Front Office Football Central - POTUS 2016 General Election Discussion Thread

Front Office Football Central (https://forums.operationsports.com/fofc//index.php)

- Off Topic (https://forums.operationsports.com/fofc//forumdisplay.php?f=6)

- - POTUS 2016 General Election Discussion Thread (https://forums.operationsports.com/fofc//showthread.php?t=91538)

Quote:

Originally Posted by RainMaker (Post 3111023)

Figured this would be a bigger story but I understand why media outlets don't cover it.

CNN stands for Clinton News Network

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thomkal (Post 3110809)

So I was very interested to hear that one of the speakers tonight is going to be Peter Thiel, openly gay co-founder of Pay Pal and a Republican. He's apparantly going to take the RNC to task for their anti-gay plank in the platform and stance over the years towards gays. Be interested to see how the crowd reacts, especially if he comes right after Jerry Falwell Jr.

What’s up with all the gay rights shout-outs at the Republican convention? - The Washington Post

Have you read this?

What Does Peter Thiel Want?

Granted, this is from Gawker, so they're not exactly unbiased here. But this was...interesting:

Quote:

This ideological mismatch has inspired at least one conspiracy theory to explain Thiel and Trump’s odd alliance. “I think Peter Thiel supports Donald Trump because he believes it’s a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to weaken America’s attachment to democratic government,” Jeff Bercovici recently opined in an essay for Inc. magazine. Citing unnamed people familiar with his thoughts about Trump, Bloomberg’s Max Chafkin and Lizette Chapman reported that Thiel “loves disruption, in the Silicon Valley sense of ‘creative destruction,’ as opposed to the usual connotation of ‘making things worse,’ and has weighed the candidate’s demagoguery against a hope that a Trump administration would clear the way for further disruption.”

Quote:

Thiel’s motivations become much more legible if you begin with the premise that he is endorsing Trump not because he believes in the candidate’s particular policy prescriptions—such as the systemic victimization of an entire religion—but because he wants to instrumentalize Trump in an effort to propagate his vision of a political future in which elites are liberated to radically remake the system of governance to better serve their interests.

Sounds about as far from "looking out for the little guy" as you can get.

The Education of a Libertarian | Cato Unbound

Quote:

But I must confess that over the last two decades, I have changed radically on the question of how to achieve these goals. Most importantly, I no longer believe that freedom and democracy are compatible.

Way to quote things out of context. Did you even read the rest after that statement?

wow cuervo, I knew nothing about this guy before the convention-sounds like a real wacko.

Quote:

Originally Posted by EagleFan (Post 3111094)

Way to quote things out of context. Did you even read the rest after that statement?

How am I supposed to take that? If he doesn't think the two can co-exist, and he's not anti-freedom (which if he is a Libertarian, I would assume he's not), then his beef would be with democracy, no? It sounds like he is in favor of a world where capital is king, monopoly is good, and government just serves to get in the way of the creators. It sounds reasonable that he would back Trump because, well, Trump might lead to a little bit of anarchy. If that's your thing, hey, great. I'm not quite as keen on it.

It's not like his speech was groundbreaking, he did not say anything about gay marriage or that some states can fire you for being gay. It was like one sentences about politicians using social issues to distract people. But he was still presenting it in front of a majority of people who likely use those social issues as a litmus test. Plus, the entire day before his transcript was released and talked about, so it gave everyone time to get in line and cheer.

But if he honestly believes that social issues will take a back seat, he is as crazy as he sounds.

At any rate, I think it's somewhat clear he wants to upset the apple cart. And he seems to be against globalization.

https://medium.com/conversations-wit...0dd#.cvzv2sh47

Quote:

TYLER COWEN: Peter, tell me something that’s true that everyone agrees with you on.

[laughter]

PETER THIEL: Well there are lots of things that are true that everyone agrees with me on. I think for example even this idea that the university system is somewhat screwed up and somewhat broken at this point. This is not even a heterodox or a very controversial idea anymore. There was an article in TechCrunch where the writer starts with “this is going to be super controversial” and then you look through the comments — there were about 350 comments — they were about 70 percent in my favor. So the idea that the education system is badly broken is not even controversial. You know, the ideas that are really controversial are the ones I don’t even want to tell you. I want to be more careful than that. I gave you these halfway, in-between ideas that are a little bit edgier.

