zn wrote:

PA Ram wrote:

Of course now I’m craving a banana cream pie.

Yummmmmmmy!!!!!!!!!

You, sir, are truly the king of pies.

The wife and I had a big battle over pie this year. She insisted on pumpkin pie and I–as fans of these pie threads will no doubt recall–am a big apple crumb fan. We ended up getting two large pies. Plenty of pie here tonight.

Of course now I’m craving a banana cream pie.

Maybe tomorrow.

I’m not really sure what to make of Tulsi Gabbard. On one hand–yes–she told the DNC to F off and supported Bernie. Yet there are little things about her that may signal all is not what it seems. I have heard other Democrats explain how they do not completely trust her and I can’t claim to know everything about her because she is pretty new to me as a political figure.

Here’s an article on her:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/07/25/the-bernie-endorsing-congresswoman-who-trump-fans-can-love.html

She’s a lawmaker who has a soft spot for dictatorial regimes. She pals around with Sheldon Adelson. She’s declined to sign onto an assault weapons ban. She opposes admitting refugees. She a frequent fixture on Fox News, where she has slammed the president over his refusal to use the term “Islamic extremism” to refer to terror attacks.
Sounds a lot like The Donald.
But Rep. Tulsi Gabbard is a Democrat, running for reelection in one of America’s most liberal districts. The Hawaii congresswoman’s record shows that she has bucked her own party’s trends—and in the process, alienated some of her area’s most dedicated progressive activists.

“I am little skeptical about how deep her progressive roots run,” said John Bickel, treasurer for Progressive PAC, a Hawaii state organization that endorses candidates on the left. Still, he is, at the moment, supporting Gabbard for reelection. “Tulsi Gabbard shows up in places and gets in front of the camera, spinning herself as a progressive—but I’m not sure her record backs up what she’s created as a public persona.”
The bizarre policy overlap between Trump and Gabbard, a Bernie Sanders supporter and rising star in her party’s progressive wing, illustrates the connections between Trump and Sanders’s brands of populism. Trump is hoping to capitalize on the working-class frustration that both appeal to, with explicit calls for Sanders supporters to support his campaign, as he enters the Republican National Convention. It’s a temptation for rank-and-file Democrats that Hillary Clinton’s campaign no doubt has an eye on.
Gabbard has been a favorite of Fox News, where she diverged from the typical Democratic Party line on the term “Islamic extremism.” Democrats such as Bernie Sanders—whom Gabbard endorsed—have stayed away from such phrases because, they argue, it suggests that the United States is at war with the Muslim religion itself.

I’d like to be sure she was a real progressive and not just a political opportunist. I never had a doubt about Bernie Sanders and his sincerity. I’m not at clear about Gabbard. But I will be watching her. There are too few progressives with any kind of real political power and weight and I’m not sure who can fill the void left by Bernie to run for the top position.

Elizabeth Warren is 67 so she’d be 71 at the next election. That’s certainly young enough to run but the Dems need to truly get some progressive people out there because that campaign begins now. They will have to introduce themselves to people or they will start from way behind–like Bernie did–and he was better known than someone like Tulsi Gabbard, I’m sure.

So yes–I hope she’s legitimate. But I’m keeping a wary eye on her for now.

As for serving with Trump—I could care less IF she accomplished something good. But certainly this would likely keep her from running against him in four years–and maybe that’s his goal–to take one possible contender away.

I hope she thinks very carefully about it.

— X — wrote:

wv wrote:

I mean do you think only enlightened, wise, holy, social-justice crusaders voted for Trump? How many of them types ARE there in this here nation…

w
v

Of course not. I’m just tired of the constant pigeon-holing of middle Americans as less thans because they don’t have any higher education on their CV’s. Why make a point of it? What difference does it make? Does it make me less informed or signify an inability to think critically? Am I somehow less enlightened? Do I think only linearly? Why shouldn’t I take exception to that? What if I constantly harped on the idea that college students don’t know how to think for themselves? What if I kept suggesting that colleges are like liberal cults that are breeding grounds for mindless twits who only know how to parrot the things with which they’ve been indoctrinated, and it’s THEY who are responsible for the past 8 years of moral regression and fiscal irresponsibility? Would it bother you if every article you read suggested as much?

