CincySportsFan

I have been torn on this for several years. On one hand, I don't like the fact that my vote in Kentucky means less than one in California. Hate that. But, also don't like the fact that candidates could focus on a couple dozen cities and basically ignore the rest of the country. (And yes, I know they're doing that now anyway.) The only alternative that I could think might better reflect the popular vote, but still utilize the electoral college philosophy, would be to eliminate the all or nothing aspect. So, instead of Hillary getting all 55 California electoral votes, she'd only get 61% of them (33 or 34). At least that way, a Republican candidate might actually campaign in areas that they right now would otherwise forfeit to the Democrats. Same way a Democrat might actually come to Kentucky.

I think the Republicans had 47 seats going in, and have 62 right now. Will have to double check that, though.

Was listening to the radio on the way in today, and whoever they had on said that with the way this jury seems to be "scared", it wouldn't surprise him if they came to a quick decision. Said the belief would probably be that the longer deliberations went, the better chance someone finds out who you are. Instead, they'll want to get out of Dodge as soon as possible.

I saw this on Facebook yesterday. Thought it was very appropriate, regardless of who was the winner. Can only hope that most people will follow it. (Sadly, I don't think many will.)

Can you imagine what the campaign would've been for both of them had they had the same tone/demeanor/message that they've had in these last two speeches? Amazing the differences.

Have no idea. Probably not. I just know there wasn't anybody with food where I voted.

Outside of Soil and Conservation Board, I don't think we had any county offices up this time.

I need to vote where you do!

Are these strictly seniors?

How local? City government or Frankfort?

It is completely about that. And both sides are 100% guilty.

Had about a 25 or 30 minute wait this morning, which is about twice the amount it normally is. No complaints here, compared to how long some other people have had to wait. Only problem that I saw was that they had a lady who obviously couldn't read well in charge of the registration book. When she got to the right page, I pointed out my name to her. She then proceeds to point at some other name 3 or 4 spots down!! She starts reading off that name, and says "no, that's not right". So, I point to my name again. Then she says, "oh, here you are."

Was in Bowling Green during the summer, and was happy to find that Montana Grille was back open. I'll echo my sentiments from before, we absolutely love their Kentucky Boubon Filet.

So, if there were three strikeouts looking...would this group say MLB is supporting the dyslexic klan members?

While we were out and about today, we stopped at Menards. Of course, you'd have to be blind to miss the Christmas trees they have on display. My wife is not blind, and has now decided that we need a new tree. We were looking at several of the prelit varieties they had, but neither of us knew much about them. The first question we both had was...what happens when a bulb burns out? Do you lose the entire section? The entire tree? Does nothing happen? Is it worth having LED lights instead of the regular incandescent? I do like the ability to change from a pure white light look, to multi-colored lights, at the push of a button. I know we've got several out there that have the prelit Christmas trees...so, what's your experience and advice?

Not really concerned about who would beat who...but rather looking at what issues would we be discussing. Because that's what's being swept under the rug right now. Have heard very little on policy with these two.

...we had someone else instead of one, if not both, of the current candidates? Seems like the vast majority of people fall into one of two camps...either they're die-hard party loyalists, or they're voting against the opposition. Doesn't seem like there's any political issues being discussed. It's all about emails and alleged sexual comments/assaults. But, what if we had different people running? How would Hillary fare against someone like Ben Carson? Obviously he shares the "inexperience" factor that Trump has, but I don't know that character would be much of an issue. Likewise, if Trump was running against Bernie Sanders, you remove the email issue and Benghazi. So what would we be discussing if we had another "outsider" on the Republican side running versus a different Democratic "insider"? Immigration? The economy? Foreign policy? Health care?

I wonder if they'll have their own video "expert".

Probably about 10 minutes of the opening.

Agree. I think most jurors will get past the claim that his life was in danger. But, I can see more of them willing to go with "gun pulled, car moved, gun went off, all without much thinking happening in that millisecond" versus "I'm going to kill you". I don't think they'll want to say with no doubt that they knew what Tensing was actually thinking when he drew the gun. Which is why I'll say they fall back on the manslaughter charge.

Thought I read an article that they filed murder and voluntary manslaughter charges against him. I think the jury will pass on the murder, but convict on the manslaughter. Just my opinion.

I liked watching ARod on their show. It seemed like there were several times where he looked a little uncomfortable in the interactions with Pete, and just laughed it off. I was a huge Pete Rose fan growing up, but watching him do this stuff as part of a group just doesn't feel right. Honestly, I think they'd do better without him. And Frank Thomas? Could take him or leave him. If I was planning out a four man "analyst" crew, I'd keep ARod, but pair him with a former pitcher (Al Leiter maybe?) and a former manager (Bob Brenly?). Put those three with Verducci and run with it. You'd have pretty much every angle and perspective covered.

It seems to me, when they had the good presence up front a few years ago, they had 7 or 8 guys they were constantly rotating in and out. Now, I'm not saying you'd rather not have Gino or Dunlap in there every play...but, I'm just wondering if those guys aren't as fresh come the end of the game as they were when they were sharing a lof snaps earlier. That's where the mistake is with Peko. I think he could still be valuable, but more as a relief guy. He should be around 35-40% of snaps, not 55-60%.

Certainly can't hurt. How much it'll help remains to be seen. You'd hope that most of the terminology is the same, and that if he's able to make any impact, it'll be sooner than later.

Couldn't get on the computer at all last night, too nervous. And, unfortunately, my worst fears came true last night. But, hats off to the Cubs for making the plays when they had to. And congratulations to @00Rocket28 and all the other true blue, die-hard Cubs fans, you guys deserve it. Cleveland had their opportunities last night, and for the most part, didn't cash in. And, then the rain delay happened at the worst time for them, and probably the best for the Cubs. It gave Chicago time to take a deep breath, regain their composure and come back out strong. Kudos to Francona for trying to win a series with basically one starter and three relievers. Unfortunately, it usually doesn't bode well when you give a team like the Cubs that many looks at the same guys over a span of a week and a half. It'll be a hard pill to swallow with a lot of the "what if's" that Cleveland had. The lone bright spot for me with the Cubs win, is that Ross gets a ring. Like others on here, have always liked the guy. Glad he was able to go out on top, not only individually (with the homer) but with his team.