Dam8610

Good, let them sign Harper. I hope it costs them some of their young core. The White Sox need to sign Machado.

You have no idea what I endure. Furthermore, the system you're okay with keeping in place hurts those people worse than a temporary worsening followed by an elongated period of betterment would. The privilege of believing that staying the course is a viable option is disgusting.

See, I instead view it as I'm willing to endure what's necessary to make change happen rather than be okay with the extensive problems that society already has. Medical care is unaffordable for most, College is unaffordable for most, and the prison industrial complex continues to incentivize states to keep more of their citizenry locked up for longer, in some cases for "crimes" that would make them billionaires in other states. You may be okay with a society that functions like this. I'm not.

I wouldn't really care unless it appeared to affect his legal opinions. Professionals are paid in their professional capacity, and Justice Ginsburg didn't do this in her professional capacity. She gave her opinion in a non-professional capacity. She's allowed to do that.

Justice Ginsburg was already confirmed. Further, she's allowed to have an opinion outside of her official capacity.

1) Read West Virginia law. It requires a plurality vote (meaning whoever gets the most wins even if under 50%). Further, Don Blankenship is eligible as a write-in candidate and Rusty Holley us on the ballot. So, as I stated, Manchin and the Republican is a false dilemma even in 2018. 2) I don't know. I do know that the political power of groups I support is on the rise and the infrastructure may be in a much better position to support a successful primary in 2024. 3) To me, this boils down to "You don't care enough about the Democratic party." When it comes to the fringe elements that actually belong on the other side of the aisle, you're right. Because ultimately 30-40 years ago, Manchin would've been a moderate Republican. We need to get back to that point. Ideally I'd prefer Manchin to be a right wing extremist, but I don't think that amount of progress will be achieved any time soon.

I merely pointed out that you were presenting a false dilemma. No matter how minute, the possibility exists that neither Manchin nor his Republican opponent will win the seat in 2018. I realize the best and most likely option for getting rid of Manchin is to primary him in 2024 or to have a Republican win the seat in 2024, then beat him with a progressive in 2030. That doesn't mean I have to answer your false dilemma, which is of the sort that creates most of the problems in modern day politics. It also doesn't mean that I have to accept that Manchin is the best WV has to offer, as you have.

Again, not true. The person who gets the most votes wins. If enough of the people of West Virginia chose a write in candidate to get behind, neither Manchin nor the far right Republican would win. I believe my profile contains my age. I know it did on the old board.

Well, if you refuse to accept the reality that lies are lies, then I can see how you can maintain that no one has "proven" that Kavanaugh lied, because your standard of proof is impossible.

You're surprised? The wealthy do this all the time in an attempt to evade taxes, and it typically works. And with all the frothing at the mouth idiotic "taxation is theft" Libertarians the Koch brothers have spent millions (billions?) cultivating in society, the public appetite for scrutinizing and going after these billionaires and their tax dodge strategies isn't very high. Couple that with the Republicans slowly but surely defunding the IRS (despite the IRS currently providing the government with a 700+% ROI on its budget), and it's no wonder the billionaires can get away with flat out subscribing to false tax returns (a federal crime). If the IRS sees a team of lawyers come into an audit, they're likely to just settle the case or maybe even drop it, which is why the IRS is very quick to predate on the average citizen, even on issues where it's clear the error is on their part, and very slow to bring the Waltons, Kochs, and Trumps of the world to justice for their tax crimes.

One acted civil and respectful in their testimony while the other acted like a petulant child. Given who suffered the trauma in this situation (not even Kavanaugh was stupid enough to suggest that Blasey-Ford wasn't sexually assaulted), I'm surprised by which party falls into which category. That said, there are several times where Kavanaugh's sworn testimony contradicted either previous sworn testimony (similarly to Jeff Sessions's "I never met with anyone from Russia!"..."Except for all those times I met with someone from Russia.") or documentation that Kavanaugh submitted into evidence himself in an attempt to prove his innocence (such as the calendar example I gave previously). To suggest that Kavanaugh hasn't perjured himself is just willful ignorance of his testimony at this point.

Kavanaugh testified that a gathering of the type Blasey-Ford described could not have happened at any time but a weekend day. A gathering remarkably similar to the one Blasey-Ford described is noted on the 1982 calendar Kavanaugh submitted into evidence on July 1, a Thursday. Whether you believe his words or his calendar, he lied somewhere. Personally I tend to believe the Kavanaugh that had nothing to lose by telling the truth, which would be the one who made the entry in the 1982 calendar.

Because those aren't the only two choices for the seat. They're the only two choices on the ballot for 2018, but they aren't the only two choices. Not for 2018. Not for beyond 2018.

That affirmed that negative ads create public perception, which was never in dispute. The dispute was over whether a hypothetical negative ad that would focus on a "No" vote on Kavanaugh would affect certain candidates' standing in their respective elections more than negative ads that are currently running. You say it will, I say it won't. My point of view is backed by polling and data, yours is backed by...your opinion that negative ads are bad and an undisputed fact that has nothing to do with the dispute? That's the best I can come up with. No false dilemmas, please.

What's that you say? The establishments' refusal to cede any sort of power at any level may cost the Democrats? Color me shocked.

Proving that would take a full study, as would proving your argument. I'm not asserting my opinion as fact. If you're asserting yours as fact, feel free to prove it. None of this addresses the point that you're allergic to accountability for centrists while constantly demanding it of progressives while claiming to be progressive yourself. You should be more honest with yourself, which will allow you to extend that honesty to everyone else.

Way to not address what I said at all. Of course negative ads create public perception, no one would dispute that. What I'm arguing here is that, based on the numbers, that particular negative ad will be no more effective and possibly less effective than another negative ad run in its place. One good thing came of this exchange. I know where your arrogance and love for the establishment comes from now.

Not negative ads on that specific issue, negative ads in general. If the numbers say that a "No" vote won't affect them, that negative ad would have no more effect than any other negative ad running, maybe even less of an effect.

There are negative ads running now. To think otherwise is intellectually dishonest. The numbers show that a "No" vote on Kavanaugh would not affect those candidates, but you don't want to hear that because you're allergic to accountability for centrists.

The numbers say they won't. So what you're saying is you only believe the numbers when they align with your argument. Got it.

But the numbers say that a "No" vote would not affect them. Do you only selectively pay attention to the numbers?

What political advantage does it give "Red State Dems" to vote Yes?

Or Eloy Jimenez if enough OFs develop. I just don't know how anyone could not be chomping at the bit for a switch hitting C who hit ~.400 in his sophomore season, saw a huge power surge late in the season, including practically carrying his team to the CWS title, and oh by the way, plays great defense as well. That pretty much sums up Adley Rutschman.

Which is arguably more than what the Sox started with. They also didn't manage those assets as well.

He could force trades and edit contracts on OOTP to get whatever players he wants at whatever price he wants.