gehringer_2

31 minutes ago, pfife said:

Piker was also talking about Newsome vs JV Dance in 2028 but every post since acted like it was Newsome vs Trump, or at least glossed over any difference JVDance instead of trump would make in the voting calculus.

Newsom seems to be on a bit of a popularity roll in CA recently.

Just as discussion - I tend to think CA is not quite as progressive as people in other parts of the country think. There is a lot of upper middle class suburbia in CA and those people are never really that far from a low tax GOP that could bring itself back to sanity. Plus, as Trump was able to leverage in FLA for example, the Hispanic population is not as liberal on social issues as progressives are either, but of course for the time being the GOP has now totally poisoned the well with whatever support Trump got from them in 2024.. But still, if you take immigration/racism off the table in a post Trump GOP (of course not likely but just spitballing here) that's another population that's not just going to fall in line lockstep with a strongly progressive Dem party. So bottom line, I won't be surprised to see a lot of intraparty sparks fly if (when!) Newsom decides he's running in '28.

Personally, I have trouble trusting guys with perfect hair (Clinton, Newsom, Romney, Trump all qualify there)

1 minute ago, Tiger337 said:

Perhaps, it is the hope that they can start some kind of momentum.  Ross Perot got 19% of the vote in 1992.  That's a lot votes.  It didn't go anywhere, but perhaps the right person in the right time could change that. 

Yeah - There might have been enough voter sentiment to get a third party going at that point but Ross wasn't really interested in building a movement, he just wanted to be President. I tend to think if a new party takes hold - probably eventually displacing one of the main ones, it will start local, become a established presence in a few states first, then organize nationally once they have an established constituency. I don't see the likelihood of a viable new party coming out of independent Presidential bids.

6 minutes ago, Tiger337 said:

That is the most probable outcome.  It sounds like he has a high floor and I think think there is a good chance he makes the opening day roster, but I would expect some troubles initially.  

I'll be curious to see where they play him and how many places they play him in ST.

3 minutes ago, Tiger337 said:

A real example of what I think PFife is talking about (I think):

There are a LOT of people (including very smarts ones) who think that we are screwed whether we have a democracy, a dictatorship or something in between because of global warming.  They think that neither party comes close to addressing the issue in a meaningful way.  Why should they vote for either party?  I'm not really with them because I don't know enough about it to know how bad it's going to get or how, so I vote for a democracy.  However, if I shared their dire views, I sure wouldn't worry about our form of government over the world surviving.   

I don't have any trouble understanding people who feel participating in the system is pointless.  I don't agree with the sentiment but I understand it. And for those people, I can't say I see the point of voting 3rd party either (or voting at all FTM), not from any political angle in this case but just that it's a pure waste  of their time to participate at all if they believe the system is irredeemable. Which ties back to the idea of casting a pointless vote as some kind of private  protest or ego gratification. Maybe it makes someone feel like they have poked the system in eye, but the system doesn't feel a thing and doesn't care.

What the discussion here focuses on for me is the practical value of various voting strategies once one has decided they do care about the process/outcome.

1 hour ago, Screwball said:

Don't we need money for this to happen?

What's this "we"?(🫤) 'They' don't need us at all. All that money that used to go to the middle class - it's driving the markets just fine right where it is, and that isn't anywhere we are.

29 minutes ago, NorthWoods said:

 

Jason Mackey

@JMackeyPG

·

1h

Some sad Pirates news to report: ElRoy Face passed away. He was 97. RIP Baron of the Bullpen.

If there were a baseball name HOF, he's in it.

54 minutes ago, Deleterious said:

But there is no reason he couldn't have put up a few threes in the Toronto game.  They beat the Knicks by 38, fire up some shots.  

this - for sure.

12 minutes ago, buddha said:

"if" is doing a lot of work there. 

but he's athletic enough to think that if - there's that word again - anyone could have the coordination to learn how to shoot a basketball, its him.

I'd like to know what he does in practice. Sometimes with a super high energy player like Thompson they can hit shots in practice all day but under the pressure of game conditions there is too much adrenaline and they just can't marshall that instant of composure needed to get off an accurate shot. I'd rather it was a matter of form or footwork that he can practice his way through than that it's his style of play that make it hard for him.

