NFL folded like a wet noodle over the protests

[RadOncDoc21]

No one denies this occurred. And republicans voted to allow blacks to vote (15th amendment) while the democratic party voted against it. That has nothing to do with the current discussion.

Different republican party and my point was to demonstrate how things that are law or allowed are not always fair.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[pgg]

No one denies this occurred. And republicans voted to allow blacks to vote (15th amendment) while the democratic party voted against it. That has nothing to do with the current discussion.

I'm a little confused. Are you giving the Republican party of 2017 credit for the actions of the Republican party of 1870 (the year the 15th Amendment was ratified)?

Or are you sideways-acknowledging the fact that the Southern Strategy essentially flipped the parties' stance on civil rights, that old racist Democrats became new racist Republicans half a century ago, and that the actions of Republicans in 1870 has "nothing to do with the current discussion"?

 

[pgg]

You're right. It's not overt discrimination. It's not "no minorities allowed" discrimination, but if you take a step back and research who are the most likely to not have a gov't ID (minorites, elderly, disabled, poor people) then voter ID laws have a "discriminatory aspect to them". For instance, you're some old lady, say 80 years old and you've never driven or needed a gov't ID, but now these laws say your vote doesn't count. Despite not being a felon. That's just an example. This population also tends to vote Democrat. That's why the Voter ID thing is an issue.

A lot of these things can't be taken on the surface. So again, you're correct, the "hard reality" is that it isn't discrimination, but it can be argued that it's not to combat voter fraud.

I'm not so sure it should be a standard, because old grandma who doesn't need an ID or let it lapse for some reason shouldn't be banned from voting.

I admit some skepticism that that voter ID laws are discriminatory.

Of all the ordinary things people do in life to survive and go about their daily business, getting yourself to the DMV once every few years to renew a photo ID is hardly a burden for anyone. The cost is trivial.

If someone is not self sufficient enough to get to the DMV, then they are likely getting some kind of assistance managing their ADLs from family or other caretakers. Those people can get that person to the DMV to get an ID. If they don't have that kind of assistance, then there is much larger problem than whether or not they can cast a ballot ... they may well drop dead from their inability to care for themselves.

And you can bet every cent and every possession you have, that anyone who can't get themselves to the DMV and didn't have family/friends/caretakers who could help them, could simply call their local political party of choice, say "I want to vote for your candidate, but I need a ride to the DMV to get an ID" ... and someone would probably be by the next day to escort this motivated voter and supporter to the DMV. Can't get time off from work? Most every DMV these days has weekend and/or evening hours.


There's a reasonable argument that voter ID laws are a solution looking for a problem. There doesn't seem to be any credible evidence that there is an actual problem with voter fraud, and I am in principle generally opposed to new laws that address non-problems.

But mostly, the whole thing stinks of a contrived controversy. Republicans exaggerate the incidence of voter fraud to rile up their base with fears of Democrat bus-fraud, and Democrats exaggerate the difficulty of getting an ID to rile up their base with fears of Republican suppression.

 

[pgg]

You'll hate all of this and probably call it fake because it's in The Nation, which yes, is a left publication but the points are valid.

Wisconsin’s Voter-ID Law Suppressed 200,000 Votes in 2016 (Trump Won by 22,748)

That's compelling. I'll have to read more about it.

 

[RadOncDoc21]

My stance on this situation:

Cam was wrong. He needs to do better given his position (not just QB, but as a leader of a team).

The reporter, well, my take on her is that "the internet is forever". If you put something offensive on Twitter, chances are someone is going to screen shot it and keep it.

I agree, Cam was definitely wrong. I just saw this article and wanted to update the first post which I still don’t understand why it was posted in the first place.

 

[GA8314]

Look. You need your wallet and purse when you go shopping. You need to show ID even to pick up checks at the Social Security office. I'm just not buying the BS that life in the US is just too tough to have a darn ID card. COME ON!

Twiggidy. I think most counties do a good job keeping things pretty local. I last voted just around the corner from my house at an elementary school.

Being in rural America provides some logistical challenges as in anything like going grocery shopping, and OF COURSE those burdens are going to be higher on people with less means, but we're talking about a simple identification card. Some sort of valid means of keeping track of who's who. And honestly, you demean the poor and elderly by suggesting that they are somehow incapable of this sort of thing when they are fully capable of doing so many other things such as writing checks, driving, and paying bills. The list is endless, and I just do not buy that it's too much to ask to require an ID card. The fact that we DON'T must look ludicrous to other nations because of the obvious potential for abuse.

 

[pgg]

I was in Afghanistan during an election a while back. ID wasn't required, but they did have everyone dip their finger in purple ink so they couldn't vote twice. Of course, having a purple finger was liable to get you shot by some people who really know a thing or two about voter suppression.

 

[WholeLottaGame7]

I'm a little confused. Are you giving the Republican party of 2017 credit for the actions of the Republican party of 1870 (the year the 15th Amendment was ratified)?

Or are you sideways-acknowledging the fact that the Southern Strategy essentially flipped the parties' stance on civil rights, that old racist Democrats became new racist Republicans half a century ago, and that the actions of Republicans in 1870 has "nothing to do with the current discussion"?

Never let historical context or facts get in the way of making a good point: Internet 101.

I am mostly in the pro-ID crowd; I agree it's a little ridiculous the hoops you have to go through to prove who you are for things of arguably lesser importance. But, it's also somewhat on the government to provide that ID in an easily accessible-enough fashion to not discriminate against the indigent, which I'm not sure is the case in every jurisdiction.

