Dam8610

I listened to it. I was surprised to hear you admit that Trump is the catalyst for the good that is the progressive backlash and even somewhat of an ideology shift we've seen in our country since November 2016. The main thing I have difficulty reconciling in the ideology you espouse is the contradictory nature of it. You say in that podcast and here that you agree from a policy perspective with people like Jabari and I, yet I haven't seen a single politician with the policy platform you claim you support endorsed or supported by you while simultaneously you endorse or support several politicians with policy platforms that are far more conservative, authoritarian, and in service of special interests than the policies you say you support. You say in the podcast that you didn't want Trump because of the greater amount of suffering that would happen to a larger amount of people, yet you seem here to have no problem with the suffering caused to so much of the country's population by poverty and choose instead to focus on the problem of police brutality which affects a significantly smaller portion of the population. You say on the podcast that you think people like yourself and Jabari should find ways to work together, yet you constantly use intentionally divisive rhetoric (i.e. constantly implying that I'm a racist because our policy priorities differ) that indicates a lack of willingness to even consider the validity of the other viewpoint. Did you call Jabari a racist who didn't understand how to communicate to minority communities on Facebook? Because he seems to share a lot of my viewpoints despite being one of the minorities you so often eagerly tell me are uninterested in my ideology.

A 63-98 team has a higher winning percentage than a 63-99 team.

This is why I track by wins. For example if the White Sox and Marlins both finish with 63 wins, the White Sox get the higher pick whether the Marlins have 98 or 99 losses.

So poverty doesn't (extremely disproportionately, might I add) affect minorities, now? I didn't have to "reframe" anything, I had to spell it out for you because you were being intentionally obtuse.

If you read what I said and that's what you took from it, you need some serious work on your reading comprehension. ETA: To put it in very simple terms that even Reddy should understand, what I said was that poverty is a problem that affects way more of the population than police brutality. To be extremely clear, that does not mean I am saying police brutality isn't a problem (it is an extremely bad problem). What I said does mean (which is factually true) is that, by population, poverty is a problem that affects at least 10 times as many people. Perhaps we should solve the bigger problem first.

MY use of buzzwords is the problem? This, from Mr. Bernie Bro? Oh, the irony.

Yes, poverty affects 10%+ of the population, police brutality affects less than 1% of the population. "Boom", indeed.

I don't find the word "progressive" demonizing, nor would I find the word "populist" demonizing. Corporatists serve corporate interests. Why is it demonizing to call them the thing that describes what they do?

Yes, and a progressive wants to stop that AND give everyone things like collective bargaining rights, free college, and free healthcare. Corporatists only have interest in doing the former and demonizing anyone who wants to do the latter three as racist for not prioritizing the former.

The sad and horrifying truth in my opinion is that white men are much less accustomed to systemic oppression and therefore don't as readily accept it and more actively seek out people and things which will eliminate it. Minorities and women are far more conditioned to accept systemic oppression in our society, a fact that Corporatists are now capitalizing on to save their political lives.

No, I'm saying Corporatists have spent three generations conspiring with Republicans to strip us of our economic rights, so it's going to take more than a couple of years to undo that damage, especially since most alive today have never experienced most of those economic rights. It's about the politicians, not the voters.

I answered that question before you asked it. Yes, fictitious. The corporatists have spent a long time entrenching themselves in the Democratic Party and convincing people that trading economic equality for "social progress" is the right way to go. Clearly, it's going to take more than a few years to undo decades of brainwashing the corporatists have put in place, but progress is clearly happening.

No one is a fictitious creation of the Hillary Clinton campaign.

Corporatists are the worst problem. At least you can clearly paint Republicans as the bad guys who want to take away your rights, it's harder for people who have never experienced things like collective bargaining rights, a progressive tax system that actually funds social programs, or well funded social programs that provide benefits to the average American to see that the Corporatists are doing the exact same thing.

Wow. Drama has reached an all-time high in the age of the internet.

That's fair, I didn't think of that. I suppose he could still K if it wasn't a 3-2 count.

Perhaps I am just overwhelmed by the general arrogance of Reddy, but while yard signs are not likely a perfect predictor of election results, they are certainly an indicator of enthusiasm behind a campaign, and it's my understanding that voter enthusiasm is an indicator of likely voter turnout. To put it differently, had one gone by yard signs in 2016, that person would've been one of the few to correctly predict Trump winning the presidency. Few other predictive methods would've yielded that result.

If the Sox lose out, that means Baltimore gets 3 wins, and would just have to win 4 of their other 17 games to fall behind the White Sox for #1 overall. Yeah, it's not going to happen, but it's a nice thought.

I subtracted 49 Ks (and 49 ABs, accordingly) and added 49 BBs.

Literally just correcting this would change his slashline to .247/.387/.431 with a 18.7% BB rate and a 25.0% K rate. In case anyone was wondering how badly the umps have screwed Moncada over this season, there's your answer.

I don't have a litmus test, I'm just sick of Democrats who trade away all of our economic rights such as collective bargaining, progressive taxation, not allowing money to be treated as speech for political purposes, or really any of the priorities FDR laid out in the second bill of rights, in exchange for "social progress", most of which just gets rolled back when the Kochs spend enough money to get their political lackeys into power. The only way out of that death spiral that I see is a political party that prioritizes economic rights and freedoms above all else. I want that to be the Democratic party, but every time anyone comes along on the Democratic ticket who wants to prioritize those issues, people like you call them racist and distract from what they're trying to accomplish all because they're not prioritizing the issues you think they should.

Wow. Just...wow.

Economy is the third lowest priority on her agenda, so it makes sense that you support her.

I know. What I'm saying is I don't want the team to miss out on Machado, panic, and feel like they have to spend money instead of waiting for Arenado next year. Stay disciplined, get good value in all trades and free agent signings, and eventually it will all pay off.

Machado, Arenado or bust on offensive free agents IMO. MAYBE Harper, but this season from him scares me and he's still going to get mega dollars. I think Corbin would also be an interesting sign.