ComradeKayAdams

Fair enough. I can agree with most of Mr. Allen’s points and shrug my shoulders at a few others, but the inner left-wing snowflake in me was heavily triggered from the Venezuela remark, so I am compelled to respond without expectations of an answer. What exactly does socialism have to do with that particular crisis?! The causes were: a horribly unbalanced economy singularly dependent on oil exports, over-the-top internal corruption within Chavez and Maduro regimes, extremely reckless spending over budget, extremely reckless printing of money to solve the budget crisis, and stupid price control policies. Then came Trump’s severe and inhumane economic sanctions within the past few years that have made any attempts at recovery impossible. All of these contributing factors could, in theory, be found in capitalist systems (minus the price control policies). None of these contributing factors are necessary for socialist systems (minus price control policies for specific types of proven failed socialist systems). There is an entire continent filled with socialist countries with healthy GDP’s per capita, high living standards, and happy citizens. In practice, there’s no such thing as a purely “socialist” country (Cuba I think is the closest) or a purely “capitalist” country (maybe Somalia is one?). All are essentially variations of what we would call a mixed economy. My reply to Tim Allen would be that criticism of socialism is absolutely fair game, but just make sure to specify which of the many different types you are referring to when doing so. Someone from Singapore might look down at the United States as a failing socialist country, for example. 1. Defense budget and interventionism: yep it looks like we agree on everything here. Is this a PPP first?! I’d streamline our post-Cold War military with a heavy emphasis away from soldier numbers and toward high-tech capabilities…and with a wary eye on China…which I basically think we’re trying to do already but not fast enough for my liking. 2. Iran: I probably need to think harder about the historical nature of political revolutions. The successes and failures, the causes, the character traits and backgrounds of its leaders, the violence, and the peaceful protest strategies. In the end, though, I will likely stick with my stance against economic sanctions on purely ethical grounds. 3. Solutions for the current economic crisis: I won’t resist any of your supply-side solutions like tax cuts and deregulations because they will help to some extent. What I want to highlight are the people falling through the cracks on the demand side. The pre-pandemic long-term unemployed, recent college grads, people who were already on financial thin ice with debts or health issues or exorbitant bills before the pandemic, the already homeless, everyone whose unemployment benefits will eventually run out, etc… The Paycheck Protection Program can only do so much for a limited amount of time. It’s too late already for a number of small businesses and their employees. I’m proposing sunset UBI’s, mandatory rent and mortgage deferments, and variations of a temporary M4A for the unemployed. I also want enforced oversight of the big corporations that were bailed out to make sure they’re maintaining payrolls and not doing stock buybacks. There are time constraints and windows of opportunity for many of these options, so someone on this message board should tweet Trump as soon as we collectively come up with a solution… 4. Amazon company: oh, actually I wasn’t even thinking about monopolies and labor rights and trillionaires and tax evasions when I made that remark (but those are important too). I’ve been having issues with shoes that I ordered. Some economic goods are better off purchased in person at physical stores out in the real world. I hope no Bernie Bros are reading this and judging me for my bourgeoisie fashion priorities? 5. Keynesian philosophy: over at the President Trump’s Re-Election Campaign thread, I stumbled my way into a Keynesian econ mini-discussion. Feel free to check over my reasoning if you have the time. Good point. I’d only add that devotion to one’s own party isn’t a virtue. Country before party. Party loyalty among Democrats caused Trump and will lead to future Trumps. Hmmm…so maybe it’s winning the popular vote while losing the electoral college that drives my side into such a frenzy? I’ve seen an argument put forth that the breakdown in our national political discourse began with the 1987 Robert Bork Supreme Court rejection. I wasn’t around then, so maybe someone who was wants to comment? Does the over-the-top partisan bickering go back even further? Or was it always this way? My left-leaning suspicion has been that it began with the rise of Limbaugh and cable TV news plus the Lewinsky scandal in the 90’s.

Fair question. We’re really moving outside my purview here because I’m not a practicing climate scientist, as you know and a few others love to emphasize. But I’ll try my best: Without looking through the published climatology scientific literature to tell you exactly how “normal climates” are being determined, I would say that it’s perfectly possible and maybe likely that they are truncating the chronological weather/ocean data somewhere around the middle twentieth century. They could do this without losing any understanding of the climate trends, and then they could extrapolate backward in time and compare with the older data for accuracy. I also don’t necessarily believe the older data from the first half of the twentieth century is bad. Modern measuring equipment is going to be more precise, but how much is really lost in accuracy? For example, even the most basic mercury thermometer is very reliable, even if you can’t discern between hundredths of a degree like you could with a digital thermometer. I do know that NACA, the predecessor to NASA, had somehow been compiling extremely accurate (and precise) atmospheric temperature and pressure data soon after the Wright brothers. They needed highly reliable data to design even remotely reliable airplanes for the world wars and for commerce. Civil engineers, farmers, naval architects, and the military also needed fairly reliable weather and ocean data in the early twentieth century in order to have success at their jobs. Hope this helps? Maybe we should e-mail a real expert like Greta Thunberg for answers lol?!

