Jump to content


MotownSports Fan
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

42 Excellent

About MichiganCardinal

  • Rank
    MotownSports Fan
  • Birthday 02/08/1995


  • Location
    Stanford, CA


  • Interests
    Sports, School, Sleep


  • Occupation

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Love college baseball. My Cardinal took a tough L today in the first game of the Super Regional. Would be good to see M take down those nobodies from LA.
  2. They may have won by bringing out the anti-Trump vote, but they didn't (on the whole) campaign solely against Trump. There was certainly a policy forefront.
  3. He released this in the 2016 campaign. I don't think a comparison to Trump is fair at this point. https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2804313/Bernie-Sanders-Just-Released-His-Tax-Returns.pdf
  4. I feel like this has been known for some time though - it doesn't really matter what the Mueller report comes back with when it comes to Trumpers. They will never, ever believe anything spoken against their guy, and will spin anything received to be seen in a positive light - no matter how obtuse it may seem, or how categorically different their response would have been in 2012. 48% is probably even still an overstatement between those that say it did damage and those who care enough to do something about it.
  5. Having driven a school bus for about two years, I can say that while this is great in theory, the logistical nightmare it creates is sometimes just not worth the headache. Delaying two hours, or moving a bus stop, means word needs to get to parents, and fast. After that step, parents need to do something with their kid for two hours (not always easy if you have a 9-5 job). Then, bus drivers (of which there is a massive nationwide shortage) all individually need to adjust their schedules to compensate (which for drivers like me that went to school 10-1 wasn't always possible), as well as need to have their new route printed and understood (if changing stops), which with the outdated programs they use is always a much bigger issue than it needs to be (or at least was in my district). Then, even once the kids are at school, each school needs to create their schedule for classes, and each teacher needs to create an entirely new lesson plan, taking into account 1/4 of your students are likely to be absent anyway. Then on top of all of this, dealing with parents bitching about each and every step within this, as if any of it was the ideal scenario that has been practiced 100s of times. All in all, it's usually much easier for districts where this is a rarity to just cancel the day and eliminate all problems from the school side of things.
  6. I agree with this, but I think the reputation hit is meaningful, and nonzero. People may not say, "They went to Michigan State; Michigan State oversaw the Nassar catastrophe; I don't want to hire this person." But they will say (or think), "They went to Michigan State; Michigan State oversaw the Nassar catastrophe." That's not something I want my school to be tied to. More importantly, it's not something I want my (hypothetical) 11th or 12th grade son or daughter applying into.
  7. Woke up this morning to a text from a friend who is a student at MSU. The university's reputation is in the toilet after this, and it's unseen how long it will take to recover, if full recovery is even possible. I know I wouldn't want my child to attend. https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/john-engler-resign-michigan-state-president_us_5c3f6b2de4b027c3bbbd5c54
  8. Couldn’t this reasoning extend to all candidates who were eligible in 2016 though? If they could have beat Clinton, they would have run; they didn’t beat Clinton, therefore they shouldn’t be the 2020 nominee? Clinton was, for better or worse, the candidate from the get-go in ‘16, which was why a lot of candidates didn’t even run (including Warren, who was a better candidate then than now). I can’t imagine a single candidate, even hypothetically, that could have taken the nomination from Clinton post-2014. The Democratic Party is in a fundamentally different place than it was in 2016. There isn’t a clear one person ahead of all others, which should inherently give a larger number of candidates a more fair chance, Sanders included.
  9. I’m not sure Tulsi will go away as quickly as some believe. She made a brilliant political move in leaving the DNC to endorse Sanders, and gave herself a national name. That on top of her young age will appeal to a lot of the same things that attracted 2016 Bernie supporters. I’m certainly not 100% sold on her, for reasons articulated here. But I’m interested in seeing how she responds to the meeting with al-Assad and the “radical Islam” stance on a debate stage. FTR I dont believe that stance makes her a borderline Islamaphobe. I don’t think she will win, but I could see her sticking around long enough and maintaining a presence strong enough to be the potential VP tap of Biden or Sanders.
