues, it's been dragged to the left; not the right. and it's not even close. the level of awareness, the level of involvement form many minority groups in many public things (like television and movies) is at a level that was not really thinkable 10 years ago.

 

(None of that is to be confused with the idea that we don't need to progress anymore.....)

 

We've got gay marriage in small children programming and damn near every prime time family show seems to feature some sort of minority group prominently.

 

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, No Excuses said:

 

The Schrodinger's Democrat:

 

Somehow a neoliberal, while also being a conservative.

 

-------------

 

Just within this page, someone who supports Liz Warren has been labeled a neoliberal, conservative Democrat and hard-left. Never change Tailgate.

 

Cool, I’m calling you a neoliberal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, visionary said:

It's not necessarily about pandering.  It's often about the difference between campaigning on something and trying to get it into law, as every president has had to deal with.

But if people want to wait to vote for someone who isn't going to pander, or propose things they may compromise or change their mind on later, they might as well never vote.

 

Agree.   When someone is campaigning, they are laying out their vision for America.  It is very important to know what someone's vision of an ideal America is because that tells you what their values and priorities are (notwithstanding any disconnect between what they really want and what they think voters want to hear (voters, I think, are decent at sussing out authenticity)).  What someone ideally wants America to be and what is actually attainable given what is likely to be a divided Congress are two entirely different things.  

 

Personally, it's really important to me for a candidate to lay out their vision AS WELL AS their plan for getting **** done.  When Joe Biden says, "well I'll just talk with Republicans" i tend to facepalm myself.    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

 

5 hours ago, tshile said:

why is it 4-16 years?

 

that's obviously not the actual situation...


go read the tweet. go look at what the candidates are talking about.

 

they're talking about massively overhauling a lot of systems.

 

you can't just ignore that because Trump is an awful person and president. You don't just agree to turn everything upsidedown because of Trump. 

 

People who want those things are pushing that argument, but those of us who don't are not going to accept it. I don't know why you think we would. 


At first I just wrote 4 years and then I thought about all the times Trump has "joked" about staying longer and how that protects him from criminal liability and amended my years, because he has yet to show any type of self-restraint or respect for our democratic system. What the likelihood is of that attempt is, I don't know, but it is a consideration when judging who to vote for to be the next president.

So, I see that you feel a sense of alarm at the potential overhauling of many systems and everything being turned upside down and I wonder if you realize that, many of us feel that those very things are going on now in much more terrible directions. It's very hard for me to see the emotional concordance between the overhauling of our education and medical systems versus the gutting of the state department, and the corruption/co-opting of the Justice Dept, CFPB, EPA, etc. We have so many acting officials, and so many of those people are direct opponents of the stewardships they are responsible for overseeing. The corruption is virulent and rampant and it is destroying our democracy.

That stuff bothers me deeply. The ignoring of climate instability, the derision for expertise and science, and the christian theocracy all stress me out way, way more than some of the policies I've heard about college and healthcare. And for the record I am not Pro-Bernie or extreme left, but I have donated to Elizabeth Warren and Pete's campaigns. 
 

5 hours ago, PeterMP said:

 

I voted for Hillary and will absolutely vote for an Democrat in 2020.  But...

 

At some level, Trump's actual policies (ignore his language and tweets) are less of a change from the status quo (even globally) than what at least the far left wing of the Democratic party wants to enact.

 

We have laws in place for the border.  Trump is just trying to enforce them (the execution is bad).  Most countries don't let people just randomly come over their border.  I don't think there is a western country that has the same issue with the border that we do.  The last 30 years now has been a slow tilt in this country towards the wealthy and corporations.  Trump is just continued that slow tilt.

 

The courts and environmental regulations are the places where you could argue that Trump is massively and drastically pushing things to an extreme, though most people won't see/feel the effects of that for years.

 

On the other hand, the left Democrats at least are calling for relatively rapid extreme pushes to the left globally:

 

For example, Sanders talks about nationalized healthcare that covers everything (including prescription drugs) without co-pays or a deductible.  I don't think there's a non-communist/dictatorship (e.g. Cuba) in the world that does that.  In a country like Canada, individuals do have some out of pocket health care costs.

 

On healthcare, what Sanders has proposed is globally far left.

 

You have a similar issue with free college.  The countries that have free college tend to have very rigorous admission standards where you are shunted into a college or not college tract pretty early.

 

In Germany, for people 28-34 years old only 28% of the population has a college degree.  In the US that same number is 43%.

 

Nationally, paying for free college for 28% of the population that have been demonstrating for years before college they are high academic achievers is one thing.

 

Paying for free college for 43% of the country is another thing. (and really given how things work now unless we go to a German like system that number is likely going to go up i.e. if college is free there will people that don't currently go that will start going unless you restric them from going).

