GoSox05

Doug Pederson called a great game. He seemed to have an answer for every situation. BB not playing Butler was really weird. Butler played 98% of the snaps for the Patriots this year and then you just completely bench him. He played one play on special teams yesterday. I don't know if it cost the Pats the game, but it's had to believe with Butler even covering in the slot they maybe don't stop the Eagles just one more time, that might have been the difference. There has to be more to that story that we don't know yet.

Yeah, she is probably still an underdog in the race, but I think it will be close. Little fun fact, the Republican running for this seat is a Neo-Nazi who denies the holocaust. I think he has tried to run before. The Republican party normally refuses to be associated with him.

This memo is going to be the new Benghazi.

Dan Lipinski is in trouble.

I've been trying to ignore this memo talk, but when are they supposed to release it?

That's crazy. Why do you think so many are retiring at the same? coincidence?

Also, I get that in some places you are stuck with the Joe Manchins and Doug Jones. There are other places were they can run more left wing candidates and win. PA, OH and VA. Look what happened in the last Virginia election. If you are stuck with the Joe Manchins and Doug Jones in those states at least have something better then Dianne Feinstein in California. You could pretty much run anyone you want in that state and win.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jan 31, 2018 -> 10:16 AM) Do you have any evidence of what you suggest? Can you even point to 1 election where your ideas were successful? When you look at electoral maps, you see a lot of patterns. Its not about getting more votes, its about getting more votes in the right states. If Democratic party gets every vote in Oregon, its still the same amount of electoral votes as if the person won by 1 vote. So when you look at a map, what makes you think that a more progressive candidate would likely win Ohio, Florida etc. What in their history of voting, state or at the federal level, suggests that? I get your arguments. If people are more excited, more people will vote. But at the same token, it doesnt matter what YOU are excited about, it matters what the voters in a select few states are excited about. So the question is really about a handful of states and why by a very small margin they broke for Trump. Of those states, only 1 of them went for Sanders. What is interesting is that the argument for being more "progressive" actually hurts the argument that "If only Sanders had more money/establishment support" hed have beaten Clinton. If "excitement" about "progressive" policies is going to win the day, then why didnt Sanders win? Shouldnt have all of the excitement overcome the money? Even worse for the anti-Clinton argument, is that Clinton has 2 of the top 3 slots for most primary votes in history. She received more than Obama in 2008, and her 2016 candidacy she gained more votes than anyone outside of Obama in 2008. So if you look at the raw data, there is just no way to conclude that more progressive candidates are somehow going to get these magical votes that are not found in either the primary or the general election. The only evidence that supported Clinton may have had trouble was the fact that in 2016 she received less votes than in 2008. Another point that doesnt seem to be brought up, is that if being more progressive is truly the best way to win, why dont more progressive candidates do better in primaries, general elections etc? I dont believe the green party has ever won a seat at the federal level. And after Obama's implementation of Obamacare (less progressive than universal healthcare) it brought in a bunch of much more conservative congressmen. Youd think that it would be the opposite, if the theory of being more progressive will win is true. I ultimately think that there were a few failures in strategy that cost Clinton, but at the same time she had history going against her. Its rare for the same party to hold the Presidency 3 terms in a row. I expressed that worry multiple times on this board prior to the election. But those concerns were met with "The polls show". Who knows what will happen, but I personally think doubling down on ideas that have consistently rejected at the voting booth (the only poll that matters) isnt a good way to win. Have you not seen what has happened to the Democratic Party in the past 10 years? At federal and state levels. Have Democrats lost 900 seats in state legislatures since Obama has been president? Is that the way you want to keep on going? Progressive or more left wing candidates may not have done well in the past, but the party is changing and it seems like the people at the top are the last ones to know.

Yeah, I think Smith will be fine for them. Not sure it's really a up or down move from Cousins. They are about the same level. I just can't believe how much they gave up and the money spent on Smith. Fuller is a really good CB. Great deal for the Chiefs if Mahomes pans out. Also, I really hope Cousins goes to the AFC and not the Vikings. I don't think he is a great QB, but on that Vikings team, they would be tough to beat. If Smith got that much money. Aaron Rodgers will now make all the money in the world in a couple of months.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Jan 31, 2018 -> 09:42 AM) How many people have MS-13 actually killed here? Don’t believe the Trump administration: MS-13 is not ravaging the United States This article from last year summons it up pretty well. MS-13 is a serious problem in Central America.

Christina Hartman under preformed Hillary Clinton in 2016. Now you are backing her again! That's not even a progressive vs centrist thing, that's just being awful at politics.

