forums

College Football Hall of Fame

1LuvCane said:
Full of **** meter has gone through the roof.
Truth is in facts not words.
F' cfbhof and grown old men with inferiority complex. Pops goes to sleep dreaming about me and don't have balls to call people out by name.
Click to expand...


You can set your clock by the MAGA Muppets showing up to derail yet another thread with their political frustration and anger.
 
Advertisement
1LuvCane said:
Agree totally. But since when as Canes have we cared what anyone thinks?
Crotchety old man took an L and has tried everything possible to spin his narrative by using the cfbhof outrage.
So back to the task at hand. Which other Cane is a definite hof who has been snubbed.? Is Jerome Brown in there?
@caneinorlando ?
Click to expand...
Not sure
 
TheOriginalCane said:
It's all good. We can have our valid debates and not turn everything into politics and grudges and chasing people around on the internet.

It is sad, though, when a so-called Miami fan can't put aside his political vendettas simply to acknowledge the truth that the Miami Hurricanes have been snubbed by the College Football Hall of Fame for 70 years.

And, for the record, I love your screen name.
Click to expand...
Thank you. That wet night scared me. The Good Lord saw fit to give me two Gator kids and in-law to go with each. One went on to OSU for doctorate salt to wound. The Big Guy has strange sense of humor.
 
Gatorhater said:
Nicely stated. The Poly si major shows. I majored in Finance so my approach is different. Being a no party affiliation I have no love of the Republicans especially Mitch. Keeping in mind that Trump left the Republicans in pieces during the primary I would not count a direct relationship between other Republicans and Trump. Lots of Trump voters are and have been very unhappy with Republican. He represents something different with several "crossover" attitudes. I get the issues you touch, like I do the contrary ones of illegal voters, and various methods of defrauding the election raised by the Republicans - JFK probably did win election from the reliable "dead" vote in Chicago.

2016 was a very different election. It was about the humans not the parties. The Republican establishment hated and still hates Trump almost as much as the Dems. He won the election by almost personal will and a plane. Those votes in the blue wall states, narrow as you say, were mostly flipped Obama voters. 2008 was a "change" election but Obama had complete support of the Democratic party at all levels. He was an internal "change" candidate. Trump was more invading horde taking down both establishments in back to back games.

I suspect that party methodology efforts on both sides will not change this election's outcome, although I respect and appreciate your input on them. If voters remember pre virus economy, or do not blame him for the virus or the economic impact, he wins again. To my mind the current unrest can cut two ways. Trump was making headway with black vote, especially with black males, because of the real impact of people having jobs who had not had one. The current events and the loss of jobs could easily crush that progress. If it does, the election gets closer and possible increase turnout could make the difference. However, remember the "security" moms? The burning and destruction going on nightly could impact that suburban female Republican vote that democrats need.

Baby Bush won by a few hundred votes(I am Florida voter but hate the Bush family so I abstained that year). As your point out, Trump won by 50.000 in the three "blue wall" states. Certainly close but hardly in the class of Bush. Trump won FL by 130,000; a landslide in today's world. I am balance sheet type so while I respect the political science things, I look to the people. Trump did or tried to do everything he promise -- huge plus for anyone who has voted at least once. He had the profound impact on jobs, and it was jobs on the bottom end of scale, that he promised. Now, many might not like what he did to help make those jobs but those people would never vote for him anyway.

On the other side, almost 40 million unemployed is a horrible fact. The civil unrest is another. Those are things that can end re-election hope of any President and are my keys. I put cash down on the 2016 election. This time I am hesitate for those two reasons. In Trump favor are two things: Donald J Trump, or "Trumpzilla" and Joe Biden. That keeps my cash ready but in my hands. I am avoiding Fox news to stay out of the Republican echo chamber. I want clarity when i decide. My gut is Trump by a bigger electoral vote with another popularity vote loss. In the words of FDR: He is a ******* but he is our *******"

Hey did you have Alloway for Con Law? He was some character. Stay safe.
Click to expand...


Appreciate the civil debate.

Ignoring the MAGA Muppets, I'll say this. Voter turnout has always been important. I worked on the Bush campaign in 1988, and they had a huge effort to assist with transportation to/from nursing homes, so that elderly Republican voters could get out to vote. It would be nice if the MAGA Muppets would stop clutching their pearls from being triggered by "vote harvesting" or whatever other conspiracy theory they envision, but both parties have made significant efforts for decades to get "their voters" to the polls, no matter what technology was used, whether it was buses or mail-in requests.

