Blue Wave 2018

[Skjellyfetti]

MacArthur is a better "returner" than a defender.

MacArthur doesn't have a great relationship with his coach. Will likely spend too much time on the bench to warrant drafting him.

[Rob Iola]

MacArthur is a better "returner" than a defender.

MacArthur doesn't have a great relationship with his coach. Will likely spend too much time on the bench to warrant drafting him.

His playcalling was suspect too - he wanted to go to the bomb a little too often...

[CID1990]

A smart man’s fantasy draft would be:

Nathan Bedford Forrest
US Grant
Thomas Jackson
Blackjack Pershing
Dick Sheridan
Frank Fletcher (Navy)
Hap Arnold (Air Force)

Curious why you'd take Forrest over RE Lee?


I'll take Suvorov.

Forrest was one of two natural geniuses produced by the Civil War. Lee was not the other one.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Skjellyfetti]

Curious why you'd take Forrest over RE Lee?


I'll take Suvorov.

Forrest was one of two natural geniuses produced by the Civil War. Lee was not the other one.

I assume Jackson is the other, and I'd agree.

I just think Forrest is overrated. He spent most of his time raiding Union supply lines with a brigade... and, John Hunt Morgan and Mosby were as successful, if not more so. I assume Brice's Crossroads is where your "genius" opinion of him is formed... but, that was a tiny battle. And, while impressive... Forrest never had to do any serious campaigning.

Lee's blemish is obviously Gettysburg... but, his record as the leader of an overmatched army is pretty impressive.

[CID1990]

Forrest was one of two natural geniuses produced by the Civil War. Lee was not the other one.

I assume Jackson is the other, and I'd agree.

I just think Forrest is overrated. He spent most of his time raiding Union supply lines with a brigade... and, John Hunt Morgan and Mosby were as successful, if not more so. I assume Brice's Crossroads is where your "genius" opinion of him is formed... but, that was a tiny battle. And, while impressive... Forrest never had to do any serious campaigning.

Lee's blemish is obviously Gettysburg... but, his record as the leader of an overmatched army is pretty impressive.

You need to read your Shelby Foote!

Lincoln was the other one. He was the political genius, Forrest was the military one


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Chizzang]

You need to read your Shelby Foote!

I'd rather gouge my eyes out with a rusty spoon

[SDHornet]

Interesting, in June CNN said there are more jobs than workers.

https://money.cnn.com/2018/06/05/news/e ... index.html

Note:
Electricians and Diesel Engine Mechanics and Software Coders and Programmers

Those are the jobs that we don't have workers to fill
While Sears and Target are laying people off

I'm getting my Networking Engineering Certificate right now
because I was being begged to take a Job in Broadband and I'm in my fucking mid-50's

It's a fascinating problem this country faces..

Fun fact: a sparky can earn 6 figs in no time if they go that route straight out of HS...probably within 5 years easy. Tons of money out there to be had without racking up the college loan debt.

[SDHornet]

My monthly IRA statement's over the last year and a half say otherwise.

How did it do from 2008 to 2016?

Good, but not on the pace I've seen the last 1.5+ years.

Also note I entered the market post 2008 crash, so it wasn't hard for me to net profits on any investments.

[CID1990]

You need to read your Shelby Foote!

I'd rather gouge my eyes out with a rusty spoon

So you've read him


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ivytalk]

I'd rather gouge my eyes out with a rusty spoon

So you've read him


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

My father got me started on Bruce Catton.

[GannonFan]

Forrest was one of two natural geniuses produced by the Civil War. Lee was not the other one.

I assume Jackson is the other, and I'd agree.

I just think Forrest is overrated. He spent most of his time raiding Union supply lines with a brigade... and, John Hunt Morgan and Mosby were as successful, if not more so. I assume Brice's Crossroads is where your "genius" opinion of him is formed... but, that was a tiny battle. And, while impressive... Forrest never had to do any serious campaigning.

Lee's blemish is obviously Gettysburg... but, his record as the leader of an overmatched army is pretty impressive.

