2020 Election - Catch-all Thread
323,634 Views |
2434 Replies |
Last: 4 yr ago by Unit2Sucks
Well, this tells me that he probably is running for President.Another Bear said:
Uncle Joe got the memo. Seems like a fair and reasonable explanation...unlike p&ssy grabbing, banging porn stars and drinking Russkie pee.
Yup, why jump through hoops for no reason. He's not my first choice (don't have one at this point) but I'll vote for him if he's the Dem nomination.
I'd vote for a Biden/Harris ticket. With that said:
"Social norms are changing."
Joe, I'm an old guy and I've lived through the changing of a lot of "social norms." I don't recall the social norm where it was ever ok to stand inside a woman's personal space zone and put your paws and/or lips on her unless invited to do so. Yes, compared to grabbing meow meow your sins are venial, as were Al Franken's.
If I was wordsmithing his statement on the matter it would read like this:
"I never had any unsavory intent in my actions, but that isn't really relevant to the debate. It was clearly interpreted as such by some and now I understand that they are completely being reasonable to feel that way and I was being insensitive not to realize that.. I deeply apologize for my actions that made anyone uncomfortable and I assure you it will never happen again....and tRump sucks!"
"Social norms are changing."
Joe, I'm an old guy and I've lived through the changing of a lot of "social norms." I don't recall the social norm where it was ever ok to stand inside a woman's personal space zone and put your paws and/or lips on her unless invited to do so. Yes, compared to grabbing meow meow your sins are venial, as were Al Franken's.
If I was wordsmithing his statement on the matter it would read like this:
"I never had any unsavory intent in my actions, but that isn't really relevant to the debate. It was clearly interpreted as such by some and now I understand that they are completely being reasonable to feel that way and I was being insensitive not to realize that.. I deeply apologize for my actions that made anyone uncomfortable and I assure you it will never happen again....and tRump sucks!"
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
The more I think about it, the more I think Harris ends up as the VP selection. It is still is very early, but with exception to Harris most of the favorites are white men, and a 'black woman' would help balance the ticket for both the female and diversity sides of the coalition.
Another Bear said:
Yup, why jump through hoops for no reason. He's not my first choice (don't have one at this point) but I'll vote for him if he's the Dem nomination.
Really, you're not even going to consider Trump? You're just going to go with Biden?!?!
What could go wrong. They are both electable.
Anarchistbear said:
What could go wrong. They are both electable.
Man, Biden is going to be a disaster. Hillary was around for 24 years, but it became "30 years" thanks to Trump. Then Obama repeated the false "30 years" thing. Then Hillary repeated it. (For the record: Hillary wasn't known 30 years before the 2016 election.)
Biden has been around Washington since Beto was a baby. And he's gaffe-prone. A longtime Washington insider who's gaffe-prone has all the makings of everything going awry.
Actually now that I think of it, sure I'll vote for Trump. I'll also switch to being a registered Republican and attend Trump rallies. I'm also going to buy a rather large American flag and now only wrap myself in it, I'll dedicate myself to sleeping it, bathing it, going to the toilet. And yes, sex with Russian hookers while wrapped in the American flag.okaydo said:Another Bear said:
Yup, why jump through hoops for no reason. He's not my first choice (don't have one at this point) but I'll vote for him if he's the Dem nomination.
Really, you're not even going to consider Trump? You're just going to go with Biden?!?!
THEN I WILL SALUTE THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA WHILE I WEAR THE FLAG, so help me God.
The more I think about it...it doesn't matter if Trump wins in 2020. The system is broken so might as well push the sh*t heap over the cliff. I think Mueller report gets released or leaked before than and maybe he's gone but really, it doesn't matter.
Oh wait, today isn't April 1...no worries, lets roll with this anyway. Screw thE country. THIS IS ABOUT ME AND ONLY ME AND WHAT I WANT. SCREW THE FUTURE.
Congressman Tom Ryan joins the race.
I fear his policy is simply to return manufacturing jobs to the industrial midwest, when in actual fact, those jobs are gone and not coming back.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-ryan/democratic-congressman-tim-ryan-of-ohio-enters-2020-white-house-race-idUSKCN1RG1ZRQuote:
U.S. Representative Tim Ryan, a moderate Ohio Democrat from a blue-collar district who has touted his appeal to the working-class voters who fled the party in 2016, said on Thursday he will enter the 2020 White House race.
