chasfh

It would help immensely to know what exactly you're talking about so we can address your specific concern. All you're doing instead is accusing us of slappyism for, I guess, not accepting what you say at face value, when all we're trying to do is figure out exactly what it is you're talking about. The more you refuse to do it, the more it looks like you have no confidence in your own accusation, whatever it may be.

Just posting a link would at least give us some idea of what you're talking about. How can we have a discussion about what you want to if you keep your point hidden in a black box? "Biden's involvement in China" simply isn't enough. If you're not motivated enough to even tell us what you're talking about, then it can't be important.

The Clintons? So 2016. It was Hunter Biden along with the Ukraichinese. Try to keep up. Don't ask me how I know, just Google it, lazy bones.

From the Department of Follow the Money:

Uh oh … Not unlike the dreaded “vote of confidence”.

Can you tell us what Bunker is talking about?

Well, then, if Putin himself says we’re blowing it out of proportion, well, that settles that, don’t it, Bunker?

“I don’t care to back up my claims, just go to the rabbit hole and look for it yourself.”

Thank god I don’t have to turn on Faux News or Overthrow America Network or NewsHax to get this kind of analysis.

AL used to have a 100am curfew, meaning no inning could start after that. NL had no curfew and you’d see the occasional game go until 300am or 400am. That was when the leagues were actually run as separate entities and there was a delightful difference between them, on a number of counts.

I happen to look up Liberty Media’s 10K report yesterday morning and as far as I can tell, the Braves is less than 5% of their entire business. Formula One Racing is like 10x or 15x the size of the Braves. I can imagine that the Tigers figure similarly in Ilitch’s portfolio, the Cubs into Rickett’s portfolio, the Red Sox into John Hnery’s portfolio, and so on. So I’m thinking that several teams, maybe the majority, believe they can whether a delayed season with canceled games just fine.

https://www.baseball-reference.com/boxes/DET/DET198006020.shtml

I hope McClendon doesn't mess up any actual prospects.

Not only that, but the difference between David Ortiz's career WAR and Alex Rodriguez's career WAR is another David Ortiz career WAR, with enough WAR left over to cover any one of another 16,300 or so big leaguers.

According to this, Detroit is the most segregated city in America, and Chicago is fourth: https://belonging.berkeley.edu/most-least-segregated-cities If you widen the lens to entire metro area, Chicago is #2, and Detroit is #4: https://belonging.berkeley.edu/most-least-segregated-metro-regions They measure on a census tract basis, which neighborhoods like Humboldt contain maybe a dozen or two. So it’s possible that individual tracts may reflect a high degree of segregation, but when you add them all up, they paint a slightly different picture overall. I can see where that could be true of Humboldt specifically. I can also see where neighborhoods like mine and yours could be as integrated as they are but when they are added to all the other census tracts in the city or the metro area, which may be overwhelmingly segregated, it might not be enough to significantly bring them down the lists above.

I did, right after watching maybe Season 3 of The Crown. Excellent.

Fair enough. Especially true in places like Detroit (where you are) and Chicago (where I am, my specific neighborhood excepted). Churches were never successfully integrated, in no small part because they were safe havens for black people to congregate and speak their minds. Schools are interesting in that there was probably increasing integration there through a certain point post-Brown, but has since turned back around.

All I said is that I love to see your "liberal black woman" scenario play out. I made no prediction about that.

You and I are generally on the same side of things, but I have to call BS on this claim. There is a humongous difference between 1922 and 2022. In 1922, races were segregated by law, and in practically every American state and territory. Black people could not live within certain, and outside of certain other, neighborhoods; could not stay in "white" hotels; could not eat in "white" restaurants; could not shop in certain stores; could not hold political office; could not even vote in many jurisdictions. Some places required all black people to be off the street by sundown. All by law. None of this exists now, and this circumstance itself has been prohibited by subsequent law and court rulings. That by itself is a huge difference between then and now. And that doesn't contemplate that businesses would not hire black people for any but the most menial jobs, that black people would be routinely lynched without provocation and its perpetrators openly protected by the prevailing power structure and its enforcement apparatus, or, on a softer note, that blacks were almost never represented as actual human beings in popular culture. None of this is a factor anymore. I think you know that I understand that there is still what should be considered an unacceptable degree of segregation resulting from the conditions of a century ago, and that de facto institutional racism exists in place of de jure institutional racism in many circumstances. Work, much work, needs to be done to erode all such remaining barriers for all people, regardless of their identity, background, beliefs, or choices. But even considering the considerable barriers that do still exist, and even now in 2022, black people, and other people of color, are not prevented by law from doing any of the things I list out above. We are not a perfectly desegregated country by any definition, and may not be even by the time our grandchildren die off, but we are certainly much less segregated today than in 1922.

Even a Clyburn-recommended “liberal black woman”? I’d love to see that one play out.

I can envision Manchin and/or Sinema breaking bad on this, as they have on so many other things Democrats want. I put nothing past them.

Are you guessing, or do you know for a fact? I could see the assumption that literally any nominee would become a radical commie leftist fifth column Chinese plant, leading a senator from West Virginia to hem and haw long enough to run out the clock.

So, this. Serious question: could the 50 Republicans, plus Manchin and/or Sinema, delay confirming a replacement justice long enough to enable Trump to come in and replace Breyer in 2025? The question is not whether they would do that if they could—we all know the answer to that. My question is, could they technically accomplish this?

Was it this one? Or this one? We had both of them in our house. We called one Upstairs Jesus and the other Downstairs Jesus.

Nothing has happened in the past couple of days to push me off my prediction of a 162-game season starting two weeks late, although Baseball leaked that they would accept canceled games. After having reduced the season to 60 games just two years ago, and considering the negative reaction to the shortening of the 1994 and 1995 seasons, one might expect Baseball to do everything possible to avoid any cancellations. But I do think that one big difference this time around is that a high percentage of new followers of the game are in it for the gambling and not because they love baseball, so they won't mind at all if games are canceled. They'll just go gamble on something else, like basketball or soccer or crypto or NFTs, and simply come back to baseball when games are available to bet on. As for hardcore fans like us, we will come back to the game no matter how long the lockout lasts. So Baseball may be thinking they can weather any blowback that comes primarily from causal fans, many of whom probably spend no money on anything baseball-related at all. If that's true, then is there any real loss?