bmags

Eh, those emails did exist but they were on an internal email chain, and there was no evidence that it was actually carried out or communicated to anyone> There was no push of surrogates ever questioning religion from Clinton, either. http://www.vox.com/2016/7/23/12261020/dnc-...leaks-explained That article includes a paragraph on the politico reporter sharing their story pre pub which is lazy and bad but also...basically what you'd expect from politico.

Dick - can you elaborate on these: "There was a time before they won the WS where several thought selling and setting up their estates for when they die was the play. After they won, most of them shifted and thought their heirs would love being part of owning a team and all that comes with it." Is this referring to other partners or JR's family?

I assume you are talking about the religion email from the CFO but I don't understand how that relates to CNN.

QUOTE (raBBit @ Aug 15, 2016 -> 03:02 PM) I didn't know I had a candidate. Could you teach me who my candidate is? That's referring to Greg.

QUOTE (raBBit @ Aug 15, 2016 -> 02:48 PM) So when CNN distorts the facts and sabotages a candidacy by the influence of the DNC and the DNC's most principal member has to step down that's just bias? Or is that media corruption? I think it's the latter. I don't watch the mainstream media but I think that's far worse and damning to our country than whatever Fox does as an obvious Republican leaning station. What? The DNC is supposed to be neutral. A hacked email of internal emails showed they were antagonistic toward Sanders. The head was fired. But the head was also fired because she had very little support and the DNC has been cut in half by OFA. I'm not really going to bat for CNN or any 24 hour news network. DO they get spun? Um, yeah. Their news consists of a host, and then 4 panelists, who are openly affiliated with some political party. But, people don't really watch cable news. There's a lot of media that exists. You could have this amazing campaign that embeds a bunch of shills to put forth your talking points and tells everyone on every 24 hr network your spin and it would do ... basically nothing.

QUOTE (raBBit @ Aug 15, 2016 -> 02:27 PM) Are you as informed on Clinton's transgressions in Africa as you are on this matter? Does adding degrees of separation in money transfers and having decades of being corrupt and scummy on a global scale really excuse the same type of behavior? Clinton should have put up a firewall between herself and the Clinton Foundation in 2008, but especially after. But "Does adding degrees of separation in money transfers and having decades of being corrupt and scummy on a global scale " Yes. That does actually matter quite a bit. There is a huge difference in evidence of a quid pro quo of getting cash transactions for lobbying work and then suddenly working for a candidate that is more openly pro russia than we have seen pre WW1 and donating to a charity run by a political family in the hopes that it will get you preferential access down the line. For one thing, that's because the Clinton Foundation actually does perform a lot of charity work. For two, it's not clear that even when the access is given that it matters. That distinction matters. You wrote that the russian hack of emails on the DNC showed them openly trying to manipulate the media (one, that is literally what every political organization does) to help one candidate, and while that email did say that, there is no proof they ever actually did anything. Having tried to coordinate many gatherings, the idea that you can perform a massive conspiratorial campaign from a single 2-email thread makes me envious. The world is really messy and even when the President tries to get everyone to talk about X he can't even do it. So frankly, a full dump of emails from a heated campaign only showing that, kind of tells me that things really aren't as corrupt as the Alex Jonesers want you to believe. The emails that were just dumped show examples of elbow rubbers of clinton trying to get people special favors from Abedin. That's bad, except we actually know the outcomes and that those people weren't actually set up with a meeting and weren't actually given ambassadorships. On the other hand, we do know that Trumps camp for some reason scrubbed hawkish language toward Russia in Ukraine. And had they twisted arms for a whole bunch of things it wouldn't be that strange because for one that was a terrible policy that they are probably right on! But that's a lot different than just drawing the lines (x donated, x got arms) when there are a lot of history of previous arms deals and reasons anyway. The psychoanalysis is that the Clinton's, after his 8 year term of having cooked up nothing scandals brought up to congress ad nauseum, stopped giving a s*** about appearances of conflicts of interest and figuring people will come at them regardless. That's not good, because there are a lot of people that are relying on them and they need to be more disciplined. It would be pretty easy for her to cut out her hanger ons and put stuff in a trust and she doesn't.