W's win (razor-thin in Florida) and Trump's win (combined vote margin in 3 key states) are different by magnitude, but they are both indicative of the way in which candidates must approach every angle of securing the Electoral College victory.

I can agree with you that the Trump win did not equate to "coattails" in either 2016 or 2018. What I find interesting right now is the swing in many Senate races, because those are the primary measures of statewide impact. If the question was just as simple as "good Republicans no longer support Trump", then you would expect a differential between polling numbers for Trump vs. polling numbers for the Senate candidate. But now there are several Republican Senators in Republican states who are now in a dead heat and/or losing, at least by poll numbers. Of course, opinion polls (I took POL 351 at UM, which was a class on political polling) and actual voting numbers can diverge, so let's see how it all plays out.

As for some of your other points, I'm not so sure that Trump was doing so much better with black voters in, say, January 2020. By "headway", I would acknowledge that he had slightly improved his poll numbers from November 2016 to January 2020, but at this point I think he's wiped out any gains and might even be running behind where he was in 2016 with black voters.

I also see your point on "security moms", but I think this is also a very complex question. While "law and order" and "economic security" are important to those voters, there is also a "social justice" and "actual programs to support me" angle as well. Many "moms" are sympathetic to the fact that some mothers are losing their children to police arrest (Minnesota) and/or vigilante justice (Georgia). Many moms have not seen any new programs or efforts to assist in either the cost or the provision of childcare and/or healthcare. And I would also submit to you that many moms have had to home-school for the past several months, and while they might enjoy some aspects of that, there is also a tremendous financial burden. I'm not coming down on one side or the other, I'm just pointing out that the calculus is very complex and may very well not follow the 2016 model.

Finally, one factor that is rarely addressed is the aging of the population. We have had 4 years of older, more "traditional" Republican voters passing away, and the replacement in the voting population by young people who have been raised in a very different world, where they tend to have more tolerance and support for "the other side" of wedge issues such as *** rights, women's issues, and immigration. Assuming a 60 year voting window (age 18 to age 78), you would get a complete replacement of the entire voting group in the span of 16 presidential elections. As you correctly pointed out, there were narrow statewide margins for Trump in 2016, particularly in Rust Belt states with aging populations. So if you replace 4 years worth of elderly Republican-skewing voters with much younger Democrat-skewing voters, that may (in and of itself) cause the state to flip.

And, to bring everything full circle, that's why turnout is so important. We all know that younger voters don't vote in as high percentages as older voters do, and that might be further complicated by the "I want convenience" youth mentality that could impact whether younger voters will wait in long lines to exercise the right to vote.

That's all. Ultimately, I don't care how anyone chooses to vote, that is everyone's right. I support actually voting, and when you see "one side" standing against any modern methods to increase voting participation (while they fail to put forth any ideas of their own), it is fairly easy to conclude that they have solid knowledge that more voters will mean "more young voters" and "more minority voters" and "more urban voters", and none of those things are really a winning formula for one particular party. If you could somehow show that there are millions of religious shut-ins who are desperate to vote, you'd see a completely different response.

Ultimately, I look at Trump's electoral chances as the following. You take his 2016 voters and ask, has he expanded this group? Are there people from 2016 who chose Hillary who are now convinced to vote for Trump? And, then, has Trump lost any voters from 2016? Plus, you have to factor in voters in the 18-22 age range who could not vote in 2016. I am no big fan of Biden (again, remember 1988), but I think he is less polarizing than Hillary was in 2016. So any of the "but her e-mails" crowd who flipped from Hillary to Trump in the last week of the 2016 campaign may certainly flip back to Biden.

As for Con Law I, I had Swan (who has since passed away). I'm not sure who Alloway is. Swan was a really good guy, he invited the whole class over to his house mid-semester, and he actually contacted me in my second year to compliment me on my exam answer on Roe v. Wade. We also had a very interesting mini-controversy late in the semester when he used the word "niggardly" in class, though I think that the discussion turned out very well in the long run.
 
Advertisement
tenor.gif
 
caneinorlando said:
Not sure
Click to expand...