 

[Twiggidy]

Look. You need your wallet and purse when you go shopping. You need to show ID even to pick up checks at the Social Security office. I'm just not buying the BS that life in the US is just too tough to have a darn ID card. COME ON!

Twiggidy. I think most counties do a good job keeping things pretty local. I last voted just around the corner from my house at an elementary school.

Being in rural America provides some logistical challenges as in anything like going grocery shopping, and OF COURSE those burdens are going to be higher on people with less means, but we're talking about a simple identification card. Some sort of valid means of keeping track of who's who. And honestly, you demean the poor and elderly by suggesting that they are somehow incapable of this sort of thing when they are fully capable of doing so many other things such as writing checks, driving, and paying bills. The list is endless, and I just do not buy that it's too much to ask to require an ID card. The fact that we DON'T must look ludicrous to other nations because of the obvious potential for abuse.

The UK and Australia doesn't require ID.

Did you even skim over the Nation article I posted?

 

[Twiggidy]

And like WholeLotta..I'm pro-ID as well. I show mine and I live in a state where I don't have too. My problem is people denying there is a backhanded reason why states (many suddenly after our last President) have decided to change voting laws...to me, it's interesting. But hey, preventing "fraud" (fraud that's miniscule, if at all)

 

[Perrotfish]

You're not actually trotting out the "lost the popular vote" line, are you? We don't elect presidents with a popular vote. We never have. Reading any meaning into the outcome of the popular vote is like whining when a football team loses, even though they kicked more field goals than the other team, or griping that a futbol team lost, even though they had more corner kicks than the other team.

The fact that our elections aren't decided this way doesn't mean that its meaningless to discuss. There is a serious concern, that I share, that the rules of our elections are undermining people's faith in democracy. I don't buy that the system is designed this way for good reason. I think the founding fathers knew that they were making a cynical compromise when they agreed to give more voting power to less populated states, just like they knew they were making a cynical compromise with the 3/5ths rule. However they never imagined a scenario where the most populated states would have 50 times the population of the least populated states. Democracies are based on the idea that our votes count equally. When one persons vote is several times as influential as another's people start losing faith in their ability to resolve their differences through the peaceful mechanisms of elections. That's really dangerous for any democracy.

We are getting to the point where Democrats can convince 60% of the country to agree with them, get only 55% of the vote in the election because of voter suppression, and then lose the election because of how the votes are weighted. That's terrifying.

 

[fakin' the funk]

i won't deny that some Democrat somewhere has that as a strategy but republican states counter that strategy with voter laws that affect it's actual US citizens

Which?

 

[RadOncDoc21]

But the reality is, that's sort of what's happening on this thread.

One side is like, "Here's what we believed happened and here's some data" and the counter argument is "Nope, because I don't believe you"

I may just have to join others and just tip toe right up out of this quote-unquote discussion....

where's that thread where people were talking about whiskey?

Ha ha.. yes

The fact that our elections aren't decided this way doesn't mean that its meaningless to discuss. There is a serious concern, that I share, that the rules of our elections are undermining people's faith in democracy. I don't buy that the system is designed this way for good reason. I think the founding fathers knew that they were making a cynical compromise when they agreed to give more voting power to less populated states, just like they knew they were making a cynical compromise with the 3/5ths rule. However they never imagined a scenario where the most populated states would have 50 times the population of the least populated states. Democracies are based on the idea that our votes count equally. When one persons vote is several times as influential as another's people start losing faith in their ability to resolve their differences through the peaceful mechanisms of elections. That's really dangerous for any democracy.

We are getting to the point where Democrats can convince 60% of the country to agree with them, get only 55% of the vote in the election because of voter suppression, and then lose the election because of how the votes are weighted. That's terrifying.

Exactly!!

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

The fact that our elections aren't decided this way doesn't mean that its meaningless to discuss. There is a serious concern, that I share, that the rules of our elections are undermining people's faith in democracy. I don't buy that the system is designed this way for good reason. I think the founding fathers knew that they were making a cynical compromise when they agreed to give more voting power to less populated states, just like they knew they were making a cynical compromise with the 3/5ths rule. However they never imagined a scenario where the most populated states would have 50 times the population of the least populated states. Democracies are based on the idea that our votes count equally. When one persons vote is several times as influential as another's people start losing faith in their ability to resolve their differences through the peaceful mechanisms of elections. That's really dangerous for any democracy.

We are getting to the point where Democrats can convince 60% of the country to agree with them, get only 55% of the vote in the election because of voter suppression, and then lose the election because of how the votes are weighted. That's terrifying.

You are wrong as we have letters from Hamilton to Jefferson while the former was at the Constitutional Convention describing exactly why he didn't want us to have a direct democracy (and thus set up the electoral college).

 

[GA8314]

The UK and Australia doesn't require ID.

Did you even skim over the Nation article I posted?

Not the Nation one. I will today.

 

[GA8314]

And like WholeLotta..I'm pro-ID as well. I show mine and I live in a state where I don't have too. My problem is people denying there is a backhanded reason why states (many suddenly after our last President) have decided to change voting laws...to me, it's interesting. But hey, preventing "fraud" (fraud that's miniscule, if at all)

Regardless of which biased study or article we read for or against ID card requirements, one can not deny the obvious POTENTIAL for abuse. Why take the chance? You need to prove identity for so many things, and these things are not only routine for the wealthy but also the poor.... Come on!

