• 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

49 minutes ago, NoCalMike said:

If the "moderate" right looks at Warren and thinks "socialist" the country is doomed already. 

This is where i've become very frustrated with the democrats this election cycle. 

 

And I don't mean you or other posters here, because what you guys say is correct when it comes to policy ideas and what is/isn't socialist etc etc etc, I mean the actually political arm that controls the democrats (We can say DNC but we know there's factions inside and some have more pull than others, etc)

 

They want to hang their hat on the definition of socialism vs someone like Warren. They point out the differences etc. And in the face of criticism they point to this and say "But that's not true", the context can be imagined here there's plenty of examples.

 

But they either choose to ignore, or choose to not care, that there's a meaningful percentage of the population that does not, or can not, and will not accept such a distinction. 

 

So yeah, the "moderate right" in my estimate is full of people who view Warren as a socialist. They view her policy ideas as being a move towards that thing they're conditioned to reject. 

 

And everyone can make comments about how they're dumb, or whatever, but the end result is that these people vote and you're giving them a choice they refuse to vote for.

 

At a time where all the Democrats need to oust trump is to strong appeal to the middle, they seem to be choosing to go very progressive. It almost seems as though instead of saying

"All we need is to capture moderates and independents, and that should be very easy right now"

They're saying

"Hey, this is the most disenfranchised/angry/upset/concerned the moderates and "moderate right" has been with establishment GOP in decades. This is our chance to get their support for progressive ideals"

 

Except, from what I'm seeing and what my gut tells me, they are not and will not be interested in the Dem's progressive ideas. At all. And that the Dems are basically rolling the dice that these people will either vote 3rd party or not vote at all simply because they don't like Warren and they don't like Trump.

 

But what I think is very, very possible is that they will decide that Trump is the evil they know and that is better than Warren, which at best is the evil they don't know to them and more likely is the evil they know is greater (In their minds, of course.)

After all, that's why many of them (supposedly) voted Trump over Clinton last time (for different reasons, but same general idea)

 

I've heard multiple people that I know, for a fact, hate and despise trump. Some of them voted for Clinton, none of them voted for trump in 2016. And they're all saying 'no way' to warren. The people that did vote for Trump that I feel would absolutely vote against him for a moderate? They not going to entertain Warren... they just aren't. 

 

Sometimes perception is the reality you need to fight. And there's a perception problem with progressive politics that I think the dems have always struggled with, and I don't think they're doing a good job with it right now. 

 

The dems are miscalculating in my mind. That either these people don't matter (not enough of them), or that how they choose to vote will not hurt them (stay home or vote third party.) I think they're wrong. But I'm clearly just guessing based on a limited view into the general public...

Edited by tshile

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, tshile said:

This is where i've become very frustrated with the democrats this election cycle. 

 

 

 

So I can be on board with the Democrats being weak sauce on their messaging. That isn't anything new, IMO.  However what is out of their control is the fact that Fox News and right-wing radio, blogs, etc etc control the minds of so many that they are beyond being reasoned with.

 

If you divide the country up, I think it is safe to say 40% will always vote Dems, 40% will always vote GOP, so there is the 20% being competed for. (Outside of just being able to energize folks from the each base that don't normally vote in the first place)

 

The biggest issue to me is how dishonest right-wing media is willing to be in order to create false narratives.  (I am not suggesting the left is beyond doing this too in some cases).  It isn't anything new, FDR was called a socialist too, but it seems like this kind of nonsense has a lot more sticking power now then it did before.   I honestly have no idea how you combat all the outright BS floating out there that gets into people's heads and just takes on it's own life.

 

It's the same frustration I have when people like Warren are denounced as being "way too left to be elected" yet if you removed her name from the equation, those same people are very likely to agree with her down the line on the actual issues.  Your comment about Trump being the evil they know versus Warren being the evil they don't know.  Therein lies a major issue, they THINK THEY KNOW, because of what Sean Hannity, Mark Levin, Dennis Prager, Larry Elder....have told them she is.  That is the extent of their knowledge of her.  As another poster said after my reply....nobody even seems to actually understand what socialism, or even capitalism for that matter is or means anymore.  They are just these abstract terms that people throw around. 