Here is the list of UM players from 1980-2005 who are in the College Football Hall of Fame:

Bennie Blades (9 year wait after initial eligibility, Thorpe Award winner)
Gino Torretta (7 year wait after initial eligibility, Heisman Trophy winner)
Russell Maryland (11 year wait after initial eligibility, Outland Trophy winner)
Vinnie Testaverde (17 year wait after initial eligibility, Heisman Trophy winner)
Ed Reed (8 year wait after initial eligibility, the only one without an award as best in position/best in college)



Here is the list of UM players from 1980-2005 who are eligible for the College Football Hall of Fame:

Jim Burt
Fred Marion (5th round draft choice)
Danny Miller (11th round)
Lester Williams (1st round)
Jay Brophy (2nd round)
Eddie Brown (1st round)
Willie Smith (10th round)
Jerome Brown (1st round)
Dan Stubbs (2nd round)
Cleveland Gary (1st round)
Bill Hawkins (1st round)
Steve Walsh (1st round)
Greg Mark (3rd round)
Maurice Crum
Carlos Huerta (12th round)
Leon Searcy (1st round)
Darrin Smith (2nd round)
Darryl Williams (1st round)
Kevin Williams (2nd round)
Michael Barrow (2nd round)
Ryan McNeil (2nd round)
Kevin Patrick
CJ Richardson (7th round)
Warren motherfvckin Sapp (1st round)
Ray motherfvckin Lewis (1st round)
KC Jones
Richard Mercier (5th round)
Bubba Franks (1st round)
Dan Morgan (1st round)
Santana Moss (1st round)
Joaquin Gonzalez
Bryant McKinnie (1st round)
Phillip Buchanon (1st round)
Jeremy Shockey (1st round)
Todd Sievers
Ken Dorsey (7th round)
Jerome McDougle (1st round)
Willis McGahee (1st round)
Brett Romberg
Sean motherfvckin Taylor (1st round)
Kellen literal motherfvckin Winslow (1st round)
Antrel Rolle (1st round)
Devin Hester (2nd round)
Eric Winston (3rd round)
Brandon Meriweather (1st round)
Kelly Jennings (1st round)
 
1LuvCane said:
I love it when my groupies are obsessed with me...
#cfbhofisirrelevant
Click to expand...


Nobody gives a **** about you, that's just your megalomania and delusions of grandeur.

If you think the CF-HOF is irrelevant, you could ignore this thread and stop derailing it with your personal animus towards me.
 
TheOriginalCane said:
Appreciate the civil debate.

Ignoring the MAGA Muppets, I'll say this. Voter turnout has always been important. I worked on the Bush campaign in 1988, and they had a huge effort to assist with transportation to/from nursing homes, so that elderly Republican voters could get out to vote. It would be nice if the MAGA Muppets would stop clutching their pearls from being triggered by "vote harvesting" or whatever other conspiracy theory they envision, but both parties have made significant efforts for decades to get "their voters" to the polls, no matter what technology was used, whether it was buses or mail-in requests.

W's win (razor-thin in Florida) and Trump's win (combined vote margin in 3 key states) are different by magnitude, but they are both indicative of the way in which candidates must approach every angle of securing the Electoral College victory.

I can agree with you that the Trump win did not equate to "coattails" in either 2016 or 2018. What I find interesting right now is the swing in many Senate races, because those are the primary measures of statewide impact. If the question was just as simple as "good Republicans no longer support Trump", then you would expect a differential between polling numbers for Trump vs. polling numbers for the Senate candidate. But now there are several Republican Senators in Republican states who are now in a dead heat and/or losing, at least by poll numbers. Of course, opinion polls (I took POL 351 at UM, which was a class on political polling) and actual voting numbers can diverge, so let's see how it all plays out.

As for some of your other points, I'm not so sure that Trump was doing so much better with black voters in, say, January 2020. By "headway", I would acknowledge that he had slightly improved his poll numbers from November 2016 to January 2020, but at this point I think he's wiped out any gains and might even be running behind where he was in 2016 with black voters.

