Yzermandius19

They wouldn't have retained in 2018 though. The Republicans only retained the Senate in 2018 because the Democrats tried to do Kavanaugh dirty, otherwise the Republicans would have lost the Senate. Your "long" view is rather short sighted and overconfident. 2016 was more important for the GOP than 2020 will be, you miscalculated, and are still miscalculating based on wishful thinking.

Medicare for all is garbage. Killing private health insurance is even more socialist than Scandinavia ffs. American lefties have gone off the deep end, to a place were even the Scandi's they champion as the model to follow wouldn't follow.

They wouldn't have gained those seats if they were obstructing the Democrats nominees while leaving only 8 SCOTUS judges on the bench. In 2016 the Republicans could hide behind Obama being a lame duck and electorate needed to have it's say in 2016 before allowing a judge to be confirmed, but if they had lost the Presidency, they wouldn't have that excuse anymore, and continuing to obstruct into 2018 after they swore up and down that if they lost they'd stop obstructing and allow a vote, would not have gone over well. Even if you are right and Republicans would have continued to hold the Senate, that strategy would have been hella risky and you shouldn't have been confident enough in that outcome to vote third party given hindsight.

The American electorate would not have put up with McConnell and Republicans continuing to obstruct and not allow a SCOTUS judge to be replaced after 2016 election, they would have punished Republicans for that, and they would have lost the Senate as a result. You can disagree all you want but your confidence in maintain the Senate under those circumstance would have been misguided and risky. 2016 was the more important election, 2020 is pretty much irrelevant, aside from a 6-3 SCOTUS majority, but that's just icing on the cake, losing in 2016 would have given the Democrats a 6-3 SCOTUS majority at this point, and you weren't worried enough about that to vote for Trump in 2016, which is really odd if you factor in hindsight.

SCOTUS justices were at risk, because Clinton would have gotten to nominate the judges. Scalia would not have been replaced with Gorsuch, and the Republicans could not have stalled indefinitely, they would have lost the Senate in 2018 if they tried to do that. The extreme socialists had plenty of traction in 2016, that's why Hillary pivoted to the left so hard to pander to them and conceded the center to Trump. Losing 2016 would have been far worse for Republicans than losing in 2020 after winning in 2016 would be. Not sure why you are under the false impression that it's somehow the other way around.

Who did you vote for Gary Johnson? Why didn't the socialists need to be stopped in 2016 when they were on the verge of sealing their control over the SCOTUS by replacing Scalia with a decidedly unGorsuch-like SCOTUS judge? You really wouldn't have voted for Trump in 2016 even given the hindsight? If anything, now that Trump has locked down the SCOTUS majority, the socialists need to be stopped a lot less than they did in 2016. They won't win anyway, but if they did, Trump locking down the SCOTUS means they can't get any of their worst shit past the SCOTUS, if they had won in 2016, they could have gotten it through.

If you had a do over, would you have voted for him in 2016, knowing what you know now? Will you vote for him in 2020?

Trump is doing a good job compared to most US presidents, history shows the US isn't far better, since Trump has been a very above-average president to this point. The US can and has done far worse, you are looking a gift horse in the mouth, simply because it isn't perfect. You have to grade on a curve relative to his competition, it's not like there is someone way better to replace Trump with, you are acting as if there is.

What preceded it? The Canada's. Ontario will have an Australia of it's very own, we simply won't have the rest of Canada dragging us down and they won't have us dragging them down. It will be glorious. Australia and New Zealand don't need no stinking Confederation, neither does Ontario or Quebec or Alberta, etc.

Indeed, and this will be a massive improvement, for all of The Canada's. It is not something to lament, it is something to embrace. Just say good riddance to this shotgun marriage, Moonlight. You'll feel better, Dougie Knows.

Confederation collapsing will make things better, not worse. Creative Destruction, but what is being destroyed is simply that which holds you and your family back Moonlight. Embrace the End of Confederation, don't try to stop it, there is no reforming it. Humpty Dumpty is broken. All The Queen's Horses and All The Crown's Men, Can't Put Confederation Back Together Again. He's Dead Jim.

May the Sports Nerfers burn in hell. It's their NHL now, and it's a shame. Don Cherry Knows.

That has nothing to do with the rules, the rules are not what makes today's game more skilled, fast or creative. If our NHL still existed, the players would be just as skilled, fast and creative as they are today, if not more so, and the game would be far more entertaining. All upside.

Post it 10 more times, why don't you?

Things take time. Without the mask, it never would have happened at all.

They are related because the mask made the butterfly more effective, because goalies weren't hurt as bad when they took pucks to the face. Hence why Glenn Hall wore one at the end of his career, if he was better without it, he wouldn't have worn it. Goalies were not forced to wear masks back then, but they naturally adopted them, because it helped them, not hurt them. If Roy didn't have a mask, he could not have played that way as effectively in order to preserve his noggin, and the style would not have been popularized with his success.

The mask is responsible for the butterfly becoming popular, it only became popular after the mask came along. Derp.

That merely proves my point. Glenn Hall was an outlier until goalies started wearing masks, then the butterfly became the standard thanks to Patrick Roy. There is a reason it wasn't popular until goalie masks came along. Like I said, it helped make goalies better, because it reduced the damage they took from pucks to head, and allowed them to stop worrying about survival over stopping the puck, Glenn Hall himself said he often prioritized survival over stopping the puck.

Yeah but they don't have to worry about getting hit in the head nearly as much, which allowed them to stop all being stand up goalies and allowed them started playing the butterfly without getting hit in head way more often being a much bigger downside, to point where there are no more stand up goalies in the NHL. Which vastly improved the quality of goaltending, this is obvious to anyone who knows anything about hockey history. Without masks, no butterfly. Without masks, all goalies would still be playing stand up to protect themselves from getting blasted in the head with the puck as often, and they'd still suck.

I have, but your point is a logical fallacy. People who havent been in a full contact game with grown men have every right to promulgate the idea that the NHL is the "No Hit League". It clearly is the "No Hit League", that is obvious to anyone who isn't under the mistaken impression that rules changes are responsible for the increase in skill.

Nah goalies having masks helped them play better. Goalie masks are just common sense, talk about arguing against a strawman. Pretending that everyone who disagrees with you wants to make the game unskilled is a strawman you've been peddling from the start, even using it against Don Cherry.

Appeal to authority is not a good argument, it's a fallacy. People who didn't play at a high level can have perfectly valid opinions, people who played at a high level don't necessarily have good opinions.

That has nothing to do with rules changes. Nothing to do with the No Hit League you champion. You are throwing the baby out with the bathwater because the game got better in spite of shitty rule changes. Stop buying into the NHL propaganda about the rules changing making the game more skilled, it's complete horseshit that is being used to sell even more terrible rules to rubes. Nerfing hockey does not make the game more skilled, the skilled players can play in any era, they don't need dumb rules to make them good.

You don't seem to know much about the evolution of the game with your pretending hockey is so much better today nonsense. The goalies got much better, that's the biggest change. The fourth liners got better, there is more depth today, but your recency bias is showing. The average player is faster today, but that doesn't mean hockey has gotten so much better that no one who played back then is any good. Bobby Orr would have been one of the fastest, if not the fastest player in the game, if you could pull him out the past with a time machine in his prime and put him into the NHL today, he would not be out of place at all. He'd still be the best defensemen in hockey. Stop fetishizing the present.

Fine by me, though I don't really have an issue with helmets. Don't have an issue with visors either, it's the forcing players to wear them that I have a problem with.