Soxbadger

QUOTE (bmags @ Jul 15, 2016 -> 05:20 PM) That...that doesn't seem like a positive development. As of now there is no way to confirm what Erdogan is saying. It seems like he wants to retain power, the smartest play for him to keep power is to say the Coup is a group that the US/etc would find worse to Erdogan as that would likely mean the US/etc begrudgingly supporting Erdogan and trying to keep him in power. The problem with Coups is that once they start disinformation/information is hard to differentiate. That being said if it is Gulen then its quite possible this goes down the path of civil war. There are just too many different players in Turkey and once the main groups start fighting, I cant imagine the Kurds wont try and use the destabilization to try and gain independence from Turkey.

QUOTE (bmags @ Jul 15, 2016 -> 04:55 PM) do we know if this is kemalist or Right now they are saying its the Gulen movement. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/feb/...h-gulen-network I have no idea what that is, but above is an article from a few years ago about the tension in Turkey with that group.

QUOTE (shipps @ Jul 15, 2016 -> 04:20 PM) The military seems pretty damn confident that they are going to be able to accomplish whatever they set out to do. They are blocking off bridges and flying planes a few feet above the street and nobody is stopping them. The first step in a successful coup is to say that your coup is successful. If people think that the fight is over they wont resist the coup. With the President not being captured it creates a much higher chance that the coup will fail or become extremely messy. Just not a good situation at all given Turkey's location and position in the world. Balta, Facetiming is a way better place than being in prison or executed.

Sounds like President Erdogan isnt in Turkey. I think the biggest concern is that this could lead to a civil war and further destabilization of the region.

QUOTE (JenksIsMyHero @ Jul 12, 2016 -> 03:46 PM) Name me something that liberals have "compromised" on when it comes to those very same issues. Any attempts at regulating abortions in anyway are met with fervent opposition. Guns should be banned altogether, not regulated reasonably. Don't inhibit voting rights in anyway shape or form, etc. etc. Whether its based on religious ideology or not is irrelevant. I don't think they're much higher. Silver gave him a 7% chance of winning, and that's now before he embarrasses himself even more over the coming months. Abortions are regulated. Guns there are varying arguments about regulation (public versus private). And I dont believe anyone is arguing for unregulated voting.

QUOTE (bmags @ Jul 12, 2016 -> 03:27 PM) I'm not sure you are right here. There are pro choice repubs/oppo dems, anti gun control dems (hey Sanders), etc. There will probably be pro gay marriage repubs if there aren't alreeady. The one real ideology of the republican party prior to trump was extreme tax cuts on wealthy. Not saying that individuals can not have their own ideas inside of a party. Just that there is no way to compromise or discuss abortion/gay rights when one side relies on "biblical" arguments. I have no problem with someone who wants to legitimately argue abortion based on when life scientifically begins and what rights should be protected of mother v unborn. I have no problem with someone who wants to argue gay marriage as federal v state etc. The problem is when someone wants to argue based on "the bible" or based on "the koran" or any other religious scripture. It alienates those who do not identify. I have had plenty of arguments regarding abortion where the crux of the argument is at what point should an unborn child receive protections. Those are arguments where compromise or solutions could be reached. But it is impossible to compromise when the basis for the argument is a thousand year old book that explicitly prohibits something.

QUOTE (JenksIsMyHero @ Jul 12, 2016 -> 03:07 PM) Come on now, that's laughable. Don't pretend like in 2016 America one party is better or more open to compromise than the other. If you take an objective look I am not really sure that you can defend this. The problem is that when a political party aligns itself with religious ideology you do not leave much room for compromise. This is especially true for anyone who does not identify with the religious ideology that the party aligns itself with. QUOTE (JenksIsMyHero @ Jul 12, 2016 -> 03:17 PM) So sell your soul and everything you believe in and everything you spent the last year telling the American people in order to prevent the 1% chance that Trump wins the election? How does he have any legitimacy after this? He's now supporting someone that a week ago he was blaming for a lot for the problems we have. I am pretty sure that Trump's odds are much better than 1%. Even with Bernie trying to get everyone of his supporters to vote for Clinton there is still a chance Trump wins. Ultimately Sanders had to ask himself what does he really believe. And sometimes you lose a battle to win a war.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jul 12, 2016 -> 02:38 PM) But you fell into line and are doing everything you can to get her elected, just like Bernie and the rest of the party, even while there are plenty of Republicans who aren't with Trump. There just isn't room for leaving the party line for the Democrats. This whole discussion just shows that again. Even though people don't really like her or agree with her, everyone is in line like good little Dems. Nah its all that liberal college thinking. You learn about great liberal thinkers like Machiavelli and those pesky liberal ideas like "the ends justify the means." What is the point of being an uncompromising ideologue if being one results in less of my ideas reaching fruition? The difference is that many positions that are considered "Republican" seemingly do not leave room for compromise. You are either for or against abortions. For or against gun control. For or against gay marriage. At the end of the day, its about winning and losing. There is no point in going against Hillary if in the end it is likely to result in something worse than Hillary. Its nothing more than Game Theory. You pick the action that is most likely to result in the best outcome for yourself. Since the chances of "other option than Hillary" will never win, I am presented with 2 choices. Trump or Hillary. As I believe that Trump is the worst outcome, I therefore have to pick Hillary. It has nothing to do with being a good little Dem, it has everything to do with the fact the Republican's have failed to provide an option that is better than Hillary from my personal standpoint. If I didnt believe Trump as a person was completely off the reservation, I may have been tempted to go another direction than Hillary.

