Cal

I’m somehow the only one who switched from saying I’d vote for Biden but that Republicans generally put up “stronger nominees” On that list for Republicans since I’ve been born we’ve got W Bush, McCain, Romney, and Trump. W Bush managed to eke out a win versus Al Gore (albeit barely) and fend off the bland Kerry in 2004. McCain himself was the strongest candidate the Republicans could have fielded in 2008 despite the lopsided result. I mean, he ran against one of the greatest campaigners of my lifetime in Barrack Obama after two terms of his party in control and amidst a pretty rough economic recession the Republicans presided over. Taking that into consideration he was a hell of a candidate imo. Romney was… average. Personally I appreciated his later growth on (very select) social issues, but he was blunder-prone during the campaign. However, I don’t see anyone being better able to knock off Obama with an incumbency advantage. Though, now that I think of it, perhaps Gingrich could have tapped into the sort of white anger that Trump did 4 years earlier and been more competitive. That’s a fun alternate history scenario. And finally, Trump himself was, despite him being one of my least favorite political figures in our history, an excellent campaigner and an unmatched debater in an unorthodox way. His ability to speak as a common man and quite literally sneer at “the establishment” while throwing out trendy buzzwords far surpassed the usefulness of traditional debate techniques. Further, he was able to control the narrative in 2016 despite efforts to the contrary. The news is what Trump wants it to be. For all of my disdain towards him and his dangerous policies and rhetoric, he leads the pack in strongest candidates. I don’t think that Biden would have defeated him if not for COVID. On the other hand… Obama was a good campaigner and generally a strong candidate. Biden’s 2020 campaign itself was very pretty lackluster imo, Kerry was boring, and Gore has the charisma of a wet muppet. Obama simply can’t carry them all.

I kinda wanna know the context, I kinda don't wanna know the context.

Personally I'm a huge Tim Kaine fan and find him to be one of those types of politicians who does things rather than says things. His record speaks for itself. I live in the city he used to be the mayor of and I'm lucky to have him representing me in the U.S. Senate. I've met people who have known Senator Kaine from decades ago and about how down-to-earth and just ordinary the guy is and how much he stressed not just economic development here in Richmond, but was a huge proponent of youth civic engagement and outreach. He's an effective politician and an all-around good dude. That being said... I totally agree with you that he was the wrong choice for Clinton. She needed someone to offset her general unlikability and while he was totally inoffensive, most people had no opinion on him at all, even within the party. Tim Kaine would have been an excellent VP to Bernie Sanders to balance out the ticket ideologically and demeanor-wise, but he was far too similar in policy to Clinton and unable to "fire up the base" in a way that a crazier pick like Palin has the potential to do. A completely safe and boring pick (and competent!) for someone who believes they've already locked the race up and that defeating a real estate mogul is the easiest thing since sliced bread. Turns out it wasn't that sure of a bet though 😛 I still think Secretary Castro would have been a better pick, at least in regards to lighting a fire under Pence's ass during the debates and making a stronger play for Texas/Arizona. IIRC there was a lot of stir about the amount of money that the Clinton campaign invested into those states back in 2016 and a lot of people thought that they were doing it to essentially fake out the RNC into thinking those states were competitive. I dunno if that's true or not, but I feel like we've definitely seen since then that Arizona had potential for a real upset.

The Sad Clowns continue to drown in mediocrity 😞

No trade moves on my end

My knowledge is pretty outdated, but I can take a look tomorrow night if no one else chimes in.

I’ll see how things ride out, but thanks!

Keep everyone, no trades.

You've made one sad clown very happy today ❤️ His frown 😞 has good and truly been turned, in fact, upside down. 🙂

Oh yeah, we have geographic locations. I wonder when I can try to move to Alaska again 😉

Finally, perhaps @Rezi may be interested in acquiring another QB, Harry Gilmore, in return for another potential brick in my fortress, CB Emien Tunnell? And that just about offers up all my offensive players! 😛

@vcczar I would also like to open up negotiations to acquire two of your fine defensive gentlemen. I am offering WR Crazylegs Hirsch and G Bruno Banducci in exchange for MLB Clayton Tonnemaker, OLB Bill Svoboda, and FS Lowell Wagner. I know that’s a 2 for 3 trade, but you made Crazylegs sound pretty good so maybe he’s worth it? Idk the NFL very well or these players so maybe this is a horrible deal for you, haha.

