Soxbadger

QUOTE (raBBit @ Jan 24, 2017 -> 11:31 AM) So by this math I can say see, Laguna Beach and then the entire country is prosperous? N=1 does not allow anyone to generalize about the whole country. What about the math that its about "foreign aid" and last I checked neither Laguna Beach nor Flint are "foreign" so that Vox article and Trump's policy have NOTHING to do with the US. Again, FOREIGN AID. (edit) You really should start to consider whether trashing your credibility is worth it. A simple "I didnt read the article and assumed it was about the US" would make this all go away.

QUOTE (raBBit @ Jan 24, 2017 -> 11:15 AM) A.) You're getting personal. Cut it out. Perhaps you should check the rules of the filibuster. B.) I have always been an advocate of increased access to abortion. I just don't buy the argument that women are going to start dropping dead in America because they have less access to abortion than they did last week. Whatever you and the other Vox readers are associating to me is not my opinion. I don't agree with Trump's action. I don't agree with Vox's take on it. Perhaps your wish of being ignorant is unnecessary. There is a spectrum of where you can stand on issues. It's not Trump or Vox. However, with your form of rhetoric, it's just about character attacks and anyone who disagrees with Vox wants to kill women. Rabbit, Cant you just admit the Vox article doesnt say what you thought it did? First line of the article: This has nothing to do with the US at all.

QUOTE (raBBit @ Jan 24, 2017 -> 10:52 AM) I just wasn't aware the US was a developing country. Rabbit, The funding is not for the US. Its a "global" gag order.

QUOTE (raBBit @ Jan 24, 2017 -> 10:22 AM) Why exactly are thousands of women dropping dead with less access to abortion? Do you believe that or are you just parroting Vox.com lol. Did thousands of women die in the 1800's because of lack of access to abortion? To be clear, I am totally for women's abortion rights and border on encouraging it. In essence, don't have kids you can't provide a good life to. That being said, this article is just fear-mongering from a bad source. I can't say I understand the ramifications of the pipeline when it comes to the affect on the environment or the economy but it's not surprising Trump made this move. Commodity prices are stagnated (despite oil's run to end '16) and manufacturing in the US is a in a terrible place so any help to the domestic oil companies makes a lot of sense coming from Trump. I am not sure how much this helps the oil industry or to what expense that comes with it, but this is going to continue to be a problem. I wonder if Trump actually thinks he's going to be able to thwart the economic collapse with little changes here and there. Rabbit, Why are thousands of women dying? Well according to the statistics that the article is based on: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2709326/ Do you consider the US National Library of Medicine National Institutes of Health" a bad source? As for the pipeline, it is really unclear who or what it will help. It is importing Canada oil. So it would help refineries who would process the oil, but it could hurt oil producers as the Canadian oil would now become much cheaper. At the end of the day its likely neutral from an economic standpoint, and with oil prices already relatively cheap, it may not be economically beneficial to cede any land for its construction. But who knows, I think it goes in the "unclear what will happen" category.

QUOTE (brett05 @ Jan 24, 2017 -> 06:55 AM) you need help in reading your own post. Check the examples from the definition you provided from what was it the Oxford dictionary? (insert sadness for Soxbadger) Mr. Spicer strikes again. This guy is gold, even Trump who loves his Trumptionary isnt willing to go all 1984 on whether he lost: Soooo by your logic, he actually wouldnt have "won" because he really wasnt competing anyway. 1984! 1984! You are definitely blackwhite on this, but the bellyfeel for Trump is real.

Strange they would use the title of a book that came out in 2013.

First of all Trump is wrong. According to this very message board Trump couldnt have "lost" because he didnt try. (insert laughter) Second of all, I think we can now say that Bernie Sanders somehow mindf***ed America. TPP/NAFTA/free trade were all in line with Republican ideals, now they are on their way out because of Trump ideas. When you read Sanderes on the issues ( http://www.ontheissues.org/2016/Bernie_San..._Free_Trade.htm ) its almost as if Trump is just parroting Sanders. When you remove the "I voted against" part, its basically Trump.

