StrangeSox

QUOTE (Ezio Auditore @ Aug 2, 2016 -> 09:25 AM) That's the second time in recent memory CNN has done that, calling a very blatant lie what it is

QUOTE (Ezio Auditore @ Aug 2, 2016 -> 09:23 AM) He probably does, but they probably know him as well as anyone and know it's futile. There's brief periods where you can tell that Manafort's managed to lock up all of Trump's twitter phones or trap Trump in an elevator, but he always manages to wrestle back control.

QUOTE (Ezio Auditore @ Aug 2, 2016 -> 09:16 AM) Kirk hasn't gone as far as to endorse Hillary, but he has been pretty emphatic about distancing himself from Trump. He has, but not endorsing the candidate from your party and openly endorsing the candidate from the other party are two very, very different things. FWIW Hanna is retiring after this term and doesn't have to care about reelection chances. In Trump news:

QUOTE (JenksIsMyHero @ Aug 2, 2016 -> 09:14 AM) I can't believe he doesn't have an advisor (or someone like Ivanka or one of his sons) screaming at him hourly that people are purposefully baiting him and to just shut up. Yet he keeps getting hooked. The guy was in the best spot of his campaign right after the RNC and he's ruined any small shot that he had. It's just amazing to watch the train wreck. I'm sure there's a few that try, but he's surrounded himself with sycophants his entire life and his campaign mostly seems to be second/third tier political operatives. You can easily tell when a tweet or a press release isn't crafted by Trump himself, and it's obvious he still retains near-total control of the campaign messaging. If he really is an honest-to-god narcissist, he literally can't help but respond to any perceived slight no matter how small, and he can't stand when the spotlight isn't on him. His response to Clinton saying "it's easy to bait Trump on twitter" was to have an instant meltdown on twitter. eta: Ivanka is probably really the only one he listens to, but even then no one can completely control him. Have you ever made a hot-headed post here or elsewhere that, even as you hit submit and knew it was probably over the line, it still felt good? That appears to be Trump 24/7.

GOP Rep. Richard Hanna: I'll vote for Clinton; first House member to cross party line Wonder if people like Mark Kirk, struggling to keep their seats in pretty solidly blue states, will follow a similar path.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 1, 2016 -> 04:39 PM) Donald Trump, on how he'd react if someone treated Ivanka like Ailes allegedly treated dozens of women: http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2016...olumn/87915454/ Ok there's no way he isn't trying to lose deliberately at this point, right? Eric Trump responds by blaming sexual harassment victims:

The Zika-Ebola hybrid superbug has already infected 2 trillion Americans! It's a legitimate problem in many areas, and the CDC has recommended against women who are pregnant or planning to become pregnant traveling to Miami for the time being.

QUOTE (Jerksticks @ Aug 1, 2016 -> 11:02 PM) I thought using the Muslim family with the slain soldier for political gain was pretty low. Trump responded like an idiot but the fact that the media accepted that as a headline story was just low. Just felt dirty in general and I don't think that does honor to the dead. I know everybody from both parties loves to "bring out the victims to show the human side"...just don't like it ever. Just my take The family was personally offended and insulted by Trump's disgusting anti-Muslim bigotry. They have every right to call him out on his bulls*** fearmongering, and they aren't responsible for Trump's ensuing meltdown.

In his latest rally, Donald Trump literally called Hillary Clinton "the devil" and also bragged about how little he knows about NATO https://twitter.com/nick_ramsey/status/7602...src=twsrc%5Etfw This is a man who is not an idiot, and definitely not a raging narcissist who craves any form of attention, good or bad. So in a single day, Trump has: -nth-tupled down on attacking Khan, now pretty directly calling him a terrorist sympathizer at best -bragged about his ignorance on NATO despite spouting off really dumb stuff about NATO for weeks now -Called Clinton "the devil" -Started hedging his loss with "the election will be rigged" talk -Told an interviewer that anytime someone calls him out, he will respond (duh) -Said that if his daughter was sexually harassed, he hoped she'd find a new career or at least a new place to work. ~Day 4 of the General Election~

QUOTE (bigruss22 @ Aug 1, 2016 -> 07:35 PM) Oh, so she's not crazy just open to the crazy vote? This is pretty much every 3rd party. They know they're fringe, they focus on vanity Presidential campaigns, and so they have to be open to anyone on the same fringe.

