• 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

9 minutes ago, mcsluggo said:

 there is no initial allotment of jobs. and when those go away... boom.. no more jobs! 
 

Back in the day.. basically EVERYBODY had to be involved in directly making food and shelter ... all ... of... the ...time....    then slowly we got better at it, and as a direct result a whole ****-load of agricultural jobs were eliminated.................. and everyone cheered, because those jobless out-of-work losers were freed up to invent the internet and porn.   

 

 

if there is such a gigantic technical leap in the next 15 years that we can produce the same output with 66% of the labor...that is a GOOD thing.   That means that 33% of this precious resource is freed up to produce OTHER things.   

 

 

Most of them really aren't cut out for porn.  Just sayin.  

 

Share this post


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

 if there is such a gigantic technical leap in the next 15 years that we can produce the same output with 66% of the labor...that is a GOOD thing.   That means that 33% of this precious resource is freed up to produce OTHER things.   

 

I think that is a fair point, the idea that when "these jobs ends, these other jobs get created" but I also think that might end up being a generational change with the right investment into education in the proper places going forward. You can prepare the younger generations for the "new economy"  I think the bigger issue is for those, say, in their 30's/40's/50's etc etc.....who have no education beyond high school, have been in a single industry their entire working career.  I think the notion that they are just going to suddenly change industries in that stage in their lives and become not only proficient but masters of the other skills to where they are getting jobs paying equal or more than the industry they previously worked in for 20+ years?  Not so sure.   That could also be where UBI helps, that $1000 a month could go towards some kind of schooling or trade that previously would not have had the money to invest in.

 

Also, I think one point was that such a large portion of the country is employed by either the Trucking industry, clerical/admins, retail/services.  It's not as if everyone is out there creating businesses so they can just shift to creating a different business.  Part of the issue is how fast automation takes hold of entire industries as opposed to just a handful of companies.

 

I don't think anyone is suggesting Automation is a bad thing on a macro level.  Of course it is a great thing that more can be produced from less.  The problem is that those who benefit from the automation will be fewer.  It will be more resources going to the same percentage of folks now who own the huge companies that are already keeping wages stagnant in the first place.    It is also why GDP is a poor way to calculate a good economy when in the present and future, if GDP is being driven by technology/robots/automation, and not by actual people, it means the revenue created will be further consolidated to the top.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

 

Yeah in the past I never considered an idea like UBI because the common thought was "if you lose your job, that's fine, there are plenty others out there"  even when the economy has been in a downward spiral, I personally have seemed to always have enough basic office/admin skills to land something temporarily until a better opportunity came along, but listening to Andrew Yang explain what is going to happen in the near future, and has sort of already started on a smaller scale, it sounds like eventually a lot of the jobs will go away en mass and it isn't going to happen slowly once it starts.  His breakdown of the majority of jobs Americans do now, I had no idea either. 

 

I also think there is a misconception that UBI is a job replacement.  It's not.  Hell even for those with an income, UBI could something as simple as not having to use half a paycheck for an emergency car repair. The UBI supplement takes care of that, it goes right back into the economy etc etc....

 

I am not going to claim I am now any kind of scholar on the topic of UBI, but it does make sense if we are truly entering a world where automation is going to severely change the jobs landscape.

 

The most interesting thing about UBI is that it is not a new concept at all, it's been proposed for centuries. In fact I was shocked to discover it was almost passed by Congress in the late 60's, but Democrats voted it down because they wanted the UBI # to be higher. This is not some kind of socialist scam, this is a solution to an issue that is already starting to emerge in society (truck drivers and manufacturing has already been affected by the advent of AI) 

 

Yang is someone who is a rarity in American politics. Someone who is not part of the establishment proposing ideas that are practical to fix American issues. My biggest fear is he will not be able to get traction, not enough people will know about him, and he won't be able to attend the debates (he needs to raise a certain threshold in order to attend). If I could, I would donate money to his campaign (I cannot due to federal contracting restriction that he lists on his site) 

Edited by ixcuincle

Share this post


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

 

I think that is a fair point, the idea that when "these jobs ends, these other jobs get created" but I also think that might end up being a generational change with the right investment into education in the proper places going forward. You can prepare the younger generations for the "new economy"  I think the bigger issue is for those, say, in their 30's/40's/50's etc etc.....who have no education beyond high school, have been in a single industry their entire working career.  I think the notion that they are just going to suddenly change industries in that stage in their lives and become not only proficient but masters of the other skills to where they are getting jobs paying equal or more than the industry they previously worked in for 20+ years?  Not so sure.   That could also be where UBI helps, that $1000 a month could go towards some kind of schooling or trade that previously would not have had the money to invest in.

