One thing to note is that I believe the NBA has a “must stand” policy already so it’s unclear what would happen if that was tested. My guess is amicably given the NBA already let’s players and coaches speak out as much as they want.
One thing to note is that I believe the NBA has a “must stand” policy already so it’s unclear what would happen if that was tested. My guess is amicably given the NBA already let’s players and coaches speak out as much as they want.
If you watch some of the old documentaries of football in the 1960’s and 1970’s, there is something special.
Nowadays, football games have some weird robot dancing around and in HD. It has just gotten too big and too corporate and too produced. I hear in a Texas some of the high school fields look like pro fields.
Nowadays, football games have some weird robot dancing around and in HD. It has just gotten too big and too corporate and too produced. I hear in a Texas some of the high school fields look like pro fields.
20 years ago a Muslim NBA player decided not to stand for the Anthem. For awhile he would just stretch or stay in the locker room. Eventually a reporter asked about it and it became an issue.
He was suspended for a game and them came to an agreement where he would stand with the team about pray with his head down.
Within a year he was traded to a new team where his playing time dropped and then when his contract ran out he was not signed to any team.
As others have said, the NBA players have a different relationship with the league and their owners and have other avenues to talk about social issues. There was some talk at the end of last year if the players would respond to Trump's attack on Kap by kneeling but they decided to handle it in different ways.
LeBron James anf many others has been very vocal on numerous social issues. Two of the most high profile coaches, Greg Popovich and Steve Curr have blistering attacks on Trump.
For reference, the NBA player in question was Mahmoud Abdul-Rauf and he was a brave young man.
About a month ago the NYT did a story on one of the meetings between owners and players about the anthem issue.
Link here, use incognito if you get paywalled
The gist I took from it (and other articles about prior meetings (remember the "inamtes running the prison" quote) is that the owners are more scard of what Trump can do to them than anything. There are some owners that can't see anything but "kneeling = disrespectful period", and some that are fine with free speech but don't like the optics in terms of their Bud Light fanbase. Those two groups are enough to out-vote the few that dissent.
Link here, use incognito if you get paywalled
The gist I took from it (and other articles about prior meetings (remember the "inamtes running the prison" quote) is that the owners are more scard of what Trump can do to them than anything. There are some owners that can't see anything but "kneeling = disrespectful period", and some that are fine with free speech but don't like the optics in terms of their Bud Light fanbase. Those two groups are enough to out-vote the few that dissent.
Practically I think standing for the anthem is less of a sticking point in the NBA given the league has given players wide latitude to voice their opinions on a wide range of social issues. And I think it helps that the NBA's star players and coaches are willing to speak out on issues they care about. I don't think anyone with the relative stature of James, Popovich or Kerr has done the same to the same extent in the NFL.
It doesn't hurt that the NBA already has several incidents under its belt where police used excessive force against its own players. Ironic that the vote would come the same day that Sterling Brown's video is due for release...and he was hardly the first.
Black NFL players aren't immune, of course, but their best-known interactions with the law involve domestic violence on the players' part, giving their protest a different flavor in the eyes of fans. (as noted, it doesn't help that NFL fans are much whiter than NBA fans)
Black NFL players aren't immune, of course, but their best-known interactions with the law involve domestic violence on the players' part, giving their protest a different flavor in the eyes of fans. (as noted, it doesn't help that NFL fans are much whiter than NBA fans)
Meaning by at least one metric, they're no longer worst team in the league. Your move, Cleveland.
Also, that statement suggests to me that some owners were bullied into approving the measure, either by Goodell, who is nothing but a hypocritical figurehead, beholden to a select few owners and to Trump, but that those owners have no intention of actually stopping their players. Some owners stood behind the kneelers last season, so I see no reason that they'd really make a personal change in their viewpoints now.
How did Jerry Jones vote? He's one of the kneeler-supporters you're talking about.
I can't tell if he's fervent and stupid or taking the piss because he can.
The vote was apparently unanimous. Considering that the Jets owner has said he's going to pay any fine, it seems clear that while the vote was unanimous, the same can't be said about the actual feelings about the rule. That actually makes me think LESS of those owners who disagree with it, but voted in favor as a sign of solidarity. Fucking grow a spine. But since they all seemed terrified more that Trump will tweet mean things about them, that ship clearly already sailed.
It was one abstention, all other owners voted for it. Jed York of the 49ers abstained. But voting for it may not mean much... and when I went to look up who had abstained, I found this:
http://kwese.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/23 ... olicy-vote
And in that, it reveals that the Raiders owner also claimed he didn't vote at all. So this 'big unanimous vote' is turning out otherwise - there might not be an actual official change in the rules if there was no actual vote after all. It might all be a bit of bullshit for the right wing appeasement. That'd be funny.
