Everything Is Great and Amazing

Sabin
Laureate
Posts: 7421
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 12:52 am
Contact:

Re: Everything Is Great and Amazing

Postby Sabin » Wed Jul 12, 2017 9:06 pm

America, you were supposed to watch Arrested Development, not elect it.

"I may have committed some light treason."
"If you are marching with white nationalists, you are by definition not a very nice person. If Malala Yousafzai had taken part in that rally, you'd have to say 'Okay, I guess Malala sucks now.'" ~ John Oliver

User avatar
Sonic Youth
Laureate
Posts: 7436
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 8:35 pm
Location: USA

Re: Everything Is Great and Amazing

Postby Sonic Youth » Tue Jul 11, 2017 7:33 pm

Greg wrote:Kaine: Trump Jr. may have committed treason:

http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/11/politics/ ... index.html


To be fair.... he IS Tim Kaine, after all.
"What the hell?"
Win Butler

Mister Tee
Laureate
Posts: 6526
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
Location: NYC
Contact:

Re: Everything Is Great and Amazing

Postby Mister Tee » Tue Jul 11, 2017 12:33 pm

Overheard in Mueller's office:

"We're going to need a bigger boat"

Greg
Tenured
Posts: 2746
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 1:12 pm
Location: Greg
Contact:

Re: Everything Is Great and Amazing

Postby Greg » Tue Jul 11, 2017 12:20 pm

Kaine: Trump Jr. may have committed treason:

http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/11/politics/ ... index.html
"Wall Street is not the solution to our problem. Wall Street is the problem!"

Ronald Reagan, corrected

Mister Tee
Laureate
Posts: 6526
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
Location: NYC
Contact:

Re: Everything Is Great and Amazing

Postby Mister Tee » Tue Jul 04, 2017 6:54 pm

Bog wrote:Hopefully not delving into disparage territory here with this analogy, since I don't want to and vowed I would noy: Tee, if the pitching stays this bad and going into the 2018 season Girardi still has exactly zero playoff wins since 2012 with only one appearance in that same timeframe...how much leeway should he get based upon '08-'12 from you to lead the pinstripes back to prosperity?


Bog, I held off on answering because I didn't have time to respond to what I thought was a multi-part question. I don't really now, either, but trying to be brief:

Implicit in your question seems to be a belief that Girardi has made the team worse, which I'm not sure I can endorse. According to the sabremetrics guys, the team has over-performed its win-expectation-by-run-differential for several years running, which suggests Girardi has known something about how to maximize potential victories. That, or they just benefited from a squelching bullpen despite having a subpar roster. In either case, the team has managed to stay above .500 (since 1993, now!) without the talent to support that record, so maybe the manager deserves a bit of credit?

The odd thing is, the first time in memory they've UNDER-performed their Pythagorean expectation is right now -- as of yesterday, they were 6 wins below where their run differential would predict. This is partly due to recent bullpen failures, but overall attributable to astonishing bad luck in close games (9-16 in one-run affairs). Bill James taught me long ago that such a thing was pure bad fortune, that, given enough time, such a record would approach .500, which would give this team a chance to rebound from the recent three weeks of hell. That's of course assuming they stop losing a player to the disabled list ever 36 hours.

However this year turns out, I'm firmly persuaded the team is going to be a beast in the very near-future. Whether Girardi has earned the right to preside over that resurgence is debatable, but I can't say I think he deserves removal simply because the talent pool was at low ebb over the past 4-5 years.

I'm assuming you were analogizing this to Pelosi, and I guess I have the same take there: she's done nothing to deserve firing, and, were the Dems to take back the House Fall after next, I see no reason why she shouldn't be made Speaker (I certainly can't think of anyone I'm as confident would maximize their use of the power). But if it's simply seen as "time to move on", I could live with that, too -- just as I've had to live with my own displacement in areas of life for which I'm viewed as too old.

User avatar
OscarGuy
Site Admin
Posts: 12552
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 12:22 am
Location: Springfield, MO
Contact:

Re: Everything Is Great and Amazing

Postby OscarGuy » Sun Jul 02, 2017 9:17 pm

I watched the first few seasons (before they went to Celebrity Apprentice). He was a jerk, but it was also very clear that he let everyone else do the work and he took the credit.
Wesley Lovell
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin

Big Magilla
Site Admin
Posts: 15770
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
Location: Jersey Shore

Re: Everything Is Great and Amazing

Postby Big Magilla » Sun Jul 02, 2017 6:23 pm

Never watched it, but have seen outtakes where all he said was "You're fired!"

Check out the IMDb. reviews. On the air from 2004-2015 (later with Arnold Schwarzenegger), it was being called an "embarrassment" as early as 2007.

