TrueBlueGED

One day, when you're older, I'll tell you all you need to know.

I was referring to the dynamics of the general election campaign. Keep up old man.

Thanks. I really didn't feel like counting the zeros :lol: It's not that I don't think you can, it's that I know you can't and I'm positive that you won't :p

You sound like a scorned lover :lol: How can you be fine either way yet disagree a bazillion percent? :p ;)

Yup, yet another short-sighted reform effort. Can't bargain without bargaining chips. But this is really a side dish to the main course of problems: extreme geographic-ideoligical-partisan polarization with a system of representation not designed to accommodate it. Even if the sides had more chips to bargain with, they'd still lack the incentive to use them more often than not.

As much as we agree on partisanship among voters and how it affects political views and discourse, we couldn't possibly disagree more on this stuff. One cannot talk about partisanship in Congress without ideology. The ideological polarization of the parties is the problem, not the parties themselves. Getting a little long in the tooth, but this is a foundational read on ideology trumping partisanship in lawmaking: https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0226452727/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1475692858&sr=8-1&pi=SY200_QL40&keywords=pivotal+politics&dpPl=1&dpID=41jlWRkoHKL&ref=plSrch The parties worked together just fine when they had a solid block of moderates, and there were cross-ideological partisans. But since the parties have sorted themselves out and become ideologically cohesive, all hell has broken loose. And it's not like voters are innocent victims either: https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/B01EBEIL4C/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1475692583&sr=1-1&pi=AC_SX236_SY340_QL65&keywords=Polarized+in+books I don't even think ideological polarization itself is that big of a problem (and I think it has some very positive aspects in aiding voters in making informed choices in a limited information environment), but the interaction of its geographic distribution and our system of government is...not ideal. You see parties as the problem, I see them as the solution. We should strengthen partied and embrace that we currently have the political conditions for responsible party government...but lack the institutions for it to work the way it does elsewhere. Allow voters clear choices between alternatives, allow the majority party to actually govern so that voters can more clearly hand out credit/blame, and foster more competitive elections so that voters have the capability to hold the parties accountable. Weakening parties exacerbates many of the problems we see today (inability to cobble together majorities and ineffectiveness of congressional elections to hold Congress as an institution accountable for national conditions). Granted, properly addressing this stuff would probably require about five constitutional amendments, so yea...

I think you underestimate the ability of the parties to adapt to change. They seem at best slow and at worst intractable when it's all going on, but there's a reason neither of them have collapsed in favor of a new major party. Humorous anecdote on your first point: was talking to my father the other day and made the point that he'd be voting for the Democratic version of Trump if it had turned out that way. I honestly thought he might disown me he was so incredulous at the suggestion :lol: Smart is definitely the wrong word. The biggest difference is the Dems have an institution to prevent Trump: superdelegates. Maybe it was smart to install them when we went to the modern primary system, but I think the support for Sanders shows Dems are very susceptible to an angry populist. Yes, to this day Dems are in abject denial about some core similarities between the Trump and Sanders movements.

I didn't follow prospects and whatnot back then, I just remember comparisons to Keith Tkachuk.

If you have an 80" TV. 4k on normal 60ish sizes is like 1080p below 40".

Some of that is in there, but really (and you may hug me) it's mostly just partisanship. I saw a wonderful tweet yesterday that I'm not going to look up, but paraphrasing it said "Pundits wonder how a *insert unflattering adjectives here* like Trump could be so close in this race. Political scientists wonder how it could be any other way." Trump's getting as much Republican support as Clinton is Democratic, but I think the primaries made it pretty clear that throwing a Molotov cocktail at things wasn't what a majority of GOP voters wanted. But once he got nominated, none of that was likely to matter. As for how Trump got to be the nominee, I think it's about 90% party failure. The GOP made no effort to stop him until the 11th hour when their only hope was Ted Cruz. In hindsight, I really have to wonder if Scott Walker gave up too early.

And here I thought people your age didn't like to be wished happy birthday :nana:

Your hatred of Brandon blinds you to all else :p

He may not be #1, but Rasmussen has to be one of the most disappointing Sabres of all time, right?

Welp.

I didn't read the article, did his meeting with the Pegulas include Rex, or was Coughlin in there alone?

Franson was fine last year when he was on the 3rd pair, and he'll be fine there this year. Nelson may just be better, though. I'm fine with him as the 13th forward, but if he's your 7th D, you better go sign somebody. He's purely an emergency body there.

If I were to start listing things I'd rather do than watch a VP debate and not go to sleep until I ran out of things, I'd be pulling an all-nighter.

And recent reports have him wanting to coach again. Both of these things can be true.

My guess? Coughlin wanted an avenue towards coaching, which the team was not willing to give him even in the event of a Rex flameout.

Which would be useful if this were 1994.

Everyone likes him, but he has no place on a good team as anything above the 13th forward.

I love D-Lo. He's just not a very good hockey player. Don't think he belongs as a lineup regular.

...in exchange for Clayton Stoner. And I'll be sad.

Sign. Me. Up. Damn I like those lines.

Assuming you mean people outside of Buffalo. Hell, our PP scoring is probably the clear #1 reason there was such improvement in the standings.