 

Also, I think one point was that such a large portion of the country is employed by either the Trucking industry, clerical/admins, retail/services.  It's not as if everyone is out there creating businesses so they can just shift to creating a different business.  Part of the issue is how fast automation takes hold of entire industries as opposed to just a handful of companies.

 

I don't think anyone is suggesting Automation is a bad thing on a macro level.  Of course it is a great thing that more can be produced from less.  The problem is that those who benefit from the automation will be fewer.  It will be more resources going to the same percentage of folks now who own the huge companies that are already keeping wages stagnant in the first place.    It is also why GDP is a poor way to calculate a good economy when in the present and future, if GDP is being driven by technology/robots/automation, and not by actual people, it means the revenue created will be further consolidated to the top.  

 

And again, basically that Joe Rogan Podcast is him listing off facts. 66% of Americans don't have  a college degree. Trucking and manufacturing are more popular than people think. The factories shutting down and outsourcing or turning to AI in the Midwest led to discontent which led to Trump winning those states. I'm also interested by his ideas about how truckers will react to losing their jobs. In one moment he says to Joe that truckers will just block the highway with their trucks. They may not take that lightly, leading to less marriage, more alcoholism, more domestic abuse. It's very scary the world he depicts. And it's a reality. 

 

 

Share this post


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

 

And again, basically that Joe Rogan Podcast is him listing off facts. 66% of Americans don't have  a college degree. Trucking and manufacturing are more popular than people think. The factories shutting down and outsourcing or turning to AI in the Midwest led to discontent which led to Trump winning those states. I'm also interested by his ideas about how truckers will react to losing their jobs. In one moment he says to Joe that truckers will just block the highway with their trucks. They may not take that lightly, leading to less marriage, more alcoholism, more domestic abuse. It's very scary the world he depicts. And it's a reality. 

 

 

 

Yeah, I will freely admit most of my knowledge on the subject of UBI comes from that episode of the JRE.  I hope the guy gets enough support to at least be a part of the debates for awhile.  UBI might be a ways off from being a mainstream idea, but at least including it in the overall discussion ASAP could be big.

Share this post


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

 

Whoever is debating Trump could just express what you said verbatim and come off looking better than giving quick and snappy replies. 

You can't really debate Trump on the issues because he doesn't have the mental capicity to even grasp the issues.

 

He will just use demogaugery.  UBI- A socialist plot.  Trump and the GOP are going to portray the Dems as evil socialists.  There's still enough people that will buy into that.

 

When the Dems are campaigning, they got to talk to voters one on one.   When you get into the actual debate with Trump, you won't be able to have a real discussion because Trump has no mental capicity, to actually debate you.  He has no capicity to discuss issues in the depth that need to be.

 

This country won't do a damn thing about automation until it reaches a crisis point.  Trump and the GOP will dismiss it, as fantasy.  Trump already doesn't buy into automation taking away everyone's jobs.  Until  people actually see it happening in real time; they won't do anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

UBI is not something any Dem candidate should be running on.  It's too out there (for now).  There are LOADS of bread and butter issues that are super popular with wide swaths of voters right now.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

See that BS with Sanders is what I am talking about, "OMG he won't call him a dictator, he won't say he has to go" oh the horror.   Instead of asking aesthetic questions like that, maybe instead talk about the possibility of U.S. using military intervention in a foreign country's politics, if he is ok with that, and why Trump is ok with that when he campaigned on the idea of being non-interventionist until a country with a lot of oil entered the picture. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Has Trump talked about military intervention there aside from protecting US citizens?

 

Would Bernie not?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

“the United States has got to work with the international community to make sure that there is a free and fair election in Venezuela.”

 

What's wrong with that exactly? Free and fair elections sound like a good idea. We don't have those here in the United States so neither should Venezuela? 

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


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

See that BS with Sanders is what I am talking about, "OMG he won't call him a dictator, he won't say he has to go" oh the horror.   Instead of asking aesthetic questions like that, maybe instead talk about the possibility of U.S. using military intervention in a foreign country's politics, if he is ok with that, and why Trump is ok with that when he campaigned on the idea of being non-interventionist until a country with a lot of oil entered the picture. 

 

 

 

Candidates need to be able to easily call a spade a spade. The guy is a de facto dictator. Why hesitate to say so? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hate the “OMG he refuses to say X” stuff. It really should be okay to need more than a prescribed sentence to state your position. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:

I hate the “OMG he refuses to say X” stuff. It really should be okay to need more than a prescribed sentence to state your position. 

