chasfh

Right, agree, and here's something I haven't seen said yet: it's not only that Scott will appeal to some black conservatives who might otherwise hold their noses and vote for Biden—I think he will also appeal to white voters exactly because he is the kind of obsequious black man they feel comfortable with, aka One of the Goods Ones. Red hats don't like angry black folks, which serves as their default idea when contemplating black people in general, and Scott is the opposite of that, and that comports with their wishes, hopes, and views of what America should be: white people firmly in charge, black people cheerfully in support roles. He's a throwback, and if there's one thing red hats want, it's to throw America back to something like pre-1954. Plus, Scott can serve as a sort of Trump Translator to moderates and uncommitteds, a la Key and Peele, softening his worst messaging to try to keep them from peeling off and voting for Biden. The more I write, the more I'm talking myself into it. I don't think Trump is dumb enough or clueless enough to bring on a firebreather like he is. Hope I'm wrong, though!

Honestly, I'm not even sure what the actual problem is regarding Fani and Wade. How does their relationship prejudice the case against Trump? EDIT: Seriously, tell me how.

And the dead students, too. Not a win.

Seriously, choosing Tim Scott as VP would probably be Trump’s best move as of today. I wouldn’t worry about our losing the election because of it, but temperamentally he would be better than another fire-breather like Stefanik or a national joke like Katie Britt, because he could make actual in-roads with conservative black voters, which arguably make up the majority of that demo. Of course, then Scott would have 7-1/2 months to repeatedly shoot himself in the **** in a disqualifying manner, too, so hell, bring him on.

Naw, I can't be the first one to ever notice this ...

I may have been a little loose about "routinely", although of the 24 total pitchers who have won 300+ games, ten of them pitched in our lifetimes. So it's as possible that great pitchers could rack up 300 wins under a new deadened-ball era as it was for pitchers in the 70s, 80s and beyond to.

Put a full court press on getting players in the pipeline from populous cricket countries like India and Pakistan and that would take care of any pitching quality problem overnight someday. In the meantime, I do think there is enough pitching quality even today, particularly given how they can break down and rebuild pitchers as the Tigers appear to be doing with Troy Melton. Personally, I don't think depth of pitching quality is as big a potential problem as that of pitchers' development getting way, way ahead of hitters' development and driving down offense. The advances in velocity, movement, and pitch shape threatens to drive offense below 1968 levels at some point. It's getting to the point where the only way hitters can eat is if pitchers make mistakes.

They will have to accept more bad results after a while, such as keeping a pitcher in who's getting shelled because everyone else on the staff is totally gassed from the prior couple days. That may lead to a relaxation of the 13-pitcher rule, or maybe even expansion to 27 guys and allow 15 pitchers. Or maybe the answer is a situation where teams carry 26 on the active roster and three on a taxi squad, and they have to declare a 26-man active roster at the beginning of each series. That way they can keep 13 active pitchers at all times and have three more pitchers in reserve on the squad, for a total of 16 pitchers in the bigs. Baseball would have to work with the Players on rules for it, so teams can't keep the pitchers on the taxi squad indefinitely. Maybe the rule should be, teams have to rotate out all three taxi squad spots every new series, so that no players spend consecutive series on the taxi squad. Something like that.

Al Avila deserves all the credit for picking Melton in the draft. The only thing the pitching development people did was break him down completely and rebuild him from scratch. They would have never been able to do that if Al hadn't picked Melton for them in the first place. Al set them up to succeed. He's a genius. Rehire Al. 😉

Can't win, don't try!

I was so hoping at that moment that we had ended Aaron Rodgers' career.

Obviously a Hamashole.

Even better! The Party will control and disseminate the fascism message like Twitter appears to be trending toward.

Which is why it will never happen, so get used to four-inning starting pitcher outings, and maybe even one time through the lineup max for each pitcher.

Barry Goldwater might have alleged so ...

Deaden the ball and great pitchers can routinely achieve 300 career wins once again.

All Tik Tok has to do is promise to promote Trump more and the Party will drop its objections.

But everyone is so mean to him. 😭

Sure why not

Yeah, man, welcome to the ... to the ... wait, what was that again? Welcome to the cab? Welcome to the crib? The club? The clip? I forget ...

Oh yeah, we'll be fine, and like I say, it almost certainly doesn't fit into our plans. But I'd sure be OK with it.

I used to hang out at Tech Plaza when I was a kid. I would play pinball at Cunningham's; go to Kresge or Kmart for a frozen coke or cherry (small: 15¢; large: 25¢, plus a penny tax) or a coke and fries (under a buck!); flip through albums at Music Man; read some books at Metro Bookstore; maybe get a hot fudge sundae at Sanders or a chili dog at Grecian Palace. Anytime we needed new clothes, mom would take us to Penney's or Thom McAn. Dad would get new tires at the Firestone. There was even a Kmart Foods grocery store there for a time. Now ... a complete dump. A Walmart and I don't know what else. Bombers could probably tell us what's still there.

Is the age of consent in Michigan still 16? That's kind of mind-blowing if it is, but if someone wanted to call a 16-year-old female in Michigan a "woman" because of that, it would be at least defensible. Although the state should just raise age of consent to 18 and remove any doubt. But I'm pretty sure that one thing we can all agree on (I would think) is that a 13-year-old is not a "woman" by any definition—except, apparently, CNN's. I could see this decision as being political correctness run amok, but really, I couldn't give less of a sht if a 17-year-old get her nose out of joint for being called a "girl" instead of a "woman". If an 18-year-old gets her nose out of joint about it, then yes, she has a legitimate beef.

What's the problem with "underage female"? What quarters would that flak come from?

Good lord, I can't believe CNN actually wrote this in their story about Roman Polanski, talking about the 13-year-old he sexually assaulted: https://view.newsletters.cnn.com/messages/171029497459629e4f556d7e7/raw Prosecuting Polanski: Roman Polanski will face a Los Angeles civil trial in August 2025 for allegedly raping an underage woman in 1973, a judge determined Tuesday. I mean, come on—you gotta be kidding me here. There is no such thing as an “underage woman”. A female is either a woman or a girl, and a girl who has not reached the age of majority is a girl and not a woman, full stop. By stating that an underage female is a woman, the implication, however inadvertent, is that she is a valid option as a sexual partner for an adult, because legally speaking, an adult is allowed to have sex with women, but not girls. That’s basically the dividing line of what separates a “woman” from a “girl”! And even though the phrase “underage girl” is redundant, it is certainly far better than the falsehood that an underage girl can be considered a woman at the same time. This first struck me when some sports website a few years ago referred to a "high school women's basketball team", which is possible only if the entire team is the age of majority or over. The total lack of exactitude of this kind of thing just drives me bonkers. This is a stark example of either sloppy thinking or political correctness, and in this case, neither is good.