Detroit Blues

Think of it less as changing her fans' political opinions, and more of motivating voter turnout of a group (young voters) that typically do not vote. This race is likely coming down to which party's base turns out in the highest numbers, and if Swift can rally her fans to show up and vote, it could have a big impact in the swing states.

Horrible.

Let's be honest, the idea that you could analyze a team's finances and determine how much they should be able to spend is an impossible task. It just begs for creative accounting, legal loopholes, etc. Regulators will always be a step behind, especially compared to massive clubs like the "big six" and their armies of lawyers. If you want some level of parity, you don't base it on how much a club "can afford," since that is so arbitrary. You create a hard cap. Each club gets to spend a fixed amount divided between transfer fees and player wages per season. Tie that salary cap to league revenue from the prior year(s) so that teams know exactly how much the cap will be going into the season. At the end of the January transfer window, clubs and the Premier League's regulators will have a pretty damn good idea of their compliance. With a hard cap, any club, be it a historic "blue blood" like Manchester United, a "new money" oil state funded club like Man City or Newcastle, or even little old Leicester can spend as much money as they want up to the limit. Some teams will be able to afford to spend up to the cap. Others will knowingly spend beyond their revenue, financed by the owner's personal wealth. Others will not spend up to that limit, and instead will choose to spend less in a more responsible manner. I would argue that this would not be that different from what is the current system, except for the fact that it will be legal to overspend and more transparent. Some will say that this will allow teams to spend irresponsibly. But do we really need the Premier League or EFL to save teams from themselves? Virtually all other businesses operate in the capitalist environment where they can outspend their earnings, and have to deal with the consequences if they do so. Hell, the same goes for all of us as individuals. Just because I technically could go out today and buy a Ferrari, does not mean I am going to do so. Even in the current system, teams still find themselves in financial distress. I for one do not think a responsible club should have its hands tied, and the status quo cemented, solely to stop clubs from spending themselves into administration. That is a punishment in of itself.

I didn't think I'd say it, but I wish vestergaard was in the starting XI 😂

I like to cook. I hated on air fryers as a useless gimmick that would take over valuable countertop space... then I got one for Christmas. I use it almost every day. Chicken nuggets for the little one? Air Fryer. Roasted Veggies? Air Fryer. Skin on, bone in Chicken Thighs and Drumsticks? Air Fryer. Cooks food quicker, uses energy more efficiently, heats up your home less. My only regret is not getting a bigger air fryer.

Mexico has been on a downward decline for awhile now. They needed Korea to beat Germany, to advance to the knockout round in 2018, and failed to get out of the group in 2022 for the first time since 1978. They didn't get out of the group at Copa America 2024. Before that, they got knocked out 7-0 by Chile in 2016. They have been completely dominated by America in every competitive fixture since Gregg Berhalter's hire, including each of the 3 Nation's League's tournaments (2 finals and 1 semifinal loss). They've had 4 managers since the 2018 world cup. There's deep, systemic issues. Sure, manager quality might be one of them, but they really aren't putting players into Europe due to LigaMX dominance on club football in the country. Player salaries are way higher than what most players would make in Europe (since most end up playing in Holland, Portugal, etc.). LigaMX Clubs are so competitive, they do not want to sell up and coming talent. Player development is stagnating, while the best players in America, Canada, Jamaica, etc. all attempt to make it in Europe. Then there's the federation, which is a whole other bag of worms. I just don't see how this changes in the short or medium term future.