But I will also go a little bit out on a limb: I think the monopoly idea, that the goal of every successful business is to have a monopoly, that’s on the border of what I want to say. But the really good ideas are way more dangerous than that.

See? He even tells us his ideas are dangerous. ;)

Quote:

AUDIENCE MEMBER: If you accept for the moment the premise that in general, the sort of free-market system we have has done a pretty fair job on the production side, but that there may be a secular threat to its success on the distributional side — in other words, increased concentration of wealth, perhaps due to technology changes — is there a way to substitute something on the distribution side without harming the effective progress performance on the production side?

PETER THIEL: I’m not sure I agree with all those premises. That would be point number one. I always think on this inequality debate, you have to always separate into three separate questions. One, is it even going up? It’s probably going up in the US, not going up globally, so the Gini coefficient of the world, not even clear that’s going up.

Let’s grant number one. Then you have a second question, why is this happening, and then a third question, what to do about it? I think these things are very different. Why it is happening: I tend to blame it more on globalization than technology. I think it’s very overdetermined by many different things that are very hard to solve, and then I think what to do about it: many of the remedies are actually worse than the disease.

If you come up with higher marginal tax rates, for example, you probably will just incent people to come up with more loopholes; maybe it hurts the middle class more than the wealthy. If you actually look at societies with officially very redistributionist policies, they seem to get more and more static the more redistributionist the rhetoric is.

You have to go very far left before you actually get to effective redistribution. Venezuela is not left-wing enough to get the redistribution. You have to go probably all the way to Cuba, Soviet Union, things like that. France, not nearly far enough.

I’d rather go in a very different direction. My sense is always that it’s basically that the issue is not inequality, the issue is much more stagnation. There’s a sense of people’s living standards are generally not improving that much, and then, what can you do about that? What are the microsolutions for that?

In Silicon Valley, San Francisco, where I live, I would say the single biggest variable that makes people feel the stagnation is the sense in which housing costs, rental costs, are through the roof. The political fix I would be tempted to pursue would be trying to find a way to break the unholy alliance between urban slumlords and pseudo-environmentalists that sort of prevent any new urban development. But I think it’s always much more a problem of stagnation than inequality.

Quote:

AUDIENCE MEMBER: In the libertarian utopia that you will build, what will you use for money? Will it look more like Bitcoin or more like PayPal?

PETER THIEL: I’m not exactly sure that I’m going to succeed in building a libertarian utopia. I actually do think that there’s a little bit too much of a fixation on this monetarist level, and not enough on the underlying real economy. I think that, for example, we have a lot of these debates about Fed policy. Are they printing too much money? Are they not printing enough? What should the Fed be doing? Somehow, do you decentralize that?

I think money and the nature of money is somehow much less important than all the microregulations that make up the economy. If you give me a choice of getting rid of the vast bulk of government regulations and keeping the Fed, I’d much rather do that than keeping all the other zoning laws and crazy rules we have and going with PayPal, Bitcoin, gold, any sort of alternate currency one could come up with.

Seems to really have a bone to pick with zoning regulations...

Great now we get to listen to hillary; was bad enough listening to the con man last week now we get the criminal this week.

How can anyone in their right mind vote for this piece of garbage? She'll sell the country to the highest bidder.

You know, you don't have to watch the convention.

After hearing his speech today. Kaine seems like he might be Clinton's Jiminy Cricket. Not a bad thing, she now needs Bernie and Warren to proclaim she has no strings (attached).

Quote:

Originally Posted by AENeuman (Post 3111126)

After hearing his speech today. Kaine seems like he might be Clinton's Jiminy Cricket. Not a bad thing, she now needs Bernie and Warren to proclaim she has no strings (attached).

I'd be okay with that. Would convert all the Bernie supporters to Stein or not vote at all. Less votes for Hillary and Trump either way.

Kaine doesn't excite me. I get he's safe.

Quote:

Originally Posted by wustin (Post 3111088)

CNN stands for Clinton News Network

Yes, that's why they hired Lewandowski.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JPhillips (Post 3111136)

Yes, that's why they hired Lewandowski.

