LaBombo

Totally get what you're saying. I hate the idea of terrorism no matter the target or perpetrators, and domestic/foreign soil is a useful distinction to make. But the necessity of tying Christianity to the root motivations of terrorism just hours after hundreds of its followers were once again victims of a horrific attack... there are 363 other days of the year to talk about Christianity-based terrorism besides Easter and Christmas. I had thought that the left's opining that Notre Dame should be rebuilt as a secular monument to multicultural statism while the ruins were still smoldering was a look so bad that it would not be topped for a long time. Instead there's a serious contender before the week is out.

Easter, 2016: 75 dead, 340 injured in Lahore, Pakistan by Islamic terror attacks on Christians. Palm Sunday, 2017: 45 dead, 126 injured in Egypt by Islamic terror attacks on Coptic Christians. Easter, 2019: at least 240 dead (including "several" Americans), at least twice as many injured, in terror attacks on Sri Lankan Christian churches and hotels. Warnings of an impending Islamic terror attack went unheeded for 10 days. I just wanted to make sure we're all on the same page here... that domestic Christianity-based terrorism is such a deadly and immediate threat that it's the sole topic of discussion here not only on the most sacred holiday of Christianity, but on the actual day of the 20th most deadly terror attack in modern history. Do I have that right? Because if that discussion can't wait for even one day, then I'm inclined to believe that it might be motivated by something other than concern for the well-being of others.

I'd tell you but they also have a gun pointed at my dog right now. Just at my $6 hot dog, not... you know, my... dog dog. But still, six bucks is six bucks.

NBD, just Taylor Rogers' control being resurrected one pitch away from a blown save.

Way to catch the outside of the plate by a stitch to keep from walking in the tying run. Good Lord. On a related note... Happy Easter!

Mr. Rogers' neighborhood is full of birds.

So far it's a step up from last year's bullpen, brought to you by the makers of Prozac.

That or the one futzing around on his phone in the bullpen while the starter throws a CG. Pro'ly hafta stick with mostly the Trevor we saw today, though.

Interesting/mildly disturbing.

I thought about apologizing too, but then I remember that stink bomb the kid and I watched him throw against the Yankees a few years ago and I think we'll just call it even.

Yup, but let's have him lean on someone while he's doing it. That catch looked like the end of every Dizzy Izzy run ever made.

St. Tortuga.... patron saint of chubby kids! Only he could make a nice defensive play while simultaneously making you wonder if he's reeeeally, actually a professional athlete.

That's a relief. Could've sworn the pitch count in the FSN batter/pitcher corner showed 86 in the 4th. Maybe that was the velocity on his fastball?

The thing about New Gibson is that he doesn't inspire that much confidence even when he's relatively on his game. He sort of forces you to remind yourself that he's figured out how to get the most out of his less-than-OMG stuff. That being said... Yeah, nearly 90 pitches with 1 out in the 4th is starting to look like Old Gibson.

Ok, but I hope their cybermetric computing machine didn't catch a virus when they downloaded it.

The fact that you would feel compelled to go on at length about Christian terrorism on any ordinary Easter Sunday would make me wonder how hard you're trying to isolate them. The fact that you're expounding on Christianity's role in terrorism on an Easter Sunday when we are still trying to determine the number of Americans (and hundreds of others) murdered today by anti-Christian terrorists... words fail me.