A fraud with respect to the 3 classes of public policy issues I outlined. Obama initially ran as a wide-eyed optimistic progressive and left office 8 years later as a neoliberal corporatist sell-out. He presented himself as a clear alternative to the neocon, voodoo-economics-loving, climate-change-denying Dubya in 2008. He talked such a good progressive left game that his election victory sparked an entire Tea Party countermovement to stop the scary socialist. He had a Senate Democratic majority for his first 6 years and a Dem House majority for his first 2 years, so I expected him to get more done. Was “complete fraud” a little much? Maybe. But I have fallen head over heels too many times with Democrat politicians, only to get my heart broken over and over again, so apologies for my acerbity. If I stick with the Dems any longer, I will die a political spinster, with no one but my apolitical emotional support companion cats to console me before eventually feeding on my corpse. That is why I’m taking a good long look at that grizzled casanova hunk known as Howie Hawkins. Look more closely at my post in the Democratic 2020 Presidential Primary Thread. I only argued that Trump CAN win, not that he WILL win. I reasoned that the unemployment benefits could potentially buttress the national economy through the November election and thereby mask the underlying crises. Don’t get so worked up over my prognostications. I acknowledge that I’m no better at predicting these things than anyone else here. If the tenuous rent and mortgage payment situation were to blow up and do so earlier than I predict (as early as this summer), I would then agree with you that Trump loses in a landslide. I’ll respond in my typical numerical format since I think it’s a bit easier to read: 1. MIC and interventionism: you are correct that these are technically separate issues. I usually link the two because interventionist policies are often the justification for requiring such a bloated defense budget. 2. Iran: let’s ignore the entirety of the ethical and human rights debate and focus solely on strategy. I suppose we can just contain the Iranian regime indefinitely, but we all ultimately want them to go away for good. We all want the country of Iran to cooperate internationally, to stop thinking about nuclear weapons, and to stop threatening Israel. Should we overthrow them by military force? No, way too costly for us. So then they must be overthrown internally. Should we do so by a CIA-organized coup? Nah, too much messy blowback and we already tried that before. Should we do so by economic sanctions? Maybe, but then the Iranian government can simply redirect all the blame towards the US as the sole reason for the Iranian people’s suffering (as they are doing now). Here’s the thing about the Iranian people: they are not at all brainwashed like the people of North Korea. They are a fairly modern society that is actually fairly well-informed of the world around them. There is the typical Middle Eastern disdain for American imperialism that is omnipresent, but there are also deeper undercurrents of disdain for their own theocratic overlords, especially among the more culturally liberal younger people. I would argue that the conditions for effective internal rebellion are best if the standard of living for Iranians increases by lifting US sanctions. Think Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. Less time worrying about the basics of food, clothing, and shelter. More time freed up to focus on Rouhani’s autocratic awfulness and on planning well-coordinated strikes and targeted non-violent resistances, as opposed to violent insurrections which historically tend to be much less successful. 3. Solutions for this economic crisis: I’m not necessarily against tax cuts right now, but I don’t think they will have nearly the impact that some on the political right are hoping. Tax cuts won’t help the impoverished Americans without jobs. A lot of Americans who still have jobs will probably just save/hoard a lot of the tax savings for a rainier day instead of spending it on goods and services (probably the wisest decision on their part, actually). Tax cuts for the wealthy are probably not going to help the economy much either right now, since excess capital isn’t likely to be diverted into new business enterprises if the anticipated consumer demand is in such bad shape. Same reason why I think deregulatory practices won’t be as impactful at the moment: poor consumer demand for new or expanding businesses. We also don’t need to be worried about the Fed printing money for temporary UBI’s like inflationary mad men. Normally we would, but in this specific crisis we should be more concerned with combating a deflationary freefall due to the sudden widespread collapse in consumer demand. Finally, the national debt is a concern as I mentioned, but a long-term one. A well-behaved modern monetary theorist would tell us to focus on the immediate crisis now and deal with the debt in a couple years. 4. Miscellaneous clarifications on my economic philosophy: we probably agree on much of the pork barrel legislation and wasteful government spending that occurs. Most of Pelosi’s coronavirus pork barrel insertions were purely political gambits and completely inappropriate during a time of crisis. I also strive to avoid appending moral labels like “evil” onto entities like corporations (except Amazon…). If you catch me doing so, it’s probably being done to highlight a key point, but feel free to call me out on it. I view big corporations, billionaires, Wall Street, capitalist systems, and the like as I view cars or airplanes: extremely useful and necessary, but also potentially dangerous in certain instances. I see many government institutions in a somewhat analogous way. Finally, I consider myself way more pragmatic than dogmatic. There are certain macroeconomic scenarios where the set of Chicago school economic philosophies are probably more appropriate, and certain scenarios where Keynesian solutions are more helpful. The difference between me and a libertarian here would be that the number of macroeconomic scenarios that call for Keynesian solutions is a lot larger for me than for a libertarian (typically around zero for them). 5. Environment/global warming: I have a habit of triggering y’all whenever I arrange the words “deal,” “new,” and “green” in a specific order, don’t I?! Later into the summer, I’ll talk more about this stuff in the GW thread. Minds will be BLOWN AWAY from all the great ideas. Great discussion as always, KRC. Don’t pull punches. Keep me challenged!

