Biden picks Kamala Harris (plus Soccer!)

[McLoofus 35,182]

Just now, homersapien said:

That's the thing.  How can ~30+% of the electorate actually support him????

A lot of people are trying to figure that out. Hell of a head scratcher.

I've been listening to a podcast called Slow Burn. Each season takes on something from American history, documentary style. The first 3 seasons were Watergate, Bill Clinton, Tupac Shakur and Notorius B.I.G., and now David Duke. I'm only halfway through that one but the reasons they chose to do it are obvious and the parallels between just how in the hell a known KKK leader and Nazi could get elected to Senate, even in Louisiana. It actually sheds some light on it.

What's really scary, though, is Duke actually put on a show for polite society. He cleaned up his image for mainstream audiences. And he obviously didn't have Twitter. trump is somehow magnifying the worst of all of it. Although I guess his base level isn't actual hate group credentials, no matter how fine he thinks the people on that side are. 

[TitanTiger 20,510]

27 minutes ago, McLoofus said:

A lot of people are trying to figure that out. Hell of a head scratcher.

I've been listening to a podcast called Slow Burn. Each season takes on something from American history, documentary style. The first 3 seasons were Watergate, Bill Clinton, Tupac Shakur and Notorius B.I.G., and now David Duke. I'm only halfway through that one but the reasons they chose to do it are obvious and the parallels between just how in the hell a known KKK leader and Nazi could get elected to Senate, even in Louisiana. It actually sheds some light on it.

What's really scary, though, is Duke actually put on a show for polite society. He cleaned up his image for mainstream audiences. And he obviously didn't have Twitter. trump is somehow magnifying the worst of all of it. Although I guess his base level isn't actual hate group credentials, no matter how fine he thinks the people on that side are. 

It's what I mentioned to homer earlier or in another thread:  basically the country has become much more polarized over the last 25 years.  Where there used to be a sizable group in the middle that might swing from the GOP to Democrats election to election depending on the candidate or the most pressing issues the country faces at the moment, that doesn't really exist anymore.  People are more entrenched in their tribes, left and right, giving each side a "floor" below which they are virtually guaranteed not to fall.  And I'd put that floor at around 40-43% of the electorate, for each side.  All that matters to that 40-43% is what letter appears behind the name.  

[wdefromtx 3,159]

5 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

It's what I mentioned to homer earlier or in another thread:  basically the country has become much more polarized over the last 25 years.  Where there used to be a sizable group in the middle that might swing from the GOP to Democrats election to election depending on the candidate or the most pressing issues the country faces at the moment, that doesn't really exist anymore.  People are more entrenched in their tribes, left and right, giving each side a "floor" below which they are virtually guaranteed not to fall.  And I'd put that floor at around 40-43% of the electorate, for each side.  All that matters to that 40-43% is what letter appears behind the name.  

You just 100% described my grandmother!! 😂 Except she’s been like that for decades!! 

[TitanTiger 20,510]

6 minutes ago, wdefromtx said:

You just 100% described my grandmother!! 😂 Except she’s been like that for decades!! 

There's always been those types.  It's where the "Yellow Dog Democrat" moniker came from.  But I think in times past the percentage on either side was more in the 30% range either way, leaving roughly 40% willing to go one way or the other depending on the candidate and circumstances.  But now that group has shrunk to as little as 14-20% of the electorate.

[wdefromtx 3,159]

6 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

There's always been those types.  It's where the "Yellow Dog Democrat" moniker came from.  But I think in times past the percentage on either side was more in the 30% range either way, leaving roughly 40% willing to go one way or the other depending on the candidate and circumstances.  But now that group has shrunk to as little as 14-20% of the electorate.

Agree with that for sure.

[TitanTiger 20,510]

22 minutes ago, wdefromtx said:

Agree with that for sure.

The exact numbers for each group might be off, but I think the general idea is on target. 

[McLoofus 35,182]

47 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

It's what I mentioned to homer earlier or in another thread:  basically the country has become much more polarized over the last 25 years.  Where there used to be a sizable group in the middle that might swing from the GOP to Democrats election to election depending on the candidate or the most pressing issues the country faces at the moment, that doesn't really exist anymore.  People are more entrenched in their tribes, left and right, giving each side a "floor" below which they are virtually guaranteed not to fall.  And I'd put that floor at around 40-43% of the electorate, for each side.  All that matters to that 40-43% is what letter appears behind the name.  

