Dam8610

That's not how limited partnerships work. Limited partners have little to no recourse to oppose the decisions of the general partner, typically it's none. That is likely the reason the White Sox are owned by a limited partnership.

Voting to authorize increased military spending is a terrible idea.

There's not a politician worth my time in a 50 mile radius of me. I didn't bring it up. You started your Bernie Bro bullshit after the NY primaries before I even commented on it. And now you're just outright lying, a tactic straight out of the HRC playbook.

It's a limited partnership. I haven't seen the organizing documents, but that suggests that all of the investors have a limited partner stake, with the general partner being the corporation over which Reinsdorf has majority control. In a limited partnership, the general partner(s) has/have 100% control regardless of the ownership shares. That means if Reinsdorf has majority control of the corporate general partner of the limited partnership that owns the White Sox, he has 100% control of all decisions for all intents and purposes.

Cease has control issues? Isn't his BB/9 incredibly low?

I'm not "hating" on you, I just don't understand how you reach the conclusions you do, especially the contradictory ones. That can't be right, because you call me a "Bernie Bro" every time you bring up how police brutality is the most important issue out there right now and anyone who disagrees doesn't know how to communicate with minority communities. It's not the convention or the Superdelegates that has the party fractured, it's the corporate establishment that doesn't want to yield power to the progressive activists that can actually move the party and its causes forward. I doubt many did, but HRC and her campaign calling them racists didn't endear her to them.

A figment of the Hillary Clinton campaign's imagination. In their twisted worldview, a "Bernie Bro" is a white male millennial who doesn't care about racial issues. In reality this was nothing more than a smear campaign by the Clinton campaign toward Bernie supporters. Then they were flabbergasted by the fact that we weren't "with her" when she stole the nomination. Gee, I wonder why the "You're all terrible people, now vote for me" strategy didn't work.

I listened to it. I was surprised to hear you admit that Trump is the catalyst for the good that is the progressive backlash and even somewhat of an ideology shift we've seen in our country since November 2016. The main thing I have difficulty reconciling in the ideology you espouse is the contradictory nature of it. You say in that podcast and here that you agree from a policy perspective with people like Jabari and I, yet I haven't seen a single politician with the policy platform you claim you support endorsed or supported by you while simultaneously you endorse or support several politicians with policy platforms that are far more conservative, authoritarian, and in service of special interests than the policies you say you support. You say in the podcast that you didn't want Trump because of the greater amount of suffering that would happen to a larger amount of people, yet you seem here to have no problem with the suffering caused to so much of the country's population by poverty and choose instead to focus on the problem of police brutality which affects a significantly smaller portion of the population. You say on the podcast that you think people like yourself and Jabari should find ways to work together, yet you constantly use intentionally divisive rhetoric (i.e. constantly implying that I'm a racist because our policy priorities differ) that indicates a lack of willingness to even consider the validity of the other viewpoint. Did you call Jabari a racist who didn't understand how to communicate to minority communities on Facebook? Because he seems to share a lot of my viewpoints despite being one of the minorities you so often eagerly tell me are uninterested in my ideology.

A 63-98 team has a higher winning percentage than a 63-99 team.

This is why I track by wins. For example if the White Sox and Marlins both finish with 63 wins, the White Sox get the higher pick whether the Marlins have 98 or 99 losses.

So poverty doesn't (extremely disproportionately, might I add) affect minorities, now? I didn't have to "reframe" anything, I had to spell it out for you because you were being intentionally obtuse.

If you read what I said and that's what you took from it, you need some serious work on your reading comprehension. ETA: To put it in very simple terms that even Reddy should understand, what I said was that poverty is a problem that affects way more of the population than police brutality. To be extremely clear, that does not mean I am saying police brutality isn't a problem (it is an extremely bad problem). What I said does mean (which is factually true) is that, by population, poverty is a problem that affects at least 10 times as many people. Perhaps we should solve the bigger problem first.

MY use of buzzwords is the problem? This, from Mr. Bernie Bro? Oh, the irony.

Yes, poverty affects 10%+ of the population, police brutality affects less than 1% of the population. "Boom", indeed.

I don't find the word "progressive" demonizing, nor would I find the word "populist" demonizing. Corporatists serve corporate interests. Why is it demonizing to call them the thing that describes what they do?

Yes, and a progressive wants to stop that AND give everyone things like collective bargaining rights, free college, and free healthcare. Corporatists only have interest in doing the former and demonizing anyone who wants to do the latter three as racist for not prioritizing the former.

The sad and horrifying truth in my opinion is that white men are much less accustomed to systemic oppression and therefore don't as readily accept it and more actively seek out people and things which will eliminate it. Minorities and women are far more conditioned to accept systemic oppression in our society, a fact that Corporatists are now capitalizing on to save their political lives.

No, I'm saying Corporatists have spent three generations conspiring with Republicans to strip us of our economic rights, so it's going to take more than a couple of years to undo that damage, especially since most alive today have never experienced most of those economic rights. It's about the politicians, not the voters.

I answered that question before you asked it. Yes, fictitious. The corporatists have spent a long time entrenching themselves in the Democratic Party and convincing people that trading economic equality for "social progress" is the right way to go. Clearly, it's going to take more than a few years to undo decades of brainwashing the corporatists have put in place, but progress is clearly happening.

No one is a fictitious creation of the Hillary Clinton campaign.

Corporatists are the worst problem. At least you can clearly paint Republicans as the bad guys who want to take away your rights, it's harder for people who have never experienced things like collective bargaining rights, a progressive tax system that actually funds social programs, or well funded social programs that provide benefits to the average American to see that the Corporatists are doing the exact same thing.

Wow. Drama has reached an all-time high in the age of the internet.

That's fair, I didn't think of that. I suppose he could still K if it wasn't a 3-2 count.

Perhaps I am just overwhelmed by the general arrogance of Reddy, but while yard signs are not likely a perfect predictor of election results, they are certainly an indicator of enthusiasm behind a campaign, and it's my understanding that voter enthusiasm is an indicator of likely voter turnout. To put it differently, had one gone by yard signs in 2016, that person would've been one of the few to correctly predict Trump winning the presidency. Few other predictive methods would've yielded that result.

If the Sox lose out, that means Baltimore gets 3 wins, and would just have to win 4 of their other 17 games to fall behind the White Sox for #1 overall. Yeah, it's not going to happen, but it's a nice thought.