Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Monday, October 16, 2017

OTP 16 October 2017: Sorry, Yankee fans: Trump’s claim that he can ensure victory simply isn’t true

As is sometimes the case with Trump’s tweet’s, his claims don’t hold up. We identified 14 games that Trump has attended since 1988, including two preseason games and the game above. Of those 14 games, the Yankees won eight and lost six — 57 percent of the time during seasons when the Yankees won 60 percent of their games overall.

In other words — Trump might be a jinx.

(As always, views expressed in the article lede and comments are the views of the individual commenters and the submitter of the article and do not represent the views of Baseball Think Factory or its owner.)

Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: October 16, 2017 at 07:49 AM | 1967 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: astros, playoffs, politics, yankees

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Page 11 of 20 pages ‹ First  < 9 10 11 12 13 >  Last ›
   1001. PepTech Posted: October 18, 2017 at 05:01 PM (#5557237)
Fish, I'd agree, but then you'd also need to recognize the market performance for Clinton and Obama. Wouldn't you?
   1002. Ray (RDP) Posted: October 18, 2017 at 05:01 PM (#5557238)
The quote rings very very true.

The WH has now called the guy a liar, although of course they


...didn't call him any such thing?

Where does the WH dispute the guy's story?

blame it on the media: "But White House spokeswoman Lindsay Walters said in a statement Wednesday afternoon, “The check has been sent. It’s disgusting that the media is taking something that should be recognized as a generous and sincere gesture, made privately by the President, and using it to advance the media’s biased agenda."

("The check has been sent" doesn't, of course, say whether it was sent today, after the story was published.)


When you're down to attacking a guy for writing a $25,000 check to the father of a fallen soldier... probably time to check your derangement.
   1003. Zonk Tormundbane Posted: October 18, 2017 at 05:02 PM (#5557239)
It's up to you. If you want to reject it, reject it.


Rejecting it sort of implies that it was considered.

   1004. Srul Itza Posted: October 18, 2017 at 05:04 PM (#5557241)
Like Carter but actually effective.


Well, somewhat more effective, I would grant him that.

   1005. PreservedFish Posted: October 18, 2017 at 05:05 PM (#5557243)
Fish, I'd agree, but then you'd also need to recognize the market performance for Clinton and Obama. Wouldn't you?


Of course. Even if you hated them, Clinton and Obama were clearly both totally credible presidents, and the country did just fine with them in charge for eight years.

To be clear, my opinion is that a president has very little effect on the S&P 500. A true disaster president could probably cause a meltdown of some sort, though. So the only argument here is that Trump has not actually yet been a disaster.
   1006. Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant Posted: October 18, 2017 at 05:05 PM (#5557244)
The suggestion to get off the Twitter feed and social media


I have not, never once, posted on nor looked at anything at twitter, facebook, reddit, you tube, you face, face time, linkedin, snapchat, pinterest, instagram, candygram, or any other social media. Except for this site and Angry Birds 2, I'm about as unplugged as you can get.
   1007. PreservedFish Posted: October 18, 2017 at 05:07 PM (#5557245)
When you're down to attacking a guy for writing a $25,000 check to the father of a fallen soldier... probably time to check your derangement.


It's certainly very nice of him, but my reading of Trump's character is that he wrote the check in order bolster his "I'm the best president ever at consoling people!" claim.
   1008. BrianBrianson Posted: October 18, 2017 at 05:09 PM (#5557247)
I think SBB is correct to note that the buoyant markets are at least something of a feather in Trump's cap, and an indication that the big money managers of the earth do not consider him an existential threat to modern humanity or what have you.


Probably, although if he is an existential threat, maybe it'd be daft to think money will be worthwhile by the end of his presidency too, so there's no sense in pulling it out of the market.
   1009. Zonk Tormundbane Posted: October 18, 2017 at 05:13 PM (#5557252)
It's certainly very nice of him, but my reading of Trump's character is that he wrote the check in order underline his "I'm the best president ever at consoling people!" claim.


He didn't write the check until someone asked -- let's not forget, he's done this before (remember the GOP debate he skipped and held a "support the vets!" fundraiser.... only, no veterans charity received a dime until 4-5-6 months later, some nosy reporters started asking about it). He said he'd write a check. That's pretty friggin easy. Watch: I'm going to send a million dollars to Feed the Children. Trump doesn't write checks he's actually entered into contracts to write for goods or services rendered. You think he's cutting checks freely because he says so, where he doesn't even need his lawyers to get him out of writing them?

With the caveat that I'm sure the guy won't care where the check comes from - I'd also note that Trump has a documented history of using his "charity" as a bit of hybrid money laundering operation/slush fund.... so hey - this guy will probably get a check. But I'd bet good money that either it comes from his 'charity' -- or -- any auditor that cares to look finds a matching outlay from his charity.
   1010. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: October 18, 2017 at 05:13 PM (#5557253)
When you're down to attacking a guy for writing a $25,000 check to the father of a fallen soldier... probably time to check your derangement.
Reading is fundamental. Setting aside your confusion between truthful criticism and "attacking," he is being criticized for not writing a $25,000 check... despite promising to have done so.


Where does the WH dispute the guy's story?
The guy says that he didn't receive a check. The WH said that a check was sent. (Of course, someone acting as Trump's defense lawyer would argue that those two statements aren't 100% contradictory; maybe the check got lost in the mail. Or maybe the check was sent today, after the guy said it. But a normal honest human being would understand that when someone says "I sent it" and someone else says, "I never got it," one of the two is accusing the other of lying.)
   1011. PepTech Posted: October 18, 2017 at 05:15 PM (#5557254)
When you're down to attacking a guy for writing a $25,000 check to the father of a fallen soldier... probably time to check your derangement.
This is disingenuous. No one is attacking Trump for the gesture, which is, in itself, admirable. If he promised to do something (anything) in June, *and* only did it (finally) today, and only *after* he was called on it... it's reasonable to point that out.

