The Frankish Reich

I agree with that. Keenum has actually had a decent run of success in the NFL, which will never happen for the likes of Kyle Allen and Matt Barkley. But again: priorities. Spotrac says Keenum (under his current contract) brings a cap hit of $2.8 million. Kyle Allen? $1.1 million You get what you pay for.

Matt Barkley the Younger. As in a coach in waiting.

Horrible blocker (some WRs are better) but someone will find a way to get value out of him in the pass game. I hope it isn't Andy Reid.

Thanks! I came across that too.

I mean, I'd take "geek" or even "nerd" without an argument. But dork is a step too far. 😀

Exactly. We even have Putin - Putin! - posing as some kind of defender of the (Russian Orthodox) faith.

Well we are in a fine mood in this last week of summer

Agreement!

This has always been part of Biden's shtick, the idea that "you may be my polar opposite in a lot of ways, but I'm still able to work with you to reach a common good." So yes, I think he was talking about the Voting Rights Act in 1980, and convincing Thurmond to support it. Which was a pretty big deal given Thurmond's racist Dixiecrat background. This is actually something admirable about Biden and his generation. Today the impulse on both sides would be "this is an evil person that we must shun." You'd risk being canceled if you were seen having lunch with him. I get it. Strom Thurmond was a virulent racist. Biden did work with even those thoroughly disreputable people for the good of the country. I'm not sure that we can ever get back to a time like that, so maybe he is a relic. But who can look at today's political environment and say that it is better than where we were in the 1980s, when Tip O'Neill and Ronald Reagan made deals?

It all depends on the alternatives and who controls the other levers of power in the country (congress, the Supreme Court). I am more comfortable with an old man who relies on the considered judgment of a stable staff of (mostly) people who know how law and policy work than an unstable, emotional non-delegator. We just had one of those. I'd be more comfortable with neither of the above.

hey, I'm an independent

And yes, that's what he is. As far as the "finger on the button" stuff: has he made any ridiculous, out-of-the blue, "where did that come from" decisions in his 2.5 years as President? If anything, this White House's decision making seems to be deliberate and the result of internal consensus. The obvious mistakes (think the Afghanistan withdrawal) were based on bad intelligence and not from some kind of wacky, impulsive, senile old man making ill-considered decisions.

How so? (I'm old enough to remember the NFL moving the hash marks, but I must be too old to remember why they did it)

I agree. I'm just saying that the "80 year old man mixes things up" stuff is pretty normal. If people want to call that cognitive decline, so be it. I'm just pointing out that there's a more simple explanation than "Joe Biden thinks he was already a Senator in 1964."

"A White House spokesperson told Fox News Digital that Biden was instrumental in getting Thurmond's vote for the Voting Rights Act, in 1980." So it appears that he mistakenly said "Civil Rights Act" instead of "Voting Rights Act."

Why is offensive line play so bad in general? Is it that big talented athletes gravitate toward defense so there just isn't a pool of available talent? If so, shouldn't this be self-adjusting (for example, the Spencer Brown types bulking up and moving to the O line from defense or TE?) Do we need rule changes to reestablish some kind of balance?

My top 3, in order: Haley Christie Scott My bottom 3, in order (least bad to most bad): Ramaswamy RFK Jr. Trump A pure match-up, hold your nose and vote for him if the competitor is worse: Biden I'm starting to see that Haley probably isn't anyone's perfect candidate, but that she's acceptable to more people of many divergent views than anyone else.

I think I'd like that.

I didn't want you to instinctively choose a different bunch! Well, your choice - Youngkin - is outside the scope. Current candidates only. But let me expand the question: what unannounced candidate would you prefer?

I think of myself as a high-information voter. Probably most people here think of themselves the same way. No 2024 presidential candidate fits perfectly with my policy preferences. And certainly they are very different in terms of experience, intellect, judgement, and demeanor. But some come far closer than others in my ideal blend. As a high-information voter, I don't just take into account which candidate comes closest to my ideal. I also think about how that person would fit as a president with the likely Congress he/she will have, and with the composition of the Supreme Court. For example, I favor the right to an abortion, more or less along the lines of Roe v. Wade. When that was the law, I didn't concern myself too much with how a presidential candidate views the abortion question, other than how he would impact the composition of the Supreme Court. Now I can't ignore that. I'm also kind of middle of the road in my politics, so I worry about the consequences of giving one party too much power in Congress and the White House. For example, a far right/far left House and Senate (particularly a filibuster-proof Senate). That would encourage a wild swing in either direction. With all that in mind, and in a vacuum (assume you have no idea about how the House/Senate/Supreme Court will be constituted in 2025), how do you rank the candidates now? Top 3, Bottom 3.

He was pretty clearly losing it by his second term. Maybe earlier. But … I think most historians believe his presidency was successful despite that. Again, because he leaned heavily on (mostly) skilled advisors with good judgement. Senile > Sociopath

I love how unabashed socialist Greenwald and (as revealed by Greenwald) hidden socialist Carlson are now the heroes of the posters who call old fashioned Democrats "commie."

Playing along with your premise: Which one is more dangerous? A sociopath who fires anyone in the White House who doesn't follow his orders even when all his key advisors say that those orders would be unlawful (for example: installing Jeffrey Clark as Acting Attorney General to do his bidding in overturning the election?). Or a senile man who leans heavily on the decision making of younger/sharper people?

Which is ideally where they'd be, but an upgrade = more money, which they don't have under the cap, and if they did have would be better spent on upgrading/adding depth to the O line, or linebacker, or other places. The names I'm hearing here as possible upgrades - Colt McCoy, PJ Walker, etc. - aren't upgrades at all. Case Keenum is probably a bit better, but he would probably cost more in trade value and/or salary. Trey Lance would've been intriguing, but the Bills were a bad fit for him: he's raw and the chances of him not even keeping you in a game that your defense/special teams can win are lower, and there's no sense in grooming him to take over since Allen will be here for a long time.

Which is about what you’d expect of a guy relegated to journeyman backup. A .368 win percentage, and mostly on bad teams. In other words, expect him to go 1-2 as a starter if Josh misses 3 games. 2-1 if he’s lucky or his opponents are bad teams. I suggest you look at Kyle Allen’s career stats