bmags

QUOTE (EvilJester99 @ Jul 21, 2016 -> 10:31 PM) Everyone goes on about the Hitler salute but Hillary has done them as well between this stupidity and the plagiarism one.. I swear people are getting dumber by the second. It's probably that she doesn't openly court authoritarianism and fascism I unno. What is dumb about the plagiarism?

That is awful, but I will say at the very least this is an actual apology: ""Significant change can be frustratingly slow; this is especially true in public education. Many of us, at one time or another, have sent hastily crafted emails containing inaccurate or intemperate statements," Trover's statement said in part. "This particular email was sent out of frustration at the pace of change in our public school system. The governor regrets writing it and apologizes to CPS educators for making an unfair, untrue comment.""

QUOTE (flavum @ Jul 21, 2016 -> 06:17 PM) I'm totally cool with this Barstool dude just shutting up until something is done and about to be announced. We've heard how things get out and messed up deals before. Nothing he's saying would complicate anything. It's the equivelant of saying "sox open to trading!"

QUOTE (JenksIsMyHero @ Jul 21, 2016 -> 05:10 PM) Spitballing still defines his positions but my argument is that one statement in this interview does not set up the WWIII commie take-over that is apparently feared by some people around here and at The Atlantic. If bmags and that author can read way more into his answer than what was written, why can't I do the same thing in reverse and put those statements into a fair context? No matter what bmags claims, he's never, to my knowledge, advocated getting rid of NATO or not coming to the aid of a member or anything along those lines. He simply said in this interview that he would make sure that the other country in need of help is doing their part, e.g., paying their 2%. I ask again, what the hell is wrong with that? Why does the US (and the other members of NATO meeting their responsibilities) need to continue doing all the work if the other countries don't? Why is that our obligation? Perhaps it is under the existing treaty, but we can't even discuss possibly changing that agreement? That's sacrilegious? Why? The last time article 5 was invoked was on September 12 with the Nato allies coming to the defense of the United States. There is no obligation of those members to follow the US in all US foreign policy decisions, though most often do. There's also the idea of deferrence. If Ukraine was in NATO it is unlikely Russia invades for Crimea. It was unlikely they invaded baltic states, as invading meant war with all of western Europe and biggest military in the world. Without question. You know, they have a treaty, you attack they all attakc. But now you have a presidential candidate on the republican side saying that if you make your land grab, it isn't automatic you attack. No, you will only attack if you like how that country has behaved. Then your deterrence isn't credible. Then you are rightly forced into the situation of "do we really want to go to war with russia over Estonia?" But, yeah. You already have, they are in a treaty with you. You don't back out of your most important treatys because they ...matter.

QUOTE (Quinarvy @ Jul 21, 2016 -> 05:10 PM) This is such a tired accusation of every Cuban player at this point. Every. Single. One. Was just going to write that. That is so ridiculous. I'm disappointed in Abreu, but the guy has been a class act since he's been here and tried his all on a decent contract. Grow up, it's just baseball.

QUOTE (JLarucci23 @ Jul 21, 2016 -> 04:59 PM) I was all for trading everybody with value but the more I think of it. Maybe you keep Sale and a position player to being the veteran presence like an Abreu or Eaton. Then trade Q for the haul we need, along with guys like Frazier, melky plus the BP arms. This is where I am.

Caulfield has to be in hog heaven with the possibilities of listing every position and prospect in league, let alone the precedent deals with all those names. It's Christmas in July boys!

Haugh is so dumb though I'd rather just read He Gawn 7's post again.

I would not do Eaton for Pederson.

QUOTE (illinilaw08 @ Jul 21, 2016 -> 03:39 PM) At what point is what Trump says meaningful and not "spitballing" to you? It's not when he's asked point blank if he'd defend a NATO ally if invaded by Russia, we know that boundary.

QUOTE (Tony @ Jul 21, 2016 -> 03:14 PM) It's a question none of us will ever really have the answer to, as we aren't listening to phone calls. You can guess, but there will never be a way to really understand it. Few do. My gut is that 4 organizations have a huge load of major league talent and a huge pipeline of farm talent, and feel right in the race for a world series this year, and have a huge hole in their rotation. I think we will see a miller level trade this month if the right player moves. A trade that we dont' know will be available again. They just as easily could move these guys piecemeal.