I fear his policy is simply to return manufacturing jobs to the industrial midwest, when in actual fact, those jobs are gone and not coming back.
Another Bear said:Actually now that I think of it, sure I'll vote for Trump. I'll also switch to being a registered Republican and attend Trump rallies. I'm also going to buy a rather large American flag and now only wrap myself in it, I'll dedicate myself to sleeping it, bathing it, going to the toilet. And yes, sex with Russian hookers while wrapped in the American flag.okaydo said:Another Bear said:
Yup, why jump through hoops for no reason. He's not my first choice (don't have one at this point) but I'll vote for him if he's the Dem nomination.
Really, you're not even going to consider Trump? You're just going to go with Biden?!?!
THEN I WILL SALUTE THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA WHILE I WEAR THE FLAG, so help me God.
The more I think about it...it doesn't matter if Trump wins in 2020. The system is broken so might as well push the sh*t heap over the cliff. I think Mueller report gets released or leaked before than and maybe he's gone but really, it doesn't matter.
Oh wait, today isn't April 1...no worries, lets roll with this anyway. Screw thE country. THIS IS ABOUT ME AND ONLY ME AND WHAT I WANT. SCREW THE FUTURE.
I'm close to being willing to die in an atomic war caused by a tRump f up just so I can say I told you so but there are a couple of problems:
1. I would be dead so I would not be able to assert my woofing rights; and
2. If I did survive the tRumpists that survived would say Armageddon was caused by Obama, the Clintons or the Deep State.
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
golden sloth said:
Congressman Tom Ryan joins the race.https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-ryan/democratic-congressman-tim-ryan-of-ohio-enters-2020-white-house-race-idUSKCN1RG1ZRQuote:
U.S. Representative Tim Ryan, a moderate Ohio Democrat from a blue-collar district who has touted his appeal to the working-class voters who fled the party in 2016, said on Thursday he will enter the 2020 White House race.
I fear his policy is simply to return manufacturing jobs to the industrial midwest, when in actual fact, those jobs are gone and not coming back.
"Those jobs" have never left in countries like Germany or South Korea, where labor costs are comparable to those in the US (in fact they're higher in Germany). The difference is that countries like SK, China or Japan have a strong national industrial policies that puts the national interest above the kind of destructive short-term profit schemes like LBOs, or sweetheart trade deals with third world neighbors (NAFTA) that have sucked midwestern jobs dry.
Think Tanks, academia and neoliberal media have conditioned the American public to buy into "free trade" as a dogma, when most of the rest of the world gets the basic notion that offshoring is a destructive force. So Detroit being a derelict Rust Belt buckle is portrayed as some kind of inevitable natural outcome of modern economy, while Stuttgart or Ulsan are thriving with a strong middle class.
So no love for Cal product Andrew Yang? His parents are Taiwanese immigrants who met as Cal grad students. I would bet they might have been I-House alums, a lot of marriages get formed there.
I like his depoliticized approach to politics, he comes in as a problem solver who is well-tuned to the modern economic challenges and a very well-defined platform compared to the field, most of which has been running on image and generalities (see Beto and Buttgieg).
Right now my ideal ticket is Tulsi-Yang, not necessarily in that order. They're the only true outsiders, and both advocate a non-interventionist foreign policy. Yang is calling for a large cut on the Pentagon budget.
https://www.yang2020.com/policies/
I like his depoliticized approach to politics, he comes in as a problem solver who is well-tuned to the modern economic challenges and a very well-defined platform compared to the field, most of which has been running on image and generalities (see Beto and Buttgieg).
Right now my ideal ticket is Tulsi-Yang, not necessarily in that order. They're the only true outsiders, and both advocate a non-interventionist foreign policy. Yang is calling for a large cut on the Pentagon budget.
https://www.yang2020.com/policies/
EDIT Unlike Obama, Kamala will have to defend her track record as DA and her escapades with Willie Brown (she blew her way to the top; not a strong Girl Power platform). Obama didn't have much of a track record to defend against.golden sloth said:
It should be noted, they voted for Obama.