 

Coupling our current academic/college admission system (where lots of people have the chance to go to college, including people that were bad students in high school) with a German system of free college is globally far left.

 

And I don't think there is another country that is doing it.

 

(And if AOC plans to couple free college with some overhaul of the system to limit who goes to college she hasn't talked about it.)

 

Like I said above, I am not pro-bernie and wished you had used a more moderate candidate or at least Elizabeth Warren. I also, highly disagree with the bold. Viscerally so, to the point where I question what level of shelter or skin in the game you have to say something like this. People are ****ed up out here because of this administration. People who care about what this country is supposed to stand for, that see the **** going on with this administration feel sick to their stomach almost every morning. My wife, who is a rape victim and many other women who have faced that tragedy have been in a near constant state of triggered PTSD because of the impunity these sexual assaulters get to enjoy.    
 

The social, economic, and environmental volatility is a constant reminder that the status quo has changed for many. If you are non-white or mixed like I am, you are constantly feeling the threat of this administration. You see the racist shell game, both the racial animosity that does the damage, and the racial antipathy that blankets over it and gaslights those who try to point out what is going on. You see them trying to dilute or completely void your political voice and the power of your vote, you see infiltration of religious zealots in the judicial branch, and machinations of people like Mitch McConnell, Steven Miller, and Mike Pence. 

I see the sexual assault, the corruption, the violence, the racism, the exhortation of ignorance as a virtue and I feel so sick and angry when people seem to choose all of that over a fear of the possibility of free health care and education. I get the concern over those issues and also want to make sure that we don't over-reach and upset the proper dynamics of our system, but that concern doesn't come close to over-riding the existential threat I and many others feel around what's going on right now.  

It makes me furious that people can make that choice. Like I'm ready to go to war and destroy those people if need be, because they are supporting those who hurt me and the ones I love so much.  The resentment and ignorance, the schadenfreude, and the lack of shared responsibility and care is so disgusting and so weak. And I hate feeling this way. I'm tired of being hurt and stressed and angry and hopeless feeling as I watch what I hoped this country would be fall apart. And I'm even more tired of the people who don't feel this hurt like I do.

If a person isn't feeling this pain in any sense, I can't ****ing trust you. Their heart and humanity is suspect in my opinion.

 

And if there is no trust, then the only options are some version of change, contain, or destroy.

Edited by Fresh8686
  • Like 7
  • Thanks 10

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Fresh8686 said:

 

 

Like I said above, I am not pro-bernie and wished you had used a more moderate candidate or at least Elizabeth Warren. I also, highly disagree with the bold. Viscerally so, to the point where I question what level of shelter or skin in the game you have to say something like this. People are ****ed up out here because of this administration. People who care about what this country is supposed to stand for, that see the **** going on with this administration feel sick to their stomach almost every morning. My wife, who is a rape victim and many other women who have faced that tragedy have been in a near constant state of triggered PTSD because of the impunity these sexual assaulters get to enjoy.    

 

[And all of the rest of it]

 

This is a ****ing awesome post.  

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, visionary said:

It's not necessarily about pandering.  It's often about the difference between campaigning on something and trying to get it into law, as every president has had to deal with.

But if people want to wait to vote for someone who isn't going to pander, or propose things they may compromise or change their mind on later, they might as well never vote.

 

I get that.  No president will be able to get their policy proposals across the finish line without a lot of compromises in the process.  But I do think there is a distinction between necessarily compromising on your preferred legislative outcome and promising something during the campaign that you think is a crap idea, but just need to parrot to placate the base.  If it's not the latter, then they need to be able to intelligently defend their proposals.  If it's the latter, they should pack their bags and leave politics. 

 

And i also get you in terms of whether you let some policy disagreements become a deal breaker.  I think some of the policy proposals on the Dem side are pretty dumb, but I'm not where some of the moderate members of the tailgate are or potentially are.  I mean, hell, I have my Bernie Bros application filled out and ready to mail if he wins the nomination. 

13 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:

Personally, it's really important to me for a candidate to lay out their vision AS WELL AS their plan for getting **** done.  

 

I feel like this part is not getting debated enough between the nominees.  Okay, I get what you WANT to do.  But given the extremely high likelihood that you won't get to do all that in office, what CAN you do and HOW do you plan to do it?  I'm just as interested in that part as the vision part.

 

I also want to facepalm when Bernie talks about a political revolution.  Fine, we'll call you once we get the revolution part done so that we don't waste 4 years listening to a president whine about the need for a revolution.