 

[GA8314]

I was in Afghanistan during an election a while back. ID wasn't required, but they did have everyone dip their finger in purple ink so they couldn't vote twice. Of course, having a purple finger was liable to get you shot by some people who really know a thing or two about voter suppression.

I appreciate your experience but let's not use Afghanistan as our reference point......

 

[Precedexed Out]

Look. You need your wallet and purse when you go shopping. You need to show ID even to pick up checks at the Social Security office. I'm just not buying the BS that life in the US is just too tough to have a darn ID card. COME ON!

Twiggidy. I think most counties do a good job keeping things pretty local. I last voted just around the corner from my house at an elementary school.

Being in rural America provides some logistical challenges as in anything like going grocery shopping, and OF COURSE those burdens are going to be higher on people with less means, but we're talking about a simple identification card. Some sort of valid means of keeping track of who's who. And honestly, you demean the poor and elderly by suggesting that they are somehow incapable of this sort of thing when they are fully capable of doing so many other things such as writing checks, driving, and paying bills. The list is endless, and I just do not buy that it's too much to ask to require an ID card. The fact that we DON'T must look ludicrous to other nations because of the obvious potential for abuse.

Yea, the idea that requiring ID caused 200,000 in Wisconsin to not have the ability to vote and that is why Trump won by 20,000 votes is delusional.

 

[Precedexed Out]

Regardless of which biased study or article we read for or against ID card requirements, one can not deny the obvious POTENTIAL for abuse. Why take the chance? You need to prove identity for so many things, and these things are not only routine for the wealthy but also the poor.... Come on!

Exactly, especially considering we are so concerned about Russian interference and now want to do everything we can to stop it, but we won't take simple steps to ensure that only US citizens can vote?

 

[Precedexed Out]

Never let historical context or facts get in the way of making a good point: Internet 101.

I am mostly in the pro-ID crowd; I agree it's a little ridiculous the hoops you have to go through to prove who you are for things of arguably lesser importance. But, it's also somewhat on the government to provide that ID in an easily accessible-enough fashion to not discriminate against the indigent, which I'm not sure is the case in every jurisdiction.

Several states last election cycle were giving out free IDs and that still wasn't good enough for democrats.

 

[Precedexed Out]

And like WholeLotta..I'm pro-ID as well. I show mine and I live in a state where I don't have too. My problem is people denying there is a backhanded reason why states (many suddenly after our last President) have decided to change voting laws...to me, it's interesting. But hey, preventing "fraud" (fraud that's miniscule, if at all)

Considering how tight some races end up, even minuscule fraud can flip an election.

 

[Precedexed Out]

The fact that our elections aren't decided this way doesn't mean that its meaningless to discuss. There is a serious concern, that I share, that the rules of our elections are undermining people's faith in democracy. I don't buy that the system is designed this way for good reason. I think the founding fathers knew that they were making a cynical compromise when they agreed to give more voting power to less populated states, just like they knew they were making a cynical compromise with the 3/5ths rule. However they never imagined a scenario where the most populated states would have 50 times the population of the least populated states. Democracies are based on the idea that our votes count equally. When one persons vote is several times as influential as another's people start losing faith in their ability to resolve their differences through the peaceful mechanisms of elections. That's really dangerous for any democracy.

We are getting to the point where Democrats can convince 60% of the country to agree with them, get only 55% of the vote in the election because of voter suppression, and then lose the election because of how the votes are weighted. That's terrifying.

Only get 55% of the vote because of voter suppression and lose the election because of how votes are weighed? Nah, sorry, but that isn't a very good argument. Voter suppression didn't alter the outcome of the election and Hillary didn't campaign in several key states she ended up losing. If anything, it seems like the deck is stacked against republicans because of New York and California. Those two states are automatically democratic and gives democrats many more options to secure 270 than republicans.

 

[Precedexed Out]

Regardless of which biased study or article we read for or against ID card requirements, one can not deny the obvious POTENTIAL for abuse. Why take the chance? You need to prove identity for so many things, and these things are not only routine for the wealthy but also the poor.... Come on!

Especially when there are 11 million or more illegal immigrants in this country. The potential for abuse is huge since we know they will vote nearly unanimously for a certain political party.

 

[GA8314]

Especially when there are 11 million or more illegal immigrants in this country. The potential for abuse is huge since we know they will vote nearly unanimously for a certain political party.

This is common knowledge to all. But, it's dismissed and minimized because of the bias of people favoring that party.

 

[pgg]

The fact that our elections aren't decided this way doesn't mean that its meaningless to discuss.

There are two separate issues here, one is useful and interesting to discuss, and one is squarely in the realm of wishful thinking (if not deliberate obfuscation and subject-changing deception):

1) The Electoral College is good vs bad for our nation and democracy as a whole. This is a rich area for discussion. I personally favor the EC scheme (and the 2 Senators per state setup, which is the same thing in the legislative branch). I acknowledge the concerns of people who think Wyoming shouldn’t have a disproportionate vote, compared to New York, but I think those concerns are outweighed by the benefits.

2) A candidate who wins the popular vote but loses the EC, would have won if the election rules awarded the win to the popular vote winner.

The latter is what gets argued by Democrats who are disappointed in HRC’s loss, 99% of the time. There are clear and obvious logical fallacies to the assertion. There is little point to discussing it, other than to point out that if the rules were different, both candidates would have campaigned differently, and the outcome may or may not have been the same. There is just bias, hope, speculation, and woulda-coulda-shoulda here.

There is a serious concern, that I share, that the rules of our elections are undermining people's faith in democracy.