The most likely chance towards electoral college reform is the 270 compact - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact This essentially hijacks the electoral college process, since (once passed) whoever wins the popular vote will get 270 electoral college votes. The brilliance is that these laws are passed at the state level, and the US Constitution provides the individual states broad authority to determine how to award its electoral college votes. Currently, the states that have passed these laws add to 209 electoral college votes. There are about another 50 that are pending in some form, within state legislatures. To hit the 270 threshold, those states would need to get the laws over the line, and another state (or states) worth 11 electoral college votes would need to pass the law, for example, Arizona. This would almost certainly trigger a Supreme Court challenge, on the constitutionality of the state laws. The current Supreme Court, would likely rule 6-3 across partisan lines that these laws are unconstitutional, citing some originalist viewpoint that the founding fathers of the constitution never intended elections to be done this way. However, it would likely be decades before enough states pass the compact, and at that time the makeup of the supreme court could be very different. Changing the US Presidential Election to a popular vote would have massive repercussions. The current Republican Party would struggle to win any Presidential election, as the last time they won a popular vote was 2004, with George W Bush as the incumbent, who had previously lost the popular vote in 2000. The last time a non-incumbent Republican President was elected was in 1988, when George H.W Bush defeated Michael Dukakis. Even then, he was the current VP to Ronald Reagan. Without the Presidency, the Republican Party would be unable to nominate conservative supreme court justices. To show how much of an effect the electoral college has had on the makeup of the current supreme court: - Chief Justice John Roberts, and Samuel Alito was nominated by George W Bush, elected after losing the popular vote. - Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett were nominated by Donald Trump, elected after losing the popular vote. Over time Republicans would be relegated to losing Presidential elections and having their conservative supreme court justices replaced. Eventually, they would either need to shift farther to the center in order to win national elections, or they would cease to be a political force outside of owning red state legislatures and occasionally controlling one (or both) houses of congress. Even in those circumstances, they would need bipartisan support to pass any conservative laws, as they would need to have the support of the President of veto-proofed super majority in congress to exceed the veto power of a Democratic president.

I was shocked that Tottenham's first half xG was so low, given how "dominant" they were: According to the stats, they created very little in open play, and most of their xG came from the numerous set pieces we conceded. The second half was (obviously) much better. We won way more ground and aerial duels, and created far more lethal chances in the 2nd half than Tottenham had in either half -

That passing sequence was beautiful. I really thought Vardy was going to slot it past the keeper. You could tell after the keeper saved it, Vardy was furious with himself that he didn't score.

We're so back 😂

Growing into the game.

Either international aid will run out for Ukraine, or Domestic support of the war will end for Putin. Neither military is capable, on its own, of winning the war via military means. That said, this invasion into Kursk should pose problems for Putin, if he cannot quickly contain the breakthrough and push them out.

One of the things most do not realize is that the NCAA system for Olympic sports is almost entirely funded by college (American) football. The revenue generated by American football and basketball programs fund the entire athletic budget. In addition, because of Title IX rules, the University must provide an equal amount of scholarships to female athletes as males. This is why the American women, on their own, would have finished 3rd in the overall medal count. Unfortunately, this is all in peril. Recently college athletes been allowed to profit on their image and likeness for sponsorships. Now the supreme court has ruled universities can directly pay athletes. This will lead to football/basketball players demanding a large share of the entire athletic budget (that they help generate) of their universities, leading towards non-revenue generating sports getting binned to save money. Contrary to popular opinion, most college athletic departments barely break even since so much money must be invested back into the football/basketball programs in order to compete at the highest level. Adding 80-100 athletes on to the schools' payroll to stay competitive in revenue generating sports will have a direct impact on the number of athletes competing in non-revenue sports.

I loved the original, but even that was very easy.

Why are y'all acting like the IBA is a legit organization full of ethical gender testing procedures? Here is the IOC's official statement: Essentially the IBA general secretary made a unilateral decision to disqualify the athletes. The IBA's official statement makes no reference to how the athletes were tested. Here's a good article linking the IBA's support from Gazprom, to the IOC yanking the IBAs credentials, to the IBA using these two women as a way to strike back at the IOC. https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/columnist/dan-wolken/2024/08/01/boxers-under-fire-olympic-gender-tests/74634233007/ At best these are intersex women born with a medical condition that likely provides no sporting advantage, and their medical situation is being used as a tool to humiliate them on the world stage. At worst, they have no medical condition at all, and are instead being used in the middle of a proxy battle because they have masculine features. Either way, there's an extreme lack of empathy.

