jerryskids

I know, I just told @Fnordexactly that.

Exactly. California is Hunter Biden.

Not exactly. Both of them built off of their fortunes. Kim Kardashian is another. California is the rich trust fund kid who sits around smoking pot and making it rain in clubs.

An argument can both be a strawman and be correct. We were discussing Trump's speech ability... ... and here we are, still discussing the situation in Springfield.

Wut? Your culture blows. You have nearly unlimited God-given natural resources -- great weather, beaches, mountains, ports, raw materials -- and somehow you still manage to fock it up and have companies/people leaving in droves. That's not "culture." California is like the son of the rich dad who thinks he is superior because his dad is rich. Wait, you literally ARE that kid.

I remember that at least 1/2 of the land was on state land, although Google isn't clear on that. Nationwide, I've seen estimates that 84% of fires are on state or private vs. federal land. Also California environmental groups protest against such cleanup.

Sorry, I fell asleep during your first option it was so boring, so I never read the rest. This is dumb. 10 expensive homes get destroyed, and 1000X as many hovels more inland get destroyed. If you've been to coastal communities, you know you don't have to go very far inland to find the shacks that house the people who work for the rich people/resorts.

Does that mean you plan to drink until your third divorce?

If you don't drink much, it's not for you. Thanks for your poignant opinion anyway.

They are already incel beta cucks; what is the sacrifice here?

WTF is "no nut November?" I'm not looking to be a monk.

Nice centrist position.

NP, thanks for responding. I just thought it took way too long to develop, and like you said, the ending was predictable. Spoilers:

Asians age better than whiteys.

FWIW, neither of those are in the HOF. Bonds is another interesting conundrum, because you absolutely cannot tell the story of baseball without Bonds. IMO there are ways to put him in, with his story, in a less-than-glowing way, so that future generations can piece together the story.

Fair enough. I think I'm a little older than you (57), and at the age of 8-ish, my two best friends and I started playing wiffleball in the street for thousands of hours over the next few summers. I was 8 in 1975, the pinnacle of the Big Red Machine. We memorized starting lineups and pretended to be those batters for each at bat. Rose, Morgan, Bench, Perez, Concepcion... a murderers row of awesomeness. Basically I wax poetic back to those days. IMO, that's kinda what the HOF is about.

Fair. But I don't think that relatively small overlap disqualifies him as a player. Even in the dual role, his personnel decisions (including regarding himself) were as Rose the Manager.

I just explained this to my wife, who is a huge sports fan. Wife: "But if he bet on his team, is it that bad of a thing?" Me: "Yeah, because as a manager, the nature of his bets could have influenced how he managed lineups, relievers, replacement players, etc." That being said, it's sad that the HOF can't induct him as a player-only, and have some statement about him being a POS as a manager. There are many arguments about who belongs in a HOF: one I like the most is: can you tell the story of the sport without him? Undeniably, the answer is "no" for Rose, on both fronts.

Zing$#@!

Pete's biggest qualification was being the failed mayor of one of the worst cities in the country. Also ghey.

You don't think the Transportation Secretary would be deeply involved in this? I would think he'd be neck deep into trying to get both parties together, working on contingency plans in the event of a strike, etc.

Sure, there are always exceptions. Perhaps where we disagree is in the ratio of actual kids with severe gender dysphoria which may warrant medical intervention, vs. the less severe to social contagion cases. I happen to think the latter is much more prevalent. Even if not, or even if not a majority, I think the default should be "physician, do no harm" in general. BTW, your 0.01% estimate earlier significantly underestimates the number of people, and particularly kids, who identify as trans. This data is several years old, I'm sure it's much larger now. https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/press/transgender-estimate-press-release/

Is your straw man now that bringing attention to the issue is bad? I thought we were discussing Trump being a horrible public speaker as per Sean. Seems you are saying he is too effective of a public speaker.

Again- the issue of a small town being swarmed by migrants would have been ignored if Trump said some politician-speak like "the number of migrants in Springfield is concerning."

If you agree with my last sentence, I don't see how you come to this position. Also, by your argument, I presume you also disagree with states taking away parental rights and/or giving sanctuary to "trans" kids against their parents' wishes?