Soxbadger

QUOTE (brett05 @ Oct 14, 2016 -> 11:29 AM) Pence was outstanding this morning showing by far he's the best of the four folks involved in this race (Sorry Johnson and Stein, you ain't part of the four). That said, how do you have proof of a negative? That puzzled me. I wish the hosts would have told Pence that we don't care at all about policies, we only want to hear about Trump allegations and whether or not you can handle them correctly. They were quite rude. What is the point about caring about policies when Trump changes them all the time. I mean Trump has been a Democrat, he has supported Hillary Clinton, he has defended Bill Clinton against the 4 accusers, he has said things and then days later claimed "I never said that". So what is the point?

QUOTE (greg775 @ Oct 14, 2016 -> 12:19 AM) Well, that's a good post. I do like these lines the best ... "The country cant rally around a single person until the country gets its (and I hate saying this but I cant think of a better word) soul back. Its cliche, but its time we remember who we are. This is the land of the free, this is the country that was built on" You make many good points obviously. I guess my "problem" is I have found it difficult to choose the .150 hitter over the .050 hitter. My brain has more been to attack the .150 hitter because I like her as much as I liked Rios. But you do make good points. You said: "Its not always necessary to rally around something great. Sometimes its good enough to rally against something terrible. Trump is something terrible." Those are three good sentences to ponder. My problem is I tend to think of Hillary as terrible as well, albeit not as bad as Trump. I like your post .I just have difficulty in that I want to diss and trash both candidates and have not been able to grasp your admirable concept that "sometimes it's good enough to rally against something terrible." I believe it's partly because I know there's no way in hell voters will elect Trump. I don't consider his being elected a real possibility, hence again, it is easy for me to focus on Hillary who I consider evil. I guess I will conclude by saying I hope you are right about Hillary as you seem to suggest she's actually not that bad. I will conclude by saying I never thought a presidential election could be THIS out of control in terms of so little caring about the issues (at least in the media). Right now, the past week and up to election day it is and will continue to be all about finding and quoting women who Trump attacked. The Stern interviews have been out there so long ... it's been known he was head of the beauty pageant for so long ... why didn't this stuff get exposed during Republican primary season when the Republicans might have actually nominated somebody presentable like Kasich? Greg, I appreciate your honest reply. While I do believe Trump winning is unlikely, there have been "unlikely" events that have occurred in history that have resulted in terrible things. Many of those events occurred because people sat on the sidelines and didnt ever believe "it could get that bad." Who knows what will happen with Hillary, but I believe it likely will be the status quo. Which in reality, is all we need. There is something fundamentally broken in Congress, where "compromise" has become a bad thing. Our country is being taken over by the extreme, because they have the loudest voices, they are the ones that show up no matter. So we end up pandering to them, in a sick cycle where the minority extreme dictates the course for everyone. Every issue isnt some sort of end all war, but thats what they make it. Instead of starting with "What can we agree on?" they start with "we will never give in." They would rather destroy everything than come up with a solution that may require a small sacrifice by both sides. As to how did the Republican's let it get there? Because they didnt think Trump really could do it. So some sat on the sidelines, some of them voted for Trump out of protest and maybe even some voted for Trump in an attempt to cripple the Republican's chances in the general election. But again, instead of the Republican candidates sacrificing themselves, they all went for their own glory. That is, until it was too late. Because what they never predicted was that the minority extreme, would show up. And while the rest of the Republican field split all of their votes among an insane amount of candidates, the extreme all went for Trump. So here we are. And I am not going to tell anyone how to vote. The greatness and terribleness of a democracy/republic is that we are all entitled to vote for whoever we want for whatever reason we want. All I can say is that not standing up to evil, is evil. For thousands of years humans have been trampled and destroyed so that we could have the privilege of living in this nation and it is extremely offensive that people of this country parade around signs saying "Make America great again." Because the underlying implication is that somehow America was better when not everyone was equal, when there were Americans struggling to have the same rights just because of their race, gender, religion, orientation. To me there is nothing great to go back to. All we can do is try and create a country where the lowest of the low have a chance to become the highest of the high. That may mean that we have to give up something, that we have to pay taxes that are "unfair", that some people may "game" the system. But so what, nothing is ever truly "even" or really "fair." But at least we live in a country where I am not going to worry that I will wake up tonight with a black hood coming down over my face, because I dared to disagree, because I am not one of the "majority." And there is no price that can be put on that.

