TrueBlueGED

My biggest memory of Jason Dawe is just how damn slow he was in NHL 96.

Rapaport said he didn't mean literally vomiting, but they were very emotional. Well, the Vikings release says "and other structural damage", so. Maybe it's just relatively minor like cartilage?

Well, it's official: dislocated knee, torn ACL, other structural damage...but no nerve or vascular damage.

Where are our resident doctors? I need someone to explain to me how the hell this can happen randomly in a non-contact manner.

MCL too? Just trying to think what else is could be (do we even know it's the knee?).

I'll worry if it drags into camp, and not a moment sooner. I do wonder what the holdup is, however. I wonder if they're looking at him as closer to Ekblad than Maatta, and Murray is hoping for something like Rielly or Jones?

You most definitely do not have to stop eating nachos :angel:

Eichel's first game against the Rags this year I want him to get a hat trick and two assists, and at some point skate past the Rangers bench and give Vesey the ol' Michael Jordan shoulder shrug.

Seriously. If Tony Romo is only average, then there's like four good QBs currently in the league.

It's a shame that the Bush clan is anti-Trump, because a picture of GWB and Trump hugging would be perfect. It's on! Shall we make it from the point the over/under is certain until the Super Bowl?

I can only assume that you and Zach Bogosian would have been royalists circa 1775 ;)

I wrote a "book" somewhere in this thread touching on this very thing. Perhaps to your surprise, I agree with you on this more than I disagree--much of Trump's support isn't of the "You have dark skin? You're genetically inferior" variety racism. It's not a conscious judgment. It's about in-group vs out-group and perceived threat to status quo, and happens very much subconsciously. The groups change over time, but one thing Madison got 100% correct was the prevalence of group-based conflict and identity politics. But what has to happen for this all to take place is members of a group have to actually identify as part of a group. For this nation's history, whites haven't identified as whites--they'd identify as workers, union members, teachers, white collar...whatever, but not as a racial group (whereas minorities traditionally have). This is changing. We may diverge on this point, but I don't think it's a coincidence this group identification is emerging on the heels of an African American being president (for example, economic anxiety amongst whites spiked in the aftermath of the 2008 election...I have data!) and whites barreling towards being only a plurality, rather than majority. I certainly agree that it's not 1700s-style racism, and much of his support isn't a bunch of closet KKK members, but there is a racial component that shouldn't be ignored. Any time I can waste your time, I consider it a win :D I believe in the multiverse. I don't think anything is ever certain. Somewhere, in some world, Cody Hodgson is even still a useful hockey player. But there is a zero percent chance that Bernie Sanders will be majority leader if the Dems take back the Senate. On Kaepernick, I think there's some great irony that we as a nation celebrated Muhammad Ali's social and political importance just a few months ago while bemoaning how few athletes are willing to take a stand like he did, and now we're vilifying Kaepernick for doing the exact same thing.

This response was perfect :beer:

Avatar bet? Over/under 8 wins, I get the over, you get the lower.

Proof reading others' work: easy. Proof reading your own work is where things get hard.

The Buffalo Bills are making the playoffs. 10-6. Suck it, haters.

Fun with the filter: Flying Dog Raging Bitch. Dear Neo, if my post in the politics thread is disjointed and mildly erratic, this is why :)