I also see your point on "security moms", but I think this is also a very complex question. While "law and order" and "economic security" are important to those voters, there is also a "social justice" and "actual programs to support me" angle as well. Many "moms" are sympathetic to the fact that some mothers are losing their children to police arrest (Minnesota) and/or vigilante justice (Georgia). Many moms have not seen any new programs or efforts to assist in either the cost or the provision of childcare and/or healthcare. And I would also submit to you that many moms have had to home-school for the past several months, and while they might enjoy some aspects of that, there is also a tremendous financial burden. I'm not coming down on one side or the other, I'm just pointing out that the calculus is very complex and may very well not follow the 2016 model.

Finally, one factor that is rarely addressed is the aging of the population. We have had 4 years of older, more "traditional" Republican voters passing away, and the replacement in the voting population by young people who have been raised in a very different world, where they tend to have more tolerance and support for "the other side" of wedge issues such as *** rights, women's issues, and immigration. Assuming a 60 year voting window (age 18 to age 78), you would get a complete replacement of the entire voting group in the span of 16 presidential elections. As you correctly pointed out, there were narrow statewide margins for Trump in 2016, particularly in Rust Belt states with aging populations. So if you replace 4 years worth of elderly Republican-skewing voters with much younger Democrat-skewing voters, that may (in and of itself) cause the state to flip.

And, to bring everything full circle, that's why turnout is so important. We all know that younger voters don't vote in as high percentages as older voters do, and that might be further complicated by the "I want convenience" youth mentality that could impact whether younger voters will wait in long lines to exercise the right to vote.

That's all. Ultimately, I don't care how anyone chooses to vote, that is everyone's right. I support actually voting, and when you see "one side" standing against any modern methods to increase voting participation (while they fail to put forth any ideas of their own), it is fairly easy to conclude that they have solid knowledge that more voters will mean "more young voters" and "more minority voters" and "more urban voters", and none of those things are really a winning formula for one particular party. If you could somehow show that there are millions of religious shut-ins who are desperate to vote, you'd see a completely different response.

Ultimately, I look at Trump's electoral chances as the following. You take his 2016 voters and ask, has he expanded this group? Are there people from 2016 who chose Hillary who are now convinced to vote for Trump? And, then, has Trump lost any voters from 2016? Plus, you have to factor in voters in the 18-22 age range who could not vote in 2016. I am no big fan of Biden (again, remember 1988), but I think he is less polarizing than Hillary was in 2016. So any of the "but her e-mails" crowd who flipped from Hillary to Trump in the last week of the 2016 campaign may certainly flip back to Biden.

As for Con Law I, I had Swan (who has since passed away). I'm not sure who Alloway is. Swan was a really good guy, he invited the whole class over to his house mid-semester, and he actually contacted me in my second year to compliment me on my exam answer on Roe v. Wade. We also had a very interesting mini-controversy late in the semester when he used the word "niggardly" in class, though I think that the discussion turned out very well in the long run.
Click to expand...
Good points but the age of electorate discussion is kind of old hat to me. As a baby boomer, we were supposed to be what turned the electorate but things didn't change much - Nixon, disaster - Carter, disaster, - Ronnie not too bad and 3rd term, but then only Pres to win a war and lose(guess he needed you again in '92 - Clinton then another Bush, disaster - Obama, rebellion election - Trump ? American always seem to what change. Once a party gets in office, the other starts looking better. Congratulation for working on the only 3rd term campaign in modern times.

I feel good about Trump's chances. Everyone is less polarizing than Hilary so I agree about Joe but wow, the man had issues in his youth. Regardless a 3rd term is very questionable. Mike is way too nice and dems have to come up with somebody still alive by then. I like our governor but not sure he can get Republican nomination - maybe he needs you to work on it. Anyway, 2024 might be little beyond my expectancy. I am leaving a 50/50 split among our 4 kids so, close races could remain.

All what you said is great stuff and well reasoned. One thing. old people vote the way the do because they got old. Young people today are likely to vote like old people when they get old. Those New Deal Dems for life had unique set of circumstances that formed them. You can't count on that now. My kids were split years ago and have already flipped in an exchange of positions- still spilt but on opposite of the original flip. Go figure.

I have only one differing point about the "modern voting methods. Whatever side anyone is on, you can bet they think or think they have a plan make it work to their advantage. I think both of us are old enough to not believe anything is pushed for "the good of the people". I agree that republicans have prior history of forms of voter suppression but the democrats history of ballot box stuffing, dead people voting and getting turnouts that exceed the number of living humans in some districts is just as impressive.

