Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by DTroppens

  1. Beto O'Rourke is the hot name right now, but that probably won't last. And he's already saying he doesn't like labeling himself a "progressive." I think he's backtracking as we type our posts, and the more that happens, the less authentic he becomes and the less attractive he'll be as a candidate. And, let's not forget he lost to the guy that lost to Trump. Kamala Harris initially may look nice and glossy, but it doesn't take much research to see how she's primarily a Dem insider herself, and not very authentic at all. That said, yes, I think more young people would clearly vote for those two than did Clinton. I think Harris is who will be pushed down our throats and the moving of the California primary is a reasonable indication of that being the case. I could be wrong, but I'll think the establishment wing of the party will try to push her as great change in demographics and policy even if that's not entirely the case. I agree with Sanders and maybe even Warren. Warren has taken on a few stains in the last four years, but she still remains one of the most progressive people in government, and has some strong credentials to back it. I think you are right. I think those two beat Trump. I think Trump remains for four more years if pretty much anyone else is the Dem candidate. The young people will determine the next vote. If given a reason to vote for the Dem party, they will. If not, they'll vote third party or not vote at all. It will be interesting if Tulsi Gabbard decides to make a push in six years. It seems too late right now, but I could certainly see her as being that "authentic" figurehead in four years. I wouldn't be shocked if Bernie won the nomination (they'll try to keep that from happening as much as possible) if she's named the VP. I would guess it would be her or maybe even someone like Nina Turner. Warren would make sense as well.
  2. It's obvious our capitalism is eating itself alive as we speak. Capitalism was on a slow pace of eating itself, but Citizen's United happened and now it's been a snowball ever since. Reagan started pushing the pace and Clinton helped make it a two-party issue, but then Citizen's United really pushed it in high gear. That's how I look at it. It's easy to see how both parties supporting the same donors have killed this country and will continue to kill it if given that chance. In today's political world, the deck has been stacked against the creation of a progressive party, and certainly an effective one. Look at what the DNC did to Bernie, and they still try to shun him as much as possible despite his policies being very popular, popular enough to put the Dems in power if they ever want to embrace them. Corporate America also eliminates any such progressive push. Any progressive voice on major TV is eventually eliminated or they turn their voice to more of a corporate standpoint. So, I think that's one huge reason why it's hard to create any sort of great progressive party. That's the simplified answer. I'm guessing we agree with a lot of our beliefs.
  3. What all of this tells me when these things happen is just how little difference there is between the two major parties. With the exception of maybe where you want to let certain people pee or a few other social issues, there just isn't much.
  4. The Lions have had high draft picks over the years and they've had lower level draft picks. It hasn't changed their level of success. If the Lions had more of a correlation of success with different draft picks, maybe I'd look at it differently, but I probably wouldn't. If you have adequate people in the front office, you can make just about any scenario work for you. Some are easier than others, obviously, but the Lions have bundled it from just about anywhere they select at different times, so why make yourself want to see the team lose would be my theory.
  5. Yup. And they are, more than any other generation before them. Heck, I didn't directly contribute to specific candidates and/or parties until a few years ago. ****, I gave money to AOC's campaign before 99% of the people here had any clue who she was. BTW, while I have had primaries where I have voted for candidates at the national and state level, I haven't voted for many two-party candidates since after Bill Clinton was elected the first time. When he proved he was Republican-lite, that's when I realized voting into the one-party-two-party system was fool's gold. A decent number of the kids know this already - or at least know to follow the money to see who they should support.
  6. This won't happen unless Dems adopt policies that support the young people. That's the problem. That's why they were all over Bernie, but the swoon disappeared when Clinton won the nomination. The same will happen if a corporate Dem wins the nomination again in two years. That person won't support the policies that support their needs and they won't vote again. That's why Trump won. He at least pretended with his words that he was a populist, and how left of Trump was Hillary anyway? The young people that follow politics are much smarter than I ever was at their age. I probably was in the top 5% of my generation when it came to political knowledge when I was in my teens and through my 30s, but if I snapped my fingers and put what I knew when I was 20 to today, I'd be wallowing probably in the 50 percentile level. The internet has made it so easy for them to follow the money, to see who is actually telling the truth and who's actually pushes for the policies they embrace. That's why so many people on that list of Dem Party presidential candidates will have some very serious issues when it comes to beating Trump. Trump's supporters will come out. It really doesn't matter if what he says and does never compliment each other, and it doesn't matter if pretty much everything he does actually hurts his base. He'll lose a few but retain most, and now while he puts an ugly face on Republican policy (which really isn't that different from Dem policy to be honest here), and that bothers the leaders that be in the party, for the most part he's doing their bidding and they will support him as well. Unless Dems give people a reason to vote, they won't be able to tap into this youth like they should be able to. Most don't look that different from the Republicans, certainly not enough to be passionate about their typical solutions. Most Dems are still fighting a national non-private medical health care plan because their donors and their party embrace the Heritage Foundation-back Obamacare. They want to keep that and maybe improve it a tiny bit. You won't get the establishment leaders that be in the party to even say Medicare for all, let alone embrace it. And many of the few establishment Dems that say they do support it, will be the first ones not to push it if Dems ever do get the power to make those decisions again. Obama had a small window and he went to the Heritage Foundation. If they embraced a national health care program stripped away from private corporations, they'd be supporing a policy that the majority of Americans embrace, and most of today's youth certain embraces. This is what is keeping Dems from being in power - their unwillingness to do these things. Because they want to keep the cash flowing. Young people are smart. They see this more than any other generation. And they won't vote for it.