QUOTE (JenksIsMyHero @ Jan 23, 2017 -> 12:05 PM) Doesn't he have immunity from suits/discovery while in office? Doubt those discovery requests go anywhere. Jenks, Im not a constitutional lawyer at all, but I believe in US v Nixon, ( https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/418/683/ ) they qualified the privilege. Now obviously that was a criminal case not a civil case, but I really think the endgame is to keep it in the news.

QUOTE (bmags @ Jan 23, 2017 -> 11:56 AM) Oh, duh, sorry I thought this was over his post office hotel in Wash DC, I just lumped them together and didn't look. Ha no worries, I meant the "per the complaint" because I think they didnt want it to appear that they were "forum shopping." Most people think the 9th is the most liberal appellate court.

QUOTE (bmags @ Jan 23, 2017 -> 11:42 AM) Do you know anything about that court and reputation? Any reason to go that district? I dont personally know, but the court does appeal to the 2nd Circuit, which many consider liberal leaning. ( http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/25/us/25sfninth.html ) Per the complaint they filed it in NY because that is where Trump's business holdings are located. I am not a constitutional lawyer, but I am thinking the first line of defense is going to be "standing."

I dont think the case will win, but I am not sure that is the point. If they can get it to discovery, then they may be able to force Trump to turn over some documents. Or it could be merely just to create negative press. Either way this is exactly why every other President didnt pull this stunt.

QUOTE (JenksIsMyHero @ Jan 23, 2017 -> 10:28 AM) I don't think it is. I don't think there's a nefarious reason for doing what he does. I think he's just a moron and doesn't understand PR or the internet or the fact that the more ammo you give the media, the more the media is going to embarrass/criticize you. That is what I lean towards, but I also do not want to underestimate Trump and his advisers.

QUOTE (JenksIsMyHero @ Jan 23, 2017 -> 10:01 AM) And what kills me about the crowd size issue, if you had problems with the way your inauguration was covered in the media vs. Obama, fine. Reasonable people will disagree, but attack that issue and complain all you want. That fits your "us vs them" campaign theme. But why go the extra step and tell blatant lies that are easily proven false? You just set yourself up for MORE embarrassment and MORE scrutiny. Jenks, I think he is suffering from narcissistic personality disorder. Otherwise who even cares? Its like arguing that the Bulls had more people at their Championship parade than the Lakers. Trump won, it doesnt matter if only 1 person showed up. Its the same with his comment about TV ratings or how big his crowd is at the CIA. All of this should be completely trivial. The only other option is that Trump is far more deceptive/devious than we ever imagined, and this is merely sleight of hand to distract from things like the fact he now wont release his tax return or that he wont put his assets in a blind trust. That should be relevant news, but seemingly has gotten buried under "alternative facts."

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Jan 22, 2017 -> 04:04 PM) I didn't realize our military was so weak. We still using prop planes and row boats? Its the same world where America isnt great anymore. I call it #alternativefacts. "Trump had the most successful first weekend of Presidency" #alternativefacts "Obama's birth certificate is fake." #alternativefacts "Donald Trump cares about you more than he cares about his wealth." #alternativefacts Okay to be fair some of those are opinions.

QUOTE (greg775 @ Jan 22, 2017 -> 03:42 PM) I just want results. Improve the economy, baby. Build up the military. improve health care. Welcome to the new Republican party. Spend, spend, spend, with no fiscal accountability. How do you expect to pay for all of this?

It just shows how shockingly stupid some people in our govt are. Even if its only 1 person. The US is on the Security Council, the US can veto any UN resolution. Even if you hate everything the UN stands for, you would never give up your seat at the Security Council. That is, unless you dont even have a basic understanding of what the UN is.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jan 22, 2017 -> 12:26 PM) So Kellyanne used the term alternative facts for Spicer's press conference yesterday. When pressed on it, she went to GOP talking points, never answering and then calling out some bad info the press gave about a bust being removed. That she called a lie, not an alternate fact. And then went on about how unfair the press is to the new administration. I just wonder how long this can go on. Unfortunately I dont see any way to break the cycle. Approximately 500 newspapers endorsed Clinton, approximately 27 endorsed Trump. A good portion of America just no longer accepts "facts". Yesterday on this board there was an argument about whether or not Clinton "won" the popular vote. Historically speaking this has happened before. After the fall of Rome, European society entered the "Dark Ages." Its starting to appear that we may be heading down that road. Otherwise why attack Science, etc? Even if you disagree with global warming, our society should still be investing money to determine the facts. We shouldnt just say "The Pope said the Earth is the center of the Universe, so it must be true." The idea of "alternate facts" is pretty scary.

