Jump to content


MotownSports Fan
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by clark1mt

  1. 1 hour ago, tiger337 said:

    He'll find a way to delay those too.  I don't think those are going to go the way people hope.  The rich and powerful have a different set of laws than the rest of us.  

    1. How rich is he really?  He's almost certainly underwater in debt.

    2. At 12:01 on January 20, he won't have any actual power either.  Any power he does retain will come from his followers, but once he's no longer useful to them, how many people will stick by him?

    If he had a competent legal team, he wouldn't be using Rudy Leaks so much.

    • Thanks 1

  2. 17 minutes ago, T&P_Fan said:

    These mass celebrations in the streets is striking.   The excitement over defeating trump is massive.  Dwarfs of the trump rallies.  What a statement.  Think trump is watching TV tonight?

    He doesn't need to.  He can see it live.


  3. 52 minutes ago, Kacie said:

    Happy as I am that Biden won, still bummed about the Senate.  America may have rejected Trump, but they didn't rebuke any of his enablers.  Clearly money wasn't the issue.  What's going to happen when Breyer retires or dies?  Is McConnell going to just not bring it to the floor again?  

    Obviously some of the races were pipe dreams, but how did Susan Collins win in a landslide?  Iowa was supposed to be close.  NC was supposed to be a good bet. Lindsey Graham was on Fox begging for money and looked genuinely worried.  But yet the polls were right in CO and AZ?  The Blue Wave wasn't even a minor bladder leak.  

    Someone on one of the channels a few days ago opined that Trump on the ballot is a huge driver for Republican turnout.  It's why 2018 was such a "Blue Wave"; the Trumpers didn't care enough to vote when they couldn't vote specifically for him.

    2022 should be interesting.  Historically the incumbent's party does poorly in midterms, but the Senate seats that are up for election are majority Republican, much like this year.  Among the D seats, only AZ and maybe NV are likely at risk of flipping.  For R seats, WI, IA, PA at a minimum should be competitive, if not sure flips (especially WI).  GA, NC, and FL (and OH) could also be close, depending on who runs and especially who wins the GA runoff for the special election.

  4. 2 hours ago, mtutiger said:

    Individual Donors don't necessarily equate to votes, but the amount of blue in Collin County (north of Dallas) on the individual donor map is craaaazy.

    My zip code is about a 50/50 split, which seems right

    It's true that donors don't necessarily equal votes, but there probably is a correlation.  Donors are probably more likely to vote (because now they have a "stake" in the outcome), and thus donors can be viewed as a function of enthusiasm for a candidate, which transfers into voting.

    In other words, if people aren't excited enough about Trump to bother donating to his campaign, they might also not be motivated enough to actually make the effort to vote for him.

    Of course, there are caveats, mainly the idea that you'd have to account for the ability of people to be able to afford to donate to a candidate, and how the people who can't are distributed on the political spectrum.

  5. 3 hours ago, chasfh said:

    Devil’s Advocate asks, if that was the question, why didn’t they include it in the clip? And why did they cut off the reaction of the audience from the clip? Did people laugh? Did people gasp? How did the South Carolinians in the room respond to it? D.A. asks this because he’s always at least a little suspicious of closely edited clips.

    Here's an article which fleshes it out a little more.


  6. 42 minutes ago, Gehringer_2 said:

    Just spitballing here, but I could see this as a jujitsu to neuter him after the election if the Dems take both houses of Congress. Depending on the reading,  you could take the 25thA as a potential end run around the 2/3 impeachment requirement if the Congress by statute (passed by only a majority) can set up a group that can remove a president. Not necessarily a tack I would like to see pursued, but a potential negotiating lever over  something like Barrett.

    Of course if the enabling legislation requires presidential signature it probably goes nowhere for now.

    Even with 25th Amendment legislation in place setting up a commission with the authorization to remove the president, the Amendment still allows the president to dispute his removal from power.  If he does so, it still requires not just 2/3 of the Senate, but also 2/3 of the House to affirm the removal.  So it remains a higher standard than impeachment if the president contests it.

  7. 1 minute ago, Motown Bombers said:

    I hope Trump does skip the townhall. Biden alone one on one with voters is his sweet spot. 

    He won't.  His only argument for holding it in person is to be able to scream and bluster, which somehow scores points with his base.  If it's virtual, he can easily be cut off if he breaks the rules.  But with his Covid diagnosis, Trump can't hope to swing public opinion his way on that; NOBODY (at least swing voters, anyway) is going to fault the debate commission, or Biden, for not wanting to be in the same room as him so soon.

    So Trump's backup plan has to be to say he won't participate and hope the debate is just canceled. This is a very possible outcome, but it's a gamble against the debate going on without him and just giving Biden 90 minutes of free national airtime, while the narrative will be Trump's cowardice after how the first debate went.  So Trump will be hammered by his team about how badly that would go over for him, and he'll backtrack and participate.