He likes me! He really likes me! :D :p So my dissertation is/was (not finishing...super long story...changing career track...not telling...maybe at the Sabrespace meetup) on the political aspects of the Department of Justice, in particular presidential influence at DOJ. The foundational theory being that presidents want to use DOJ as they would any other cabinet-level agency--to make policy--and that DOJ responds accordingly, though within bounds (US Attorneys have strong professional norms, and bureaucrats in general are very resistant to political influence over time). Presidents matter, appointments matter...but ultimately the data say we're looking at marginal effects across administrations, not monumental shifts...and even then, the differences only truly show themselves on issues central to the administration. On the large majority of matters, the US Attorneys may as well not even be presidential appointees--they act as your typical DA working within resource and institutional constraints and whatnot. Where presidential influence shows is in the ideology of the appointments (do not get me started on trying to measure that , it sucks) and budgeting. Want to know a president's real priorities? Look at the budget they present to Congress. And it's not about budgetary growth, it's about growth rates. Bureaucratic spending grows, the rate at which it grows is what's telling. Oh, and because I enjoy poking da beah, Hillary was never going to be prosecuted. It's not because she's Hillary Clinton, it's because she was a cabinet head and is a major party nominee for president. She could have been named Purple Dynamite running on the Republican ticket and she wouldn't be prosecuted in this situation unless she/he/it was literally burning a whole ethnic group in secret. I'm not godwinning the matter, I'm deadly serious. It wasn't happening. Politics matters at DOJ, it always has, and it always will. It looks horrible because she was Obama's Secretary of State...but it wasn't happening regardless. Anyone can debate the morality/ethics of it all they want, but expecting an indictment was foolhardy from the start. Don't hate the player, hate the game! (Again, I'm actually serious about this). All that aside, my true passion has always been for political behavior--how and why people vote, how and why people form the opinions they do, and so on. It's just a super fascinating thing to study. Dissertation aside, the vast majority of my reading and writing is on this stuff. The notion of closet Trump supporters and polling is fascinating because he routinely does better in online polls and robopolls than in live interviewer polls. There is a concept known as satisficing (aka the social desirability effect), where survey respondents either give answers they think the interviewer wants them to give or they suppress responses they think would be "unacceptable". So theoretically, it wouldn't be crazy to think this is happening regarding Trump, with the effect being his polling underestimating his actual support. However, I don't think it is. Two reasons why: 1) this effect didn't present itself in the primaries (in many cases he underperformed his polling) and 2) Trump supporters aren't shy--quite the opposite, they're proud. Traditionally, whites haven't identified as whites (to be sure, back in the 60s-70s and earlier there was a "them" but there really wasn't an "us"), whereas minorities do identify with their racial/ethnic group. But as whites trend towards plurality status, as opposed to majority status, there is emerging a clear white identity politics--whites are increasingly identifying as a group in a way we haven't seen before. Trump is the vocal embodiment of this, and his base isn't afraid to express group-based sentiment, which is why I'm extremely skeptical of the notion that the polls are underestimating his support. And yes, I am absolutely differentiating between Trump's base and the "not Hillary" vote. To return to something I expressed during the primaries: Trump voters are definitely Trump voters, but the bigger problem he faces are that non-Trump voters really are non-Trump voters. After all, 60% of Republican primary voters wanted somebody else (percentage based upon vote returns before Cruz and Kasich dropped out). In the general, partisanship will correct a good deal of this issue...but there is a non-trivial possibility that moderate Republican identifiers simply stay home--as little as a couple percentage points of R-voters staying home makes it impossible for him to win. Hillary, much to the chagrin of the left-wing flank of the Democratic Party, is clearly messaging in a way meant to convince these moderate Republicans that even if they don't support her, it really is okay to not support him. And I've got a $100 charity wager riding on this, so I have skin in the game. I have financial incentive to not be wrong! :) I think the most interesting question this election is what kind of a down-ballot effect there will be. The top of a party's ticket matters, and it matters a lot. Trump is polling 5-7 points behind down-ballot Republicans in competitive races. Put differently, if Trump only truly trails Hillary by that range, then the presidential race is a net-neutral effect--the races really will be about the candidates and campaigns themselves, and the Senate is absolutely in play, but he's not crucifying the entire Republican slate. Jon Snow, as I type this, was in an ad for the Infinite Q60. Fun. Anyway, if Trump's deficit ends up creeping towards double digits, then there's no reasonable way for the Republicans to retain a majority in the Senate, and the House could be in danger. This is a real long shot--it'd take a landslide (loosely defined as a 10%+ margin in the popular vote) to actually flip control of the House. If the Democrats had nominated a better candidate than Hillary, I'd say a landslide was very much in play. As is, I doubt it. Either way, it'll be fun to watch the eventual winner claim some kind of a mandate out of this mess (and mandates are phony nonsense anyway, but that's a whole other post). Beyond any voting and results that occur, probably the greatest damage Trump has done to the Republican Party is institutional in nature. Presidential elections are prime training ground for the future of the party, from campaign managers to analysts. Data crunchers, activists, and so on, cut their teeth working for campaigns they're passionate about--especially younger members of these groups. Enthusiasm breeds activism breeds enthusiasm and activism in the future for the party. That experience in lower level staff positions is critical for party building and strength in the future--the assistants and associates become managers and senior analysts. Interest leads to activity which reinforces interest and promotes future activity. Trump is dumping on all of that, as his support amongst younger members of the electorate is incredibly low. Kristen Soltis Anderson (who is terrific, and everyone across the political spectrum should read her work...insert plug for "The Pollsters" podcast here) wrote a book about how the GOP can target the political tendencies of younger voters and build for the future...well, Trump is essentially doing the exact opposite of everything she proposes. Trump is a long term danger to the party--he's not only appealing to a shrinking portion of the electorate, but he's managing to alienate the growing and future segments of the electorate. It's not apocalyptic by any means--but pretending his candidacy doesn't matter or is a good thing is true head-in-the-sand stuff. The GOP was already behind in the data game, and this election is only exacerbating the deficit. It's no secret that I'm left of center ideologically. So take all of this as you will, but I want the best of the best on both sides facing off against one another in a vigorous exchange of ideas, and ultimately (hopefully), the best ideas from each side being taken on the road to compromise. If anyone wants to think me hopelessly biased, fine, do what you will...but Trump is the worst, and you'll find much the same sentiment shared within the "elite" conservative circles. Rejecting Trump doesn't mean acceptance or support of Hillary.

I stopped reading here :p Kidding. That's what I was looking for, thanks. With the semester starting Monday, I've been scrounging for anecdotes and such to talk about regarding the election :)

I've been meaning to ask this, but it was one of those things that the thread moved on from the Court and I didn't want to backtrack it 3 days. Anyway, this: Is there something in particular that gives you confidence you'll prefer his appointments beyond your anticipated hatred of hers? I ask because this is a man who revokes press credentials for outlets that publish critical articles--doesn't exactly point to a healthy respect for the 1st Amendment. That's not even getting into many of authoritarian overtones contained within his rhetoric.

Keep on reinforcing the millennial stereotype of hating on popular things for no good reason :p

I honestly believe North America is notably better. Sad. Didn't have to be this way.

It absolutely has meaning. It's talking about the power of symbolism.

I hope something is getting lost in translation here. It could just mean his game isn't fully back, which is fine and somewhat expected. If it means he physically not fully recovered, however, that's less than ideal.

Good news! It's coming back as soon as the election is done. My current avatar was chosen very early in the election cycle last summer when everyone was freaking out about every single poll. Well one pollster was including "Deez Nuts" among candidate choices, and it was polling at 10% or so consistently. The whole point of me taking the avatar was to point out how little people pay attention to the presidential election 15 months before it happens, and now little polls at that point actually mean. Currently, the avatar represents arguably the best choice for your 2016 vote :D I love me some Anne Hathaway.