ewsieg

From a few years ago, but this was just released recently. May not be everyone's cup of tea, but if you don't like the music, stick around for Joey's mini standup shows between songs.

Part of me wants to say I'm a republican still. I feel like the party moved, not me, so why should I have to classify as something different? But I'm sure that's not completely true anymore. Not sure if I've moderated or if I still fall under classical liberalism.

Absolutely agree with you and I don't want to see Montgomery elsewhere either, but we currently have a gluttony at RB, so from Montgomery's perspective alone, I understand if he wants a deal to protect his family financially. We'll lose our advantage at RB, but if we focus on the offensive line we might still have a solid rushing offense and be able to focus on other areas we can take advantage in.

She knows how to play him.

Dude, I get the dude is an asshat. All I was simply objecting to was this specific statement from you. The FBI is not an American domestic only law enforcement agency. If Patel is not getting daily briefs on security involving the Olympics over the past several weeks, that would be an impeachable offense and far outweigh this silly beer guzzling embarrassment in the locker room.

Yup, I'm not saying they are equal. Just wanted to correct the statement that the FBI only works domestic issues. The vast majority of what they do is domestic, but they absolutely are involved in international affairs and protecting US citizens at a high profile event would definitely be one of them. But 100% there was zero "need" for the director to be there.

Absolutely agree. Only reason he wouldn't have been fired in my administration is because he would have never been allowed to sniff around DC if I was in charge to begin with.

You're probably right about Kash just wanting to be there for the game, but the FBI absolutely has a role outside of the US and Mueller was in Greece ahead of the last Olympics there to consult on security preparations. If something happened to US athletes while in Italy, Kash absolutely would have been partially responsible. All that said, you're absolutely right. He wanted to be there for the Olympics, just like Whitmer.

Qanon was the initial basis for the Esptein fodder we see today. I don't see you denouncing every leak that involves Trump with 'are we really going to side with Qanon?' Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

To be fair Tigerholic, as a conservative, you do see a difference though, right?

I saw two complaints about Patel in this thread, him acting foolishly with the USA hockey team and him being at the Olympics on the taxpayers dime. Rob, I think you're remembering the Kwame thing with either 2025 hindsight or remembering it from a view of a republican/conservative which you leaned towards back then. I also thought Kwame acted foolishly and tried to interject himself, but I remember being told by my liberal coworkers that it's a celebration and it brought unity. One tried to tell me that what he did was good for the sport as it would bring awareness to hockey for the african american community in Detroit. As for on the taxpayers dime, the FBI absolutely has a role in ensuring our athletes are protected in a foreign country. Does the FBI director need to be there, of course not, but there is a legitimate role. As for Whitmer, you all know what she did. If you don't, pretend there is an R next to her and it won't take you long to connect the dots. She, just like AOC and Newsom, are dipping their hands in foreign policy to test out running for president. Why Italy right now? Because she could show herself at the Olympics and publicize it. She hasn't declared she's running for president so she can't use campaign funds to fund it and god forbid she use her own money, so she sets up a meeting with someone in the Italian government and heads to Italy for the news op. In short, it was on the state's dime. Maybe us taxpayers got something out of it, better than nothing I guess. In the end, i'm not both siding it. Kwame was the mayor within his own town, it wasn't that big of a deal. Patel slamming beers was much more embarrassing. And for being there, like I said, Patel doesn't need to be there. He can oversee the operation from HQ. Just saying lets not pretend that the state of Michigan didn't help pay Whitmer to help with her eventual presidential campaign.

True, I’m sure Whitmer paid for her seat out of her own funds. Amirite?

Good thing I didn’t say it. Unrelated, I remember a time when democrats loved the passion of a government leader drinking and cerebrating with a hockey team that won something big, let’s say a Stanley Cup in Detroit for instance.

Would it be 'both siding' if I said Whitmer was on a 'work trip' right now? If so, I won't. On an unrelated note Whitmer is out there fighting for our state's manufacturers: Gov. Whitmer Transitions Michigan Investment Mission to Italy, Advancing Defense, Manufacturing, and Global Partnerships

This is why I feel that you shouldn't write someone completely off just because they are awful corrupt people. Sometimes they are awful corrupt people that shed light on even worse awful corrupt people. https://www.cbsnews.com/detroit/news/oversight-committee-probe-howard-lutnick-ambassador-bridge/

I am choosing to believe that he could have blocked it and chose not too. I'm not sure if he has that much power. That said, Prince Andrew already got more punishment from his own family then anyone else associated with Epstein has gotten so far. Not saying King Charles/Queen Elizabeth had any part in Epstein files not being released before, but to me, this clarifies the reason they weren't released before, many allied countries, not just high profile folks in the US, were going to be humiliated with the release of these files.