AJ Hammons was a guy I thought maybe the Bulls could get with the 2nd.

Yeah a lot of people may be selling stocks tomorrow, right now none of mine are down in after hours trading, but this doesnt look good for most people in the short term.

If it happens sounds like Scotland may try and go for independence again.

QUOTE (Wanne @ Jun 23, 2016 -> 09:06 PM) It's called rebuilding...with Wiggins being the main centerpiece. Dunn will be a better PG option than Valentine too IMO...plays MUCH better D too. Do they even view him as a PG?...doubtful. Wiggins is a superstar in the making...if you get a chance to get him AND a PG of Dunn's caliber...you do it. Of course that's just my 2¢... I understand rebuilding, but when you trade just to trade you almost always regret it. There is no need for the Bulls to trade Valentine, if they do that the trade is Butler + 14 for Wiggins + 5, that is a pretty terrible return for an All-Star who is signed to what will be a very considered an extremely good contract. The Bulls are in the drivers seat, there are going to be a ton of teams who need an All-Star to try and get over the hump and beat Cavs/Warriors, all the Bulls have to do is be patient. If Butler had 1 or 2 years left itd be a different story.

QUOTE (Wanne @ Jun 23, 2016 -> 08:52 PM) More? Not sure what you mean by more? That deal is a win win for the Bulls future IMO... Giving up Valentine? And its not a win/win. Dunn/Wiggins are no sure thing. Wiggins has a lot of upside, but his greatness isnt guaranteed. Butler is the most valuable asset that the Bulls have, if they are going to trade him they need to win the trade easily. Giving up Valentine makes no sense in that respect. The whole point of Dunn/wiggins is you are getting 2 guys for 1 and that makes the risk less high because you hope that at least 1 of them turns into an All-Star. If you give up 2 players for 2 players and you are giving up the best player in the trade who is still in his prime and signed for a reasonable rate, you are unlikely to come out the winner.

QUOTE (Wanne @ Jun 23, 2016 -> 08:36 PM) Butler and Valentine to Thibs for Wiggins and Dunn (and whatever filler is needed) makes a ton of sense....... Why are the Bulls having to give up more? If the Wolves want Butler, they can over pay. If they dont want to overpay the Bulls can wait until another team is willing to.

Wish the Celtics would take trash from the bulls so they could get baldwin

QUOTE (ZoomSlowik @ Jun 23, 2016 -> 08:10 PM) I don't see the big rush to move Butler. He's only 26, his contract is about to be a massive steal, and they'll still get decent picks even if they don't get lucky. Even the 4th worst team only has a 11.9% chance to win it, it's a crap-shoot. If it's an overwhelming deal, then okay, but this doesn't look like that. Exactly. The deal should be a complete no brainer.

It's a "safe" pick. Hard to imagine valentine being horrible.

Since everyone is saying baldwin I have no doubt they won't take him

It better be trade rape if butler is gone cause the bulls just don't have to trade him right now.

This will be worse than when the bulls thought they'd get wade and ended up with hinrich. Unless they get kat or Wiggins

I kind of liked little sabonis. At this point I'd say Baldwin for bulls and screw any trade for Dunn.

I like Lavine but if you trade butler for him and Dunn you deserve to be the worst team for a long time.

Ah didnt realize they could swap with the Nets, but if its picks only itd have to be all 3 (2016, 2017 and Nets 2018) Otherwise there are just too many risks. Even if the Nets are bad you could be looking at pick #3 in a two man draft (same as the Celtics have this year).

Celtics just dont really match cause their next year pick is going to be mid range at best which just doesnt have a lot of value. Lakers/Twolves deals can work. I have tried to figure out a 76ers deal that works, but I just dont see how the Bulls could get Okafor + the 3rd, which is what I think you need to get to move Butler. Otherwise you just keep him and eventually someone will pay the price.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Jun 23, 2016 -> 03:17 PM) It's just bulls***. The Bulls would never win a deal so hard. Well its not completely far fetched. Butler is way more proven than Ingram. I like Ingram's potential a lot, but its just potential. The Lakers could trade away future potential, get Butler, then go after a big time FA. Bledsoe/Knight are also available and somehow the Lakers are one of those teams that are able to get other teams to make bad trades. Obviously I doubt it happens because it would be too perfect for the Bulls. I think their best hope is a 3 way deal where the Bulls get a bunch of picks between 2 teams.