QUOTE (JenksIsMyHero @ Jul 21, 2016 -> 03:10 PM) So creating/holding leverage has no use in geopolitical negotiations? That's your position? No, Jenks, my position that threatining the stability of Eastern Europe (which borders our strongest and oldest allies) in the face of an aggressive Russia that has already performed a land grab against strategically unimportant lands for the benefit of seeing the tiny baltic nations up their military presence (which even hypothetically doesn't stand a chance vs. Russia) is not just stupid it is actually dangerous to the world. This is the whole point of Trump. People convince themselves it's not that big of a deal. But President of the United States hold major responsibilities that affect the globe over. "What, so what, why shouldn't they pay" is so basic.

Maybe you are right on MLB ready players. But in the last 3 years the Samardjiza (cubs), Hamels, and Price deals happened at the deadline. Those were all good hauls. I don't think it matters when.

QUOTE (JenksIsMyHero @ Jul 21, 2016 -> 02:53 PM) Have you ever been involved in negotiations before? Leverage is the name of the game. From what I can tell based on that interview all he was saying was that he wanted some leverage. He did not say, as you want him to say, that he thinks NATO is a waste and we're getting out of it as soon as he's sworn in so Putin can take over the world because they're besties. If you think your negotiations with a car salesman are equal to geopolitical negotiations... You don't hold public statements indicating the US will not support its allies to force estonia to marginally up it's military. Perhaps he should ask his butler Newt whether their alliance with the Baltic states is important.

Note to self: never sign treaty with jenks

QUOTE (Ezio Auditore @ Jul 21, 2016 -> 02:38 PM) I'd be very surprised to see him criticize that considering Christie has actually said, out loud, that he wants to do that very thing. EU Has way more leverage than US anyway. But impossible to see how Turkey has any momentum to get in. Entry would mean a surge of kurds and other dissidents into Germany, et al. Edit: I didn't really read what you wrote, lol.

QUOTE (JenksIsMyHero @ Jul 21, 2016 -> 02:16 PM) And how do YOU guys not agree with this: I 100% agree with this! How can we lecture other people about how they act when we have the problems we have? It's completely disingenuous. That doesn't mean democracy and freedom aren't great things and we should be pushing that around the world, but how do we have the standing to lecture with the s*** going on in our own backyard? Hot damn, I think that's the first time i've agreed with something he's said. Yes. Because that is what people are upset about. That question.

QUOTE (JenksIsMyHero @ Jul 21, 2016 -> 02:13 PM) Uh, no. I think he pretty clearly states that that's not his desire, that's not his wish and that as a negotiation tactic it would be better if those countries understood that we COULD leave. That's literally all he says there. Again, please cite to me where he says he won't honor NATO or he wants to get rid of it (or at least our involvement in it). I'd like to see that because apparently i've glossed over it. So NATO is this treaty signed by a bunch of North Atlantic countries that's core purpose is basically that if you attack any of those countries you attack all of them. It served as a check on Russian overreach, and has continued to preserve peace against western Europe. That's the core purpose of NATO. The question was if Russia invaded a NATO baltic country would the US come to their defense. And he said "have they fulfilled their obligations to us". The 2% thing is nice, but all countries did send troups to the ISAF. If you are saying you will fail to come to the assistance of a NATO ally unless you like how much they contributed, you are walking away from NATO. What is its purpose otherwise? Russia invading a sovereign nation is a big deal even if it is not NATO. But come on. Why on earth would you signal that you wouldn't protect the biggest treaty the US has going? It's not like he's saying the Monroe Doctrine is bulls***.

QUOTE (JenksIsMyHero @ Jul 21, 2016 -> 02:05 PM) I think he's saying those same countries can afford their own military and we don't need to be involved unless we're being compensated for doing so. He's right - we have our own s*** to worry about. OK so you are agreeing that his strategy is we abandon NATO.

IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH BEING PAID. If you think that is a good interview, there is nothing left to discuss.

QUOTE (Buehrle>Wood @ Jul 21, 2016 -> 12:21 PM) Maybe Putin isn't quite Satan, buts it's hilarious to mock that ridiculous comparison then literally post an article titled "It's Official: Hillary Clinton Is Running Against Vladimir Putin". I mean come on, lol. But #bothsides and all that. I wish I knew of a big time satanist player like the one Jimmy Page hung out with to make ajoke about hiring him as a campaign manager, but alas I don't. Funny that you think of global players in caricatures though. Saying he is putin isn't close to saying he's the devil. Putin has policies and strategies he's advancing. It's not an abstract concept of evil.