*IF* it turns out the latter timeline is true - which hasn't been established - then the mock outrage from the WH is kinda silly.
   1012. Ray (RDP) Posted: October 18, 2017 at 05:16 PM (#5557255)
Reading is fundamental. Setting aside your confusion between truthful criticism and "attacking," he is being criticized for not writing a $25,000 check... despite promising to have done so.


He wrote the check. He promised to do so and did so.

I agree that he probably sent the check today. And?
   1013. The Good Face Posted: October 18, 2017 at 05:16 PM (#5557256)
"Coherent" needs to be endorsed by at least two people who are verifiably not TGF, YC, OJ, RDP, and yourself.


True things are true no matter who says them. It's sad that Trump has so blinded you that you can't see that. Assuming you ever could.
   1014. TDF didn't lie, he just didn't remember Posted: October 18, 2017 at 05:17 PM (#5557257)
When you're down to attacking a guy for writing a $25,000 check to the father of a fallen soldier... probably time to check your derangement.

It's certainly very nice of him, but my reading of Trump's character is that he wrote the check in order bolster his "I'm the best president ever at consoling people!" claim.
Actually, once again Ray is taking the most charitable reading of the incident ("Trump sent the check he promised, the end") when:

1. The spokesman did, in fact, call the father a liar - "They never sent a check"; "Yes we did - it's in the mail".
2. We know that Trump's history of charitable giving isn't what he claims it is.

EDIT: Cokes all around, because once again Ray made a stupid excuse for the guy he "doesn't support"
   1015. Ray (RDP) Posted: October 18, 2017 at 05:18 PM (#5557259)
This is disingenuous. No one is attacking Trump for the gesture, which is, in itself, admirable. If he promised to do something (anything) in June, *and* only did it (finally) today, and only *after* he was called on it... it's reasonable to point that out.


I can't fathom why.

How many $25,000 checks to military fathers have you written?
   1016. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: October 18, 2017 at 05:19 PM (#5557260)
It's certainly very nice of him,
If he did it. And if it's actually a personal check, as opposed to writing a Trump Foundation check from an account with other people's money in it.
   1017. TDF didn't lie, he just didn't remember Posted: October 18, 2017 at 05:20 PM (#5557261)
How many $25,000 checks to military fathers have you written?
I bet as many as Trump did before yesterday, assuming he actually did even then.
   1018. PreservedFish Posted: October 18, 2017 at 05:20 PM (#5557262)
I can't fathom why.


Really?
   1019. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: October 18, 2017 at 05:20 PM (#5557263)
He wrote the check.
Sez who?
   1020. Blanks for Nothing, Larvell Posted: October 18, 2017 at 05:21 PM (#5557265)
Actually, once again Ray is taking the most charitable reading of the incident ("Trump sent the check he promised, the end") when:


Trump sent the check he promised, the end.
   1021. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: October 18, 2017 at 05:21 PM (#5557266)
Trump sent the check he promised, the end.
Sez who?
   1022. Howie Menckel Posted: October 18, 2017 at 05:22 PM (#5557267)
my opinion is that a president has very little effect on the S&P 500.

I have been saying this here for more than a decade.

Sometimes I add that it's a weird cultural thing that our country was founded on getting rid of a dictator, yet after more than two centuries the majority still seems to believe in magic.

Might be one good thing Trump does - allow at least half the country to learn of their delusion.

:)
   1023. Rickey! the first of his name Posted: October 18, 2017 at 05:23 PM (#5557269)
He wrote the check. He promised to do so and did so.

I agree that he probably sent the check today. And?


And 1), any argument prior to the last minute ass-covering send of a check "today" would be valid and true, and 2) no one in their right mind give charity credit points to a guy that has to be shamed into doing something he already said he'd done. You don't get points for lying, then back logging a check to pretend you didn't.
   1024. Blanks for Nothing, Larvell Posted: October 18, 2017 at 05:23 PM (#5557270)
If he did it.


That's not Trump, it's OJ.

as opposed to writing a Trump Foundation check from an account with other people's money in it.


As opposed to Hillary, who would have likely asked the family to cut a check to her foundation before getting even getting on the phone. And then shredded the records.
   1025. Ray (RDP) Posted: October 18, 2017 at 05:23 PM (#5557271)
1. The spokesman did, in fact, call the father a liar - "They never sent a check"; "Yes we did - it's in the mail".


No such exchange occurred. What actually happened was that the wannabe Sam Donaldsons in the press room were trying to drum up yet another pointless controversy -- because that's all they're good for in the year 2017 -- and they told the WH spokeswoman what the father had said and the spokeswoman replied, "The check has been sent."

She also replied that this was supposed to be a private thing between Trump and the father. Did Trump go out and loudly brag back in June that he was going to hand $25,000 to a military father? Not to my knowledge.
   1026. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: October 18, 2017 at 05:24 PM (#5557272)
By the way, even pathetic Ray and SBB haven't bothered to read the article they're trying to refute:
President Trump, in a personal phone call to a grieving military father, offered him $25,000 and said he would direct his staff to establish an online fundraiser for the family, but neither happened, the father said.
So even their made-up facts ("He wrote the check"; "Trump sent the check") would not constitute fulfilling his promise to the father.
   1027. Nose army. Beef diaper? (CoB) Posted: October 18, 2017 at 05:24 PM (#5557273)
I think SBB is correct to note that the buoyant markets are at least something of a feather in Trump's cap, and an indication that the big money managers of the earth do not consider him an existential threat to modern humanity or what have you. Anything beyond that is clear trolling.


To be clear, my opinion is that a president has very little effect on the S&P 500. A true disaster president could probably cause a meltdown of some sort, though.


It will be very interesting to follow the market reactions if when President ####### Moron goes ahead and pulls us out of NAFTA
   1028. Blanks for Nothing, Larvell Posted: October 18, 2017 at 05:24 PM (#5557274)
You don't get points for lying, then back logging a check to pretend you didn't.


No, you get points for cutting a check for 25 large to the family of a fallen soldier.

At least in the sane community.
   1029. Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant Posted: October 18, 2017 at 05:24 PM (#5557275)
The best part of this site lately is seeing how far Ray will go to prostitute himself for Trump. Hell, even YC doesn't go nearly as far.

