The Frankish Reich
-
Posts
13,455 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by The Frankish Reich
-
-
14 minutes ago, Doc said:
One of them is already in the throes of it. The other still has yet to get there.
I assume you mean Trump "has yet to get there." I urge you to compare some of the interviews he did in the 1980s with those he's doing today. Or just watch this (starting at 2:32) to see the "oranges" of my theory:
https://www.thewrap.com/bill-maher-campaign-ad-for-democrats-mocks-neurological-mess-trump-video/
The problem is that it is not a linear decline curve. Reagan struck me as fine in his 1980 run. By 1984 it was hit or miss, the kind of "good day/bad day" thing we say about grandpa. By the time he was leaving office it was obvious he had no business being in office the last couple years.
EDIT: Bill Clinton too. I saw a couple interviews with him around the DNC time. He's 74, he's had heart problems, and he's clearly lost a couple steps. He's been out of office for 20 years. And he's STILL younger than Trump by a couple months. Hillary, not so much. But then again women seem to have a genetic advantage.
I hate that we have come to this Time of Gerontocracy in America. But there it is. Trump/Biden, McConnell (or whomever become majority leader should the Dems take the Senate unless ... Schumer? He's a mere child of 69), Pelosi -- all at least in their mid-70s. What happened to what used to be called Generation X? We're just skipping over them entirely in political leadership? Straight from the boomers to the Millennials (God help us)
-
1
-
-
15 minutes ago, Foxx said:
you Lefties are funny. this is who you support, tff. he can't hold a train of thought for :14 and you guys want this running our country? seriously, you guys should have your heads examined.
you understand he is a marionette, right??
And I hear he's lost the Yoseminite vote.
Face facts, our next President will be in mental decline. No matter which one wins.
Here's a nice summary of what is called normal cognitive decline: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4015335/
It appears to be the case with both Trump and Biden. Both are easy cases because they've been in the public eye for over 40 years. I see no reason to dub either one as suffering from dementia (which would be abnormal cognitive decline), but "decline" is pretty obvious.
Other examples of the rare persons in the political world who do not show (to me) any obvious decline despite their advanced ages: Pelosi and McConnell. (See how I did that? One from each side) Both seem to me to be exactly the same cognitively as they were when they first hit the public eye.
-
I saw the speech. I'd give it a 6/10 as a political speech. Nothing earth shattering. Biden wanted to stake out his turf (not for defunding the police, etc., etc.) and he did. Certainly not inspiring. Delivered in an o.k. manner. A few verbal missteps, but nothing to support the wild "his brain is a gelatinous mass of amyloid plaques" stuff I hear from Trump supporters.
Meanwhile, to show my even handedness: Trump's RNC acceptance speech was also a 6/10 as a political speech. Also kind of a nothingburger policy-wise, but delivered reasonably effectively in a manner of a person who (assuming no preexisting bias) doesn't seem wild and out of control. The Davy Crockett stuff doesn't resonate with me, but I know lots of seniors that it probably does resonate with. Good use of the props of the White House and National Mall, regardless of what you think about the propriety of using such backdrops for political purposes.
But yet we predictably have this. "Greatest speech ever." "Senile old grandpa who doesn't even know where he is."
What is wrong with people? Is there anything in the political world other than confirmation bias these days?
These are two old men who have seen better cognitive days. It is a rare person in his/her mid-70s who is not showing some significant decline, and these guys are no exception. (To me the exception in this race was Bloomberg, who seems to be exactly the same whiny-yet-self-important know-it-all he was in his 50s.) Neither was any kind of genius in the traditional IQ sense, but both had their gifts as different types of glad-handers/deal-makers.
-
16 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:
In what way is it harder to push out fake numbers than real numbers?
I feel like I could manufacture a fake poll of, say, 1,000 individuals in literally one day. I'd just take the data from an old poll and tweak it a little bit to fit my "narrative" if I wanted to show, say, Biden leading by 11 points. Or 15. It's nothing. Doing real polling takes time.
In other words, this is an utterly asinine comment by someone calling him/herself "The Last Refuge."
-
1
-
-
Oops. Another conspiracy theory shot to ... smithereens.
