Jump to content

DTroppens

Moderators
  • Posts

    34,671
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by DTroppens

  1. You are right about voting based on policy and that many don't. If people know the policy, I would hope they would. I think younger people embrace the policies maybe more than older generations like mine and those even older. I think Warren is hurt by being to the right of Sanders on some key issues. She's sliding on Medicare for all recently, and that won't help her. She helped vote for the military budget increase and that probably won't help either. She has a strong consumers protection past and that's a huge plus.
  2. That's great that you voted based on policy. You suggested that may not be the case in the next cycle - the reason for some of that post. Clinton did propose it 25 years ago, but her policy has changed dramatically. She said something to the effect that Medicare for all was a pipe dream and was pretty proud of her comment when she said it. Also, Sanders supported Clinton back in the day. You can see video of him right with her during some press conferences. Unfortunately, the 2016 Hillary Clinton is much different than the 1990s version. I did not vote Trump in. I didn't vote for him and I chose to vote for someone who earned my vote. Voting for the lesser of two evils is what has got us to this point. Clinton couldn't beat Trump. That is on her and no one else.
  3. What would hand Trump the presidency again is probably having one of the establishment Dems winning the primary, which the DCCC will try to push just as hard (if not harder) as they did in 2016. I think maybe one establishment Dem has a chance to win if she wins the nomination - that being Kamala Harris. People's history is too easy to read today, much easier than 20 years ago and if people can tell who is lying there will be little passion behind that candidate and that will kill their chances. Biden won't win. He falls quickly when he runs for president. He has Clintonitis - the more people hear from him, the more they reject him. If he runs, he'll be out quickly. He's certainly not going to energize the younger voters, and that is key in today's political landscape for Dems who actually want to win. Harris has a very checkered past with issues that younger generations embrace, but the party would love to have a quality woman candidate. She's very articulate and can speak like a progressive (much like Obama) so she may fool enough of the electorate to win the primary and maybe beat Trump. However, her history suggests her progressive talk of today won't be reflected in her actions, so she'll still have issues with that against Trump. Again, if it comes to Republican vs. Republican-lite, people will vote for the Republican and the Republican-lite candidate will not energize enough voters behind them to win the election. Those I think could beat Trump: Sanders, Warren and Harris.
  4. Wouldn't voting based on policy be a smarter decision? You are really going to allow outside factors from your support for a candidate? I really hope that's not the case. I'd hope you'd embrace your political beliefs a bit more than some outside factor like that. But, back to Hillary and Bernie - even if Hillary and Bernie would end up voting 95% the same, the five percent that they'd vary are pretty important areas. Military intervention, Medicare for all and just their corporate ties are three huge differences. Here's a fact - more Bernie supporters voted for Clinton than Clinton voters voted for Obama when Clinton lost in the primary to Obama. And probably a lot of Bernie's supporters who did go to Trump were independents, so it wasn't like they were Dems. They went with the candidate that had the most populist ideas (albeit all of them being pretty much false). Meanwhile, I'm willing to bet most of those who didn't vote for Obama that voted for Clinton probably were actual members of the Dem party. So if anything, those voters should've felt even more loyalty to the Dem Party candidate. I voted for Sanders in the primary, but didn't vote for Clinton in the general election. But that was never going to happen. I haven't voted for a Rep/Dem in the general election since Bill Clinton's first term. That was the election that I pretty much locked up in my mind, minus some social issues, there aren't many differences between the two major parties. Nothing from that day forward has changed my opinion on something I look at as more factual than opinion. My wife did shift from Sanders to Clinton, and I certainly understood why she did. For those who wanted to direct their vote to one of the major two parties who asked me for my opinion, I did tell them to vote for Clinton - and I do get asked by people for my opinion on these matters. I'm not saying it's 100 people, but I can say I probably helped guide at least 10 people in that direction (and at least one in the direction I voted). And I should say at this time I don't know who I am going to vote in this primary. I will vote the person I think is best in line with my political views. In the primary I will vote against war and the person I believe embraces the populist agenda the best and that has me looking at a couple of candidates. One of those candidates I have already donated to that person's campaign, and that person is not named Sanders (sure you can guess who). So while I have voted for Sanders, I certainly don't qualify as a hard-core Bernie supporter. I think most people who were passionately Sanders supporters weren't shocked Trump won. I certainly wasn't. His rhetoric was to the left of Clinton, and when a Dem reflects Republican-lite tendencies, they will struggle to enthuse independents (particularly young independents) to want to vote for them. She was trying to get Republican-lite voters more than those to the left of her. It was her platform, her policies and the people she surrounded her that lost her the votes needed to beat Trump. And despite what you may think, those policies (and certainly not the key root policies that were driving the election) didn't have those two seeing eye-to-eye on 80 percent of the issues.