New word is that they never took and official vote. The NFL just unofficially polled teams and announced the policy was unanimous.
IF there was a vote, and it's starting to sound like that was just PR BS from the NFL head office, I would guess the motivation for a pretend unanimous vote would be fear of overturning the Sports Broadcast Act of 1961.
Wasn't Jones one of the owners that said he'd bench a player that knelt?
http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/2096 ... -flag-play
Looks like Musk wants to take on the media that's been unfair to him. These days, attacking the press for being mean may backfire.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/inn ... 12381575d0
I love what the man is trying to do in pretty much all directions, but holy cow, he seems to be going with the Trump playbook here. Dude, the media has been fawning over Tesla for years now. Yes, they're starting to question it now, because your reality distortion field can't hide the massive production issues that have come up as you've tried to scale into being a major auto manufacturer. They're not being unfair to you, they're holding you accountable for all your various lofty predictions, which you have a tendency to frequently fall short on.
But this, coupled with him basically trying to go to war with whichever federal safety commission it was investigating the auto-pilot failure just makes me think his ego broke free of the bonds of rationality. And for the good of all his companies, someone needs to smack him around before he ends up locking himself up in a penthouse suite, collecting his toenail clippings.
But this, coupled with him basically trying to go to war with whichever federal safety commission it was investigating the auto-pilot failure just makes me think his ego broke free of the bonds of rationality. And for the good of all his companies, someone needs to smack him around before he ends up locking himself up in a penthouse suite, collecting his toenail clippings.
I like what he's doing with Tesla and Space-X, but the hyperloop is fucking stupid, and I'm sorry, but no, Elon, you aren't going to reinvent tunnel boring.
I say this as someone very active in public transportation policy.
I say this as someone very active in public transportation policy.
So my theory is that I should sell all of my stock assets in 2019.
The reason is that while the past two years have been good for the stock market, that was because of Obama’s tough choices. Trump in contrast is incompetent and stupid. But because of the lag time for policies to really be felt, the legacy isn’t felt until the next term.
Put your money where your mouth is. What will the next five to ten years portend for markets? .
The reason is that while the past two years have been good for the stock market, that was because of Obama’s tough choices. Trump in contrast is incompetent and stupid. But because of the lag time for policies to really be felt, the legacy isn’t felt until the next term.
Put your money where your mouth is. What will the next five to ten years portend for markets? .
It depends on what you want to do but unless you need that money in the next 5-10 years this is really bad advice. You always lose trying to time the market.
The only alternative is if you sell now, and then wait for the crash and spend all that money buying cheap stocks. Down markets are the best time to add investments.
The best way to invest in stocks is to stick to low cost S&P 500 Fund ignore the market and let it sit until you actually need it. Day trading is a suckers game.
And on trump the stupid and incompetent.
http://prospect.org/article/why-trump-k ... ng-world-i’m-smart
http://prospect.org/article/why-trump-k ... ng-world-i’m-smart
It's all part of the Mars plan. He's going to need a lot of tunnel digging equipment on Mars, so if he can develop it and make a little profit now, with public transportation, it's one more piece done. Also, why couldn't he reinvent tunnel boring? As far as I can see it's much like the space industry, small, has a lack of recent innovation, and depends mainly on giant contracts that they milk out of governments for as much as they get. The vehicles and end transportation methods themselves aren't that important, he's worried about digging on mars in an automated and quick way.
I am currently ignoring it until I actually need it, and I don’t day trade. I could cash them out and fully repay my student loans in 2020 which are 6.8 percent.
I knew a guy who made good money on the market during the Bush years of debt and war. He sold everything before Obama came in because he was a right winger and was worried about “socialism.” He was wrong on the theory but right on the timing having avoided the 2008 recession.
Good news for those of you who wanted one of the US/North Korea nuclear summit challenge coins - they're on sale now, and even if the summit is cancelled the coins will still be available.
The bad news is that there's a 2 month lead time...maybe that's how long it will take to have them made and shipped from whatever "shithole country" gets the contract?
However, there's more good news - according to the White House Gift Shop page, if the summit doesn't occur you can request a refund.
The bad news is that there's a 2 month lead time...maybe that's how long it will take to have them made and shipped from whatever "shithole country" gets the contract?
However, there's more good news - according to the White House Gift Shop page, if the summit doesn't occur you can request a refund.