  10. I chose Stanford Psych over Michigan LSA does that make me part of the problem?
  11. Officials shouldn't be letting that play go when the QB is wrapped up like that - D needs to finish sure, but if a second guy had come and lowered his shoulder into Ramsey we would have been flagged in a heartbeat.
  12. Ohio State is not a good team. Beggars can't be choosers, but it sure would be nice to win comfortably in Columbus for the first time since Y2K.
  13. I think the 2020 election for Dems is a tricky one, and unless they have learned from their mistake, can be easily lost. I'm reminded of John Oliver's piece when Trump first became president, urging everyone to remember that "this is not normal". I feel like a lot of people, especially moderate Rs, have fallen into exactly that, a sense of normalcy with Trump's rhetoric, and that the people who may have stayed home will have no problem voting for him in 2020 as, "I guess this is the R party". This was mentioned earlier in this thread, so I know I'm not new to this thought. That's certainly beatable, as can be seen by the midterm results, but at the same time it's not a slam dunk. If the Dems go up with a 2020 version of Hillary, they will lose - possibly even worse than they lost in 2016. If they can find a 2020 version of Bernie, or a national version of Beto (of which I don't think is Bernie or is Beto), I think they'll pick up Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania, lose close in Florida, lose by a fair amount in Ohio, and pick up the same states they picked up in 2016 (maybe with the addition of Arizona) for a narrow win. I don't think this ideal candidate is extremely public or obvious yet - it's not a Biden or Warren. I could see a Tulsi Gabbard, Kamala Harris, or Tammy Duckworth filling this role, or someone who is completely off the radar at the moment.
  14. I would agree with this. I think employers were already trending downwards with regards to testing - in that generally speaking, they started realizing no one cares, and it doesn't matter, so long as workplace performance doesn't suffer. I've had three jobs in the past that have required drug screening. One was my first job at a grocery store that had you take a saliva test (the kind that you'd pretty much have to be high at that moment to fail), and never again. Which was comical because I had coworkers who would literally show up in the clouds. One was with a nonprofit, where I was occasionally required to drive kids - they had me take one before I was hired, and had the policy of randomly testing, but hadn't had an agency wide test in years. They'd test you in a heart beat if they thought you were impaired on the job, and required it if you were involved in any workplace accident of any severity. The last was driving a school bus, which was subject to strict DOT requirements - pre-hire, any form of leave or injury, and randomly through the year. Always thought I'd be pulled to test (I would have passed without a problem), but I was never called in my two-plus years there. Truly random testing - some people pulled every time, some not once in their ten year career. I think generally we will see the trend continue towards that second job. Give them a reason and they'll test, but otherwise what you do on your time is your business. Jobs like DOT and government will remain strict as strict gets.
  15. I've always thought an eight-team playoff where #1-4 are the conference champs of the B1G, SEC, PAC12, and ACC (Big 12 folding or completely restructuring), #5 and #6 are at-large wildcards from those four conferences, and #7 and #8 are the two top mid-major schools, with most conferences going to 16 members at that time, is the best possible scenario given the drive for more money. Play every team in your division every year, and every team in the other division once every four years, plus three non-conference games. ACC Atlantic - Clemson, Boston College, Syracuse, NC State, Florida State, Wake Forest, Louisville, Notre Dame ACC Coastal - Pitt, Virginia, Virginia Tech, Georgia Tech, Duke, Miami, Central Florida, South Florida B1G East - Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, Penn State, Maryland, Indiana, Rutgers, Purdue B1G West - Wisconsin, Northwestern, Iowa, Illinois, Nebraska, Minnesota, Vanderbilt, Kansas PAC 12 North - Stanford, Cal, Washington, Washington State, Oregon, Oregon State, Colorado, Utah PAC 12 South - USC, UCLA, Arizona, Arizona State, Texas, TCU, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State SEC East - Georgia, Kentucky, Florida, South Carolina, Missouri, Tennessee, Arkansas, West Virginia SEC West - Alabama, LSU, Auburn, Texas A&M, Ole Miss, Mississippi State, Texas Tech, Baylor SOL - Iowa State and Kansas State tl;dr would be none of this matters because of the collaboration it would require. But this has really been a good way to avoid studying so thanks for the space. 🙃
  • Create New...