Dam8610

Again, not true. The person who gets the most votes wins. If enough of the people of West Virginia chose a write in candidate to get behind, neither Manchin nor the far right Republican would win. I believe my profile contains my age. I know it did on the old board.

Well, if you refuse to accept the reality that lies are lies, then I can see how you can maintain that no one has "proven" that Kavanaugh lied, because your standard of proof is impossible.

You're surprised? The wealthy do this all the time in an attempt to evade taxes, and it typically works. And with all the frothing at the mouth idiotic "taxation is theft" Libertarians the Koch brothers have spent millions (billions?) cultivating in society, the public appetite for scrutinizing and going after these billionaires and their tax dodge strategies isn't very high. Couple that with the Republicans slowly but surely defunding the IRS (despite the IRS currently providing the government with a 700+% ROI on its budget), and it's no wonder the billionaires can get away with flat out subscribing to false tax returns (a federal crime). If the IRS sees a team of lawyers come into an audit, they're likely to just settle the case or maybe even drop it, which is why the IRS is very quick to predate on the average citizen, even on issues where it's clear the error is on their part, and very slow to bring the Waltons, Kochs, and Trumps of the world to justice for their tax crimes.

One acted civil and respectful in their testimony while the other acted like a petulant child. Given who suffered the trauma in this situation (not even Kavanaugh was stupid enough to suggest that Blasey-Ford wasn't sexually assaulted), I'm surprised by which party falls into which category. That said, there are several times where Kavanaugh's sworn testimony contradicted either previous sworn testimony (similarly to Jeff Sessions's "I never met with anyone from Russia!"..."Except for all those times I met with someone from Russia.") or documentation that Kavanaugh submitted into evidence himself in an attempt to prove his innocence (such as the calendar example I gave previously). To suggest that Kavanaugh hasn't perjured himself is just willful ignorance of his testimony at this point.

Kavanaugh testified that a gathering of the type Blasey-Ford described could not have happened at any time but a weekend day. A gathering remarkably similar to the one Blasey-Ford described is noted on the 1982 calendar Kavanaugh submitted into evidence on July 1, a Thursday. Whether you believe his words or his calendar, he lied somewhere. Personally I tend to believe the Kavanaugh that had nothing to lose by telling the truth, which would be the one who made the entry in the 1982 calendar.

Because those aren't the only two choices for the seat. They're the only two choices on the ballot for 2018, but they aren't the only two choices. Not for 2018. Not for beyond 2018.

That affirmed that negative ads create public perception, which was never in dispute. The dispute was over whether a hypothetical negative ad that would focus on a "No" vote on Kavanaugh would affect certain candidates' standing in their respective elections more than negative ads that are currently running. You say it will, I say it won't. My point of view is backed by polling and data, yours is backed by...your opinion that negative ads are bad and an undisputed fact that has nothing to do with the dispute? That's the best I can come up with. No false dilemmas, please.

What's that you say? The establishments' refusal to cede any sort of power at any level may cost the Democrats? Color me shocked.

Proving that would take a full study, as would proving your argument. I'm not asserting my opinion as fact. If you're asserting yours as fact, feel free to prove it. None of this addresses the point that you're allergic to accountability for centrists while constantly demanding it of progressives while claiming to be progressive yourself. You should be more honest with yourself, which will allow you to extend that honesty to everyone else.

Way to not address what I said at all. Of course negative ads create public perception, no one would dispute that. What I'm arguing here is that, based on the numbers, that particular negative ad will be no more effective and possibly less effective than another negative ad run in its place. One good thing came of this exchange. I know where your arrogance and love for the establishment comes from now.

Not negative ads on that specific issue, negative ads in general. If the numbers say that a "No" vote won't affect them, that negative ad would have no more effect than any other negative ad running, maybe even less of an effect.

There are negative ads running now. To think otherwise is intellectually dishonest. The numbers show that a "No" vote on Kavanaugh would not affect those candidates, but you don't want to hear that because you're allergic to accountability for centrists.

The numbers say they won't. So what you're saying is you only believe the numbers when they align with your argument. Got it.

But the numbers say that a "No" vote would not affect them. Do you only selectively pay attention to the numbers?

What political advantage does it give "Red State Dems" to vote Yes?

Or Eloy Jimenez if enough OFs develop. I just don't know how anyone could not be chomping at the bit for a switch hitting C who hit ~.400 in his sophomore season, saw a huge power surge late in the season, including practically carrying his team to the CWS title, and oh by the way, plays great defense as well. That pretty much sums up Adley Rutschman.

Which is arguably more than what the Sox started with. They also didn't manage those assets as well.

He could force trades and edit contracts on OOTP to get whatever players he wants at whatever price he wants.

That also means in the month of September, he added 1 fWAR to his total, which is highly encouraging.

Adley. Rutschman.

Potentially controversial point of view: Machado is a consistently better player than Harper.

In fact that calendar has a very interesting event on July 1, 1982 that matches up nearly perfectly with what Blasey-Ford described. The prosecutor Republicans brought in to question both parties thought it interesting enough to question Kavanaugh about. Oddly enough, when she started that line of questioning was exactly when Lindsey Graham had his little tirade, and the committee never went back to her after that to finish her line of questioning. Isn't that all very peculiar?

He's apparently turned it around a bit more than I knew. Still, he's at 4 WAR, Machado's at 6 WAR.

Machado, and it's not really that difficult of a decision. 1) He plays 3B, the one position the White Sox appear to have no answer for in this rebuild thus far. 2) He's produced like a franchise caliber middle of the order bat this year and most of the years of his career. 3) Harper is going to make more, and IMO carries more risk. He's had an awful 2018, he's produced more than 5 WAR in a season exactly once, and I feel like he's getting the attention he is on name recognition. I'd rather sign the 5-6 WAR bat to a 10 year, $350 million deal than the 4-5 WAR bat to a 10 year, $400+ million deal just because the latter is a lefty power hitter with name recognition.

I have no doubt in my mind that you are correct.