Randall Flagg

I think Baloo was my least favorite. Even if he was good, I would hope we trade him for that nickname. Why is the o in God blurred? Botterill's name is a no-win scenario.

Trump just backtracked his comments regarding Russia's interference, which is both good and hysterical. Somebody got in his ear. His reversal is mirrored in contradiction by his supporters on twitter.

I don't think it's splitting hairs. With that claim, that is all the evidence I need to be convinced that Trump needs to be impeached. That it's not true means that there is no other piece of information I've heard or read here or anywhere else that can be combined with any other piece of known information to lead me to the conclusion that it's clear Trump needs to be impeached. The only avenue for this, and it's completely possible that it produces what you'd need despite my doubts, is what Mueller is currently doing. I agree that Trump was probably frustrated that an investigation going slowly had every single television channel and paper in America speculating on Trump colluding, that it was probably incredibly irritating that despite Comey's private acknowledgements that Trump wasn't under investigation, he wouldn't tell the public the same thing, allowing the speculation to continue. I agree that you can never discount that as being a driving force for Trump firing him, with the other justified stuff as pretext (he deserved to be fired no matter what). I cannot equate that to obstruction of justice in any real legal sense, it's nothing more than pure speculation, and the investigation is ongoing a year later.

If I had to actually put money down on something, it would be exactly this. But I'd switch the Yotes and the Rangers.

Somebody elsewhere laid out the fact that of the recent cup winners (say, since 2009) only the Kings and the Caps really had two established bona-fide top 4 right handed defensemen. Niskanen+Carlson, and Doughty+Voynov. On the other teams you were seeing Rundblad, old Lovejoy, McQuaid, guys like that as the second best righty. I'd always be happy to add another righty to our group, but I don't think it's the most important thing in the world. Especially if you have a guy like Dahlin who enjoys the right side.

I guess we should fully commit to the path he's taken and use two of them, though I think one should be used to get one more piece. Our forwards could use 3 more pieces and our defense 2, so any of those getting knocked out could be good.

We only win IN Boston, so that game is a 4-2 L. We smoke the Rangers 5-2. Jack goes ham as he always does against them. Dahlin gets his first but it isn't enough as Vegas beats us 3-2 in the shootout. Buffalo beats Colorado 3-1 in a boring game, and then beats Arizona 5-1. The best start since before I could drive a car!

I mentioned before that Trump's current take on the investigation is nothing short of baffling. I don't believe he is aware that the charges on Russians who did hack don't involve him, which is astonishing. I don't have the energy to rev up google and learn more about an issue that I care profoundly little about, but I've read more than once that Trump had been told over and over again to fire Comey, it was clear that he was not super competent at his job as the July-October Clinton incidents and their followups showed, and Comey's bizarre memo leak reaffirmed his own words that he wasn't investigating Trump because the memo indicated no reason to do so -and even that Trump was interested in continuing investigations concerning Russia and his campaign and election meddling (another example of Trump rhetoric splitting from Trump action) and a complete absence of "hey I feel that I am obstructed in doing my job." The memos were true fizzlers, it seems to me. The "I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go. He is a good guy. I hope you can let this go.” Quote that I think event A refers to has always mildly puzzled me, but it reads far more of Trump-speak for "hey, can you move along with this investigation and if you're not getting anywhere stop, and while you're at it please tell everyone that thinks you're investigating me that you're not investigating me" than the muahahah I will fire you if you plan to unveil my sinister deeds as gets painted. Again, if that ends up being the case, we probably should have already found out / will find out in short order, and then I can admit that I'm wrong and happily follow impeachment proceedings as I care far more about clinging to ideals than to individuals. I mean, when did that news come out? Hasn't it been over a year? Mueller may find something but it won't be this sequence of events that drives obstruction or impeachment, I don't see how, we already know it happened. But A, B, C events encapsulated by less than 20 words leaves out so much nuance that I'm not super interested in picking at it, and continue to be incredibly unconvinced. Trump-speak and Trump mannerisms are real things, and the "sketchiest" parts of all of this (I really only see one or two) are so easily explained by both that until Mueller is addressing the nation with the findings that damn Trump to impeachment, I'll doubt it's going to or should happen. Either Trump colluded and fired Comey to prevent the findings, Trump fired Comey because of well-documented troubling antics, or Trump fired Comey because he was pissed the investigation weren't 'going anywhere' while somehow pitting everyone into this idea that he was involved in the hacking while Comey knew he wasn't and refused to tell everyone. I don't see much outside of these options and I am the least convinced by the first one. The last one is eye-rollingly Trump but not collusion or obstruction of justice. Upon further reflection, I'd bet my house that this ends up being the case. It just feels right.

