LSHMEAB

I'm not concerned about the CEO's Rob. I'm concerned about the people trying to scrape by who may (or may not) be affected by the consolidation of wealth. As I said, I wouldn't want to live in a country that didn't allow citizens to become wealthy, even uber wealthy. But if you look at healthcare outcomes, upward mobility rates, income disparity, etc; something's gotta give. Healthcare alone; we spend TWICE as much as the next country on healthcare and our outcomes are 26th! There's no where to go but up. Let me just ask this question re: CEO's since you're likely referencing the 400/1 figure I cited. At what point is it a problem? If, let's say, the average CEO was making 10,000x that of the average worker, would THAT be a problem?

Communist? Ehhhh. That's a stretch. As far as healthcare, he's not advocating state control of the industry. He's advocating that the government provide insurance, which they already do for senior citizens. The Green New Deal will never come to fruition, but the OLD New Deal put people to work for the state in the construction industry, which could easily be construed as a state takeover.(And I'm sure it was at the time.) I think many of these attacks include a great deal of hyperbole. You're gonna have to explain the transportation "takeover." Pretty sure all commercial travel is already controlled by the state. Bit on an addendum; I fully believe capitalism is the best economic system...until it's not. Eventually so much wealth is consolidated at the top that it requires a reset button. In the 1960's, a CEO made on average 30 times that of the average worker. In 2020, that number is 400/approaching 500. The tax cuts gave the economy a sugar high, as they often do, but it USUALLY doesn't last. Perhaps this one was perfectly targeted, but I'm skeptical. I think a lot of people recognize that the economic numbers looks good, but wonder why it doesn't seem to be helping them PERSONALLY. Given that it's going to be Trump/Sanders, we'll have an opportunity to see how people actually feel. Just glad it's not going to be some squishy pushover like Petey or Pocahontas. It's actually refreshing that the conversation has shifted from palace intrigue/needless Trump bashing into discourse wrt the economy. FINAL addendum; No rational human being wants to live in a society that doesn't allow someone to become wealthy. What we're talking about is marginal tax rates and how the taxes should be allocated. Redistribution of wealth is a scary buzzword, but WE ALREADY DO THAT. The tax rates in place are progressive in nature. So technically speaking, America redistributes wealth RIGHT NOW. The debate is, and has always been, the degree to which we want to redistribute wealth. Forbes/Herman Cain/Grover Norquist are proponents of a flat tax, which would effectively end the redistribution of wealth, but that never came to be. Sanders proposals would represent the extreme opposite end of the spectrum. What I'm getting at is that none of this is nearly as radical as it's being portrayed.

What's the game and what are the stakes?

Right. But most people have no idea what "socialism" actually entails. It has far more to do with the means of production than it does healthcare(although govt. control of healthcare COULD be considered "means of production") or minimum wage. I'm pretty sure Sanders proposals do not rise to the level of true socialism, although it's nebulous. Communism involves total state control, as I'm sure you know. Socialism is tricky in that it's somewhere in between. Point being, most of the proposals being put forth have been enacted in countries like Denmark for many years and Denmark has not become a dictatorship.

Say what you will about his policies, but socialism is an economic system independent from authoritarianism(as it is perceived). Pretty sure Denmark doesn't have authoritarian rule. Food stamps are socialist. Medicaid is socialist. He would like to implement MORE social safety nets while those on the right want less. So we're debating degrees of socialism. I was thinking about food stamps and Medicaid today and the unintended consequences of pulling the plug on these programs. Crime would almost certainly increase and the workforce would be flooded with unskilled workers who currently get by with these scraps. Would that have a positive outcome? Essentially, corporations would gain leverage and those wage increases we've seen( largely aided by minimum wage laws) would stagnate. Additionally, the unemployment rate would skyrocket as the current number does not reflect those not "looking for a job." I glean these freebies cause a great deal of distress for some, but I'm not so sure they don't help the economy.

Do I know you?

Meh. This election WAS almost certainly going to be a referendum on Trump. That NEVER works. A candidate with ideas as polarizing as Sanders' changes that dynamic quite a bit. Whatever you may think of his policies on minimum wage and universal healthcare, that socialist fella NEVER backs down. The Dems are making the BEST decision possible by nominating a candidate who will actually mobilize folks who don't generally vote. Forget the middle. It doesn't exist. I'm not saying he's going to win, but he's got the best shot. Downballot Dems ie the establishment have a pretty AWFUL track record in terms of prognostications, so the fact that they're "concerned" is a good sign.

We just don't know yet indeed. I think what we DO know, and how that relates to an anecdotal interaction, is that the offensive personnel needs to be upgraded in order to FULLY analyze the QB. Perhaps the main reason JA's name may not come up in the course of a conversation. Good read.

