DMC

So..what you're saying is we all aren't Keynesians now? Not sure I'd insert Jeffrey Sachs into the argument, but yeah, this is a point that should be emphasized so much more -- that we used to be able to do this, even in the US. Teaching undergrads, it's scary how little our youth understands this, or is even educated about it. I had to remind myself to put McCarty et al. (2007) into my powerpoint yesterday.

Saw Lanny Davis - of all people - comment on the possible Trump indictment with Politico. Since 2008 I've always loathed him (Davis, I mean), and to be clear he is Cohen's lawyer, but he made an argument that's hard to argue with. Cohen was sentenced to three years for committing a crime that was - without question and demonstrably - on behalf of Trump. Even if the jurisdiction and/or legal argument is unclear, somebody should prosecute the person actually responsible. Will prosecuting Trump lead to his incarceration? Almost certainly not. But should he be prosecuted by somebody for that crime? Certainly, yes. Saw Maher on Friday night wringing his hands that this will help Trump politically. Maybe in the primaries, but anyone thinking getting indicted will help in a general election is an idiot. It will/would undoubtedly hurt him if he gets that far. We just have to see if Bragg has the balls to go through with it after Trump's fascist threats.

Yeah, the "G" in GFC has always been Global - not Great - in my experience between news articles and lit. Even in the US. The "Great" Recession it resulted in was to emphasize it was the most severe economic downturn since the Great Depression. The Great Depression was called "Great" to distinguish between previous depressions - often called "Panics" in the 19th and early 20th century. Including the Depression of 1920-21 which was, obviously, pretty recent at the time. Anyway, I don't have much to comment on this. I hung out with a lot of economists when I was at Pitt and would always make fun of them because in actuality they had less of an idea of what they were supposed to be experts on than us poly sci people. That's still the case. It's quite amusing watching people pose as if they have any idea what's going to happen or even what to do. Only thing I can say with any confidence is Warren is definitely right about the 2018 deregulation, or rise from $50 billion to $250 billion.

My sister and brother-in-law asked me and my brother to babysit last Sunday - March 19 - so they could have a night out. When we got there they said they were seeing Dungeons & Dragons. I was like, really, that's what you're doing with your three hours of freedom? But, yeah, it definitely was available at a theater - this one - in Tampa. They both said they liked the movie too.

Just wanna say I love being a Niners fan with ShanaLynch ninjaing the best available free agent in Javon Hargrave despite their financial difficulties on a cap hit this year of only $6.6 million. They lost SO many guys in the first wave of free agency, but have replenished the depth without breaking the bank while also accruing a ridiculous amount of comp picks next year even if that formula continues to be opaque. Teams are only allowed four, and they should have a 3rd, 5th, and two 6ths next year. And with restructures they still have room to add in the minimal areas they need to augment outside the draft. When Shanahan got hired I figured Lynch was just a nepotism-ish hire, but along with Marathe he's established the most sustainable best roster in the league. Usually like to whine about my team's moves, but they are rather unassailable. Just need a QB to be healthy in January.

Gotta say this MVP debate isn't about a negative argument towards Jokic but rather a positive argument for the other two. Giannis is going to average 30/10/5, joining just Wilt, Robertson, Baylor, and Westbrook. And he's doing it with more efficient shooting than any of them, even Wilt. Embiid is averaging over 33 points, more than any center except Wilt, Kareem once, and McAdoo once. The latter two won MVPs when they scored that much. There are no wrong answers here - at least between those three. It should be a fun debate! That being said, I've watched more NBA basketball this season since I was, like, ten, and if you gave me the first pick in a hypothetical draft I would undoubtedly choose Giannis. For this season, for the postseason, whatever. He's clearly the best player in the league. Not sure if I'd vote for him or Embiid for MVP, but it'd be one of those two.

LOL at providing links to the Sussexes encountering difficulties in LA as determinative "facts." It's both selection bias and a counterfactual that assumes they wouldn't be receiving even more media harassment if they had stayed as working royals. The empirical argument is manifestly clear in terms of which venue they would have to deal with more paparazzi harassment comparatively. Alternatively, this argumentation is simply petulant and childish.

Not for what Jackson is demanding in terms of guarantees. That's another thing I think you fundamentally misunderstand for why the Ravens decided to give him the non-exclusive tag. Jackson is MAYBE a top QB right now. But whether he can sustain that? Contracts are agreed upon based on future expected performance, not necessarily what players have done in the past. And the market, thus far, has determined Lamar Jackson is not worth as much as he thinks he is in future performance. Maybe they're wrong! Certainly wouldn't be the first time. But, I agree with the market. Regardless of all that, the point with the Niners if they have very limited cap space. I know there's a general consensus nowadays that the NFL salary cap doesn't really exist, and teams can get around that. And large part that's true! But it's not for the Niners -- unless they sacrifice the way the essential way in which they've built a sustainable elite roster. Lamar Jackson isn't worth that. You can laugh at the Lance trade all you want, but it didn't risk that. Frankly it didn't risk much because ShanaLynch's value is in finding really cheap contributors on Days 2 and 3 in the draft. Signing Jackson would be an affront to that philosophy which has been demonstrably -- and exceedingly -- succesful.