Because it will be interesting to see this in 4 years, I am going to say the best I can say. Dear Mr. Trump, I hope that you are the most successful President in the United States. To be that you do not have to be perfect, but you do need to put America first. Just becoming President should be the prize, your children will be granted access beyond your imagination, they will have a chance to become pseudo-royalty, no matter what anyone may have previously thought, you have made it into the upper echelon of society. So please for the sake of our country, either divest your ownership or put your companies into a blind trust. Everything else I am willing to give you a chance on, maybe you can fix crime, maybe you can improve the economy, maybe your tax ideas are the best and you can destroy ISIS, bring global peace and usher in a golden era for society. But, most of those goals are not realistic, so all I can really ask is that you do what you believe is best for all of us. And one of the ways that you can convince people that you will do that, is to show that your decisions wont be influenced by whether or not you stand to personally gain. Good luck, you have just taken on arguably one of the most difficult jobs in history. All you can do is consider what is best for the world, because responsibility to all nations is part of the job description as President of the United States of America.

I dont know where else to post this so I am going to post it here. So I was reading an article and it cited something from twitter. I figured the person from twitter was like a journalist or something. It turned out it was just some random lady from Florida. This has just gotten completely out of control in terms of what is credible reporting. Now granted its USA today, but still it just blew my mind. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politic...-size/96855252/ By her own admission she was watching on TV. Its like quoting me about the weather in Japan. "Everyone in Japan reports that it is raining. But at least one person, Soxbadger, said the reason for the rain was Godzilla was peeing."

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Jan 20, 2017 -> 09:24 PM) Exacerbated? Ha yeah :/, going to change it now cause im ashamed.

QUOTE (Con te Giolito @ Jan 20, 2017 -> 08:17 PM) Any upside Quintana has is wasted on the Sox. It actually does them a disservice to have him around as he'll hurt draft position. He'll have to get a lot better to up his value also, teams are more reticent to buy-in on outlier seasons now and, as has been said a million times, Quintana will not be the only option. Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man. And if you arent even willing to consider the idea that the offers the Sox have received arent good enough to trade Q now, there is really no point in discussing because neither of us know the offers. The hardest thing for people to understand, who do not negotiate deals regularly, is why patience is so important.

QUOTE (Con te Giolito @ Jan 20, 2017 -> 08:05 PM) Well it depends what you're selling and who you're selling it to. Quintana, like all athletes after a certain age, is a depreciating asset. Your car right now KBB's at $10k but after another year of use would be only worth $7500. You have an offer on the table for $8k. Maybe you hold out and sell it for more waiting for the right buyer, but while you do that the car is continues to add mileage and years and depreciates because of that. Not only that, you run the risk of suffering a major breakdown, which would mean shelling out for repairs or selling the car for (basically) scrap. Also, you dont need this car anymore because you can walk to work...so your having it is an expensive convenience and poor allocation of resources. I understand the downside, you just never appreciate (haha no pun intended) that there is an upside. Q is on the right side of 30 and, unlike a car, a baseball player does not automatically depreciate. Q could get better next year and be more valuable. Without knowing the offers its impossible to tell, but given the fact that the Sox have done well in their previous 2 trades, Im willing to trust that if they arent trading Q its because the right offer hasnt been made.

