chasfh

I knew all those write-in votes for Michelle Obama didn't go to waste! 💀

Do I? Who? Share a post with me if you have it.

OK, so, Craig Monroe was ordered to leave the ballpark within minutes of the post coming to light, even though the post was deleted in those minutes between when it was posted and when he was sent packing. That tells me pretty conclusively that the Tigers and Bally were waiting for any opportunity to get rid of him. I can't hazard a guess as to what else might have been happening between the scenes, but I could see during the very first broadcast that star jock Craig Monroe was big-timing Jason Benetti, the nerdy gimpy new kid with the googly eyes, and I gotta believe that had at least something to do with it. The thing from the story that practically shocked me was that Monroe was not even an employee of either Bally or the team, that he was a contractor working on a game-to-game basis without health or any other benefits, and without any guaranteed minimum of games. I don't know whether that's common for in-game analysts for the Tigers, or for teams in general. Point is, though, we have most definitely seen the last of Craig Monroe, and speaking only in terms of his performance on the air, I couldn't be happier about it.

This is what news as a profit center looks like.

How do people you know look when they hit 84?

From the Department of Careful What You Wish For:

And yet despite it being there and available to all, the impression voters have is still that Trump is way more physcially and mentally fit to be president: https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2024/04/24/voters-views-of-biden-and-trump/ And I promise you these top two numbers are no better for Biden now than they were in April. So ... now what?

Oh ****ing A, it's gonna get overturned on appeal for sure, isn't it? Damn it. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/02/nyregion/trump-sentencing-hush-money-trial.html?emc=edit_na_20240702&ref=cta&nl=breaking-news

But he doesn't look like he is, and that's the whole ball of wax, isn't it? You can rant and rave at voters on this point all you want, but they're still gonna vote based on it, so rather than shaming them for feeling it, the age/health thing has to be positioned in some way as being a non-issue, which most would agree is a tall, tall order.

I wouldn't say no one, in the absolutist sense, but I would say those who are committed are amping up the commitment, and that's a positive.

Considering who authored the op-ed is the most important thing a reader can do to properly frame what's been written—even more important than where it's published.

As I think about it, it makes total sense that donations would spike, and not fall. Biden's objectively horrific performance exposed huge fault lines in our democratic republic, the kind that could end the whole thing in the wrong hands. It scared people straight about how this election could slip away, and be perhaps the last free and fair election we ever see. Backs are against the wall, and when an animal gets cornered, thats' when they become the most dangerous. And make no mistake: between this, the Congress, and the courts, we are cornered. IOW, as someone once said ...

It's still ironic and funny.

Speak for yourself, asshole ...

TFW they cite articles by Baseball Crank

Now that the Court has expanded presidential powers so dramatically, Trump can eventually jusy get to the point where he kneecaps the Court along with Congress and retains all legislative and judicial powers until himself. 😉

Of course the ruling was about this specific case, but the ruling has broader implications than just this specific case, which is what I was (clearly insufficiently) alluding to. This ruling was also about more than defending this specific defendant's individual rights in this specific case. This was a ruling that opened the door for how any president going forward can use the power of the office to commit crimes for personal gain (and I know I'm inviting some Biden example from you, so have at it) and be confident that it will get all tied up in knots while whatever court they arranged to hear the case labors over whether the acts were "official" or "unofficial", and bonus, perhaps even what the meaning of the word "is" is.

Wouldn’t the opposite be that the Supreme Court defined exactly what constitutes “official” and “unofficial” acts so that lower courts could follow such guidance? Did they do that and I missed it?

All the Court did yesterday was to create the opportunity for lower courts to litigate every single thing that’s done as to whether it’s “official” or “unofficial”, with the requisite shifting interpretations attended thereto, and completely dependent on who happens to be sitting on what bench at the time.

Yeah, the season isn’t lost yet, so it’s not time for them to win yet. 😉

The Tigers have taken an official stance on this so I don’t think access is the issue here. The story doesn’t belong to the beat guys, anyway. It belongs to the newsroom.

The Orioles.

More to the point, ten games in July will be against Cleveland and six will be against Minnesota. That's two-third of all games coming against division rivals above us in the standings. This stretch will determine whether we are buying or selling this deadline.

I don't know if I agree it makes sense. I would opt for a stricter view of what a president is immune from, basically, just about nothing, under the idea that a president is a 24/7/365 job and that no action he takes in public that has any consequence can be divorced from that. I don't think he can be prosecuted for governmental actions he enacts that are strictly within the realm of service to the public, but I do think he should be held liable for governmental actions he enacts that can be shown to have enriched him personally.