QUOTE (Quinarvy @ Oct 13, 2016 -> 12:51 AM) I vote we rename The Buster. It shall be known as "The Badger" Thanks, I think? lol QUOTE (greg775 @ Oct 13, 2016 -> 10:45 PM) Because I just can't stand people giving crooked Hillary a free pass just because Trump is scum. These 2 people should each be judged and Hillary is not worthy of the office either. Are you serious? He is a former president and will be living in the White House again. We should at least hear about all his scandals as well and how Hillary relates to them. QUOTE (greg775 @ Oct 13, 2016 -> 10:48 PM) Finally a negative article about Hillary. I wish she and Trump would both drop out and see what we did as a country to pick a president we can rally around. http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/13/politics/rel...eaks/index.html Greg, We have both been on this board a long time, and I probably have read a good majority of your posts. I actually think that you are probably and honest and decent person. The problem is that you seem to want to be misinformed. When you are presented with legitimate facts and arguments, you just dont seem to want to actually recognize them. I am not sure why you want to be misinformed, but I do really think that you want what is best for America, not necessarily what is best for yourself, and that is admirable. That being said, I am going to give this a try and we shall see where we get. No one is giving Hillary a pass, no one. But the problem is that in our current system there are 2 legitimate choices for President (I voted for Kronos) but anyways, Hillary won the Democratic primary. I personally did not vote in the Primary, I really wasnt a fan of Hillary or Bernie. If you would have put my feet to the fire and made me vote, I likely would have for Hillary. Not because she is some saint, but because when given the choice of mediocre and terrible, you always vote mediocre. Since this is a sports board, Ill compare it to baseball. If you have 2 batters to pick from and 1 hits .050 and 1 hits .150 I am going to pick the one who hits .150. Not because I think that they are great, but because they are better than the other choice. As to the Bill Clinton stuff. Its nonsense, serious nonsense. I may not be the oldest person in the world, but I can not remember 1 time where the potential first lady and her life were paraded as a part of a campaign. I dont know if Michelle slept with a 100 guys, all I know about Laura Bush is that she was a librarian. Hillary is not Bill, and there is no credible evidence that Hillary even knew what was going on. Further more, the part that really is crazy, is that Trump DEFENDED Clinton. Saying that none of those accusers were credible. Now years later when it suits him, all of a sudden Trump believes them? Its purely self motivated, he could care less about those women. He is just deflecting and to not recognize that at this point is willful ignorance. As to your last paragraph. The country cant rally around a single person until the country gets its (and I hate saying this but I cant think of a better word) soul back. Its cliche, but its time we remember who we are. This is the land of the free, this is the country that was built on: And what so many Americans have forgotten, is that we were all once the "Mexican" the "Black" the "Jew" the "Italian" who someone else didnt want to come here, because they wanted to selfishly keep this country for themselves. And on the backs of all of these unwanted people we created the greatest country that has ever existed. The country that defeated the Nazis, the country who forgave the Marshall loans. The country who has sacrificed as much, if not more, than any one else in the hope that everyone can enjoy the freedom that so many Americans take for granted. So excuse me if I get offended by Trump and anyone who wants to blame the "others" because my family was once the people that were not welcome. My people were the ones who left Russia, who left Italy, who left Ireland. They were Catholics, they were Jews, they were Protestants, and they all left hoping that they would find a place where they could be free to live their lives and not worry that one day their business would be closed or they would be killed for just being different. Lets look at Hillary in the worst possible light. She made bad decisions. Anyone who cant admit that theyve made a bad decision is a liar. But at least Hillary isnt trying to strip away what makes this country great. Maybe that means I have to support a less than ideal candidate, but I am only here because someone that I never met defended my families right to come to this country. And I will not let that kindness be forgotten. Its not always necessary to rally around something great. Sometimes its good enough to rally against something terrible. Trump is something terrible. The road to xenophobic fascism is paved by the people who let it happen. Promises of a better economy, more jobs, a better life. These are all promises that have been made on the backs of "others" before. This isnt for me, this is for all of the Americans who sacrificed for me over the last 200+ years. This is for the person who argued against keeping out immigrants when it wasnt socially acceptable, for the person who stood against slavery, for the person who argued that women should vote. And on a personal level, this is for my great Uncle (a man I never knew), who was a first generation Italian immigrant, who died on D-Day, fighting for our freedom. You want something to rally around, rally around that. Because we dont need some "leader" or "President" to rally around, all we need is our ideals, our goodness. We need to rally around ourselves. Because America is great, not because of our wealth, but because of the idea that we can all be who we want to be. That we shouldnt have to fear that being who we are is going to result in something bad happening. And if that isnt good enough, then you really werent an American to begin with.