As for Ray's question in 1015, none. But, I have twice givien $1,000 checks to families who have lost their breadwinner, and my net worth is less than 1/2000th of Trump's, if the latest Forbes 400 is to be believed.
   1030. Ray (RDP) Posted: October 18, 2017 at 05:25 PM (#5557276)
He wrote the check.

Sez who?


A non-deranged person.
   1031. Blanks for Nothing, Larvell Posted: October 18, 2017 at 05:25 PM (#5557277)
It will be very interesting to follow the market reactions if when President ####### Moron goes ahead and pulls us out of NAFTA


The market's already discounting that possibility and the likely result.
   1032. TDF didn't lie, he just didn't remember Posted: October 18, 2017 at 05:26 PM (#5557278)
1. The spokesman did, in fact, call the father a liar - "They never sent a check"; "Yes we did - it's in the mail".

No such exchange occurred. What actually happened was that the wannabe Sam Donaldsons in the press room were trying to drum up yet another pointless controversy -- because that's all they're good for in the year 2017 -- and they told the WH spokeswoman what the father had said and the spokeswoman replied, "The check has been sent."
Father: "Trump said he'd send a check; he didn't."
Reporter: "The father said Trump said he'd send a check, but he hadn't"
WH: "Yes Trump did"

How is that not calling the father a liar?
   1033. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: October 18, 2017 at 05:26 PM (#5557279)
A non-deranged person.
So far, just you and SBB, so no.
   1034. PepTech Posted: October 18, 2017 at 05:26 PM (#5557280)
I can't fathom why.

How many $25,000 checks to military fathers have you written?
Ray, this is your least appealing mode. I've written exactly as many such checks as I've promised to write, and probably as many as you have. This is neither here nor there.

If *any* random person pledges something privately, and doesn't do it until and only after publicly shamed into doing so, particularly one that has a history of such behavior... it's at least "fathomable" to note.

As I said originally, the gesture itself is quite admirable. That it would be more admirable in private does not make it less.
   1035. Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant Posted: October 18, 2017 at 05:26 PM (#5557281)
She also replied that this was supposed to be a private thing between Trump and the father.


Translation: "We didn't expect the father to complain when Trump didn't send the check"
   1036. Blanks for Nothing, Larvell Posted: October 18, 2017 at 05:27 PM (#5557282)
So even their made-up facts ("He wrote the check"; "Trump sent the check") would not constitute fulfilling his promise to the father.


You still don't understand.

I do not care whether he wrote a check to a fallen soldier's family and I do not care whether he said he would and I do not care about the content of what he said to the family.

If he wrote a check, I do not care; if he did not write a check, I do not care.
   1037. Blanks for Nothing, Larvell Posted: October 18, 2017 at 05:28 PM (#5557283)
Translation: "We didn't expect the father to complain when Trump didn't send the check"


The father actually shouldn't complain. If somehow the government isn't doing right by his family as per existing programs, yeah -- complain away. Otherwise, no.
   1038. Ray (RDP) Posted: October 18, 2017 at 05:28 PM (#5557284)
y the way, even pathetic Ray and SBB haven't bothered to read the article they're trying to refute:

President Trump, in a personal phone call to a grieving military father, offered him $25,000 and said he would direct his staff to establish an online fundraiser for the family, but neither happened, the father said.

So even their made-up facts ("He wrote the check"; "Trump sent the check") would not constitute fulfilling his promise to the father.


When you finish doing the whole "Pysche!" thing with the moving goalposts please do let us know.

The issue under discussion was the check.
   1039. Srul Itza Posted: October 18, 2017 at 05:29 PM (#5557285)
He's terrible at it. If he was good, he wouldn't be such buffoon & a joke. He'd actually sucessfully pull the wool over people's eyes.


But he is in fact doing that, with the Great Unwashed who support him, and whose vote helped propel him into office.

Now, the GOPe-ers who voted for knew that he was doing this, but they just did not care.


   1040. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: October 18, 2017 at 05:29 PM (#5557286)
You still don't understand.

I do not care
Oh, I well understand that. All you care about is providing the same service to Trump that Monica Lewinsky provided to Clinton.
   1041. Blanks for Nothing, Larvell Posted: October 18, 2017 at 05:31 PM (#5557289)
Actually I amend 1036. I don't want presidents cutting checks to private citizens while in office. Particularly the families of soldiers. It's unseemly and has the whiff of anti-democratic vote-buying.
   1042. Ray (RDP) Posted: October 18, 2017 at 05:31 PM (#5557291)
Father: "Trump said he'd send a check; he didn't."
Reporter: "The father said Trump said he'd send a check, but he hadn't"
WH: "Yes Trump did"

How is that not calling the father a liar?


If there's a liar here it's you. The WH did not say "Yes Trump did." The WH said "The check has been sent." That leaves open the likelihood that the check was sent after the father's comments. Which doesn't call the father a liar in the slightest.

Even David recognized from his padded room the notion that from the WH's statement the check was probably just sent today.
   1043. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: October 18, 2017 at 05:31 PM (#5557292)
The issue under discussion was the check.
Nope; the issue under discussion was Trump's character, as revealed by him being caught lying to yet another person about his charitable endeavors.
   1044. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: October 18, 2017 at 05:32 PM (#5557293)
Actually I amend 1036. I don't want presidents cutting checks to private citizens while in office. Particularly the families of soldiers. It's unseemly and seems to be vote-buying.
In fact, Trump had a moral obligation to renege on his promise, right?
   1045. PepTech Posted: October 18, 2017 at 05:32 PM (#5557294)
If he wrote a check, I do not care
Except to respond endlessly about it, anyway.
if he did not write a check, I do not care.
Wait a second, I thought Blanks was SBB, not Ray :)
   1046. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: October 18, 2017 at 05:33 PM (#5557296)
If there's a liar here it's you. The WH did not say "Yes Trump did." The WH said "The check has been sent."
Those two statements are, in fact, semantically identical.
   1047. Ray (RDP) Posted: October 18, 2017 at 05:34 PM (#5557297)
Translation: "We didn't expect the father to complain when Trump didn't send the check"

The father actually shouldn't complain. If somehow the government isn't doing right by his family as per existing programs, yeah -- complain away. Otherwise, no.