I’m of the opinion that the people whose “faith in democracy” is undermined by EC vs popular vote arguments, are being deliberately manipulated by the losing party, which is aiming to
1) rile up the base
2) divert blame

The system is perfectly transparent and working exactly as designed.

(Edit - To be more precise, I don’t mean to imply that the EC system we have now is the same one the Founders designed, which left the means of selecting Electors to the state legislatures, not direct vote by the people. Just that the EC we have now, is transparent and working.)

 

[vector2]

I would disagree that that EC is working, but its failures are certainly not the reason Hillary lost. She was absolutely the worst candidate in modern political history, and that's honestly the only reasonable conclusion one could come to after losing to the most unpopular candidate in modern political history.

More important than the narrow EC issue is congressional apportionment. The last time there was an increase in congressional representation was in 1913 when there was approximately 1 representative to every 200,000 people. Apportionment used to go up steadily with population increases even when a representative's constituency was only increasing by 10 to 25%. We now have 700,000 people per representative. No matter how conservative you are, it's absurd to argue that this is what the founders had in mind. Not only has the voting power of a rural American increased exponentially, but we have a situation in Congress wherein small groups of reps can obstruct legislation that is nationally popular and that would pass if the apportionment ratio was even 1 to 400k. The current situation is unfair and it's certainly not a working representative democracy.

United States congressional apportionment - Wikipedia

 

[Twiggidy]

I would disagree that that EC is working, but its failures are certainly not the reason Hillary lost. She was absolutely the worst candidate in modern political history, and that's honestly the only reasonable conclusion one could come to after losing to the most unpopular candidate in modern political history.

More important than the narrow EC issue is congressional apportionment. The last time there was an increase in congressional representation was in 1913 when there was approximately 1 representative to every 200,000 people. Apportionment used to go up steadily with population increases even when a representative's constituency was only increasing by 10 to 25%. We now have 700,000 people per representative. No matter how conservative you are, it's absurd to argue that this is what the founders had in mind. Not only has the voting power of a rural American increased exponentially, but we have a situation in Congress wherein small groups of reps can obstruct legislation that is nationally popular and that would pass if the apportionment ratio was even 1 to 400k. The current situation is unfair and it's certainly not a working representative democracy.

United States congressional apportionment - Wikipedia

I point my finger at the NC-12th and then I just back away slowly. I mean it's hilarious and brilliant. (Also IL-4th ...i lol'd)

 

[Precedexed Out]

This is common knowledge to all. But, it's dismissed and minimized because of the bias of people favoring that party.

Especially considering certain counties and states have sanctuary policies. Illegal immigrant voting is already occurring in some local elections and won't be long before this becomes more widespread and the potential for abuse is tremendous.

Non-citizens can now vote in College Park, Md.

 

[GA8314]

I would disagree that that EC is working, but its failures are certainly not the reason Hillary lost. She was absolutely the worst candidate in modern political history, and that's honestly the only reasonable conclusion one could come to after losing to the most unpopular candidate in modern political history.

More important than the narrow EC issue is congressional apportionment. The last time there was an increase in congressional representation was in 1913 when there was approximately 1 representative to every 200,000 people. Apportionment used to go up steadily with population increases even when a representative's constituency was only increasing by 10 to 25%. We now have 700,000 people per representative. No matter how conservative you are, it's absurd to argue that this is what the founders had in mind. Not only has the voting power of a rural American increased exponentially, but we have a situation in Congress wherein small groups of reps can obstruct legislation that is nationally popular and that would pass if the apportionment ratio was even 1 to 400k. The current situation is unfair and it's certainly not a working representative democracy.

United States congressional apportionment - Wikipedia

Now there's something we can agree on. What I THINK isn't appreciated by many folks who lean to the left is that MANY of us who voted for Donald Trump have been totally disenfranchised with both Democrat AND Republican parties. I also think we can agree that Hilary was for sure the favorite of the DMC (look at how badly the DMC turned on Bernie). THUS, Hilary was the ESTABLISHMENT champion.

Indeed, many of us believe strongly that she wasn't only the establishment Democrat favorite, but the establishment as a whole. I'll admit that the RNC did FINALLY get behind Trump (sort of), they did it very reluctantly and without full force. One must ask themselves why??

The standard answer which most people want to make is that "he was just such an obvious buffoon". But, many of us looked differently upon the situation (this is important so hear me out). For many of us, we've been just as dissatisfied with the status quo in this country as many on the left have been. We've seen the same injustices, although with perhaps a right leaning viewpoint but nonetheless, we see what's happening. Hilary represented the status quo, as would have someone like Jeb Bush, or even Marco Rubio. These are all establishment people. John McCain? Linsday Graham? Totally owned by private interests. Beyond corrupt.

Many of us believe, also, that there doesn't exist many major, hard hitting, differences at the level of the status quo. Like, by definition. And the status quo Republicans and Democrats have, in many of our opinion, been projecting a false Red/Blue paradigm where we all fight over social issues which the true monied interests view as collateral damage, not likely to effect their power, wealth, and influence in the U.S. So, one camp suggests they care more for the poor and minorities, the other camp pretends they want to lower taxes for the poor and protect the life of a fetus. Now, I'm not saying these aren't important issues. Indeed they are very emotional ones. But, they are also divisive. But, at the large policy level. How do we deal with a large, inflated banking system. How do we conduct ourselves in foreign interventions. What will be the status of the corporate and executive elites. This never really changes.