I don't think it was or would be smugness, with regard to the platform component of electability at least, to recycle success. If anything (and again, I'm only speculating from a campaign strategist's point of view, not an ideologue's), it would be much more pragmatic than a 'clean slate' approach to platform construction would have been in 2016, when inheriting a share of the popularity banked by your own party's two-term president. Hillary established a left/right track in the Senate that was comparable to or even slightly left of Obama, and her campaign generally didn't stray very far from that in the 2016 election. So with a similar overall ideological blueprint to Obama/Biden but ultimately saddled with a candidate we (and polling) agree was less likable than Obama, Democrats won the popular vote in 2016. Again, I'm not advocating for what I think is best for the country or even the Democratic party; I'm just saying that there's probably a fairly strong contingent inside their machine (strategists, rainmakers, etc) who see A] the electoral landscape as not being direly changed from 2016, B] their loss in that election as more the fault of the candidate than the platform, and C] therefore little incentive to reinvent the Democratic wheel with more spokes made of socialism, particularly when the consequences of a failed experiment are viewed as direly as they are. Then again, in a year's time a portrait of Karl Marx might poll above 55% in a hypothetical head-to-head vs. Trump and by going with Biden, Dems might miss a once-in-a-generation chance to leap to the left and remake the landscape of American politics... ... or consign themselves to irrelevancy for the first half of the coming decade, for that matter.

Given the high 50's approval rating of that administration both at its end and after it, a campaign strategist might answer that question with another question: "Why would he have to?"

Chihuahua/Mastiff mix?

That's echo chamber nonsense and you know it. The idea that Democrats have a corner on morality and civility is beyond offensive, and absurd as well.

Alternate theory: undecideds and moderates are turned off by EXACTLY this kind of "good vs. evil" sanctimony, not to mention the absurd alternate reality you're claiming in which mainstream media is complicit in an ongoing, UNILATERAL Republican smear campaign. Just a theory. Of course that theory may be partially a product of my having been called a Nazi on this forum, and with implicit approval of the entirely left-leaning regular posters who were active at the time, so feel free to question my objectivity.

You may be right; Trump has shown an unflagging willingness to sink beneath even the most minimal expectations on multiple occasions during his presidency. On the other hand, there's his assertion just after the F'ed thing in which he states "Everyone tells me that if you get one of these independent counsels it ruins your presidency. It takes years and years and I won't be able to do anything". That part, at least, sounds like a guy seeing what's left of his political capital evaporating, as opposed to his office or his freedom from incarceration.

Other than its 'R' rating, it's one of the most meme-able utterances of the decade. In the context of the scene in which the line was delivered within the melodrama that is Trump's presidency, it becomes pretty clear that he meant that the appearance of impropriety and the inexhaustible supply of media fodder arising from a special counsel investigation would ruin the effectiveness of his presidency, rather than that he saw an actual finding of guilt or actionable cause for impeachment eventually coming from the investigation. The twofold irony is that the "f-ed" line itself will probably be a bigger headache for him than any actual findings of the redacted full report, and that his presidency so far seems almost to have been scripted from the start to remove any shred of a benefit of the doubt that anyone but his supporters would give him with regard to the context of that line. Assuming that Trump's "F-ed" was referring to his ability to govern and not his chances of remaining in office, then I think it's cause for entire non-Trumpian electorate to breathe a sigh of relief: it shows that Trump apparently sought the presidency with at least some intent to actually govern, rather than to simply punk the entire nation by proving he could be elected.

So far it's looking like the full(ish) report is turning out about the same way as unpacking your own stuff after a move. A couple things are damaged, and you might eventually unbox something you forgot you had, but after the work of digging everything out, it's pretty much the same stuff. U.S. News sums it up pretty well (so far, at least)... "Mueller Report Has Changed Few Minds". CNN still swears it's a "roadmap to impeachment", while NBC's day shift Holt/Hunt duo agree that so far the report is "falling with a thud for a lot of Democrats".

I like it, but at the same time I'm wary of it in a sort of 'It's only funny when it's used right" sort of way. If I were able to post a .gif, it would be Futurama's squinting Fry saying "Not sure if ok when straight guy says it" In any case, he may be the easier candidate to market than Klobsie, strictly in terms of image and charisma. Klobuchar (Klobu? Char-O? AK-46?) remains my dark horse hope, although Andrew "Yang-y Doodle Dandy" would be my runaway choice as the best "I'm making popcorn, this is gonna be good!" candidate.