• Blog Entries

    • By TK in ES Coverage
         0
      The Bill Callahan era began here at the Hard Rock Stadium in Miami. For the first quarter it was really,really bad football being played by both teams. 
      The Redskins were determined to establish the Run game. The First Quarter all they established was that they still couldn’t run. Or pass. Or do much of anything. 
       
      It wasn’t until the 2nd Quarter that Peterson was able to start ripping the worst Run D in the League for chunks of 18 & 24 yards. The Skins managed to score a TD with a 25 yard pass to Scary Terry McLaurin. 
       
      The Dolphins would open the Second Half only managing five plays before the Redskins would get the ball punted back to them. They would run a balanced run/pass attack of six plays for 70 yards in 1:25 ending in McLaurin’s second touchdown of the day. The Defense would then get a turnover allowing the Offense to get to Field Goal range and add another 3 points to make the score 17-3. 
       
      To open the Fourth Quarter, Hopkins would miss a 55 yard Field Goal, leaving the score at 17-3.  After being sacked five times, the Dolphins would pull their own switcharoo at QB and go to Ryan “Neckbeard” Fitzpatrick which resulted in a touchdown drive for them, making it 17-10. They went for & recovered the Onside Kick. They also managed to not score any points after that. The Dolphins would find theirselves with ball at the 2:00 Warning. Fitzpatrick would take them on a 9 play 75 yard touchdown drive with six seconds remaining on the clock. Miami went for the win with the 2 Point Conversion and failed. The Redskins would recover the onside kick by Miami and Keenum took a knee to get the Redskins their first win of the season. 
Rdskns2000

Presidential Election 2020 - Impeacho Cheeto vs Elizabeth Warren & some other Dems

Recommended Posts

I watched only the first forty-five minutes of it and thought it wasn't a bad showing. One problem I have and I don't know how this can be solved is that the lesser known candidates at the beginning bypassed the question to introduce themselves and lay out their stump speech. I get why they do it, but I want to hear answers to the issues raised rather than the resume. Tulsi was the most obvious about doing this, but again, this was her shot to introduce herself so I get it.


The easiest fix would be to give each candidate thirty seconds or a minute right at the top to introduce themselves and give their elevator pitch. 

 

Overall, I thought it wasn't a bad start and I liked that it was more substance-based than Trump-bashing-based. Though the candidates did get in a few shots at promises failed when it came to prescriptions and other issues.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

 

Why do you say that? 

 

Lots of great ideas.  Nearly no excitement factor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Springfield said:

 

Lots of great ideas.  Nearly no excitement factor.

Therein lies the crux. Policy is rarely exciting. We got substance from the D's. People should get excited about that. Excitement is so often about mudslinging.

 

I wish the debates and campaigns were more often about great ideas rather than sex appeal.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Springfield said:

 

Lots of great ideas.  Nearly no excitement factor.

Yeah, I think two things can be simultaneously true:

 

1) I read a blogger (Allahpundit) say that Trump is likely the most vulnerable incumbent since Bush 41

 

2) That said, and its still early, but there doesn't seem to be someone with the gravitas of a Bill Clinton in this field. 

 

Someone is going to have to make a strong case in this cycle against four more years of Trump.  And, unfortunately, I don't think enough people care how much of an egotistical jackass he shows himself to be on a daily basis to vote him out. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, hail2skins said:

2) That said, and its still early, but there doesn't seem to be someone with the gravitas of a Bill Clinton in this field. 

 

I don't want another Bill Clinton.  I want an FDR.  That's what we desperately need.  Warren is the closest to fitting that bill for me.

  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, stevemcqueen1 said:

 

I don't want another Bill Clinton.  I want an FDR.  That's what we desperately need.  Warren is the closest to fitting that bill for me.

