RedDenver

How in the world did they mess this up so bad that they aren't doing 8 and aren't considering 16? Morons.

2 hours ago, nic said:

Received my Colorado primary ballots yesterday and Trump is on there. I guess the Colorado election officials decided the court decision was going to get overturned anyway, so they might as well save the money on reprints.

I believe the judge stayed the ruling until the SC decided if they would take up the case or not.

1 hour ago, teachercd said:

Newsome is for sure the next D candidate, right?  After this election?  It probably won't be Harris and I really don't think she even has any desire to run.

I'm sure he'll run and likely be the early front runner, but the early front runner is often not the final candidate. Harris not charismatic and shouldn't run unless she is WAY different than she has been as VP.

7 minutes ago, TGHusker said:

I wonder if there is any chance at the convention, that the Dems take a turn - if the polls look bad and Biden hasn't diminished the talk about his mental health and age.   I know the GOP won't move from Trump regardless of the stupidity that he spills out but the Dems aren't caught in a cult mindset.  They can still evaluate who gives them the strongest hand in November.  

Truely, I wish Biden would have played the role of the elder statesman who came in for 4 years, accomplished an economic turn around and then decided to leave on a high note.  He reminds me of a stubborn coach who hangs on for too long and finishes badly.  Bobby Bowden for example.  Tom left at a high point - which I wished he hadn't left then but stayed on 5 more years but Bobby stayed and FSU suffered - but I digress.    There are several good Dem governors who are young and could take on the aging, senile, treasonous, dictator want-to-be Trump 

- Whitmer of Mich, Beshear - Ky,  Pritzker - Ill, beside Newsom who wants it all so badly and doesn't hide it (the one I would not care for but who would be better than Trump).  

 

Incumbents have a big advantage, so the Dems would have to accept giving that up. Biden is charismatic and generally liked while I can't say the same about the other potential candidates. Maybe there's one that could be as I'm not very familiar with the potential candidates, but the Dems have nominated uncharismatic candidates that tend to do poorly in a Presidential election.

27 minutes ago, DevoHusker said:

 

Agreed. And sometimes those fringe theories prove out. I've seen it several places that some conspiracy theories are the truth just waiting on more facts.

 

What I like (not) is when the two are juxtaposed and people then call out "sources" rather than admit the change.

This isn't a case of waiting for all the facts. The facts have been in on vaccines for decades. And they overwhelming show vaccines work and do not cause autism. RFKjr is just a crackpot with a famous political name.

17 hours ago, Mavric said:

 

And yet the only one you talked about to make your point was the Iowa State game which was the most winnable.

Ok. It's a subjective opinion. You're welcome to think we play for the NC just from putting Ganz on that team. I doubt we do.

3 hours ago, Mavric said:

 

We lost three of those games - including Iowa State - by a combined four points, not scoring more than 15 in any one of them.  It's hardly a stretch to think that any semblance of QB could have won us those three games.

 

Really the only question would have been Texas Tech, which we lost 31-10.  It's tough to say one player would have made a 21 point difference but we were favored and had more total offense yards, just couldn't score.  So I don't think it's out of the question.

I don't think it's out of the question we win a few more games, but I doubt we win them all, which we would have had to do to play for the NC.

21 hours ago, TGHusker said:

I suspect we would have been playing for a NC - that D with Ganz's leadership on O.    Was T-Mart a true freshman that year?- if so, instead of redshirting him - play him wt the 2009 D.  Either way we missed a great opportunity to match good QBs wt that D. 

We lost 4 games that year. The ISU one was particularly embarrassing. I doubt Ganz alone could have made up for that.

On 2/8/2024 at 8:21 AM, BigRedBuster said:

 

I'm old enough to remember being assured by the right that overturning Roe v Wade wasn't going to lead to abortion in the case of rape being illegal.

It's not about states rights or anything rational - they just want to control women.

24 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

You do understand evil leaders have been interviewed by “journalists” for decades.  

I do. I also understand the difference between journalists and propagandists.

3 minutes ago, B.B. Hemingway said:

 

You don’t have to watch the interview, if your little liberal heart can’t take it.

 

 

The American media/government and Zelensky are full of shot, and they get to endlessly spew garbage…. Why shouldn’t we get to hear from Putin. Discourse matters, even if it hurts your feelings. 

1 hour ago, Scarlet said:

Waiting for the "we need to hear both sides" takes

3 minutes ago, B.B. Hemingway said:

Whether you agree with him or not, interviewing and hearing from Putin is not a bad thing. In fact, it’s a good thing. Kudos to Tucker Carlson for partaking in actual journalism.

That didn't take long.

1 hour ago, Archy1221 said:

Let’s say it’s equal in efficiency (less waste and bureaucratic money spent)   would you be in favor of those extra taxes going to a non government agency to help the less fortunate?

I'm not strongly opposed to that, but we have voting power over government agencies that we don't have over private organizations, so that's what I'd prefer.

