Mr.TaterSalad

It's a shame we have such older candidates in this country lately battling over the presidency. No matter the side of the aisle you're on or ideology you belong to, we need younger candidates for President. Trump, Biden, Warren, Bernie all the main front runners and all over 70.

I was going to post something in response to Archie calling Biden demented yet again but it seems I forgot.

Just my opinion, but I think switching to a multi-party parliamentary form of government and adding more political parties, as they have in Europe, Asia, and South America, would be more conducive to progress and people working together than banning them. First off, we need political parties because the average voter doesn't pay close enough attention to the granular details of issues and where candidates stand on them. So we need a way for people to better and more easily identify who aligns with them, who is batshit crazy, who is a danger to democracy, who is pro people versus pro corporate, etc. Parties help us better identify where a candidate might stand on the issues. Second off, I think a multi-party parliamentary would force more coalition building and people to work together more often across the spectrum. Third, every time we unilaterally and unlawfully topple a government in another country, we almost always set up a parliamentary form of government because the efficiencies of a parliamentary system. With the addition of a parliament we could also abolish land mass representation of the Senate. If we had accurate party representation in America it might look something like this . . . Democratic Socialist Party/Green Party - 1-5% or so of the voting base. On a federal level I don't believe there are any true socialists in the mold of a Eugene Debs elected to office, including Bernie, Rashida, AOC, etc. Rather, they are Social Democrats. Social Democracy/Progressive Left Party - 15-20% of the voting base. Capitalist reformers, pro union, and proponents of strong regulation and robust social welfare, want big involvement on climate and social policy. Politicians that fit here include Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, AOC, Rashida Tlaib, Ayanna Presley, Sherrod Brown, Garlin Gilchrist. Center-Left Party - 20-25% of the voting base Semi-progressive, pro union and pro business, pro social welfare but staunchly pro capitalist. Politicians that fit here include Barack Obama, Michelle Obama, Hillary Clinton, Al Gore, Nancy Pelosi, Gretchen Whitmer. Center-Right Party - 10-15% of the voting base. Staunch capitalist, pro business, pro life. This is where the old GOP and the Third Way Democrats meet, the Bushes, Doles, Eisenhower, Bill Clinton triangulate around capitalism, business, and some socially moderate policies. This is where the Never Trump Republicans, center-right independents, and New Democrats would coalesce. Christian Right/Nationalist Party - 30-35% of the voting base. Ethnic nationalism and Christian identity are the pillars of this party. Being white, of European decent, and Christian are the most important aspects of belonging here. This is the MAGA universe of America. Politicians that fit here include The Trump Family, Rand Paul, Louie Gohmert, MTG, Lauren Bobert, Pat Buchanan. Most of your modern day Republicans probably belong here. Libertarian Party - 1-5% or so of the voting base. These are your true get government out of my business and my bedroom folks. Free market and free choice on personal matters. Ron Paul and Barry Goldwater are the closest things we've had to true libertarians on a national stage.

Looks like someone needs safe spaces from people who identify as LGBTQ. The party that always projects is the party than in the end, needs what it is projecting. We cry about liberal safe spaces and here we are wanting to give our kids safe space from the evil gays and trans people.

Well there is one dingleberry that is still asleep in that video. This is what the fundamentalist movement in this country has become though.

I think I've probably listened to like, three songs on this entire list, Smiths, REM and Marvin. Marvin's Mercy Me (Ecology) is probably the only one I can sing the lyrics to. I've got some catching up as far as the MCS, radio DJ, music aficionado goes.

This. People vote with their pocketbooks when times are tough economically. With high gas prices above $4 nationally and the average grocery bill. price of a home, car, childcare, everything on the rise, Republicans will win solely on that. It's really nice to think that all this Republican lunacy and extremism on issues like abortion, book bans, contraception, marriage equality, what we teach in schools, etc. will cost them. I do think it will have some effect and in certain cases if a candidate is waaaaaay out there like Regan was in Michigan, they'll lose, and their majority may be smaller than it should be. As far as costing them majorities, I have a hard time believing that will be the case given 2016 and given the economic anxiety of people.

I don't believe this. While there is a strong chance it could hurt the Republican chances and could cost them some seats in their House and Senate majority, 2016 was a bell weather as to whether Americans/Democrats truly care about the Supreme Court and abortion, they do not. They cared more about emails, a letter from James Comey, not being far left enough, changing positions on issues, and other things related to Hillary Clinton than the Courts or abortion. Democrats and the average American have proven in 2016 that won't drive massive turnout. Additionally, people are mad about gas prices and inflation. That economic angst and anger will carry them to the polls to vote for Republicans or will keep some independents and soft Dems who would otherwise vote Democratic home. Not to mention, the reaction of the twitter left to this abortion ban will be more likely outrage at the Democrats for years of inaction than it will be for Republicans and their court taking it away. I say all this as a recently minted member of the "far left", progressive movement over the past 7-8 years. I also say this as one of those people who bitched and moaned up until the last week or two before deciding to vote for Hillary Clinton.

RIP to former Michigan State Forward Adreian Payne. Gone at only 31 years of age, waaaaaaaay too young.

We keep getting told that we are overreacting to what the Christian Fundamentalists on the right and within the Republican Party want to do. Here is Fundamentalist Christian and Republican candidate for Michigan State Board of Education Linda Lee Tarver talking about teaching abstinence. Join me as we travel back to the 1950s. Gee Ward, don't you think you were a little hard on the Beaver last night.

We can't even get Joe Biden to support marijuana legalization, $50k in student loan forgiveness, and Medicare-For-All but he's a commie? Ok!