Of course this is true. But I didn't note it because I didn't want the loony tunes to start saying I was disrespecting a grieving military father.

The private conversation between the father and Trump had no place in the public sphere. And as far as I understand it, Trump didn't put the conversation there. (Which would be sort of odd, if Trump promised him the check only to take glory for it later.)
   1048. Blanks for Nothing, Larvell Posted: October 18, 2017 at 05:35 PM (#5557298)
In fact, Trump had a moral obligation to renege on his promise, right?


Ethical obligation, yes.

He never should have made it in the first place. It was a bad idea.

The endgame would be a Zuckerberg or a Bloomberg or a Gates promising everyone who voted for him for president, $100 or $200 out of their own pocket. That can't be permissible.
   1049. BrianBrianson Posted: October 18, 2017 at 05:35 PM (#5557299)
I do not care whether he wrote a check to a fallen soldier's family and I do not care whether he said he would and I do not care about the content of what he said to the family.

If he wrote a check, I do not care; if he did not write a check, I do not care.


How do I defend my positions? I don't care if they're wrong. So - beat that!
   1050. PepTech Posted: October 18, 2017 at 05:40 PM (#5557302)
The father actually shouldn't complain. If somehow the government isn't doing right by his family as per existing programs, yeah -- complain away. Otherwise, no.

Of course this is true.
I actually agree with this, it should never have come to light of day. It's not a crime to renege on a pledge.

But since it *has*, it is fathomable to discuss it. It's not unlike welching on a bet; it seems this community mostly agrees that's not appropriate behavior.

And in case it hasn't been said enough, if the guy did get a check, under whatever circumstances, kudos to Trump, and it's unfortunate that it became public.
   1051. Blanks for Nothing, Larvell Posted: October 18, 2017 at 05:40 PM (#5557303)
Trump actually sounds like something of a softy if he can't listen to a sob story without promising $25K of his own money to end the sobbing.
   1052. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: October 18, 2017 at 05:41 PM (#5557306)
I actually agree with this, it should never have come to light of day. It's not a crime to renege on a pledge.
It's worse than a crime; it's a blunder.


it's unfortunate that it became public.
It became public because he reneged on it.
   1053. TDF didn't lie, he just didn't remember Posted: October 18, 2017 at 05:43 PM (#5557307)
The private conversation between the father and Trump had no place in the public sphere. And as far as I understand it, Trump didn't put the conversation there. (Which would be sort of odd, if Trump promised him the check only to take glory for it later.)
Ray, let's assume that Trump isn't POTUS, he's just a random rich guy that likes to brag about his charity. He sees a touching story in the paper, calls the person and says "I'll send you a check; I know it won't ease the pain but it might ease the financial burden" - then never sends a dime. You don't think that conversation, and its outcome, has a place in public?

EDIT: Further, as POTUS, every non-classified conversation he has has "a place in the public sphere".
   1054. Traderdave Posted: October 18, 2017 at 05:43 PM (#5557308)
Blanks, your failure to explain your theory of bond market & stock market agreeing -- after many invitations to do so -- is just more proof that you have no ####### idea what you're talking about.


But your fearless leader loves you.
   1055. PepTech Posted: October 18, 2017 at 05:45 PM (#5557309)
He never should have made it in the first place. It was a bad idea.

The endgame would be a Zuckerberg or a Bloomberg or a Gates promising everyone who voted for him for president, $100 or $200 out of their own pocket. That can't be permissible.
More weird logic. Of course your "endgame" is impermissible. It also has precisely zero to do with this situation.

This was (should have been) a private conversation under specific circumstances - the ex-wife receiving the death benefit in lieu of the parent. It wasn't a bribe or public policy. Your SJWness is made of straw - again.

   1056. TDF didn't lie, he just didn't remember Posted: October 18, 2017 at 05:46 PM (#5557310)
And in case it hasn't been said enough, if the guy did get a check, under whatever circumstances, kudos to Trump, and it's unfortunate that it became public.
If Trump only sent the check after he got caught welching, he deserves almost no credit because the original offer wasn't sincere.
   1057. Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant Posted: October 18, 2017 at 05:48 PM (#5557313)
Trump actually sounds like something of a softy if he can't listen to a sob story without promising $25K of his own money to end the sobbing.


I actually agree with you that Trump should not have pledged the check. However, once he made the pledge, he needs to follow through on it, and be strongly advised to never make a similar promise in the future. Most humans understand this, and do follow through. Trump being a slime mold, does not.

As for the softie comment, it's not that he's a softie, he's a narcistic sociopath. he says all kinds of stuff to all kinds of people in order to get adulation ("No other President would do this"), with no intentions of following up, because no one matters to him beyond the adulation they can give him. Or maybe he was sincere, but once the conversation was over, that person doesn't matter anymore and is instantly forgotten. If you look at Trump in that light, it's perfectly logical behavior.
   1058. Ray (RDP) Posted: October 18, 2017 at 05:49 PM (#5557314)
It became public because he reneged on it.


It became public because the father publicized it. And why did the father publicize it? Because the media went to the father in search of controversy. And why did the media go to the father in search of controversy? Because the media is deranged over Trump. And why is the media deranged over Trump? Because Trump tossed the dog that worried the cat that killed the rat that ate the malt that lay in the house that Obama built.

Trump did not renege on the promise. Unless you think the WH spokeswoman is lying -- sadly, I wouldn't be surprised if you do -- "The check has been sent."

Please do get outside and have a catch with your children today. Unplug. The TDS is really taking a toll on you.
   1059. PepTech Posted: October 18, 2017 at 05:50 PM (#5557315)
If Trump only sent the check after he got caught welching, he deserves almost no credit because the original offer wasn't sincere.
Yeah, but if some guy that's hurting has his life improved a bit, that's a net good thing.