 

It's just a dirty game, and in the end it is the people who are hurt by it due to how the wealth elite have been able to lobby and get things changed in their favor.  The older I get, the more jaded I become, and less hope I have that this ever gets solved until it becomes so bad for the working poor and even lower end of the middle class that something bigger ends up happening. 

Edited by NoCalMike

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Larry said:

 

Just pointing out, you're responding to a poster who is arguing that he's not a corporate shill, he's a moderate, by pointing out that he supports giving people the option of Medicare, but doesn't mandate it (right away)."  

 

Nope. Whom and what I responded to was right in the quote box. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don’t disagree with that except to say that the people I’m talking about don’t watch or listen to the media you’re talking about. 
 

the whole thing feels similar to the electors college arguments. I may not agree with dems on the solution of using a popular vote, but I understand why they see it the way they do. 
 

but that doesn’t change the rules of the game and the way it’s played. Complain all you want, if you don’t figure out how to play the game by its rules you’re not going to win...

 

likewise, trotting Warren out there and saying “but you don’t understand the definition of socialism” doesn’t feel like a winning strategy to me. 
 

of course my criticisms may be unfair at the moment because you might not be able to fix this in a primary. You might have to wait until the general and there’s 1 candidate to discuss. 
 

it just doesn’t feel good to me at the moment. I want trump out. Clinton getting involved and nominating someone that carries the “socialist baggage” doesn’t feel like a winning move. 
 

a woman the other night said “I can’t believe they’re going to nominate another woman I can’t vote for”. This person hates trump. These people exist. It seems to me the Democrats need them. But what do I know? I thought there was no way trump could win. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did they say who specifically they supported?   Also I notice you mentioned earlier that at least some of them voted for Hillary, but I assume the woman at the end there didn't?

 

4 minutes ago, tshile said:

I don’t disagree with that except to say that the people I’m talking about don’t watch or listen to the media you’re talking about. 
 

the whole thing feels similar to the electors college arguments. I may not agree with dems on the solution of using a popular vote, but I understand why they see it the way they do. 
 

but that doesn’t change the rules of the game and the way it’s played. Complain all you want, if you don’t figure out how to play the game by its rules you’re not going to win...

 

likewise, trotting Warren out there and saying “but you don’t understand the definition of socialism” doesn’t feel like a winning strategy to me. 
 

of course my criticisms may be unfair at the moment because you might not be able to fix this in a primary. You might have to wait until the general and there’s 1 candidate to discuss. 
 

it just doesn’t feel good to me at the moment. I want trump out. Clinton getting involved and nominating someone that carries the “socialist baggage” doesn’t feel like a winning move. 
 

a woman the other night said “I can’t believe they’re going to nominate another woman I can’t vote for”. This person hates trump. These people exist. It seems to me the Democrats need them. But what do I know? I thought there was no way trump could win. 

 

Share this post


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

“A lot of people are saying...”

That voting for trump in the primary would be a good joke

 

amirite ?

9 minutes ago, visionary said:

Did they say who specifically they supported?   Also I notice you mentioned earlier that at least some of them voted for Hillary, but I assume the woman at the end there didn't?


she says she didn’t but I can’t be sure 

 

they liked the idea of Biden but without the baggage 

 

Pete and yang were a lot of favorites I’ve heard over the months. Kamala had her moment but I think she said something about reputations months back? I can’t remember. 
 

gabbard gets mentioned for being hot but that’s about it 


everyone seems to only really talk about sanders Warren and Biden. I’m not sure how dialed in any of them are To be honest. 

Edited by tshile

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, tshile said:

That voting for trump in the primary would be a good joke

 

amirite ?

 

Aaah...I’m sad you got triggered.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, tshile said:

I don’t disagree with that except to say that the people I’m talking about don’t watch or listen to the media you’re talking about. 
 

the whole thing feels similar to the electors college arguments. I may not agree with dems on the solution of using a popular vote, but I understand why they see it the way they do. 
 

but that doesn’t change the rules of the game and the way it’s played. Complain all you want, if you don’t figure out how to play the game by its rules you’re not going to win...

