mark2

i was incredibly surprised for a brief second

I think it's best for Trumps sake that he takes a more moderate VP, maybe not Pence but a Tim Scott or someone like that, but he's likely going to take Stefanik. At least she'll grab up the 3 people who were apprehensive on Trump because there was no woman on the ticket.

I'll go unfavorable, just for siding with the CSA at the end of the day, but it's basically 50/50.

growing up is accepting the fact that if Sean McDermott's defense could make a stop before the 4th quarter they wouldn't have needed tyler bass to hit it 🤷‍♂️

There is no systemic racism post-redlining pointed out by said paper to further your argument though. Segregation only continued to increase under presidents such as Barack Obama, who I would certainly not consider a Reagan type conservative. We also, however, do not experience more segregation than "ever". This is just a factually incorrect statement, and perhaps an emotionally charged one. The vast majority of the paper spends time discussing increase in segregation from 1990 to 2019, which is well past the Reagan's presidency and includes presidents who disagree with Reagan on many things, such as Clinton, Obama and Trump to quite an extent. You can call Clinton a "Reagan democrat", but this is just discrediting how much they disagreed. Conservative economic policy such as supply-side economics did not increase segregation; while it may have lead to disparate outcomes which adversely affected lower-income people more than upper-income people (highly disputed itself), which thus tended to affect minorities more than it did white people, this isn't "racism". It's, at its most favorable to your position, a failed idea of economics. This does not make it fundamentally racist, nor does it mean that it's purpose was to "lessen" minorities' "power" and increase segregation. So, if we'd like to touch upon the topic of why places are still increasing in terms of segregation, or as you put it "places are still segregated because of the old systemic racism created," we need to discuss that in it's entirety, as well as the reasoning FOR that. We must also note that the places where "systemic racism" would be most expected, such as the deep red South or flyover country (Kansas, Nebraska, Iowa etc) are areas with significantly lower segregation than typically "progressive" areas such as the NY/PA/NJ area or the west coast. It's easy to brush things aside as "muh systemic racism", but if we are going to discuss this in good faith (which if we are going to continue this, which it seems like you are not interested in and I am not particularly in favor of myself, it'd be nice to move it to it's own thread or to a private message, just out of respect for V and his post), we'd have to discuss all possible factors at play, and not simply assert that a disparate outcome is a result of racism. I would like to mention though, on a side note, that I do appreciate your message most recently sent. While it was directed mainly towards Pringles, I do believe that you are genuine, and that you aren't arguing in bad faith, while I may disagree with you. I know some of these topics do trigger emotional responses, so I don't blame you for getting irritated over the subject.

I believe you've read this paper, correct? Why was your specific takeaway from this about segregations lingering effects, when the paper itself shows repeatedly and puts a major emphasis on areas that have become MORE segregated since 1980 and 1990, particularly a lot of northern areas such as Boston? This can't be your best example for the lingering effects of segregation when it mentions how, from 1970-1980, segregation decreased significantly, yet from 1980/1990-2020 segregation's decline has slowed significantly, and in many areas has INCREASED significantly. I'd assume if you had qualms about this, or if your specific takeaway was from a certain section of the paper, you wouldn't simply link the paper and call it a day, no?

I wanted to but had to cancel out. Now the conference championship is going to be in Baltimore if the Bills even win

I think this depends a lot on how DeSantis eats the L. I know there's a group of supporters who will refuse to vote for Trump, but I don't think it'd be particularly impactful if DeSantis eventually accepts the L and endorses Trump, or at least promotes voting for Trump in the general election. If he copes and seethes about it (very possible), then I'd say it'd be a significant portion.

America won.

this might be the biggest election upset of all time. still have to see the Democratic primaries though, you've got major possibilities for upsets like President Joe Biden somehow winning Iowa, or any other state for that matter.

i tried mini metro, but i didn't really get too into it. didn't capture me as much as mini motorways, but i do see why a fan of one game would probably like the other as well.

mini motorways was pretty good, i agree with recommending it

rude

ey waddya mean "yes really" id make a GREAT lt gov

for the record, my answer to 13 and 14 IS yes, just it's too much for me to go into detail about

CARLY!

Did this by best electorally. If I did it off of who I simply prefer more/less it'd look mostly different.

Ah, ok. Must've missed it.

Quick little note: Wasn't Billy Cox a SS/P? He's only a P on my team at the moment. I'll look at trades tomorrow.

RAHHHHHHHHHHH

I do not have Bulldog Turner. My center is Jack Simmons. Newt's Americans have Bulldog Turner. WOOOOOOOOO! WE'RE MEDIOCRE BORDERING ON BAD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! LETS GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

Alright, in such case I'll just post it, since I don't know any other deals I'd wanna make: for the few who regularly check the spreadsheet, feel free to offer for Cliff Lewis (FS).

This was my thought process for him doing it, since Toth is not much of a downgrade, and it fills a gap at FS which is pretty glaring with the poor pass defense on his team.

I'd like to propose Hamilton Nichols (G) to @Hestia for Lynn Chandnois (KR/PR) and Cliff Lewis (FS) to @OrangeP47 for Pat Harder (K). Both of these exchanges take reserve players and make them starters on each team. Side note: if I remember correctly, Pat Harder was historically a FB alone for most of his career correct?

an interesting question here is if it's despite the trials or because of the trials.