I think Forrest is overrated too, for many of the same reasons you say. It's like he was a fantastic AA baseball player but never got called up to the Majors to really see how'd he do.

Lee played so much defense it's hard to judge him, he almost always had the interior lines to work from. And he did get to go up against some of the truly inferior generals in the war until Grant came East. Antietam was not his finest moment either (like Gettysburg, when he went on the offensive) - that was a blundering battle that didn't reflect well on either commander.

Grant doesn't get the respect he deserves, part of that Lost Cause re-write of history that just says he won because of superior numbers. But he was amazingly effective in the West without massive superiority, and his strategic vision, first on a small scale in and around Tennessee through Vicksburg, and then over all theaters of the war once he came East, was fantastic. The North winning was never an absolute given, as the first 3 years of the war showed. Without a Grant you wonder if the North would've won.

[Chizzang]

I'd rather gouge my eyes out with a rusty spoon

So you've read him

There is almost nothing in this world that interests me LESS than the Civil War

The End...

[GannonFan]

So you've read him

There is almost nothing in this world that interests me LESS than the Civil War

The End...

Well, there was no cable tv back then so that's understandable.

[Chizzang]

There is almost nothing in this world that interests me LESS than the Civil War

The End...

Well, there was no cable tv back then so that's understandable.

Bingo!
If we had a Broadband infrastructure debate going - that would be fun

[GannonFan]

Well, there was no cable tv back then so that's understandable.

Bingo!
If we had a Broadband infrastructure debate going - that would be fun

Maybe we'll trace Comcast back to Reconstruction for ya!

[CID1990]

I assume Jackson is the other, and I'd agree.

I just think Forrest is overrated. He spent most of his time raiding Union supply lines with a brigade... and, John Hunt Morgan and Mosby were as successful, if not more so. I assume Brice's Crossroads is where your "genius" opinion of him is formed... but, that was a tiny battle. And, while impressive... Forrest never had to do any serious campaigning.

Lee's blemish is obviously Gettysburg... but, his record as the leader of an overmatched army is pretty impressive.

I think Forrest is overrated too, for many of the same reasons you say. It's like he was a fantastic AA baseball player but never got called up to the Majors to really see how'd he do.

Lee played so much defense it's hard to judge him, he almost always had the interior lines to work from. And he did get to go up against some of the truly inferior generals in the war until Grant came East. Antietam was not his finest moment either (like Gettysburg, when he went on the offensive) - that was a blundering battle that didn't reflect well on either commander.

Grant doesn't get the respect he deserves, part of that Lost Cause re-write of history that just says he won because of superior numbers. But he was amazingly effective in the West without massive superiority, and his strategic vision, first on a small scale in and around Tennessee through Vicksburg, and then over all theaters of the war once he came East, was fantastic. The North winning was never an absolute given, as the first 3 years of the war showed. Without a Grant you wonder if the North would've won.

Forrest was a tactical genius across his entire body of work. He had a couple hiccups, but generally speaking when he entered an engagement, he won, and it didn't matter if he was outnumbered or not. He was a master of maneuver.

Forrest never got called up to the majors because he was hampered by his lack of education and his rough ways of speaking. He was not a gentleman and with his history as a slave trader, he was held in low regard by the more "genteel", professionally educated generals of the Confederacy. But Forrest also showed talent that he rarely got to use, which would have helped him had he been given a higher command - for example, skills in organization and management - Forrest recruited and outfitted all of his earlier cavalry forces on his own.

He was a tactical genius, which has been largely acknowledged by scholars at places like the Army War College (where he was still taught, to my knowledge, at least up to the early 2000s). Grant was an excellent general, one of the best of the war, but his skills were learned and honed through a process of trial and error. Forrest was born to it - which is why I say he was a "natural" genius, his skills were intuitive. That is also why Foote said (and I agree with him) that the two "natural" geniuses of the Civil War were Forrest and Lincoln.