As H.L. Menckin said way back in 1926, “No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public.”
“‎Life is a shipwreck, but we must not forget to sing in the lifeboats.” - Voltaire

Greg
Tenured
Posts: 2746
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 1:12 pm
Location: Greg
Contact:

Re: Everything Is Great and Amazing

Postby Greg » Sun Jul 02, 2017 3:57 pm

I've never seen The Apprentice. Has anyone here seen it, and, if so, was Trump that much of a jerk on the show? I would assume if all his negatives were on full display not only while he was running for President but while he is serving as President, that they would not be covered up for a reality show.
"Wall Street is not the solution to our problem. Wall Street is the problem!"

Ronald Reagan, corrected

Big Magilla
Site Admin
Posts: 15770
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
Location: Jersey Shore

Re: Everything Is Great and Amazing

Postby Big Magilla » Sun Jul 02, 2017 8:17 am

This is probably something any one of us could write, but worth reading anyway.

https://forwardprogressives.com/forget- ... piece-sht/
“‎Life is a shipwreck, but we must not forget to sing in the lifeboats.” - Voltaire

Bog
Assistant
Posts: 832
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 12:39 am
Location: United States

Re: Everything Is Great and Amazing

Postby Bog » Thu Jun 29, 2017 7:50 pm

I invoked Tim Ryan's name purely because of his recent opposition and blah milquetoast seemingly 'Democrat A' nature. I will not speak ill of Pelosi period...here or anywhere. I think it will be a real shame if Pelosi is pushed aside as well...and echo all Tee's sentiments to be honest. That said, it was apparently way too easy to play some nasty shit ads with Ossof and Pelosi and resonate with voters even more than tying Handel to Trump. More good done than not by a landslide and still throwing her face on a commercial and saying "X' isn't your voice in Congress...it's her voice" seems to be about the most effective strategy to get re-elected or even moreso swipe a seat from a Dem.

Hopefully not delving into disparage territory here with this analogy, since I don't want to and vowed I would noy: Tee, if the pitching stays this bad and going into the 2018 season Girardi still has exactly zero playoff wins since 2012 with only one appearance in that same timeframe...how much leeway should he get based upon '08-'12 from you to lead the pinstripes back to prosperity?

Mister Tee
Laureate
Posts: 6526
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
Location: NYC
Contact:

Re: Everything Is Great and Amazing

Postby Mister Tee » Thu Jun 29, 2017 4:18 pm

Sabin wrote:
Bog wrote
Well Sabin...I'm with ya...so I guess agree to disagree.

That said, Allan Litchmann's keys strongly favored a challenger that year. Bush lost the Midterm, Third Party, Short and Long Term Economy, Policy Change, Incumbent Charisma, and possibly Social Unrest. So that's seven keys against him.


...not to mention challenger charisma, which was at least debatable. Lichtman was very generous in ascribing charisma to past candidates (both Roosevelts, JFK, Reagan) but holds back on granting it to anyone in the present. (It took him forever to credit Obama with it in '08, and he withheld it in '12.) Clinton was always described in terms of his personal magnetism; it at least might have counted.

Social unrest is a very interesting one to note, because the LA riots in May of '92 were a real turning point in that cycle. Bush's numbers had been poor from late '91 -- and he'd struggled to fight off Buchanan in the NH primary -- but the media assault on Clinton through the early Spring (coupled with Jerry Brown's kamikaze charge in the lead-up to the NY primary) had given Bush an illusorily-decent position in head-to-head polling. But, the week after the riots, Bush's numbers collapsed. Perot's rise in the polling was actually Bush's collapse -- suddenly Bush/Perot/Clinton all had numbers in the 30s. This lasted until the Democratic convention, when Clinton was able to show his best face (unfiltered by hostile press). His numbers soared, and, when Perot dropped out of the race (temporarily, as we now know), Clinton took all of his support, running off to leads of 25-30%. In fact, when Perot returned in October, it was Clinton he hurt the most. (Which Bush seemed to know, as he loudly advocated for Perot to be invited to the debates.)

My circuitous point here is, Bush was in big trouble before Perot emerged -- Perot was a symptom of Bush's problems, not the cause of them.