Meantime, the "people" are busy arguing whether we are simply damaging our environment via pollutions, and what constitutes climate control versus global warming, and we get all wrapped up in these things which mostly (to sane people) comes down to semantics and where a little of both is probably happening where we are going through a warming cycle at the same time as the globe is also at all time emissions highs. Semantics, though, mostly.

Meantime, Americans keep battling it out on issues that are admittedly contentious, but that matter little to the elite. This is an opinion of mine and many others.

Many of us can agree that our country has been heading in the wrong direction on many fronts. The SYSTEM (including most mainstream news media) are a part of that SYSTEM. So are most Senators. Lobbyists. Defense contractors. Multinational corporations who's revenues often far exceed those of small countries.

That system is one which will fight for it's survival. It will fight very hard in my opinion. Collateral damage like gay rights/marriage and abortion completely take the back seat. What those interests care MOST about is that the system they benefit from does not change.

Hence, a rejection of both Republican and Democrat establishment figure heads, as the public (on both sides of the isle) becomes more wise to the old tricks of divide and conquer.

 

[Precedexed Out]

Now there's something we can agree on. What I THINK isn't appreciated by many folks who lean to the left is that MANY of us who voted for Donald Trump have been totally disenfranchised with both Democrat AND Republican parties. I also think we can agree that Hilary was for sure the favorite of the DMC (look at how badly the DMC turned on Bernie). THUS, Hilary was the ESTABLISHMENT champion.

Indeed, many of us believe strongly that she wasn't only the establishment Democrat favorite, but the establishment as a whole. I'll admit that the RNC did FINALLY get behind Trump (sort of), they did it very reluctantly and without full force. One must ask themselves why??

The standard answer which most people want to make is that "he was just such an obvious buffoon". But, many of us looked differently upon the situation (this is important so hear me out). For many of us, we've been just as dissatisfied with the status quo in this country as many on the left have been. We've seen the same injustices, although with perhaps a right leaning viewpoint but nonetheless, we see what's happening. Hilary represented the status quo, as would have someone like Jeb Bush, or even Marco Rubio. These are all establishment people. John McCain? Linsday Graham? Totally owned by private interests. Beyond corrupt.

Many of us believe, also, that there doesn't exist many major, hard hitting, differences at the level of the status quo. Like, by definition. And the status quo Republicans and Democrats have, in many of our opinion, been projecting a false Red/Blue paradigm where we all fight over social issues which the true monied interests view as collateral damage, not likely to effect their power, wealth, and influence in the U.S. So, one camp suggests they care more for the poor and minorities, the other camp pretends they want to lower taxes for the poor and protect the life of a fetus. Now, I'm not saying these aren't important issues. Indeed they are very emotional ones. But, they are also divisive. But, at the large policy level. How do we deal with a large, inflated banking system. How do we conduct ourselves in foreign interventions. What will be the status of the corporate and executive elites. This never really changes.

Meantime, the "people" are busy arguing whether we are simply damaging our environment via pollutions, and what constitutes climate control versus global warming, and we get all wrapped up in these things which mostly (to sane people) comes down to semantics and where a little of both is probably happening where we are going through a warming cycle at the same time as the globe is also at all time emissions highs. Semantics, though, mostly.

Meantime, Americans keep battling it out on issues that are admittedly contentious, but that matter little to the elite. This is an opinion of mine and many others.

Many of us can agree that our country has been heading in the wrong direction on many fronts. The SYSTEM (including most mainstream news media) are a part of that SYSTEM. So are most Senators. Lobbyists. Defense contractors. Multinational corporations who's revenues often far exceed those of small countries.

That system is one which will fight for it's survival. It will fight very hard in my opinion. Collateral damage like gay rights/marriage and abortion completely take the back seat. What those interests care MOST about is that the system they benefit from does not change.

Hence, a rejection of both Republican and Democrat establishment figure heads, as the public (on both sides of the isle) becomes more wise to the old tricks of divide and conquer.

Very well stated. This accurate post explains two things.

1. Why the DNC was stacked against Bernie.

2. Why the republicans didn't repeal Obamacare.

 

[Precedexed Out]

Less players kneeling this week, from the articles I have read.

Noticed the Dolphins didn't want to see anyone kneeling. http://nypost.com/2017/10/08/nfl-team-wouldnt-let-these-anthem-kneelers-be-seen/

 

[Precedexed Out]

NFL avoided showing the national anthem protests before games. Must be because of how unpopular and offensive it is to some. Based on the response by the NFL, it seems like they might be getting the picture, but very slowly.

Shock poll: NFL now least liked sport, core fans down 31%

NFL advertisers are 'nervous' amid protests, ratings dip

 

[Twiggidy]

Less players kneeling this week, from the articles I have read.

Noticed the Dolphins didn't want to see anyone kneeling. http://nypost.com/2017/10/08/nfl-team-wouldnt-let-these-anthem-kneelers-be-seen/

Dolphins have more PR issues that kneeling players.....they have coaches sniffing coke.

 

[deleted162650]

Dolphins have more PR issues that kneeling players.....they have coaches sniffing coke.

It's Miami - what do you expect. I'd only be surprised if they weren't sniffing coke.

 

[Twiggidy]

It's Miami - what do yo expect. I'd only be surprised if they weren't sniffing coke.

Dolphin's Stadium probably made of cocaine.

 

[deleted162650]

Dolphin's Stadium probably made of cocaine.

Only appropriate that the dolphins are on fish scale.

