Capco

Ironically, I was just thinking about this yesterday. Granted, the league wasn't as pass-friendly in the 80s and 90s as it is today, but Tyrod has a higher career passer rating (88.2) than Jim Kelly (84.4). His passer rating during his three years as a Bill was 92.5, and he only committed 21 turnovers (16 INTs, 5 lost fumbles). He almost broke the record for the highest single season passer rating by a Bills QB in his first year as a starter (99.6 vs Kelly's 101.2 in 1990), and I believe that season counts as the third-highest passer rating in team history (behind Kelly in 1990 and Allen in 2020).

I thought JP Losman was gonna be our franchise QB. I even bought his jersey lmao.

Exactly. You can't just stop fossil fuel usage overnight. The other thing that always gets me about the energy discussion is the reluctance to accept nuclear energy more broadly in this country. There's a documentary from about 10 years ago called Pandora's Promise that goes over the numbers on nuclear energy, and it is (or was 10 years ago) the cleanest form of electricity generation per kilowatt generated by a significant degree. Breeder reactors in particular make storing nuclear waste much more efficient since they generate more fissile material than they consume and they reduce the volume of nuclear waste produced by a factor of 100. Electricity would be so cheap that electric cars could more easily become the norm. I tend to agree with you a bit here as well. I know several trans people and they are all good people with good hearts to a person; I am definitely pro-LGBTQ, but I'm not for abandoning biological reality, either. Allowing trans women to compete in all-woman's sports is not really a very pro-woman thing to do when you think about it. But there more might be a solution by requiring trans-athletes to have the same hormone levels as is biologically typical before allowing them to compete. With regards to things like drag and children, I think it's fine as long as it's not racy. In my school, the drama club that did the school plays was predominantly made up of girls, so it was very common to see things like females playing male roles and no one batted an eye. Cancel culture really worries me on college and university campuses. These are places where radical new ideas are supposed to be given a chance to be heard, and then put up for scrutiny by academic peers. Filling a lecture hall and screaming at the top of your lungs to prevent another from even speaking is a remarkably disturbing shift from this decorum, and I find that trend abhorrent. Military bloat is a fantastic example of how quickly people can be divided when there tends to be a lot of agreement. The military is probably the most liked of all government institutions atm. It's also the backbone of our clout in foreign affairs. Unfortunately, any discussions about making the military "leaner" are instantly cast as anti-American. Overall, I think most Americans would still like to see us as the strongest military in the world by far, but without the exorbitant price-gouging during procurement by defense contractors. I saw a PBS Special about this not too long ago where some basic medical device that goes for $15 on the open market costs the military $600 to purchase.

Ideally, I'd like to be a politician that lives up to what that should mean. I want to be a leader that constituents can look up to as a person that champions the just causes of our communities. But that basically makes me dead in the water as a legitimate candidate lol. With respect to getting acknowledgement from both sides, the funny thing is that it's the norm for me. When you sit down and actually talk with people, and most importantly LISTEN to them, it's amazing how much agreement is eventually found. There definitely is an appetite in the American electorate for these types of candidates, and yet they never do well in elections. So until that dynamic changes, I will simply continue to have real, honest conversations with people from all walks of life in the hopes that we can rejoice at the amazing range of views in this country that can still get together and get things done.

That is an editorial written by Andy Puzder, Trump's former nominee for Labor Secretary. About the only political view I agree with him on is his support for comprehensive immigration reform in 2013. And as might be expected, the picture he painted is incomplete. His numbers only reflect wages. While most of us plebs earn our money through actual labor for pay, the wealthiest people earn most of their money through assets, not wages, and assets are taxed differently (e.g., capital gains). It also neglected to address the corporate tax rate reduction. Fixing the tax system isn't so much about raising income tax brackets for wages (although it should still be done imo) as much as it is about closing loopholes for large businesses/corporations and raising taxes on assets. I just finished a class in law school called "Future Interests" and it's insane how easy it is for the ultra wealthy to avoid huge amounts of taxes through things like "charitable" trusts that pay enormous sums to their board of directors who are conveniently made up exclusively of family members with appointments for life that can be inherited. https://www.budget.senate.gov/chairman/newsroom/press/extending-trump-tax-cuts-would-add-35-trillion-to-the-deficit-according-to-cbo The whole tax-burden approach also leaves out another important detail. By lowering the total amount of taxes levied, the difference in revenue had to be made up through borrowing. When 57% of the increase in debt-to-GDP ratio since 2001 can be traced to two pieces of legislation, that counts as extreme in my book--especially when it's from the supposed party of fiscal responsibility. I think I read earlier this week that every dollar spent on the IRS produces $7 in revenue. If we want to address the debt-to-GDP ratio and be more fiscally responsible, gutting the IRS seems like a terrible approach.