I keep hearing this almost anti-education–or at least formal education, in your posts, X. If I’m reading that wrong I apologize. But I think there really is an anti-intellectualism movement in the country. I think there is a “dumbing down” of things. Have you watched CNN lately?

You personally, are far from dumb. One does not need a formal education to be informed and smart about things. It does, however, take an intellectual curiosity to find and understand the large amount of information available today. My experience is that a lot of blue collar workers–and maybe white collar ones, just don’t have the time for it. They remain ignorant on a variety of subjects because they either don’t care or would prefer their information from a Facebook meme or a Rush Limbaugh rant on the way home from work.

I know these guys. I work with them.

I also have an 11th grade education. I did get my GED and I put in about a year of college when I went into the air force.

I’ve never been a particularly “formal” education kind of guy. I wanted to follow my curiosity. And when I did find something interesting, I wanted to know a lot about it. I studied it. There are many subjects that I am woefully ignorant about and I’m aware of what those are. There are things I WISH I had more interest in–a lot of practical things, really.

But the reality is what it is and there is no point in denying it.

Yes…ignorant people vote. A large part of the country votes but takes very little time to really know a candidate or the issues.

I hear blue collar workers all day long(or evening since I work 2nd shift)and I heard many of them before this election blasting Clinton for emails or this or that or the other thing. I didn’t hear one person tell me WHY they liked Trump.

How could they?

Trump’s plans were vague at best. Slogans. And more anti-Hillary than anything else.

I believe that is how people voted. And she deserved it. She was an awful candidate and it’s true that she didn’t give anyone a reason TO vote for her besides the fact that she wasn’t Trump. At the end of the day that was still enough to win the popular vote.

So were those 1. 5 million votes or so more of the popular vote all from college educated voters? I doubt it. At the end of the day it is also rural vs. urban. Those lines are much clearer.

I hated voting for her. And if she had won it would not have been a vote FOR her. It would have been what it was–a vote AGAINST Trump. It’s my belief that this is what this particular election was about more than anything else.

Well, I kind of agree with those guys. I don’t think Fisher is going anywhere anytime soon.

It is almost a weird thing to watch now. If they go 4-6 next year for the 5th year in a row–well–I don’t think I’ll have any more words for any of it. I will just sit here drooling on my keyboard and hitting “submit”.

zn wrote:

I don’t know what’s going on. It has too many causes. Will the OL ever gel? How much of that is Gurley? How fast will Goff progress? How much real improvement have we seen at receiver? Is Boras ultimately a capable OC?

By the way–this whole question about Gurley is one of the biggest mysteries to me this year. Of course the O-line gets some blame but I don’t think it gets ALL the blame. What the heck happened to him? I just can’t sort that question out. Was last year a fluke? Did they figure out how to tackle him this year?

I mean–if you look at last year he’d have these games where he didn’t do much. Then he’d break free for home runs. He’s not hitting home runs this year. Actually, he’s mostly striking out. The point is, he doesn’t seem like he is or may ever be the four or five yards at a pop kind of running back. He seems to be swinging for the fences when the ball is low or outside. Maybe that IS who he is as a runner. I don’t know. I really have no idea.

It’s a mystery to me. Who is Todd Gurley? This team needs to know–and so does Gurley.

I will say this. On other boards, this kind of discussion is fraught and loaded and as often as not, personal. Here, I think people get the principle that you can disagree with a poster in one thread and at the same time agree in another. We don’t let the discussion get loaded and antagonistic.

If you don’t agree, then you’re under arrest. Don’t tempt me either.