Even better than I remembered.

So my main thing is that, this happens every time literally anything happens and I decide I'd like to find more out about it.I have this general view, given through reading typical middling articles and headlines, that gets smacked down by reality. It honestly just happened with the Comey thing above - I had absolutely no idea that Comey wasn't investigating Trump until I found video of the hearing on like page 9 of google. And yes, the fox news welfare-h8ers do the same thing, but I think you're lying if you say they have an ounce of the sway on the american public's take on any issue that literally any other mainstream news organization, the entirety of the entertainment media, and every higher level institution in this country has, all monopolized by the other side. I'm going to bounce back left at some point. If I was alive then, I would have been left from Moral Majority -> just recently, so it's not as if I've divorced one side to marry the other, but I see a clear problem pointing a lot more directly one way than the other. And part of it is definitely the fact that I'm going on 6 years in these institutions in which the benign conservative take is literally white supremacist, and leftist (not liberal, leftist) views are the norm, and burning down Berkeley is an appropriate response to someone coming to talk about things with a "problematic" take. If I hear "phobia" and "ism"s listed off rapidfire one more time my brain is going to explode

That sounds horrid, why isn't he in prison? They LEFT THE ROOM?? I don't know all of these details for sure, but if they're common knowledge and a big deal, Trump will have been/will be in actual trouble soon enough. Uh, you claimed that he fired Comey because Comey was investigating him, and a quick google search confirmed that Comey himself said that Comey wasn't investigating him. Are we pretending this exchange didn't happen now?

The media are incredibly 'accurate' and provide detailed thought and analysis about covering the border crisis. Trump brazenly tweets blame-bombs that can easily be argued against as collections of 180 characters or less. The media do it "effectively." Trump is still far more 'correct' on the issue, and I don't think I've seen anything as dishonest as the way that was covered en masse, as evidenced by the incredibly short discussion Liger and I had about it in this very thread a couple of days ago, which never got any response from anybody for some reason. The media uses top-notch equipment and raw verbal and written skill, telling harrowing tales about Palestinian citizens mowed down by the IDF at the border. No mention of the fact that Hamas is aware of this coverage, and pays civilians to go help disguise as their terrorists attempt to breach a border with the sole and stated purpose of slaughtering jews in their beds, and despite this, Israeli soldiers commendably minimizing civilian deaths in a manner which almost seems impossible given the situation they were dealing with? That if the civilians get injured, their monetary compensation from terrorist group Hamas increases, and if they die, their families get even more? I'm not going to make broad claims about the actions of a nation state such as Israel, or open that can of worms, but the media we need to protect from criticism didn't ever talk about this to ME. All I saw was the poor baby that is now believed to have actually died from a blood condition, and not Israeli-induced violence (with no retraction or mention of this that I've seen). It's a pretty relevant development. I'll give credit to NPR, as surprised as they sounded as it unfolded, for interviewing a Gazan with a firebomb kite painted with Swastikas, as he outlines how they want to taunt and burn the all of the jews. But when I hear coverage of events like these, and I try to seek it, I get well-intentioned half-stories at best and focused distraction at worst. Why should I believe your claim that he was obstructing justice to protect Flynn when a quick google search knocked down the original claim?

All of a sudden that doesn't sound like a rock hard case for obstruction, IMO. Wasn't that claim just built, by yourself, like two posts prior, on the fact that Trump fired him because he was being investigated by him? Edit:It was pastajoe, not you, my bad!

I'm almost positive that for like two weeks after the election you were pushing a petition of that nature. It could have been someone else, maybe. Comey said it. Risch, Senate Intelligence Committee Hearings, June 8 2017: "I gather from all of this, that you're willing to say now, that while you were director, the President of the United States was not under investigation, was that a fair statement?" Comey: "That's correct." Was this widely reported? Of course not, which is part of what I was hinting at with my reaction to SwampD above. I'm not going to claim I know a lot about Trump's intentions with firing Comey, or his general temperament when dealing with matters like these...other than hindsight suggests he was pretty incompetent.