Indeed. You're talking to an American - the country where for 25 years violent crime perpetually decreased but that didn't prevent the media from amplifying such threats at every opportunity. And now that crime has marginally increased after covid, the nominally "liberal" party is so afraid of not being tough on crime they're willing to vote against DC's right to govern themselves. Right, they just should have relied on the firm's protection! That clearly was working out great for them! What a load of fucking horseshit such cognitive dissonance engenders.

Well, sure, I think their motivation is $$$$$$. Just saying attacking them for their "safety" concerns is idiotic. That aspect made perfect sense -- not to mention made sense in terms of putting themselves in the position to make shittons of money.

Nope. The Niners can sustain this roster for quite a while if they don't have to pay a QB. Whether the players they're playing remain elite over the years is an open question, of course, but they can keep it together. Again, you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the Niners' cap situation and how the people in control of it are managing it in order to remain competitive. Aye, that's true. But you'd think if the Niners' staff was as bad as many - particularly many Niners fan themselves - claim they are, they wouldn't get an A- grade by the players themselves.

I thinks it's reasonable and entirely understandable for why Harry viewed it as a "safety" issue. Whether you want to call it that exactly is just semantics or blatantly motivated whining. I suppose I'd ask this question, regardless of the Sussexes actions: If you were a British Royal raising a young family - would you rather do so as an active royal in which you'd be required or at least expected to extensive time in the London area, as well as other major cities wherein media access is unavoidable; or would you prefer raising them in an area in which you have far more control over media access and aren't subject to "the firm's" demands?

As an empiricist, I thought the NFLPA putting out the survey below was quite informative: The players, clearly, don't have much of a problem with the training staff. I'd think they're the best authority on such things. The training ROOM, apparently, should be improved. But blaming ShanaLynch or the training staff or anything else on losing both Purdy AND Johnson in the NFC championship game is manifestly stupid. Bad luck is a thing. Just saw it yesterday with the Yankees pitchers.

Seriously, it's the definition of insanity to go after Jackson for the Niners (which is not to say it's necessarily a bad idea for other teams in different situations). They couldn't get passed the NFC championship game because they literally ran out of healthy quarterbacks. So your solution to that is to...hugely invest in guaranteed money to a guy that hasn't been able to stay healthy at the end of the last two seasons? GTFO.

Not when you have to pay Bosa, Williams, Deebo, Kittle, Warner, CMC, etc. In other words, not when it prevents you from sustaining one of the best rosters in the NFL. Lance and Purdy don't prevent that, at least for the time being. So, glad you're not the Niners GM.

It's absolutely hilarious cognitive dissonance for you to think the Sussexes weren't entirely right that the paparazzi would be much less of a safety issue if they moved to an LA area where celebrities are a dime a dozen and essentially everyone living in their immediate area understands security concerns, as opposed to continuing as active royals in the London area and continuing to deal with the predatory British paparazzi therein. But ignorance is bliss!

Well, certainly on immigration at the least, but that's pretty old hat. The nativist strain within the GOP that Trump exploited has always been there - and always hounded the Bushes. It did in 1992 when Pat Buchanan challenged H.W. in the primary, and it did in 2007 when they blew up the immigration reform spearheaded by Dubya, John McCain, and Ted Kennedy. This aspect has always been the key feature in the rise of the far right over the past 30 years. In Europe it's been identified as opposition to EU integration and..immigration. I do think it's an interesting point that the GOP has essentially abandoned all pretense to defending liberties in the process. That's a compelling argument any reasonable person would have a hard time disagreeing with. As for "budgeted government," though, that's hopefully a relic of Clinton's triangulation in the 90s that the Democratic party no longer falls into. Biden's budget proposal yesterday does technically do so, I suppose, but it's bold enough to demonstrate the party isn't worried about that horseshit austerity line anymore. As you suggest, just because the term fascism didn't originate until Mussolini does not mean the "idea" wasn't around long before that. This country was founded, in large part, by fascists -- and then, in large part, expressed fascism for a very long time. And many of those fascist elements remain today, and unfortunately aren't likely to go away any time soon. I think it's important to recognize that.

It's not going to happen, but anyone thinking the Niners should go after Lamar Jackson has a fundamental misunderstanding of why the Niners continue to be one of the best teams of the league. As well as a fundamental misunderstanding of how to manage the salary cap. Based on his demands IRT guaranteed money, I wouldn't pay Jackson even if it didn't cost at least the equivalent of two first round draft picks. And neither, clearly, would most of the league. That's what the Ravens are betting on, and thus far they appear to be right. Just because most of the league thinks Watson's contract was absurdly stupid and are unwilling to extend that precedent to Jackson doesn't really make it "collusion." It's just called making rational decisions. And BTW, I really don't get the shit Shanahan and Lynch are getting here. 95% of teams in the NFL would KILL to have one or both running their coaching and/or personnel. Of course, Paraag Marathe is their secret weapon, but the former two have already proved their worth.