 

The fact that the only two guys who are close to a "Bill Clinton" have the most clear flaws in their respective games helps Warren and I do think she is what the country needs. If for no other reason than the fact that she would teach people to look at the substance a bit more in their political candidates. (i hope, i should say) 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Llevron said:

 

The fact that the only two guys who are close to a "Bill Clinton" have the most clear flaws in their respective games helps Warren and I do think she is what the country needs. If for no other reason than the fact that she would teach people to look at the substance a bit more in their political candidates. (i hope, i should say) 

 

I think she and Sanders are the closest thing we'll get to an authentic progressive revolution within the electoral system.  I believe that helping the middle class and poor is their ideological North Star.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Warren is superior to Sanders on most metrics. He knowledge is deeper. Her plans are better thought out. She's less of a revolutionary or fanatic for her cause. At the moment, she remains my favorite. 

 

Mind you, we have to address the Senate or it's mostly moot, but even if we don't address the Senate... at least the Executive could act as a bulwark against Conservative autocratic overreach and their insane abuses.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Burgold said:

Mind you, we have to address the Senate or it's mostly moot, but even if we don't address the Senate... at least the Executive could act as a bulwark against Conservative autocratic overreach and their insane abuses.

 

I very much like that, even with her grandiose plans and ideas, she remains very rooted in that fact. And shes not afraid to be honest and say that when its the true answer to the trutle thing. 

 

16 minutes ago, stevemcqueen1 said:

I think she and Sanders are the closest thing we'll get to an authentic progressive revolution within the electoral system.  I believe that helping the middle class and poor is their ideological North Star.

 

Agree. And I hope the middle class learns it. I do think she has more ability to speak to the middle (not meaning class, but like dem/repub middle). But you cant discount the people who voted for Obama and then Turned around and voted for Trump. They are going to count big I think, and if they feel burned by Trump but still feel like destroying the system then Burnie may be their guy. As apposed to Warren coming off as if shes going to FIX the system. 

 

I dont know if that makes sense. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All that said, I do fear Springfield's point. Is there a candidate who can motivate voters to get off their couches and to the polls. A large reason Trump won was the increased number of stay-at-homes.

Share this post


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

All that said, I do fear Springfield's point. Is there a candidate who can motivate voters to get off their couches and to the polls. A large reason Trump won was the increased number of stay-at-homes.

 

If they aren’t motivated at this point to change the direction of this country, then nothing will really get them to the polls.

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Warren reminds me of Carter in some ways, and not good ones .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Burgold said:

I think Warren is superior to Sanders on most metrics. He knowledge is deeper. Her plans are better thought out. She's less of a revolutionary or fanatic for her cause. At the moment, she remains my favorite. 

 

She's the smartest candidate, and I trust her more than everyone else.

 

But our political and economic systems are so. ****ed. up. that we need authentic revolutionaries in power.  We need leadership.  I don't want any more Democrats in office who are scared of Republicans.  Scared to wield power.  Republicans sure as **** aren't scared to do it, and they have the worst ****ing ideas and they are killing the country.  The status quo needs to be savaged.  We need a revolutionary and a leader and that's Bernie.  I would gladly vote for him over some cowardly middle of the road candidate because even if he can't get everything he wants done, he'll actually fight.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, No Excuses said:

 

If they aren’t motivated at this point to change the direction of this country, then nothing will really get them to the polls.

 

Yeah.  That group is not who we on the Left need to be catering our politics to.

 

This country is a big dumb horse--powerful--but it needs to be led.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Burgold said:

All that said, I do fear Springfield's point. Is there a candidate who can motivate voters to get off their couches and to the polls. A large reason Trump won was the increased number of stay-at-homes.

 

If the Democrats don’t nominate a candidate that can excite and motivate their base then they’re toast.  There were a few good moments last night, and I feel like Warren had the best ideas, but there wasn’t any one candidate that had me say “wow, they’re it.”

 

And no, you can’t say **** all the unmotivated voters.  They are going to be what wins this election if it’s possible.  That’s what gets a person like Hillary to lose to a person like Trump.  Say what you will about Trump’s legion of mouth breathing dotards, they’re loyal and they’re loud.  The left has nothing like that except for possibly Bernie Sanders.