QUOTE (Con te Giolito @ Jan 20, 2017 -> 07:15 PM) I like Jose Quintana, I like watching him pitch and I like having him around. But, his positive attitude and professionalism will be of less usefulness for the next two years of bad White Sox baseball than what he can fetch in a trade right now. Sox need ballplayers, they need them of the young, talented and controllable variety and they need them in great quantity. This is not the "keep guys because you like them" kind of offseason, this is burn down the forest and start over fresh. By the time the Sox are contending again, at the earliest 2019, Quintana will only have two years left on his contract. Wasting his age 28 and 29 seasons on a ballclub that is almost certain to finish last in the AL Central when that value could've been cashed in for prospects is totally inexcusable. Its a not a decision anyone wants to make, I know it'll be a bittersweet moment for me if he's dealt, but it has to be done. After trading away Sale and Eaton and making only one 2017 acquisition (which was Derek f'in Holland) there is no reasonable hope of contention this year and probably none the year after. He's gotta go, and the Sox personal feelings about him need to be set aside in this kind of business decision. The positive influence he'll have on younger players is literally dwarved by the prospect of adding 4 or 5 names to the org top 30 and, chances are, at least one to the top 5. The post is based on the idea of why the Sox may hold onto Quintana for the "best" deal. If you believe the rumors, teams have "upped" their offer and the Sox still arent saying "yes". To me that indicates that the previous offers must not have been close. Again a hypothetical: I believe an item is worth $100. You offer $25, I say no. You offer $50, I say no. Should I sell my item at 50% value just because you upped the offer? Now conversely if the original offer was $90 and then they upped it to $95, maybe you say yes because youre only losing 5%. I dont have any inside information, so I have no clue what the offers are, or how close they are. But if I was to read between the lines, I believe that original offers were not close to what the Sox wanted.

QUOTE (Con te Giolito @ Jan 20, 2017 -> 06:40 PM) This indicates to me that the Sox would let non-baseball things have an affect on what should be a strictly baseball decision. If Eaton and Sale went so too should Quintana. Either rebuild or dont. Actually these are baseball things. Q being a harder worker, good teammate, etc., has baseball value. Lets use the following hypothetical: The Sox believe that Sale would not perform very well in a rebuild. They think his "problems" may be exacerbated if the team is terrible. They believe that if he has further "problems" on/off the field, his value may decline. Furthermore they are concerned that Sale's "attitude" may rub off on young players and create a bad atmosphere. Conversely, Q has been a model teammate and worker. He never complains. They believe Q will perform just the same during a rebuild. They also believe that Q's "attitude" may rub off on other young players and create a positive atmosphere. In this hypothetical, holding out for the "best" trade for Q whereas settling for slightly less than the "best" trade for Sale, is a defensible baseball decision. With Sale, the Sox worry that he could do something to crater his value or potentially negatively impact their future assets. With Q the Sox do not have that worry, and as a bonus believe he may have a positive value on their future assets.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Jan 20, 2017 -> 02:40 PM) I don't agree with Brett often, but in general, he does have a point. When the road to the white house goes through the electoral college, you are going to come up with your strategy to maximize electorates not necessarily the popular vote. We have no idea what would happen if the election was actually based on popular vote...well I kind of do and I hypothesize it would swing even greater to Hillary, but that is mainly because resources would be spend in large cities and a lot of the country would be forgotten. That said, we are a republic and as far as I know that hasn't changed so the rules / laws are what they are. Heck, who knows how many people didn't vote in certain states (repub or dem) even in the current case because they knew their vote woulnd't matter. Chisox, You have to look at the entire context of the conversation. Someone mentioned that if the people who were protesting would have voted that Trump may have lost the election. My response was that is not necessarily true, because Trump lost the popular vote, and if more people from IL/Cali voted, it wouldnt have changed the outcome. Brett then trolled and started a semantic argument. And I would concede that he would have a point if he argued "Trump may not have lost if he had tried" or that "Trump didnt try to win the popular vote" But his statement was that Trump didnt lose because he didnt compete, which is false. He did compete in the election and he did lose the popular vote. Its like the rebounding example. Team B could "win" the game, but "lose" the rebounding battle to team A. And if team A had gotten more rebounds, it still doesnt mean that they would have beaten team b in the game, because rebounds dont ultimately matter in winning or losing. And you could even say that team B didnt prioritize rebounds for X, Y, Z reason and that is why team B lost to team A in rebounding. But team B still lost to team A in rebounding. Any other conclusion is factually inaccurate.