Added today
DATES POLLSTER SAMPLE RESULT NET RESULT President: general election AUG 31-SEP 1, 20201,089 RV Biden 47%40%Trump Biden +7 President: general election AUG 30-SEP 1, 20201,207 RV Biden 51%40%Trump Biden +11 President: general election AUG 29-SEP 1, 20201,033 RV Biden 49%41%Trump Biden +8 President: general election AUG 26-SEP 1, 20202,650 LV Biden 51%42%Trump Biden +9 President: general election AUG 26-SEP 1, 20202,650 LV Biden 52%42%Trump Biden +9 President: general election AUG 26-SEP 1, 20202,500 LV Biden 49%45%Trump Biden +4 President: general election AUG 28-31, 20201,000 RV Biden 47%More Biden +5 President: general election AUG 28-31, 20201,000 RV Biden 50%43%Trump Biden +7 President: general election AUG 26-30, 2020827 LV Biden 49%41%Trump Biden +8 President: general election AUG 21-25, 2020Biden 56%41%Trump Biden +15 KEY
A = ADULTS
RV = REGISTERED VOTERS
V = VOTERS
LV = LIKELY VOTERS
Yesterday
President: general election AUG 31-SEP 1, 20201,835 LV Biden 49%More Biden +8 President: general election AUG 25-31, 20202,636 LV Biden 52%42%Trump Biden +10 President: general election AUG 25-31, 20202,636 LV Biden 51%42%Trump Biden +10 President: general election AUG 30, 20204,000 LV Biden 52%43%Trump Biden +9 President: general election AUG 28-30, 202012,966 LV Biden 51%43%Trump Biden +8 President: general election AUG 28-30, 2020861 LV Biden 49%More Biden +7 President: general election AUG 24-30, 20204,210 LV Biden 49%46%Trump Biden +3 President: general election AUG 29, 20204,000 LV Biden 51%43%Trump Biden +8 Aug. 31, 2020
President: general election AUG 30-31, 20201,567 LV Biden 51%49%Trump Biden +3 President: general election AUG 24-30, 20202,574 LV Biden 54%40%Trump Biden +13 President: general election AUG 24-30, 20202,575 LV Biden 53%41%Trump Biden +12 President: general election AUG 27-29, 2020915 LV Biden 48%More Biden +4 President: general election AUG 25-28, 20202,862 RV Biden 47%38%Trump Biden +9 Aug. 30, 2020
President: general election AUG 29, 20201,007 LV Biden 45%More Biden +3 President: general election AUG 29, 20201,007 LV Biden 48%42%Trump Biden +6 President: general election AUG 23-29, 20202,555 LV Biden 54%40%Trump Biden +15 President: general election AUG 23-29, 20202,556 LV Biden 54%40%Trump Biden +14 Aug. 29, 2020
-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, Brueggs said:
Answering questions with questions. Typical.
Its not necessarily the pollsters cheating. I wonder what would happen if those conducting the polls chose a certain demographic to administer their questions to? I wonder if they could target specific groups that would be more likely to have similar opinions? Wow, I can't believe no one ever thought of that before.
You need to read up on this. fivethirtyeight does a nice analysis of what they call the "house effect" of various pollsters. Some consistently trend in favor of Dems; some Repubs. Why don't they fix this since it is obviously a sampling issue? I don't know. I suppose there's an audience for their polls - call it confirmation bias.
At any rate, these house effects can be controlled for, and that's what the good aggregators (like fivethirtyeight) do.
General comment: I'm actually amazed at how good national polls (not state wide -- those have a lot more variability, and of course that matters given the electoral college!) are when you control for these effects. I steadfastly refuse to answer calls from unknown people, and most people I know do the same. So you've got to be getting a biased sample from any poll, right? You'd think so, but then there's no way the RCP and 538 projections could be this good. I have to just say I don't understand it, but the proof is in the results. Every 4 years the side that's losing in the polls claims there's something wrong or even a conspiracy to push out faked numbers. McCain's supporters (I believe it was then) actually started a site they called "unskewed polls." They added a few points to McCain based on perceived oversampling of Dems vs. Reps.
It was trash, and turned out to be wrong, whereas the mainstream polls were right.
EDIT: it was Romney 2012, not McCain. And the unskewed guy fessed up that he got it all wrong:
-
It'll happen. Right now, no, I'm not that into the NFL. I was the same way when the NBA and NHL restarted. With the NBA in particular it was weird -- weird semi-pro courts, different TV angles, play that often resembled the preseason as most teams didn't care too much about seeding (there's no home court advantage to play for). But then the playoffs hit, the intensity went up, and pretty soon it seemed like the same old NBA playoffs only better -- better because it's not like I can choose to tune out and go to a movie or a concert. And assuming the NFL doesn't have a lengthy COVID-related pause/shutdown, I can only assume that I'll get into it before too long.