QUOTE (greg775 @ Oct 12, 2016 -> 11:44 PM) Yes but there was no time to check out these women who were/are coming forward. There's always the chance Trump could win lawsuits if the pieces fall the right way. I guess the Cosby case has proven the media organizations will be OK, however. I don't think Cosby has gone after any outlets for libel. I was saying months ago Donald should have dropped out. Just said the system was rigged and he'd had it. With his past as a ruthless rich guy, this stuff was bound to come out. s***, just the fact he was willing to go on Stern dozens of times in his life and play along with Howard with sex banter, showed in itself this stuff would all come back to devour his reputation. If Donald stays in the race, he has to go on the Bill Clinton attack. Just keep alleging Bill is a womanizer and how come no equal scruitiny of Bill. The problem is that the Bill Clinton attack is a loser. Any time Trump defends himself with things like "they would have reported it immediately" you have to ask why he believes all of the Clinton accusers (and its late and Im not feeling great, but I dont believe any of them immediately reported it to the authorities.) As to slander/defamation, its really hard to win as a celebrity. You have to show malice, which means that the person who said it knew it to be false or a reckless disregard for the truth. Proving something untrue (like you didnt harass someone or touch them) is basically impossible because there is likely no evidence either way. Thus Trump (and most celebrities) almost never win these type of cases. Even worse, once litigation were to start, Trump would open himself up to discovery (written and oral) and it could reveal other issues. Trump just isnt very smart. He is an egomaniac who may have destroyed his brand. I mean there is a reason why most billionaires dont run for politics and instead just "donate" to candidates. Same potential rewards, much less risk.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Oct 11, 2016 -> 08:15 PM) Pardon if it's already been covered earlier in the thread, but is there anything preventing the GOP-led Congress from stalling indefinitely? Can they wait 4 plus years until Hillary is up for re-election again? This process, or lack thereof, is insane. Ive talked about this before, but it would lead to some pretty bad results for conservatives. Many of the appellate courts are left leaning, when a case goes to the SC and its a 4-4 tie, the lower court ruling stands. It could embolden appellate courts to become even more liberal knowing that it likely wont get overturned.

Madden just bluffed I think and got Bochy to do what he wanted.

QUOTE (daa84 @ Oct 11, 2016 -> 10:42 PM) big time mismanagement by Bochy Walking Rizzo is on the pitcher. Just have to throw strikes.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 11, 2016 -> 09:53 PM) Iirc db or rabbit posted something similar about the Saudis several weeks back, but it turned out that the donation was to an independent pac so legally Clinton has zero control over it and can't accept our refuse any donations. So another "misinterpretation." I am beginning to see a pattern.

QUOTE (raBBit @ Oct 11, 2016 -> 09:45 PM) LOL check CNN's Twitter feed for all of the headlines they put up today. The headlines: Negative Trump: 21 Negative HRC: ZERO Positive Trump: 1 (toddler at his speech), 2 (Trump supporter comments) Positive HRC: 4 Neutral Trump: 3 Neutral HRC: 2 (Podesta Leaks not reported with any ugly HRC emails) So lets use an example. If you took 100 articles about the Cubs and Reds, and 90% talked about how great the Cubs were and only 10% talked about how great the Reds were, would that be proof of bias?

That was a huge play by Pence.

QUOTE (raBBit @ Oct 11, 2016 -> 09:19 PM) The email is published and these leaks, like past WikiLeaks documents, are admissible in court. I am not sure why you have to stoop to conspiracy theories instead of addressing the facts of the matter. Even if your conspiracy theory were true, these are still real emails. Leaks showed: -HRC's top aides acknowledge she hates everyday Americans. -She accepted money from Saudi Arabia while knowing they were funding ISIS. -A CNN pundit fed HRC's camp questions for the primary debate. If you roll through CNN's Twitter feed it's a bunch of rehash stories talking about Trump's comments from last week. They haven't even acknowledged the leaks. CNN is in no way a reputable news source. They're a less provocative Breitbart of the left. Because what you are summarizing arent what the email says? The context of the email is a speech. They are saying that Hillary dislikes the phrase. And then they discuss whether or not they should use it. The email "truth" means that if they dont use the phrase it could be seen as a false start. Your reading of the email is your opinion, everyone is entitled to one, but I think that if you actually read the entire dialogue the meaning is pretty clear. Lets look at the actual statement, not your biased reading: I bolded a phrase because words are important. When you parse statements for your own gain, its at best deceiving at worst its outright dishonest. I get that you have some sort of vendetta against Hillary, but if you think that you can just pass nonsense internet stuff off as fact, you are sadly mistaken. Do your own research, quit parroting. As for the rest, show me the evidence. In the Republican thread you state: But when I hit the link, it doesnt show any evidence that Saudi Arabia is funding HRC's campaign. It says "She took $50mil from them" it doesnt source that statement, it doesnt provide me anyway to verify what they are talking about. For all I know they are referring to Saudi Arabia giving money to the US, which in no way would reflect your statement that they gave money to her campaign. So again, please provide facts. Also explain to me the relevancy of the statement "the emails are admissible in court". Emails are evidence. In a court case emails can be obtained via discovery. This isnt some shocker and not sure what relevance it has at all to your misreading of the email. Unless its just a red herring to divert attention from it.

QUOTE (pettie4sox @ Oct 11, 2016 -> 04:49 PM) How do playoff tickets sell for $10? Scalpers misread market and get stuck with a ton of tickets.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 10, 2016 -> 03:18 PM) Realistically this is where Trump has blown the entire campaign. Instead of actually making the election about policy, and Clinton's history on those policies, it has become a personal referendum on Trump. Realistically that is where the Republican party lost. They should have buried Trump to start. Instead they "trusted" that their base wouldnt fall for his shtick. If Bush was running right now, at worst this is a coin toss election. Most of the "bad" (depending on your opinion) things his brother did, Hillary voted for anyway. I mean what Republican's does Trump even represent? The guy is all over the place. Even if you discount all of his stupid stuff in his personal life, it was still a terrible strategic risk. All they needed was someone normal. Its so rare for the same party to win a Presidential election after the other party had it for 8 years.

QUOTE (ChiSox59 @ Oct 10, 2016 -> 03:04 PM) Ugh. Warren Buffet is not a real estate developer. You have no evidence Trump is making most of his money off of real estate. Right now Trump makes most of his money off of licensing. You are completely speculating, you have 0 evidence to support your argument. Its ridiculous.

QUOTE (ChiSox59 @ Oct 10, 2016 -> 03:00 PM) a) he didn't actually lose $1B in one year. Again, tax laws. b) I don't know if something dirty is in there or not, but when you own as much real estate as Donald owns, and presumably he will go back to that business when he loses this election, releasing his tax returns probably isn't in the best interest of his real estate operation. c) His whole "brilliant businessman" line is equally as stupid. You don't become a billionaire without being a pretty fiscally intelligent person, but him not paying income taxes has nothing to do with his fiscal brilliance. Its the law. QUOTE (ChiSox59 @ Oct 10, 2016 -> 03:01 PM) It actually is pretty basic. Like I said, no real estate developers of any size pay personal income tax. What he is doing is the same as every other person who owns significant amount of commercial real estate. A lot of these statements arent adding up. First of all we have no idea why he took the losses, your presumption that it is entirely "real estate" is probably not true. The more likely answer is that he had stock in the 3 companies that went BK and when they were organized his stock became effectively worth 0. As to why Donald became a billionaire, its actually not hard to become a billionaire when you inherit a company from your father. How many "Fords", "Waltons", etc are billionaires. Just because someone in their family was a great at business, doesnt mean they are.

