Weave

My #1 point was a direct reply to your first paragraph, which was expressed by you as a conservative perspective. Yes, both sides don't like the application of the voting laws. Only one side thinks there are too many votes. Regarding your second point. Bull *****. You show me an avenue to better choices and I'm walking the first steps down that path yesterday. We cannot demand what we cannot control. How do you demand better choices? How do you force a private entity (GOP and Dem parties) to change their operating rules? How is this even possible when you don't have the influence (money) to change their ways? And if the election process is set up to specifically work for GOP and Dems, how do you vote for an alternative? You get filtered choices already vetted for ability to raise money in primary, and you get even more filtered choices in the election. The filter is the problem, not the people doing the voting. By the time it gets to them free choice is a sham.

One other point regarding "election tampering". This isn't my point. I stumbled across it and am repeating it in my own words. The coalition that is challenging the swing states election results aren't claiming fraud, they are claiming allegations of fraud. Let's see. It started with allegations of fraud by Trump's team, preemptively (how convenient). Then they spread the propaganda of fraud. Then they staged rallies and publicity stunts to give these allegations an air of credibility. And now they are citing their own disinformation as a call to action. All this with no evidence and no legal backing. And zero independent support. It's a grand circle jerk. Literally. And members of Congress are using this circle jerk as the foundation for a protest. Like I said, all this is setting precedent for Congress to take over the right for states to conduct their own elections. And the end result is going to be violence I am afraid.

1. How do you define tampering? In all of the cases that the Trump election team went after, the states had their election laws in place well before the election. In most of those cases it was with the blessing of state GOP. Are states not allowed to set and manage their own elections? If not, when did that become a conservative thing? What happened to state's rights? This whole thing is awfully convenient in its timing. Noone lifted a finger to challenge these rules until Trump lost. And now with a coalition looking to challenge specific states, state's rights are even further in jeopardy than they already were. Ted Cruz and crew are setting up a precedent whereby Congress gets to ultimately appoint the President by approving/disapproving an individual state's duly performed election. If you really want tampering, there it is in a nutshell. 2. We keep voting for the same people because that is all the two parties will put before us to vote upon. You can't blame the voters when they have no say in who is up for election, and no transparency about the candidates. See my thoughts re: Citizen's United. It was bad before that Supreme Court case. It is much, much worse now. Once you leave county politics and enter state level politics ability to raise money determines whether you'll get any party support at all, and let's face it, without party support you're done. You don't get invited to debates, you don't get a team to do the leg work and PR work, and you don't get any money.

We've seen that a Justice Dept. beholden to a President is dangerous in that it will protect that President. Appointment of the US Attorney General needs to somehow become a bipartisan process. Trump also showed you can eliminate Congressional oversight of Cabinet positions merely by appointing interim Cabinet heads. Eliminate that. There needs to be tighter control over enforcement of the Emoluments Clause. There needs to be tighter controls regarding the hiring and firing of the various Inspectors General as well. We've seen that Trump bullied his way by firing the controls that were supposed to reign him in. And the system appeared unwilling or unable to stop it. Really, most of what Trump has been accused of doing would be contained with a powerful Justice Dept. The President and Congress used to fear the FBI. I'm comfortable with that. Make a strong Justice Dept, not beholden to any one group or party, and we are much, much less likely to see justice obstruction, brazen profiteering, soliciting of foreign governments for political assistance, violation of campaign finance laws, and many of the other things Trump has been involved in. And from my view the situation has very rapidly degraded since the Supreme Court's Citizens Untied decision. Dark money and unlimited spending has resulted in an election system heavily skewed towards ultrawealthy individuals and corporations. I've mentioned before in this thread that the curtain is now thrown back and the Wizard is there for all to see. They don't need to hide it, and they don't need to put up a front. Now we get things like Mitch McConnell saying that he won't allow a single Biden win. He doesn't have to fake things. He can just put up a wall and let things burn because he'll back the ultrawealthy donors and they'll make sure he stays in office. Democracy is unsustainable when one side has a logarithmic edge in influence.