I do reserve the right to add "welcher" to my list of Trump's qualities, though. And he has no one to blame but himself - he shouldn't have made the initial offer, and once he did, he shouldn't have welched.
   1060. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: October 18, 2017 at 05:50 PM (#5557316)

This is the timeline, based on the news reporting: Trump bragged about how he's better than all those other presidents, especially Obama, because he personally called families of dead soldiers.
Kerfuffle over this obvious lie.
WaPo decides to do some investigative journalism; they call up all the families of those soldiers who have died on Trump's watch.
Some of them tell the WaPo that Trump never called them, in contradiction of his bragging.
This guy tells the WaPo that Trump did call him, and promised him money, but then Trump never followed through.
The WaPo calls the WH this morning for a response.
The WH this afternoon claims that the check was already sent, and pretends that the villain is the people holding him accountable rather than the person being held accountable.
   1061. Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant Posted: October 18, 2017 at 05:52 PM (#5557317)
It became public because the father publicized it


Because he reneged on the promise. This isn't hard. If it didn't become public, the check never would have been sent.
   1062. Ray (RDP) Posted: October 18, 2017 at 05:53 PM (#5557318)
WaPo decides to do some investigative journalism;


There was a shock.
   1063. TDF didn't lie, he just didn't remember Posted: October 18, 2017 at 05:53 PM (#5557319)
This is the timeline, based on the news reporting: Trump bragged about how he's better than all those other presidents, especially Obama, because he personally called families of dead soldiers.
Kerfuffle over this obvious lie.
WaPo decides to do some investigative journalism; they call up all the families of those soldiers who have died on Trump's watch.
Some of them tell the WaPo that Trump never called them, in contradiction of his bragging.
This guy tells the WaPo that Trump did call him, and promised him money, but then Trump never followed through.
The WaPo calls the WH this morning for a response.
The WH this afternoon claims that the check was already sent, and pretends that the villain is the people holding him accountable rather than the person being held accountable.
Ray's right - it's the media's fault!
   1064. TDF didn't lie, he just didn't remember Posted: October 18, 2017 at 05:54 PM (#5557320)
WaPo decides to do some investigative journalism;

There was a shock.
Why would anyone question Trump? He never lies, especially about how great he is!
   1065. Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant Posted: October 18, 2017 at 05:55 PM (#5557321)
This is the timeline, based on the news reporting: Trump bragged about how he's better than all those other presidents, especially Obama, because he personally called families of dead soldiers.
Kerfuffle over this obvious lie.
WaPo decides to do some investigative journalism; they call up all the families of those soldiers who have died on Trump's watch.
Some of them tell the WaPo that Trump never called them, in contradiction of his bragging.
This guy tells the WaPo that Trump did call him, and promised him money, but then Trump never followed through.
The WaPo calls the WH this morning for a response.
The WH this afternoon claims that the check was already sent, and pretends that the villain is the people holding him accountable rather than the person being held accountable.


And if Bill Clinton did something similar in 1996, Ray and SBB would STILL be talking about it.
   1066. PepTech Posted: October 18, 2017 at 05:57 PM (#5557323)
This deranged standard of actually holding POTUS responsible for the words they use is unhinged. Buy stocks! Hillary would have done much worse.
   1067. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: October 18, 2017 at 05:59 PM (#5557324)
Ray has devolved to the point where he is now in "Marge, it takes two to lie. One to lie, and one to listen" wrt Trump.
   1068. Greg K Posted: October 18, 2017 at 06:02 PM (#5557326)
I haven't seen any of our Northern neighbors posting today.

I can only assume that it is a national day of mourning.

I'd say it was expected. And, I mean, it was obviously.

But a little part of me kept thinking, maybe...

Though most of all this brings back the awful memory of simon bedford inferring from my statements I like the Hip more than the Super Friendz. Which could not be further from the truth!
   1069. Blanks for Nothing, Larvell Posted: October 18, 2017 at 06:02 PM (#5557327)
This is the timeline, based on the news reporting: Trump bragged about how he's better than all those other presidents, especially Obama, because he personally called families of dead soldiers.

Kerfuffle over this obvious lie.


OK, well that's simple. We can stop right there.

The kerfuffle was stupid and that's where things careened hopelessly out of control. The "lie," if it was that (and I don't really care whether it was), was entirely meaningless and immaterial to anything that matters to anyone.

"I'm better at calling the families of fallen soldiers than my predecessors."

Yeah, you're right -- that absolutely demands investigation. How can anyone possibly suggest otherwise???

See, this is the problem -- the derangement establishes its own premises and its own momentum. It's a self-reinforcing closed loop nourished by the imperatives of social media and whose underlying premises don't hold up to even a moment of serious scrutiny.

It does not ####### matter that Trump compared himself favorably to his predecessors. Every president does that. Even if a president had never done that in the history of presidenting, it still would not ####### matter that Trump did it.

   1070. Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant Posted: October 18, 2017 at 06:08 PM (#5557330)
See, this is the problem -- the derangement establishes its own premises and its own momentum. It's a self-reinforcing closed loop nourished by the imperatives of social media and whose underlying premises don't hold up to even a moment of serious scrutiny.


Would you stop with the ####### social media meme. This isn't twitter or you face, it's the Washington Post and CNN.
   1071. Ray (RDP) Posted: October 18, 2017 at 06:09 PM (#5557331)
Ray has devolved to the point where he is now in "Marge, it takes two to lie. One to lie, and one to listen" wrt Trump.


Tell us again how it's "investigative journalism" to expose a nothingburger issue.
   1072. PepTech Posted: October 18, 2017 at 06:12 PM (#5557333)
It does not ####### matter that Trump compared himself favorably to his predecessors. Every president does that. Even if a president had never done that in the history of presidenting, it still would not ####### matter that Trump did it.
In a vacuum, you're absolutely correct.

As you have pointed out, repeatedly, we don't live in a vacuum, and Trump (more than anyone!) is aware of how the media game is played in this post-Decline era of 24/7/365 social media clamor. He was elected largely due to his being ahead of the curve handling that industry, we are often reminded. So he, and you as his proxy, lose standing to complain about the furor on those occasions when it's not favorable to Trump.
"I understand social media," added Trump. "I understand the power of Twitter. I understand the power of Facebook maybe better than almost anybody, based on my results, right?"
   1073. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: October 18, 2017 at 06:14 PM (#5557335)
It became public because he reneged on it.