I think Trump. My reasons: 1. The national spotlight will begin to shift more equally toward Biden after the convention. I think Biden will mentally wither under this spotlight, especially at the debates. He also just doesn’t have the energy levels that Trump has, and this matters in a national crisis. Additionally, I’d say that Trump is much better at working the media than Biden. 2. The American conservative base is intrinsically more loyal and unified than America’s liberal base. Plus there’s too much accumulated left-wing scar tissue from the DNC chicanery in 2016 and 2020. 3. From a health perspective, I believe the worst is behind us even when accounting for the possibility of a second coronavirus wave in the fall. I can see the collective national psychology of this perceived “victory” easily working in the incumbent’s favor. 4. I certainly think we are facing a new economic depression, one that will permanently transform America on a political, economic, social, and international level. However, I don’t think the true misery will begin to be felt until after November when unemployment benefits start running out in large numbers. I think he has a chance, yes. See point #4 above. However, I would not bet any of my money on it. Too many variables and too much chaos between now and November.

I’m surprised that you’re surprised at the reaction! It was a provocative thread title that cuts to the visceral core of PPP. Since everyone else is airing their various Trump grievances, I will give your original question a shot as well: Hate is too strong of a word. I do not hate Trump. I strongly dislike many of his public policies. If I’m being honest with myself, I would probably forgive many of Trump’s “personality peccadillos” if he believed in the same policies that I do. I may be a far-left social democracy kind of girl, but believe it or not we are on the same page regarding Russiagate and Obamagate. I also do not care about defending Obama’s legacy, even though I voted for him in the past, because with the benefit of hindsight I see him now as a complete fraud. But getting back to why I dislike Trump…it boils down to 3 big-picture classes of public policy issues for me: 1. Continuation of America’s post-WW2 interventionist foreign policy: Trump ran on a non-interventionist platform in 2016, which I greatly respected. And as it turns out, I see him as our greatest 21st century president on foreign policy so far, overcoming a very low bar set by Dubya (Iraq, Afghanistan) and Obama (add Syria, Libya). But what I have also seen is only a continued budgetary expansion of the already out-of-control military-industrial complex under Trump’s watch. There has also been no real large-scale reduction of our country’s military presence as the world police. This is probably not financially sustainable for us, especially given the most recent additions to the now $25.5 trillion national debt. Of course, there’s also the deeply troubling ethical quandaries to the Trumpian foreign policy such as dramatically increasing drone strikes in countries like Somalia, enforcing hard sanctions on the Iranian people, undermining Venezuelan sovereignty by propping up Juan Guaido, and supporting the Saudi-led war in Yemen. 2. Rebranded supply-side economics from 1980: Trump ran as an economic nationalist in 2016, fighting for all these working-class manufacturing jobs lost to globalism. That was nice, but Trump’s highly touted USMCA is seen by most economists as little more than a slight variation of NAFTA. Trump also has never been one to support labor unions. Then we have all of Trump’s tax cuts to the very rich while wage growth continues to lag behind all the cost of living metrics for a majority of Americans. Then came the collective coronavirus coup de grace: massive corporate socialism without oversight in the first bailout bill, sweeping federal deregulation measures without any clarification of what regulations are considered frivolous and what aren’t (so we can avoid something like a repeat of the causes of the 2008 Great Recession), and grossly insufficient government-mandated protections for the most financially vulnerable Americans (basically, people outside the professional and managerial classes) compared to how most other Western countries responded to COVID-19 (yes, both Reps and Dems in Congress deserve blame here too). Trump now has a historically dire economic situation in his hands, with skyrocketing unemployment numbers and seemingly innumerable small businesses whose goods and services (restaurants, sports, etc.) may not return to normal consumption levels for a long while, if ever. So many Americans need money to spend but don’t have the money anymore to do so. To an amateur economist like myself, it seems to me that these are unusual times where Friedman dogma should be discarded in favor of good old-fashioned Keynesian stimulation for the lower and middle classes. If Trump is interested in a speedy economic recovery, he will need a large majority of Americans to return to their previous economic consumption levels as soon as possible, and this will require some level of government intervention in order to jumpstart an abruptly flatlined economy. But based on everything Trump has said and done to date, as well as based on all the advisors he surrounds himself with, I seriously doubt he will break away from conventional Republican economic wisdom. 3. Environmental protections and global warming: see my posts in the global warming thread for a complete description (if anyone is still reading this and cares about my opinions lol…). Basically, I think Trump is far and away the worst president in modern American history (i.e., since Nixon) on this set of issues. I find myself vehemently disapproving of just about everything he does when it comes to the environment. Ok I'm done. Sorry for the long post!!