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Fresh8686 said:

It makes me furious that people can make that choice. Like I'm ready to go to war and destroy those people if need be

You're not the only one who says this.  And I'm on record as saying I believe there will be much blood spilled before we get better.  And I'd most likely be on your side.  But the scary thing is "those people" are the ones that have more guns and are far better at using them.  Go to any gun range or hunting supplies store or gun show and count the number of trump bumper stickers. 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

You're not the only one who says this.  And I'm on record as saying I believe there will be much blood spilled before we get better.  And I'd most likely be on your side.  But the scary thing is "those people" are the ones that have more guns and are far better at using them.  Go to any gun range or hunting supplies store or gun show and count the number of trump bumper stickers. 

 

I feel you, I work across the street from where a gun show is held damn near every month. However, a gun range and live action are very different. Most people on both sides will freeze due to the tension of combat, regardless of firing range time, but I won't. I've already had many guns to my face by locals and the DEA/ICE and I know how I respond to that.

I'll still most likely die when the **** goes down and the beautiful life I worked so hard for will go down the ****ter... but you have to risk what you love to fight for what you love.

Maybe they have the training advantage, but do they have the numbers and logistical advantage? If it gets to the point we're talking about, this war will take time.

I've been locked up, tortured, broken down, and picked myself back up again. So I know hell well. I just hope we can avoid all going down to hell together. I am in no way eager for this stupid road, I hate it and if bravado makes someone eager for something like this, their a ****ing moron who hasn't felt the brutality of life.

This whole situation is so ****ing stupid and sad.

  • Like 1
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Fresh8686 said:

Maybe they have the training advantage, but do they have the numbers and logistical advantage? If it gets to the point we're talking about, this war will take time.

 

People that need guns to feel safe in times of peace will be the first ******* to fold if things ever actually hit the fan.  

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Fresh8686 said:

So, I see that you feel a sense of alarm at the potential overhauling of many systems and everything being turned upside down and I wonder if you realize that, many of us feel that those very things are going on now in much more terrible directions

Do you not read the board?

 

as someone who’s been active in the political threads since before trump declared, I can assure you I’m well aware of what you guys think about it all. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

 

Meh....that's your opinion and you are entitled to it.  But remember opinions are like assholes etc......

I've said it for three years, those who knew to do something to prevent Trump and did not are just as responsible. You are Peter Parker who refused to stop the thief because he was angry with the fight promoter...only to then find that the thief killed your grandfather. But you want to pretend that your failure is not your own shortcoming.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, AsburySkinsFan said:

You are Peter Parker who refused to stop the thief because he was angry with the fight promoter...only to then find that the thief killed your grandfather

 

*cough* uncle *cough*

 

Just keeping my eye on what's important.

....

I'll shut up now

 

  • Haha 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Fresh8686 said:


If a person isn't feeling this pain in any sense, I can't ****ing trust you. Their heart and humanity is suspect in my opinion.

 

And if there is no trust, then the only options are some version of change, contain, or destroy.

 

that entire post was gospel. this section here, i feel in my heart. 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I believe everyone deserves a fair shot in life once people who already have a bunch of advantages are given a few extra fair shots in life if they ever make a mistake. I believe in kindness, decency, and treating your neighbors with respect unless they might cause property values to go down. I believe that politicians should be accountable to certain kinds of people. I believe that, when it comes down to it, we all have similar hopes, fears, and dreams, and it is our job to support each other’s dreams unless it makes us uncomfortable or requires courage.

 

https://www.mcsweeneys.net/articles/i-am-against-identity-politics-by-which-i-mean-i-am-in-favor-of-white-identity-politics?fbclid=IwAR0NdPsoG1ShHWB0FSHGOOaAhu9anhQXzeD20kU64B8RgDiHuxvd06o9r40

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Fresh8686 said:

Most people on both sides will freeze due to the tension of combat, regardless of firing range time, but I won't. I've already had many guns to my face by locals and the DEA/ICE and I know how I respond to that.



I'll still most likely die when the **** goes down and the beautiful life I worked so hard for will go down the ****ter... but you have to risk what you love to fight for what you love.



I've been locked up, tortured, broken down, and picked myself back up again. So I know hell well. 
 

 

Maybe I'm wrong here, and I don't mean to offend, but in my experience the people that talk about it the most are really the ones who have seen it the least.

 

1 hour ago, AsburySkinsFan said:

I've said it for three years, 

Yup.  I know.  We've heard it.  I just want you to take comfort in the fact that you are still as wrong now as you were then.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

Maybe I'm wrong here, and I don't mean to offend, but in my experience the people that talk about it the most are really the ones who have seen it the least.

 

How is it possible this was written without the intent to offend? Especially as a response to the part of his post you quoted? 

Edited by Momma There Goes That Man
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

 

Maybe I'm wrong here, and I don't mean to offend, but in my experience the people that talk about it the most are really the ones who have seen it the least.  

 

It’s all good. I agree with that actually. If I give you that impression that’s cool too. I wish it was true for me. I hate what I’ve had to go through. I’d love to just be faking it. 

