On the day he died, JFK planned to give a speech warning against the dangers of misinformation on the internet.
Obviously the "on the internet" is nonsense added by me for whimsy
Obviously the "on the internet" is nonsense added by me for whimsy
...because a large spider spun its way down near her car while she was getting out of it.
We desperately need WR depth. Who should we sign, and what's the max we should spend on the three?
This is a big picture post. I hope this isn't too big of a wall of text for y'all.
In the leadup to the 2024 election, YouGov did a survey which captured support for Harris and Trump's policies across key issues. What's fascinating is that Harris' policies were more favorable on every single issue category than Trumps. On all issues combined, she led by 16%. Economics 6%, Healthcare 23%, Immigration 3% (!), Crime 25%, Social Issues 27%, Environment 18%, Foreign Policy 13%, Education 22%. It's results like these that really leave you scratching your head:
I wish this kind of thing were a fluke. Across elections up and down the ballots, Democrats will run a much more popular platform and still manage to either lose or barely eek out a win in swing districts. And even when they vote along with the party platform they ran on, proving that they meant it, they still fail to wipe the floor with Republicans running on much less popular platforms.
How do we explain:
In all 3 elections, the Democratic campaign was better funded, the candidates less scandal-ridden, and the policy platform much more popular. And yet, no one seems capable of winning by 10% or more, even when all of them had policy platforms with a much larger lead than 10% over Trump's.
In the Brockman-Ahler experiment (2018), the study authors gave voters 2 identical policy platforms that included very popular policies, assigning each to either a Democrat or Republican. Identical policies, identical candidates, but one is a Republican and the other is a Democrat. The study found that Democrats suffer a ~12% point penalty just for having the "D" next to their name.
This is worse than "Both-Sidesism". Effectively, voters believe that Democrats are significantly worse just for running as Democrats.
My working theory.
What can we do about it?
I'm some nobody. Why would my endorsement mean anything to you? It doesn't. This is more of a 'I'm voting for Lawson and you should too' post.
Jason Cabel Ciemielewski has never served in law enforcement. I feel he's massively underqualified and if he were to somehow be elected, he'd have significant problems merely getting the deputies to respect rank. I'm definitely not endorsing him. So if you're just looking at who's serious, it's a 2 horse race: Bickel vs. Lawson.
Key Reasons:
Back in February, Bickel said he was running because there was a strong need for a qualified candidate. Then Lawson entered the race. In my opinion, Bickel should drop out of the race, endorse Lawson, and retire from seeking elected office.
A bit of a lighter post; help me out here please!
Movies I saw pre-transition:
Movies I saw since transitioning:
Movies on my list to see:
Disclaimer: I'm pretty left of center. I ranked the candidates by how I'd vote for them on a Ranked Choice Ballot.
1- Ethan Wechtaluk
No wiki page. Does have a platform page though!
2- Alexis Goldstein
Former Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Chief Technologist. Fired by DOGE.
Worked as a programmer and analyst on Wall Street, left to join the Occupy Wall Street protests. Published often with op-eds on financial topics from a progressive perspective.
In favor of:
Cons- she doesn’t have an ‘on the issues’ page on her website.
4- April McClain Delaney
What else is there to say? She is her husband’s wife, who had a much longer run as rep of MD-6. Just like last election cycle, she has no On the Issues section on her website. Member of the New Democrat Coalition (Clinton era centrist Democrats).
In favor of:
Against:
3- David Trone
Long-time alcohol industry guy. Member of the New Democrat Coalition (Clinton era Centrist Democrats), Problem Solvers Caucus (Centrism).
In favor of:
Against:
Israel:
Doesn’t have an on the issues page on his website.
George Gluck
Doesn’t have a website, but he links to his Peloton which is weird. No wiki page. He’s retired and looks pretty old too. Previously a green party candidate. Perennial.
“Obama tried [the JCPOA] that failed to work.” Actually it was working just fine.
Daniel Krakower
Doesn’t have a website or wiki page. I can’t find anything on him.
Kiambo “Bo” White
Former Union rep. No wiki page. No website.
A. Mark Wilks
No wiki page. Extremely barebones website with no issues page.
No doubt, Carter, HW Bush, Clinton, and Obama still had a lot to offer DC by running to be Senators, Congressmen, or even governors. Historically, ex-Presidents have been particularly effective after leaving office if they do decide to run for lower offices. Quincy Adams and Taft come to mind.
The tracking info I have for several houses seems to be completely inaccurate. For example, at a time when everyone is supposedly 'out of the house' there are 2 residents inside.
Some things I didn't know about that really make me dislike him more than previously.
Pros:
Cons:
Overall, I'm reevaluating his grade to D+.
Firstly, I logged 19.3 hours in 2 days on this game. The core gameplay loop is very satisfying and it made for a fun weekend. (don't worry, I touched grass often during that time) With the way I play games, I'll probably never return to this game even if everything is totally implemented.