It seems like whenever he went he was loved by all the players and the fans. I hope the club honors him in some way for his loyal years of service.

Maybe I am completely daft. But does it say how the athletes were tested? It says they did not do the Testosterone test, which is basically the gold standard. I read that they did a "separate and confidential test." What was the methodology? Is the basis of testing supported by science? Perhaps if the organization was trustworthy, we could just take them at their word, but as mentioned previously they had been stripped by the IOC based on issues governing the sport of boxing, and ethics complaints: https://www.bbc.com/sport/boxing/65987324 "The IOC's executive board recommended the move earlier in June after the IBA failed to meet set reforms following its 2019 suspension over governance issues and alleged corruption. Of 70 valid votes on Thursday, 69 voted in favour of the recommendation." "Before the vote, IOC president Thomas Bach said: "We do not have a problem with boxing. We do not have a problem with boxers. "The boxers fully deserve to be governed by an international federation with integrity and transparency." In response, the Russian-led IBA accused the IOC of making a "tremendous error" and compared the move to Germany's actions in the Second World War." To me, this reads as a shady organization in the IBA trying to garner anti-trans outrage to lash out at the IOC, for stripping them of the right to govern Olympic boxing.

This is a really popular topic in right wing circles who believe Trans women are destroying women's sports. Unfortunately for Imane, she was lumped into this category, regardless of if she really fits that narrative. 1) Imane Khelif does not identify as trans. She's a Muslim woman from Algeria. 2) The gender test she failed was a XY chromosome test. Scientists have argued against this type of testing, and it has been out of favor for decades. They now favor hormone testing for Testosterone levels, which is the hormone that allows men to develop more muscle mass than women. 3) The organization that banned her was the IBA. The IBA was banned from running boxing tournaments in the Olympics due to governance issues and ethics scandals. The IOC took over running the testing/judging of the event, of which Imane was cleared to compete. Unfortunately these things are just not really as black and white as people would like it to be. Some people are born with XXY chromosomes and some people are born intersex, etc. The concerns conservatives have about people who are born as biological men, who later have sexual reassignment surgery and hormonal therapy, and then choose to compete against people who are born as biological women is not without merits. It just does not fit this particular case, and unfortunately people on the internet do not favor nuanced opinions and would rather paint athletes like Imane with a broad brush to fit their political narrative. It causes a lot of pain for these athletes, who are brandished as evil men who are preying upon women for the glory of athletic achievement. Simply look at the twitter replies to the link you provided.

Here's a more comprehensive article on the subject: https://www.nbcnews.com/sports/olympics/are-different-olympic-medal-counts-know-tally-rcna164477

FYI, that's just how NBC shows the medal standings over here. It's not some dastardly plan to put America in first place For example - https://www.nbcolympics.com/beijing-2022-medal-standings https://www.nbcolympics.com/tokyo-2020-medal-standings

I'm a big fan of Robert Eggers' work. If you haven't seen them, The Lighthouse and The Witch are really good too.

It looks like the the kit Guy Fieri would want if he owned a team. Flavortown FC

I think everyone would love to see if it worked, or failed spectacularly. If he won the World Cup with England, it would really cement his legacy of being the GOAT.

I wont stand for this Josh Sargent slander He's got a really high work rate, he seems to be very likeable, and towards the end of last season he was really starting to show what he is capable of (13 goals in 21 games).... But he is not a proven commodity at the Premier League level. To me, he would be a project like Tom Cannon. If we were still in the Championship, i think he would be a really good signing, but I don't see how he'd help us in a relegation battle.

Due to the host locations, London will be between 5 hours ahead for East Coast games, 6 hours ahead of the central region (Texas, Mexico, Kansas City), and 8 hours ahead of the west coast games. So I would wager the earliest games will start around 4:30 in London, and the latest games will end around 2:30am. Honestly, that's not that bad, all things considered.