34 minutes ago, chasfh said:

We were ranked 7th in runs scored before stumbling down the stretch. I don't think the problem was that the offense sucked. I think the problem was that a good offense stumbled down the stretch....

agree with all this. I don't think the Tigers are worried about the offense either. Most the key players are still either still approaching or in their primes - almost no-one on the downside other than maybe Javy and McKinstry and fair chance of adding at least one ++ hitter in McGonigle.

The flip side is that other than McGonigle and Anderson I don't see a lot of depth if guys start getting hurt. Two of the "insurance policies" from last season - Baddoo and Malloy are gone. But there are no perfect teams.

Speaking of gambling, Bitcoin is down 47% since October. Worst stretch since 2022. And the fun part, there is no theoretical bottom underpinning its value.

13 minutes ago, chasfh said:

Interesting how he said when he went to Houston in 2017 he had his "mind blown" by the analytics.

I've always felt there was a fair amount of revisionist history about 2017. I imagine part of it was just that JV wanted (quite properly) to say good things about his new team and team mates  - and I don't care what anyone ever says, nobody gets traded from their first team and doesn't have mixed feelings at best about the management they are leaving.

The truth was he was already back pretty much to 100% form in Detroit before he left.  In his last 11 Tigers starts his era was 2.31, he struck out 84 in 74 IP against only 20BB, and only gave up more than 3 runs once. The idea that he had to get to Houston the figure how to pitch again doesn't really square with the facts. That's not to say Houston wasn't doing a much better job with their analysis, just that that wasn't what made the difference for JV. The real change came in about June while he was still in Det and recovered his old arm angle, which he had gotten away from during the abdominal injury. That brought back the old fastball, and with the better FB, the effectiveness on all his breaking stuff, which he said Houston helped with, went up. But every breaking ball is tougher opposite a better FB.

23 minutes ago, pfife said:

Jeez that 'since 2003' wpuld include the great recession.   Thats spectacularly bad.

The headline sentence appears to just be wrong. He's actually excepting years in actual recession (2008,2009,2020). Sort of saying "the worst year except for the ones that were even worser."  Worst non-recession year since 2003 is still saying a lot though. Another example of how GDP, which is what defines recessions, is not really coupled to the economic outcome for most workers anymore.

2 hours ago, Tiger337 said:

Right, Flaherty did better in stats which are predictive of future performance including things like stuff+ which attempt to directly measure ability.  

How do stats measure mental stamina?  Flaherty's problems don't seem to be related to his physical pitching abilities at all, the deficits seem to be more in his concentration/mental energy. That could be one reason besides just bad luck that his stats look better than his results. Of course if that is that case it's also the kind of thing a guy might get better at mastering as this matures more.

5 hours ago, IdahoBert said:

Justin Verlander revealed he called Scott Harris, Chris Ilitch, and AJ Hinch “as soon as the season ended.” He wanted to return to the Tigers.

“I grew up in front of the fans in Detroit. I grew up in Detroit,” he said Thursday.

“At first, it didn't seem like there was much room for me. We had some very candid conversations, Scott and I, and unfortunately, there were some things that happened recently where some innings they were planning on — aren't going to be filled, so l think that opened the door. That's not the way you want it to go. Obviously, a lot of young talent here. They've done a great job of bringing guys in. But I'm happy to wear the Old English 'D' again and happy to be here.” 

— Brad Galli WXYZ

One thing about JV is that he has always seemed like a guy with his feet firmly planted on the ground. I can respect a guy that reported his situation with that kind of candor and tact.

4 hours ago, chasfh said:

As would your recent advice that the voter just stay home if they're not going to vote for one of the two front-running horses. Both voting for the third party guy and staying home yield the same result for the two horses. So what is it we really talking about here?

actually that is more or less where I was going. If you find both options that are viable candidates to win morally objectionable, no-one is forcing you to vote, but whether you don't vote or vote Quixotically you haven't helped your cause either way, which why I think the choice if you are concerned about an issue that is not at play between the viable candidates is to look for some other avenue to be active on that issue.

But TBH, I don't think we are being particularly realistic by allowing the voter to say he *really* can't see enough difference between the two viable candidates to make a choice he believes is better overall. I'll allow that in 350M people I am sure there are some for whom that was really true, but most who parroted the cynicism that 'there was no difference between the parties' and then cast  a 3rd party vote in any election since 2016 were either being willfully blind or unserious citizens. 