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Momma There Goes That Man said:

 

How is it possible this was written without the intent to offend? Especially as a response to the part of his post you quoted? 

It was the nicest way I could come up with to say it.  If you really think it was offensive, you should see the first few drafts.  Do you have a suggestion how I could have made the same point in a nicer way?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
6 hours ago, Fresh8686 said:

Like I said above, I am not pro-bernie and wished you had used a more moderate candidate or at least Elizabeth Warren. I also, highly disagree with the bold. Viscerally so, to the point where I question what level of shelter or skin in the game you have to say something like this. People are ****ed up out here because of this administration. People who care about what this country is supposed to stand for, that see the **** going on with this administration feel sick to their stomach almost every morning. My wife, who is a rape victim and many other women who have faced that tragedy have been in a near constant state of triggered PTSD because of the impunity these sexual assaulters get to enjoy.    
 

The social, economic, and environmental volatility is a constant reminder that the status quo has changed for many. If you are non-white or mixed like I am, you are constantly feeling the threat of this administration. You see the racist shell game, both the racial animosity that does the damage, and the racial antipathy that blankets over it and gaslights those who try to point out what is going on. You see them trying to dilute or completely void your political voice and the power of your vote, you see infiltration of religious zealots in the judicial branch, and machinations of people like Mitch McConnell, Steven Miller, and Mike Pence. 

I see the sexual assault, the corruption, the violence, the racism, the exhortation of ignorance as a virtue and I feel so sick and angry when people seem to choose all of that over a fear of the possibility of free health care and education. I get the concern over those issues and also want to make sure that we don't over-reach and upset the proper dynamics of our system, but that concern doesn't come close to over-riding the existential threat I and many others feel around what's going on right now.  

It makes me furious that people can make that choice. Like I'm ready to go to war and destroy those people if need be, because they are supporting those who hurt me and the ones I love so much.  The resentment and ignorance, the schadenfreude, and the lack of shared responsibility and care is so disgusting and so weak. And I hate feeling this way. I'm tired of being hurt and stressed and angry and hopeless feeling as I watch what I hoped this country would be fall apart. And I'm even more tired of the people who don't feel this hurt like I do.

If a person isn't feeling this pain in any sense, I can't ****ing trust you. Their heart and humanity is suspect in my opinion.

 

And if there is no trust, then the only options are some version of change, contain, or destroy.

 

So three things:

 

1. As I stated, I voted for Hillary, and I will vote for whoever the Democrats run again so I didn't make that choice in 2016 and will not in 2020.

 

2.  The points are best made using the extreme.  Obviously, when you look at moderates, there is less of an issue, but there is an extreme part of the Democratic party that scares people (though, it scares me much less than Trump and his cohort, which is why I voted for Hillary and will vote for whoever the Dem nomination is this time).  I also used him because I know his views best (based on him running in the last election) so he fits two things for my post to work.  (Looking, though, Warren doesn't have anything up on healthcare on her webpage (but my impression is that she is not as far left as he is).)

 

3.  I'd suggest that in the greater context though, Trump isn't that far from the norm (for at least this country).  Does anybody really believe that Bill Clinton hasn't sexually harassed women?   Physically touched women in ways that they didn't want to be touched?

 

(My wife was a fan of Clinton for years.  It is interesting now to talk to her about Bill Clinton and what she thinks now.  I never voted for Bill Clinton.)

 

Clearance Thomas?

 

It is bad and unfortunate, but sexism, racism, bigotry, mysgynism, and ignorance have a firm basis in the history of the US.   At some level, Trump better represents the status quo (and most recent history) then leaving that behind.

 

In the history of the US, men ( especially rich, smart, white men) have had impunity from things like sexual assault more often than they have not.

 

So in the context of my original post, if you want to ask is leaving those things behind or Trump closer to the status quo, I'll tell you that it is Trump.

 

(Now, I'm all for leaving them behind and leaving those things are behind are more important than whatever even the most far left wing of the Democratic party will bring.  Which is why I will vote for whoever the Democrats nominate.  Even if it is Bernie Sanders.

 

I've never voted against a candidate before.  There have been times when I've not really loved the person that I voted for, but in the past, I always thought there was a real possibility that they'd do a good job.  If not, I'd write somebody in.  I'm hoping that somebody that I like will be nominated by the Democrats (from what I know, Harris seems best to me), but I will vote for a Democrat no matter who to vote against Trump and the sexism, racism, bigotry, mysgynism, and ignorance that he represents.)

Edited by PeterMP
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Just to add thinking about it.  I live in NJ.  I'm pretty sure I voted for a criminal for Senator last time.  Because it was better than voting for a Republican.

 

I didn't like that vote, but I made it.  That would actually be the first time where it was really I just got vote against the other guy no matter what for me.

Edited by PeterMP

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now