It became public because the father publicized it. And why did the father publicize it?
Because Trump reneged. Duh. Please try to keep up.
Because the media went to the father in search of controversy.
No; that's how, not why.
And why did the media go to the father in search of controversy?
Because - and I'll use small words so you can understand this: that's their job. Once more, you fail to grasp that trying to find out what a president (or presidential candidate; you evinced the same confusion during the campaign) is thinking, saying, and doing is what the media is supposed to do. Their job is not to make Trump look good. (As you and SBB daily demonstrate, that's not possible even with Herculean effort, anyway.) Their job is to hold public figures accountable, in small ways and large.

Trump did not renege on the promise. Unless you think the WH spokeswoman is lying -- sadly, I wouldn't be surprised if you do -- "The check has been sent."
The spokesperson may very well be lying. Not everyone is as honest as Hillary Clinton. But failing to keep your word is indeed reneging, and reversing yourself only after being caught doesn't change the character of what you did.
   1074. Ray (RDP) Posted: October 18, 2017 at 06:16 PM (#5557337)
And why did the media go to the father in search of controversy?

Because - and I'll use small words so you can understand this: that's their job.


Next up, I imagine, will be an Investigative Report EXCLUSIVE:

President Trump... Boxers or briefs?

At least it will be more interesting than the current controversy du jour, when did Trump hand a grieving military father $25,000?!?!?!?!?!?!?

It will certainly be less unseemly.
   1075. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: October 18, 2017 at 06:18 PM (#5557339)
Tell us again how it's "investigative journalism" to expose a nothingburger issue.
No, no, Ray. Trump and his team treasonously colluding with Russia is a nothingburger issue. Trump cheating yet another person and disrespecting yet another military family is like a nothinghotdog, or maybe a nothingGeneralTso'sChicken or something.


I await the "It's not illegal to collide with Russia" and "It's not cheating someone to promise him charity and then welch on the promise." responses.
   1076. Joe Bivens Will Take a Steaming Dump Posted: October 18, 2017 at 06:19 PM (#5557340)
This news would have been awesome had you dopes been making this argument back on 11/8. I could have promised to pay, and then not paid until some period of time passed, say, months.

What's the decorum on not paying as implied, how much time has to pass before it becomes gauche not to have paid? Too funny.
   1077. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: October 18, 2017 at 06:26 PM (#5557343)
It does not ####### matter that Trump compared himself favorably to his predecessors. Every president does that.
[Citation needed.]
Even if a president had never done that in the history of presidenting, it still would not ####### matter that Trump did it.
Quintessential trolling:

1. Ridiculous Proposition is true.
2. That's because of Fact X.
3. Oh, Fact X isn't true? Well, then Ridiculous Proposition is true because of Fact !X.

It was funnier when you pretended to be a lawyer.

   1078. Satan Says Posted: October 18, 2017 at 06:26 PM (#5557344)
This isn't twitter or you face, it's the Washington Post and CNN.


Same difference.

Do you guys dream about Trump? He's absorbed your consciousness in his orange aura.
   1079. The Yankee Clapper Posted: October 18, 2017 at 06:28 PM (#5557345)
re # 993:

Does Bitter Mouse really not know what the legal issues are in the Wisconsin redistricting case now before the Supreme Court? Or does he think the rest of us don't? The most important issue in the case is whether there is a legally appropriate standard to measure what might be constitutionally impermissible partisan redistricting. Bitter Mouse linked to an article suggesting that the so-called efficiency standard is aappropriate for measuring what would be unconstitutional. That received considerable push back here and elsewhere, with Bitter Mouse initially doubling down in reacting to David's criticism (see #223 of this thread):
Sigh. This is really dumb David.

(1) "Made-up formula"? Unlike all those non-made-up formulas? Seriously? Wasted votes are hardly made up anyway, and in fact Clapper even referenced the idea. And of course this "made-up" formula is a real thing and is in front of the SCOTUS.

(2) "Drawing districts without regard ..." Yeah, you and Clapper should go on the comedy circuit together. Drawing districts is a political exercise and politics always has and always will be a part of it. It is not an exercise in geometry or even formulas (even those which are mysteriously not "made-up" - whatever that means).

(3) "It's unavoidable unless ..." yeah this is still not true. No one is talking about eliminating politics form the exercise or eliminating wasted votes. The VRA doesn't need to be repealed and no single district is in danger of having to change if the forces that be really want to keep it. Since - once again for those who refuse to get the idea - the current SCOTUS case is not about single districts. It is about the cumulative effects of all the districts in a state. If a certain district is required that must have a number of wasted votes, that's fine, so long as - within tolerances - the cumulative wasted votes in a state don't mysteriously tilt partisan in EITHER direction.

Granted, that's a bit unintelligible, but Bitter Mouse not only introduced the so-called efficiency standard to the thread, he defended it against challenges that it was not an appropriate measure of what could be impermissiblely partisan redistricting because it measured "wasted votes" regardless of whether they were caused by gerrymandering. If that's not addressing the legal issues, Bitter Mouse must be using his patented "human definitions" again. However, I suppose he should get a bit of credit for apparently no longer advocating the use of the so-called efficiency standard in light of the criticisms made here.
   1080. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: October 18, 2017 at 06:46 PM (#5557352)
He never should have made it in the first place. It was a bad idea.
Well, if he was planning to renege, then sure.
The endgame would be a Zuckerberg or a Bloomberg or a Gates promising everyone who voted for him for president, $100 or $200 out of their own pocket. That can't be permissible.
It would actually be illegal, as you'd know if your fake associates were doing their fake jobs. But of course that's not the endgame, and unconditionally giving money to someone is not giving money to someone as a quid pro quo for a vote. In any case, since it takes roughly 70,000,000 votes to be elected president, that would cost $7B to $14B cash. Only a handful of people in the U.S. could swing that - not, of course, DJT - and it would be the greatest transfer of wealth from rich to poor in history.
   1081. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: October 18, 2017 at 06:51 PM (#5557355)
Speaking of insane people, Roy Moore tried to claim that NFL players were breaking the law by kneeling and that this law should be enforced against them on the grounds that if we tolerate lawbreaking, where will it end? This manages to combine Trumpian hypocrisy - Moore was removed from the bench twice for ignoring the law - with batshit crazy with incompetent lawyering with incompetent lawyering in a different way.