I would love to see the issues related to actual democracy that have been shown to be deeply flawed, fixed. But right at this moment one side benefits from those flaws. There won't be enough traction to get them actually fixed. And McConnell has come right out and literally said that he will not allow one win for Biden in the next 4 years. So, at best we'll see stagnation.

Ooof. Unneeded drama there.

2hr debate limit for each vote challenge. It certainly delays things a bit. In theory if one member of the house and one member of the senate agrees with the protest, the protest gets debated and voted upon. The vote needs to be a smiple majority in both houses for the electoral college votes for that state to be thrown out. But with a Dem majority in the house is is really, really unlikely that there would be a majority vote in both houses. I don't think we're done yet. I'm expecting Republican leadership to continue the assault well into Biden's term.

Mitts down a few pounds. Hopefully that's indicative of improved fitness.

Maybe intensity is the wrong word. I think Jack plays with more abandon than Sam does. Yes, Sam goes into dirty areas, but when Jack is going into areas he's doing it with more speed. Sam's trip is more stealthy.

I'll take the 8-10 games lost and keep the intensity level.

Hall- Eichel - Olofsson could be fun as hell to watch. It's been a long time since we saw the fun that LaFontaine - Mogilny provided.

Cozens, Lazar, and Okposo would be an interesting line to start Cozens career. Two hard working vets, one with a stellar reputation and great hands, both with size and grit. I think Cozens could learn alot in a short period of time playing with those two.

And that may force our hand. I hope not. I hope he naturally progresses into center ice, but boy his work along the boards and down low is a thing of beauty. He could be one hell of a wing.

Dylan Cozens has been a horse. My goodness does he control play with is size, strength, and work. No doubt we've found our power forward. The only question will be is he our next 2C, or our next 1RW.

I'd love to know the story there.

Washington just signed one of the only two guys in the league that Tom Wilson has to respect.

I wouldn't hate that.

I def find the 3rds theme easier to read. I'm not sure I like it from a purely cosmetics perspective (blue on blue on blue), but it is a bit easier to read. I'm inclined to leave it on for now. I'll compare again this evening when the lighting is lower inside.

By my eye it's varied from game to game, but he's been top 2 each game. For example, I don't think he was Canada's best player last night, but he sure was their next best player last night. He's a cornerstone for that team for sure. What I've liked is he seems to always be in on a play. He's consistently made things happen. I can't wait to see how he looks against tougher competition.

Violating the spirit of the rule is a better description than cheating. Although violating the spirit of the rules is pretty much contained within the definition of cheating. Upon further review, I'll allow it.

I'll add this to the trade rules that allow tanking that I don't particularly care for.

I seem to have stumbled upon what i think is a legit youtube feed for the Can-SVK game. Slovak announcers (I think). What a cool find.

Boston, Montreal, Hartford, Quebec, Ottawa Are any more really needed?

This pretty well sums it up. Tage has shown improvement in his AHL stint. He has also improved on the one element that was clearly holding him back. (his physical development). During Tage's time in the NHL he showed he could skate with big leaguers. He showed confidence in one on one battles. But he was clearly physically overmatched. Casey, on the other hand, looked lost in away from the puck positioning, in one on one battles, and really only showed well when he was open and unpressured. They both went to the AHL and Tage's game grew. Reports out of Rochester suggested he was dominating at times and controlling play and possession. The organization saw his development and chose him as the first injury call up. And, of course, he put a bunch of weight on his frame for this year. The reports on Casey from Rochester were mixed at best. He still showed the ability to stickhandle in a phone booth, but his play away from the puck was lousy, and he continued to have issues with possession and one on one battles. And, of course, the team gave Tage an optimistic contract, and Casy a show me contract. I think it's pretty clear which player is expected to make the team and which one still has much to prove. I could have posted this 3 hrs ago, LOL.

You're kidding, right?