That is about as clearly as I can state what I believe on the issue.

Look - you engaged me in this thread - I was responding to @ewsieg. You asked me a question - I gave you an answer and you've got your panties all in a bunch. If you don't want an answer, don't ask a question.

2 minutes ago, pfife said:

But I didn't vote to kill my spouse.  That you would seemingly conclude someone do that is really something

And, your logic fails again because you again just waived your hand like a wizard and supplanted MY reasoning (not voting to kill my spouse) for MY vote with YOUR reasoning (keeping spouse alive) for MY vote.  

That was the second time.  The first time you did it was when I said the reasoning for the vote was b/c the pol supported policies that hurt someone I care about, and you just ignored that and supplanted it with "what's best for the country" in response.

 

No hand waving at all. Your vote did no good, it made no difference. That sucks when you want to believe voting is a chance to stand for what you want, but it's the reality of it. The reality of who may win an election and who can not is not a matter of my hand waving or yours it just is what it is. Not all change is in play in any given election, it may have to be worked at by other means. Which is why if there is no choice you can make that you can realistically believe is both useful and morally supportable, don't vote -- go work on the issue by other means.

30 minutes ago, pfife said:

candidate a:  has chance to win, supports policy that voter thinks would result in death of spouse within 2 years.

candidate b:  has chance to win, supports policy that voter thinks would result in death of spouse within 2 years, but country would be better.

candidate c :   has no chance to win, but explicitly does not support policy that voter things would result in death of spouse within 2 years. 

 

your reasoning:  everyone owes their vote to candidate b.  and if you had the audacity to NOT vote for candidate B, you, not everyone who voted for Candiate A, are responsible for everything candidate A does.

 

Me: I'm not voting to kill my spouse.   

The weakness in your logic is that your vote still did nothing to help keep your spouse stay alive and if it helped elect candidate A instead of candidate B maybe you helped kill someone else's spouse.

In this hypothetical, your vote is going to make no difference to the policy that may kill your spouse regardless. You simply have to find other ways to work against that policy than your vote.

10 minutes ago, pfife said:

What if you dont want to vote for a politician because they will maintain policies you think make things worse for people you care about?

Or is that trumped by some self appointed decider of others' votes decided differently?

If a person seriously can't decide which of the candidates that has a chance to win is overall better for the country, my advice would be for them to stay home.

5 minutes ago, IdahoBert said:

I drink one or two 12-16 oz. servings of coffee a day. I grind Ethiopian beans and usually brew a rounded 1/4 cup in a French press. And if it allegedly helps me not have dementia I’m all for it.

Every morning, I wake up, and I smoke a cigarette. And then I eat five strips of bacon. And for lunch, I eat a bacon sandwich. And for a midday snack?  Bacon!  A whole damn plate!

And I usually drink my dinner. 

4 minutes ago, ewsieg said:

100% correct. No one should argue with this.  Spot On ...... but, go with me on this.  Let's just imagine a time where you weren't happy with the top two candidates so you said 'screw it' and voted for Gary Johnson.  Let's just say I understand what MB is saying.

Why does a person vote? Is it an exercise in ego gratification to make himself feel good, or is the purpose to try and make his country a better place for he and his fellow citizens?

The fact that a person 'made a statement' with their vote does exactly who besides his own ego any good?

25 minutes ago, Deleterious said:

 

Easy enough to understand if Miller assumed Dunn had touched the ball  - and since Dunn was  signalling to Miller to pick up the ball why would Miller think anything else? 

1 minute ago, gehringer_2 said:

WTF is the Pentagon going to do with coal? Sit off shore of the South China Sea and chuck chunks of it at the Chinese PLA?

I take it back, I have just the answer, they can fill up all those warehouses that DHS is buying that have no other good purpose.

1 minute ago, pfife said:

Socialism

 

WTF is the Pentagon going to do with coal? Sit off shore of the South China Sea and chuck chunks of it at the Chinese PLA?

7 hours ago, Shinzaki said:

could this benefit Joseph?

 

here's a link to a more complete story

https://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2025/11/joint-cartilage-aging.html

 I would guess the trick here is getting it to grow where you want but not where you don't want.