Me neither, but when in Rome etc. etc.

How many Waltons, et al, would have to be killed before we saw actual change?

POLITICIANS ::clap:: ARE ::clap:: MORE ::clap:: POPULAR ::clap:: WHEN ::clap:: NOT ::clap:: RUNNING

Since when has the government declined to spend money on the basis of not actually having any?

He’s a patriot for Real America, and helped it Take Our Baseball Back from those coastal libruls. The Yankees even wear blue, just like those commucrats!

This

Depends on whether he stops in Baltimore first.

It happens, but only on the rarest of rare occasions. I’ve experienced it exactly once, when a flight from DCA to BDR was straight-up canceled about 2 hours before departure. I ended up on a half-empty flight to Albany instead and got bumped to first since there were plenty of open seats.

My read on the most recent election is that it goes beyond tolerance to outright denial and rationalization when it comes to “our” team. There are people in this very thread insisting that Clinton was totally a morally upright figure rather than a Nixonian paranoid who just happened to be better than a 2-bit…

“Purity” is definitely a foolish goal, but I do think a certain minimum level of ethical integrity is a fair thing to expect from our public servants. Neither candidate in the most recent presidential election possessed even that, regardless of what other flaws Trump exhibited.

I don’t really disagree that most politicians have varying degrees of ethical problems, but part of the root cause is the partisan tendency to excuse away lapses by “our” team. If we want voters to choose morally upright candidates, we have to give them morally upright candidates, which means weeding the less morally…

The voters can only choose between the choices offered by the system. Obama didn’t have to tell Biden not to run, and Jeb & Christie didn’t have to kneecap Rubio out of spite.

It is neither a false equivalency, nor is it moot. Hillary had significant ethical shortcomings that, while not as severe as Trump’s (i.e., not “equivalent”), still failed to meet any reasonable standard of “purity,” much less the “highest burden” thereof. And a failure to acknowledge that she failed to meet this…

Um, the Times just revealed yesterday that Hillary did invest resources in big cities like Chicago to run up her popular vote total. So it stands to reason the net effect of a national campaign would have been to increase Trump’s relative share.

The logical fallacy isn’t to observe that both candidates had disqualifying ethical shortcomings; the fallacy is to pretend that just because Clinton’s ethical shortcomings weren’t as bad as Trump’s, it means they somehow weren’t shortcomings at all.

The formula is the same: solid investigative journalism, civil disobedience, and a strong two party system.

The nation’s highest job should carry the highest burden of purity.

Anyone would be hard pressed to name a elite skater who veers in quality over the duration of their contract like Lundqvist, Bobrovsky or Rinne has, who most would put him as a top 5 goalie, even if it’s difficult to square his numbers (3 sub .920 seasons the past 4 years) with his 7M salary.

Sell on the proposition that skaters are significantly more consistent than goaltenders—it’s less magnified because they play less minutes, sure, but top-flight skaters end up with substantial year-to-year variance in performance. $6-7M for a goaltender who has enough of a track record to confidently predict .920+ in…

Ask Dallas or NYI how that’s worked out for them.