And Jeffrey Lord, and Scottie Nell Hughes.

CNN's Scottie Nell Hughes hates Kaine's Spanish: I shouldn't have to brush up on Dora the Explorer - YouTube

I just cannot stand the Trump "shill's" on the various news channels. Though probably the Republicans here can't stand the Clinton ones too. I tend to just tone out whatever they say because their first priority certainly is not the network they appear on. She is one of the worse too. That Dora the Explorer line was just horrible.

I mean, this isn't entirely new - it may have predated the Clintons, but I feel like that Pandora's box was opened when ABC hired Stephanopoulos. (And for the longest time I could not stand seeing James Carville on. Hmm, and there's Donna Brazile, too.) But now, to ask avowed supporters of a candidate how they thought that candidate did or how their opponent did...I mean, what the heck do you think they're going to say? It's basically free time for them to sound off. Well, worse, the folks are getting paid to shill.

The entire Crossfire model needs to die. It's really easy, really cheap, and takes time, so it's perfect for 24 hour news.

Wasserman-Shultz really is a dirtbag reading through those DNC leaks. How have they not forced her to step down yet?

Quote:

Originally Posted by RainMaker (Post 3111175)

Wasserman-Shultz really is a dirtbag reading through those DNC leaks. How have they not forced her to step down yet?

Just saw she will not be speaking at the convention due to those emails. I suspect once the election is over, she will quietly be drummed out.

Her term was already due to end after the election. I can see offering Warren the DNC Chair head.

And both Sanders and Warren will be vocal for Hillary in the Democratic Primary this week. Sanders ripped Trump a new one in Twitter on Thurs. Kaine is a well liked center-left Senator. In addition, he is strongly Catholic. So you have the very interesting phenomenon that both on Democratic ticket are strong religious left politicians facing a Republican candidate who seemingly doesn't care about religion at all (though his veep is a strong religious right person).

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

...and yet Trump will keep the Evangelicals, which just goes to further prove to me that Evangelicals these days really aren't all that religious. They're more like the Moose, only with more Jesus.

(I left my last church because a number of the men started open carrying to church...in case we needed to be protected during services from Muslim extremists. Let that sentence sink in for a second. Our church had 50 people in it on a good Sunday, square in the middle of Podunk, Indiana, population 3,000. Their scriptural justification was a verse about men being responsible for providing for their families, where provision means shooting motherfuckers who might try to hurt you. We've come a long way from Christians who imagined martyrdom to be the greatest sign of Christian faithfulness.)

Some reports that she has resigned. Doesn't seem to have made the mass media yet...

Oops. There it is.

BREAKING: Democratic National Committee chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz says she will step down at end of party's convention.
— The Associated Press (@AP) July 24, 2016

Of course as far as she's concerned, mission accomplished.

DWS and the DNC do ONE relatively wise thing in their existence ... and people call for her head.

LMFAO.

I'm sure she was rewarded handsomely for her efforts.

I'm still surprised at how little coverage this is getting. I know there is bias in the media, but the leaks should be a huge story. If this was the RNC e-mails leaking, there'd be around the clock coverage.

Quote:

Originally Posted by RainMaker (Post 3111215)

It should be a bigger story that the leaks were likely orchestrated by Russia

Russian government hackers penetrated DNC, stole opposition research on Trump - The Washington Post

They were mentioned on ABCNews last night. Munich got more time. As did a story of boat thieves being caught by a drone. I'd assume the resignation would be covered tonight.

Quote:

Originally Posted by RainMaker (Post 3111215)

One, it's a pretty big story. I only looked a few places, but it was the top story at all of them.

Two, this happens every four years for the GOP and/or Dems. No election is fair, and the political reporters that cover this stuff damn well know that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by RainMaker (Post 3111215)

HRC has elite level PR management/connections but it's everywhere on the internet.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JPhillips (Post 3111218)

When the story popped most places covered it, but it seemed like the 10th biggest story on their sites. MSNBC and CNN didn't even have a story up for a couple days on it.

Really the only major outlet I saw covering it like a big story was the Washington Post.

Obviously some places like MSNBC and Politico have to hold back because they were colluding with the DNC on their coverage. Still a major rigging its primary for a candidate should be a huge story.