Share this post


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

 

If the Democrats don’t nominate a candidate that can excite and motivate their base then they’re toast.  There were a few good moments last night, and I feel like Warren had the best ideas, but there wasn’t any one candidate that had me say “wow, they’re it.”

 

And no, you can’t say **** all the unmotivated voters.  They are going to be what wins this election if it’s possible.  That’s what gets a person like Hillary to lose to a person like Trump.  Say what you will about Trump’s legion of mouth breathing dotards, they’re loyal and they’re loud.  The left has nothing like that except for possibly Bernie Sanders.

You said you are supporting Biden tho? 

source.gif

Edited by BenningRoadSkin
  • Haha 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I didn't watch much of it, but was reading this morning.  I'm surprised Warren came out for banning private insurance.

 

I'm not sure outside of the likes of Cuba if there are any countries that have banned private health insurance. 

 

It doesn't seem like that would even be Constitutional.  I'm also not sure of the benefit of doing so.

Edited by PeterMP

Share this post


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

I didn't watch much of it, but was reading this morning.  I'm surprised Warren came out for banning private insurance.

 

I'm not sure outside of the likes of Cuba if there are any countries that have banned private health insurance. 

 

It doesn't seem like that would even be Constitutional.  I'm also not sure of the benefit of doing so.

Did she say would ban private health care or impose a system of medicare for all (or universal health insurance) for all? I thought it was the latter, but I may have read/listened lazily.

 

I'd probably be against banning private health insurance outright. Heck even in the Scandinavian countries where Univ HC works really well they have a tiered system where they allow private health insurance as a secondary or supplemental tier.

Share this post


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

 

If the Democrats don’t nominate a candidate that can excite and motivate their base then they’re toast.  There were a few good moments last night, and I feel like Warren had the best ideas, but there wasn’t any one candidate that had me say “wow, they’re it.”

 

And no, you can’t say **** all the unmotivated voters.  They are going to be what wins this election if it’s possible.  That’s what gets a person like Hillary to lose to a person like Trump.  Say what you will about Trump’s legion of mouth breathing dotards, they’re loyal and they’re loud.  The left has nothing like that except for possibly Bernie Sanders.

 

****

 

 

Them

 

 

**** 'em

 

 

With a screwdriver

 

 

 

At the bottom of the toolbox

 

 

 

 

Thats been marinating in grandma's basement

 

 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

And no, you can’t say **** all the unmotivated voters.  They are going to be what wins this election if it’s possible.  That’s what gets a person like Hillary to lose to a person like Trump.  Say what you will about Trump’s legion of mouth breathing dotards, they’re loyal and they’re loud.  The left has nothing like that except for possibly Bernie Sanders.

 

The anti-Trump wave in 2018 trounced Republicans all over the country, especially in the Rust Belt.

 

His margin of victory was a combined 90,000 votes in three states. His base is small and he’s been a horrendous president and most of the country believes this if you look at his approval ratings. 

 

The Dems aren’t facing a juggernaut. They’re going up against the weakest incumbent in decades, who is so bad at his job, that a decent economy isn’t even helping his approval numbers, nor did it help his party in midterms.

Edited by No Excuses
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mr. Sinister said:

If you want entertainment,watch a ****ing wrestling match

No kidding. Entertainment is why trump is king, oops president.

Share this post


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

Did she say would ban private health care or impose a system of medicare for all (or universal health insurance) for all? I thought it was the latter, but I may have read/listened lazily.

 

I'd probably be against banning private health insurance outright. Heck even in the Scandinavian countries where Univ HC works really well they have a tiered system where they allow private health insurance as a secondary or supplemental tier.

 

I believe the question was to ban private health insurance.

 

https://www.cnbc.com/video/2019/06/26/democrats-clash-over-eliminating-private-health-insurance-at-first-debate.html

 

"abolish private health insurance"

 

I think they are all for a universal public option/coverage.

 

I think Gabbard would do well on a debate stage against Trump.  She does need to flesh out her ideas/policies some more.

 

I still think we're going to see an African American win this, and I think last night was a good (but not great) night for Booker.

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