 

likewise, trotting Warren out there and saying “but you don’t understand the definition of socialism” doesn’t feel like a winning strategy to me. 
 

of course my criticisms may be unfair at the moment because you might not be able to fix this in a primary. You might have to wait until the general and there’s 1 candidate to discuss. 
 

it just doesn’t feel good to me at the moment. I want trump out. Clinton getting involved and nominating someone that carries the “socialist baggage” doesn’t feel like a winning move. 
 

a woman the other night said “I can’t believe they’re going to nominate another woman I can’t vote for”. This person hates trump. These people exist. It seems to me the Democrats need them. But what do I know? I thought there was no way trump could win. 

 

I agree with you and fear that the candidate that wins the Dem primary may be the least capable of winning the general.  The problem of selling that view to the liberal base of the Dem party is that they already did the "hold your nose and nominate the candidate with the best chance in the general" in 2016.   I think many would rightly say that Hillary was a terrible candidate to sell to the moderates because she had too much baggage.  Well, a candidate that can appeal to the moderates and still fire up the base may not exist in 2020 (probably the last one was 2008 Obama).  And they see the GOP nominate whack jobs after whack jobs and still win seats in Congress and the Trump presidency. 

 

I think many in the Dem party are now saying if we are gonna go down anyway after triangulating and nominating to the middle, we might as well swing for the fences and nominate someone who wholly represents our ideals.  It's gonna be a base vs base election.  I think the traditional road to victory for the Dem would have been a moderate candidate who can take up the vacuum left behind by the ever shifting GOP.  As it stands right now, you have both parties moving towards opposing ends of the spectrum, thinking that it's easier to rally votes at the extreme ends than to convince the moderate swing voters to vote for them (and not lose the base voters in the process).  There's a political middle that's begging for a moderate centrist party right now.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see what you are saying tshille but if people want a say in who defeats Trump, they should take part in the Dem primary. 
 

Dem primary voters shouldn’t be tasked with keeping the sensitivities of a sliver of center-right voters in mind when they go to the polls. 
 

“I like Elizabeth Warren but what will my Trump hating GOP neighbor want me to do???” isn’t going to happen. The Trump hating GOP neighbor should instead look into how he/she can participate in the Dem primary and cast their ballot for the candidate they finds most relatable.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, TryTheBeal! said:

 

Aaah...I’m sad you got triggered.

just calling a spade a spade

 

youre pretty simple to figure out eh?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, tshile said:

just calling a spade a spade

 

youre pretty simple to figure out eh?

 

I’ll send another $500 to Warren tonight...in your name.

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If people don't vote against Trump, no matter who the candidate is, we've lost anyways.  I can't wrap my head around supporting this trash for another four years.  I'm so ready for it to be over, and then I see that they are grooming Don Jr. for the next wave.  We might just be done.  Oohhh, Caaaannnadahhh.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@No Excuses

youre right. 
and my state is open you can vote in either. But that’s months away

 

and maybe it’s just way too early to be concerned about this. 
 

and @bearrock I think your post makes tons of sense. I don’t think it changes the issue but it makes sense. 
 

the left definitely had to worry about alienating their progressive wing as much as appealing to moderates. And if I knew how to do that I’d be working in politics ;) 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Larry said:

 

Not disputing your assertion.  (Although I've seen the "corporate shill" label used as a synonym for "doesn't think capitalism should be criminalized".)  But could you elaborate?  All I know about him is "I like the way he handles an interview."  

The best example is his pivot from supporting Medicare for All to now running ads that are against Medicare for All.

 

I don’t think any candidate is saying or suggesting capitalism should be criminalized though.

 

3 hours ago, Dan T. said:

 

Empty words spoken with no evidence to back it up. 

 

Moderate does NOT equal "corporate shill."

We literally pointed this out a few pages ago. It has nothing to do with dude being a moderate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

27 minutes ago, Rufus T Firefly said:

Nope. Whom and what I responded to was right in the quote box. 

 

Yep.  This quote box.  

 

3 hours ago, Dan T. said:

 

Empty words spoken with no evidence to back it up. 

 

Moderate does NOT equal "corporate shill."

 

Again - You're responding to somebody who's entire post is to state that Pete isn't a corporate shill, he's a moderate, by pointing out that he doesn't want the government to completely take over all health care, he just wants to give people the option of government health care.  

 

A position which seems a lot closer to "moderate" (in fact, I'd argue "moderate left") than "corporate shill", to me.  