[JohnStOnge]

Saw another example today of a conservative providing false information. As it happens it also plays into the thing where there is misinformation about what the polls say. I was watching a panel discussion including conservative commentator Jen Kerns. And she said that the Democrats should be worried because the generic Congressional ballot polls for the 2014 and 2010 mid terms were saying the same thing as the generic Congressional ballot polls are showing now and the Democrats lost.

Nope. I knew as soon as she said it that what she was saying is false because I'd already looked at that. The 2014 RealClearPolitics average of polls for that year's generic ballot is at https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epoll ... -2170.html. On October 14, 2014, it had Republicans up by 1.8 percentage points. The 2010 RealClearPolitics average of polls for THAT year's Congressional ballot is at https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epoll ... -2171.html. On October 14, 2010, it had Republicans up by 6.8 percentage points.

I don't know what it is with these people. Are they lying or are they just genuinely ignorant? I lean towards "they are lying."

[93henfan]

Bro. Stop getting your panties in such a bunch.

Everyone knows the Democrats will win the House back and the Republicans will retain the Senate and may even pick up a seat.

You're letting the media twats get you all worked up.

And btw, if your Democrats act the way I think they're going to act in the House when they get the majority, you may as well pencil in four more years of the Trumpster.

[JohnStOnge]

Bro. Stop getting your panties in such a bunch.

Everyone knows the Democrats will win the House back and the Republicans will retain the Senate and may even pick up a seat.

You're letting the media twats get you all worked up.

And btw, if your Democrats act the way I think they're going to act in the House when they get the majority, you may as well pencil in four more years of the Trumpster.

Everyone does not know that the Democrats will win the House. Right now it's about 80% confidence; which is not sufficient to make the call. Same with the Republicans maintaining control of the Senate. About 80% confidence. Of course both of those are "if the election were held today" things.

As far as four more years of Trump goes: Doesn't matter what happens with the Congressional elections. If the Democrats come up with a decent candidate they will win. The majority of the people didn't like Trump before he got elected. They didn't like him when he got elected. And they don't like him now. Also, the majority has not ever and does not now approve of the job he's doing. He's not a good candidate. He benefitted from a bunch of things including his opponent having problems with the FBI to win the electoral college while losing the popular vote. But he was not and is not a good candidate and the only way he wins if if the Democrats can't find ANYBODY decent to run against him.

[Col Hogan]

It use to be fun to try and explain reality vs your analysis...

It’s pretty much useless now...

If you consider a “decent” candidate to be one of the up and coming “democratic socialists”, then Trump will win again...especially if the Dems win the House and spend two years conducting investigations and passing impeachment articles which will go nowhere...

That’s reality...

[JohnStOnge]

It use to be fun to try and explain reality vs your analysis...

It’s pretty much useless now...

If you consider a “decent” candidate to be one of the up and coming “democratic socialists”, then Trump will win again...especially if the Dems win the House and spend two years conducting investigations and passing impeachment articles which will go nowhere...

That’s reality...

If Sanders lives long enough he would likely beat Trump. If Biden lives long enough and could somehow win the Democratic Party nomination he would likely beat Trump. But I don't think either of those will be the nominee.

Right now we have no clue. As I've written before, at this point of George H.W. Bush's Presidency nobody would've thought Bill Clinton would emerge.

But Trump is not a strong candidate. He's a buffoon that most people don't like. Most people are embarrassed by the fact that he is the President of the United States.

Also, I would not under estimate the popularity of "Democratic Socialism" as articulated by Sanders.

BTW I wouldn't feel overly confident about it but I wouldn't be surprised if Warren could beat Trump in a Presidential election. She would make an absolute fool of him in debates. She wouldn't back down and she's way smarter than him. Very possible he'd be seen as getting absolutely spanked by a woman.

[AZGrizFan]

It use to be fun to try and explain reality vs your analysis...

It’s pretty much useless now...

If you consider a “decent” candidate to be one of the up and coming “democratic socialists”, then Trump will win again...especially if the Dems win the House and spend two years conducting investigations and passing impeachment articles which will go nowhere...

That’s reality...