  5. I said this to my wife a few times tonight - "Meet your Maker. Thon Maker!" He had a really good second half.
  6. Amazing. The Suns may end up scoring under 100. Pistons on cruise contortions right now up 20. Life has changed this half.
  7. I think the Pistons made a defense a stop two games ago.
  8. 42-40 and there is 8:46 left in the second quarter.
  9. I wonder how many 30-point first quarters the Pistons have allowed this year. I wonder when this team will decide to play some defense.
  10. Until this team decides it gives a damn about defense all we are doing is watching games until next season starts. If a team cares, you learn that through its willingness to play defense.
  11. No wins are ever a lock on a west coast trip. So let's blow away your best chance at one prior to the trip. That said, show some pride on defense. This isn't the preseason on cruise control.
  12. Gosh, can the Pistons play any defense at all? Someone is going to have to refresh me on the merits of resting your best player when you are fighting for a playoff spot and/or a reasonably decent playoff spot. Sheer stupidity.
  13. This is starting to look like those old street ball shows ESPN used to show on a regular basis. The defense is so bad just throw any lob a the hoop and you'll get your highlight play. The Pistons will oblige. 66 points halfway into the fourth and Andre just fouled out. Oh, wow, what just happened to Reggie? Time to read the thread.
  14. 57 points in three quarters in today's NBA. Maybe you can get away with that occasionally if defense is your calling card. That's not the Pistons. Two really important regular season games in three days and their opposition decides their defense is going to dictate what the Pistons are going to do offensively. The Pistons' defense is non-existent, forget elevating it's level of play. For all who think you can't play defense in today's NBA, look at the last two games. If teams can snuff out the Pistons like this during a quick regular season game, it's going to be ugly when teams can focus on them for 4 to 7 games over seven to 14 days.
  15. I don't know the final result, but the Pistons are still looking for a third-quarter point halfway into the stanza. This team lacks mental fortitude. Teams are overplaying them and they have zero answer. This is how it's going to be in the playoffs and it's hard seeing the Pistons having any answers offensively when the opposition gives a damn and wants to play defense. Compounding matters, this isn't a good defensive team. When the intensity elevates, your effort on defense must be elevated. We've seen that by our opponents twice this week. The Pistons are not interested in elevating their defense. This team has no clue how to mentally elevate their play and it's shown the last two nights. Wow, it's now a 30-point deficit.
  16. I'm glad I opened this. I forgot it was an afternoon game.
  17. I never saw the stat but I'd be curious to find out what the Spurs shot from the field in the fourth quarter. It seemed there was a time that they scored about 10 straight possessions. Update: If I counted all the shots on the shot chart correctly, it looks like SA was 12-for-17 from the field in the fourth.
  18. I haven't read any of this thread yet, but I think my "favorite" part of the game was when the Pistons were trying to get back into it and I am pretty sure on back-to-back defensive possessions Drummond and Jackson allowed hoops and fouls for three-point plays.
  19. Watching the Pistons feels a lot like an extension of the Flint Metro League prep basketball I cover Friday nights.
  20. So can anyone recall the last time the Pistons played against an opponent who averaged at least 20 points and then scored none in a game where the player actually had a decent amount of playing time? I'm sure it happens but I can't remember one right off top of my head.
  21. That's all my goals have been since the Iverson trade season. That and hope they sneak out with 40-42 wins. Gosh, how long has that been now? It's been 10 years. We've seen some pretty generic mediocre basketball since then. You can't look at any of the teams over the last 10 years and look at these teams in terms of long-term goals. Really, all you can be is a "fan" and hope they win each night you watch a game, realizing the squad is no better than one of those generic NBA teams that probably will finish below .500. These aren't teams you can really analyze and say if we have this or that or if we do this or that. Yeah, I guess you can, but it's a fruitless exhibition. And, at this time, it doesn't look like the current pattern is going to change. Maybe they surprise us and win four in a row suddenly look more like a playoff team for a small stretch. We've seen some of these non-descript teams start seasons well (the last two years) and saw at least one other start dreadful and then put something like a 30-game run together to possibly sneak into the playoffs (forget what year that was). Maybe this team wins 35. Maybe it wins 42. Really, it's just a number. They still will be one of those generic teams and I'm not going to look at them as anything more than that. Knowing that, I'm just going to "fan" it again this year. Just try to enjoy the games as they come and not look too much beyond that. That's what I've done most of the last 10 years. Hopefully, we see another positive trend sometime in my lifetime. We probably will see at least one more incline where you can truly analyze the team at a serious level - even if it is just at the 45-48 win team level. I'll just wait for that time to come.
  22. I did a 1968 MLB tournament and the Tigers lost in their first round in seven games. I think it went seven games.
×
×
  • Create New...