Soxbadger

Unfortunately since his salary is relatively reasonable and he has 1 year of arb left it probably wont be depressed too much. No real incentive for the Pirates to just give him away.

He is owed almost 60 mil and is 34. The Cubs took what they could get. The fact some of their fans thought it should be a Sale level deal is more of an indication that there probably was lead paint in the bleachers and they have long term brain damage.

Im guessing the Padres didnt ask for much salary relief. Sox werent going to spend that much money.

This is why I am a little weary about making huge statements about young players early in the season. It has been a really weird year. Id say after 40 games you can start making some decisions about the future.

I believe there may be a way for you to get the money you deserve based on 2020 income. I will try and post it here when I have it. Most likely the money won't be available until after you file 2020 return.

Cant you send your love letters via PM?

Buehrle is the answer.

From what I understand all it requires is Milley and Miller based on some 2016 law. Supposedly Milley is not in favor. But I dont know enough about it.

No problem. I have an entirely unrelated question. It seems Trump wants to split NSA and Cyber Command. I dont really know the full ramifications, but it seems like an outgoing President shouldn't have the power to make massive security changes unilaterally. What do you think? It seems like a lot of our historical norms were based on good faith, do you think we maybe need to revisit these ideas basrd on what we have seen the last 30 days?

Short answer, yes. Actually being able to commit the crime is a well established part of criminal law. Which is why if they catch a mobster on a wiretap saying he is going to have the President murdered it is much different than If I say the same thing on a random message board.

They couldn't find a more unlikable candidate? Its perplexing, he just is really hard to root for. Sorry that you guys couldn't find someone more exciting or at least someone from the Illinois program who would care.

Person 1- BITCOIN IS AMAZING. Person 2- Bitcoin has some risks. -----TIME PASSES----- Person 1- Look at how amazing Bitcoin did this year. Person 2- I started a rig to mine bitcoin and made some money. Person 1- OMG YOU SAID BITCOIN IS THE DEVIL, YOURE A HYPOCRITE Person 2- How is making free money by mining bitcoin have any relevance to investing money? I cant buy a computer to make Amazon stock. Person 1- BITCOIN 4 LIFE The story, all names, characters, and incidents portrayed in this production are fictitious. No identification with actual persons (living or deceased), places, buildings, and products is intended or should be inferred.

Im not sure you are aware but the Native Americans actually never lived in India.

Im fine with a fee waiver if you can show hardship. I want safety not for it to be a punishment.

Again doesnt this come down to trying to make better laws. That we start with something agreeable like "certain weapons are too dangerous and do not have serve a legitimate purpose for the civilian population." We are long past the idea that armed civilians could stand up to the tyranny of the US govt. Which was really the point of 2A (imo of course).

Many laws are stupid, that is why we should strive to make better ones. Start small, there should be a minimum nationwide standard test and proficiency to own a gun. If you break those rules there is at minimum jail time. The biggest issue is the interpretation of right v privilege. I think 2A is misinterpreted and the word "militia" has meaning. I presume you may disagree, but as you have a lot of experience with weapons probably also understand why we shouldn't let an untrained 15 year old buy a rocket launcher. Which is why 2A is outdated, they never could have imagined nuclear weapons. So in essence we almost all agree the right to "bear arms" is limited.

No it's because of the people who fight basic gun regulations and because the gun lobby pays a lot if money. We went down this road with prohibition and found out it doesn't have to be all or nothing.

People are entitled to their opinion. I dont think Balta should have to fake an opinion just because some other side is going to use it to be unreasonable.

If 5 years ago you had asked me if a state would be joined by 15+ other states and 100 congressman trying to throw out millions of votes, id have laughed and said it is the stupidest thing ive heard. So while I believed that the SC would see it for garbage, it isnt so far fetched when I see the other nonsense that has occurred the last 5 years.

Its over: https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/121120zr_p860.pdf 155, ORIG. TEXAS V. PENNSYLVANIA, ET AL. The State of Texas’s motion for leave to file a bill of complaint is denied for lack of standing under Article III of the Constitution. Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections. All other pending motions are dismissed as moot. Statement of Justice Alito, with whom Justice Thomas joins: In my view, we do not have discretion to deny the filing of a bill of complaint in a case that falls within our original jurisdiction. See Arizona v. California, 589 U. S. ___ (Feb. 24, 2020) (Thomas, J., dissenting). I would therefore grant the motion to file the bill of complaint but would not grant other relief, and I express no view on any other issue.

Its a completely different argument and the lawyers who argued Bush v Gore agree. Here is an article by the 2 lawyers, David Boies and Theodore B. Olson, who argued that case about what is going on right now: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/boies-olson-lawyers-bush-gore-2000-joe-biden-president/2020/11/14/1e113520-25ff-11eb-8672-c281c7a2c96e_story.html There is no plausible legal basis for federal courts to revisit this decision by state legislators — particularly after the election is over and voters have relied on existing state law when choosing how to vote. Political candidates, however, have an obligation not to inflame passions and undermine the public’s faith in democracy with unsupported charges of fraud and malfeasance. And the lawyers who represent those candidates have an obligation to the courts, of which they are officers, not to make frivolous claims or arguments. Past losers of presidential elections, however stinging their defeats, have ultimately decided to make peace with the opposing camp. Former vice president Gore did so, admirably, when Bush v. Gore was resolved. The sooner that Trump and his supporters accept the election result, the better it will be for the nation. This article was written on November 14, almost a month ago. To the best of my knowledge every lawyer involved in Bush v Gore refused to be a part of Trump's lawsuit. The solicitor general of Texas (the person who is appointed to file lawsuits on behalf of the state) refused to file this lawsuit.

I read that as you bought some DMT and its been bonkers.

Trans-Siberian Orchestra.

Ptatc, If you want a truthful perspective, here is the AG from Maryland: The end goal here is to destroy democracy for totalitarianism. This isnt Democrat v Republican, this is totalitarianism v republicanism. The party of states rights is dead, they want a dictator.

The strategy is to undermine elections to set the precedent of throwing out votes from areas that dont support their party. Who is it even distracting? If anything it is setting a terrible precedent that in the future CA, NY, IL can sue Texas to try and throw their votes out. The only reason this is happening is because RBG passed away and they believe that there is a slim chance that 5 SC judges will completely destroy the US constitution. If RBG was there they wouldnt have bothered because there is no way Roberts would entertain any of this. What is happening right now is one of the lowest points in US constitutional history and it should be called out for what it is. The party of "states rights" is trying to use the SC to destroy the voice of other states.