UTDD

Lol, three penalties AND they have to call a TO? Epic fail. Wow.

Yeah, Texas kid too. I forget where.

The QB looks like he has a really live arm. Looks tall too, pretty good size.

They just signed a bill to rebuild it somehow...not sure the details.

Maybe even Hawaii's offensive line would have been more effective.

I certainly hope Florida doesn't remain at #8 if they win this game.

Not a good first impression for a new head coach with the kind of mistakes you are seeing.

Pretty reasonable starting points.

Anecdotally I am seeing a similar sentiment of many I know in the "anyone but Hillary voters" that gave Trump a chance as the unknown outsider now realizing that Trump was a huge mistake. I am really curious how it translates in 2020.

I'll leave you to your style of critical thinking. Good luck.

I don't equate what I said about her strategy as stating "actually Republican economic ideas are very good" (it's more that her prior perspective makes her appear very informed and reasonable in how she evolved to her current position for example) at all and that she can work with federal government and private markets in a way that voters will believe (so they will vote for her), but I understand what you are trying to say about her overall and how you feel about it. Certainly, I am of a different mind than you and probably many others on this site in that I am extremely strategic and pragmatic person by nature so I am always analyzing how to actually win, which I consider paramount over any specific policy or concern I may have personally. I object to Trump not because of any one policy but because I objectively worry about the world my children may grow up in if this kind of tone and rhetoric continues unabated. Policies and laws can always ebb and flow and sometimes you cheer, and sometimes you object, but mostly America can still be a wonderful country to live in long-term because things can still be fixed, and that hope persists and pervades your being. Hope and optimism should always be a part of America's soul so to speak. But with Trump and no other politician I have ever seen in my memory, I worry about the normalcy of our society changing in a negative direction that impacts the future in a much more permanent way that is much more difficult to fix with any set of policies, laws, and so on... How you feel about Warren's "purity" and/or strategy if she talks up some of her prior fiscal Republican background -- that's a question for each individual voter, but strategically, it's the right move to beat Trump. This is especially important because Republicans will try and brand her as a socialist (which polls very poorly to most voters if you get stuck with that label) so she can combat that quite well with showing she actually evolved from a very informed perspective with concerns that non-left people can identify with versus just always tacking one way from the beginning.

If she makes it to the general (I wouldn't mention it much now as it doesn't help in the Dem primary as much), I think she should actually make sure voters know she was a Republican in the past as I think it's actually a plus for her with swing voters and really won't drive down the left turnout which I think is already pretty good with the Anti-Trump motivation. She can easily talk about her prior concerns about government intervention in markets, and that her background and experience helps her understand the realities of how to effectively have the federal government work with the private market. Her plans in a sense are derived partially from her prior Republican perspective/concerns. It makes her sound very informed, considerate of all relevant issues, and reasonable in how she is creating her ideas/plans. She can talk about her family life in Oklahoma. Her very early start to her work career (as a young teen) helping the family and understanding still the plight of everyday American families versus Trump who was born with a silver spoon, and has clearly shown to have no empathy or understanding of normal life for Americans. If she was twenty years younger and possessed more inspirational charisma naturally, she would be almost unbeatable in my opinion.

Lol, it wasn't even hidden as a pseudo sounding word like Phalloppians or something...

Who knows, you may be right. All the more reason to vet him hard and if he fails, he fails. If he survives, you have a lot less doubt going into the general election. I have nothing personal against any candidate including Biden but you hope the primary weeds out the weak and unprepared to result in a very strong and capable candidate.

I think Warren might pick Beto even if on paper he doesn't fix all of the strategic boxes if she feels he is the best person to be President if heavens forbid anything happens to her. I really believe that about her in a way I don't about most candidates which probably says something about her too and also Beto and his true character. I think it's possible she will consider Beto regardless of his Midwest appeal if he remains true as the "moral compass" attacker against Trump's immorality, which I think personally is an angle he should have started from the beginning. Most others won't pick him if he doesn't show that strength and trajectory somehow. Also, Beto brings some youth and also inspirational charisma which I feel to be fair are two of Warren's weaker areas. What Beto doesn't bring yet is Midwest appeal very much, but Warren actually seems to be doing ok there on her own so far. I think Beto is a very good politician who has been given horrible advice. I think Warren is running of the best and most disciplined campaigns I have seen in a long time on the Democrat side, although Obama in his first election just really ran an amazing campaign too. This speaks well to her abilities if she actually ran her own administration should she win it all.