 

[WholeLottaGame7]

Now there's something we can agree on. What I THINK isn't appreciated by many folks who lean to the left is that MANY of us who voted for Donald Trump have been totally disenfranchised with both Democrat AND Republican parties. I also think we can agree that Hilary was for sure the favorite of the DMC (look at how badly the DMC turned on Bernie). THUS, Hilary was the ESTABLISHMENT champion.

Indeed, many of us believe strongly that she wasn't only the establishment Democrat favorite, but the establishment as a whole. I'll admit that the RNC did FINALLY get behind Trump (sort of), they did it very reluctantly and without full force. One must ask themselves why??

The standard answer which most people want to make is that "he was just such an obvious buffoon". But, many of us looked differently upon the situation (this is important so hear me out). For many of us, we've been just as dissatisfied with the status quo in this country as many on the left have been. We've seen the same injustices, although with perhaps a right leaning viewpoint but nonetheless, we see what's happening. Hilary represented the status quo, as would have someone like Jeb Bush, or even Marco Rubio. These are all establishment people. John McCain? Linsday Graham? Totally owned by private interests. Beyond corrupt.

Many of us believe, also, that there doesn't exist many major, hard hitting, differences at the level of the status quo. Like, by definition. And the status quo Republicans and Democrats have, in many of our opinion, been projecting a false Red/Blue paradigm where we all fight over social issues which the true monied interests view as collateral damage, not likely to effect their power, wealth, and influence in the U.S. So, one camp suggests they care more for the poor and minorities, the other camp pretends they want to lower taxes for the poor and protect the life of a fetus. Now, I'm not saying these aren't important issues. Indeed they are very emotional ones. But, they are also divisive. But, at the large policy level. How do we deal with a large, inflated banking system. How do we conduct ourselves in foreign interventions. What will be the status of the corporate and executive elites. This never really changes.

Meantime, the "people" are busy arguing whether we are simply damaging our environment via pollutions, and what constitutes climate control versus global warming, and we get all wrapped up in these things which mostly (to sane people) comes down to semantics and where a little of both is probably happening where we are going through a warming cycle at the same time as the globe is also at all time emissions highs. Semantics, though, mostly.

Meantime, Americans keep battling it out on issues that are admittedly contentious, but that matter little to the elite. This is an opinion of mine and many others.

Many of us can agree that our country has been heading in the wrong direction on many fronts. The SYSTEM (including most mainstream news media) are a part of that SYSTEM. So are most Senators. Lobbyists. Defense contractors. Multinational corporations who's revenues often far exceed those of small countries.

That system is one which will fight for it's survival. It will fight very hard in my opinion. Collateral damage like gay rights/marriage and abortion completely take the back seat. What those interests care MOST about is that the system they benefit from does not change.

Hence, a rejection of both Republican and Democrat establishment figure heads, as the public (on both sides of the isle) becomes more wise to the old tricks of divide and conquer.

I get all that, and it's a large part of why I didn't vote for Clinton. But my honest question is, how is Trump any better? Aside from the military individuals (which were good choices), his administration is full of "establishment" types. I don't know what the eventual numbers will end up being, but it certainly seems as if he'll have more Wall Street-associated individuals in major positions than even some of the recent administrations. And if he loosens regulation on big business and eliminates the estate tax as part of the new tax reform, the transfer of wealth at the top rungs of the establishment will only worsen.

If there's one thing Trump does better than Clinton, it's convince lower-class Americans that he cares more about them than the alternatives. And it would be naive to think that some of that is with his Twitter-fueled distractions related to societal and cultural issues.

 

[Precedexed Out]

I get all that, and it's a large part of why I didn't vote for Clinton. But my honest question is, how is Trump any better? Aside from the military individuals (which were good choices), his administration is full of "establishment" types. I don't know what the eventual numbers will end up being, but it certainly seems as if he'll have more Wall Street-associated individuals in major positions than even some of the recent administrations. And if he loosens regulation on big business and eliminates the estate tax as part of the new tax reform, the transfer of wealth at the top rungs of the establishment will only worsen.

If there's one thing Trump does better than Clinton, it's convince lower-class Americans that he cares more about them than the alternatives. And it would be naive to think that some of that is with his Twitter-fueled distractions related to societal and cultural issues.

Trump is not a career politician. Loosening regulations and eliminating the estate tax isn't necessarily going to cause lower income people to make less or the same money. It is possible for the wealthy to gain more wealth while the low income earners see an increase in their wages too. It doesn't have to be one sided like the media portrays it. Kinda sarcastic how Obama pretended to care about low income America, but now that he is out he has no problem giving high paying speeches on Wall Street. Hillary has given plenty of these speeches too.

You can characterize his Twitter however you want, but many Americans appreciate directly hearing from the president on issues. I'm sure the media misses having previous republican presidents who didn't fight back against the media, but Trump is smart in actively engaging with the American people. He directly calls out many of the dishonest journalists and news agencies that repeatedly report "news" that isn't true.

 

[WholeLottaGame7]

Trump is not a career politician. Loosening regulations and eliminating the estate tax isn't necessarily going to cause lower income people to make less or the same money. It is possible for the wealthy to gain more wealth while the low income earners see an increase in their wages too. It doesn't have to be one sided like the media portrays it. Kinda sarcastic how Obama pretended to care about low income America, but now that he is out he has no problem giving high paying speeches on Wall Street. Hillary has given plenty of these speeches too.

So are you arguing in favor of "trickle-down economics?"