Been saying this all along. The guy had 5.5 sacks in 5 FULL SEASONS in the NFL prior to 2019. Team's are going to be EXTREMELY skeptical of that type of one year jump. He'll get paid, but he won't get anything close to some of the figures I've seen mentioned. I think there's a strong chance he's back at a reasonable rate if he wants to remain with the team. Shaq is the opposite. His career trajectory and position will lead some team to view him as a rising STUD. I think this view is false. Nice player. Not a guy you shell out huge dollars for. But some team will(IMO).

Capitalism at work. Honestly don't even understand the question. They get paid because they have leverage and the league generates a TON of money. Period.

Oh, I understand the details. Just glib commentary. But you gotta admit that Trump does burn through his own hires like nobody's business. Not really even a knock.(Well, maybe a little). He has the authority and the right to find people he believes advance the agenda he's pursuing. They all do it. Holder was Obama's guy through and through so the whole Barr thing is pure spin. But Trump MIGHT want to tinker with the administration's HR department.

Seems like every one of Trump's appointees/hires eventually betray him in some form or fashion. We'll see how long this one lasts.

The interesting thing about McGee as a return man was that he wasn't particularly fast. Just had such a natural feel for how the return was transpiring. Gotta give a lot of credit to Bobby April who had an amazing return scheme at the time.

The single greatest individual play made during the drought era was Terrence McGee's 300 yard KO return against New Orleans, which resulted in zero points. Perhaps a metaphor for those 17 years of futility.

This. The offense needs playmakers. I think we can find a big straight line back on the cheap(and I do think we need someone like the Frank Gore we thought we were getting.) The fact that Allen can get a yard any time he needs is does sort of mitigate the need for a "goalline" runner, although you don't want to go to that well too often. Singletary is a solid back and definitely has value. The "type" of back I'd prefer to see them add is someone like DS, but BETTER. More explosive. More of a threat to take it to the house. RB's get winded. They get worn down. There's no rule that says you can't have two backs with a similar skill set.

It was pretty obvious Mueller wasn't going to find some grand conspiracy on Trump's part from the early goings in that investigation. The media had already spent a year "investigating" and they came up with a single meeting with a lawyer. A single meeting of little or no consequence. Logic dictates that the media would have discovered SOMETHING "better" along the way than an individual meeting with some lawyer who appeared to have little or no connection to the Kremlin. It ALWAYS smacked of weaksauce. "But wait for Mueller I was told" by my liberal pals. MMkay. I waited. And when you launch that kind of investigation and make those kind of implicit promises, it will almost certainly backfire. They handed Trump a pretty big political score there. On this particular issue, zero disagreement.

But one thing always jumps out. There are MANY posters here who've lived a different life than I've lived and have a different, yet valid opinion. But please do not ask me to believe that the Don, is EVER, telling me, or you the TRUTH. In my heart of heart's, I find the guy fascinating. I really do. He IS hilarious. Got charisma from god know's where TO god know's where. But honest? That is not his thing, so PLEASE put that somewhere else cause you sound loopy.

Well said. Emotion gets the best of us, but if you look at the Stone case in a vacuum, I DO feel like 9 years IS excessive. I don't think Trump should be weighing in on the jury or the matter, but 9 years? Ok, we can agree that's excessive.

Such a normal response. Who TF does that? Stone gets what Stone gets. Prison time. Not life. Not a day. Why is this so difficult?

Look at this thread; I'm supposed to feel sorry for ROGER STONE??????????????????? There are kids ROTTING in prison for....... We've got a long way to go as a country. There will be no arrests. Not one.

Ok. I asked myself the question you posed. But as I did with the Mueller probe and the Ukraine nonsense, I ask myself a MORE important question. Does this make sense? If the power that be deprived Trump of the Presidency, then HOW THE H IS HE THE PRESIDENT? Wouldn't you think they would have been powerful enough to alter the results?

YOU!. And I say that lovingly because we're cool. But seriously my dude, McCabe is "off the hook." Any thoughts?

Dude intervened on a case on of personal interest. Is he going to do the same for the hundreds of thousands facing the same situation? Uhhh. Nah.

That's a matter of perception, and yes, results matter. You do have a point. Had that play been executed as planned, this would be a different conversation. But the fumble was definitely an example of "not getting it done."

I find myself both agreeing/disagreeing with this take. I do think the defense deserves a LARGE share of the blame for the loss. As I've been saying for a year plus, they do not have that elite edge player able to FINISH plays and make QB's miserable. Hughes is good. Murphy is Murphy. Shaq is not a pass rusher per se. You just wouldn't see that kind of comeback if the defense had that elite disruptor nor would you have seen Mayfield driving down the field with a clean pocket in the Cleveland loss. The defense is good, but missing that element, and it catches up to them when the opposing QB is "hot." And while I agree the team and Allen were both a bit shellshocked by the turn of events, he did have an opportunity to be "that guy." He wasn't. It WAS his first playoff game and the sequence of events was bizarre, so those are mitigating factors. But if he's gonna be that guy, he'll learn from the experience and become prepared for any situation that may arise over the course of a game. He did not get this done at Houston. That's not good. It also doesn't mean he CAN'T get it done going forward. We'll see.