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess the most frustrating part of the entire situation is that in a country that felt Donald Trump was mainstream enough to give a chance to, people like Elizabeth Warren are somehow deemed too "whatever they want to insert here."   The fact that Trump got as much support as he did, should logically shred any notion that any other candidate, on either side for that matter, is too "anything" to be electable. 

 

To me Donald Trump is evidence enough of how tribal this country has become.


Tshile, I respect your thoughts and comments on this matter, but somehow I am willing to assume that regardless of who wins the Dem nominee, everything the right-wing is saying about Warren & Bernie, will simply be replaced by "Insert Dem Candidate" here, and the same people who claimed "I would love to not vote for Trump" will simply find brand new justifications to not vote for the newly crowned "too left to vote for" candidate of the Democratic party. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, AlvinWaltonIsMyBoy said:

If people don't vote against Trump, no matter who the candidate is, we've lost anyways.  I can't wrap my head around supporting this trash for another four years.  I'm so ready for it to be over, and then I see that they are grooming Don Jr. for the next wave.  We might just be done.  Oohhh, Caaaannnadahhh.


because the option isn’t incompetent buffoon vs competent policy wonk

 

the choice will be (for the people I’m talking about) incompetent buffoon vs someone that’s running on a platform they’ve been against their whole life

 

im not saying it’s right or fair, I’m saying it’s reality. And it’s part of the game we’re playing. It matters

 

(but maybe I’m wrong and it doesn’t)

Share this post


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

The best example is his pivot from supporting Medicare for All to now running ads that are against Medicare for All.

 

So target him for being a flip-flopper.  Sounds like he's guilty.  And it's something that he should rightfully be forced to defend.  (Especially for a candidate who doesn't have a record to run on.)  

 

But as for the assertion that "failure to support a complete government takeover of all health insurance makes somebody a corporate shill", see my previous post.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, tshile said:

im not saying it’s right or fair, I’m saying it’s reality. And it’s part of the game we’re playing. It matters

I live in Trump land.  I'm the only liberal in my entire family tree.  I know exactly what we're dealing with.  

 

I'm not saying that you're wrong.  I'm saying that if the insanity of the past four years isn't enough to get Dems out in record number to vote against this dude, then we're never going back anyway.  I don't think it's hyperbole to say that our country as we know it will not survive a second term.  

  • Like 4
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, tshile said:

because the option isn’t incompetent buffoon vs competent policy wonk

 

the choice will be (for the people I’m talking about) incompetent buffoon vs someone that’s running on a platform they’ve been against their whole life

 

Just like it was three years ago.  :) 

Share this post


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

I guess the most frustrating part of the entire situation is that in a country that felt Donald Trump was mainstream enough to give a chance to, people like Elizabeth Warren are somehow deemed too "whatever they want to insert here."   The fact that Trump got as much support as he did, should logically shred any notion that any other candidate, on either side for that matter, is too "anything" to be electable. 

 

 

 

For me, the most frustrating part is that, okay, people gave Trump a shot 3 years ago hoping that he'd grow into the job and not be a complete train wreck.  Here we are 3 years later, he remains totally unqualified and unpresidential, is patently corrupt, and has been a much bigger train wreck than anyone even imagined, yet he's still probably the odds-on favorite because people will find out some minor nit to pick about each D candidate.  

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, NoCalMike said:

Tshile, I respect your thoughts and comments on this matter, but somehow I am willing to assume that regardless of who wins the Dem nominee, everything the right-wing is saying about Warren & Bernie, will simply be replaced by "Insert Dem Candidate" here, and the same people who claimed "I would love to not vote for Trump" will simply find brand new justifications to not vote for the newly crowned "too left to vote for" candidate of the Democratic party. 

Yeah you can’t ignore that some people are full of crap and “if they didn’t pick a socialist” will be used to justify voting for trump (or third party) no matter who it is

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Larry said:

 

So target him for being a flip-flopper.  Sounds like he's guilty.  And it's something that he should rightfully be forced to defend.  (Especially for a candidate who doesn't have a record to run on.)  

 

But as for the assertion that "failure to support a complete government takeover of all health insurance makes somebody a corporate shill", see my previous post.  

 

You don’t think that flip flop has anything to do with him leading in donations from the healthcare sector?

https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2019/07/20dems-are-taking-money-healthcare/

 

I think corporate shill is deserved.

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.