Agreed. All these polls definitely matter, even if they are merely snapshots in time and the only time that truly matters is early November. Current polls indicate that Americans have a distinct problem with how Trump is handling COVID-19 at this moment. This is a very real national sentiment that we are quantifying. We are still 6.5 months away from the big day, however, which is a long time for Joe’s rapidly deteriorating brain. While some of these recent polls are interesting, I still can’t get over that Washington Post supporter enthusiasm poll in late March where Trump had such an enormous lead over Biden. The gap I believe was 29 percentage points. 53% to 24% or something like that. The enthusiasm polls are what I care about the most since we only count who cares enough to put in the effort to vote by the time early November arrives. So the two key demographics to track this summer are the Bernie base (working-class, Millenials, Latinos) and the over-65 crowd: The latter have been ditching Trump recently and coming over to Biden in droves, likely due to Trump’s callous handling of the coronavirus which has struck this demographic the hardest. Because old people are super reliable when it comes to actually voting, this new development is a potential game changer. The former are way more cynical in 2020 than they were in 2016. I don’t think Biden’s “unity task forces” will be enough to persuade them to stick with the Dems at anything close to the percentage level that Hillary maintained. Choosing a textbook neoliberal corporatist for VP like Klobuchar won’t help. If Biden cares at all about the support from the party’s progressive wing and seeks serious rapprochement, then for starters he needs to boldly support Medicare for All right now in the middle of this pandemic. I have seen recent polls showing M4A support up to 90% among Democrats and 70% among the overall US population, so this is no longer a fringe policy in America. I’m also following developments on the creation of the People’s Party. This seems like nothing more than a rebranding of the Green Party to me, but the amount of support they have by August may offer insight into just how much of the Democratic Party’s progressive left is jumping ship.

Qualitatively, many people refer to a “normal” climate as that which existed right before the start of the Industrial Revolution, with slight adjustments for any non-anthropogenic changes that have occurred since then. But for the purposes of science and energy policy, in most cases “normal” is a quantitative reference to averages of atmosphere and ocean climate data taken over the past 125 years or so and compiled by NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). Any scientific paper referencing “normal” climates will provide a more detailed description of how these numbers were calculated. When research gets interpreted and summarized by the mass media for the public, little details and annotations like these tend to get omitted. But I don’t think there is any deliberate dishonesty in play here. Note that the “normal” climate reference that is commonly in use does account for some man-made global warming. The concept of normality is about what’s acceptable and what’s not. The vast majority of the world’s modern farming system and civil infrastructure was put together with these twentieth-century climate averages in mind. There is no denial that climate is a dynamic entity, independent of man. The issue is how to explain the unprecedentedly sudden and stark changes (by geologic time scale standards) that have occurred curiously since the late 1800’s, but without the benefit of explanation from factors like large-scale volcanic activity or meteorite strikes. Anyone with a better explanation than man-induced greenhouse gas emissions will become a scientific legend. Assuming the $185 million in annual savings is accurate, that’s only 22 cents annually per NYC resident. Why not find other ways to balance the budget? And why not implement basic coronavirus protections for recycling facility workers instead of scrapping the whole enterprise altogether? Can’t the private US market find ways to pick up the slack of what China used to do for our recyclables? Won’t sending recyclables to landfills only speed up the need for additional landfills to be created? Doesn’t the use of recyclable materials instead of making new ones lower the overall manufacturing costs for companies? These are just some of the questions I have from this article. I appreciate creative ideas and outside-the-box thinking, but sometimes I’m amused by all the mental gymnastics that conservatives and neoliberals perform to avoid raising taxes ever so slightly on the uber-rich (especially on the financial elite here in Manhattan that continually receive government bailouts and clever tax evasion options).