-
8 hours ago, SectionC3 said:
This is a really good point. “The polls” were late to the Trump undercurrent in 2016. I think they might have the opposite problem this time through. I suspect that the universe of likely voters is too small in a lot of these polls (because we’re going to have heretofore unseen turnout), and the “unexpected voters” will break heavily for Biden.
There really wasn't an "undercurrent." For all the grief they've taken, Nate Silver's 538 blend of polls came awfully close to spot-on for the national popular vote: Clinton ahead by 3.6 percentage points. https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/ The actual result: Clinton won the popular vote by 2.1 percentage points. That's damn good forecasting. Obviously the state-by-state results were different, but you're dealing with smaller sample sizes and more variability there, so it's always a wild card.
So where we stand today is almost precisely where we were on election eve in 2016: Biden (as with Clinton) has about a 70% chance of winning, Trump 30%. That's not overwhelming odds in Biden's favor; 538 says he's "slightly favored." Could Trump pull off that inside straight again? Absolutely. Is it likely? No. Too many ways for it to go wrong.
-
3
-
1
-
-
7 hours ago, Steve O said:
So I need to stand up for Haynesworth here. The excerpt below was taken from his "Letter to My Younger Self" located here: https://www.theplayerstribune.com/en-us/articles/albert-haynesworth-letter-to-my-younger-self
The whole article is worth reading but the most pertinent part below
"You’re going to look at this famous NFL head coach in total disbelief and say, “You want to pay me $100 million to grab the center?”
And he’s going to say, with a straight face, “Albert, if you have more than one sack this season, I’m going to be pissed.”
The last thing you’ll say before walking out of the office is, “Can’t you just pay someone $300,000 a year to do that?”
You will lose your passion for football in Washington, and it will be impossible to get back. In retirement, you will discover that your financial advisor has squandered most of the money you made with the Redskins, and he will be under investigation for financial fraud. Thankfully, you will have discovered a passion for restoring houses and buying property during your offseasons. You’ll even open up a BurgerFi restaurant in Knoxville (I know you love burgers). Instead of being on the beach in the Bahamas, like most people probably think you are, you will be hanging drywall in a condo in South Carolina. And you know what? That will make you extremely happy."
More recently he has been waiting for a kidney transplant. As of January he had a friend who had passed 3 rounds of donor matching criteria. Haven't been able to find anything more recent, and don't know what Covid has done to the timeline for the transplant. But he certainly hasn't been laughing all the way to the bank.
What would I have done at age 28 or so with $100 million guaranteed, more to come if I'm willing to bash my head and shoulders against a 300 lb guy 16 times a year for the next half dozen years or so? I probably would've done what Albert did. But I never, ever would've let someone manage that money for me.
Sad that he needs a kidney transplant. Sounds like he's at peace with himself, and I wish him well. Frustrating for fans of the team that signs these guys, but that sounds like a fan problem, not a player problem.
-
On 8/31/2020 at 2:16 PM, BillsFanForever19 said:
Between Tyler Matakevitch, Taiwan Jones, and now Andre Smith - they've really added some good Special Teamers this off-season.
Not a guy who's gonna block or make tackles, but let's not forget the Golden Stroke of one Mr. Bass!
6 hours ago, GunnerBill said:I don't think the two are linked at all. Taiwan is linked to who stays as the last corner and the last receiver.
Smith is linked to the other backup linebackers, the backup safeties and the DiMarco / backup tight end decisions.
Taiwan also may add something (not much, but who knows?) to the offense since we don't really have that kind of RB on the roster. I'm not counting Christian Wade or Isaiah McKenzie.
Ouch: https://www.si.com/nfl/texans/news/taiwan-jones-makes-his-mark-for-the-texans-in-playoff-win
-
Even the wiki page has been updated.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bills_Stadium
Think of what those naming rights have done for New Era ballcaps!
(Answer: nothing. When will companies start to realize that? Now?)
-
https://247sports.com/nfl/chicago-bears/Article/Mitch-Trubisky-draft-criticism-Bears-131732701/
You could take this Bears fansite article and do a global replace, plugging in "Josh Allen" for "Mitch Trubisky" and the article would just as true.
Trubisky will always be the Sam Bowie to Michael Jordan (Mahomes) and Charles Barkley (Watson). That's just what happens when your team trades up to pick you ahead of those guys. Allen is lucky; although the Bills clearly could've had Mahomes or Watson the year before, Allen so far has only Lamar eclipsing him, and because Lamar went 32nd in the draft (and because he is so unorthodox) the bar is lower.