QUOTE (bigruss22 @ Aug 1, 2016 -> 07:21 PM) There isn't much sanity in the 3rd parties. Starting with the fact that they focus almost completely on the presidency, thinking that they can start change from the top...If you really want the respect of voters then you start locally and go from there. Make real changes that you can advertise. Iirc there are more elected members of legitimate socialist parties in this country than there are green party office holders.

Trump: my policy to keep out terrorists is what bothered khan https://mobile.twitter.com/BuzzFeedAndrew/s...258150926782464 A man with a very good brain

Green Party Candidate Jill Stein:

Donald Trump, on how he'd react if someone treated Ivanka like Ailes allegedly treated dozens of women: http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2016...olumn/87915454/ Ok there's no way he isn't trying to lose deliberately at this point, right?

QUOTE (Ezio Auditore @ Aug 1, 2016 -> 04:32 PM) Yeah I don't think Goldwater himself was racist necessarily (although I honestly don't know enough to say) but he was DEFINITELY firmly on the side of white supremacists that year. That's the year Jackie Robinson changed his party ID, and one of the big reasons black voters who used to be a solid Republican voting bloc started voting Democrat. It's been a couple of years, but Before The Storm is a great read for political nerds about the run-up to the 1964 election. Goldwater himself was kinda like modern libertarians in that he was opposed to things like the public accommodations laws, more of an ignorant/naive racism than an outright antagonistic racism.

7 point Clinton bounce in the CNN poll, 12 point total swing since their post-RNC poll. Also part of that poll, related to what jenks was asking: One poll in late July, throw it into the aggregater with the rest etc. This is also pre-Khan meltdown: And 538's now-cast reflecting the DNC/Khan meltdown boost Now-cast is obviously wildly swingy, so here's the polls-plus model Expect it to take until the end of the week for the Khan fallout to really show up. Trump already 'pondering' about Clinton rigging the election in his rally today. One last update from the CNN poll! lmao

QUOTE (bmags @ Aug 1, 2016 -> 04:08 PM) Goldwater ran with the segregationists in 64, hard to say it was arguably racist. Oh the Goldwater movement itself was definitely fueled by the Bircher racist crowds, I guess I'm speaking more of the man's personal politics than specifically that campaign. Maybe I'm giving the man who credibly got the "Daisy" ad deployed against him and ran "in your heart, you know he's right" billboards too much credit, though.

QUOTE (Ezio Auditore @ Aug 1, 2016 -> 03:56 PM) You have to go back to pre-desegregation days and those were Democrats, but even then they had a clue in terms of policy and whatnot and weren't con artists. I guess the only thing close is Goldwater in '64 though. They had "I'm a Republican but I'm voting Democrat because Goldwater terrifies me" ads Goldwater had kooky/arguably racist ideas, but he wasn't incompetent and ignorant in the same sort of way that Trump is. He still had a couple of decades in the Senate after that. He at least understood policy and the world around him in a coherent if wrong worldview.

QUOTE (Baron @ Aug 1, 2016 -> 03:47 PM) Rick Hahn: 'We had number conversations about every team in baseball but no other deals made sense for long-term competitiveness standpoint' https://twitter.com/CST_soxvan/status/760215176779931649 This sounds exactly like the speech I posted yesterday Is this a quote from the 2015 trading deadline or today?

QUOTE (SI1020 @ Aug 1, 2016 -> 03:37 PM) They haven't been above .500 since 2012. Six losing seasons in the last 9, probably going to be 7 in the last 10. A .500 team would look pretty good. :( :(

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Aug 1, 2016 -> 03:26 PM) I feel like I'm experiencing an alternate reality or something. You guys are acting like this team is 20 games under .500 and has a bunch of pending free agents. Again, I understand the opinion that the team should rebuild, but I don't understand why everyone is acting like it's unbelievable that they aren't selling. It's very believable. They didn't "blow" anything, they just made a different decision than you wanted. It's the same bad decision they've been making for years, though, and it never works out!

QUOTE (bmags @ Aug 1, 2016 -> 03:22 PM) So true. "We've identified the problem but we don't know how to solve it so we are just going to not do anything and hope it goes away" The White Sox have invented the MLB equivalent of "Basketball Hell"

Rick Hahn was sitting by the phone all day long just waiting for the calls that never came. Unfortunately, it wasn't until 2:59 that he noticed the phone was off the hook, but by that point it was already too late.

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Aug 1, 2016 -> 03:08 PM) Because ALL of those players are still under contract for next year. I look forward to another year of a 3-5th place .500 team!