chasfh

And just like that, it’s as though none of that even happened. Foley and his closer mentality saves the day!

Baddoo saves one runner …

Oh, wow, don’t tell me Foley is turning into a pumpkin now …

An omniscient 13-year-old with a hilariously Trumpy nickname leading an entire worldwide cult to do her bidding? Sure, why not. This is exactly the kind of detail that would be attached to such a fantastical conspiracy story, and that will lead everybody following it to fall all over themselves demonstrating to the world how much they believe it. Consider the source—IOW, lol Vice.

My question was not about whether such a revelation would change red hats’ minds. I don’t care either way. My question was about whether TPTB would suppress such explosive evidence in the first place, in the interest of avoiding riots, civil unrest, guerrilla activities, etc., which such a revelation by itself might reasonably lead to, in the interest of protecting the nation, or however they might put it.

😉

Is that as explosive, as direct, as evidence would be of Trump being paid billions personally by hostile governments? I know some media reported Jared getting paid billions by the Saudis, but that's from a story in the heavily-disparaged media, not evidence presented during trial in open court; plus the payment to Jared was not a direct payment to Trump himself. What I'm wondering is, if the investigation did find such direct payment, explicitly, would that presented in open court for the whole world to see and damn the consequences? Or would it be sealed for, e.g., "the good of the country"?

Thought exercise, nothing more: What if, once having sifted through all the evidence, they find proof positive that Trump has the kind of relationship with Russia and/or the Saudis where they gave him billions of dollars personally and he made or approved policy decisions with the expressed intent of benefiting them—meaning a direct quid pro quo—which has led directly to, for instance, the invasion of Ukraine and the deaths of tens of thousands of civilians, or to the murder of dissident journalists and the like. I couldn't hazard a guess about what all the details would look like, but just what if. A lot of people talk as though this is already happening and many take it for granted, almost in a shrug-what-else-would-you-expect-from-Trump kind of way. But as far as I can tell, there is no proof positive. But for this thought exercise, let's say this investigation actually does uncover the proof positive, stuff uniquely explosive because it involves his personal enrichment in exchange for allowing the deaths of people his benefactors want dead. Would such evidence ever come out in court, or even otherwise be reported at all? Or would that kind of evidence be considered so explosive, so fantastic, so likely to lead to civil unrest, so damaging to the institution of the presidency beyond repair, that they think the better of it and seal it for good? As a broader question, is there a limit to what they would allow along such lines into the public record?

Plus he will turn 32 next September.

This may be something like projecting Hall of Fame trajectory based on rookie season, but based on what I’ve seen so far, I think there’s a decent chance Max becomes to first 20U position player to take the field for the Tigers since Cameron Maybin in 2007.

I put a bit more stock in Fangraphs than in Pipeline. FG seems to be based on tools and performance, with exhaustive descriptions of each, while Pipeline seems more topline overview with perhaps some influence by narrative.

Don’t look now, but TORK! is a halfway-decent hot streak away from ending up with 30 bombs.

The original line in Chuck Berry’s song was: “She's too cute to be a minute over seventeen”. So … what was Seger trying to tell us about himself? But hey, like Tiger337 implied, it was the 70’s and things were different. It was very common to see children, particularly young girls, being quite sexualized in popular culture. Just as a top-of-mind example, consider the innuendos surrounding Tatum O’Neal’s character in Bad News Bears. Another example: pictures of a naked Brooke Shields as a child that were published in newsstand magazines! I had wondered about this for a long time and couldn’t even reasonably hypothesize why that era, which I myself grew up in, sexualized children, who were my contemporaries, like no other time before or since. I saw the new Brooke Shields documentary a few months ago and they provided one possible answer that hadn’t occurred to me: in the face of “women’s lib”, during which an entire gender was finally standing up and asserting themselves like never before, the men of the era, who basically owned and ran popular culture vehicles like Hollywood and book and music publishing and the like, responded by turning away from the adult women of that time and started fetishizing the innocence of the young girls. That explanation makes a lot of sense to me.

This is how the indictment is playing in the Russified right wing blowtorch media. Very consistent with the whole "they look like they're coming after me but really it's you they're coming after" grift.

Isn't that true of every participant in the Cristofascist Grifter Industrial Complex?

Exactly. They know he's guilty as sht. As far as they're concerned, the crime is neither the crime itself nor the cover-up—the crime is the ratting.

This is how you can tell Trump Indictment Fatigue has set in: a whole half day into it, and barely a page worth's of posts about it. Just another day in postnorms America.

In the land of the Dumber, the Dumb is king.

I remember at some point during the actual Trump administration Lindsey went on the Fox parroting the mobbed-tinged party line about leaks in the White House coming from a "rat". Then I think someone got to him and convinced him that when you call someone a "rat", you're confirming that what they're leaking is true, because otherwise, you'd be calling them a "liar".

Having seen the pictures, I'm having trouble buying that she is 14 with a child over a year old. I have a feeling that numbers are in flux at the moment.

Not me. I want the better guy on radio because he will definitely have more freedom on what to say than on TV. Although Bobby Scales has also gotten better on the radio—he has said that Dan has taught him so much about how to be a broadcast professional this year—so I would be fine with him if they went in that direction.

I always did appreciate his honesty as well, which is why I think Andy Dirks would make a good permanent realcement, because he does the same. I wonder how much of it is led by Dan Dickerson’s own truth-telling.

That’s what seeing tens of thousands of pitches thrown your way will do for you!

They also argue that’s not what that part means.