(Specifically, (1) no law forbids that, and (2) if such a law did, it'd be unconstitutional.)
   1082. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: October 18, 2017 at 06:56 PM (#5557356)
Does Bitter Mouse really not know what the legal issues are in the Wisconsin redistricting case now before the Supreme Court?


What a weird challenge. I know what the broad issues are, sure. Duh. I don't pretend to be a lawyer and I don't pretend to know either the legal minutia or how the SCOTUS will rule. I made that clear in my initial post on the subject. So please stop lying and trying to change the subject.

If that's not addressing the legal issues, Bitter Mouse must be using his patented "human definitions" again.


I was not addressing the legal issues that the SCOTUS would decide on. I was clearing up confusion from posters (that would be you and David) when it was clear you thought the case was about individual districts rather than all the districts in a state. David clearly has read up (as I would expect him to), sadly it is an open question whether or not you have. I still have no opinion on how the SCOTUS will decide, or on the relative strength of the case. Because IANAL.

However, I suppose he should get a bit of credit for apparently no longer advocating the use of the so-called efficiency standard in light of the criticisms made here.


Again with the strange, and the lies. When I introduced it I did so (as I stated in my first post) because it is good to understand issues. An attitude that would benefit you a great deal. In any event I do think that "unbalanced" wasted votes from partisan drawing of the line is an issue - and yes I like using that term versus talking about gerrymanders. I agree with the conclusions in the paper that David linked to (Thanks David!), in that I don't think the efficiency gap is the end all be all of the discussion, but that is important and likely contributes to the solution.

And I am very interested in what the SCOTUS decides as it has a chance of changing the landscape a fair amount for the better. As for what exactly I was advocating and now I am not, you need to consult the voices in your head on that one.
   1083. Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant Posted: October 18, 2017 at 06:58 PM (#5557359)
In any case, since it takes roughly 70,000,000 votes to be elected president, that would cost $7B to $14B cash. Only a handful of people in the U.S. could swing that - not, of course, DJT - and it would be the greatest transfer of wealth from rich to poor in history.


Now it's my turn to be pedantic. Why would a Republican have to give any money to anyone in CA, NY, or DC? Or a Democrat to give any money to anyone in TX, GA, or KS?
   1084. PreservedFish Posted: October 18, 2017 at 07:00 PM (#5557361)
Do you guys dream about Trump? He's absorbed your consciousness in his orange aura.


I almost never think about him when I'm anywhere other than this little corner of the internet.
   1085. PreservedFish Posted: October 18, 2017 at 07:04 PM (#5557365)
The #metoo trend is interesting. My facebook is full of testimonies of sexual harassment and abuse. A lot of peer pressure to identify as a victim right now. Some are legitimate and harrowing. Some of them are pretty small potatoes - one (a family member) basically led off admitting that she'd never been abused in any way and then convinced herself that being the subject of infrequent catcalls and inappropriate comments from strangers years ago entitled her to use the hashtag.
   1086. Joe Bivens Will Take a Steaming Dump Posted: October 18, 2017 at 07:10 PM (#5557371)
She is entitled to use that. Young women know that they are prey to creeps or worse , so catcalls and inappropriate comments can be traumatic. I'd give her the benefit of the doubt.
   1087. Srul Itza Posted: October 18, 2017 at 07:14 PM (#5557373)
Speaking of insane people, Roy Moore tried to claim that NFL players were breaking the law by kneeling and that this law should be enforced against them on the grounds that if we tolerate lawbreaking, where will it end? This manages to combine Trumpian hypocrisy - Moore was removed from the bench twice for ignoring the law - with batshit crazy with incompetent lawyering with incompetent lawyering in a different way.

(Specifically, (1) no law forbids that, and (2) if such a law did, it'd be unconstitutional.)



All of that is true. And no doubt there are many who are pointing this out in every media outlet available (except, of course, Faux, er, Fox News).

It is also true that, by spouting this nonsense, Moore increased his in-state popularity and his odds of being elected.

Because ALABAMA.
   1088. The Yankee Clapper Posted: October 18, 2017 at 07:24 PM (#5557380)
I was clearing up confusion from posters (that would be you and David) when it was clear you thought the case was about individual districts rather than all the districts in a state.

Again, this is just Bitter Mouse making up stupid stuff. I explained why the so-called efficiency standard measured "wasted votes" regardless of whether they were caused by gerrymandering. I don't believe David or I said anything about individual districts versus all districts in a state - that's a dodge Bitter Mouse introduced to try to get himself off the hook. I merely discussed what was being measured. Bitter Mouse now wants to stop defending a sloppy standard that he introduced and then defended in #223, when he even suggested David was being "dumb". Fine, but there's no reason not to note his initial stance, that it addressed a legal issue, and that he's doing his "pretend I never said that" act again.
   1089. Satan Says Posted: October 18, 2017 at 07:39 PM (#5557386)
The #metoo trend is interesting. My facebook is full of testimonies of sexual harassment and abuse

Harvey was a busy boy.
   1090. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: October 18, 2017 at 07:42 PM (#5557388)
I don't believe David or I said anything about individual districts versus all districts in a state - that's a dodge Bitter Mouse introduced to try to get himself off the hook.
That having been said, while BM is right that the plaintiffs in the underlying case want the case to be about all districts, a threshold question is whether that's a valid approach at all. In racial gerrymandering cases, plaintiffs are required to challenge specific districts, not the state map as a whole, and it's not clear why it should be different for political gerrymandering.
   1091. Joe Bivens Will Take a Steaming Dump Posted: October 18, 2017 at 07:47 PM (#5557391)
I'd like an answer to 1076. What's the etiquette?
   1092. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: October 18, 2017 at 08:07 PM (#5557403)
The answer is it depends on whether or not it upsets the hippies.
   1093. PreservedFish Posted: October 18, 2017 at 08:09 PM (#5557404)
She is entitled to use that. Young women know that they are prey to creeps or worse , so catcalls and inappropriate comments can be traumatic. I'd give her the benefit of the doubt.