Before everyone gets all worked up about it: I like Allen better than Trubisky! I think he'll continue to get better; I think Trubisky will be lucky to match his sophomore season. But let's be honest: the jury is still out on Josh. With a weak AFC East this year, he's gotta prove that he's the franchise guy this season. He hasn't done that yet.
-
1 hour ago, SlimShady'sSpaceForce said:
It's Always Josh.
Show em what you got Mr Allen.!!!
Barnswell that was clearly BS
Allen has still started only 27 career games, so while this is a critical year, it's hardly out of the question that he'll continue to improve. If he takes a step forward as a passer and continues to be one of the league's most effective rushing quarterbacks, the Bills should be able to win the AFC East and host a playoff game for the first time since 1996. If he drags an excellent defense down, he could become the next Mitchell Trubisky.
Why did he (and many others) fail to mention his record?
15-12-0
Faker Mayfield the eh hem better QB..... 12-17-0
Sam Darlold the eh hem better QB.... 11-15-0
The other Josh 3-13-0
Mitch Trubisky after his second year:
15-11-0
-
3
-
-
25 minutes ago, MJS said:
It's like the same career arc as almost every QB, except some of them go on to continue to get better and others don't.
Not that good year 1, better year 2, etc.
True. But with a lot of notable exceptions - strong rookie year, sophomore slump. Dak Prescott comes to mind.
Hey, I'm glad you didn't get all defensive like some people. Josh and Trubisky (especially Trubisky) looked ready to move into that franchise QB category after Year 2. You just never know until you know.
-
1
-
-
4 minutes ago, JoPoy88 said:
I agree but barnwell just HAD to throw in that Trubisky drop at the end. I don’t know for sure, but I definitely know for sure he throws that in just to dig at the cortexes of those low brow bill$ mafia types.Well, first two years of their respective career arcs are pretty damn similar, except Trubisky was better.
-
1
-
-
24 minutes ago, Logic said:
Because he's a turd.
Also...holy hell is that 2011 draft depressing to look at. I know WHY we took Dareus. We desperately needed to get better at run-stopping at the time. But holy cow...could've had a All-Pro at Edge, DL, WR, or LT who'd still be playing at a high level.
Misc Approx Val Passing Rushing Receiving Rnd Pick Tm Player Pos Age To AP1 PB St CarAV DrAV G Cmp Att Yds TD Int Att Yds TD Rec Yds TD Solo Int Sk College/Univ 1 1 CAR Cam Newton QB 22 2019 1 3 8 104 104 125 2371 3980 29041 182 108 934 4806 58 1 33 0 Auburn College Stats 1 2 DEN Von Miller LB 22 2019 3 8 9 98 98 135 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 380 2 106.0 Texas A&M College Stats 1 3 BUF Marcell Dareus DT 21 2019 1 2 7 56 46 121 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 255 37.5 Alabama College Stats 1 4 CIN A.J. Green WR 23 2018 0 7 8 68 68 111 0 0 0 0 0 11 93 0 602 8907 63 Georgia College Stats 1 5 ARI Patrick Peterson DB 21 2019 3 8 9 85 85 138 1 1 17 0 0 7 34 0 10 64 0 395 25 4.0 LSU College Stats 1 6 ATL Julio Jones WR 22 2019 2 7 8 94 94 126 0 0 0 0 0 19 118 0 797 12125 57 Alabama College Stats 1 7 SFO Aldon Smith DE 21 2015 1 1 3 27 25 59 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 141 1 47.5 Missouri College Stats 1 8 TEN Jake Locker QB 23 2014 0 0 1 15 15 30 408 709 4967 27 22 95 644 5 0 0 0 Washington College Stats 1 9 DAL Tyron Smith T 20 2019 2 7 9 84 84 131 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 USC College Stats 1 10 JAX Blaine Gabbert QB 21 2018 0 0 2 16 7 56 842 1498 9063 48 47 177 631 3 1 -16 0 Missouri College Stats 1 11 HOU J.J. Watt DE 22 2019 5 5 8 98 98 112 0 0 First thought: good Lord, we blew it.
Second thought: you know that we would've taken Gabbert if we hadn't been sold on Dareus.
-
2
-
2
-
-
1. 2017. That ridiculous, preposterous roller coaster of a season. The inexplicable switch to Nathan Peterman as we were in the thick of the playoff race, and the laugh out loud results of that. The switch back to Tyrod until they have to go back to Peterman in the Foot of Snow Game. That game all by itself (Peterman was kinda good until he got hurt!), incredibly boring but fascinating at the same time, and with a jaw dropping ending with the Joe Webb play. The season that went on after it ended as we watched Andy Dalton usher into the the playoffs for the first time in two decades. I don't know if I've seen a more fun season for any team ever.