Two come to mind right off the bat: his massive tax cut for corporations and the wealthy, and his appointments for SCOTUS and the federal judiciary. Those are his two greatest accomplishments in office, and both are politically extreme in my view. The tax cuts did not benefit the lowest brackets of taxpayers while adding trillions to the deficit, and the judges he picked could not have been further on the right of the political spectrum.

Two words: Citizens United. What an awful ruling for the health of American democracy. It opened the floodgates of anonymous donor money for those stupid super PACs. I remember a congressperson stating in an interview that they spend the majority (like 80%?) of their time campaigning for money and the rest actually legislating lol. No wonder nothing gets done!

You mean nowadays? If so then for sure. But a big part of why that is today is political polarization. Before the Southern Strategy was implemented, there used to be a conservative wing of Democrats from the South, and a liberal wing of Republicans from cities like those in the Rust Belt. Successful votes involving large portions of the minority party were more commonplace. Even if those votes still went along ideological lines, they were at least bipartisan to the average voter. Now that conservative Democrat and liberal Republican are oxymorons, compromise is dead.

I really hope the light is finally turning on in the Republican party. I relish the day where we can go back to getting large deals struck through compromise for the good of the nation, instead of focusing on getting a political majority in the House, Senate, or SCOTUS. If people really are starting to reject Trump and come back to the middle ground, then that only further inspires my own personal crusade on the left. We also have a small group of vocal radicals that needs to be checked, and I've been trying my best to speak up in those circles about some of our own excesses. I have a feeling this is much the same on the middle-right with Trump, but many people on the middle-left are afraid to speak up about how far some of these social justice wars are going.

Well, none of the Dems are Trump guys by definition, so it's the hand they have to play. The same is not true for Republicans, however. Some choose to play that hand, and some don't. Yes, the Dems performed historically well in the 2022 midterms, but that was because so many Republicans on the ballots were Trump guys and by extension election deniers. The Republicans that weren't in that category were the ones that did the best. So in terms of choosing a winning hand, it seems like rejecting Trump is the winning hand for Republicans.

The only "psy-ops" going on is in this thread. Just spit it out dude. I don't bite that hard.

So what's the connection? That's what I thought he was getting at, but then he said no lol.

So Trump is working for the Dems?

It doesn't, but at the same time he really had the best chance. Like you said, people wanted normalcy after 2016, but anyone more transformative in their policies probably would've scared enough people into voting for Trump. And with Trump still running in 2024, I don't see that changing. The guy needs to go away so both parties can start fielding inspiring candidates again.

The sad thing is they think they are some type of neo-patriots saving the world, when in reality it's they who the world needs saving from.

I guess I get the obsession with speed because it's visibly apparent and flashy. But for me, if I'm building a team, I'd value size, strength, and football IQ at most positions before speed. You can scheme for most speed advantages an opponent may possess. But you can't really scheme for being physically dominated and mentally outsmarted.

Well, the ironic part would be when the left-leaning media outlets report on it. If everything they say is partisan by nature, then surely their reporting of it would indicate no wrongdoing on the part of Jackson. PS - The way you typed (((Soros))) killed me lol

And subsequently brought multiple cases before those same judges on the Court?*

How about "bringing to light" instead?

Using "radical" twice for emphasis makes it sound official, too!

What's wrong with reporting unethical behavior by judges?

Did Tuna ever call defensive plays?

I like how a 15-yard penalty made the highlight reel lol.

He might very well be drawing attention to himself for a legitimate reason. What we do know is that he loves to be in the spotlight.

He wants attention.