Of course I would never take personal offense or offer it to anyone here, who I consider friends after so many years together. But I do get passionate from time to time. I would hope that I am staying on the side of the rode that holds that passion to the subject at hand and doesn’t drift over to the side of the road that is personal territory. I don’t feel personal about any of it. I appreciate a forum to vent about these things. None of it holds any more weight beyond my personal feelings about the subject. I’m not trying to win an argument so much as trying to express why I personally feel how I do about something.

Everyone is entitled to their own feelings on the subject.

Even if I’m right. 🙂

zn wrote:

PA Ram wrote:

Jeff Fisher: 31-41 0 playoff appearences. Highest fisnish 3rd in NFC West.

Mike Martz: 53-32 3-4 in playoffs

As you know, I think records hide more than they reveal.

Here’s what I can say about both records.

Martz inherited a built team and then destroyed it. He at least had 2 qbs. So to me his record is the story of wasting an opportunity…the downward angle of his season records being an effect of that.

Fisher actually had to build a team, and in fact had to do it twice, while losing qbs right and left and finally starting a rookie. I cannot imagine Martz doing any better under the same circumstances.

The numbers themselves, taken in themselves, hide more than they reveal. Which is usually the case. We know that if we take (say) 4 different coaches with the same record, we could actually find 4 different situations. The raw unanalyzed record would not reveal that stuff. You have to look.

I don’t know, zn. I don’t think it’s fair to give a guy who has had 5 years to build HIS team, a pass on a miserable record. But the other guy is blamed for the downfall of a team as if it all rested on his shoulders.

From Bulger:

Quarterback Marc Bulger said about Martz, “He was by far the smartest football mind I’ve ever been around. The things he was teaching was so far ahead of what others were teaching.”

When I get the chance to hear him analyze a game I’m always impressed. THIS is a guy I’d love to have around to teach Goff. Not Chris Weinke.

zn wrote:

PA Ram wrote:

Make it happen:

Please, no…he wrecked the team he inherited from Vermeil last time he was the HC.

Rams Records:

Jeff Fisher: 31-41 0 playoff appearences. Highest fisnish 3rd in NFC West.

Mike Martz: 53-32 3-4 in playoffs

Make it happen:

Retain Fisher so that he can continue this psychological experiment on the fans. I want to see where it goes.

I am Bernie Sanders. I am a Democratic Socialist.

There is no politician in my lifetime who I associate more closely to than Bernie Sanders–and it has been this way for years–long before he ran for President. So you can imagine my disappointment when he lost. When he speaks, I feel he’s giving my beliefs a voice. And let me tell you–that’s a great feeling.

Yes—I’m one of THOSE people who look at corporations with a very skeptical eye, as some sort of blobs run amok, devouring countries and people in a neverending quest for infinite growth.

I do not like “too big to fail”. I think that’s a problem.

I think there is a vital role for government to play in our lives but I’m no communist. I don’t oppose capitalism, really–but I do think it needs rules and guidelines to reign in its worst excesses.

I don’t want a society that leaves people in the dirt–a survival of the fittest way of life that neglects those at the bottom. I want the environment to be something that is figured into corporate profits. I want it recognized that a clean and safe environment belongs to all of us–not just those who can buy it, or who can own the right to abuse it in the name of holy profits.

I do not believe we should be involved in war after war in a fool’s effort to make over the world in our own image. I don’t believe in empire building.

I believe in science.

I do not believe religion should enter politics. I believe common sense should. For example, why oppose birth control on religious grounds and also oppose abortions on religious grounds? What’s the higher concern? Wouldn’t birth control help to prevent abortions? The only argument I can see for opposition to birth control is a religious one and I don’t get it. I don’t get the idea that abstinence will ever truly work. We’re creatures with biological urges that will knock down that abstinence wall every time. It’s ineffective, to say the least.

I believe the United States is a diverse nation, that it is indeed a melting pot. While I do not believe that we should have open borders, I do welcome immigrants who come here to make better lives for themselves and their families and I do believe that is the vast majority of immigrants. I believe that illegals who are here now should have a path to citizenship, and yes–for those who are criminals–I have no problem with deporting them. I just do not believe that this is the vast majority of them.