The depth question is a tough one to answer. How many here are familiar with all 60 Buffalo Bills rosters from the past? I can say that this roster's depth is as good as any in the NFL right now. How many previous Bills teams could have ever said that? Maybe the early 90's and mid-60's rosters. The talent question is also tough. Are we referring to pure physical talent? If so, the Rex Ryan teams should be part of the discussion. If we are talking about actualized talent, I would say there's potential for skipping over 1999 and 1995 and moving right into 1993 territory. A lot will depend on the development and production of 6 players: Allen (year 3), Singletary (year 2), Diggs (year 6), Oliver (year 2), Edmunds (year 3), and White (year 4). I'm highlighting these 6 because I think they have the most potential on the roster to become Hall of Famers one day. And please note that I used the word "potential."

But general pollution and greenhouse gas pollution are two distinct classes of problems, both of which are too important to ignore. General pollution is much easier to explain to the public because the safety thresholds for heavy metals, pesticides, and industrial chemicals are comparatively tiny and easily demonstrable. Greenhouse gases are much more difficult to explain because of their “boiling-frog-slowly” effects and because the big names (water, carbon dioxide) are still completely harmless in incredibly large amounts. Hence the motivation for all the global warming histrionics to capture the public’s attention. But we agree that Bill Nye climate alarmist types are only embarrassing themselves with the “OMG we have 12 years before we all die!!” talk. I prefer a more stoic and intellectually honest strategy like “X ppm of carbon dioxide will lead to Y degrees Celsius temperature rise and Z meters of sea level rise that will create an estimated D dollars of global damage and an estimated N number of related human deaths within an estimated T years of time.” Or something like that. The scientists are there answering hard questions, but “there” is almost always a science conference or a scientific journal article. Between the jargon-laden scientists and the public is supposed to be this amazingly efficacious pipeline of communication consisting of popular science journalists, mainstream media personnel, public science promoters, and politicians. Something has gone awry among these communication middlemen. I believe the cause is a combination of widespread scientific illiteracy and the corruptible influence of money. Computer models are ubiquitous throughout every subject of science and engineering these days, so it is not unusual or suspicious for climatologists to lean heavily on them. Even if we all agreed that global warming (man-made or natural) is both occurring and unavoidable, it still leads us into a similarly contentious conversation of what role government has in helping our country adapt to a new Earth. As it turns out, I was in agreement with many of Moore’s takes on the subject before watching the documentary: 1. Renewable energies like solar and wind are overrated when you look at their entire energy life cycle (beginning from material production) and including their location limitations, gross energy production, and deleterious impact on certain aspects of the environment. 2. Biomass fuels are no good, for the most part, especially when the biomasses are forests. 3. Overpopulation, overconsumption, and unrestrained capitalism are the true problems. 4. Prominent environmental activists and organizations are corrupt and hypocritical in many instances (surprised by Bill McKibben though…). My biggest complaints with the documentary: 1. No countervailing references to the many more ways that government and the media are corrupted by fossil fuel industry money (as opposed to the ways that renewable energy industries are shown in the documentary to be favored). 2. Ridiculously superficial coverage of Green New Deal progress made in Europe. 3. Did not really address potential solutions. Just off the top of my head: nuclear energy industry investments, research into thorium-based nuclear power plants, research into nuclear fusion reactors, latest research into replacements for the internal combustion engine and the jet engine, terraforming possibilities, and the impact of veganism. Moore could have left the documentary on a more hopeful note by spending 15-30 additional minutes on solutions. Or maybe Moore’s intention was to leave the viewers on a pessimistic note so to galvanize them into action? 4. This seemed to be more of a polemic directed within the internal environmental left community. I would have reframed the movie’s content with the general American public as the intended audience. Seems like a major lost opportunity here. FWIW, this is a very controversial documentary that is already getting viciously attacked for inaccuracies. Something to keep in mind.