That something is right of left leaning isn't that important. Fox is can be very unscrupulous in its facts and blatant coordination with the republican party in a way that not even MSNBC is. There is no left equivelant of Sean Hannity touring and running around with Clinton. Not a Maddow. Not an anyone. But it's fine to be biased, it's less fine to be unscrupulous with facts. Reason magazine is a libertarian magazine with a lot of smart, honest writers. Daniel Larison is the same. If someone posted an article from Reason mag it would not get same reaction as Breitbart, because Breitbart peddles in ridiculousness and conspiracy theories and is very often incredibly wrong and it doesn't seem to matter. Same goes for NRO or Commentary, while they have some truly ridiculous editorials, they still are not level of breitbart or daily caller.

But Clinton isn't focusing on campaign contributions, there is a New York Times article out about Trumps campaign manager who was found on an off books ledger from the Pro-Russian head in Ukraine paying 12 million to Manafort. Aside from the numerous circumstantial questions about the pro-Russian policy that was the singular issue forced by Trump camp in the Republican Platform, Manafort may have broken law in not registering his lobbying for a foreign power. But overall, your campaign manager getting cash transfers from a pro-russian despot is bad. It's bad enough that he was a lobbyist for them, but to be caught in this makes it even worse.

QUOTE (Chicago White Sox @ Aug 15, 2016 -> 12:09 PM) The Sox are not moving and the idea is absolutely ridiculous. Not only are there franchises with far worse situations (A's & Rays immediately come to mind), but MLB wants to expand in the not too distant future. If someone can name three to four cities out there that are better than a split Chicago, I'd love to hear them. Despite our low ratings today, the potential of the Chicago market is incredible and a new owner would have to be crazy to pass it up to go somewhere like Portland or Vegas. I think I have just the guy for you

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 15, 2016 -> 10:46 AM) Millions in unreported corrupt payments from foreign governments seems like it ought to be illegal. Remember though Clinton having poor email server management is just as bad as this. Right but we are talking about a campaign manager. He's already fired like 3 of them and I don't think this will be the nail that breaks the "hey, he doesn't seem to have the judgment to be president!"s back. edit: brakes/breaks

QUOTE (Deadpool @ Aug 15, 2016 -> 10:52 AM) As a fan, this seems like a legitimate concern, but in reality it won't happen. The Sox have a sweetheart stadium deal in a strong local market with a good TV contract. There's really not a market that would work better for the White Sox, IMHO. I also don't feel like the MLB would be so forgiving of a 120 year old franchise to move cities. Theres no geographic footprint they need to hit. As of now it would basically just be a new owners preference for city. And mlb should work to block that. If they want a new city at this point they should just expand.

The best thing about this thread is a sale like this would take forever and public news about it would be minimal so it will live forever. Cespedes thread x 100

I don't know, unless they can tie work performed while he was on campaign or contributions to campaign itself I think it will be a distraction more than a scandal. However, shows why typically you don't hire campaign managers that just came off of lobbying for dictators.

Sheldon Rankings just went off in a cart. Reminder that everyone is dealing with injuries.

I'm sure this is fine http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/08/15/us/po...p.html?referer=

G Stanton out for year.

Yeah. Sanchez should have been halfway to third by time pitch was home.

It's pretty crazy with that hit which wasn't that hard Sanchez couldn't score with his speed

Meanwhile Benintendi hitting .394 so far. Unrelated.

FYI no hitter in 7th for mets Matz right now

Needs to keep his composure

We'll need some magic here again

Doing a test run for a Bbq next weekend with a new grill. Picked up some fresh white fish and trout from butcher

These are the days you dream of in March when it's just not warming up

I highly doubt capital gains will play any consideration here. They aren't "saving" on taxes by keeping their investment in the six. That tax will be there whenever they liquidate there stake in the white sox. The benefit is they get to use the rest of their investment gains on whatever they want! Which isn't the case now. But yeah considering the value of their investment may be inflated partially due to public investment in the white sox infrastructure I also have little care for their tactics to save on taxes.