No love for Gerard Gallant? Dude took an expansion team to a Stanley Cup and also took an above average Panthers team to first in the division, granted they were bounced early in the playoffs. Who cares if he's the Rangers head coach, trade for him out when they get bounced.

I saw The Batman and really liked the movie. I liked Robert Pattinson way more than I thought I would as Batman.

Keep the border clean? Who is Oz's politically hero, Orville Hubbard, former mayor of Dearborn?

I agree, but tell that to the moral majority that's always going around telling us what terrible people we all are for supporting abortion, gay marriage, LGBTQ equality, and public assistance programs for the poor. The moral majority always wants to selectively throw the bible in our face and demand we obey their version of Christianity. So if they do that, then throw the bible back at them.

I'm Kenneth Copeland and we Christians believe in the sanctity of life! But what about helping the poor Mr. Copeland, do you believe in that?

Speaking of being morally superior and the moral majority, if the fundamentalist Christian right and Republicans actually cared about biblical principals they'd be the biggest proponents of social welfare programs that raise one's quality of life. at least according to Matthew 25:34-40. “Then the king will say to those on his right, ‘Come, my Father has blessed you! Inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the creation of the world. I was hungry, and you gave me something to eat. I was thirsty, and you gave me something to drink. I was a stranger, and you took me into your home. I needed clothes, and you gave me something to wear. I was sick, and you took care of me. I was in prison, and you visited me." And Isaiah 58:10 "If you give some of your own food to [feed] those who are hungry and to satisfy [the needs of] those who are humble, then your light will rise in the dark, and your darkness will become as bright as the noonday sun." And Ezekiel 18:7 He is a merciful creditor, not keeping the items given as security by poor debtors. He does not rob the poor but instead gives food to the hungry and provides clothes for the needy. And Proverbs 22:9 A generous person will be blessed, for he gives some of his food to the poor. But these people are too busy screaming until they are red in the face about abortion, socialism, and lazy blacks on welfare.

Stop being so hyperbolic, women aren't going to jail for having abortions. Fake news!

Ah yes, the old states rights argument. So you don't support a federal law that bans abortions then?

WaPo: Man accused of killing his wife wins GOP primary from jail Trump was right, you really can shoot someone on 5th Avenue and still win. I am sure this is some kind of anomaly and most voters didn't know about the history or pending murder charge. I sure hope so anyways.

Ohhhhh I've thought that several times hearing him speak. I know sterotyping is wrong and so is speculating about someone's sexuality publicly, but the most vehemently anti-gay folks are usually closeted themselves. Michelle Bachmann's husband and Lindsey Graham come to mind as two individuals.

I never knew Aqib Tlaib posted here on MTS.

I must have lost his number in my contacts. The reason I cared about quarter splits is because it frequently felt like we got off to a slow start in the 1st quarter and had to play from behind, hence all the 4th quarter comebacks or stat padding some of us accused him of.

Sure, some fans were just peddling a narrative out of dislike for Stafford, myself included in that. Some did and some didn't try to justify it with stats. For me, the padding argument was always about quarter splits and my frustration that Stafford's second most productive quarter was the 4th quarter when I felt it should have been the 1st quarter. You can go down a statistical rabbit hole and manipulate stats to try and make a player look better or worse than they are playing. Clearly, I went down that rabbit hole on Stafford with his W/L record against good/great defense, his stats against those defenses, quarter splits, etc. So I bought into the Stat Padford argument and peddled it myself. I still think there is some truth to the narrative. What wasn't true in the end was the narrative that he couldn't get it done and couldn't elevate a team to playoff wins and a Super Bowl. He proved all of us haters to be fools just one year removed from the Lions.

See, I think there can be an objective golden mark as far as keeping Goff is concerned or not. It's part of what got me in trouble with Stafford, trying to appropriate a golden metric on a starting QB, but I sort of still think you can. With Stafford, I used to project his record and stats against quality defense as my shining example to prove he wasn't capable of elevating a team in the playoffs and thus should be traded. Sometimes you can use statistics to paint a narrative that isn't really true. In-regards to Goff, the similar to what was said for and against Stafford can be said here. No, the QB isn't the only player on the field and is incapable of winning al by himself. There are a myriad of other factors at play from performance of the players around him, health/injuries, coaching, scheme, etc. I do think, barring a rash of injuries, awful coaching from Campbell and Co. or that it turns out Holmes draft picks were simply horrible, I still think there are metrics you can measure Goff on. This team went from having little offensive talent to quite a bit in one offseason. Swift/Williams at RB, Williams/St.Brown/Chark/Reynolds at WR, and Hockenson at TE, all with a really good OL in front of them should be ample enough for a QB to succeed personnel wise. Sure, it will take time for everyone to gel with one another, but the offensive talent is there. Goff should be able to win games with what he has and we shouldn't be sitting here during the season looking at the offensive personnel as the reason we are losing. It's the defenses inability to stop or cover anyone that should be our likely narrative for why we lose. God help us if it is coaching related. So the metrics I would be measuring Goff by are some of the obvious ones like completion %, yards, TDs, scoring, wins/losses. Did he produce and score when we had possession? But I also want to dive deeper into time of possession, turnover ratio, fumbles/did he cut down on them, yards per pass, air yards, air yard differential, total time to throw (how long was he holding onto the ball). This team, offensively speaking, has the talent to win 8-10 games if coaching and QB play don't get in the way. So while I won't be as rigid as I was with Stafford and my "he can't ever beat good defenses" narrative, I do think we can and should closely be watching the aforementioned stats from Goff and if he doesn't hit certain metrics by season's end, look elsewhere for a QB.