I would not have agreed with you entirely until now. There is a clear choice for true centrists, but a lot of self-professed "centrists" are trying to exaggerate his flaws while downplaying those exact same- but cartoonishly amplified- flaws in the other guy.

And folks can say "yeah but" all they want, but as we discussed the other day there just isn't a precedent for this. Neither side has ever produced an actual existential threat to our democracy before, so it is still reasonable to say that Democrats would not behave this way if the shoe were on the other foot. Even as late as election night in 2016, Democrats didn't even think that Republicans could behave this way.

So actually I have to say that the jury is still out in my opinion on the percentage of liberals who could not bring themselves to vote Republican under any circumstances.

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

8 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

Now that Nashville has a team and a shiny new stadium on the way, I might have a team to follow.  I'm going to give it a chance at least.  My priest is a Tottenham Hotspur fan and has been lobbying me to give it more of a look.  I have some sort of knee-jerk aversion to not liking Atlanta sports teams outside of the Braves.  

Here's the thing about MLS.  It's nowhere near as good as top tier European soccer.  However, I'd argue it's way more fun.  Teams tend to be more competitively balanced and the play is more exciting because the defending isn't necessarily strong across the league.  Think of it as the Big 12 of soccer minus the domination of Oklahoma.

The league is absolutely getting better though and doing it quickly.  Could be a Top 10 league in the world soon, which is a pretty high bar.

Plus, there's cool ass traditions like Wonderwall at Minnesota United.

 

[McLoofus 35,182]

12 minutes ago, Brad_ATX said:

Think of it as the Big 12 of soccer minus the domination of Oklahoma.

That's a pretty good analogy. Especially the lack of defense. 

The best recent development, I think, is that the league has started focusing less on names and more on better players. So instead of spending a billion dollars on the ghosts of Beckham or Pirlo (okay, so Zlatan was a monster), we're getting the new hotness from South America. And the European leagues are starting to buy those dudes from MLS. People don't want to hear that but that's how MLS takes the next step. One step below, say, Serie A (actually a debate to be had) is way better than 5 steps below Serie A. Expansion, stadiums, money, far less intense media scrutiny than other markets... the momentum is there and better players and coaches are willing to give it a shot. 

You're right, it's still not on par with EPL, Bundesliga, La Liga, etc, but it's creeping (crept?) into that next tier. 

 

 

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

10 minutes ago, McLoofus said:

That's a pretty good analogy. Especially the lack of defense. 

The best recent development, I think, is that the league has started focusing less on names and more on better players. So instead of spending a billion dollars on the ghosts of Beckham or Pirlo (okay, so Zlatan was a monster), we're getting the new hotness from South America. And the European leagues are starting to buy those dudes from MLS. People don't want to hear that but that's how MLS takes the next step. One step below, say, Serie A (actually a debate to be had) is way better than 5 steps below Serie A. Expansion, stadiums, money, far less intense media scrutiny than other markets... the momentum is there and better players and coaches are willing to give it a shot. 

You're right, it's still not on par with EPL, Bundesliga, La Liga, etc, but it's creeping (crept?) into that next tier. 

 

 

Oh I'm super stoked with Austin's first two signings.  Couple of guys from South America.  One of them a bulldog front line winger who's only 20.  Other a playmaker who spent time with Club America and is still 26.  Both are on the Paraguay national team.

Exactly how I hope they continue to build the team.

[McLoofus 35,182]

37 minutes ago, Brad_ATX said:

Oh I'm super stoked with Austin's first two signings.  Couple of guys from South America.  One of them a bulldog front line winger who's only 20.  Other a playmaker who spent time with Club America and is still 26.  Both are on the Paraguay national team.

Exactly how I hope they continue to build the team.

Atlanta had pretty good luck with a skinny kid from Paraguay. He delivered us hardware and then Newcastle paid us a load of cash for him. 

[homersapien 11,438]

Just curious - where did this love of soccer (the real football) come from - daughters playing?