 

[Precedexed Out]

Jerry Jones gives Cowboys players ultimatum: Stand for anthem or sit for game

"Additionally, Miami Dolphins owner Stephen Ross said he changed his view on how his team should handle the national anthem. Ross said because Trump made standing for the national anthem about “patriotism,” he evolved the way he looks at the protest, according to the Miami Herald.

Ross now wants all of the Dolphins players to stand for the anthem. Three Dolphins players – Kenny Stills, Julian Thomas and Michael Thomas – remained off to the sideline during the anthem Sunday.

The NFL has said the game operations manual distributed to teams includes a reference to players standing for the anthem, but that it's a policy and not a rule. The league has said it doesn't plan to punish players over anthem protests."

Cowboys and Dolphins have finally reasoned this type of protest isn't good for business. Hopefully this type of behavior stops for the NFL's sake because if other teams continue to do it, ratings and revenue will decline more. Money talks.

Strange how the NFL won't enforce this rule. I didn't know certain rules in the NFL didn't have to be enforced. I think the players should appeal all rules/fines since the NFL is selecting which ones to enforce. It really goes to show the NFL's stance on respecting our flag and country.

 

[WholeLottaGame7]

Jerry Jones gives Cowboys players ultimatum: Stand for anthem or sit for game

"Additionally, Miami Dolphins owner Stephen Ross said he changed his view on how his team should handle the national anthem. Ross said because Trump made standing for the national anthem about “patriotism,” he evolved the way he looks at the protest, according to the Miami Herald.

Ross now wants all of the Dolphins players to stand for the anthem. Three Dolphins players – Kenny Stills, Julian Thomas and Michael Thomas – remained off to the sideline during the anthem Sunday.

The NFL has said the game operations manual distributed to teams includes a reference to players standing for the anthem, but that it's a policy and not a rule. The league has said it doesn't plan to punish players over anthem protests."

Cowboys and Dolphins have finally reasoned this type of protest isn't good for business. Hopefully this type of behavior stops for the NFL's sake because if other teams continue to do it, ratings and revenue will decline more. Money talks.

Strange how the NFL won't enforce this rule. I didn't know certain rules in the NFL didn't have to be enforced. I think the players should appeal all rules/fines since the NFL is selecting which ones to enforce. It really goes to show the NFL's stance on respecting our flag and country.

I'd be curious to see how principled Jerry Jones would be if Prescott/Elliott/Bryant/Witten all decided to kneel. Would he bench his star players if his team went 0-16 and he started losing money every season? The underlying causes are different, but if there is enough interest/dedication on the players' side, I think the end result would look something like the CBA strikes. You might lose 40% of your viewership from the anthem protests, but you'll lose a lot more if your product looks like the CFL or NFL Europe.

 

[Precedexed Out]

I'd be curious to see how principled Jerry Jones would be if Prescott/Elliott/Bryant/Witten all decided to kneel. Would he bench his star players if his team went 0-16 and he started losing money every season? The underlying causes are different, but if there is enough interest/dedication on the players' side, I think the end result would look something like the CBA strikes. You might lose 40% of your viewership from the anthem protests, but you'll lose a lot more if your product looks like the CFL or NFL Europe.

Politics is a beach. That's why it is best to leave politics out of sports. You can't win no matter what side you take. I don't think the players you listed above would continue kneeling if Jones had to follow through on his promise because the impact on their careers wouldn't be good either. Lose-Lose situation. I hope the rules are written such that a team doesn't have to pay players who are suspended for intentionally violating rules. The real solution to this problem, punish Kaepernick per NFL rules after the first time he kneeled. Had idiot Goodell done this, we wouldn't be talking about this today. Fans would be more excited about the game than seeing who is kneeling.

Depending on player response to Jones' enforcing the rules as they are already written, it will be interesting to see how fast other teams follow in his steps. If every team would do like the Cowboys and Dolphins, in a month this story would likely go away. If these protests or other perianthem demonstrations continue, it is going to continue to be a headache for the NFL. Most fans don't want to see any of this demonstration connected to the national anthem or football in general.

 

[WheezyBaby]

Now there's something we can agree on. What I THINK isn't appreciated by many folks who lean to the left is that MANY of us who voted for Donald Trump have been totally disenfranchised with both Democrat AND Republican parties. I also think we can agree that Hilary was for sure the favorite of the DMC (look at how badly the DMC turned on Bernie). THUS, Hilary was the ESTABLISHMENT champion.

Indeed, many of us believe strongly that she wasn't only the establishment Democrat favorite, but the establishment as a whole. I'll admit that the RNC did FINALLY get behind Trump (sort of), they did it very reluctantly and without full force. One must ask themselves why??

The standard answer which most people want to make is that "he was just such an obvious buffoon". But, many of us looked differently upon the situation (this is important so hear me out). For many of us, we've been just as dissatisfied with the status quo in this country as many on the left have been. We've seen the same injustices, although with perhaps a right leaning viewpoint but nonetheless, we see what's happening. Hilary represented the status quo, as would have someone like Jeb Bush, or even Marco Rubio. These are all establishment people. John McCain? Linsday Graham? Totally owned by private interests. Beyond corrupt.

Many of us believe, also, that there doesn't exist many major, hard hitting, differences at the level of the status quo. Like, by definition. And the status quo Republicans and Democrats have, in many of our opinion, been projecting a false Red/Blue paradigm where we all fight over social issues which the true monied interests view as collateral damage, not likely to effect their power, wealth, and influence in the U.S. So, one camp suggests they care more for the poor and minorities, the other camp pretends they want to lower taxes for the poor and protect the life of a fetus. Now, I'm not saying these aren't important issues. Indeed they are very emotional ones. But, they are also divisive. But, at the large policy level. How do we deal with a large, inflated banking system. How do we conduct ourselves in foreign interventions. What will be the status of the corporate and executive elites. This never really changes.

