Jump to content


MotownSports Fan
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by clark1mt

  1. Skubal not giving the defense any work to fail to do properly.
  2. Certainly not when he's basically their only marketing tool right now.
  3. I haven't watched many games so far. Are the TV guys traveling with the team? Because Dan and Jack Morris looked to start the broadcast in the studio together. Assuming Dan is a last-minute fill-in for Matt, I know he was broadcasting from Detroit for away games.
  4. When did the curly fries promotion go from 3 HRs per game to 3 runs per game? Not a vote of confidence in the team from Arby's.
  5. It depends on what exactly you're using each part for. If you're just doing all of it to watch the Tigers, then it would be cheaper to do what you suggest. But a VPN has far more usefulness than just the one thing. You might be interested in watching other games besides just the Tigers, for which mlb.tv is excellent. And there can be a wide difference in cost for streaming services depending on what exactly you want to watch.
  6. https://www.cbssports.com/mlb/news/mets-vs-nationals-opening-day-game-postponed-due-to-covid-19-issues/ It's not really a surprise. It was yesterday or the day before they had reported a case in a Nats player with several more having to go into quarantine.
  7. Will the campaign videos be known as PP tapes?
  8. It's not so much a lie as it is their lawyers told them how much trouble they're in. It's damage control.
  9. I think SCOTUS would only get involved if a trial led to conviction AND included the punishment of prohibition from future office. Before that, at worst Congress is just wasting time on political theater. Once there is punishment, then the impeached person could seek a determination on whether that punishment can be enforced. If the person was out of office prior to the impeachment vote, I could buy an argument that they have then impeached a private citizen (which they can't) and then the punishment would be void. However, since Trump has been impeached before leaving office, I think Congress can proceed as they see fit. It would be a little like suing someone who then dies, and seeking relief against that person's estate. In this case, obviously conviction would be meaningless in itself, but it would open the door to the barring from future office punishment (akin to collecting a judgment from a dead person's estate). Because of that, I can believe that Republican senators might go for it, especially those who might have designs on a 2024 run and want Trump out of their way.
  10. https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2021/01/13/impeachment-blount-belknap-trump/ (Paywalled) The gist of it is that: 1797: William Blount, Senator, was expelled from the Senate and then impeached. Because he was already out of office due to the expulsion and because the question of impeaching someone at that stage was in question, they dropped the case before trial. 1876: William Belknap, Secretary of War, was accused of accepting bribes. He resigned, but was impeached anyway. In that case, there was a trial, but only a simple majority voted to convict, rather than the 2/3 necessary.
  • Create New...