QUOTE (ChiSox59 @ Oct 10, 2016 -> 02:50 PM) The large loss carryforwards from the casino business not withstanding, Trump wouldn't have paid a dime in person income taxes anyway. That's not because he doesn't make a ton of money, its because his accountants follow basic accounting laws. There are a bunch of reasons to hate and/or dislike Trump - the lack of paying income taxes isn't one of them. The whole thing is stupid. Huh? Without huge losses how would he not pay income tax? Warren Buffet paid: http://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyphillipse...2/#1d9dac00491d Do you think that Warren Buffet doesn't follow basic accounting laws?

QUOTE (ChiSox59 @ Oct 10, 2016 -> 02:40 PM) Sure, but that's not really the way Hilary portrays it. She moreso portrays it that he didn't help the country for all those years (last night she even listed off all the things tax dollars are used for - schools, military, infrastructure, etc.) because he didn't pay taxes. Loss carryforwards are a basic accounting practice; basically all real estate developers that have any significant holdings don't pay personal income tax. It's not exactly rocket science. Amortization and depreciation are non-cash expenses that lower the taxable net income of individual real estate holdings. When you own as many real estate assets as Trump owns, these numbers are quite significant. The fact that he took advantage of those tax laws (as all wealthy Americans should do), isn't exactly damning. It's sort of bewildering that Hilary keep focusing on it - its almost like she doesn't get it. What I don The fact that Trump ventured into the casino business and failed, which is the source of the ~$1B in loss carryforwards in 1995 should definitely be viewed as a negative, but the fact that he took that failure and used a basic tax law to shelter income for the foreseeable future is something that any person in that situation would do. Its just not that easy to debate/argue someone who is all over the place. I think that she sometimes gets lost in the idea because in her mind (whether you agree or not) she has dedicated her life to public service. Then she is pitted against Trump, who has little to no public service in his background and I just think it gets to her that he stands up there and just rails about how she did nothing for "30 years". Maybe she could do a little better if she just kept bringing the tax loss back to his business failure, but I think she loses sight of that and just gets so fed up with a guy (who she probably thinks) is a do nothing blow hard. No matter what, Hillary cant really lose with it, because at the end of the day it really hurts Trump's mystique. Most normal people probably dont have a loss of $100k in any single year, let alone $1bil. It just shows how fast and loose he is.

https://gma.yahoo.com/flashback-donald-trum...topstories.html This has seriously gotten to the point of absurdity: The real lesson here is if you ever think about running for office or President, dont do a million interviews. Just too much information to eventually be used against you.

QUOTE (Kalapse @ Oct 5, 2016 -> 06:31 PM) My 9 year old Golden is undergoing life saving surgery tomorrow for tumors that have ruptured on his spleen. This is all incredibly sudden and devastating. I know he's but a dog but he means the world to me, please send good vibes. Good luck, and if your dog has to stay at the vet for an extended amount of time try and visit as often as possible. A few years ago one of my cats got really sick to the point where the vet said she would likely not make it. I would visit every day before and after work. For whatever reason after about a week at the animal hospital she got better. Most of the vet techs said that every time I went she would act healthier/better.

QUOTE (Ezio Auditore @ Oct 5, 2016 -> 03:04 PM) I really wish people would just be honest about this. "(Candidate X) will appoint Supreme Court justices and federal judges who will do things I agree with most of the time" instead of inventing all these unnecessary contortions to justify that statement, that nobody actually believes. This is a valid reason for just about every other issue, so with judges it's no different. All the Constitution says about it is that the President appoints them with the advice and consent of the Senate, and it was written to be that open-ended on purpose. Boo this man, booooooo Dont you know that the constitution is a special document that can only be read one way. Its like the bible, it can never be open to interpretation.