Pretty standard Republican speech from Trump last night. North Korea and Iran are evil, Iraq and Afghanistan wars are going great, pull yourself up by your boot straps economics and Cuba is still evil. I guess the one part that was really different was Trump going straight fascist on immigration. Pretty much calling all immigrants, MS-13 gang members that will come and murder you. Likes to talk about that, but didn't mention Heather Heyer or any of other people who were killed by white nationalists who backed him.

The Dead Enders Candidates Who Signed Up to Battle Donald Trump Must Get Past the Democratic Party First This is a lot that is wrong with the Democratic Party.

QUOTE (JenksIsMyHero @ Jan 30, 2018 -> 03:59 PM) Native Americans are more worried about food, water, jobs, money, preventing and treating alcohol/drug addiction, etc. than names that people came up with decades and decades ago that have now become part of the general lexicon without the racist connection. However, that doesn't mean it's unreasonable for NA's to be offended or that it's the end of the world if a private company decides to make a change. I think it's unnecessary, but whatever, if they want to do it, go for it. I objected and still object to the U of I's decision to get rid of the Chief, a beloved mascot that was honored and respected, because a few select liberal professors b****ed and whined, but whatever, there's no going back. On the statue issue, I'd like to see the FDR statues/monuments removed. The dude rounded up a bunch of people and put them in camps because they looked different. In the modern era no less. How is no one talking about this? What will the students of U of I do without their beloved mascot. The guy who dressed up like a Native American and danced around the basketball court.

QUOTE (soxfan2014 @ Jan 30, 2018 -> 12:48 PM) You're clearly misinterpreting what I'm saying if you think I'm saying, "I'm not offended so it's wrong to change it!" I'm not trying to make an argument for keeping it or anything and I'm not making it about what I believe. I'm simply saying in a hypothetical scenario if no one from that race was/is offended, should it be considered offensive? Kinda going back to what the poster above said about changing the school's name in his region where they checked with the tribe who stated they weren't offended by it at all. I would say no. Edit: I think Cleveland should come up with a new name for it's baseball team in general, especially if they can't even use the logo nor mascot. Bring back the Cleveland Spiders. One thing I never understood about teams holding on to these weird old racist names and logos based on Native Americans. There are so many cool names to go with. Cleveland Spiders was a really cool name. That would be bad ass if they changed to that now. I saw some of the alternate logos people did for the Redskins, some really cool ones.

I hope Trump spends his whole SOTU address complaining about CNN and talking about how bad he beat Hillary Clinton in the election.

QUOTE (Tony @ Jan 28, 2018 -> 07:52 PM) The President was asked if he believes in climate change. This was his answer. He's a very smart person, who clearly has a good grasp on the science behind it.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Jan 27, 2018 -> 02:48 AM) Joe Kennedy III going to give Dem response to State of the Union address. Can’t be any worse than Beshear last year. January 26, 2018 Centrist Democrats Are Undermining Progressive Candidates According to a major new report, the Democratic Party leadership is undermining progressive candidates and backing wealthier, centrist hopefuls that are following a failed strategy...with the main litmus test being able to get out your phone or Rolodex and raise $100-250,000 instantly. http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option...style=%27color: I don't really think that these response speeches are that big of a deal, but lmao at the Democratic Party pushing Joe Kennedy as an exciting new candidate.

QUOTE (bmags @ Jan 23, 2018 -> 04:07 PM) I've heard nothing good about it if your team ain't in it, and for me, that's the reality every year It's probably a lot of crowded everything. I'm definitely not going when my team is in it. I'm not showing that kind of emotion in public.

I would like to go to a Super Bowl at least one in my life, but not for that kind of money.

QUOTE (bmags @ Jan 23, 2018 -> 11:15 AM) That's not accurate, Bears have 2 fourth round picks. 1, 2, 4, 4 Never mind my previous statement. Why do I keep on thinking this? I need to get new sources.

Bears have 2 picks in the first four rounds. If they aren't in love with any player in the first and have a willing partner, it might be smart to trade back. Same would go for the 2nd round.

George W. Bush's favorable rating has pulled a complete 180 Why you do this!

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 22, 2018 -> 01:04 PM) I would love nothing more than to see the Pats bomb and suck for a long period of time. Their staying power over a very long period of time is as powerful of a statement as there is as to how "lucky" they are. It will be interesting to see what happens when Brady is done. He has to retire at some point, I think.

ICE detains a Polish doctor and green-card holder who has lived in the U.S. for nearly 40 years Sorry, bud. I don't believe in magic.