Yeah...that sorta shit is so silly to worry about, it’s why they play all those games when there is lightning on the horizon. Nothing to worry about, so why bother inconveniencing the game?

Looks like you found Goose Gossage's burner.

Why do people bring their children to sporting events where there is known danger to being in the stands, sit in areas that aren’t protected, and watch this happen at least once a season?

It’s not just ends and means, though. This is a game where there is one winner and one loser. The unprincipled side wins by not being bound by principle. And all those voters that just couldn’t bring themselves to vote for Hillary ‘on principle’ could’ve done more to make this a better situation.

I guess it’s a lose-lose situation. Which principle matters more, believing in legislative fairness, or women’s reproductive health? On one hand, you get to stay on the moral high ground in Congress (which the opposition doesn’t care about) but you lose the lifetime appointment. On the other, you keep the seat clear…

ohmygodthisissodumbithurts.

Yeah, if truly the worst thing that happens because of this is he gets called names by people on the internet, what the fuck does he care? He kept Garland (who isn’t even some crazy liberal maniac!) off the bench to be replaced with Trump’s (read: Mitch’s) pick.

So you’re saying that if we had a Dem Senate, and they stonewalled putting Brett “Devil’s Triangle” Kavanaugh on the lifetime appointed bench, you’d have been against that on principle, that they should play fair and let him be seated?

What is it about porn that is reasonably different and obviously curatable/censorable than actual doctored video meant as propaganda? This isn’t about truth, or discerning if the content is true or not. It’s about whether or not actual footage of a public figure has been doctored in a way to misrepresent reality. And…

This isn’t parody, though. I challenge you to show me doctored video of Trump that has had the actual content of the digital data changed to show him in a different way than any ordinary viewing would have you see. This is painfully different, and if you can’t see why that is, I don’t know what to even do about it.

This is just a blatant deflection away from the topic of this conversations...

Because when you commit to releasing a yearly installment of a game that hinges upon it’s fans doling out to buy it no matter what it is, it doesn’t really matter, does it? Its not exactly like the “Call of Duty” section at your local games store is something perused by collectors and aficionados trying to sample the…

Absolutely! And it seems like it costs a serious premium to buy into the HBCU tradition. I'm a total outsider to what the expectations are at HBCU's, and the choices involved on buying into those traditions, but it is definitely a serious investment that can be made in other ways if we are just looking at the…

Nothing suggests, whatsoever, that anyone out down $50k out of pocket. His student loan estimates for his mother’s loans are $200k. You can try and do some back of the envelope math about tuition and fees and come up with a number by multiplying by 6, but that is farcically simplistic. What I am suggesting is that…

That’s very much historical though. It’s an all-male college that has an enrollment of about 2,000 students total and costs$30k/year. It isn’t exactly in a different territory now, when education is broadly more accessible. According to the most recent information, 22% of graduates are studying business, not exactly…

6 years? Of full time study. For a Sociology degree. Bachelor’s. How on earth is that reasonable? Not to mention, for a good portion of that he likely could have gotten FAFSA support, but that runs out after some amount of time. And the loans are all in his mother’s name? Why, exactly?

I agree it’s a gamble. There’s no sure thing here, it really does hinge on the results of several investigations.

I fully and completely agree! You can’t have it both ways. Insert the John Oliver segment about scientific studies here and let ‘er rip. Full disclosure, I *am* a scientist, so I need to be literate about these kinds of things and am constantly dissecting reports based on questionable data.

I’m of the mind that if you can pursue all the evidence, that you get the financial crimes and the money laundering and all the actual corruption out into the open, signed, sealed, and delivered to the Senate, then they’re going to have a tough decision selling that as a ‘nothingburger’ for which no action is…

This doesn’t seem like a clear mandate at all. Of course, we don’t know the margin of error, and 1,000 people isn’t a huge sample size. ~40% vs ~50% isn’t a massive discrepancy, and the public has yet to see an unredacted version of said report. That the ‘Unsure’ basically makes it a draw among Independents, and of…