Come on. You think there aren't similar emails about Trump? What about Bush/McCain? Or Gore/Bradley?

Elections don't start from neutral and they aren't fair. This is the way it's always been.

Quote:

Originally Posted by RainMaker (Post 3111215)

Fox News has a bigger story to cover for now.

It's really not surprising that top-level people in a political party would prefer and work towards a nomination for someone who is actually a party member (and didn't just sign up specifically for this election). Is there any internal rules against DNC members taking sides like that? Or are they supposed to be neutral?

I have had MSNBC on the background and it's pretty much the only thing that has been discussed all day.

Quote:

Originally Posted by molson (Post 3111230)

This.

The neutrality Bernie wants would mean Trump could have run the exact same race as a Dem and nobody at the DNC should have said anything.

Also, if you can join the party and get the same treatment as someone that's worked for decades to build relationships, why bother? Wouldn't this kill a party over the long-term?

It really doesn't matter how much you try to rationalize it, Hillary lost a good chunk of potential Bernie supporters. Bernie endorsing Hillary after this whole shit didn't really help her case.

Quote:

Originally Posted by wustin (Post 3111237)

It really doesn't matter how much you try to rationalize it, Hillary lost a good chunk of potential Bernie supporters. Bernie endorsing Hillary after this whole shit didn't really help her case.

They'll almost all be back come November. Every primary the loser's supporters say they won't support the nominee, and every general almost all of them do. Any Bernie supporter that chooses Trump over Clinton is a fool.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JPhillips (Post 3111240)

Any Bernie supporter that votes for Trump shows that policy didn't mean anything to them. They just wanted their guy to win.

Every time Rainmaker says the liberal media isn't covering a story, I turn on the TV or go to a news website to see them covering exactly that story.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JPhillips (Post 3111240)

The problem with that idea is thinking that Bernie supporters want anything to do with the democratic party anymore this cycle. They'll vote Jill Stein or not vote at all. The ones who really hate Hillary will vote Trump.

I mean this forum (and many others) mocked his supporters for their tinfoil hat theories. Any self-respecting Bernie believer has no business supporting HRC because for them it's not about beating the republicans. It's about beating the DNC establishment to make sure a true progressive represents the democratic party every 4 years.

Quote:

Originally Posted by wustin (Post 3111244)

Bernie supporters were claiming voter suppression and ballot manipulation in every state he lost. Many still refuse to accept that more people voted for Hillary than Bernie. Collusion with the DNC was a tiny part of many, many tinfoil hat theories thrown around to explain why Bernie was losing.

Bernie was good for this election and he brought important talking points to the forefront. Voting Trump out of spite would throw that progress down the drain. Bernie seems smart enough to know that the best way to keep moving progressives forward is to make sure Trump doesn't get the presidency. Not all of his supporters seem to get that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by wustin (Post 3111244)

Ironically, that would make it harder for a true progressive to get elected. A Trump victory means a 6-3 SCOTUS majority for Citizens United. A Hillary victory means a 5-4 majority for the anti-Citizens United group. Citizens United needs to be overturned for a "true progressive", as defined by the Bernie people, to have a legitimate chance in future elections.

Donald J. Trump on Twitter: "#MakeAmericaGreatAgain
#TrumpPence16 https://t.co/gCzHX1nyxD"

Stalin Clapping Test - YouTube

“Don’t ever be the first to stop applauding.” A. Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago.

Quote:

Originally Posted by wustin (Post 3111244)

It's about beating the DNC establishment to make sure a true progressive represents the democratic party every 4 years.

Ask the tea party whether this approach worked out for them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by corbes (Post 3111254)

Ask the tea party whether this approach worked out for them.

OTOH it got the Tea Party roughly 50 members in Congress.

And a demagogue for president. Congrats!

Quote:

Originally Posted by corbes (Post 3111254)

Ask the tea party whether this approach worked out for them.

Kasich, Jeb, and Rubio sure fared well against this year's two non-establishment candidates.

Quote:

Originally Posted by corbes (Post 3111256)

And a demagogue for president. Congrats!

Bernie supporters aren't going to change the outcome. Hillary will do a better job than Trump at sweeping up the middle come November.