  8. 47 minutes ago, Gehringer_2 said:

    Agree about his desperation to stay in office, but hard for me to see any path out of this game that actually helps his re-election. However, I grant that it is true that the Hail Marys that desperate candidates throw often do appear irrational and end up being counter productive ("I am suspending my campaign today..").

    Indeed, I'm sure Trump is aware of the 5 yr rule. OTOH, SDNY could issue a sealed indictment that would be held until he was out of office on the grounds that as President he was not available for 'apprehension'. That might stand up, but of course trying to prosecute a case an additional 4 yrs after the fact has its own problems.

    This also assumes that Trump wouldn't continue to commit federal crimes during a second term.

    • Thanks 2

  9. 4 hours ago, Sports_Freak said:

    He probably doesn't even have it. All another stunt. He'll come out of his bunker in a week and say he's all better and it wasn't even too bad. The flu is much worse. Then he'll fire Fauci and insist everything open totally up. He doesn't care how many people he kills.


    I wouldn't be surprised if they're using Hope Hicks's positive test to claim they themselves now have it in order to give Trump an excuse to skip the remaining debates, which is something he probably wants given how badly he did at the first one.

  10. 31 minutes ago, lordstanley said:

    Funny that every other game in MLB today except this one was scheduled to start scheduled around 3pm. Surely Royals-Tigers isn't the only matchup that is playoff irrelevant.

    I believe this one was originally scheduled to start at 3 along with the others.  The prospect of afternoon rain led them to move the time up, which clearly wasn't enough.

  11. 2 hours ago, Mr. Bigglesworth said:

    I want my manager to cheat, just not get caught.

    I honestly fail to see how this cheating scandal is any different from the tens of other cheating scandals, except it is recent.

    Kenny Rogers was caught cheating in a World Series game and I don't think anyone holds that against him.

    In most cheating cases, it is (or largely appears to be) an individual acting on his own accord, usually as much for his personal benefit as for "the team, the team, the team".  The difference in Houston is that it was pretty much an institutional problem, seemingly sanctioned by the organization and tolerated, if not encouraged, from the top of management on down to the players.

  12. 5 hours ago, IdahoBert said:

    Regardless of Casmir’s astute observation, as pleasing as it is, neither the Tigers nor the Indians have won a World Series in the last 35 full seasons but for the Indians their drought is 72 years long. Ha!

    But, getting back to feeling sorry for ourselves, in the last 35 seasons, not counting this one because of the Royals and the Tigers have an identical 20 wins so far, the Royals have averaged 72.46 wins per season while the Tigers have averaged 75.6. 

    I have long have this idea that the Royals were really the chumps of the division and the Tigers were easily the better team, but if you look at the last 35 seasons, some strike-shortened of course, the Tigers are only 3 games a year better and have won the big enchilada not once while the Royals however have won twice. 

    Overall I have been living a lie. The tigers are marginally better and have failed at the one greatest thing by which success is measured. I still love them with all my heart and soul but it’s disappointing to have to accept this truth


    On the other hand, the Royals have been far more consistently bad in that time, making the playoffs a mere 3 times.  Since the switch to three divisions in 1994, the Royals have finished 4th or 5th 16 times out of 26 seasons.  From 1985, they've only won their division twice and finished above .500 9 times.

    By direct comparison, the Tigers made the playoffs 6 times, finished 4th or 5th 13 out of 26 times since 1994 (okay, only a little better) and since 1985 have won the division 5 times and finished above .500 14 times.

    So while over the long term the two teams appear closely matched, the Tigers are more likely to be good in any given year.  The Tigers also were able to have sustained success (2011-2014 playoffs, and 6 out of 7 years >.500 including 5 years in a row, plus the mid-80s at the beginning of this period) while the Royals only managed to hit .500 in three consecutive years (twice).

    • Like 1

  13. 23 minutes ago, Oblong said:

    It’s simply logistically impossible to have a legit vaccine before mid November be properly vetted.  The phase 3 trials take time.  It’s not paperwork.  You need to get all the samples vaccinated, which we aren’t there yet. You need the virus to work it’s way through that population and the evidence documented and studied and peer reviewed.  Manufacturing can occur in parallel, at a risk of waste, but distribution is also a factor.  One of the candidates has to be stored at -94 F.   That complicates things.  Will it require two doses?  

    That's the Pfizer vaccine, and it will require two doses.  So will the Moderna vaccine, which has to be stored at "only" -4°F. I read an article yesterday (can't seem to find it now EDIT: Here it is) that did at least mention that the ultra-low temperature storage requirements were only for longer-term storage (like weeks), and that the vaccines would still be viable for hours at room temperature and a few days in normal refrigeration.

    Even if a vaccine were approved by November while somehow not taking shortcuts and skipping critical safety checks, there would still be the issue of getting that much vaccine out to the public.  Aside from the shipping and storage concerns, the sheer number of people who will need to be vaccinated means that once things get underway, it might still be a long time before the average person gets it.  Consider that if a million people can be poked every day in the U.S. alone (which seems like an impossibly high rate), with the two-dose requirement, it would still take two years to fully inoculate the country.

  • Create New...