Ok, I stand corrected, THAT is high risk possibly very high reward and would be a very brave choice in a lot of ways, so I can imagine only a few of the current candidates would actually consider it.

If Beto's numbers remain the same or similar, he won't be picked VP for sure. He would have to gain traction over the following months in a way that shows he would be a strong asset to the Dem general election candidate. I do view him as a high risk high reward possibility as I think he could actually gain some traction in his reset, but of course we have to see. I'm not sure Biden would pick Harris but think it could be a good choice dependent on what happens in the following months. I think Warren would consider Beto personally if he gains more traction and shows more substance but I think she has 3-4 other good options that are probably better without a change in Beto's trajectory.

That might be terrible advice. If he can't handle the pressure of simple things like speaking engagements, that should speak volumes about his merits as a candidate. He should go all out and if he loses, he loses or he wins, he wins and voters feel comfortable he ran the Dem primary gauntlet ready for Trump. Even if he wins the nomination "playing defense" that hurts him against Trump badly.

I doubt there is anything really bad out there, but I would also imagine if there was anything "that good" in the eyes of the enemy, they would be more likely to see if she actually becomes a real threat by winning the nomination and then trying a surprise late. I think for example that the information about Clinton that came out when it did late was entirely possible to bring up earlier than when it was released.

I agree it's highly unlikely that Castro or Beto can swing it, so you should pick a VP candidate with Texas perhaps as a corollary (but not primary reason) benefit, but you primarily need someone that has much broader appeal to specific states and demographics that can support the general election candidate's weaknesses and lift the overall ticket to new heights. I've seen Castro a number of times now, and the simple truth is that he just doesn't have the right qualities to inspire where it counts which greatly limits his ceiling. If he did, I think he would have gained traction by now. Even in his good moments like at the debate, I didn't see an inspiring figure versus a clever one which is not nearly as useful or desired. At least Beto has more than once clearly shown some ability to inspire true emotion and passion out of people although he has made many so many mistakes in this campaign. I view Beto as a high risk high reward VP candidate overall, but Castro seems like an all or nothing Texas play with almost no Midwest appeal at all which seems infinitely more risky.

No Trump No potential President Pence

Always been a huge fan of his talent, not so much his brain, but I really feel bad for him. Just a brutal last few years for the guy.

Yeah, I think it's actually incredibly simple to create a plan that could easily target specific types of trades while exempting low valued investments as one example. You could in the very simplest sense just reverse how an income tax works (this is just one iteration of basically dozens of ways to do something like this) and exempt the very tiny investors. We all know who the real speculative traders that are out there that only exist to make trades and move money -- go ahead and target them. Politically, this kind of plan would have almost the same resistance from Wall Street as one with a plan taxing these tiny investors (they won't care about them anyway) and in some ways would have fiercer resistance, as including them will allow them to sound the alarm bells in a much stronger way to influence tiny investors against such a law.

I don't know, some very good growth funds may have turnover rates that easily can exceed 200-250% as a turnover rate. I've seen some with 600-800%, and granted, no one should be stupid enough to have their entire portfolio allocated to a high turnover growth fund, but still...(low cost index funds are still great for a lot of newbie investors btw) A person with say 1,000 invested in a 250 percent turnover investment vehicle is paying $25 year after year and compounded it would add up in their retirement. Ok sure, it's just $25 but 2.5% of your investment being taken out is not chump change for some people and I would object to this $25 just as much as I would a $25 extra fee for someone making under 20k a year as a low income person if it isn't necessary. It's so easy to say for example what's an extra 20 dollars for a struggling person paying just a tad more on their income tax, but 20 dollars is still something important to somebody with a real need. I don't think you should create disincentives for people to try and save for retirement when it is incredibly simple to create a sliding scale that either 1) slightly minimizes the overall revenue being raised by creating say valuation and/or a small trade limit per year exemption (to in theory allow people to save their assets if the markets tanks, etc) or 2) slightly tweak the numbers to target specific types of trading (frequency and volume) that actually would work better, help deter the wild speculative trading that created already at least one macro financial crisis, and likely raise more money. The objections of the rich and powerful in all three of these scenarios would not really be all that different anyway, as they will attack any proposal of this nature. The odds of what I am proposing as an alternative possibility would not be all that different (in terms of having a chance to actually pass as a real law in America) than what is being proposed now, and it's definitely much better optics as a champion against Wall Street and being for the little guy, etc.