Cliff Alloway was long time Con Law professor at Miami. Great teacher but sometimes it seemed not all of him came home from WWII. He was Marine and fought at the Canal. Dude was serious Constitutional expert. You mention Roe. It was decide in my first year. I remember the acepted wisdom being that in 30 years it would no longer be an issue -- oops. Dang, no professor ever called me to compliment my answer. Nice. I do have an excuse. They told us the first day that C students may good money. I turned over my legal pad and took a nap. Have a great day
 
Last edited:
Gatorhater said:
Good points but the age of electorate discussion is kind of old hate to me. As a baby boomer, we were supposed to be what turned the electorate but things didn't change much - Nixon, disaster - Carter, disaster, - Ronnie not too bad and 3rd term, but then only Pres to win a war and lose(guess he needed you again in '92 - Clinton then another Bush, disaster - Obama, rebellion election - Trump ? American always seem to what change. Once a party gets in office, the other starts looking better. Congratulation for working on the only 3rd term campaign in modern times.

I feel good about Trump's chances. Everyone is less polarizing than Hilary so I agree about Joe but wow, the man had issues in his youth. Regardless a 3rd term is very questionable. Mike is way too nice and dems have to come up with somebody still alive by then. I like our governor but not sure he can get Republican nomination - maybe he needs you to work on it. Anyway, 2024 might be little beyond my expectancy. I am leaving a 50/50 split among our 4 kids so, close races could remain.

All what you said is great stuff and well reasoned. One thing. old people vote the way the do because they got old. Young people today are likely to vote like old people when they get old. Those New Deal Dems for life had unique set of circumstances that formed them. You can't count on that now. My kids were split years ago and have already flipped in an exchange of positions- still spilt but on opposite of the original flip. Go figure.

I have only one differing point about the "modern voting methods. Whatever side anyone is on, you can bet they think or think they have a plan make it work to their advantage. I think both of us are old enough to not believe anything is pushed for "the good of the people". I agree that republicans have prior history of forms of voter suppression but the democrats history of ballot box stuffing, dead people voting and getting turnouts that exceed the number of living humans in some districts is just as impressive.

Cliff Alloway was long time Con Law professor at Miami. Great teacher but sometimes it seemed not all of him came home from WWII. He was Marine and fought at the Canal. Dude was serious Constitutional expert. You mention Roe. It was decide in my first year. I remember the acepted wisdom being that in 30 years it would no longer be an issue -- oops. Dang, no professor ever called me to compliment my answer. Nice. I do have an excuse. They told us the first day that C students may good money. I turned over my legal pad and took a nap. Have a great day
Click to expand...

KKRF.gif
 
Gatorhater said:
Good points but the age of electorate discussion is kind of old hate to me. As a baby boomer, we were supposed to be what turned the electorate but things didn't change much - Nixon, disaster - Carter, disaster, - Ronnie not too bad and 3rd term, but then only Pres to win a war and lose(guess he needed you again in '92 - Clinton then another Bush, disaster - Obama, rebellion election - Trump ? American always seem to what change. Once a party gets in office, the other starts looking better. Congratulation for working on the only 3rd term campaign in modern times.

I feel good about Trump's chances. Everyone is less polarizing than Hilary so I agree about Joe but wow, the man had issues in his youth. Regardless a 3rd term is very questionable. Mike is way too nice and dems have to come up with somebody still alive by then. I like our governor but not sure he can get Republican nomination - maybe he needs you to work on it. Anyway, 2024 might be little beyond my expectancy. I am leaving a 50/50 split among our 4 kids so, close races could remain.

All what you said is great stuff and well reasoned. One thing. old people vote the way the do because they got old. Young people today are likely to vote like old people when they get old. Those New Deal Dems for life had unique set of circumstances that formed them. You can't count on that now. My kids were split years ago and have already flipped in an exchange of positions- still spilt but on opposite of the original flip. Go figure.

I have only one differing point about the "modern voting methods. Whatever side anyone is on, you can bet they think or think they have a plan make it work to their advantage. I think both of us are old enough to not believe anything is pushed for "the good of the people". I agree that republicans have prior history of forms of voter suppression but the democrats history of ballot box stuffing, dead people voting and getting turnouts that exceed the number of living humans in some districts is just as impressive.