I have to admit, I got addicted to watching the U.S. win the FIFA women's world cup. My biggest complaint is the lack of bathroom breaks.

(Still don't recognize "offsides" though.) 

[DKW 86 7,440]

Ethan, my 18yo has me addicted to Australian Football League. 

It is so many less commercials and buffoonery there. The players average close to 8 miles of running per game and the game doesnt stop and no one argues calls with the refs. I miss what we had before all the money rolled into college ball and the NFL. 

Ethan is Brisbane, Port Adelaide
I like Richmond, Essendon, and Port Adelaide

 

 

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

59 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Just curious - where did this love of soccer (the real football) come from - daughters playing?

I have to admit, I got addicted to watching the U.S. win the FIFA women's world cup. My biggest complaint is the lack of bathroom breaks.

(Still don't recognize "offsides" though.) 

So I knew nothing about it until about 10 years ago.  Then got really into the 2010 U.S. World Cup run.  From there, started following the national team closely and watching English Premier League on weekend mornings.  Started casually watching MLS a couple of years ago, but got really into it once Austin got announced as getting a team.  It's our first "Major League" pro team here, and having no connection to the Longhorns, it gives me something to feel connected to with the city.  Plus at the right stadiums, MLS is the closest atmosphere you'll find to college football.  Look up LAFC, Atlanta United, or Portland.  Those fans are loud all game and I love it.

Weirdly enough, I learned the rules and strategy by playing FIFA on Xbox.  

[AUDub 11,182]

1 hour ago, homersapien said:

Just curious - where did this love of soccer (the real football) come from - daughters playing?

I have to admit, I got addicted to watching the U.S. win the FIFA women's world cup. My biggest complaint is the lack of bathroom breaks.

(Still don't recognize "offsides" though.) 

I played the sport for 20 years. My daughter playing (and being damned good at the same position I played, keeper) is a coincidence lol.

Offsides is actually very simple when you get right down to it. An attacker simply can't be closer to the opposing goal than the last defender (not including the keeper) in the opponent's half when the ball is played to him or her.

There are a few exceptions, like throw-ins, goal kicks (keeper-kicks when the ball goes over the end line) and corner-kicks. 

[TitanTiger 20,510]

22 minutes ago, AUDub said:

I played the sport for 20 years. My daughter playing (and being damned good at the same position I played, keeper) is a coincidence lol.

Offsides is actually very simple when you get right down to it. An attacker simply can't be closer to the opposing goal than the last defender (not including the keeper) in the opponent's half when the ball is played to him or her.

There are a few exceptions, like throw-ins, goal kicks (keeper-kicks when the ball goes over the end line) and corner-kicks. 

It's the one rule I wish were different.  I'd make it like hockey.  Create a zone line similar to the blue line in hockey, and an attacking player is offsides if he enters the zone before the ball does.  It's easier for the ref to see for one thing and I think it might open up more scoring opportunities instead of having your attack dictated by how far forward the opposing defense chooses to place their last defender.

Check that, a 2nd rule would be that flopping would incur a major penalty (such as a yellow or red card and/or a penalty kick for the other team) and replay could be used to determine it.  How many times have we seen some guy crumple to the turf grabbing his shin and pretending the opposing player kicked him and he might need it amputated the pain is so awful, while the replay shows no one and nothing ever touched him and he hops up ready to play moments later?

[AUDub 11,182]

23 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

It's the one rule I wish were different.  I'd make it like hockey.  Create a zone line similar to the blue line in hockey, and an attacking player is offsides if he enters the zone before the ball does.  It's easier for the ref to see for one thing and I think it might open up more scoring opportunities instead of having your attack dictated by how far forward the opposing defense chooses to place their last defender.

On the other hand, it's beautiful to see when a well-coached backline nail the trap effectively, and it falls apart pretty frequently when a defender forgets their role.

Pushing the back-line forward is pretty risky in its own right. If a team has an effective long or through-ball player (think pacey as hell Vardy for Leicester, and there are a lot of kids that can simply out-athlete everyone else on the field in U18 soccer), then a mess is sure to result. It actually helps keep the defense from camping in front of their own goal, increasing scoring, but there are tactical advantages to shortening the field for the defense, as it gives the opponent less space to operate as long as you can remain disciplined as a group. It's fun to watch a well disciplined team of lesser athletes contain a game-breaking monster, if that makes sense.

