Dam8610

QUOTE (Reddy @ Apr 17, 2018 -> 10:33 PM) Check out Manchin's record this session of Congress, and let me know how he voted on healthcare and tax reform. You're literally saying you'd rather have a far right Senator for at LEAST 6 years (likely longer because of incumbency, like you mentioned) in all of the seats that currently have moderate Dems? So you want to lose on every issue and for the GOP to pass all its wildest dreams? Burn it all down and screw minorities and women because of that 20%? Do you have any idea what the ramifications of that are? Or in terms of the judicial branch? I'm guessing Bernie was the guy who got you into politics? Because that's some grade A ignorant. At least I hope it is. Because if it's not ignorance it's incredible selfishness. If you couldn't get oxygen, would you care about all the nitrogen et al you were getting out of air? Would it be "ignorant" or "incredibly selfish" of you to seek out oxygen by any means necessary? QUOTE (Reddy @ Apr 17, 2018 -> 10:35 PM) Also, are you a straight white dude? Just wondering because if so, your "no social issues matter to me" statement is....... pretty indicative if the problem with the Bernie wing. Have you ever wondered why every country in Europe has a better quality of life than we do? What do they do differently? The most prominent thing to me is that they protest and fight for economic justice (and get it), whereas we protest and fight for social justice (and don't get it). Einstein once said that insanity is trying the same thing over and over and expecting different results. We've let neoliberals and conservatives run the economy and country for four decades now, and clearly it's not working for anyone but the oligarchs. Also, clearly all the social justice efforts aren't working because society and bureaucracy are as unjust and biased as ever, and are becoming dangerously authoritarian. I'm just a person who looks at the situation and decides to not be insane. We have to try something different, because what is simply isn't working.

QUOTE (cjgalloway @ Apr 17, 2018 -> 07:08 PM) Yeah Collins is starting to turn into a non-prospect for me too... Apart from the walks I don't see how people like him Yeah, it's not like we've ever seen anyone with a low batting average, good eye, and good power succeed in MLB...oh, wait...

QUOTE (Reddy @ Apr 17, 2018 -> 07:55 AM) Except for all the key issues that he's voted with Dems on under the Trump administration of course. Thanks for proving me right about Berners. Would you rather have someone who votes with you 70-80% of the time, or 0% of the time? What key issues? Bear in mind, no social or procedural issue qualifies as "key" to me. I assess politicians on their positions on the economy, corporate vs. worker interests, taxes, healthcare, and education. Manchin's policy positions on those issues place him squarely with the Republicans. Also, I'd rather have someone who will vote my way less to have an opportunity to vote them out. Incumbents aren't susceptible enough to primary challengers in this country for the Democrats to function as a party that gets anything done and function the way you want them to. But hey, if you think 70-80% is good enough, we can give you 79% of the air you need. I'm sure you won't miss the oxygen at all.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Apr 15, 2018 -> 10:42 PM) Your thoughts on folks like Jones, Manchin, Tester, etc? (not ignoring our other convo, just on the phone and can't write lengthy responses) Manchin might as well be a Republican, he votes with them on every key issue. I didn't like that (I'm assuming Doug) Jones doesn't understand how taxes fund societies (see: wanted to lower corporate rate and would likely support repatriation tax holidays, which have proven to not work as the politicians intend), and I'd like to see what the hell his being an "economic populist" means to how he'll vote. Tester seems to have agreeable ideas on most economic issues, except banks.

QUOTE (Chicago White Sox @ Apr 15, 2018 -> 03:51 PM) Kanny postponed due to weather. The Dash are in a delay in the top of the 8th. If the game resumes, Sheets & Adolfo will lead off the inning. Birmingham about to start game 2 of their double-header. Collins at catcher, no Zavala in the lineup. Why do they insist on giving Courtney Hawkins ABs?

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Apr 15, 2018 -> 09:17 PM) So you're on the side of Lamb and Trump on the tariffs...? That's an interesting one that splits the DNC/Corporate/Moderate-Aligned/Rubin-Clinton-Obama/Goldman Sachs "centrists" of the party against the progressive leftist wing. The trick for Dems on the national level is appealing to BOTH sides of the party...which probably makes NEITHER side happy, right? I don't necessarily think tariffs and trade wars are a good idea, but I definitely think the unions and the strengthening of them and their rights to collectively bargain are good things and weakening of those things and siding with corporate interests against workers is bad. That was one of the pillars of Conor Lamb's campaign.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Apr 15, 2018 -> 04:14 PM) Let’s put it this way. The Dems (progressives in particular) have to be open to the Conor Lamb?€™s and Doug Joneses of the world to take back the House. No litmus tests. Let?€™s not forget Sanders/Our Revolution has supported a few pro-life and gun rights candidates as well in conservative districts. The gun issue is evolving daily, though. On a national basis, there has to be some compromise in 2020. You can?€™t have Kaine as a VP, and you shouldn?€™t have Sanders/Warren either if you?€™re completely serious about winning, no matter how stacked the deck looks against the GOP on a national basis at the current moment. The Dems also have to make a decision where they are on trade...and it’s not an easy one, as Hillary’s waffling demonstrated. https://medium.com/s/jeremiad/the-unfortuna...il-bd1063814dc0 This article is a bit philosophical...but the two choices for the country (and world) are not so obvious moving forward "Big tent theory" leads to "majorities" that don't mean anything, so instead of saying "no litmus tests", you should say "all I care about is being able to say 'Democrats hold a majority of elected offices'", because the blue dogs (like Lipinski) are DINOs who are more likely to vote with the Republicans on any major issue, so a "big tent" Democratic "majority" effectively becomes a Republican majority with different names in key positions. It's certainly important to vote for Lipinski over the actual Nazi he's running against, but it was equally important, if not moreso, that his primary challenger Marie Newman should've beat him, so that that vote actually caucused with the Democrats on key issues. Also, Conor Lamb is a progressive as far as I can tell. At least he is on the important (economic) issues. I've heard criticisms of him being "pro-life" as well, but his stance on the issue is that while that is his personal belief, he recognizes the importance of legal abortion and will defend that right as a congressman. All I ask for is to vote correctly. I'd even take a Republican who votes correctly for the wrong reasons.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Apr 15, 2018 -> 11:28 AM) Lol. There wouldn't have BEEN an election if Clinton won. And as far as Moore/Pedophilia/Trump, you could make the exact same argument for 2016, except black voters didn't turn out in unprecedented numbers that time. So. I have a lot of trouble with your argument on this one. Why do you feel that black voters are mobilized by a scandalous news cycle in ways others aren't? Why, in your view, did that motivate black voters for Jones and not Hillary? Why don't you think grassroots activism and mobilization within those black communities made any impact? You didn't read The Atlantic article I linked, did you? You clearly didn't read your article, because in it, the activists talk about how everyone "just knew" Hillary was going to win, so they didn't think it was important to turn out. Reading is fundamental, especially if it's a thing you're trying to use as a basis for your argument.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Apr 15, 2018 -> 09:49 AM) Show me the peer-reviewed study or data that supports your case that the black vote in Alabama only turned out because Trump won the Presidency. In the meantime, read this: How Grassroots Organizers Got Black Voters to the Polls in Alabama - The Atlantic The comment about data and peer reviewed studies was in reference to your comment about not taking me seriously because I called our society an oligarchy after I provided a peer reviewed study which proved it is. You can choose not to believe a thing in the face of evidence if you'd like, but that's a tactic typically associated with conservative politics in this country. As for your article, why are you linking me to an article that says exactly what I told you? Grassroots activism is the cause the article lists, and the activists interviewed list Trump as one of the primary causes for the rise in political activism. That's exactly what I already told you. I don't know why you felt the need to share the article, you could've just said you read an article that confirms what I told you.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Apr 14, 2018 -> 07:10 PM) It's hard to take you seriously with all your oligarchy stuff. And black voters did not vote for Trump over Hillary in the general, but they also didn't turn out for Hillary the way they did for Obama. That means that Trump is NOT the driving factor in black turnout. It's issues and grassroots organizing that turns them out, just like everyone else. It's hard to take people who don't take data and peer-reviewed studies seriously seriously. I just said grassroots activism was the main cause, but that only happened because Trump won the presidency. Had Hillary won the presidency, Democrats would've been just as complacent as they were under Obama and Roy Moore would be a senator right now.

Is Patrick Leonard AAAA fodder or someone to watch? I saw he was playing 3B for Charlotte (though he was DH tonight) and he's hitting .281 there, though the OPS isn't impressive at the moment. Thoughts?

QUOTE (Reddy @ Apr 14, 2018 -> 05:25 PM) Black voters didn't turn out for Clinton. They did for Doug Jones. Explain using Sandersism please. https://www.nytimes.com/elections/2016/resu...imaries/alabama 77.8%-19.2%. The oligarchy convinced those voters to vote against their own interests, yet again. In fact, the exact same way as when they voted for Trump over Clinton in the general. Why did they vote for Jones? Probably a crapton of grassroots activism that was activated in large part by Trump's presidential election win combined with the Roy Moore damn near admitting to pedophilia.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Apr 14, 2018 -> 03:16 PM) Union buster extraordinaire or dolt? Why not both?

QUOTE (hi8is @ Apr 13, 2018 -> 11:16 PM) Couple of observations about Swaggerty: 1.) it looks like he’s been adding some loft to his swing path this year and it’s been working well for him. 2.) I absolutely love his balance and solid base at the plate 3.) He also looks susceptible to high heat and will need to learn to lay off that pitch Overall, with the little I’ve seen - I like. Low bust probability due to having many tools. Would be nice if he ended up being a lead off CF guy for 6 years of championship ball. 6 years of championship White Sox baseball sounds great to me.

QUOTE (bmags @ Apr 13, 2018 -> 08:13 PM) Courtney Hawkins is not blocking a single prospect. Collins isn’t sitting for Hawkins ABs. Zavala was at C with Hawkins at DH. I understand letting Zavala catch, but then have Collins DH. When Collins is catching, Zavala can DH. And with the way the kids at W-S are hitting, they'll need that DH slot when Zavala moves up to AAA.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Apr 13, 2018 -> 06:54 PM) I'll ask you a better question. Why did they turn out in such huge numbers for Doug Jones? That's not a better question, because the answer is the oligarchy or "party backing" as it's commonly referenced. Bernie Sanders was calling for free college, free healthcare, government financed job training and apprenticeship programs, raising the minimum wage to a living wage, and major prison and criminal justice reform, and had plans to implement taxes that would pay for all of it that mostly consisted of heavily taxing wealth and the wealthy. Considering the average African American has a far lower net worth than the average Caucasian, is far more likely to be killed by police, far more likely to be convicted of a crime and receive prison time, and far less likely to receive a call for an interview when submitting a resume, Bernie Sanders platform was tailor made for African American interests. That Clinton was able to convince them to vote against their interests is another fine example of the oligarchy at work.

Why is Collins sitting in favor of Courtney Hawkins getting DH ABs? That's insane. Why is Hawkins even still in the org?

If Booker, Basabe, Adolfo, and Sheets keep it up, they're going to need to make some room in Birmingham sooner rather than later. Those four are tearing the cover off the ball. Dunning should already be in Birmingham, and if Cease keeps pitching like this, he should earn a midseason promotion as well.

QUOTE (SCCWS @ Apr 13, 2018 -> 06:28 PM) Agree but the 37% K rate from the left is even worse than last year. Maybe they can sit him against tough lefties to help him out some on the right side. What? He needs as many PAs as possible.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 13, 2018 -> 11:22 AM) this isn't the first article to hit on this, there have been other ones highlighting how "anti-Trump" is great for energize the activists and volunteers, but running on actual issues is what's needed to get enough non-base voters to win. Trump, Trump, Trump: A Losing Strategy If African Americans are motivated by helping people get access to education and good jobs, why isn't Bernie Sanders president?

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Apr 12, 2018 -> 02:28 PM) Irrespective of policy, is this type of malfeasance (if proven true) okay? https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/12/politics/epa...ress/index.html Of course it's not. Republicans won't do anything about it, though.

https://theintercept.com/2018/04/03/politic...ive-republican/ Thought this was relevant reading for some here.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Apr 12, 2018 -> 06:04 AM) Makers and Takers...The Tragedy of Paul Ryan Ryan’s second act was his most compelling. As a young rank-and-file member of the House, Ryan had earned a reputation for being studious and sincere—but also ideologically charged. This was the story of his Obama-era budgets, and also his talk of dividing the electorate into “makers and takers,” those who help the economy and those who leech off it. It was Ryan’s experience on the national stage with Romney—escaping the comfortable confines of Wisconsin’s 1st congressional district—that exposed him to widespread perceptions of Republican callousness and indifference, scaring Ryan straight and prompting him to write a book in which he apologized for the “makers and takers” rhetoric. If this transformation seemed all too convenient, well, Bob Woodson thought so too. Woodson, a longtime community organizer and civil rights advocate, met Ryan at the tail end of the 2012 campaign at a poverty event in Cleveland. Ryan kept in touch, and some months after the campaign ended he reached out to Woodson asking for a tour of facilities around the country that help struggling people to get back on their feet. It struck Woodson as a publicity stunt, but Ryan said he wanted no media present. Woodson was still skeptical. ”And then every month, for about the next four years, we went to a different city, we met different groups, and he deepened his understanding of these people,” Woodson told me. “I witnessed a transformation in him. He’s traveled to more low-income black neighborhoods than any member of the Black Caucus that I know of.” These experiences, in concert with the harsh lessons learned from 2012, were the catalyst for Ryan’s reinvention. He was a unrecognizable when he returned to Congress after the defeat. Ryan talked differently, thought differently and voted differently, conspicuously breaking from the party’s right flank and speaking—often lecturing—about the need for the party to modulate its positions expand its appeal among non-traditional Republican voters. He voted to raise the debt ceiling, break the sequester and reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act. He also lampooned Ted Cruz and the other conservatives who shut down the government in the hopeless pursuit of defunding the Affordable Care Act. All of this informed Ryan’s approach to taking over for Boehner in the fall of 2015. He had come to understand that the Republican Party was widely perceived to be not just cruel, but clueless. The new speaker aimed to address both vulnerabilities with a sweeping series of policy proposals, known as the “Better Way” agenda, which would articulate legislative solutions and wrap them in the sort of aspirational, inclusive messaging Kemp had once steeped Ryan in. The culmination of these efforts, appropriately, was in January 2016—the month before Trump officially began his conquest of the GOP. In South Carolina, Ryan teamed with Senator Tim Scott to host a forum on poverty and upward mobility, using the high-profile event to highlight how Republicans were advancing ideas on how to address everything from minority unemployment to criminal justice reform.“Where did the party of Jack Kemp go? Is it still out there?” Senator Lindsey Graham wondered aloud to the audience. The answer, that day, appeared to be yes. The event was a hit. Many of the GOP presidential contenders joined Ryan and Scott on stage, speaking to a diverse crowd the likes of which I’ve never seen at a Republican event. Ryan told me the night before that Trump had been invited. But the future president didn’t show up. https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/201...ns-plans-217989 Then why is he pushing slashing our paid-in benefits? Clearly he learned nothing.

QUOTE (raBBit @ Apr 11, 2018 -> 01:01 PM) You're conflating here and claiming logical scrutiny. I was talking about the tax pool. I understand people can contribute to society without making a lot of money. I don't need a condescending lecture to understand that. All I did was logically analyze your statement. "The tax pool" is not "society", so say what you mean. Further, as a fellow accountant, I know you're not stupid enough to believe that the person making $1 million is going to pay taxes on $1 million. In fact, if we go with a slightly higher figure, say $40,000, there's a good chance that the person making $1 million has a lower effective tax rate, and a small chance that the person making $1 million has a lower tax liability. So even if you were conflating "society" to mean tax pool (words work better when they're used correctly), you're still wrong.

QUOTE (DirtySox @ Apr 11, 2018 -> 02:55 PM) I mainly mean that I find the notion of passing on a player like Bohm because Jake Burger exists is quite silly. It's a reason to take McClanahan, Madrigal, or Swaggerty if you have similar grades on them. If you think Bohm is hands down BPA when you're picking, you take him, though.