chasfh

Tens of thousands of people. 😁

I saw that pitch sailing out there and thought ****, that’s gonna get by Dinger for a run, but not only did he snag it, a swing and miss by Santander to win the game. Man, what a win. Go Reds!

**** the no-hitter. We have to have this game.

Just a reminder that the game is 27 outs, not 26.

The ship that has sailed is the idea that no-hitter as can be only solo efforts.

I’ve gotten hammered by people for mentioning it while watching a game on TV with them. As if it would make any difference, or I were the only one in the world doing so.

The jinx pertains only to speaking to the pitcher about it.

Not a very special game through eight, but a special game nevertheless. People will dismiss it because it’s combined, but get used to it because the ship has sailed. What I’ll be interested to see, if this happens, is whether all of a sudden everyone is going to be talking about the Tigers’ pitching strategy of openers, bulk relievers, and matchup specialists.

Yeah, we're talking past each other. That's fine. 😃

Pete said the Trump campaign is talking crazy because he doesn't want to talk about his record. Why wouldn't he want to talk about his record? Presumably because the campaign believes talking about his record would hurt Trump on Election Day. Follow now?

If the default assumption by both sides in this election is that the other side is already fully committed, then what's the difference to Pete whether Trump brings the crazy or instead talks about his record? According to the assumption, it's going to come out the same either way.

Meaning, drive more turnout among red hats? I think that would be offset by an increase in turnout against Trump, maybe even more than. In any event, Pete is implying that Trump is talking crazy instead of talking about his record because his record would dampen turnout among red hats, I guess, once they realize that how badly they're being ****ed by Trump's 1%. That's different from him saying he's talking crazy to goose red hat turnout. Same presumed result, perhaps, but different idea he's putting across. Maybe it all comes down to Pete merely signaling to his own base.

What's the over/under on how long before the heat surrounding Loomer gets so intense that Trump has to play his ... ahem ... trump card, "I don't really know her at all?" I'm thinking maybe 48 hours, meaning by 130pm Eastern on Saturday. Who wants this action?

School officials will have finish today's gender reassignment surgeries first, of course, before they release the students to their parents.

Believe it or not, Miller won that round.

I know all this, but what is the calculation being made by the Trump campaign that talking about his record will lose him more votes than talking about immigrants eating pets and geese? That's what Pete seems to be suggesting.

How is it getting Trump more votes/less vote loss?

OK, this is a smart-sounding take and all, but how does Trump talking about Haitians eating dogs and cats help him achieve a net gain on Kamala, or limit his net loss against her, when it comes to voting? Pete makes it sound like Trump will lose more votes against Kamala if we talk about his record, but to me, a major candidate having a psychotic episode on stage in front of 60+ million viewers would seem to be more damaging when it comes to the net margin, wouldn't it? I mean, that's what we saw in the first debate, isn't it? Highlighting Trump's record won't motivate Democrats to vote more than highlighting his crazy, will it? And isn't the crazy going to hurt him with undecideds and fence-sitters and party-jumpers just as much if not more than his record? And talking about Trump's record isn't going to keep more red hats home than cat- or dog-eating because they reject any disparagement of his record as fake news anyway, don't they? So what am I missing in this analysis?

Or idly loiter near any open top floor windows ...

"It's not a lie if you believe it." By that definition, I think Trump himself believes he does not lie, because I think he believes the untruths he spouts. But it doesn't matter either way, because whether he is technically lying or technically making an honest misstatement, what he says is just as untrue either way.

I don't see how it brings new people in the tent or motivates his base to go to the polls. He must simply want to see the blood flow. Maybe he thinks that's what will help him win.

I'm not sure I understand the nature of the question.

I understand what people do and how they define things. That's not what I'm talking about. I'm just saying, I don't believe the idea of people being inherently "good" or inherently "evil" really holds water. I agree with you there are people we refer to as "evil", and they can probably be fairly characterized as acting without consideration or regret. That's undeniable, and it's perfectly reasonable to refer to their behavior, their acts, as being evil. My question is: are these people actually "evil"? I mean, constitutionally, at their core. If so, then where does this evil actually come from? Why are these people evil, and what makes them like that? What is the nature of evil? I think it makes a great deal of difference which words we use to describe this and how we use them. A lot of people believe that "good" and "evil" come from supernatural beings that control our behavior. God makes us do good; Satan makes us do evil. Or maybe some people don't label it as "God" and "Satan", but at the same time, they still believe there's something inherent in a person's spirit, rather than their mind, that leads them to behave in a persistently good or evil fashion. But if that's the case, wouldn't such "evil" have to come from somewhere? Something must be leading people to this behavior, mustn't it? Because we can all see that the behavior is undeniably there. There must be something behind it—something in them is failing. My question is, what is the nature of the failure? Is it a spiritual failure, or a physical failure? You may not think it matters even a little. Most people don't. They just label people as "good" or "evil", mainly because it's simple and direct and then they don't have to think too deeply about it anymore. But I think it does matter a great deal, because this question affects the policies our society undertakes to deal with people who behave in dangerous and/or violent antisocial ways. And which policies get implemented depends a great deal on what policymakers believe about people, and that belief is almost certainly rooted in their childhood and what they were taught at home and in school. Here's why I think it's a policy consideration: If we believe in "evil"—if we believe that there is some supernatural being who is the source of all evil, a being that influences evil, and whose mission is to lead people to act in an evil manner—well, then, there's nothing we can do to stop it, is there? Our power as mere human beings pales against the power of this supernatural being, so all we can do to react to it is wait for the evil to happen, lock up the people influenced or otherwise overtaken by the evil, and trust that those people will eventually receive their true cosmic punishment after they die. That is, in fact, the exact policy that civilizations have been following for centuries, and that many—too many, I think—still employ today. On the other hand, if we believe that people act in a certain way for a reason—whether due to a systemic failure that creates an incentive to behave badly, or a learning at the knee of an authority figure where they learned an entire framework of bad behavior, or a physical problem such as brain damage or mental illness that leads people to do really bad things for no apparent reason—then we can embrace the idea that we can do something to stop this behavior, to change the systems, to undo damaged learning, to provide proper health services, and to undertake efforts to do so. The key difference is that in the former case, the only way to combat the "evil" is to petition really hard to the Supernatural Being of Good to defeat the Supernatural Being of Bad and touch the hearts of people to become "good". In the latter case, the way to combat it would be to apply scientific rigor and analysis to understand the systemic problems that lead to warped incentives, or to understand the physical problems that lead to inexplicable bad behavior, and then test and improve the methods to combat the factors leading to the behavior. In the former case, we push off the responsibility of change to beings we trust but cannot interact with, and simply wait and hope for results. In the latter case, we take on the responsibility for change unto ourselves and undertake the hard work to make results happen. That's the policy consideration at hand. And this is why I see it as a religious issue, or, if you prefer, an existential question, although that doesn't preclude it from being a practical consideration as well. So what is the problem? Is it that people who do bad things are simply evil? Or is it that people who do bad things are badly incentivized or poorly taught or mentally damaged?

Nobody's trading Skubal.

Blowback from whom?