@jvikings1 I would like to trade: Your choice of either Sad Clowns C Al DeMao or Sad Clowns T Dick Wildung. For Colonels DT Leo Nomelli, who is injured for the season. I’n trying to complete my defense. Fuck offense all my homies hate offense.

I was sent to talk to representatives about small cells, which, if you're unfamiliar, is best summed up as (kinda) the equivalent of a WiFi extender for mobile networks. I wrote dozens of memos on the topic and spoke to policy gurus from within the group I worked for, several municipal-level officers from various cities, AT&T lobbyists, and whatnot. By all means a very highly technical and wonky discussion that took a ton of time to understand well enough to convey to those I was talked with communicating with. And, just like you said, all as a college intern getting paid about $1,500 a month with no technical background at all. While I did my best to learn from those more knowledgeable from me, it's not uncommon for a few of the voices in someone's ear to be totally out of their element, and I certainly was. So you're definitely right that oftentimes even the "policy experts" or the ones speaking on their behalf like myself are perhaps not so qualified. That's the unfortunate reality of the process. However! The best legislators I worked with didn't rely just on us and REALLY forced us to show our work and provide an independent backing what we are saying. If we wanted to modify a resolution we had talked to them about before, they weren't just asking what that modification was, but WHO decided there was a change that needed to be made. For the small cells work I did, a lot of it was based around one professor and city manager who focused hardcore on municipal public policy in regards to internet/mobile network infrastructure and pushed us and his representative to lobby for changes to a bill that had been pushed through by mobile network lobbyists back in 2017/2018 when small cells were kicking off across the country, and TN's small cells bill from back then essentially a copy-paste of AT&T's bill they'd been giving out to state legislators and interest groups across the country. My work being in 2021(maybe 2020? I feel old now that I can't recall), there was a lot of feedback and legislative history to sort through showing how that implementation had gone, issues, successes, etc. Tennessee has an independent research type institution that is intended to give non-biased analysis of the impact of proposed bills and stuff too which was helpful. All that to say... some legislators wanted to know all of that, and some didn't. The "best" ones were most often those with the most experience that had been around the block a few times. But they weren't the only ones. There is also some confirmation bias there that if you serve for one term and you don't have what it takes, you're probably not running again or the Party is going to oppose your candidacy for being too difficult to work with (or in some cases... too EASY to work with...). So the party would probably weed you out pretty quick if you didn't have the right mindset for the chamber. Either way though, you're absolutely right that it's often interns handling the bulk of that information. A good legislator (in my experience) knows to always ask what the benefit is for the person proposing it, what effect it will potentially have(including unintended effects from a sneaky reading or poor drafting which is very common), and to verify that with as many sources as possible.

I think experience matters, but a lot less than most people think. My experience working with an interest group (albeit at the state level) is that legislators can't be expected to be experts on the vast majority of things that are necessary to do their job. When we'd talk about legislation in a state representatives office, we knew they'd be going and talking with other lobbyists, staff, and policy experts before coming to a conclusion on if they'd sponsor something, support it generally, send it to unofficial hell (summer study) or the like. Why we liked working with politicians that had been in office for several years is not because they were necessarily better at understanding WHAT makes government work and what the right policy decision is, but instead HOW to make government work and understanding that their role is primarily as the grease in the wheel of the political process and a public image. This is a skillset that you don't need to be in politics actively to pick up, though it's certainly going to make it a hell of a lot higher of a chance. I don't doubt that there are some successful businessmen, non-profit leaders, or what-have-you that could do a better job than the typical establishment politician. By the time a politician has been around a few years they typically (but not always) understand that politics is a team sport and who you surround yourself with is key. But many professions can provide that same skillset. So in conclusion, experience does matter to me and can potentially have an impact on the effectiveness of an individual to legislate/govern, but it's not in my top priorities.