I know it's important to you to get the point that is a mental illness problem and keep the issue focused away from guns. I like guns too, so I get it. But when an issue results in loss of life and ills against society due to the terror aspect of a mass shooting, if you're side is so confident on the issue, why isn't your side able to put up some solution that could expand programs for mental illness? Pretty sure i've never heard a dem say they won't spend on social programs to help with mental illness, can't imagine they are the problem in finding a solution. Granted I can see dems saying programs on mental illness alone isn't enough, but I still don't see them refusing to fund something like that. So if you believe this in your heart, start holding your party accountable to do something about it.

Depends on how you want to view it. The real point she was trying to make was spot on, but she did ruin it with the equator comment. I'm fine with people that flub up occasionally especially when the flub isn't on the important substance of the comments. If she was in charge of a cartography division of Google Maps, I would tell her she needs to quit and based on her entire response, maybe she could go into politics instead. (Note: If I continued to sit with her and discuss economics, i'd probably end up saying maybe politics isn't the right choice either....but that's just me)

Only argument I have here is your wording of 'it appears'. That statement was probably correct around 8 months ago. Today they are very worried and many of them are already preparing for such a world. I am still confident we'll get past Trump, but even with a coordinated effort by all sides to repair the foreign policy damage he's done, I'm not sure what'll happen on that front.

I've been told in the past that such a mistake shows such a person should never hold a position that requires foreign affairs.

I guess my argument is there is no protest vote. As those that tend to lose 'close elections' will be forced to review and take on ideas that can make them better. With that, maybe they don't lose anymore. The Socialist party was a throw away vote, but we have child labor laws because of them. Populist party - 8 hour work days and graduated income tax. What's the big republican talking point you hear when minority rights are brought up. That they were the party against slavery. But were they? Yes, after they realized the Free Soil party had a good argument for it. Call it a throw away vote all you want, but history shows it can make major impacts to society.

Winning parties and significant third party vote are the two significant portions of your question which makes me feel the answer is close to no or no itself. Winning parties don't change until they start losing. In 2012 and every year before since I had turned 18 I voted republican because on a large majority of issues the country faced, I felt their policies were better. In 2016, I refused to vote for the GOP candidate. But I still agreed with him on the majority of the issues, so I didn't vote Dem either. IMO Johnson was the best option for the country and I took it. My vote, my choice. Fast forward to 2024 and I was severely underwhelmed that Harris was the best candidate. If you look at the last published party policies for both, I probably am still a republican as I would agree mostly with them most in regards to party platform. But I feel I can make an argument that Trump doesn't follow many of those policies, but even more importantly to me, I don't think he follows our laws. Which party (in terms of POTUS) is losing right now? Which party all of a sudden likes a lot of Libertarian policies which promote individual freedoms? If you answered Dems to both, you'd be correct. And because of that they currently have my vote because my freedoms "Trump" any other issue our nation is facing today, in my opinion. All that said, those are my own priorities and they affect my vote. Who says my priorities are better than yours? Or who you are to say your priorities are better than mine? In short, the 2 party system has plenty of issues, but 1 thing its really good at, is when the country sees solutions or other good ideas that can help our country but aren't being addressed, the losers have time to understand those issues and communicate them out. And good ideas tend to win elections. Even if you agree with me, I guess the next question is does this still ring true today or has society outpassed those norms.

This is why you're ultimately right. This also explains my Johnson vote. He was the only one that I actually thought would be different AND while I knew he had no chance to win, my hope was enough people voted for him that it would force one or both parties to absorb some of those 'don't kill my wife' policies. 3rd parties never win, not because no one likes them, but because when they put out a message that resonates with people, 1 or both of the major parties take the idea as their own and undercut them. Part of the issue we have currently is too many people vote for the best of the 'viable' candidates. Maybe candidates wouldn't only speak to and support their own base if they had to actually compete for votes.

100% correct. No one should argue with this. Spot On ...... but, go with me on this. Let's just imagine a time where you weren't happy with the top two candidates so you said 'screw it' and voted for Gary Johnson. Let's just say I understand what MB is saying.

I mean, I'm not going to complain about Verlander finishing up here. He showed he can still compete last year. But does this hint that Olsen is hurt more than thought AND the Tigers are done with Jobe? Also, not trying to be greedy, but a right handed veteran bat still would be nice.