Thanks for all the feedback, everyone! To clarify, the NFL roster numbers for the 2020 season are 48 active, 53 total, and 12 practice squad, with any 2 from the practice squad eligible as part of the active 48 on gameday. I made two minor changes to my OP: Fromm in place of Yeldon and Hodgins in place of McKenzie. Full comments below: K (1): Hauschka...coronavirus may drastically shorten training camp and preseason, so it's generally safer to stick with the vet initially and store Bass on the PS as one of the potential 2 gameday call-ups. Is Bass safe on the PS? I think so. Not sure. We'll know more by August. P (1): Bojorquez...same plan as above. Send Vedvik to the PS and plan to start the season with the guy more familiar with the winds at RWS. LS (1): Ferguson...no change. QB (3): Allen, Barkley, Fromm...gotta keep the vet who's been in Daboll's system for 2 years. Fromm isn't safe on the PS. RB (3): Singletary, Moss, Jones...I'm cutting Yeldon because I believe both Singletary and Moss are fully capable of splitting his third-down duties as a receiving outlet and as a pass blocker. Wade will be a great injury call-up from the PS and might even be able to steal Taiwan's job in preseason? FB (1): DiMarco...Gilliam to bide his time on the PS. WR (6): Diggs, Brown, Beasley, Davis, Hodgins, Roberts...the toughest position group for me to predict. I agree that Hodgins can't be stored on the PS. Davis and Hodgins are likely upgrades over Duke Williams. Davis can also take Foster's gunner spot. Foster hasn't developed enough as a WR. I think McKenzie's gadget plays can go to Tawian Jones instead? Ray-Ray go bye-bye. What a difference from 2018's group! TE (3): Kroft, Knox, Sweeney...while all 3 need to work on their blocking technique, Lee Smith is too limited on the field to stick around. Also, Smith just committed 2 more penalties as I typed this sentence. T (4): Dawkins, Williams, Nsekhe, Ford...Adams is ideal PS material. G (3): Spain, Feliciano, Boehm...Bates is still eligible for PS, right? C (2): Morse, Long...my theme for the OL is to stick with the vets. It is critical that Allen remains healthy and happy in his third year of development. DT (5): Oliver, Butler, Jefferson, Lotulelei, Phillips...I think y'all are going to be pleasantly surprised with Butler. I think he wins the 1-tech starting job. DE (5): Hughes, Epenesa, Addison, Murphy, D. Johnson...a bit surprised by all the Murphy hate. He's an excellent backup. The salary cap savings should be irrelevant this year. Johnson has too much potential not to be stored on the roster as one of the 5 inactives to start the season. LB (6): Edmunds, Milano, Klein, Thompson, Matakevich, Joseph...huge dropoff from Edmunds if he gets injured. Can Klein and Matakevich handle emergency inside duties?? S (4): Hyde, Poyer, Neal, J. Johnson...Neal and Johnson are very underrated backups. CB (5): White, Wallace, T. Johnson, Norman, Gaines...store Jackson on the PS until Gaines inevitably injures himself. A bit rude, no? My user name is “RealKayAdams,” not “FakeKayAdams.” Q.E.D. I would never question whether or not you are the real Will Ferrell character from the Step Brothers movie. Probably not even as a distant relative. Trey is officially listed as 6’8” 330 lb. I officially list myself as 5’5” 115 lb before all the quarantine delivery food.

1. Chiefs 2. Ravens 3. Bills 4. Titans 5. Patriots 6. Texans 7. Steelers 8. Browns 9. Broncos 10. Colts 11. Raiders 12. Chargers 13. Dolphins 14. Jets 15. Bengals 16. Jaguars

Whatcha got, Bills fans? I need help with mine: K (1): Hauschka P (1): Bojorquez LS (1): Ferguson QB (2): Allen, Barkley RB (4): Singletary, Moss, Yeldon, Jones FB (1): DiMarco WR (6): Diggs, Brown, Beasley, Davis, McKenzie, Roberts TE (3): Kroft, Knox, Sweeney T (4): Dawkins, Williams, Nsekhe, Ford G (3): Spain, Feliciano, Boehm C (2): Morse, Long DT (5): Oliver, Butler, Jefferson, Lotulelei, Phillips DE (5): Hughes, Epenesa, Addison, Murphy, D. Johnson LB (6): Edmunds, Milano, Klein, Thompson, Matakevich, Joseph S (4): Hyde, Poyer, Neal, J. Johnson CB (5): White, Wallace, T. Johnson, Norman, Gaines My analysis: I had to cut too much talent! I couldn't even fit the last 4 draft picks (Fromm, Bass, Hodgins, Jackson) on the final 53, and it's probably not safe to store any of them on the practice squad. Wade and Foster also have too much natural talent to leave off the roster. My conclusion: Goodell needs to cancel the 2020 NFL season immediately, but it has nothing to do with the coronavirus. The Buffalo Bills have already won the 55th Super Bowl with their roster additions. Brandon Beane is a GM magician who has mastered the dark arts of pro football roster assembly.

Normally I believe the Sam LB if you are in your base 4-3 and the slot CB if you are in your regular nickel.

I know, I was just making a bad joke. A slight trade-down could be the best option, given all the talent that should still be available at #54.

Unfortunately the Bills pick 22nd tonight, so they will just miss out on those 20.