  7. As "realistically negative" as I can be about the Lions, I have truthfully never rooted for them to tank. Maybe you have in the past and I just forgot, but I thought you would've been one of those in that camp because you traditionally have a much brighter light on the Lions than I do, so that surprised me a tiny bit. I understand why people may want to think that way, but my theory is there are only 16 games in a season and there are too few wins already regardless what the team ends up doing, so if I'm pulling for losses, I need to find a new hobby. I figure the team will lose enough games without me rooting for it, so why bother rooting for it? Why not just root for wins and let the cards fall the way they do? Not saying others need to do that, but that's how I approach it. Over the last five or six years, the stranglehold this team had on my life has lessened tremendously as well, so it's also a lot easier for me to think this way. But even in my hard-core Lions days, I thought that way.
  8. Not to Trump's base. They love this stuff.
  9. Cruzer, Are you pulling for the Lions to tank?
  10. I think this is your answer. The California primary was moved up and I think this is probably at least some of the reason for it. Harris wins California - her home state - and the wave starts behind her, at least with the party. She's probably the only one that could compete with Bernie's name recognition and popularity throughout the country because her name is known in California and because she has no problem taking any money that can come her way, even if she said she wouldn't take any corporate PAC $$$. She gives the establishment Dems something they want - a younger female democrat who won't rock the boat. Unfortunately, that type of candidate is not going to beat Trump.
  11. But once every three or four months I see a clip where he surprisingly falls on the progressive issue of an argument, or at least gives a little credibility to the argument. It must be something to do with every third or fourth full moon. But generally, from what little I've seen of him, your #1 point nails him beautifully.
  12. I think this is the case nationwide for most issues like this when "local" fans bring up stuff like this. The reputation or how local fans may negatively critique a player on their own team is almost always much worse than the national reputation of that player. What this comment means about how other teams look at Drummond, I don't know. It would be really hard to take on that contract, but that's probably the reason more than anything. I'm sure there are teams that still have a pretty positive viewpoint of Drummond.
  13. Okay, it was a "homer" comment, but it was a good one. How did either George or Greg say that - "That's the ultimate ball don't lie" after all three of those free throws were missed AND the Bucks had a lane violation. It was an entertaining game. The Pistons had their chance and kind of blew it. It seems the Pistons get in that "Let's give it to Blake and let him deal with five defenders while stuck in molasses" phase a couple periods in every game. Unfortunately, one of those spurts happened at a critical time of the game and it cost the Pistons a chance to earn the victory.
  14. The above posts made me wonder which team has had the most double-digit win regular seasons since the Browns second-coming. The Lions are winning two seasons to one. I knew the Browns have been horrible the last few seasons, but I didn't realize they've had just one double-digit win season since 1999 - and they didn't even make the playoffs that season. A little more idiot trivia - I have a boxed three digit number all Lions fans should play a few times before Sunday. The Lions are currently 546-645-32 in regular season history. I haven't played the lottery in about 20 years, but I think I may have to play 5-4-6 and 6-4-5 two way some time this week.
  15. Nice win, although they did try to make it a bit scary at the end. Does this mean it's time for a five-game win streak? It's kind of fun looking at basketball reference and looking at all the Ws and all the Ls bunched up the way they are. https://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/DET/2019_games.html
  16. I think, for the most part, this is true. Whenever things are a bit less structured, Stafford seemingly does better - at least from my eye's standpoint. Maybe I'm right or wrong, but I have the same impression as you do.
  17. I was hoping the Pistons would somehow end up with the ball at the time line after all the technical stuff. I just didn't know how that would happen, and it didn't. The Pistons really made their own bed down the stretch. I think all five defenders could've collapsed on Griffin and the Pistons would've still tried to get the ball to him and let him try to work for a shot. After about four turnovers, they may have tried something else. But all of that wouldn't have mattered if they could've stopped the Hornets just one or two times on the other side of the court down the stretch. As much as the Pistons earned a spot back into the game and in strong control entering second half of the fourth quarter, they earned what they got down the stretch as well.
  18. I think the trade made little sense at the time, and keeping him this season makes little sense.
  19. I'm clearly not the same Lions' fan I was 20 years ago, but my view on these types of questions hasn't changed. I always want the team I'm rooting for to win. Even if the Lions are 5-10 going into the last week of the season, when I watch the game, I'm going to pull for them to win. If I start pulling for the teams I root for to lose, then I know I truthfully need a new hobby.
  20. Just seeing them standing there tells you a lot with what is wrong in this country. These are our "leaders."
  21. For the most part, the Pistons put on a better performance than I would've expected. Drummond had his best game against Philly in a long time. It was fun seeing a game where a lot of the bench got extended minutes, just to see what they could do if they were pushed into service. Philly is an impressive team. We've seen them as much as anyone and they do look like a strong squad. Of course the Pistons didn't have some of their pieces playing in this game, but it's clear the Pistons don't have the athleticism, the talent, the options or whatever you want to call it to keep up with Philly. These teams play 10 times, the Pistons are going to lose their share, and with their situation last night it was even more evident. But, they got it to within three and had me excited there for a bit before it quickly went back to something like nine or 11 by the end of the third quarter. I know I can check this, but have the Pistons held anyone to 100 or less this year? A game against the Bulls strikes my memory, but I can't think of any other right off the top of my head. Teams are scoring in the 100-teens on us lately. Rules limiting defenses or not, that has to change. This team is going no where allowing 115+ points on a routine basis.
  22. It sounds like it's a better place to go than I would've guessed.
  23. I've never thought about going to it. If I ever ended up in the area, I'd go, but that's been my mentality about trips to it. Maybe if we end up taking a trip in that direction, I'll make more of a point to go a tiny bit out of our way to check it out.
  • Create New...