Kamala will, just like any other Dem candidate, toe the line on the core issues: vague support for abortion rights, tax cuts for middle class, free(r) higher education. medicare for all, effusive praise of immigration and "diversity", vague support of "pay equality", paying lip service to climate change.
There was some discussion around page 6. My personal take, is that he is too focused on one issue to win overall, but his one issue he is dead right about and it needs to be addressed. I said it before, and I'm going to say it again, I hope he stays until Super Tuesday just to keep his message in the public eye.Cal88 said:
So no love for Cal product Andrew Yang? His parents are Taiwanese immigrants who met as Cal grad students. I would bet they might have been I-House alums, a lot of marriages get formed there.
I like his depoliticized approach to politics, he comes in as a problem solver who is well-tuned to the modern economic challenges and a very well-defined platform compared to the field, most of which has been running on image and generalities (see Beto and Buttgieg).
Right now my ideal ticket is Tulsi-Yang, not necessarily in that order. They're the only true outsiders, and both advocate a non-interventionist foreign policy. Yang is calling for a large cut on the Pentagon budget.
https://www.yang2020.com/policies/
GBear4Life said:Unlike Obama, Kamala will have to defend her track record as DA and her escapades with Willie Brown. Obama didn't have much of a track record to defend against.golden sloth said:
It should be noted, they voted for Obama.
Kamala will, just like any other Dem candidate, toe the line on the core issues: vague support for abortion rights, tax cuts for middle class, free(r) higher education. medicare for all, effusive praise of immigration and "diversity", vague support of "pay equality", paying lip service to climate change.
She doesn't need to defend anything about Willie Brown.
It's going to come up, like the stuff Biden is having to face now. They're going to paint him as a roving molester, and her as an insider careerist who slept her way to the top. Unfair but that's politics.
Only with a dumb**it electorate who laps up the wrong kinda stuff and is deaf and blind to what's right.okaydo said:Anarchistbear said:
What could go wrong. They are both electable.
Man, Biden is going to be a disaster. Hillary was around for 24 years, but it became "30 years" thanks to Trump. Then Obama repeated the false "30 years" thing. Then Hillary repeated it. (For the record: Hillary wasn't known 30 years before the 2016 election.)
Biden has been around Washington since Beto was a baby. And he's gaffe-prone. A longtime Washington insider who's gaffe-prone has all the makings of everything going awry.
I would slash the hell out of the defense budget.Cal88 said:
So no love for Cal product Andrew Yang? His parents are Taiwanese immigrants who met as Cal grad students. I would bet they might have been I-House alums, a lot of marriages get formed there.
I like his depoliticized approach to politics, he comes in as a problem solver who is well-tuned to the modern economic challenges and a very well-defined platform compared to the field, most of which has been running on image and generalities (see Beto and Buttgieg).
Right now my ideal ticket is Tulsi-Yang, not necessarily in that order. They're the only true outsiders, and both advocate a non-interventionist foreign policy. Yang is calling for a large cut on the Pentagon budget.
https://www.yang2020.com/policies/
I would reallocate some of those troops to social causes around the country. Could be CCC type stuff for infrastructure or environmental causes, could be Teach For America, could be Americorp.... Did you know that many countries require their young adults to serve in some capacity? Could be mili or non-mili social service.
Anyways, we don't need so many bombs and munitions, and our dollars could go a hell of a lot further if we spent it differently.
I'd run a balanced budget. We need to not be devoting such a large portion of our debt to foreign nationals. Trump is worried about a trade deficit robbing wealth from our country? Gimme a break!
Really?
Is this necessary?
Is this necessary?
Military and interest on the debt. Zero Return on Investment.
Agreed. Furthermore, a substantial share of the debt servicing is due to recent military expenditure, close to 40%. As well the military budget posted above does not include the dark budget/intelligence agencies spending. The Pentagon's missing trillions give you an indication of the scale of that dark budget.
Yang mentioned a figure of $200 billion for a military budget cut.
Yang mentioned a figure of $200 billion for a military budget cut.
Which candidate can best understand this guy?
The US is doomed when interest rates rise.Cal88 said:
Agreed. Furthermore, a substantial share of the debt servicing is due to recent military expenditure, close to 40%. As well the military budget posted above does not include the dark budget/intelligence agencies spending. The Pentagon's missing trillions give you an indication of the scale of that dark budget.
