|
|
Baseball Primer Newsblog— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand
Monday, November 12, 2018
Yes, political elections are never decided by one vote. But aspiring politicians look at the results of voting returns. If somebody is elected by a gazillion votes, politicians pay attention to this. Same thing if somebody loses but does better than expected.
Just as baseball teams copy what other teams have done successfully, politicians copy what other politicians have done.
Aaron Gleeman once said the difference between a 75-win team and an 80-win team is huge for free agents, and he was right, because free agents want A) money and B) the chance to win. They’re competitive athletes, they want to win, and politicians are no different.
(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.)
|
Bookmarks
You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.
Hot Topics
Newsblog: Primer Dugout (and link of the day) 2-22-2019 (12 - 2:40pm, Feb 23)Last: JJ1986Newsblog: OT Soccer Thread, v.2019 (316 - 2:37pm, Feb 23)Last:  AuntBea calls himself Sky PantherNewsblog: Texas Rangers: Brady Feigl not related to Brady Feigl after all | Fort Worth Star-Telegram (22 - 2:36pm, Feb 23)Last: Howie MenckelNewsblog: CARDS' FOWLER HOPES SHORT MEMORY WILL INCREASE PRODUCTION (5 - 2:20pm, Feb 23)Last: The Yankee ClapperNewsblog: OT - 2018-19 NBA thread (All-Star Weekend to Twelfth of Never edition) (172 - 2:15pm, Feb 23)Last:  Crosseyed and PainlessNewsblog: Peter Angelo's failing health prompts MLB to demand ownership answers from Orioles (5 - 2:14pm, Feb 23)Last: The Yankee ClapperNewsblog: Spring training roundup: Franco leads Phils over Rays (1 - 1:57pm, Feb 23)Last: The Yankee ClapperNewsblog: Alex Bregman: 'I want to be the LeBron James of baseball' (15 - 1:45pm, Feb 23)Last: maccoach57Newsblog: OT - Catch-All Pop Culture Extravaganza (February 2019) (234 - 1:12pm, Feb 23)Last:  stig-tossled, hornswoggled gef the typing mongooseNewsblog: Marwin Gonzalez, Twins (19 - 1:00pm, Feb 23)Last: DarrenNewsblog: White Sox sign Ervin Santana to minors deal (3 - 12:33pm, Feb 23)Last: asinwreckNewsblog: Bryce Harper not expected to receive offer from White Sox (44 - 11:15am, Feb 23)Last: BrianBriansonHall of Merit: 2020 Hall of Merit Ballot Discussion (165 - 11:11am, Feb 23)Last:  Dr. ChaleekoNewsblog: Report: Manny Machado will accommodate Padres' top prospect with move back to third base (4 - 10:42am, Feb 23)Last: TDF, trained monkeyNewsblog: Suzuki starts likely last spring opener with a hit for M's (1 - 10:14am, Feb 23)Last: Steve Balboni's Personal Trainer
|
|
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.
This is a lie, and I'm tired of you lying about me. I've posted a link to the thread. You can review it yourself.
Dan's shown repeatedly that he's got no interest in the truth, and that above comment you copied is just the latest example.
Seriously, just ignore this guy, and eventually he'll go away, or at least back to his baseball projections.
People unfriend Trump supporters. Now, obviously that's their right but it seems a bit incongruous to unfriend Trump supporters but to not unfriend people who hope those who disagree with them get cancer and have to suffer through rounds of chemo while watching their children die before dying themselves.
Others can speak for themselves, but I've just been fairly happy with Sam's court nominees.
Priorities.
This is the fiction of First Ladies. (Or First Husband when that comes to pass. Or First Spouse or whatever.) There is no "job." It's a ceremonial ribbon cutting role. The country elects a president. It doesn't elect a First Spouse. And the First Spouse doesn't do anything important.
So obviously Melania or anyone smarter than YR and Bivens can do it.
Just as long as she doesn't try to deny my future fat kid his greasy school lunches like that witch Moochele I'm cool with whatever FLOTUS does, you feel me?
The problem here would be that they both seem to be nothing more than... the same thing... in this case.
So, if it bothers Trumpkins that Melania gets judged for her ridiculousness? Blame her husband who only seems to care about the same thing.
You can't have it both ways.
I learned my lesson about how shameless you two were, which is why the actual letter I posted back then will not be posted again. At that point, I thought you two had a shred of human decency.
(In fairness, Andy might just not be smart enough to know what the truth is)
Speaking of shamelessness, show even one example of me talking negatively about Mormons on this site or shut the #### up.
The tennis/gym stuff became a thing because that was *all* you offered when issues like dysentery and bandits and sleeping conditions and whatever else was brought into the conversation. No one questioned your physical fitness/ability to actually walk 1000 miles, they questioned whether you'd thought through the rest of it. And you came back with a shrug, at most, suggesting your tennis acumen would protect you, or something.
Getting all haughty about intellectual dishonesty is fine, so long as you address situations where you stand accused of practicing it. Have a sense of humor about whacking bandits with tennis rackets (because, face it, that's a funny visual), ignore the snark that should be ignored, and maybe state your qualifications with respect to, say, dysentery and dehydration.
Last year I spent four days in Vegas and (separately) five days at Disney, walking between 15-20 miles a day, without breaking a sweat - but that's in the USA, with benches and water and shade when I chose. I've also spent a week in Egypt (20 years ago) wandering around Giza and Luxor. I caught some kind of stomach bug that gave new meaning to "fire in the hole" and rendered me incapable of upright movement for the better part of 36 hours. I'm guessing the conditions in the caravan are more like the latter than the former. Acuity at topspin ain't gonna help.