Well, I'd like to distance myself from any notion that I think Trump tweeting and blabbering are more accurate than news media. That ain't what I claimed.

He's quite crass about it, but I actually think the media (as a broad term)'s news reporting efforts are far more dangerous than Trump's Fake News thing he does. I can't believe what a conservative I sound like. I hated them like 3 months ago Didn't Comey say himself that Trump wasn't under investigation at the time? BTW, how's your petition for a vote recount going? You were big into that in the last thread, weren't you? ?

The top 3 forwards he faced from Boston by the same metric are Marchand, Bergeron, Pastrnak The center he matched up against by Florida is by far Trocheck, their 75 point checking line center (slightly more offensive zone starts than Barkov, but tougher opponents faced) (Tavares did get Barkov, so he'll have a slightly tougher time there, sure) Tampa was Stamkos-Namestnikov-Kucherov, so while he may have a tougher time defensively with Point, I'm not sure that even I can call that an upgrade in competition Toronto was the Matthews line, he avoided Kadri so that might hurt Buffalo was bizarre - half was ROR, and half was a conglomeration of trash Like already mentioned, he faced Washington's top two centers basically equally, the edge to the defensive guru Backstrom Anywho, with all this in mind, I don't see his minutes getting substantially tougher. He may regress on his own merit, but I don't think Tavares will have much to do with it tangibly, having to be "the guy" could get into his head though. The thing that pissed me off about Jack is that, based on where he is and what his skill set is, and I don't think it's reasonable to expect Jack to get out against Deslauriers all night, but I'd at least like to see Hoffmann, a top 6 winger that is bad defensively, in his top 5 forwards like he is for Matthews and Nylander and Kucherov, guys who obviously get used in an offensively-maximized role appropriately with developmental defensive minutes sprinkled in for the Leaf kid. Instead, even though he's not even in our division, there is no forward in the NHL Jack played more minutes against than...Sidney Crosby, and the Couturier-Giroux pairing came in next. Trocheck-Huberdeau, Tavares, rando Nick Foligno, Kadri. Bergeron-Pasta-Marchand by far in Boston. I get wanting Jack to be your franchise C, but when your team can't score, you should try to help your primary scoring weapon rather than never giving him a freaking break. Give him some Dadonov-Bjugstad, Moore-Martin, Filppula-Cousins or even just Hoffman-Duchene. Like, for one shift maybe, Phil.

I was able to sit and listen to Trump fully during dinner, and I'm actually less convinced than ever that he was colluding with the Russians. The guy still legitimately hasn't figured out that the logical conclusion of Russians hacking us, which they did, doesn't necessitate his own involvement. He hasn't reasoned his way through a two step logical process yet. There's no way he's sharp enough to have colluded IMO. I'll change my tune if the hard evidence presents itself, but it hasn't yet. Also, this is a case of Trump's rhetoric bothering me more than it ever has, but it's not as if his actual policy concerning Russia has been soft, from Ukraine to what we've done in Syria. Wake me up when he doesn't do anything when Russia, I dunno, invades Europe or something. And the "sucking up to Putin," which I want to stress, is incredibly vile, is just how he talks to prominent people. It's how he thinks he negotiates. I hate it, but it's certainly not the treason it's being called right now.

Nah, I wasn't like this before the ROR trade ?

My feelings for Dahlin actually aren't anything greater than curiosity at this point. That's not an indictment against him, just our team.

I'll be happy when it all happens.

Barzal was on the ice with JT for 22 of his ~1,000 even strength minutes. His most-faced opposing forward skaters are, by minutes, in order: Alex Ovechkin Travis Konecny Evgeni Malkin Nicklas Backstrom Carl Hagelin Taylor Hall And then a few scrubs like Zajac who played with Hall... and then some Stamkos, Matthews, Kuznetsov rounding out the top 18 or so forwards he faced on the ice by minutes played. Despite not playing in his division, he faced Karlsson 4th most of any defenseman in the league by ice time. Barzal will do it again without JT Repeating this analysis with Jack makes me pissed at Housley btw

Was it on Nashville that Grant finally scored, and then the goal was overturned because of an offside player? That was hysterical.

What's your predicted point total?

I think today honestly takes the cake as the worst day and thing about Trump's presidency, AINEC.