13 minutes ago, teachercd said:

Again, I get what you are saying, I don't think it is right though...

Ok

13 minutes ago, teachercd said:

And it is a perfect analogy.

It has literally nothing to do with the discussion.

13 minutes ago, teachercd said:

I would be okay with a flat tax.  

That puts a MUCH greater burden on the poor.

13 minutes ago, teachercd said:

I mean you could start arguing that no one should be able to make over 50K a year, since you can live just fine on that and that every penny over 50K goes to the Gment and they will "help us" all.  

You could make that argument, but it's not at all what I'm arguing.

1 minute ago, teachercd said:

I just don't think they do.  

 

The G'ment might have a responsibility to pass the laws but the person should not (unless they want to) feel a responsibility to help out more because they make more money.  

I'm not saying how a person should feel. I'm saying that's how a functioning society should view things. Putting the onus on the poor and middle class is a terrible idea since they cannot support anywhere near the financial burden the rich can. If the rich want to put the onus and the rest of society (and we have every indication throughout history that they do), then the society functions more poorly and is more unstable, which eventually leads to that system collapsing in one way or another.

1 minute ago, teachercd said:

No more than a hot girl should feel like she has the responsibility to go out with more nerdy guys to make them feel better.

That's a terrible analogy.

44 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

I have a theoretical question for you….

 

We have our current tax rates as approved by the Legislature so let’s assume people are paying what is currently owed and the IRS will now catch the tax cheats because of the new funding so that is now taken care of.   
 

Let’s say we increase  the SS/Medicare funding by taking away the income caps.   Now, let say the legislature changes its mind and comes to bipartisan agreement about raising taxes to where the following choice is made (and yes I know it’s fantasyland to believe common sense like this would prevail)…….The extra dollars from the increased tax rates above current levels could be either paid into the treasury, or, donated to an approved 501C3 type org along the lines of Salvation Army, St. Jude’s, Catholic Charities, Habitat for Humanity, various medical research organizations……and avoid the government waste that would come with increased dollars.   I’m sure everyone would feel better about their dollars being spent more wisely helping out those less fortunate.  

You're assuming that the government spends money less wisely than an independent organization. I'd need to see data showing that to be true because everything I've read that's actual research into effectiveness of non-profits vs governments shows the government is more effective per dollar on average.

54 minutes ago, teachercd said:

Yeah, I get that.  

 

I just don't think they should or do have an additional responsibility.  Unless the G'ment passes legislation that they have to pay more.  

This logic is backwards to me. We would pass legislation because they have an additional responsibility.

Just now, teachercd said:

That is what I don't like.

 

It is like people that get mad at a MLB player for signing a big deal.  I mean, he earned it and someone is will to pay him for his services.  

 

I get your point, I just don't like that idea.  With that said, I would rather pay zero taxes.  

I'm not mad they make a lot of money. But I think in a functioning society, they have additional responsibility due to their good fortune.

2 minutes ago, teachercd said:

Yeah, I know.  

Seems way worse to ask the people least able to pay to do it as opposed to those with the most ability to pay. And for many of the rich, more money than they could ever possibly spend.

3 hours ago, teachercd said:

Also, I hate the idea that someone is rich they should pay some bigger "fair share", that just doesn't sit well with me.

The alternative is for the middle class and poor to pay more.

How it started:

4 hours ago, Archy1221 said:

I only followed the E Jean case from a top line standpoint.  It’s amazing he lost the civil case.   It was a he said/she said argument and his lawyers failed to have him testify!  So she gets to state her case, she doesn’t know what year this allegedly happened, no dna evidence that I saw was presented (I think both sides agreed to this) 30 plus years of her not expressing an issue about it publicly all the while Trump is in the public eye, her favorite TV is the apprentice at one point!   Who does that????  Allegedly gets sexually assaulted, then really enjoys watching the person who assaulted her be on tv?!?

How it's going:

2 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

I don’t think you understand what the words victim blaming actual mean.  I’ll ask her and later down in the post just to make sure you see it.    WHERE DID I BLAME E JEAN FOR BEING ASSAULTED?   I only claim to believe it probably never happened.   Those two things are not even in the same universe.   You of all people should know this.  

 

...

 

For the last time and I’ll put it in bold again…..WHERE SPECIFICALLY DID I BLAME HER FOR BEING ASSAULTED?  

 

Jim Harbaugh cheated and attacked the integrity of college football as a sport. And then ran off to the NFL. I don't get why more fans don't hate him. 

22 hours ago, Archy1221 said:

 

The readers added context really upends the implications you're trying to make.

19 hours ago, Archy1221 said:

 

Here's the article if anyone wants to read it and understand why these tweets are missing the point: https://www.reuters.com/fact-check/drop-climate-related-disaster-deaths-not-evidence-against-climate-emergency-2023-09-19/

Having a functioning society is about not always getting the good deal. Sometimes we can let others get the good deal instead of ourselves.