Yang mentioned a figure of $200 billion for a military budget cut.
Look at a long term chart of rates and you'll see that we are at historical lows. We've been devoting perhaps 6% of our annual budget to debt service, and it's actually gone down in recent years as the average rate we pay has gone down. But it is projected that when rates normalize, our debt service percentage could double to 12% of fed budget, or worse. It then becomes a runaway train.
Which all means less money to spend on things like infrastructure, Medicare, let alone military.
I am furious at Trump for inflating the stock market via his tax cuts and stimulative deficit spending for his own current period political gain at the expense of future stability.
And it is frustrating that most Americans are fools to not see it.
Which candidate can understand this guy best?
I want someone who won't be either a selfish market manipulator nor a deer in headlights manipulated by his corrupt advisors.
Doomsday of Debt is coming. $22 Trillion and growing.
To put that into perspective, my math says that's $67,000 for every man, woman, and child. Babies and old retirees, at a time when 40% of the country can't come up with $500?
I want someone who won't be either a selfish market manipulator nor a deer in headlights manipulated by his corrupt advisors.
Doomsday of Debt is coming. $22 Trillion and growing.
To put that into perspective, my math says that's $67,000 for every man, woman, and child. Babies and old retirees, at a time when 40% of the country can't come up with $500?
"The data the unambiguous reality is sobering and startling: Since 1980, the incomes of the top 1% tripled, the top 10% doubled, and the bottom 60% of prime-age workers were flat.
History and the past half-decade here and abroad shows this is a key ingredient of populism.*
All of this also makes socialism attractive to the young, especially, but also to Democrats broadly." Axios
*The grand irony being that our Populist fraud of a POUTUS is looting America on his Crime Family's behalf and on behalf of his Top 1% buddies all the while convincing the proletariat that he is helping them and attacking the "elites."
History and the past half-decade here and abroad shows this is a key ingredient of populism.*
All of this also makes socialism attractive to the young, especially, but also to Democrats broadly." Axios
*The grand irony being that our Populist fraud of a POUTUS is looting America on his Crime Family's behalf and on behalf of his Top 1% buddies all the while convincing the proletariat that he is helping them and attacking the "elites."
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
Socialism is classically defined by a central government owning the means of production.
We don't want that, need that. It doesn't work.
Gordon Gecko was right when he said that greed works. We know why the Soviet Union failed.
People are motivated by the prospect of personal gain, and that is the mother of invention and productivity growth, not some central government schemer.
Socialism that America is considering is one where we says that the success of the many improves the success of the one. This comes via improved universal health care, universal income gains, universal rights. It's a fight against the 1% owning everything and leaving the masses in the cold.
Democratic socialism, as I understand it, is different from the fear mongering "socialism" which trump and the right want to sell to everyone.
It is an unfortunate confusion of language that Bernie Sanders has been using the socialism term. If he were to use a different term, he would take away the ability of the right to confuse everyone.
We don't want that, need that. It doesn't work.
Gordon Gecko was right when he said that greed works. We know why the Soviet Union failed.
People are motivated by the prospect of personal gain, and that is the mother of invention and productivity growth, not some central government schemer.
Socialism that America is considering is one where we says that the success of the many improves the success of the one. This comes via improved universal health care, universal income gains, universal rights. It's a fight against the 1% owning everything and leaving the masses in the cold.
Democratic socialism, as I understand it, is different from the fear mongering "socialism" which trump and the right want to sell to everyone.
It is an unfortunate confusion of language that Bernie Sanders has been using the socialism term. If he were to use a different term, he would take away the ability of the right to confuse everyone.
Capitalism works.
Capitalism with low tax rates and with low redistribution that allows the masses to benefit from it as well does not work.
The answer to the current problem in America is NOT socialism.
Capitalism with low tax rates and with low redistribution that allows the masses to benefit from it as well does not work.
The answer to the current problem in America is NOT socialism.
This is a very good read. Capitalism as business works but it has limits and its methods do not work for everything. America has fallen in love with biz-talk BS applied to everything, even if it doesn't work. Frankly if you read the article you'll understand it's a big con job.