QUOTE (Ezio Auditore @ Jul 21, 2016 -> 01:54 PM) I read that, and my first thought was "he literally thinks NATO countries write the United States a check in exchange for military protection, and he's worried they're in arrears? because no..." Obama has pushed the "no free riders" extensively in his presidency, but his major pressure was to prevent Britain/France from cuts. Luckily Hollande is fairly hawkish. but Cameron almost went beneath 2% and had to make sure that didn't happen. But that's not what Trump is arguing for. He's basically saying the biggest part of the treaty doesn't matter because incredibly small countries aren't keeping their target military.

QUOTE (JenksIsMyHero @ Jul 21, 2016 -> 01:47 PM) I think it's a HUGE (Trump voice) stretch to say Trump is "undermining" NATO based on one instance of him not wanting to openly declare that we would supply Ukraine with weapons they need to fight Russia. I don't necessarily agree with that stance, but i'm also not going to claim this is all part of a master plan to allow Putin to take over Europe and the Middle East. It's a huge, huge leap and it's just a fear mongering play involving communists. Jenks, read this: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/22/us/polit...rview.html?_r=0 His actual words are that he would only follow the NATO treaty if "they are paying their bills". Putin politics are showing a remarkable amount of power in the Trump platform. That's a real thing, that's not theoretical. So it's not just watering down platform language conspicuously to be on pro-russian terms, it's openly claiming he will not follow the NATO Treaty.

QUOTE (JenksIsMyHero @ Jul 21, 2016 -> 12:17 PM) DOOMSDAY! EVERYONE RUN FOR THE HILLS! THE COMMIES ARE COMING! Jesus that article is so bad. Throw out a conspiracy theory (Trumps campaign manager used to work for the President of Ukraine, who was backed by PUTIN. OHHHHHH!!!!! I'm not saying Putin is running Trump's campaign, but i'm not, not saying it either!!!!); claim that Trump would let Russia "advance" its interests into the Middle East and Europe and that Trump would "immediately" trigger instability by dismantling global relations (what power he has!); claim Trump wouldn't defend NATO members and then quote Trump saying he would do exactly that after determining if said country had fulfilled their own obligations to the US (the gall! Making sure other parties to an agreement hold up their end of the deal!) Yep! Cuz Obama's hard, pro-American world police force stance on foreign policy prevented Putin from doing anything close to that! Putin/Russia have been so quiet the last few years! How many liberals have said this exact line? Didn't Obama go on a world wide apology tour saying the exact same thing? That we lack legitimacy after our own mistakes? And now this is a bad thing to say? oh, ok, if you say so! What a drama queen. Seriously, there is SO many reasons why Trump would be an awful President. Why make up some fear mongering commie bulls***? The hysterical thing is that you think that undermining one of the most important and globally important treaty that exists, against a country that has already openly taken territory (which doesn't happen in modern global politics) is no big deal. How is it fear mongering? Why on earth did they water down the Ukraine language? It came from Trump's camp. There are like, a few places where we don't want to tamp down our power, and eastern europe is a big one. "There are so many reasons why trump wouldn' tbe a good president" Give me a break. This is the biggest. This is actual policy he is prescribing and he is showing he's an idiot. Acting like hiring Manafort after he was a lobbyist for a Putin puppet PM in Ukraine is nothing. That would be true, some people need work. But when they then start signalling all of this crap about not supporting eastern european countries? That's a big deal.

QUOTE (WhiteSoxLifer @ Jul 21, 2016 -> 12:24 PM) The #Whitesox expected to keep rotation intact, but everyone else, except SS Tim Anderson, are in play at trade deadline https://twitter.com/BNightengale/status/756173009606545409 I dont understand this. Don't want to trade any rotation pieces but can gut the rest of the team and have no offense or bullpen but least the Sox have starting pitching. Really hoping the sox arent that stupid. Cant imagine getting elite talent for the rest of the team. This is frustrating. If this is their plan they need a new front office. They have not shown ability to find depth for pitching or offensive talent consistently.