Cliff Alloway was long time Con Law professor at Miami. Great teacher but sometimes it seemed not all of him came home from WWII. He was Marine and fought at the Canal. Dude was serious Constitutional expert. You mention Roe. It was decide in my first year. I remember the acepted wisdom being that in 30 years it would no longer be an issue -- oops. Dang, no professor ever called me to compliment my answer. Nice. I do have an excuse. They told us the first day that C students may good money. I turned over my legal pad and took a nap. Have a great day
Click to expand...


First, the "age of electorate" stuff is not "hate" in my mind at all. I hear what you are saying about baby boomers, but I also think that baby boomers still were raised in a "certain America".

Consider this - the voting age decreased to 18 in 1972. More recently, we have had the first election/re-election of a black president, the (popular, not Electoral College) election of a woman president, and an openly *** significant contender in the primary season. We may debate whether baby boomers were significantly more liberal (at least at an early age) than prior generations, but they still grew up in a time when being black/female/*** pretty much ruled you out of running for most elected offices, including president. I think that these changes, plus technological change, have created a different kind of "liberalization" of the younger electorate, and a kind that is different and more lasting than just "going to Woodstock/demonstrating against the Vietnam War".

And, for what it's worth, I completely agree with you that there have been voting shenanigans on both sides of the aisle for hundreds of years. I'm not disputing that. I'm just pointing out that, at one time, a "touchscreen voting screen" was considered a new and untried method. We have experienced "early voting" in recent years, and there have been lots of different approaches to absentee voting. To me, I don't really care about the partisan history of any of this becoming an impediment to moving forward. If we are now going to be living in a time when people are afraid of close contact in large groups, we need to adapt. We need to figure out a way to vote, by whatever methods make sense and are reliable. The days of going behind a curtain and punching holes in paper need to be put behind us forever.

As for Biden, I tend to agree with you. I've not been a fan of his for the past 32 years, and I'm not happy for a number of reasons (he wasn't my favorite AND I'm worried about him botching the general election). So, barring any immediate heart-attack-combined-with-the-creation-of-the-Cuomo-Bottoms-ticket, we have the not-so-great choice between Biden and Trump.

Now that you mention Alloway's full name, I do remember seeing his name around on stuff at the law school, but I think he was long gone by the time I got there. Although, I DID have Hausler for Contracts.

Take care, I'm not betting any money on this election, and I don't think anyone from either side should either.
 
Advertisement
TheOriginalCane said:
First, the "age of electorate" stuff is not "hate" in my mind at all. I hear what you are saying about baby boomers, but I also think that baby boomers still were raised in a "certain America".

Consider this - the voting age decreased to 18 in 1972. More recently, we have had the first election/re-election of a black president, the (popular, not Electoral College) election of a woman president, and an openly *** significant contender in the primary season. We may debate whether baby boomers were significantly more liberal (at least at an early age) than prior generations, but they still grew up in a time when being black/female/*** pretty much ruled you out of running for most elected offices, including president. I think that these changes, plus technological change, have created a different kind of "liberalization" of the younger electorate, and a kind that is different and more lasting than just "going to Woodstock/demonstrating against the Vietnam War".

And, for what it's worth, I completely agree with you that there have been voting shenanigans on both sides of the aisle for hundreds of years. I'm not disputing that. I'm just pointing out that, at one time, a "touchscreen voting screen" was considered a new and untried method. We have experienced "early voting" in recent years, and there have been lots of different approaches to absentee voting. To me, I don't really care about the partisan history of any of this becoming an impediment to moving forward. If we are now going to be living in a time when people are afraid of close contact in large groups, we need to adapt. We need to figure out a way to vote, by whatever methods make sense and are reliable. The days of going behind a curtain and punching holes in paper need to be put behind us forever.

As for Biden, I tend to agree with you. I've not been a fan of his for the past 32 years, and I'm not happy for a number of reasons (he wasn't my favorite AND I'm worried about him botching the general election). So, barring any immediate heart-attack-combined-with-the-creation-of-the-Cuomo-Bottoms-ticket, we have the not-so-great choice between Biden and Trump.

Now that you mention Alloway's full name, I do remember seeing his name around on stuff at the law school, but I think he was long gone by the time I got there. Although, I DID have Hausler for Contracts.