Early game content is great. Late game and Middle Game content is really suffering because the player, despite delegating returns and/or checkout, is still spending almost all of their time working as an employee. If I'm paying a Clerk and a Return guy, I should effectively not have to bother doing that at all.
In the late game, the player should have little to do with the day-to-day operation of the store. They hire/fire employees, conduct market research, but all other work that feels fit for a lowly employee should be delegated.
Here are my thoughts for employees:
Some more ideas:
Big picture thoughts:
I think it's more likely than not that we have 9+ wins. The HC hire is an immediate and obvious upgrade on a team that was already capable of 9+ wins last season. I believe that there are enough killer pieces on Offense and Defense that this can be a great team. And I believe that it's more likely than not.
PS: FTS
Key Events:
Carter would kickstart this widespread political movement that would be largely followed by Reagan, HW Bush, and Clinton at the Presidential level.
Aside from merely arguing for deregulation, he
These actions were dubbed "The Great Deregulation" by economist Vernon Smith, who would later win the Nobel Prize in Economics in 2002.
Back in this post, I took it as an assumption that most would be for Gerrymandering since most here are Democrats. That was a wrong assumption. Here I'm going to address some common responses and try to sway some of y'all.
As of now, new maps enacted will give 9 seats to Republicans, and 10 seats to Democrats. BUT, Republicans in Florida are actively passing another map that will give them 4 additional seats. Further, since SCOTUS gutted the VRA (again), Alabama, Tennessee, and Louisiana are actively trying to use the ruling to further gerrymander away 3 additional seats.
"Gerrymandering is Wrong."
If we choose to do nothing while Republicans all over the country are gerrymandering, in 20 years, we'll be the ones to look our children in the eyes and say, "We did the right thing." But in the history books, all that will be written is "X Democrat won the Presidency in 2028, but was largely ineffectual because they couldn't get House Republicans to agree with any of their policies." We get to be 'right', and they get to be the ones writing laws that we have to live by.
Gerrymandering in itself is bad. It is not a great long term solution. But what's far WORSE is a system wherein Republicans hold the majority of seats in the US House even if Democrats earn more votes. If we want the will of the majority of the US to matter and actually determine who holds the House, we need to meet Gerrymandering with more Gerrymandering.
"It's only 1 seat."
Republicans are picking up 1 seat in Louisiana following the new SCOTUS ruling. I'd bet $20 that they're going to do it in Mississippi too. And they got 1 seat in North Carolina already.
"Maryland is already Gerrymandered."
So were Texas and Florida. Then Trump asked Abbot to find 5 more votes.
"Any further Gerrymandering would result in Republicans potentially GAINING seats."
False. Here's a map where all seats would've voted for Harris by at least 9 points. It is possible to draw a map with 8 Safe D seats and 1 competitive seat.
Final Thoughts
Look, if it were possible for us to do something that wasn't gerrymandering to actually fight back and stop the GOP from doing this, then I'd be all for it. I'm waiting for you to tell me what that is. I just don't see it. We can't sue them in federal or state courts to get them to stop doing it. Efforts to appeal to their "better angels" have failed- trust me, Democrats in these states have been emailing, calling, and protesting as this has happened, and they just ignored it.
Doing nothing may feel good now, but it comes at the cost of making the House a legislative body where Republicans can continually do whatever they want and stay in power even while they lose elections by wide national margins. Gerrymandering our state is bad, but allowing Republicans to create that system, a reality for Wisconsin State Legislatures, is far worse. No amount of "vote harder" works.
Disclaimer: You never know before the draft how these players will turn out. I'm sure there's a great UDFA who will be a pro bowler. And one of the last 4 picks might be a superstar. I'm grading these based on the consensus ranking, position selected, injury history in college, character, and team need.
The value of the draft is that we get to sign players on rookie contracts for well below their Market Values. The greater the difference between MV and the rookie contract, the greater the value. Terrell is worth well over $5M if he were to be a FA, but we get to have him for 4 years on an annual salary of $885k. If you draft a kicker in the 1st round, even if they're an elite kicker, since the salary is roughly equal to their MV if they were signed in FA, then it's actually a waste of a draft pick.
#48: CB Avieon Terrell - A+
Pros:
Cons: N/a
#79: WR Zachariah Branch - A
Pros:
Cons:
#134 - LB Kendall Daniels - D
Pros:
Cons:
#208 - DT Anterio Thompson - C
Pros:
Cons:
#215 - LB Harold Perkins Jr. - C
Pros:
Cons:
#231 - OT Ethan Onianwa - F
Pros:
Cons:
Overall: C
I love the top 2 picks.
The players selected have no serious character flaws or reputation for toxicity. It's good and it keeps the focus on football, and ensures that the players are worth rooting for.
The trade down for more picks was great, but it really doesn't matter if you're going to waste those picks on players who would've been UDFAs.
It would've been much better if we had used those picks on some WRs like:
Or a QB, like Garrett Nussmeier, ranked #168, drafted #249
Or some other DTs like: