Soxbadger

Then how does this help win an election? Because the premise of the argument is doing this will win the election. So either 1) you think it will get Trump supporters to change or 2) it will get non Trump supporters to vote more. So which do you think this does?

I think the correct phrase is "We have all already lost."

I think youre confusing political beliefs with how I think the best way to make a meaningful change. People in this thread seem to think that attacking Sanders is going to get Trumpians to change their mind. I just dont see that happening. I think you want to grind them to dust, but you do it behind the scenes. They want big spectacles where they can go out and carry tiki torches or marry their flags. But when they dont have that their interest wanes. This is a war of attrition. Trump is losing. Harley Davidson is a body blow. More will follow. But the Sanders thing is a distraction. You get his base riled up, they forget about jobs, they forget about promises, they just blindly follow. Agree or disagree, but if you want Trump to face consequences, you need to win 2018. If you want to win 2018, you dont rile up his base over a stupid restaurant. Thats just my opinion, and it has nothing to do with my political beliefs. My opinion on immigration is well known on this board. I just dont think spitting in someones food is the litmus test of how "down I am for the cause."

Im just not that worried. Theyve thrown their best punches and they are still going to lose in the long run. Can only fight the future for so long.

If this Sanders thing results in more people voting against Republican's sure its worth it. I think it will do the opposite. No way to be sure, but if I cant clearly tell its going to help my position, then why not act the way I would like other people to act.

We need far more checks. I actually think that people should start to float the idea that the Supreme Court Justice is not nominated by the President at all.

2. Again, if you look at the other side, people say the same thing about abortion. That those who do it are monsters/murders. Just because people have strong feelings, doesnt mean that people cant have plausible legal arguments. 3. I dont think challenging requires spitting in food. I challenge people all day long about their beliefs. But I try to not resort to breaking the law or doing something I find unacceptable. I dont even find it productive. I dont believe a single person will change their opinion because of what happened to Sanders. In fact I think it "circles the wagons" of those who support the policy, and may even get a few people on the fence to have pity/sympathy. I guess at the end, the question is, do I think it is likely to make my position win. I dont. So why cross a line when its counterproductive anyway? I mean I get it, its fun to tear off the jersey from the opposing team and throw it out of the stadium. But did it really impact the game?

1. Im not sure what the relevance of what other people in the country are doing? Are those people me? Just because someone else does something abhorrent does not mean that I am okay with it. Which is the exact reason I brought it up. If I start defending abhorrent actions for my team, then I am defending them for the other team. I like to be as consistent as possible. Again, I dont care what other peoples standards are, I care what mine are. Otherwise why have our own presonal standards. 2. Can you point a time where Sanders was "indecent". Where she did something so terrible personally. Im not saying her supporters. For example, you work for a college, if someone in that facility did something bad, would you just quit your job immediately? Would it be okay if someone from a rival school fucked with your food because "HOOK EM HORNS". Like I said, I know I am in the minority. Its really easy to have visceral reactions and want blood for blood. But thats why I support a country that doesnt follow systems like "eye for an eye." And yes that may mean the other side does really terrible horrific things, that I could justify doing back. But to what end, so that I for a moment feel better. That doesnt change shit, and Im sorry, but I actually want to change immigration, I dont just want a bunch of likes for calling the other side bad names. I know I know, that doesnt appease you.

Youre moving the goal posts. Sanders has a job. Her job is to be the press secretary for Donald Trump. She wasnt chanting "Jews will not replace us". If she was causing a scene, that is an entirely different argument and has nothing to do with her job. You act like Ive never dealt with this. I have had clients on the phone say "Can you jew them down." I have had people use slurs whatever. I may not personally like it, but it doesnt get in the way of the job I do. And I had a choice to be in a job where I may have to do things I dislike, I chose it. Same with chefs etc. When you open a place to the public, you know you are serving EVERYONE. And maybe again, im in the minority. Not sure how this is relevant.

I never said that it isnt okay to have her opinion. In fact I am most likely by far the most pro-immigration person on this board. That being said, the 1st amendment entitles her to have her opinion. And if I really believe in things like the freedom of speech and "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." But last I checked, Sanders herself is nothing more than a mouthpiece. If a lawyer defends a serial killer, should they be harassed? Its how we treat the worst of the worst that defines us. I know that people dont like this, but both sides did it. And both sides were wrong. Im sure it has. I just dont feel that its a good precedent to set that "its okay to fuck with people because they have different ideas." Because while I may find immigration rules repulsive, someone else may find abortions to be. So if we start going with Balta's logic, then we open the floodgates to other people saying things like "Youre okay with mothers murdering children..." /shrugs

Put me down in the camp of, we shouldnt be detaining children and we shouldnt be messing with people's foods just because they disagree with us. I know Im in the minority, but really is it that hard to be courteous to people, even if they disagree? When I go to a restaurant, I certainly hope people dont mess with my food because they disagree with me.

This one is a slippery slope. While a business owner can deny service for nondiscriminatory reasons, when you allow this it makes it easier to hide discrimination. In Chicago bars will arbitrarily enforce dress code sometimes in a way to discriminate. I think what happened here can be used as a way to defend that behavior. I personally think the owner should have separated their personal feelings from their job and served her. After they could have posted about how they treated her with kindness and respect despite their differences. And end it humorously with something like "we can all agree that its damn fine food." I know it's hard that way to act in these times and even I fall victim (like how I acted toward bighurt in the immigration thread but I hope he saw when we were in the nba thread I kept that shit out and we cordially kept it to basketball.) Maybe we can get there again. Where we fight bitterly about politics but still can agree on other things. I'm not going to play the who started it game, but I will say we have to individually try and end it. Instead it just perpetuates the cycle that the people with real power want. Were so distracted by little things we can't band together on things like healthcare etc.

40 teams means countries like USA, Italy etc. They have to do it because certain areas could use more spots. It's the same as the play in game in NCAA tournament. It's always teams who were better than teams already in tournament, but due to tournaments/leagues had guaranteed spots.

The Wolves trade was stupid. Im on record about how much I hated it. I never liked Lavine and I didnt like Dunn. Dunn actually may prove me wrong. Lavine seems like a guy who is going to make a lot of money and one day his best value will be as an expiring contract. They took a chance on him, it seems to be a miss. But Im actually happy if they decide to cut their losses instead of sticking with him to try and prove how right they were. It may be his legs were tired, who knows. But those stat lines are pretty brutal, so I guess the hope is no one else wants to take a risk. Maybe in some odd way it turns out in the Bulls favor and they get him at a discount and then he comes back with a chip on his shoulder.

He shot 33.7% in March, including 1/11, 3/15, 3/13/ and 4/12. That is extremely concerning even if you give him the benefit of the doubt on being injured. His shot % actually went down from when he came back until he ended. So I absolutely think you could say his play made them really question what his future is.

I think when someone shoots sub 40% people start to wonder, irrespective of knee injury. Also some people seem to think Dunn/Lavine dont really work well together. Think there are a lot of reasons they could have soured on Lavine once he got here. Real key is not to overpay him and if necessary cut your losses.

I just like the wings next year more than the ones who got picked after Carter this year. Next year is wing heavy, so Im fine getting the big now.

Correct me if Im wrong, but none of those alleged trades materialized at all. Nuggest didnt trade away their first for bad contract, Griz didnt trade Parsons. I think all those rumors were just fairy tales being leaked by teams hoping to to make something like that happen. The only thing that did happen was the Hawks moved down. The other problem is it seems the Bulls wanted Bagley and the Hawks made the trade while Suns were picking.

Yep he right now he is 1 for most. https://www.si.com/nba/2018/05/11/nba-draft-2019-prospect-rankings-rj-barrett-zion-williamson This one has Barrett 1,Reddish 2 and Zion as 3. But for the Bulls purposes of needing wing/guard next year draft is pretty ideal. Next year is kind of weak on centers, which is why Ayton, Bamba, Carter was such a rarity.

https://www.cbssports.com/nba/news/2019-nba-draft-way-too-early-lottery-predictions-for-next-year-headlined-by-three-duke-freshmen/ That site has Zion as 13. And this draft had arguably 3 higher tier prospects, Ayton, Bagley and Doncic (depending on your feelings). Carter, Young, Bamba, Jackson are all in the same tier for me.

Also worth noting, the Lakers had top #2 picks 3 years in a row and came away with D'Angelo Russell, Brandon Ingram and Lonzo Ball. Their entire rebuild is still based on convincing at least 2 stars to come play for them if they want to be serious title contenders.

Hopefully not for 2 years because we need those losses.

I think you need to hit on this draft and 1 of the next 2. Also next years class is much more guard/SF heavy, so there may be some really interesting guys in the top 10. The reality is, it doesnt even seem like the Bulls like/wanted Doncic. From everything I read they wanted Bagley if they traded up.

My only issue with all the trade up plans, is that the Bulls arent anywhere close to being competitive. I think they are likely a bottom 10 team next year. And if they play their cards right, they could be a bottom 5. I want more chances at top 5 picks, not less. I think the Bulls need to be bad for another 2 years. This means trying to sign/trade Lavine and moving every other player on the team besides for Lauri/Carter. I like the Lauri/Carter duo, I think if you get 2 top 10 picks from being bad + some other teams 1st rounders by taking bad contracts etc, you are looking pretty good when 2021 FA class hits. That is the Bulls hope 2021 with AD, Giannis etc. Golden State will be older, Houston's window will be shut, Lebron may still be around but he wont be carrying teams. I know its hard to trust the Bulls FO, and believe me I dont for a second. But moving the next years Bulls first, would just get them in more NBA hell. Because they arent going to eb super creative. At least with the tank until 2021, its pretty straight forward and something I think they can do. The first step is to get rid of Lavine. If they dont then you basically have to hope that a player on the roster becomes a super star. (edit) You could move the FA timetable up 1 year and go for Irving/Leonard, but Im just not as enthused about them.

Im hoping that means the tank is on again this year.