gehringer_2

Maybe I've over read it but it seems I've heard at least a few people dismiss Workman since he started putting up better numbers this season. And TBF, maybe for good reason. Doing well in the minors doesn't always mean you don't still have weaknesses that would be fatal in the show and since I don't see MiLB games I'm in no position to argue.

Red score 2 in the 7th, up 3-1

Isn't that kind of the running joke this season about Workman - that no matter what he does there nothing he can do to change the minds made up about him?

Yes - IIRC it became the standard 'the Tigers can't hit in the cold' trope for some time. But I wasn't commenting on your comment but directly on the tweet. The Dems have been charging Trump with having no plans, but it's clear why his people don't let him have plans because Haitians to Venezuela is the level of what you get if do let let Trump try to plan something.

Pay no attention to that man behind the IF grass.

He had a hit low and away and other inside. When you can cover inside to outside you are hard to get out!

now they have to worry about winning the damn game

Haitians to Venezuela. That's why it's better for Trump not to make plans.....

Why wouldn't you keep hammering immigration if you know (or believe) that taking about immigration drives your base more effectively than talking about your record? Reminding people what you did - even if they liked it, or that they thought needed doing would only tend to make them more complacent wouldn't it? At any rate, Illegal aliens is pretty much 100% of what Trump decided he wanted to talk about. We can speculate about what the theory is, or maybe there even is no theory beyond that it's Trump's political intuition of how to run.

LOL. No staff could have been dumb enough not to use new signals against M last season could they? In fact to me the reason the whole thing was/is such stupid Kabuki theater is that accusations between multiple teams had been floating around a long time, and both M and M's opponents should have been dealing with it. It just became the vehicle for the expression of a lot of political tensions percolating inside the conference and the general situation that Harbaugh had made himself personna non-grata to the rest of the conference and the NCAA.

I guess I don't follow. It's not what it is to Pete it is? Pete's was asked the question how he interprets what the other side is doing and in it's simplest form Pete said they are trying to gin up their side's turnout. Heck, Harris may be running as the 'Joy' candidate, but what is their tag line? "We won't go back." That is also targeting fear to drive turnout. Each side wants to make sure their voters are kept mindful of what the other side does that their voters find most threatening.

One change you can lay to the coaching is that i didn't sense them trying nearly as hard to hide what they are doing on D as they used to. The M defense always tried to avoid coming set and waiting for the snap. Maybe that's just Martindale, or maybe the change to helmet radio has changed the risk calculations around that in ways that make their old approach obsolete?

two things: One - It's a lot harder to play twice as many plays at as high a level. An 'O' that stays on the field is the always the 'D's best conditioning strategy. Two - it's hard to get good practicing against an O practice team that can't execute. You never get adequate exposure of your weaknesses. You can't practice against bad QBs and get any appreciation of what you are going to face against a good one. Same in the 70's when those supposedly great D's from the 3 yds and a cloud of dust era B10 teams would get smoked when they played a Pac10 team that could pass the ball. They'd be like "WTF was that!?"

I think this is probably true, but I'm not sure Trump believes it. I think the default assumption by both sides in this election is that the other side is already fully committed. It may not be true on either side. And that is also exactly where polling is pretty useless. Those are the things the pollsters can only guess about until this election is in the can and they can adjust weightings from another real result.

IIRC, GOP still has some House seats in CA.

Engender more fear, drive more turnout. Maybe you are just as racist as Trump but immigration really isn't that big an issue for you in Springfield SomeotherState. because your town is still snow white. If Trump succeeds in getting a media conversation going that makes you think that your town could be next for 20K people you don't like the look of, you just might get off your John Deere and decide to vote though you normally don't bother. That's what I take from Pete's arg.

Pete’s point is that when MSM does a story to debunk ‘dogs and cats’ Trump knows that all his target audience is going to hear is “20,000 of ‘those’ people in central Ohio God’s country” and have a conniption over it.

Pete has moved to Michigan hasn't he? Eyeing Gretch's gig?

So the number out there for the debate rating was 67M, but I'm reading that does NOT include streamers. If so 80M+ is quite possible.

Shocked, shocked!

He believes there are way more of his than there are of the rest of us - so he doesn't care about new people. And the racial/immigrant scare is what he views as the primary fear generator to get his to the polls. In that frame work the rhetorical strategy is correct. Look at the company he keeps, the circles he travels in, and the fans he has brought to himself. In none of those places do you see anywhere near the range of America. He is in the bubble with his supporters.

And regardless of whether a person views Truth as a moral imperative or a practical political one, a democratic society cannot function when there is no reliable public truth to support successful public decision making.

and that is indeed what makes it so interesting. We *know* that when people live in terrible, brutalized conditions, you end up with more violent people. If you raise living conditions, violence *will* go down. I think that raises two interesting questions: The first is the obvious one around holding people responsible for behavior we know - at least at a statistical level - is the result of outside social forces beyond 'personal responsibility' - again as I think we both see, society doesn't want to go there because the disruption to the regime of legal responsibility is too much at risk once you start down that path. And it would probably rapidly become too complex if attempted. But a more subtle question might be: Are people from the better standard of living environment actually "better", more altruistic people, or do they just have more 'civilized' ways of being bad to each other without physical violence? (e.g. the despicable office boss, embezzlement instead of robbery etc.). The question being whether the 'better' environment is only changing the instrumentalities that people are using to express the 'same' natures. Of course legally it makes a big difference because physically knifing your coworker on the ditch digging crew might get you life or even a noose, while knifing your coworker metaphorically to get his job in the executive suite might get you 7 figures ($) and a total pass from John Law. But how much different is the basic sentiment? To the question of what make people what they are - that certainly cuts to the very nature of existence and sentience and I'm skeptical we have that much better handle on that today than than the Greeks did. Practically/politically speaking, I don't think there is that much denial that better sociology/education creates a better society regardless of religious conviction or lack thereof. (the exception probably being addiction). To me, the argument over the utility of improving social conditions is simply the age-old political problem of moving resources/opportunities from the haves to the have-nots when the haves don't want to.

He doesn't even know how detached from reality he is. I wonder if he knows anyone who has ever tried to 'walk off' with a live adult Canada goose. They happen to be able to fly away in case no-one ever told him that. If one does let you get close enough its as likely to lacerate your fingers as let you catch it. There is a reason hunters shoot them first instead of just strolling to a nearly park to pick one up. The only thing more moronic than he is is people who slurp this stuff up.

Hyperloop was pretty hilarious. He gave away a lot of money to engineering schools to work on it and they cynically took it all knowing it was nonsensical. I watched a team of students spend a year and plenty of Elon's money building a prototype contraption in our student project center to Elon's criteria even though all but maybe the freshmen knew it was windmill tilting. I don't know much about Elon's STEM skills, but I know he can't understand much about engineering scaling not to have dismissed hyperloop 10 minutes after he thought it up. There is a fine line between having the genius to successfully step beyond conventional wisdom and the recognition that you still have to do it inside the envelop of real physics.