We have 50, 000 Irish immigrants living here in the United States illegally. I never heard Trump say they were sending their rapists.

So anyway–these are some things I believe in.

I also realize that there are very different views out there from my own. I’ve had people tell me that as you get older you become more conservative and there are stats to prove it. I never looked at those stats but I know how certain age groups vote so I’m sure it’s true.

I’ve been pretty consistent. I’ve never stopped developing a political philosophy, focusing it more, defining it better, knowing what it all really means to me. But the basic roots of my beliefs started early and just solidified as I got older.

When a guy at work told me about the conservative thing I laughed at him. I said, “I’m 54 and I don’t think I’m changing now.” If anything, as I experience life it has brought me closer to my political beliefs.

Also–I should point out I am as blue collar as it gets. I work with a lot of Trump voters, by the way. Some of them used to vote straight Democrat. I think that’s interesting.

I believe there is not a hard and defined political philosophy for most of America, really.

I think that people can find something to disagree with or to agree with on each side, and that this is more of a purple nation than red or blue. But there is a need by people in power to keep a very strict divide. It works for them.

They play us against each other all the time.

A divided nation is good for the powerful. If we are arguing with each other all the time we aren’t looking at what’s behind the curtain. That would spoil the illusion.

One other thing about Clinton I have to get off my chest–something that bothered me about her campaign from the start and sort of said it all in regard to her cluelessness.

Her slogan: I’m With Her

Again–all about HER.

Terrible.

i think it was Trump or Bernie or whoever who turned that back on her with , “I’m with YOU”.

It was always about HER.

Terrible campaign.

• This reply was modified 8 years, 2 months ago by PA Ram.

At first the media tried to dismiss Bernie as a fringe candidate. They kind of laughed at him. Then they tried to discredit him and label him as some sort of radical socialist out of touch with America. He wasn’t treated particularly well, and I can even remember seeing him being challenged by Colbert(who clearly was in the tank for Clinton).

But Bernie would not go away. And he had success.

Still, they didn’t get into Clinton’s baggage the way they did when it was her against Trump. They may have touched on things, but it was a whole other level once she clinched the nomination.

And yes–add to that the DNC help she got along the way, and he had an uphill battle.

The one problem Bernie did have, however, was making inroads with the black community. Clinton had the churches, the local government connections with black leaders, and a history with that group that made things very difficult for them to hear and trust his message. They didn’t know Bernie. He may have been well served by starting a couple years earlier trying to introduce himself to them but he may not have known he was running at that time. But by the time of the campaign it was too late.

Still, as time went on the African-American community became less thrilled with Clinton anyway and they did not show up in big numbers to support her in the general election.

Clinton was a terribly flawed candidate in a time when the electorate was screaming for change.

If the Dems go back to the same plan, feeling they still know better, that it was all just because of Clinton, that a Tim Kaine can win next time, that four years of Trump will cause everyone to come running back anyway, that they just can’t let go of their donor obsessions, and that the answer(as I heard one of them say) is just better messaging, they are doomed.

Mr. Wall Street Chuck Schumer has already got the leadership of the senate(and though Bernie supported him when announced, I am sure there are pragmatic reasons for it, and perhaps even a deal in it for progressives) and Nancy Pelosi, whose average salary in her constituency is about 120,000 dollars is claiming the House leadership so not much change at the top there.

I don’t know what will happen yet at the DNC. Ellison has a lot of support.

But it will be interesting to watch what they do over the next few years. Either the party will change, or it will simply be obsolete.

The media(which will be under assault for the next few years like never before) will have to look at itself as well. The scary part is if they bow to the pressure and become useless.

• This reply was modified 8 years, 2 months ago by PA Ram.

I look for redzone scoring to go up with Goff. But they won’t get to the redzone as much.

I don’t know if the team can match last week’s offensive display so I’m gonna say Rams: 6 Dolphins: 3

.500 here we come!!!!!