In youth soccer, they divide the field into thirds rather than halves. Sadie has played on a full size field for a year and a half now though.

Quote

Check that, a 2nd rule would be that flopping would incur a major penalty (such as a yellow or red card and/or a penalty kick for the other team) and replay could be used to determine it.  How many times have we seen some guy crumple to the turf grabbing his shin and pretending the opposing player kicked him and he might need it amputated the pain is so awful, while the replay shows no one and nothing ever touched him and he hops up ready to play moments later?

An obvious flop incurs a booking now, but refs are human and it's often hard to discern. At full speed, the bare minimum can throw you off balance and send you to the turf. Attackers know this and take advantage.

[TitanTiger 20,510]

I'll admit my complaints come from someone who doesn't already love the game and probably sounds to purists like telling an American football fan that the rebound net from Arena Football should be implemented in the NFL and college.  I've been entertained by a good soccer match but 0-0 ties are brutal.  I'd just like to see a little more scoring.  In baseball the occasional nail biting, tense pitchers' duel where literally one well-timed hit, one run could be the difference is great.  But I don't want to see that a lot.  I'm not particularly into 11-10 shellings in baseball either, but some moderate scoring most nights is preferred.

[McLoofus 35,182]

2 hours ago, homersapien said:

Just curious - where did this love of soccer (the real football) come from - daughters playing?

I have to admit, I got addicted to watching the U.S. win the FIFA women's world cup. My biggest complaint is the lack of bathroom breaks.

(Still don't recognize "offsides" though.) 

Played my whole life. To include on the red clay of 1980s Montgomery. So if I ever seem defensive about soccer and trigger happy about baseball, it's because I super am those things. Much in the same way Auburn fans feel about being Auburn fans.

[wdefromtx 3,159]

50 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

I'll admit my complaints come from someone who doesn't already love the game and probably sounds to purists like telling an American football fan that the rebound net from Arena Football should be implemented in the NFL and college.  I've been entertained by a good soccer match but 0-0 ties are brutal.  I'd just like to see a little more scoring.  In baseball the occasional nail biting, tense pitchers' duel where literally one well-timed hit, one run could be the difference is great.  But I don't want to see that a lot.  I'm not particularly into 11-10 shellings in baseball either, but some moderate scoring most nights is preferred.

A 3-2 in baseball is great. I’m glad it doesn’t happen in football.....oh wait!! 😂 

[McLoofus 35,182]

2 hours ago, AUDub said:

I played the sport for 20 years. My daughter playing (and being damned good at the same position I played, keeper) is a coincidence lol.

Offsides is actually very simple when you get right down to it. An attacker simply can't be closer to the opposing goal than the last defender (not including the keeper) in the opponent's half when the ball is played to him or her.

There are a few exceptions, like throw-ins, goal kicks (keeper-kicks when the ball goes over the end line) and corner-kicks. 

^Certified bad ass

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

1 hour ago, TitanTiger said:

I'd just like to see a little more scoring.  

How does today's Champions League match work for you?

 

 

[SaltyTiger 7,857]

8 hours ago, homersapien said:

I submit we have a clear choice this election even if you aren't a Biden fan.

Mid August and folks talking soccer here? Could be on to something Brother Homer. Something ain't right.

[AUDub 11,182]

1 hour ago, Brad_ATX said:

How does today's Champions League match work for you?

 

 

Seeing Barça get defenestrated like that warms the cockles of my heart. 

[AUDub 11,182]

1 hour ago, McLoofus said:

^Certified bad ass

She's so, so good. Only regret right now is that I didn't record her match against Vestavia in the State league last year, a 1-0 loss. She spilled one ball all game. One. Ball. And she still managed to parry that one out for a corner.

She literally had double digit saves and owned the box like a badass, breaking up 3 breakaways when their players got behind the defense. Goal surrendered wasn't on her to boot. A free kick where a player in the wall ducked and a defender lost their mark.

Pro-keepers dream of the kind of performance I saw that day. It was Tim Howard v. Belgium for a 12 year old.

She's twice the keeper I was at 13, and I'm a dude.