If Sanders lives long enough he would likely beat Trump. If Biden lives long enough and could somehow win the Democratic Party nomination he would likely beat Trump. But I don't think either of those will be the nominee.

Right now we have no clue. As I've written before, at this point of George H.W. Bush's Presidency nobody would've thought Bill Clinton would emerge.

But Trump is not a strong candidate. He's a buffoon that most people don't like. Most people are embarrassed by the fact that he is the President of the United States.

Also, I would not under estimate the popularity of "Democratic Socialism" as articulated by Sanders.

BTW I wouldn't feel overly confident about it but I wouldn't be surprised if Warren could beat Trump in a Presidential election. She would make an absolute fool of him in debates. She wouldn't back down and she's way smarter than him. Very possible he'd be seen as getting absolutely spanked by a woman.

You'd better hope like a motherfucker that black employment comes off its' record high, that black small business startups come off their record highs, that Hispanic employment comes off its record highs, etc., etc. Otherwise they could run Jesus Christ himself and he ain't gonna beat Trump in 2020.

[JohnStOnge]

You'd better hope like a motherfucker that black employment comes off its' record high, that black small business startups come off their record highs, that Hispanic employment comes off its record highs, etc., etc. Otherwise they could run Jesus Christ himself and he ain't gonna beat Trump in 2020.

Dude, do you not realize that Trump is underwater in terms of approval right now? I was just looking at the ABC News Washington Post Poll. I pay particular attention to that one more than any other because it is rated A+ by 538 and has a small average error as well as a small bias. It has Trump as 10 percentage points down among all voters and down by 90% to 7% among Blacks. It also had him down by 64% to 29% among Hispanics. It has him down by 62% to 33% among women and 59% to 38% among White college educated women. It even has him basically even among White NON college educated women at 48% to 49%.

Oh, and it has him down by 54% to 37% among Independents.

It's not going to take Jesus Christ to beat him.

[houndawg]

You'd better hope like a motherfucker that black employment comes off its' record high, that black small business startups come off their record highs, that Hispanic employment comes off its record highs, etc., etc. Otherwise they could run Jesus Christ himself and he ain't gonna beat Trump in 2020.

Dude, do you not realize that Trump is underwater in terms of approval right now? I was just looking at the ABC News Washington Post Poll. I pay particular attention to that one more than any other because it is rated A+ by 538 and has a small average error as well as a small bias. It has Trump as 10 percentage points down among all voters and down by 90% to 7% among Blacks. It also had him down by 64% to 29% among Hispanics. It has him down by 62% to 33% among women and 59% to 38% among White college educated women. It even has him basically even among White NON college educated women at 48% to 49%.

Oh, and it has him down by 54% to 37% among Independents.

It's not going to take Jesus Christ to beat him.

fake news.

[CID1990]

You'd better hope like a motherfucker that black employment comes off its' record high, that black small business startups come off their record highs, that Hispanic employment comes off its record highs, etc., etc. Otherwise they could run Jesus Christ himself and he ain't gonna beat Trump in 2020.

Dude, do you not realize that Trump is underwater in terms of approval right now? I was just looking at the ABC News Washington Post Poll. I pay particular attention to that one more than any other because it is rated A+ by 538 and has a small average error as well as a small bias. It has Trump as 10 percentage points down among all voters and down by 90% to 7% among Blacks. It also had him down by 64% to 29% among Hispanics. It has him down by 62% to 33% among women and 59% to 38% among White college educated women. It even has him basically even among White NON college educated women at 48% to 49%.

Oh, and it has him down by 54% to 37% among Independents.

It's not going to take Jesus Christ to beat him.

When has Trump not been under water in approval ratings?

I think he's something like 47/43 now, but 6 months ago he was around 53-54 disapprove

And he's being disapproved of in many places the Dems don't need votes

I don't think polling matters in the Trump era. We are in uncharted territory - record voter enthusiasm on both sides, coupled with a social environment that causes conservative voters to hold their cards close...

I'd agree that Dems are poised to take back the House but I dont think so with 80% certainty


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk