SDN members see fewer ads and full resolution images. Join our non-profit community!

NFL folded like a wet noodle over the protests

Discussion in 'Anesthesiology' started by Precedexed Out, Oct 1, 2017.

  1. SDN is made possible through member donations, sponsorships, and our volunteers. Learn about SDN's nonprofit mission.
  1. RadOncDoc21

    RadOncDoc21 7+ Year Member

    1,020
    470
    Oct 24, 2010
    Different republican party and my point was to demonstrate how things that are law or allowed are not always fair.
     
    PharmD500 likes this.
  2. SDN Members don't see this ad. About the ads.
  3. pgg

    pgg Laugh at me, will they? Moderator 10+ Year Member

    10,762
    4,764
    Dec 14, 2005
    Home Again
    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"?
     
    PharmD500 and vector2 like this.
  4. pgg

    pgg Laugh at me, will they? Moderator 10+ Year Member

    10,762
    4,764
    Dec 14, 2005
    Home Again
    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.
     
  5. pgg

    pgg Laugh at me, will they? Moderator 10+ Year Member

    10,762
    4,764
    Dec 14, 2005
    Home Again
    PharmD500 likes this.
  6. RadOncDoc21

    RadOncDoc21 7+ Year Member

    1,020
    470
    Oct 24, 2010
    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.
     
  7. GA8314

    GA8314 Regaining my sanity 2+ Year Member

    644
    424
    Jun 3, 2014
    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.
     
    PharmD500, Precedexed Out and pgg like this.
  8. pgg

    pgg Laugh at me, will they? Moderator 10+ Year Member

    10,762
    4,764
    Dec 14, 2005
    Home Again
    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.
     
    PharmD500 and GA8314 like this.
  9. WholeLottaGame7

    WholeLottaGame7 10+ Year Member

    1,830
    748
    Jul 10, 2005
    Right here.
    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.
     
    PharmD500 and RadOncDoc21 like this.
  10. Twiggidy

    Twiggidy ASA Member 2+ Year Member

    849
    583
    Jan 13, 2015
    The UK and Australia doesn't require ID.

    Did you even skim over the Nation article I posted?
     
  11. Twiggidy

    Twiggidy ASA Member 2+ Year Member

    849
    583
    Jan 13, 2015
    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)
     
    RadOncDoc21 likes this.
  12. Perrotfish

    Perrotfish Has an MD in Horribleness Physician 10+ Year Member

    7,455
    2,759
    May 26, 2007
    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.
     
  13. fakin' the funk

    fakin' the funk ASA Member 10+ Year Member

    2,477
    365
    Aug 23, 2004
    Which?
     
  14. RadOncDoc21

    RadOncDoc21 7+ Year Member

    1,020
    470
    Oct 24, 2010
    Ha ha.. yes

    Exactly!!
     
  15. VA Hopeful Dr

    VA Hopeful Dr Senior Member Physician 10+ Year Member

    12,414
    9,733
    Jul 28, 2004
    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).
     
    Precedexed Out likes this.
  16. GA8314

    GA8314 Regaining my sanity 2+ Year Member

    644
    424
    Jun 3, 2014
    Not the Nation one. I will today.
     
  17. GA8314

    GA8314 Regaining my sanity 2+ Year Member

    644
    424
    Jun 3, 2014
    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!
     
    Precedexed Out likes this.
  18. GA8314

    GA8314 Regaining my sanity 2+ Year Member

    644
    424
    Jun 3, 2014
    I appreciate your experience but let's not use Afghanistan as our reference point......:)
     
    Precedexed Out likes this.
  19. Precedexed Out

    Precedexed Out Banned Banned Account on Hold

    361
    134
    Aug 27, 2017
    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.
     
  20. Precedexed Out

    Precedexed Out Banned Banned Account on Hold

    361
    134
    Aug 27, 2017
    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?
     
  21. Precedexed Out

    Precedexed Out Banned Banned Account on Hold

    361
    134
    Aug 27, 2017
    Several states last election cycle were giving out free IDs and that still wasn't good enough for democrats.
     
  22. Precedexed Out

    Precedexed Out Banned Banned Account on Hold

    361
    134
    Aug 27, 2017
    Considering how tight some races end up, even minuscule fraud can flip an election.
     
  23. Precedexed Out

    Precedexed Out Banned Banned Account on Hold

    361
    134
    Aug 27, 2017
    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.
     
    acidbase1 likes this.
  24. Precedexed Out

    Precedexed Out Banned Banned Account on Hold

    361
    134
    Aug 27, 2017
    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.
     
    acidbase1 likes this.
  25. GA8314

    GA8314 Regaining my sanity 2+ Year Member

    644
    424
    Jun 3, 2014
    This is common knowledge to all. But, it's dismissed and minimized because of the bias of people favoring that party.
     
    Precedexed Out likes this.
  26. pgg

    pgg Laugh at me, will they? Moderator 10+ Year Member

    10,762
    4,764
    Dec 14, 2005
    Home Again
    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.


    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.)
     
    WheezyBaby and VA Hopeful Dr like this.
  27. vector2

    vector2 ASA Member 10+ Year Member

    919
    478
    Dec 26, 2006
    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
     
  28. Twiggidy

    Twiggidy ASA Member 2+ Year Member

    849
    583
    Jan 13, 2015
    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)
     
  29. Precedexed Out

    Precedexed Out Banned Banned Account on Hold

    361
    134
    Aug 27, 2017
    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.
     
  30. GA8314

    GA8314 Regaining my sanity 2+ Year Member

    644
    424
    Jun 3, 2014
    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.
     
  31. Precedexed Out

    Precedexed Out Banned Banned Account on Hold

    361
    134
    Aug 27, 2017
    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.
     
  32. Precedexed Out

    Precedexed Out Banned Banned Account on Hold

    361
    134
    Aug 27, 2017
  33. Precedexed Out

    Precedexed Out Banned Banned Account on Hold

    361
    134
    Aug 27, 2017
  34. Twiggidy

    Twiggidy ASA Member 2+ Year Member

    849
    583
    Jan 13, 2015
    ZzzPlz likes this.
  35. SaltyDog

    SaltyDog Keeping the Forces of Entropy at Bay 10+ Year Member

    1,982
    2,358
    Aug 10, 2007
    Closer to Mexico
    It's Miami - what do you expect. I'd only be surprised if they weren't sniffing coke.
     
    Last edited: Oct 9, 2017
    ZzzPlz and Twiggidy like this.
  36. Twiggidy

    Twiggidy ASA Member 2+ Year Member

    849
    583
    Jan 13, 2015
    Dolphin's Stadium probably made of cocaine.
     
  37. SaltyDog

    SaltyDog Keeping the Forces of Entropy at Bay 10+ Year Member

    1,982
    2,358
    Aug 10, 2007
    Closer to Mexico
    Only appropriate that the dolphins are on fish scale.
     
  38. WholeLottaGame7

    WholeLottaGame7 10+ Year Member

    1,830
    748
    Jul 10, 2005
    Right here.
    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.
     
  39. Precedexed Out

    Precedexed Out Banned Banned Account on Hold

    361
    134
    Aug 27, 2017
    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.
     
  40. WholeLottaGame7

    WholeLottaGame7 10+ Year Member

    1,830
    748
    Jul 10, 2005
    Right here.
    So are you arguing in favor of "trickle-down economics?"
     
  41. Precedexed Out

    Precedexed Out Banned Banned Account on Hold

    361
    134
    Aug 27, 2017
    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.
     
  42. WholeLottaGame7

    WholeLottaGame7 10+ Year Member

    1,830
    748
    Jul 10, 2005
    Right here.
    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.
     
    mostwanted likes this.
  43. Precedexed Out

    Precedexed Out Banned Banned Account on Hold

    361
    134
    Aug 27, 2017
    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.
     
  44. WheezyBaby

    WheezyBaby RSV Fomite Physician

    562
    926
    Jun 9, 2016
    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!
     
    Last edited: Oct 9, 2017
    PharmD500 likes this.
  45. msk2016

    msk2016

    8
    12
    Jul 13, 2017
    I would kneel with the players 100%. You guys are more concerned aboutg the flag then the people who died.
     
  46. Precedexed Out

    Precedexed Out Banned Banned Account on Hold

    361
    134
    Aug 27, 2017
    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.
     
    Last edited: Oct 9, 2017
  47. Precedexed Out

    Precedexed Out Banned Banned Account on Hold

    361
    134
    Aug 27, 2017
    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.
     
  48. msk2016

    msk2016

    8
    12
    Jul 13, 2017
    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.
     
    RadOncDoc21 likes this.
  49. Precedexed Out

    Precedexed Out Banned Banned Account on Hold

    361
    134
    Aug 27, 2017
    I highly doubt black people associate the flag with racial issues.
     
  50. msk2016

    msk2016

    8
    12
    Jul 13, 2017
    Ok.
     
  51. WheezyBaby

    WheezyBaby RSV Fomite Physician

    562
    926
    Jun 9, 2016
    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
     
    Last edited: Oct 9, 2017

Similar Threads
  1. signumvitalis
    Replies:
    77
    Views:
    6,209
Loading...

Share This Page