Here's what's wrong with letting wealthy people solve the world's problems
Here's what's wrong with letting wealthy people solve the world's problems
Quote:
He began to question that presumption even as he noticed that it was echoed everywhereamong politicians, and even among friends of his who were once activists. Yet to Giridharadas, it was not that obvious anymore that the same corporations focused on turning profits are best equipped to decide what the public needs and how to provide it, or that their CEOs know what's right for society and should be revered as "thought leaders."
The problem came into sharp relief in 2013 at a fellows meeting. During lunch, sponsored by Goldman Sachs, representatives of the financial institution trumpeted all they'd done for female entrepreneurs through their global 10,000 Women initiative. During the question session, Giridharadas remarked, "I find it strange that no one here has mentioned Goldman's role in the financial crisis." He'd finally had had enough of "robber barons lecturing on social justice," he says. His criticism was well-received by some in the room.
Yes. The term is used disingenuously on both sides of the ideological paradigm.concordtom said:
Socialism is classically defined by a central government owning the means of production.
We don't want that, need that. It doesn't work.
Democratic socialism, as I understand it, is different from the fear mongering "socialism" which trump and the right want to sell to everyone.
It is an unfortunate confusion of language that Bernie Sanders has been using the socialism term. If he were to use a different term, he would take away the ability of the right to confuse everyone.
All western capitalist economies are forms of democratic socialism. The problem is neither side can acknowledge that we already have democratic socialism and that it is necessary to provide stability
The other problem is neither side articulates what is the appropriate level of progressive-tax-supported programs is appropriate. They won't because it's often not politically expedient, they can't because they are ideologues. Ideologues can't address specific problems because that's not what ideologies are meant to do.
There's a case to be made for more/less and different arenas to tax and spend money. We also pretend like there are no public benefits if you're not rich.
-Medicaid
-Free k-12 ed
-Food stamps
-Cash aid
-Housing subsidies
-Guaranteed financing for Higher Ed
-Grants for higher Ed
-Free/subsidized public transportation
-50% state/fed income tax rates top bracket
-NEGATIVE effective tax rates for the poor
I'm sure I'm forgetting some.
I'm for universal health care (and private insurance for those that want it), but the narrative that we don't already have a substantial safety net and public resourced network of resources for the poor is disingenuous.
That we can do more or allocate funds differently is a different topic.
A perfect combination of virtue signaling, ignorance, bigotry. Only someone who spent a lot of time on a college campus is capable of saying something that vapid.concordtom said:agree strongly with all, except the first bold. There are NO valid reasons for having voted for trump.ducky23 said:
Sure I get that. And I hate stereotyping. And I get that there may had been "some" valid reasons to vote for trump and not Hillary. But it's just very very difficult for me to give the benefit of the doubt to any state that voted for trump.
Being a red state is fine (such as a state who may have voted for a McCain or Romney or even bush), but to be a trump state? I have zero confidence that such a state can vote for a trump one year and then a black woman 4 years later.
I'd love to be wrong though
When he announced, I said it was a joke, and nothing during his campaign or presidency has contradicted that.
If you voted for trump, you should forever hang your head in shame.
Don't tell your grandchildren. You will go down in the family history book as that idiot who did so, similar to those who shamefully have ancestors who had slaves, or Germans who were nazis.
Shame, shame!
I'm afraid you're gonna have to dive into details for clarity sake if you wanted me to understand what the heck you are talking about. Thanks.GBear4Life said:A perfect combination of virtue signaling, ignorance, bigotry. Only someone who spent a lot of time on a college campus is capable of saying something that vapid.concordtom said:agree strongly with all, except the first bold. There are NO valid reasons for having voted for trump.ducky23 said:
Sure I get that. And I hate stereotyping. And I get that there may had been "some" valid reasons to vote for trump and not Hillary. But it's just very very difficult for me to give the benefit of the doubt to any state that voted for trump.
Being a red state is fine (such as a state who may have voted for a McCain or Romney or even bush), but to be a trump state? I have zero confidence that such a state can vote for a trump one year and then a black woman 4 years later.
I'd love to be wrong though
When he announced, I said it was a joke, and nothing during his campaign or presidency has contradicted that.
If you voted for trump, you should forever hang your head in shame.