Meantime, the "people" are busy arguing whether we are simply damaging our environment via pollutions, and what constitutes climate control versus global warming, and we get all wrapped up in these things which mostly (to sane people) comes down to semantics and where a little of both is probably happening where we are going through a warming cycle at the same time as the globe is also at all time emissions highs. Semantics, though, mostly.

Meantime, Americans keep battling it out on issues that are admittedly contentious, but that matter little to the elite. This is an opinion of mine and many others.

Many of us can agree that our country has been heading in the wrong direction on many fronts. The SYSTEM (including most mainstream news media) are a part of that SYSTEM. So are most Senators. Lobbyists. Defense contractors. Multinational corporations who's revenues often far exceed those of small countries.

That system is one which will fight for it's survival. It will fight very hard in my opinion. Collateral damage like gay rights/marriage and abortion completely take the back seat. What those interests care MOST about is that the system they benefit from does not change.

Hence, a rejection of both Republican and Democrat establishment figure heads, as the public (on both sides of the isle) becomes more wise to the old tricks of divide and conquer.

So the clear right answer in this situation was to go for the candidate who is horribly ensnared not just by private interests but by his own private interests (which happen to line up quite well with the most disliked private interests of the establishment), business ethics that brought us trump University, lines up with the social interests of a single party and has one of the most socially conservative politicians as his VP, has no background in foreign policy but all the hubris to think he's Henry kissinger, actively impedes climate change policy / research, etc. Trump's most nonestablishment characteristic is his utter deficiency of political decorum. Maga!

 

[msk2016]

I noticed the NFL has changed their tune dramatically this week compared to last. I think the NFL is financially realizing the consequences of allowing the players to insert politics into a formerly apolitical sport. Most Americans agree with Trump about the ridiculousness of these national anthem protests and now most players are standing with their hand over heart. The Ravens decided to take a knee before the national anthem and were booed, and rightly so. The Steelers took a dramatic turn, last week most cowards stayed in the locker room during the national anthem except one player who later apologized for coming out. This week they stood on the sideline. The fans clearly, including me, don't have any desire to watch the foolish preanthem protests. The damage has been done and this stupidity by the players, owners, and Goodell is going to be felt for years. I've heard many of my family and friends say, "Saturday is football day now."

On a side note, ever notice how the NFL states things similar to needing to allow players to express themselves? Since when? The NFL has always had fines and/or penalties for expressing oneself. No touchdown dances, no writing on socks, and Dallas wasn't allowed to honor the police with a small decal on their helmet. The NFL rules clearly state the players must be on the field and stand during the anthem, but this on rule the NFL has decided to ignore. The NFL took a political stance and it has bit them in the ass. Fans have no desire to watch millionaires complain about inequality or whatever they are protesting, most of the players probably aren't really sure.

I would kneel with the players 100%. You guys are more concerned aboutg the flag then the people who died.

 

[Precedexed Out]

So the clear right answer in this situation was to go for the candidate who is horribly ensnared not just by private interests but by his own private interests (which happen to line up quite well with the most disliked private interests of the establishment), business ethics that brought us trump University, lines up with the social interests of a single party and has one of the most socially conservative politicians as his VP, has no background in foreign policy but all the hubris to think he's Henry kissinger, actively impedes climate change policy / research, etc. Trump's most nonestablishment characteristic is his utter deficiency of political decorum. Maga!

Meanwhile, you completely ignore the Clinton Foundation, Russian uranium deal, and Hillary using her position of Secretary of State for her own personal gain. That doesn't bother you?? Clinton is far more dishonest than nearly all other politicians, democrat or republican.

Its too bad you don't have the ability to be critical of both political parties.

 

[Precedexed Out]

I would kneel with the players 100%. You guys are more concerned aboutg the flag then the people who died.

To many people the flag represents those who died. Far far far fewer people associate the flag with the racial issues which are massively distorted.

 

[msk2016]

To many people the flag represents those who died. Far far far fewer people associate the flag with the racial issues which are massively distorted.

That's fine. It means different things to different people. Issues aren't distorted in my mind. And far fewer associate the flag with racial issues because they aren't black. The confederate flag is treasonous and most people don't say a thing. Most people being nonminorities.

 

[Precedexed Out]

That's fine. It means different things to different people. Issues aren't distorted in my mind. And far fewer associate the flag with racial issues because they aren't black. The confederate flag is treasonous and most people don't say a thing. Most people being nonminorities.

I highly doubt black people associate the flag with racial issues.

 

[msk2016]

I highly doubt black people associate the flag with racial issues.

Ok.

 

[WheezyBaby]

Meanwhile, you completely ignore the Clinton Foundation, Russian uranium deal, and Hillary using her position of Secretary of State for her own personal gain. That doesn't bother you?? Clinton is far more dishonest than nearly all other politicians, democrat or republican.

When people make negative comments about trump, why do trump supporters consistently make the intellectual mistake that individual is unaware of / approves of clinton's misgivings or in any way liked her as a candidate? It seems to be the trump cohort that is best able to cast aside all of his numerous numerous issues while focusing rabidly on similar issues in Clinton. While I absolutely favor Clinton to trump, that was not the initial choice. It was trump vs the other GOP candidates, and I would have preferred most of them to Clinton