 

Is the guy in Venezuela a dictator? That’s not really having much to do with a policy position.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, clietas said:

“the United States has got to work with the international community to make sure that there is a free and fair election in Venezuela.”

 

What's wrong with that exactly? Free and fair elections sound like a good idea. We don't have those here in the United States so neither should Venezuela? 

 

 

 

You did conveniently leave off the first part of his answer to the question as to is the guy a dictator.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Hersh said:

 

Candidates need to be able to easily call a spade a spade. The guy is a de facto dictator. Why hesitate to say so? 

 

It's because the question is really being used as a method to go after the guy who "doesn't want to go take out a brutal dictator."  The first step is trying to get the candidate to describe something on the terms they want to, then once the term is used and established, then comes the "well sir, sir....you just called him a dictator, so how can you justify not....."     

 

There was a reason why during the days of the support for the Iraq War starting to wane, what was the one thing the GOP kept going back to CONSTANTLY to defend it,,...."we got rid of a ruthless dictator....ARE YOU SUGGESTING THEY ARE BETTER WITH A RUTHLESS DICTATOR"

 

It is just the first step in trying to justify military intervention.

 

Remember during the Obama presidency, "OMG he won't even use the term terrorist!?!?!?!??!"  meanwhile he was ordering drone strikes all over the place to kill suspected terrorists. 

Edited by NoCalMike
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Hersh said:

 

Is the guy in Venezuela a dictator? That’s not really having much to do with a policy position.

 

It does though, because if you say he is, the obvious next question is “what will you do about it if elected?”  Then you are trapped. 

Share this post


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

 

It's because the question is really being used as a method to go after the guy who "doesn't want to go take out a brutal dictator."  The first step is trying to get the candidate to describe something on the terms they want to, then once the term is used and established, then comes the "well sir, sir....you just called him a dictator, so how can you justify not....."     

 

There was a reason why during the days of the support for the Iraq War starting to wane, what was the one thing the GOP kept going back to CONSTANTLY to defend it,,...."we got rid of a ruthless dictator....ARE YOU SUGGESTING THEY ARE BETTER WITH A RUTHLESS DICTATOR"

 

It is just the first step in trying to justify military intervention.

 

Apples and oranges.

 

”I believe he has abused his power to the point of being a de facto dictator. I strongly support the diplomatic efforts to remove him from office.”

 

wow, that was tough to come up with.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

 

Apples and oranges.

 

”I believe he has abused his power to the point of being a de facto dictator. I strongly support the diplomatic efforts to remove him from office.”

 

wow, that was tough to come up with.

 

Follow-up question:  if diplomatic efforts don’t work, will you commit to military intervention to oust him?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, PleaseBlitz said:

 

It does though, because if you say he is, the obvious next question is “what will you do about it if elected?”  Then you are trapped. 

 

No you aren’t. Other candidates have had no issues answer the question without supporting military force. 

 

I’ll ask again since you didn’t answer. Is the guy a dictator?

1 minute ago, PleaseBlitz said:

 

Follow-up question:  if diplomatic efforts don’t work, will you commit to military intervention to oust him?

 

“I won’t take options off the table but we are committed to a strong diplomatic effort with our allies.”

 

wow, this is getting super tough. Stop acting like neophytes. Y’all are way smarter than this when it comes to politics. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Me personally, I have no trouble calling him a dictator.  However I also don't have the media trying to corner me into a narrative.

 

And yes, I realize Bernie can give all the same vague answers every other candidate will give, but I thought that isn't what we want in a candidate? 

 

Wasn't one of Trump's favorable traits in 2016 going against the neo-con grain and saying he didn't want to be an interventionist?  Weird how that was favorable for Trump, but with Dem candidates it's right back to the "terrorist sympathizer" rhetoric.

 

When it comes to the big corporate interests behind war, especially in an oil rich country, don't for a second think that the media won't play their part in trying to get rid of candidates that don't want to take measures to get those resources.  

 

"Will you call him a Dictator?" is just the beginning. 

Edited by NoCalMike

Share this post


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

 

"Will you call him a Dictator?" is just the beginning. 

 

 

Aye, slippery slope and all dat.

 

Image result for buttered butts

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The left has a history of supporting leftist dictators or authoritarian regimes or those at odds with the US, the right has a history of supporting right-wing or US allied ones.  Venezuela in particular is a country people on the left have shied away from criticizing in the past.  Bernie was fairly strong against Maduro a few weeks back though I thought.  I think it’s partly a gotcha situation, but also fair to see how he would respond to someone like Maduro if he wins the presidency.  (Remember that Bernie has been fairly criticized for having a shallow or undeveloped foreign policy in the past election)

Edited by visionary

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.