Detroit Blues

Small world! I lived and studied there 2006-2009. I assume you were doing study abroad or something? As for its current politics, the student and faculty population is obviously super liberal/progressive. As is parts of Lansing, they have a few particular neighborhoods that are very LGBTQ friendly and vibrant. The rest of Mid-Michigan though, is exactly as you remember it.

Yeah, Minnesota and the single district of Nebraska are generally solid democrat territory. I would be shocked if either went for trump this year. That leaves the race at 226 (D) vs 219 (R) with these battleground states remaining: Arizona (11) Georgia (16) Michigan (15) Nevada (6) North Carolina (16) Pennsylvania (19) Wisconsin (10) Since 1980-2020, Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania have all voted for the same candidate in each election, with the sole exception being the 1988 presidential election: - 1980 /1984 - Reagan (R) - 1988 - Wisconsin went for Dukakis (D), Michigan/Penn went for H.W Bush (R) - 1992 / 1996 - Clinton (D) - 2000 - Gore (D) - 2004 - Kerry (D) - 2008 / 2012 - Obama (D) - 2016 - Trump (R) - 2020 - Biden (D) Since they account for 44 electoral votes, if they all go towards the same candidate, it would be the tipping point of the election. At 226 + 44 = 270, Harris would win the election by locking up the "blue wall" of Michigan/Wisconsin/Pennsylvania. If they go for Trump, her path towards victory is extremely slim, as Trump would be at 219 + 44 = 263. He would just need one of Arizona, Georgia, or North Carolina. If Trump only won Nevada, it would get him to 269 and an electoral college tie. In that circumstance, it would come down to who controls the House of Representatives (including the Nov 2024 races). 538 currently has Republicans at a 54% chance to retain the House of Representatives. The Senate would pick the VP, which means Trump could be saddled with a democrat as VP, or vice versa. I personally see Harris winning North Carolina, because the Republican candidate for Governor is so unpopular. Unfortunately, i think Georgia will go Republican. Either by actual mandate, or via 2000 Florida election shenanigans. This is the state, if you've been reading the news, has a partisan electoral commission that is changing the rules to force a hand count, and will likely not certify a Harris win. Unfortunately, if Harris wins Georgia, but they fail to certify, and that is the number of electors needed to get her over 270, then it will go to the supreme court, which will almost assuredly vote in favor of Trump on partisan lines. Lastly, it's just a gut feeling, but I can see Arizona and Nevada going for trump. Something about the focus on immigration, and Trump tapping into the anti-migrant hatred, in two states that have high populations of immigrants.

Honestly, in my opinion, denying the results of the election with no evidence to back it up is treasonous. Not only it disqualify that person from running for office again, but anyone who maintains that Trump won the 2020 Presidential election should be disqualified from holding office as well. Unfortunately, my fellow citizens living in the state of Michigan, do not agree. Mike Rogers, running for Senate in Michigan, maintains that Trump not only won the 2020 election nationally, but also won the state of Michigan in 2020. Biden won Michigan by 2-3% of the vote, which is something like 180k votes. How do citizens of Michigan feel about Mike Rogers, and his crazy election conspiracy theories? Well, he's only trailing Elissa Slotkin by about 4 points on average, and recent polls have him statistically tied.... It really makes you lose hope in democracy. No partisan viewpoints should be more important than our democratic values, and yet the NYT's latest poll has 95% of people who had voted for Trump in 2020 voting for him again in 2024. Denying the results of the election, raising an armed mob to attack the capitol, and all the other crazy things he's done in 4 years has only eroded his support by 5%. 19 out of 20 people who voted for him in 2020, saw what happened on January 6th, and are willing to support him in 2024. It makes me sick.

Any of ya'll get into Hell Let Loose? I picked it up on PC a few weeks ago. Really fun WW2 FPS game, and it's not just your run of the mill COD/Battlefield game, either. It really emphasizes squad based team work, and there's a command/leadership structure that provides a lot more strategy than any FPS game i've played before.

Nobody controls his anything, and if people are on TV talking about him, he is absolutely going to be watching He dictates his tweets, and spends large portions of his day (even when he was president) watching cable news. He is a egomaniacal sociopath, concerned only about getting attention and power.

If he loses (which is still a big if), I think he claims he won the election. I think he probably gets a lot of people riled up and do something stupid, like they did on Jan 6th, though I think the authorities will be better prepared to deal with it. Then, mainstream anti-trump Republicans will seize on the opportunity to take over the vacuum of leadership, eyeing 2026 mid-terms and 2028 presidential election primaries. Enough of Trumps' supporters will stop following him because he lost twice in a row, and he will no longer have the support of congress and the supreme court to protect him from the justice department's ongoing criminal investigations. The fact is, Trump needs to win to stay out of prison, which is why he is so dangerous.

Good on her. It probably doesn't help that the perception is that Texas will always be Red, so why bother, but it seems like Texas is becoming more and more of a toss-up nationally. I definitely grew up in an era where enlightened centrism, of "both sides suck" was very prevalent. Now, I think that couldn't be farther from the truth. The ideological divide between the two major parties has grown exceptionally over the last decade.

Probably? Buonanotte is far further in his professional development than Alves. He's played like a full season and a half of top flight professional football between Argentina and the Premier League. Alves has almost no professional experience.

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.