QUOTE (brett05 @ Oct 5, 2016 -> 02:55 PM) You are a raging atheist. I have no issues with that, except this isn't a thread on religious beliefs. But when you make a comment about "judicial activism" it does open the door for arguments about whether the court should base their rulings on things like "judeo-christian" beliefs. And an even bigger question would be, what "judeo-christian" beliefs are we supporting. Cause nobody seems to mention that a lot of the guys in the Old Testament had multiple wives.

QUOTE (illinilaw08 @ Oct 5, 2016 -> 02:33 PM) Haha! In every 5-4 decision, there are 4 judges who totally understand what the Constitution means and says and 4 who are liberal activist judges who are creating laws. Then there's Kennedy who is either a true defender of the Constitution, or a guy who makes laws depending on the day. As an aside, I think it's funny that any person can look at Citizens United and Hobby Lobby and interpret those decisions as being supported by the text of the Constitution while at the same time finding decisions like Obergfell as judicial activism... I was going to ask whether Citizens United and Western Tradition Partnership, Inc. v. Montana were cause of activist judges. Then I just decided that decisions like Michael H. v. Gerald D were obviously based in the constitution because a lot of the constitution deals with whether the actual father should have parental rights versus the presumed father. Cause back when the constitution was written I think they still used the "look test" to determine who the father was. Then I realized that I should just stick to the constitution. 3/5's vote!

QUOTE (illinilaw08 @ Oct 5, 2016 -> 02:22 PM) Care to cite some examples? EVERY RULING IN THE HISTORY OF THE SUPREME COURT? I mean the Constitution is like what 4 pages?

QUOTE (JenksIsMyHero @ Oct 5, 2016 -> 10:48 AM) I don't think that's the argument. Clinton and Kaine are using the "you didn't pay taxes so you're not funding the military and the poor" argument. I have yet to hear either of them claim that his business loss is an indication of his lack of business expertise. Not concerned with what their arguments are, this is my argument in this thread. Im neither Hillary nor Kaine, they arent here to argue. (edit) The article you linked doesnt say how they lost it, but I assume they are saying that Zuckerberg and Gates are major shareholders of Facebook/Microsoft respectively and that their companies stock went down due to Brexit. The only way they would be able to claim this as a "loss" would be if they then immediately sold the stocks, which would be a terrible business move. Its not a good comparison, because the reason Trump likely lost the money is that he destroyed 2 companies. If Zuckerberg or Gates put their companies into BK, we probably wouldnt consider them "Great businessmen."

QUOTE (JenksIsMyHero @ Oct 5, 2016 -> 10:09 AM) So let me get this straight: when people complain that a large chunk of the population pays no federal income tax, the response is that's not really true since they pay a variety of other taxes. When a rich person pays no federal income tax, it's a huge sin and it doesn't matter that he has generated hundreds of millions in other taxes, and also paid his own share of sales taxes and other taxes. Look, at the end of the day Trump's a scheming, greedy POS. But Pence is right - the fact that he paid zero federal income tax due to a huge loss is simply a part of our tax code. Perhaps that should be changed, perhaps not. But it's BS to hit a guy for taking advantage of the law. We all take deductions and credits and therefore we too have taken money way from our military and the poor. edit: it's also humorous that democrats complain about this when some of the biggest donors to the democratic party run companies that dodge taxes in the US because the tax code allows it. He is taking a hit because he states that his qualifications for President are being a successful great businessman. As of today, he has shown 0 evidence to support that claim. The only evidence we have seen is that in 1 year he said he lost 900 mil. That is the argument. It has nothing to do with whether or not he should have taken losses. It has nothing to do with whether he has paid real estate taxes, sales tax or whatever other thing. When a Democratic donor runs for President on the platform "I am great at business" you better damn believe that I would call them out if they lost 900 bil in a single year. Until that day, I dont really see what the relevance is about whether or not people use tax advantages. None of those donors are running for President on their business record, so its really a red herring. Just to reiterate, it is not about whether he paid taxes, it is about the fact he lost 900 mil in a single year and whether someone who lost that much money is actually qualified to run the United States.