For me, Butler to Buffalo was the most interesting free agent addition in the NFL. He's built like a prototypical run-stuffing nose tackle, has the pass-rush potential for annual sacks in the high single digits, and could elevate a top-5 defense to historical dominance. Is he a late bloomer or just a one-year wonder? Was his one-year wonder situation because he played as a 3-4 NT? Will he struggle again in a 4-3? Will the Bills be using more 3-4 looks? I like Phillips, Star, and Jefferson a lot. But to me, an Oliver-Butler 4-3 DT pairing has the highest potential for greatness.

I have a NSFW joke involving Kamala Harris and Willie Brown. Should I make it? No...no, I shouldn't. My prediction for VP is still Harris, with Newsom a possible Biden replacement at the convention. An all-California ticket I suppose (EDIT: Oops, forgot that both Pres and VP can't be from same state).

No, not quite. I only agree that some people will make (sometimes laughably) inaccurate predictions and that this phenomenon is independent of the date in time. The overall quality of prediction-making from climatology experts has been getting noticeably better since 1970, as it probably should, since 50 years is a long time for a scientific subject to mature. The biggest variability seen in today’s climate change predictions may come from determining how exactly the methane trapped within the permafrost soil of the Northern Hemisphere tundra gets released. I do often roll my eyes, however, at some of the doomsday scenarios proposed. Yes, man-made climate change will make life different and more difficult in many ways for us, but it’s not going to end human civilization altogether. Rest of my comments from posts: 1. Greta Thunberg, AOC, Al Gore, Bill Nye: I don’t get as worked up about them as others do. They serve a useful purpose, which is to raise public awareness of man-made climate change. You can make a fair argument that their sometimes outlandish, hyperbolic, and downright scientifically inaccurate claims hurt the cause overall…but the bottom line is that they are not scientific experts and should never be treated as such. I blame the mainstream media here for deifying these 4 as climate change authority figures. I also blame climate change scientists for harboring a culture of disdain toward science popularizers, which creates a knowledge void within the public that charlatans can fill. Oh yeah, and I also blame liberals in general for peddling nonsense like Russiagate and “Wuhan virus” racism shaming because then it makes it that much harder for the public to take anything else a perceived leftist says seriously. 2. Era of pollution regulations (like EPA) and agricultural innovation (like GMO’s): What I was intending to say is that the greatest rate of positive change occurred during the 70’s and 80’s. Progress spilled over into the 90’s and beyond, of course. 3. Decade of big hair: Wasn’t this more of an 80’s thing? I’m going by movies and music videos, primarily. 4. Weather versus climate: I know y’all having fun with this, but just make sure you understand the difference. 5. Biden and anything related to Green New Deal: Won’t happen with him as president. They are empty words to win votes from the far left. The fossil fuel industries have purchased both Republicans and establishment Democrats like Biden. 6. Hypocrisy of liberals: Agreed. You can’t proclaim man-made global warming is a problem and then behave in your own personal life like it’s no big deal. This is especially true for liberals who are public figures. 7. Supreme Court and Clean Water Act: It’s interesting how these kinds of arguments generally tend toward the left taking the side of public health over the economy, while vice versa with the right. The politics surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic seem to mirror this. In my not so controversial opinion, both matter and the devil is in the details. Each environmental health case needs to be treated as its own unique situation with its own unique set of factors. The rabid lefty in me can’t help but fear how many more Love Canals and Flint Michigans exist throughout the country but go unreported.

Can someone explain his backyard to me? It looks like a bizarre football field for toddlers, but with a dangerous fire pit at midfield.

That accuracy is why I think he's going to be a superstar. From Kelly vs. Marino to Allen vs. Tagovailoa.

Superstar? As in future first-team All-Pro? It's possible. Everything about him is potentially elite, with the sole exception of breakaway speed. Fortunately, Buffalo's offense won't have to rely on Singletary becoming elite. He just needs to do his job moving the chains, catching screens out of the backfield, and performing basic pass blocks. Daboll is building the offense around Allen and probably prefers a RB-by-committee approach. Add Carlos Hyde or his draft equivalent (Zack Moss?) as the power back, Yeldon as the third-down back, Jones as a special teams ace, DiMarco as whatever he does, and Wade as a wild-card. Not a bad group!

Oh gosh...that's quite an impressive list of talent. Of the remaining players who can realistically fall to #54, I really like Zack Baun (OLB, Wisconsin) for Buffalo. Prototypical McDermott player - versatile, hard-working, student of the game, natural leader, very talented. Perfect replacement for Lorenzo Alexander. Definitely more of a BPA than need pick, but the Bills don't have any glaring roster holes to fill. I could also see any number of extremely talented WR's or CB's somehow falling to the Bills. Pittman (WR, USC) would be a great red-zone target for Allen. Diggs (CB, Alabama) would be a great fit for Frazier's zone secondary. Zack Moss (RB, Utah) would be perfection at #86.