This is one of my biggest gripes with the game but hopefully when people realize how boring the Supreme Court is and the uselessness of any judicial past 3 we might see it develop into something more.

Hey, at least I got one player? Haha.

Ahhh. So really, I just need to rank all of my desired picks for each round?

I’m still a bit confused. So, I’m assuming that we go through each round until all the players are gone, in our draft order? So like, if I have the second pick, and I put 2 points on at least two people, am I getting someone just from the virtue of going second, or is the amount of points I put in NOT a competition with other players, but instead a direct correlation with actually getting that player if they’re in drafted on my draft turn? Do we go through rounds in order? Like every player in A round has to be drafted before we move on to B round? I guess that would make probability linked to the amount of points invested make sense even if there are 9 picks and 14 teams? Overall I suppose I’m just confused at how this works, haha. I’m not really sure what the rules of competition are here.

By my count, there are 43 players in this draft. Does that mean we'll each get 3, with the Lexington Colonels getting the last pick? I might be misunderstanding this though because I don't see the reason for having points if we're just going in order based off of team strength.

Here's how I see the divisional and cross-conference rivalries: West Conference Divisional Rivalries 1. Boise Sad Clowns vs. Salt Lake City Mustaches. We've got a classic Western rivalry here between the biggest cities in Idaho and Utah. Not to mention, Clowns don't often wear Mustaches so there may be some bitterness from that omission that we see on the field. 2. Kansas City Monarchs vs. Las Vegas Knights. What more can I say other than a king facing off against a knight is pretty badass? 3. Los Angeles Yodelers vs. Muncie Moose. We've got the hillbillies pitted against their natural enemy, the meese. 4. Chicago Cardinals vs. Muncie Moose. Indiana against Illinois can go hard. East Conference Divisional Rivalries 1. Buffalo Pot Smokers vs. Lexington Colonels. Gay communists that smoke a lot of weed versus the US armed forces. Pretty fitting for 1950, no? 2. Cambridge Painted Buntings vs. Boston Americans. This is a classic inter-Massachusetts rivalry. 3. Atlanta Rebels vs. Virginia Beach Viceroys. Rebels against the kingdom? Blasphemy! They probably have some kind of firearm trophy that gets passed between them on win/loss every year. 4. Washington Top Hats vs. Virginia Beach Viceroys Who wears the better head apparel? This matchup settles it. Cross-Conference Rivalries 1. Kansas City Monarchs vs. Virginia Beach Viceroys. This is the most expected here. The Viceroys already stole the crown design for their logo so this is gonna be heated the first time they play. Lots of resentment. 2. Salt Lake City Mustaches vs. Washington Top Hats. What makes someone more gentlemanly, a mustache or a top hat? 3. Boise Sad Clowns vs. Buffalo Pot Smokers. There is no basis for this rivalry outside of two of the most ridiculous names. That being said, I imagine there might be some overlap between the fandoms and the fans might come together for a really sad blunt rotation when both teams are having an off year. 4. Chicago Cardinals vs. Cambridge Painted Buntings. Battle of the birds. 5. Las Vegas Knights vs. Atlanta Rebels. Don't have much here, sadly. 6. Los Angeles Yodelers vs. Boston Americans. Don't have much here, sadly. 7. Muncie Moose vs. Lexington Colonels. Reminds me vaguely of the Emu Wars in Australia.

If that can be every uniform, great. If not, that's just the home uniform, and the away uniform is the opposite. Rainbow helmets and bright red everything else.

The Boise Sad Clowns wear horizontally striped rainbow unforms and a bright red helmet, but with a little clown nose on the inside and full makeup. Every player has a visor that is see through except there is neon-blue tears near the eyes. If that's not acceptable, they'll just wear what the Jags wear. We're all Sad Clowns anyway 😞

We can’t afford uniforms and helmets, sadly. Our entire budget went into research and development for clown makeup so good it doesn’t run no matter how hard you play football/cry.

A sad clown would win in a fight over that bird. I’m just saying.