2. 2014. Also in a Billsy (well, what we used to mean by "Billsy") way. The switch from EJ (2-2 at the time) to out-of-retirement Orton. And it worked! Sammy looking like the guy we sold the farm to get. Until it didn't work, with Orton giving up on that last play. Also good stupid fun. And another season that kept going after it was over with the shock departure of Marrone. You couldn't beat it. Until 2017 that is.
3. 2019. The best team we've had? Probably. Not the most interesting, but watching your team win never gets boring.
-
1
-
-
Just now, DrDawkinstein said:
Except Roger works FOR Snyder. And the rest of the owners arent going to push for it because they all have their own dirty laundry they want to keep hidden.
That's the part that is keeping him in place. You ain't gonna get Jerry Jones (hey, just "for example") to adopt a standard that stuff like this is grounds for losing your franchise. But they said the same thing about Sterling and the Clippers until all of a sudden the winds changed.
-
1
-
-
Time to Donald Sterling him. Whatever's left of the Washington (Team) fanbase will thank you, Roger and the other owners. There MAY be deniability here ("you can't prove I said I like these photos") but it's not plausible deniability. And even so, it's just time to make him go away.
-
On 8/24/2020 at 2:55 PM, H2o said:
The ole sneaky "Tank for Trevor" plan is right on script.
Thank you for ruining my week. Somehow this thought hadn't occurred to me. Until now.
-
1
-
-
On 8/24/2020 at 8:28 AM, BUFFALOTONE said:
I believe the nurses and doctors who work at Broward General and Jackson Memorial you know the ones on the front lines. I have friends in both hospitals and they are laying off nurses due to how slow they are. Now these hospitals due to their size are the counties hub for Covid treatment, there are def cases there I won't argue that but its not the triage center they are making it out to be. This is a serious thing if you have serious issues or a weak immune system. I deal with testing clinics daily and this is always the hot topic, if you see alerts from the Sun/Orlando Sentinel about the daily death toll open the link and read it, it states "this information was taken over the course of several weeks" not 24 hour period, ye tthey run the death ticker like the NYSE. Cmon man.
He was actually found in vomit with a male prostitute and drugs, what else do you need to know? He went into rehab ...
You know what they say: if you are preoccupied with a male prostitute and lying in a pool of vomit, at least you aren't actively doing harm to the people of your state.
EDIT: I am not opposed to having fans present in an open air stadium (and about 1/5 of capacity doesn't sound outrageous) provided the plans for spacing them, getting them in and out, into the concessions and bathrooms for fluid intake and outflow purposes, etc., are adequate. I just kinda doubt they will be.
And interesting data point from baseball: early returns suggest a greatly diminished home field advantage with no fans. Given the different configurations of baseball stadiums (as opposed to the cookie cutter football fields) I'm surprised by this.
-
23 hours ago, snafu said:
Kraft is a hardened criminal who must pay for his acts.
Perhaps more of a chubby criminal. I mean, at his age ...
-
1 hour ago, Rocky Landing said:
It would be AI bots programmed to mimic Bills fans. Might even see a virtual ***** during the Pats* game.
? But wasn't it clearly labeled as "Brady's"??? Tommy might not like Cam stealing his, umm, thunder.
I hate, hate, hate fake crowd noise. The absolute worst: baseball, where they'll use it to show the "home crowd" disagrees with a called ball or strike. Just idiotic. I want to hear the chatter that we normally can't hear. They must have it on delay with a dump button anyway since I haven't heard all the bad words they're apparently saying ... celebrate the difference of this weird ass season, don't try to mask it!
-
4 hours ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:
FIFY
Yeesh, wouldn't think that would be necessary, but sadly it is.
Final Vote—All States, Progress in counting
in Politics, Polls, and Pundits
Posted · Edited by The Frankish Reich
So ... they are "tailoring" the question "Who do you plan to voter for in the 2020 Presidential Election" to favor Biden. Got it. I understand that before the DNC they were asking, "Who do you plan to vote for, the Vigorous and Mentally Sharp Joseph R. Biden, or the Obese and Offensive Clinging-to-the-Ramp-For-Dear-Life Donald J. Trump?
EDIT: and doesn't that yahoo/yougov poll referenced just above cause you to question the entire concept of this thread, that pollsters are manipulating data to give Biden a push? Conspiracy theorists everywhere. There is literally no evidence that could cause you to abandon these nutcase beliefs.