mtutiger

Keith also looks the closest to getting out of this stretch... approach is good, hits the ball hard, etc.

Defense is a big reason for my tone shift on Torkelson.... I'd be more willing to be patient if he could field decently, but that two week stretch where he was booting balls left and right raises a ton of questions about his overall ceiling. Having said all of that, despite the difference in usefulness / tools, Meadows is tricky for the exact same reason you state up top.... he needs reps. Sure, he can be a little more useful while being overall a drag on the team because of speed and defense, but it's not good for his development if he's in a purely bench role or late pinch runner role, he has to be playing. Same with Colt Keith as well.

Yeah, I think he's going to have to do something fairly quickly or risk being out of the starting lineup (in pinch hitting mode as kdog has suggested) or sent down. We're not there yet, AJ and Scott probably aren't there yet, but it's getting closer IMO. In general though, at least on the SM, it seems to have reignited the debate about whether they should have brought Chapman in or whoever (who, btw, only has a 0.642 OPS at the moment), but the fact remains that the long term success of this team rests on these younger players. Even beyond Spencer Torkelson, Colt Keith and Parker Meadows.... all of them did what they needed to do in Toledo, sending them down may help for a reset but, in terms of gaining experience, there's nothing to be gained by that. And at some point, you have to give players runway to sink or swim. You have to be able to find out who these guys are and whether they fit into the long term plans. In the larger context of this being a much improved team over previous seasons, it's not ideal. But its the reality.... and it would have been the reality regardless of whether they signed a Matt Chapman or JD Martinez or whoever.

Two of the best ABs of the season right there, back 2 back

JK Simmons could probably hit better than these guys lol

Amazing.

On another note, it's amazing how Trump didn't so much drain the swamp more than he restocked it with new alligators lol

Yeah, this is the part that's a mystery to me.... could always be some sort of uberwealthy donor (think like Larry Ellison or Peter Thiel or someone like that) rather than Ma and Pa MAGA

That would be my guess as well.... although it'll be interesting to see what the share price is at that point lol

Correct. As a theoretical exercise, it's clear that there's a path to doing it. In actuality, as even the AP article from March states, it's not without complication or without possible legal issues arising from such a move.

I read the article at the time, but the excerpt again kinda paints the picture of a process that is complicated and not without legal pitfalls. So I'll believe it when I see it.

I'll believe it when I see it.

Maybe, although he still can't liquidate any of the shares for five more months, I believe.

That may be part of it.... I also think the polls being more favorable to Trump this time around may be leading to some complacency as well (ie. he's already leading and got it in the bag, why do I need to donate?)

As much as people speculate about Biden and "one heartbeat away" and all of that, boy, that should matter with Trump too. Rubio is a disappointment, but there's a little bit of brain matter still going on there as disappointing as the guy is. Vance, on the other hand, seems more like a modern day Manchurian Candidate to me.... just something really really off there.

Also, the lackluster fundraising from small donors relative to 2020 during this campaign tells me that there isn't that sort of enthusiasm for Trump this time around. Doesn't mean he can't win at the ballot box, obviously....

JD Vance would be such a disaster.... as such, I suspect he's the favorite.

Agreed completely. There's a view of the college experience that is advanced or pushed in media more generally that tends to overrate the Ivies or even the higher prestige private or state schools (ie. UMich, Cal, Northwestern, etc.) that is not emblematic of the median college student. At even at *those* institutions, 95%+ percent of students are not out on lawns protesting right now. I'm pretty sure the two institutions that I have attended (Michigan Tech and UT-Arlington) have not had protests, and I suspect both of these institutions are closer to the median in terms of the average college in America than the Ivies are. As far as the politicians stunting off of these, it's a really huge pet peeve considering many of these politicians (ie. Josh Hawley, Ted Cruz, among others) hold degrees from these same institutions and undoubtedly will be tripping all over themselves to send their kids to their alma mater over sending them to a simple state school.

Five years on, it looks like Labour is rebuilding the Red Wall

This is what makes it hard... you try to take nuanced views on this conflict and even just the underlying passion that exists among the protestors; whether I agree with them or not, or think they are naive, I understand that some (or maybe even most) of these protestors are coming from a good place. But then you read stuff like this and it becomes clear that protests are aimless, pointless and are being undermined by people that are not even students at these institutions. And it becomes clear that they are doing more damage than they are doing any actual good. Not just in contemporary politics, but to the cause that they are ultimately trying to advance in a pluralistic society.

This shouldn't go unnoticed... that's ridiculous. Like, people are presented with all sorts of hardships while in school that do not allow professors to give this level of deference on exams. How on earth is this defensible?

To quote Slim Pickens in Blazing Saddles... "What in the wide wide world of sports is 'a goin' on here???"

Even going beyond that issue, he's also shown himself to be pretty right wing on I/P and some other issues as well.... My guess is that Bannon thought he'd be a pretty good avatar for discontent, especially with the last name, but even that assumption is flawed (especially when you consider the demographic changes of the GOP/Dem parties over time, the fact that JFK Jr. is a holy figure in Q, etc.)

Right, in terms of public opinion, things change when there is a direct connection between Americans and the issue. Something that, for better or worse, largely doesn't exist here; any number of issues, including the economy, immigration, abortion rights, etc., impact the average person far more acutely than this issue does. I don't think that it's all about Trump, at least for the vast majority of these protestors, but I do think in the macro it's a primal scream for attention from a public that doesn't care as much about this cause as much as they do. But the rub is that by doing things like blocking interstates and vandalizing university buildings, while they may raise the salience somewhat, they are also likely to generate negative feelings toward the cause. It's just incredibly counterproductive.... not just with these protests but with previous less, publicized ones, I don't know that these folks know or care how negative the perceptions are.