Indeed, it's a ludicrously irrelevant and idiotic ecological fallacy to raise the US v the UK's gun and crime rates when referring to the Sussexes safety concerns. As if they were terrified of the aggregate crime rates when they bought their Montecito mansion - which they've since put on the market now priced at $33 million. I mean, just look at it - it's clearly a jungle out there! Their unobstructed views to the ocean and the mountains is totally the same as the endemic gun problem in the US! Maybe, just maybe, the Sussexes safety concerns had more to do with the British paparazzi which is always going to hound them incessantly in London but is far easier to mitigate when you're neighbors with Oprah? I mean, I dunno, crazy thought, but maybe that was Harry's predominate safety concern considering the role they played in his mother's death.

Thanks Zorral, but it's very temporary. Because I'm sick of this shit and want to say it publicly. Which, of course, we aren't allowed to. We're not supposed to publicly discuss our posts that have been publicly been disciplined for..reasons. That totally makes sense in a totalitarian state. Great job guys! Anyway, if you are able to read this before the "mods" suppress speech and delete it, I got suspended for fucking around with Jace and Wade a few weeks ago. NONE of us thought it was a big deal - and indeed I was talking to Jace via PM before it spilled over to the thread - but @mormont felt the need to suspend me to patronizingly "cool down." So, if @mormont enabled by @Ran don't want me to post as myself, that's fine! I enjoy talking to all of y'all, but I'm not gonna change. Frankly, just like Ron DeSantis, they can both eat a dick, I'm done. Wish you all the best!

.......I'd be rich.

I've been gone for weeks and I see little to no discussion on - by far - the most important and awesome thing that's happened in the NFL since: Rihanna's halftime show.

This is a gross exaggeration at best. Indeed, it's fairly clear Dubya was a more beneficial president to white evangelicals by a significant margin. The first thing there would be comparing courts - and yes, Trump was "better" on appointing justices for the SC if we're just looking at bare numbers. But consider the context. John Roberts may not be everything the Christian Right wanted him to be, but nobody knew that at the time. Frankly, if he wasn't in the Chief Justice seat - and therefore actually felt a responsibility to maintain the Court's legitimacy - his voting behavior may well have been as aligned with the Christian Right as the other Trump justices. Regardless, every single Senate Republican at the time was on board with the nomination, as was the Federalist Society. The one issue you could identify with Dubya is nominating Harriet Miers, but that didn't last long and he rectified it with Sam Alito - a justice demonstrably more conservative, and religiously conservative, than any of Trump's three. Further, the only reason Gorsuch and Kavanaugh were on the Federalist Society's list for Trump to being with was because Dubya nominated both to Federal Circuit Courts of Appeals. Hell, Kavanaugh was Dubya's staff secretary for much of his first term. All that being said, the reason Dubya was clearly better for white evangelicals was more because he actually WAS one. And this did have policy implications. But before we get to that, the fact Dubya was a born again Christian - and both his personal and professional life benefited from that turnaround in terms of stability and success - should not be discounted. Moreover, he campaigned on it. Trump may have uttered the shibboleths when necessary, but Dubya 2000 was the "victory" of "compassionate conservatism." Not even Reagan campaigned on the religious right's message so overtly. And Dubya continued to! SSM bans were crucial to his re-elect in 2004. Plus, of course, there's the Iraq War. No president has - thankfully - come nearly as close as Dubya to giving those crazy fucks the holy and/or apocalyptic war they so desperately desire. Finally, and most importantly, Trump didn't do anything approaching Dubya's Faith-Based Initiatives - which he enacted within a week of taking office via EOs. This is where Dubya started a program that literally gave certain churches BILLIONS of dollars annually. On top of that, he also exploited the 1996 Welfare Reform to give churches wide purview in helping to "implement" the program. I'll let Bobby Scott's office explain, but the point is Trump can't compare to this:

Oh I strongly disagree with that. In particular, the Democratic bench looks a whole hell of a lot better than the GOP bench. Unfortunately, Biden's almost certainly running for reelection. Which means we're waiting til 2028.

Dawg. You posted asserting that because in your experience some people on the far right express sympathy for Edward Snowden, this means therefore therefore there's no "ideological champion" of protecting whistleblowers. I pointed out this was horseshit and explained why, then you responded by belittling my providing political context as trivial - e.g. "comes up on Final Jeopardy." Instead, you said, you were interested in the "political theater" aspect of this discussion. Which, as opposed to talking about what's actually happened as I tried, I can only assume means you just want to talk out of your ass.