The point is, they were not traumatic by her own reckoning. She had to search her memory banks to dig something up that would allow her to participate in the meme.
   1094. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: October 18, 2017 at 08:10 PM (#5557405)
She is entitled to use that. Young women know that they are prey to creeps or worse , so catcalls and inappropriate comments can be traumatic. I'd give her the benefit of the doubt.


I got groped once in New Orleans.

Mitigating circumstances? Well it was New Orleans. I was in a gay nightclub. It was Halloween. My costume was Alex DeLarge from "A Clockwork Orange", complete with a rather pronounced and protuberant codpiece.

Ah hell, I was asking for it.
   1095. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: October 18, 2017 at 08:11 PM (#5557406)
I don't believe David or I said anything about individual districts versus all districts in a state


Both of you talked about how it would impact individual districts, suggesting (among other things) it conflicted with VRA and such. So yeah, your belief is wrong.
   1096. tshipman Posted: October 18, 2017 at 08:31 PM (#5557421)
That having been said, while BM is right that the plaintiffs in the underlying case want the case to be about all districts, a threshold question is whether that's a valid approach at all. In racial gerrymandering cases, plaintiffs are required to challenge specific districts, not the state map as a whole, and it's not clear why it should be different for political gerrymandering.


Ultimately, while you can make a plausible case for either all districts or specific districts, the only thing that really matters is what Anthony Kennedy thinks.

The much better long-term solution is just proportional representation.
   1097. The Fallen Reputation of Billy Jo Robidoux Posted: October 18, 2017 at 08:37 PM (#5557427)
I can't offer substantive commentary on the Wisconsin redistricting case, but I'm highly amused that the named plaintiff (Whitford) was my Contracts professor in law school. I was amazed that he got into a suit (ok, jacket and tie) for press appearances. In law school, another professor remarked that "nobody actually is the stereotypical sandal-wearing, Volvo driving hippie" as part of a public talk. Whitford, who was present, interjected "oh, I am!" He very much is.

(I believe his son is also teaching law somewhere. Bradley Whitford, also from Madison, is a distant relation.)
   1098. The Yankee Clapper Posted: October 18, 2017 at 08:41 PM (#5557432)
I don't believe David or I said anything about individual districts versus all districts in a state

Both of you talked about how it would impact individual districts, suggesting (among other things) it conflicted with VRA and such. So yeah, your belief is wrong.

Lol. Hard to tell whether Bitter Mouse doesn't know what he's talking about, or is being thoroughly disingenuous. Perhaps both?
   1099. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: October 18, 2017 at 08:45 PM (#5557434)
Both of you talked about how it would impact individual districts, suggesting (among other things) it conflicted with VRA and such. So yeah, your belief is wrong.
Uh, you seem very confused. One might -- or might not; see my post at 1090 -- be able to challenge the overall map, but the end result of a successful challenge on that basis is still that individual district lines will have to be redrawn. And, yes, the VRA controls that.
   1100. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: October 18, 2017 at 08:47 PM (#5557437)
but I'm highly amused that the named plaintiff (Whitford) was my Contracts professor in law school.
Jesus; is there anyone on this site other than SBB who isn't a lawyer?
Page 11 of 20 pages ‹ First  < 9 10 11 12 13 >  Last ›

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

News

All News | Prime News

Old-School Newsstand


BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
danielj
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogOT - November* 2017 College Football thread
(182 - 1:53am, Nov 19)
Last: Lance Reddick! Lance him!

NewsblogHow an Astros player helped high-school kids have a cool World Series celebration
(1 - 12:20am, Nov 19)
Last: ajnrules

NewsblogOTP 13 November 2017: Politics, race now touching every sport
(1992 - 11:58pm, Nov 18)
Last: PreservedFish

Hall of MeritMock 2018 Modern Baseball Committee Hall of Fame Ballot
(76 - 11:33pm, Nov 18)
Last: robd4701

NewsblogOT - NBA 2017-2018 Tip-off Thread
(1410 - 11:06pm, Nov 18)
Last: don't ask 57i66135; he wants to hang them all

NewsblogOT: Winter Soccer Thread
(197 - 10:58pm, Nov 18)
Last: SPICEY WITH A SIDE OF BEER ON A BABYYYYYYY

NewsblogThe Eric Hosmer Dilemma | FanGraphs Baseball
(37 - 9:34pm, Nov 18)
Last: 6 - 4 - 3

Hall of Merit2018 Hall of Merit Ballot Discussion
(240 - 5:49pm, Nov 18)
Last: The Honorable Ardo

NewsblogStanton, Altuve capture first MVP Awards | MVP
(51 - 4:35pm, Nov 18)
Last: Lance Reddick! Lance him!

NewsblogJim Palmer on Mark Belanger and Omar Vizquel: The Hardball Times
(98 - 4:33pm, Nov 18)
Last: Walt Davis

NewsblogFangraphs: Let's Make One Thing Absolutely Clear About Aaron Judge
(22 - 3:42pm, Nov 18)
Last: Walt Davis

NewsblogThe story of Alex Anthopoulos: From tragedy to prodigy to Braves GM
(1 - 8:30am, Nov 18)
Last: bfan

NewsblogBraves will lose prospects, and possibly a lot more, for violating international market rules
(48 - 1:30am, Nov 18)
Last: Armored Trooper VOTTO

NewsblogJudge, Bellinger named BBWAA Rookies of Year | MLB.com
(86 - 9:25pm, Nov 17)
Last: Walt Davis

NewsblogDerek Jeter addresses Giancarlo Stanton rumors | MLB.com
(24 - 7:38pm, Nov 17)
Last: Khrushin it bro

Page rendered in 0.6717 seconds
47 querie(s) executed