The timing in this post makes no sense to me. Had he sold when Obama was elected, he would have sold near the bottom of the market, locking in a year of historic losses. The sell off hit hardest around September and October of 2008. Obama took office in January of 2009.
It has been a few years since I talked to him, but I think he sold in the summer or spring of that year and during the campaign season Obama was leading most of the time.
But the real meat is that 2008 recession was a result of Bush’s policies over the eight years. The strain of the wars and the corresponding debt policies resulted in this irresponsible bubble. Also, the failure to properly regulate.
If he sold "before Obama came in" then he sold at the low. Real smart.
He didn't "avoid the 2008 recession" (wrt stock prices) unless he sold in July, 2007.
Historical revisionism is particularly glaring when discussing the stock market. Looking up a price graph of the s&p 500 ain't that hard.
edit:
beaten by Semi like a rented mule
What the fuck are you talking about?
The recession had little to nothing to do with the wars and national debt. It was caused by incredibly irresponsible lending and financial practices related to the housing market.
When are you going to realize you can't just pull "facts" out of your ass and expect us to swallow them? We're not a bunch of drooling morons.
You’re coming across as one in this anger post of yours.
Theoretically, the stagflation of the late 70’s has nothing to do with the Vietnam war either.
During times of war there is usually political pressure on the banks to run the economy hot so the financial picture for financing the war looks rosier. Also, political will is looking at other priorities in that time.
In my telling, the 2008 recession is an indictment of GOP policies. And you’re still not happy?
You come across as a bullshit artist.
Hint.. think before you post. And if you are just making shit up, when it comes to facts, it's easy to call you on it.
Your story only makes sense if he sold at least a year before Obama won the nomination, before the primaries even began.
Hint.. think before you post. And if you are just making shit up, when it comes to facts, it's easy to call you on it.
Your story only makes sense if he sold at least a year before Obama won the nomination, before the primaries even began.
I'm not under the impression that OP cares whether they get called out, as long as posters continue to engage them.
What’s telling is that you think that simply by making a statement against Republican policies, posters here will forego their usual suspicion of unsupported claims.
Most of us here were very much aware of what was happening in 2007/2008. Many of us were here posting about it. When you make statements that don’t pass a smell test, don’t expect it to be overlooked, just because you think you made it smell slightly like something people like.
The party conventions weren’t even until late August/early September, with Obama not really locking up the nomination until June. Even before that time. The speculative polling had Obama/McCain pretty close. It wasn’t until after the stock market tanked, which was well after the housing bubble burst, and well after retailers started reporting massive cut backs in consumer spending, that Obama got separation in the polls.
Okay. Congrats on picking apart a distant recollection and avoiding the main point.
The main point is that Trump’s rule will cause macro-economic hardship in the future for a D president to clean up.
Actually what this is about is hating the Tea Party for being deficit hawks, to the point of excusing GOP administrations who cause the deficit-busting conditions.
Well my point was that you have made it a habit of making statements that are false on the face of it, frequently including comments about how such statements are undeniable, or other ad populum claims.
Like this. So an example about how a guy got out of the market because he assumed Obama would win is now about a movement that wasn’t even created until after he was sworn in?
There have been some arguments among economists and pundits that 2008 was attributable at least partly to the Iraq war. It just takes a quick google.
Second half is explaining the strong hatred on this board for anything resembling concern about the deficit. As soon as deficit is brought up, even as a way to bash a GOP administration, people act like a racial slur has been tossed.
It's almost by definition a fake issue, and those who take it seriously mostly understand very little about what a national deficit is, why it occurs and what its effects on the economy are both in the short term and the long term.
By fake issue, I mean concern for it appears and disappears according to whether the opposing party is in power and what they want to do.
This is how you can have a massive tax cut on rich people and within a few months start hearing the very people who voted for it moaning about the deficit they just increased and how we suddenly can't afford SNAP. The only thing immune seems to be veterans benefits and military spending which of course have to be increased.
By fake issue, I mean concern for it appears and disappears according to whether the opposing party is in power and what they want to do.
This is how you can have a massive tax cut on rich people and within a few months start hearing the very people who voted for it moaning about the deficit they just increased and how we suddenly can't afford SNAP. The only thing immune seems to be veterans benefits and military spending which of course have to be increased.
Yeah there we go again. Even though I am saying that GOP administrations are responsible for blowing up the deficit, we have this defensiveness on display.
It’s like everyone is a reaganomics guy now, just so long as social justice gets some lip service.
So what next? Trump’s management of the economy will actually be amazing? Nothing to worry about?