TakeYouToTasker

Gary Johnson, who is the presumptive Libertarian nominee.

You lost me at Rex and Rob Ryan.

It's long, but watching the entire thing is very worthwhile: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ffOPImz4Rp0

Explain how.

And, as someone who is not a member of either party, you deserve no say in whom they choose to nominate.

I think they are taking a very short term view of the situation, believing that they can mitigate long term damage, or considering that long term issues won't be their problem to deal with.

Good grief... Pay very careful attention this time: The Republican and Democratic Parties are not part of the federal government. They are private entities with their own rules and agendas. You do not have the right to dictate to them how they run and lead their organizations, or whom they decide to put forward as their nominees. That's the reality. That's it. That's the end of the discussion. If you want to disagree with reality, that's fine, but there's a word for that... Delusional

I'm not so sure anymore. The establishment seems to be making peace with a Trump candidacy because they don't want to fracture the party.

I agree. I think Miles Jack will likely be an UDFA. However I think Myles Jack will be off the board between 5-10.

The anonymity that the internet provides lends it self to easily de-humanizing people, and has turned the world into an oyster for people who drive pleasure from other peoples pain. It's disgusting.

How was the event?

I think it's a fair risk/reward situation for him. He is guaranteed at least 4 starts, and a good shot to win a ring that he would have made a real contribution to; and at this point in the season, most QB situations are settled, and those that aren't are competing for the services of Ryan Fitzpatrick and now Sam Bradford, both of whom are better than Hoyer. I think this buys Hoyer a bridge year, and if he performs well, elevates his value in next years FA class.

Given recent developments, it's clear that the Patriots will need to bring in another quarterback to begin the year. I believe their best bet would be to work out a deal to bring Brian Hoyer back to New England. Hoyer is an established NFL signal caller who is familiar with New England's offense, and is currently out of work without many other options which would guarantee him NFL starts this year. I think this would be a perfect fit for both player and organization, as it would give the Patriots a known quantity who is capable of winning at the NFL level, and would give Hoyer a chance to reestablish his FA value if he performs well, possibly setting him up for a decent contract as competent placeholder QB for a rebuilding team. Thoughts?

They aren't called flats, they're called paddles.

I'm sure this must have been stated up-thread somewhere, likely by multiple posters, but thank God.

Roger Clemens.

I'm pretty sure this forum doesn't have an audio broadcast.

You mean the company he owns where he didn't like the 401k offerings because he didn't like the sales rep, and couldn't read a pie chart, so he stopped contributing to it and uses a traditional IRA instead now?

Well, if you don't have kids yet, I think you want to create a sack, because most men want a son to pass down their genetic legacy to. However, if you already have a child, and it's a girl, I think you want to stop a sack, because no father wants some !@#$ banging his little girl.

He's confusing our government structure with the private primary season. Tom isn't wrong. We go through our Presidential election process, as proscribed by our Constitution, because we are a representative republic. It's very important to draw the distinction, however, between the Presidential election, and the private primary process which takes place prior to that election, which is where we are now. Neither the Republican nor the Democratic parties are party of our government. They are private entities whose sole purpose is to consolidate power and influence for their elites. Primary season framed as part of our government election process is nothing more than political theater. Federal elections are because we a representative republic.

Political theater for the benefit of the two major parties, and the power elites within them.

It also grants them a larger market share, as large corporations are more easily able to absorb costs and automate than small and medium sized businesses.

This again? Seriously? Our government was not designed to be a democracy. It was established as a representative republic, with the intention being to protect against popular uprisings like in France. With this in mind, the general population was not even allowed to vote. To vote you had to be white, land owning, and male; the premise being that these individuals would be educated, and see the benefits of the system as designed. And even with this in mind, the only federal office those white, land owning males could directly vote for was their congressional representative in the House. Senators were elected/appointed by the political elites of the several states within their own state governments. Presidents are still elected by electors who have no legal obligation to vote for the candidates the citizens of their states put forward, taking it a step further the states aren't obligated to hold caucuses or primaries prior to nominating their party candidates because political parties are not government entities, they are private organizations subject only to their own rules, which they can amend as they see fit. So, with all of that in mind, quit parroting your absurd nonsense about popular votes in the 2000 Presidential election. They don't matter, nor were they designed to matter. In fact, the elected President has lost the popular vote four times in our nations history, spanning back all the way to John Quincy Adams.

And there it is again. An appeal to utilitarianism as justification for otherwise immoral policy. This just in: utilitarianism is still broken and is still bunk.