Ok, well I get the point being made here: shockingly, it is possible for scientists to be incorrect. But this particular article seems to be filled with selection bias, no? 15 listed incorrect predictions from random people in 1970, but no reference to any correct predictions made by scientists within the past 50 years. 4 of the wildest quotes came from one singular fella named Kenneth Watt. I don’t know what the deal was with this guy. Others were vague predictions of doom and gloom too general to even be considered “testable.” Some of these predictions didn’t come from qualified scientists. Others referenced global food shortages and pollution, problems which still could have conceivably come true were it not for agricultural innovations and effective environmental regulations achieved throughout the 70’ and 80’s. I am a devout “believer” in the scientific method. I believe that reason, logic, facts, and evidence will eventually overcome whatever personal biases, groupthink, and research grant influences that exist within the scientific community. If the current scientific consensus of man-made climate change is wrong, it will be made obvious and break down soon enough. But an opposing case being made is much more credible if it comes from trained scientists in the subject and not from laypeople. There are always heretical scientists out there eager to prove their colleagues wrong and make their name in science. If you provide research papers or articles for me to read from dissenting climatologists, I am more than happy to look over them and reevaluate my stance. I certainly hope I am wrong on this subject. No need for lengthy replies. Quick links will suffice. As for the practical solutions side to the debate, you seem extremely bothered by the very notion that I would be open to Green New Deal solutions. If I’m placing my full faith in the religion of science, is it not possible that you are doing something similar for the “religion” of economic libertarianism? Again, no need to reply if you don’t want to do so. Just something to consider. I hear ya, but I see no other realistic choice. Isolating China from its allies because of its fossil fuel usage seems to be our best option. In my opinion, the much easier part would be controlling the CCP via their resolute obsession for global economic hegemony. The much harder part may be getting the EU and the US on the same diplomatic page with China’s current allies, like Russia and many of the Islamic countries, whose economies are already heavily dependent on fossil fuels. Hmmm…..

I would replace the bolded with “could very well end up as” since nothing is obvious now and since so many things can happen between now and the late summer. The US government can still put giant band-aids on this economy for the short-term, though it will require bipartisan cooperation plus levels of government intervention that us Americans are historically loath to support (look how difficult it was squeezing one-time $1200 checks out of Congress). The two most immediate crises looming on the horizon are stabilizing small businesses and stabilizing rent/mortgage payments. Next up is getting people to start spending “normally” as they exit quarantine protocol in the face of large economic uncertainty and often without jobs anymore. Further down the road are student loan debts and other consumer debts. Additional temporary UBI checks will likely be necessary to avoid the most suboptimal economic outcomes. Moving forward, I’m optimistic that the dreaded “curve” can remain flat enough for our health care system as we gradually roll out our service economy. Testing, sanitation practices, and social distancing measures are going to be so much better than when we started. But the big elephant in the room is the massive rising number of unemployed Americans without health insurance. Free COVID-19 care may not be enough. Temporary M4A should be on the table. Looks like we’re on the same page when it comes to policing crony capitalism, increasing the social welfare safety net, implementing some form of a Keynesian progressive taxation policy, and probably curbing certain types of deregulatory practices. But do you think the pandemic will accelerate any changes to these because of the impending economic degradation? I’m not so sure change will even happen. The progressive left’s ability to politically organize and fight is unimpressive, to put it mildly. And oligarchs gonna oligarch, so wresting power from them when they own the Fourth Estate seems daunting. However, we may very well be witnessing many conditions analogous to those that sparked the social and political upheaval during the French Revolution. If you are not a Millenial or among the working class, maybe this is not quite so obvious yet. As JFK (I think) said, “Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.” Hopefully cooler heads prevail and enough Americans on all political sides remain open-minded and empathetic toward each other. I think so too. Many from third-world countries look at the United States as absolute paradise once they experience it. Those from “social democracy” countries do appreciate many aspects of our country: the nice people, the melting pot of cultures, our entertainment industry, and the physical landscape. What they are uncomfortable with here are things like our huge socioeconomic disparities, our religiosity, our cultural obsession with money and status, and our poor civil infrastructure (this one seems to come up a lot). This is a very valid point. Other countries need to be spending more for their own national defense. I still believe it’s possible to have both a strong national defense and a reasonable social safety net without drowning in taxes, however.

It fell down my draft board because it made my scouts' urine smell. He can run my legume draft, but I'm in charge of the vegetable draft.