Don't tell your grandchildren. You will go down in the family history book as that idiot who did so, similar to those who shamefully have ancestors who had slaves, or Germans who were nazis.
Shame, shame!
Totally.GBear4Life said:Yes. The term is used disingenuously on both sides of the ideological paradigm.concordtom said:
Socialism is classically defined by a central government owning the means of production.
We don't want that, need that. It doesn't work.
Democratic socialism, as I understand it, is different from the fear mongering "socialism" which trump and the right want to sell to everyone.
It is an unfortunate confusion of language that Bernie Sanders has been using the socialism term. If he were to use a different term, he would take away the ability of the right to confuse everyone.
All western capitalist economies are forms of democratic socialism. The problem is neither side can acknowledge that we already have democratic socialism and that it is necessary to provide stability
The other problem is neither side articulates what is the appropriate level of progressive-tax-supported programs is appropriate. They won't because it's often not politically expedient, they can't because they are ideologues. Ideologues can't address specific problems because that's not what ideologies are meant to do.
There's a case to be made for more/less and different arenas to tax and spend money. We also pretend like there are no public benefits if you're not rich.
-Medicaid
-Free k-12 ed
-Food stamps
-Cash aid
-Housing subsidies
-Guaranteed financing for Higher Ed
-Grants for higher Ed
-Free/subsidized public transportation
-50% state/fed income tax rates top bracket
-NEGATIVE effective tax rates for the poor
I'm sure I'm forgetting some.
I'm for universal health care (and private insurance for those that want it), but the narrative that we don't already have a substantial safety net and public resourced network of resources for the poor is disingenuous.
That we can do more or allocate funds differently is a different topic.
I'm not sure the argument is that we have NO public safety net, more that it's not as good and/or affordable as it used to be. In the case of education that seems pretty clearly true, and also for much of the other stuff on that list. This also feeds into the question about the top tax rate: people know that it used to be much steeper, so seeing it at 50% seems comparatively unfair.GBear4Life said:Yes. The term is used disingenuously on both sides of the ideological paradigm.concordtom said:
Socialism is classically defined by a central government owning the means of production.
We don't want that, need that. It doesn't work.
Democratic socialism, as I understand it, is different from the fear mongering "socialism" which trump and the right want to sell to everyone.
It is an unfortunate confusion of language that Bernie Sanders has been using the socialism term. If he were to use a different term, he would take away the ability of the right to confuse everyone.
All western capitalist economies are forms of democratic socialism. The problem is neither side can acknowledge that we already have democratic socialism and that it is necessary to provide stability
The other problem is neither side articulates what is the appropriate level of progressive-tax-supported programs is appropriate. They won't because it's often not politically expedient, they can't because they are ideologues. Ideologues can't address specific problems because that's not what ideologies are meant to do.
There's a case to be made for more/less and different arenas to tax and spend money. We also pretend like there are no public benefits if you're not rich.
-Medicaid
-Free k-12 ed
-Food stamps
-Cash aid
-Housing subsidies
-Guaranteed financing for Higher Ed
-Grants for higher Ed
-Free/subsidized public transportation
-50% state/fed income tax rates top bracket
-NEGATIVE effective tax rates for the poor
I'm sure I'm forgetting some.
I'm for universal health care (and private insurance for those that want it), but the narrative that we don't already have a substantial safety net and public resourced network of resources for the poor is disingenuous.
That we can do more or allocate funds differently is a different topic.
Health insurance is another matter. The USA never had fully universal health care, but the calls for it are related to: (1) skyrocketing health care costs for the uninsured and (2) the fact that so many other countries already guarantee health care to all citizens. Again, it's about the comparative benefit.
Demagoguing happens, of course, but I'm not sure you're giving enough credit for how much nuance already exists in the public debate. The above arguments are made (in some form or another) by liberal politicians and pundits routinely.
Featured Stories
See All
Nohl Williams Named Consensus All-American
by Cal Athletics
Depleted Bears Fall to #24 UNLV in LA Bowl, 24-13
by Jim McGill
Cal Squares Off With No. 24 UNLV At LA Bowl
by Cal Athletics
Bear Insider Podcast #E102: Cal vs UNLV - LA Bowl Preview
by Mike Pawlawski
The Rodcast: Cal-Stanford Breakdown
by Rod Benson