Take care, I'm not betting any money on this election, and I don't think anyone from either side should either.
Click to expand...
I have no idea how "hate" got in there. I had to read several times to find it. I meant old HAT. Auto correct must have gotten me. Hate is not my stick at all. Sorry about that. I will correct it.

We certainly are branching out on our candidates. I grant that the "liberalization" has certainly begun earlier in life and done a much more better job of achieving its intentions. Time will tell whether it fails like its predecessors or not. I think American will continue trying one flavor and then another without giving either permanent power. Unfortunately that will probably cause one side to strive for a more dictatorial form of government and result in yet another revolution of the shoot type. Given the socialists history of fascism, Nazism, USSR and Red China my money is on the one that ties is the left, but you never know.

The day is getting late so I will leave your "popular vote" first woman President along. People might get tired of our longs pieces. I use to bill by the page. You?

Alloway might have died or retired. Hausler was the stuff legends are made. Have a great night.
 
Gatorhater said:
I have no idea how "hate" got in there. I had to read several times to find it. I meant old HAT. Auto correct must have gotten me. Hate is not my stick at all. Sorry about that. I will correct it.

We certainly are branching out on our candidates. I grant that the "liberalization" has certainly begun earlier in life and done a much more better job of achieving its intentions. Time will tell whether it fails like its predecessors or not. I think American will continue trying one flavor and then another without giving either permanent power. Unfortunately that will probably cause one side to strive for a more dictatorial form of government and result in yet another revolution of the shoot type. Given the socialists history of fascism, Nazism, USSR and Red China my money is on the one that ties is the left, but you never know.

The day is getting late so I will leave your "popular vote" first woman President along. People might get tired of our longs pieces. I use to bill by the page. You?

Alloway might have died or retired. Hausler was the stuff legends are made. Have a great night.
Click to expand...


You are a gentleman, sir. "Old hat" certainly makes a lot more sense than "old hate"!

I also share your concerns on the trend towards dictatorial rule, whether it be from the right or left. As a person who studied Roman history from a young age, the Romans had an early period of kings and a late period of emperors, and in-between the Republic had 2 consuls...unless it was an emergency, in which case they selected a dictator. That's about 1,200 years of strong-man rule, and nobody remembers what "political parties" were involved.

As for Hillary, I was primarily referring to the part about her getting 63 million votes, which would have been crazy talk 40 or 50 years ago.

Have a great evening!
 
TheOriginalCane said:
You are a gentleman, sir. "Old hat" certainly makes a lot more sense than "old hate"!

I also share your concerns on the trend towards dictatorial rule, whether it be from the right or left. As a person who studied Roman history from a young age, the Romans had an early period of kings and a late period of emperors, and in-between the Republic had 2 consuls...unless it was an emergency, in which case they selected a dictator. That's about 1,200 years of strong-man rule, and nobody remembers what "political parties" were involved.

As for Hillary, I was primarily referring to the part about her getting 63 million votes, which would have been crazy talk 40 or 50 years ago.
)
Have a great evening!
Click to expand...
Rome is a favorite study of mine also. The parallels between them and the US are strong with one major difference. Rome was dependent on outside sources(mostly the "empire") for food and essential rare materials. We are virtually self sufficient or can be as a matter of will. While unpopular with many, our carbon resources are unmatched with possible exception of Russia. With rare exception, we have adequate sources of all other minerals, including rare earth( we just choose to not refine them). Our food capacity knows no boundary(Rome starved once Egypt was cut off.) That said, many see us in decline.

I worry about dictatorship also. Socialism seems very inclined to it and the left in general want the bigger government required by it. The American voter seems to throw out each party after short stay in power - whether by intention or accident. This has helped. The culture of the leader cult is the threat. Ronnie, Bill Clinton, and Obama were all candidates. I was worried about Clinton refusing to leave and his popularity seemed a threat of that to me. Obama seems to have made significant plans for his extended rule that were foiled as a byproduct of the 2016 election. The threat is not one sided. I find myself terrified of the end of Trump's 8 years(:cool:)and contemplate his just staying on with our armed support. But freedom is too valuable and rare to waste on any one leader. For that reason we must guard against all threats to it, from left, right or (like me) in between.

Good stuff. Maybe we will discuss Rome more later. It is our closest comparable. So far we have avoided it mistakes. Let's hope we continue.
 
Back
Top