chasfh

They are trying, though ... https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/6655921/2025/09/25/mlb-big-inning-nfl-redzone/

True, although then the standing around resolves in a couple dozen guy beating the living snot out each and every play, so in that case, the standing around is acceptable to people who like just that kind of thing.

will you root for michigan players who go through the transfer portal to ohio state?

I'll watch them. I just won't root for them because they are ex-Tigers. (I will root for Boyd because he is a Cub, which is my #2 team.)

Mike Trout was on track to be top five in history. He is third all-time in WAR among all players through their ninth season. Such a bummer that we could not see him do that.

They will accept states like Puerto Rico and DC being admitted into the union when they can split Texas into five exquisitely gerrymandered states. Although, given how much Republicans hair is on fire over Virginia and California threatening to gerrymander in response to MAGA states actually doing so, probably not even then.

Right, just because something's not physically addictive doesn't mean it is not at all addictive.

Technically, we do have more than two parties, but there can never be more than two major parties because of the way the president is constitutionally elected by a majority of electoral votes. If the presidential election were to end in a plurality instead, the election would be thrown to the House, firmly controlled by two major parties, for a one-state-one-vote vote, and short of casting a magic spell on Congress, a third party could never win in that scenario. The danger of a strong third-party scenario in the next election could be the following: Suppose somehow the Republicans maintain their state delegation advantage after the mid-terms (not an impossibility as Republicans now hold a 30-18-2 advantage in controlling states' House delegations), and all the polls in late 2027 point to an absolute blowout for Democrats in 2028. One practical way for Republicans to undermine it all would be to run a fake third party candidate campaigning as a moderate trad Republican conservative, while they run a MAGA hard-liner as the regular party candidate. Someone like that could easily siphon off enough votes to swing purple states to MAGA Republicans. (Remember, a party needs only a plurality victory in a state to win its electoral votes.) Then, if no party ends up with an electoral vote majority, the election is thrown to the House, and due to control of a majority of states' House delegations, they simply vote the MAGA Republican into office—even though the vast majority of voters in this hypothetical scenario would have rejected him. Sure, it would be hard for the MAGA elite to totally get away with keeping their true intentions under wraps, not the least of which would be finding a candidate who could get away with role-playing as a traditional conservative while hiding or overcoming proof of MAGA connections. But, never say never could happen. Otherwise, it's technically possible for a third party (or non-party?) candidate to surprise everyone with a majority electoral vote win out of nowhere, but the structural limitations of how our presidential elections are currently constituted all but prevents it. So, G2's implication is correct: third parties could never have any influence in American politics short of reconstituting it from scratch as a parliamentary democracy.

Q: Hey ChatGPT: are there any countries without political parties? A: Yes — there are sovereign countries and territories in the world today that do not have formal political parties at the national level. These fall into a few distinct categories: some ban parties outright, others are non-partisan democracies where candidates run as individuals, not as party representatives. 1) Countries where political parties are banned or effectively nonexistent These states either legally forbid political parties or their political systems don’t include functioning parties: Saudi Arabia — political parties are prohibited; governance is under the monarchy. United Arab Emirates — no political parties; consultative body exists but parties are outlawed. Kuwait — parties have been prohibited since 1961; candidates run independently. Oman — political parties are outlawed; elections (when held) have non-party candidates. Afghanistan (under the Taliban) — all political parties are banned. Vatican City — there is no party system; governance is ecclesiastical and monarchical. Note: Some of these are authoritarian systems where banning parties is tied to centralized power structures rather than democratic choice. 2) Non-partisan democracies (no formal parties) These are typically small states or territories where elections occur but no political parties exist; candidates run as independents: Palau — no active political parties; politics revolves around personal/clan affiliations. Federated States of Micronesia — no political parties; governance is non-partisan. Niue — no political parties; elections are non-partisan. Tuvalu — non-partisan parliament with independent representatives. Falkland Islands (British Overseas Territory) — elections without political parties. Some discussions include Nauru in this category* because its Parliament operates without party discipline even though parties have formed at times. 3) Transitional/temporary cases Burkina Faso — as of early 2026, the military government officially dissolved all political parties, eliminating the party system. Clarification: One-party states vs. no-party states One-party states (e.g., China, Cuba, North Korea, Eritrea) have only one officially legal political party; other parties are banned or permitted only in name. No-party states (listed above) have no legal parties at all; candidates are independents or the system doesn’t incorporate party organization. Summary Table Category Examples Parties banned (no party system) Saudi Arabia, UAE, Kuwait, Oman, Afghanistan (Taliban), Vatican City Non-partisan democracies (no parties exist) Palau, Micronesia, Niue, Tuvalu, Falkland Islands Transitional (party system removed) Burkina Faso (2026 military decree) I am willing to take this information at face value because it passes the smell test.

There will never not be political parties. There will always be a move to organize and fund, if for no other reason than to centralize the donor class into a cohesive unit to achieve their governmental aims. There must anlso be a basis for caucuses to form, and membership in a party-like structure is the easiest and cleanest way to form those. Unless the alternative view you’re describing implies that political parties will devolve into a corporatized trust structure? That, I could see, at least in some dystopian short-term. But the idea that politicians could all be solitary free agents flitting back and forth between caucuses seems fancifully naive.

Once they eliminate all the immigrants, who do you suppose they will incarcerate in thee warehouses?

Reading this has reminded me of a thought I had early on in this administration, as to whether they might loosen regulations and taxes on cigarette tobacco and eliminate addiction and health advisories, as well as marketing restrictions, related to it. You know, make smoking cool again, as it was when America was Great. That would be consistent with their goal increasing revenue for their benefactors, this time in Big Tobacco and Big Hospital, while inflicting maximum pain on everyday Americans.

I'm a little surprised California is not highlighted here.

I don't think prostitution could ever be legalized, for a bunch of reasons. Probably better to carry on any follow-up discussion elsewhere.

Al Avila was as good a talent evaluator as the next guy, but he was peter-principled into the GM job which requires a plethora of skills he simply did not have, and the organization was set back close to a decade because of his seven-year tenure.

One year of awful, I could have accepted. Seven years of awful is more than an entire career for more than half the guys who have ever played in the big leagues.

To me, if the agreement is like those made between MLB other teams before this season, the most important part of the Tigers’ partnering with MLB is going to be losing all the in-game gambling odds, drop-ins, billboards, promos, and the like.

If this is your way of telling us what Bad Bunny did last night is not music, then I truly don't know how to respond to that other than to say that could not be more wrong. Please tell me I am misunderstanding what you’re trying to say.

“Pro-growth” sounds suspiciously like anti-labor, and “deregulatory” like anti-consumer.

All due respect to your brother, I’m not talking about technical education.

I blame the American educational system, or lack thereof.

I'm old enough to remember when gambling was bad because criminals ran it.

Although they are indisputably the top two in Michigan in terms of sales.