I'd like to say a few words in support of Nancy Pelosi (and in fact am surprised I need to, here). Pelosi is responsible for a ton of progressive legislation making it through the House (as well as stopping evils like Social Security privatization under Bush). What is it with the Democratic willingness to shove her overboard? (And for Tim Ryan? He's one of those guys who thinks Democrats need somebody like Evan Bayh as their figurehead.) I understand that Pelosi is demonized by the right-wing press, but 1) that's because of what her party stands for, not who she is and 2) it would take them about 10 minutes to do the same to whoever replaced her, reality be damned. At some point of course she'll stand aside, but not for someone like Ryan -- more likely for an Adam Schiff or Ted Lieu. (Ryan's support amounts to a small portion of the caucus, and hardly the representative one.) It'd be nice if Democrats could at least show some appreciation for all the lady's accomplished, rather than seeming to give her this bum's rush.

danfrank
Temp
Posts: 390
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:19 pm
Location: Oakland, CA

Re: Everything Is Great and Amazing

Postby danfrank » Thu Jun 29, 2017 2:45 pm

[quote="Bog"]

I think Tim Ryan and Chuck Schumer will be in charge soon/quote]

So you think the Dems are really going to dump Pelosi? She has made it clear that she's staying in the game, and it's a really small group of Dems making noise that the party needs to move past her. She may have a crappy public persona but too many Dems are beholden to her for what she does best: consolidating votes (aka herding cats, a tough skill) and especially for raising huge amounts of money. This ability to raise money is what got her into Congress in the first place despite never holding office. I worked actively for her more progressive opponent back in the day. I think Tim Ryan would be a more effective face for the Democrats, especially in winning back some of those white, non-urban voters, but I don't think it's going to happen anytime soon.

Sabin
Laureate
Posts: 7421
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 12:52 am
Contact:

Re: Everything Is Great and Amazing

Postby Sabin » Thu Jun 29, 2017 12:55 pm

Bog wrote
Well Sabin...I'm with ya...so I guess agree to disagree.

That said, Allan Litchmann's keys strongly favored a challenger that year. Bush lost the Midterm, Third Party, Short and Long Term Economy, Policy Change, Incumbent Charisma, and possibly Social Unrest. So that's seven keys against him.
"If you are marching with white nationalists, you are by definition not a very nice person. If Malala Yousafzai had taken part in that rally, you'd have to say 'Okay, I guess Malala sucks now.'" ~ John Oliver

Bog
Assistant
Posts: 832
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 12:39 am
Location: United States

Re: Everything Is Great and Amazing

Postby Bog » Thu Jun 29, 2017 12:43 pm

Well Sabin...I'm with ya...so I guess agree to disagree. I definitely think at the least it is more open to be used as a "goosing" than as the apparent objective conclusion about Perot using the same type polling data that showed Trump as a double digit loser.

Mister Tee wrote:Just suggested you were goosing your case a bit by using extraneous data to exclude years that didn't support the hopelessness premise.


The word re-election literally doesn't apply to Gerald Ford...so 2 outta 3 ain't bad? Again...I'm not hopeless and I think Tim Ryan and Chuck Schumer will be in charge soon...but candidate sight unseen and Russia sight unseen hard to get lock step in with Trump's going down hard.

Sabin
Laureate
Posts: 7421
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 12:52 am
Contact:

Re: Everything Is Great and Amazing

Postby Sabin » Thu Jun 29, 2017 11:56 am

Mister Tee wrote
There was extensive polling done in 1992 about the Perot voters, and the unanimous conclusion was that Perot drew equally from Clinton and Bush. Had he not been in the picture, the final tally would have been about 53/47 Clinton. Bush was REALLY unpopular, and really unpopular incumbents don't get re-elected.

I've never entirely bought that argument. I understand that the polling suggests that Perot drew equally from Clinton and Bush, but what it doesn't take into account is the toll that Perot's third party run did to Bush's candidacy, the impact it had on the entire race. What would a George H.W. Bush candidacy look like if he didn't have to defend himself from Clinton AND Perot? If he only had to contrast himself with Bill Clinton? I understand that the numbers favored a challenger, but Bill Clinton was an inexperienced candidate with baggage. Not great. The fact that he was in a race with somebody less experienced with weirder baggage (Perot) possibly helped to make him look more stable. Maybe he wouldn't win but I don't think it was a foregone conclusion because George H.W. Bush had to defend against one candidate who was all about cultural change and another that was about economic change and he had an impossible time making a case for himself...and today, man, he doesn't seem that bad, does he?

Big Magilla wrote
2008 and 2012 - happy that Obama won, but not happy that it took so long for him and the Dems in congress to realize the Repubs weren't gong to compromise on anything. I always had the nagging suspicion that a Hillary win in 2008 would mean a 16-year era of Hillary followed by Obama that would establish a more stable Dem reign than Obama and whoever followed him

I'd give anything. I'd. Give. Anything.
"If you are marching with white nationalists, you are by definition not a very nice person. If Malala Yousafzai had taken part in that rally, you'd have to say 'Okay, I guess Malala sucks now.'" ~ John Oliver


Return to “Current Events”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest