Balta1701

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 25, 2011 -> 06:07 PM) If my main issue is doing something ASAP about AGW, why should I vote Democrat? They showed me that they were incapable of or unwilling to enact legislation to significantly address the issue. Do you or do you not support the nation's sole energy policy being "Drill baby drill"?

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 25, 2011 -> 06:06 PM) Is it simply because they're less bad than the Republicans? Frankly, yes. If you want your ideal candidate elected, go out and support him or her during the primaries. Work hard. You might darn well get my vote. In the general, you better damn well be voting for the less bad option. If you live in a non-swing state, ok, fine, I won't complain about a protest vote, but until you can say that if you were a Florida voter in 2000 who voted for Ralph Nader and yo can come out and say you support the Iraq war, the building of Gitmo in the first place, the torture regime itself, and the number of mining claims close to Grand Canyon National Park going up by a factor of 9 during the next 8 years, then yes, you better be voting for the less bad person.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 25, 2011 -> 06:03 PM) Thank you, you've illustrated my point: by that definition, that any vote not for a candidate is a protest against that candidate, all votes are protest votes and thus the term becomes meaningless. And thank you for illustrating my point...no matter how unhappy you were with the candidates in the 2000 election, you can't bring yourself to say that Al Gore would have been just as bad as W.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 25, 2011 -> 05:58 PM) "I reject the idea that any vote not for (D) or ® is somehow a less legitimate vote" is an argument. Protest voting does exist. Voting Mickie Mouse, voting for Kerry simply as a protest against Bush. Voting Nader because I'd rather have him as President than Gore? That's not a protest vote, that's democracy. So, you're protesting against Al Gore. (And anyway...if you're going to use that as an argument, seriously, I've already won. You want to tell me how Al Gore would have been no better than W? Really? That makes my point entirely.)

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 25, 2011 -> 05:54 PM) Why did the Democrats fail to enact substantial climate change initiatives in 2009-2011? Why should I vote for them again, so that they can do nothing again? Because: 1. The institutional structure of our government. 2. The fact that you're not counting the stimulus measure and budgets, which were the biggest clean energy programs this country has yet passed. The fact that it wasn't enough doesn't mean that it didn't exist.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 25, 2011 -> 05:54 PM) The people who benefit from your Democrat votes are bought-and-paid-for Democrats and the corporations who own them. People who are opposed to any real progressive policies benefit. Center-right Democrats benefit. People who won't really do anything about climate change benefit because there's zero pressure to actually take some political risk because they've got enough hand-wringing *better support the Dems, lest the Republicans get in and enact more or less the same policies!* liberals buying into the idea that they deserve the liberal vote simply because they're a little left of the Republicans on the whole. If we keep voting for Democrats and HOPE that they'll CHANGE from being a centrist-at-best corporate party with no desire to enact progressive policies, we'll never get progressive policies. And the people who benefit most from failing to vote for the Democrat are the oil companies, coal industry, and chamber of commerce. You criticize me because people who are opposed to progressive policies benefit if I vote for Obama...then you use that as an argument as to why I should cast a vote that more openly benefits people who oppose progressive policies? That's completely backwards. You flat out have zero grounds to criticize me on that.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Apr 25, 2011 -> 05:38 PM) So what is the definition of voting for the candidate that you best align with? Balta's storytime. You're talking to a person who cast a protest vote in the 2004 Democratic primaries, because I wasn't voting for anyone who voted in favor of Bush's stupid war. In the fall, you're damn right I came home and voted for Kerry, like him or not, because I was just as motivated to vote against W's war then as I was in the spring. I voted for the candidate I preferred, even though he'd already dropped out of the race. It was a vote for a candidate with no shot at winning, but it was still the right vote for me. It was a protest vote. "I don't like the connotation I believe that word has!" is not an argument here.

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Apr 25, 2011 -> 05:49 PM) I don't think you needed to exclude interleague play to come up with that point. Even with it, they have averaged 83-84 wins the last 5 years and made the playoffs once. That's average in my book. No....that's by definition "above average" since average is 81 wins.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Apr 25, 2011 -> 05:43 PM) Well, I did say since they won the WS, which, BTW led to a significant increase in payroll. And which, conveniently, happens to make your argument 10x better.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 25, 2011 -> 05:38 PM) Not really, since Obama and the supermajority dems neglected to do a single god-damned meaningful thing about the problem. A vote for Obama was no different for a vote for McCain if you wanted strong climate change initiatives, or closing down Gitmo/ending a decade of civil and human rights abuses, meaningful financial reform, etc. The party you keep supporting doesn't have any different of a solution to our energy problems than the party you hate. Wait wait wait. You do realize that: 1. The Congress passed legislation in a budget that forbade the President from spending funds on closing Gitmo or on trying the people in the U.S. legal system, and that's the only reason why Holder has gone back to the military commissions? How do you blame the President for an act of Congress? 2. The people who would benefit from your votes, if they are elected, will actively work in the wrong direction on clean energy and financial reform? That if the people who would benefit most from your protest votes were elected, the limited government support for clean energy would evaporate, and things like the Consumer Financial Products Bureau will vanish? I can give you a great example. Wind energy in this country should be 5 years ahead of where it is right now, but when the people who would benefit most from a protest vote were actively in charge, the regulatory scheme see-sawed. One year, there would be a budget passed including funds to support wind energy development, and new factories would open. The next year, that subsidy would vanish, and those factories that opened the previous year would close. This happened at least 3 times during the Bush administration. The lack of a stable regulatory environment put wind energy development behind by 5 years. And you question why I wouldn't oppose people who actively scoff at the notion of renewable energy? People who, if elected, would dismantle 4 years of work instantly?

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 25, 2011 -> 05:35 PM) I reject the framing of voting for a candidate you prefer as wasteful, meaningless, petulant, etc. I reject having the discussion on the grounds that the two major parties are entitled to all votes and anything other than a vote for them is done in protest and not simply voting for your preferred candidate and policies. You're perfectly free to believe that, but it's still a textbook definition of a protest vote. You just don't like the way you interpret the context. Voting for a candidate with no shot at winning because you're unhappy with the 2 other candidates is a protest vote. Regardless of how you justify it.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Apr 25, 2011 -> 05:31 PM) And apparently you are in fact, loose on your principles as you continue to vote for people who do little to nothing to address issues you've been advocating on this site for years. And apparently you are, in fact, loose on your principles as you are unwilling to cast a vote to stop the election of a person who believes that the solution to our energy problems is to have our army take over a couple of Iraqi oil fields as payment for services rendered over the past decade. Spins both ways, sir.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 25, 2011 -> 05:27 PM) It's not a "protest vote" to vote for someone who more closely aligns with your ideology instead of voting for someone who barely aligns with your ideology. It's democracy, and the continuation of a system where we have to vote for one of two terrible choices completely beholden to corporate interests is anti-democratic. Actually, that's the definition of a protest vote. The fact that you don't like the term doesn't change what it is.

Link

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Apr 25, 2011 -> 05:19 PM) No, I'm counting this year. 2006-2011. If you don't want to count this year, they are 1 game over, so average. 2006,2007,2008,2009,2010=5 2011=+ So...yes, you're doing the "Including 2007 and excluding 2005 trick".

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Apr 25, 2011 -> 05:18 PM) It'd be pretty sad if Obama couldn't secure enough votes on his own to beat out a birther. You didn't answer the question. If Trump has an "R" after his name, he's almost guaranteed 40% in a general presidential election as long as he doesn't murder someone. That's how the system works. I'm testing how stringent you are on your principle here. I want to know if you folks's desire for a protest vote is so strong that you'd prefer Donald Trump in the White House rather than voting for Obama over your ideal candidate.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Apr 25, 2011 -> 05:09 PM) Anyone ripping Bud Selig should take it back, because without interleague play the Sox haven't been good. They are 5 games under .500 vs. AL teams the past 5+ seasons. 5+ seasons? Did you just do the including 2007 and excluding 2005 trick again?

In a 3 way race between Obama, Trump, and your ideal candidate, where your ideal candidate was likely to split the vote with Obama, would you be content with Donald Trump as your President for 4 years?

Link

Link

QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ Apr 25, 2011 -> 02:36 PM) It's kind of sad that our debates revolve around who deserves to be fire the most, not whether someone deserves to be fired How many sports teams right now have fans that don't think someone needs fired? Wanting people fired is the norm.

QUOTE (Ranger @ Apr 25, 2011 -> 02:17 PM) There isn't anything wrong with being able to execute "smallball" when it needs to be executed. Bunting isn't ALWAYS the dumbest thing in the world as suggested by statheads. It has its place, even in the AL. Gardenhire, Maddon, Leyland, and Scioscia seem to agree as well, and I'm pretty sure none of those guys are baseball stupid. Contrary to popular perception, Ozzie doesn't do it any more than any other manager in the league does it. He's fairly standard in that regard. Last year, the White Sox had the 2nd most sacrifice bunts of any team in the AL (counting successful ones, not failures). Texas was first with 53, the Sox were 2nd with 50, then there was a gap until we got to KC with 45. In 2009 with a legitimate DH the Sox were in the middle of the AL in sacrifice hits. In 2008, when they made a playoff run, they were towards the bottom of the league. It's possible that we wouldn't be nearly as annoyed with the Sacrifice Bunts if we weren't absolutely dominating the league in another stat...caught stealings. The White Sox had 75 runners CS last year. The #2 team in the AL, the Angels, had 52 runners CS. The White Sox ran into nearly a full game more outs in stolen base attempts than any other team in the AL. And again, when this team was a playoff team in 2008, they ran into 34 CS's. The Sox are once again 1st in the league in CS's and 2nd in the league in Sacrifice Bunts this year. They also, as far as I can tell, lead the league in sacrifice bunt attempts that turn into triple plays.

QUOTE (letsgoarow @ Apr 25, 2011 -> 02:19 PM) I feel like randy quaid from Major League He was only in the sequel.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 25, 2011 -> 02:22 PM) Not voting? Are you assuming that a 3rd party candidate not named LaRouche will qualify for the ballot?

Jeff Tweedy talks a bit about Wilco's upcoming album.