I doubt the prenup says "If Trump humiliates Hillary Clinton and her fans including Bitter Mouse and Andy by winning the 2016 presidential election as Scott Adams will predict, Melania must stay married to Trump."
Yes.
The letter that keeps coming up every time you deign to visit the OTP... for reasons that are a complete and utter mystery.
Clearly, your principled concern is evident for everyone to see.
You only think that was all I offered, because you ignored my argument, or (I don't mean this in a derogatory way) you didn't understand it. I argued that if a few thousand random young-ish people in a corner of the world with no training could do it, then so could I.
With that argument I don't need to get into issues of dysentery.
When I was 16 how did I know that I could drive even if I hadn't done it? Because I saw a bunch of people driving around in cars. "But what if a drunk driver crosses into your lane and kills you, huh, huh!??!" is not an argument that I can't drive. (This is similar to your argument that someone would try to rob me on the hike. I mean, yes, someone might try that, and I might be injured or killed and not complete the hike. It's neither here nor there to the point that I am able to complete the hike.)
That and continually misstating that the people who had just barely started the journey had done it, and if they could do it so could I.
The problem was that your argument completely ignored why someone would do it. I could go back and quote - but I presume "on a lark" would a fair summary of the why.
Which leaves out that the first caravan had about a 90% failure rate, and those consisted of what you claim to be "random" people who, at the very least, had the advantage of being acclimatized to the weather and local food.
The latest believable info I can find suggests they're getting some rides, but there's still a long way to go. Are you still completely confident you'd be in the 10% or so of those that make it? What makes you so sure you're immune to stuff like this? You can handwave and say "eh, dysentery", but it's an actual thing. And it's only one of many things.
That would indeed be a fair summary.
My argument - you still don't seem to understand it - is not that I'd be certain to "make it," any more than I'd be certain to take a drive in my car without getting into an accident and dying.
My argument is that I'm perfectly capable of making it.
You don't understand my argument.
You only think that was all I offered, because you ignored my argument, or (I don't mean this in a derogatory way) you didn't understand it. I argued that if a few thousand random young-ish people in a corner of the world with no training could do it, then so could I.
Besides the fact that you were conflating starting the march with finishing it, you kept bringing up irrelevant sidebars like media coverage and bus rides,** while ignoring the realities of extreme weather and diseases that you may or may not be immunized against. The fact that you're relatively fit for a 35ish year old is nice, but in the realities of the Mexican desert with ever-changing border targets,*** being fit to play a vigorous game of tennis would take you only so far.
We all respect your fitness. But we take your idea that you could finish such a brutal journey with a large mountain of salt.
** Which are more likely to be trucks with migrants packed together like sardines, with women and children given preference, while more physically fit men like yourself are left to keep walking. You've simply never addressed basic realities like this.
*** It's now up to 1700 miles, not 1000.
EDIT: To be clear, I am addressing the legal issue here. I certainly agree that Trump's action is unacceptable.
The conditions in the caravan are not those.
------------
I see, per 220, that you're simply talking about a different intellectual exercise. Which is fine. That's been stipulated twelve ways from Sunday. It would be polite for you to, once, recognize that others have been talking about something else, rather than being petulant and haughty about it.
My argument is that I'm perfectly capable of making it.
Well, sure, if walking 1000 or 1700 miles of the Mexican countryside were like walking 1000 or 1700 miles in a long lasting Indian Summer in Central Park, with plenty of Porta-Johns and food and water vendors along the way, and if you could sleep in a comfortable bed every night, I'd have to reconsider my skepticism.
Floyd Abrams disagrees
Which is why I saw - and still see - no need to devote any more effort beyond snark towards discussion of it.
It's the inverted pyramid of Trumpism... the occasional kernel of a valid point ("it's tragic that your husband was killed and you're being raped or fear being so, but I do not believe this should constitute a valid asylum claim" is actually one I would accept) gets swamped by the ridiculousness.
So why play along?
I'd rather deride, snark, and tease.
I suspect that so long as Trump isn't a removed and left to rot as an ignominious disgrace on the country in the trash heap of history - this is a practice I'm sure will be quite useful, valuable, and proper.
I don't know that he's to the point where electroshock is warranted, but certainly he appears to be well on the way.
ETA: I suppose the more current reference is ECT.
But DJS didn't originally say that the poster wanted to remain anonymous (when in fact, it was that desire, and not anti-Mormon comments, that was the poster's only stated reason for leaving the site). So accusing them of "doxxing" is doubly wrong -- in fact, it was DJS' misleading accusations that resulted in the supposed "doxxing". If DJS had been accurate about why the guy had left the site, I assume that tshipman and Andy wouldn't have speculated about who it was.
This is not meant to excuse the unnecessary vitriol spewed by Sam and some others on this site. But DJS isn't above the fray here by any means, and owes tshipman and Andy an apology IMHO.
------------------------------
A question which I don't think Andy (who I think posed the original "challenge") ever answered: Why does it matter whether Ray or anyone else here could complete the caravan walk? What is the point of that discussion? I mean, I find it kind of interesting as a person who has done a lot of hiking and endurance sports, but I don't think it's relevant to any of the political discussions we were having.
I'm willing to be corrected. If true, does that change your analysis of the merits of the case?
Seriously Andy, Dan has blown lots of people and look at how successful he is!
Pointing out Ray's self-absorbed idiocy is a major form of sport for many of those who don't have the good sense to have the moron on ignore.
Go back a few more days and he probably covered himself in warm fudge too.
Andy made a comment that in his opinion, no one who posts here would complete the journey that the caravaners had just started.* Ray, in his typical Rayness, haughtily jumped in and said "I could. I go to the gym and play tennis twice a week." and we were off to the races.
*Which I agree was hyperbole at best.
And yet, many people are doing it.
If TGF were here he'd be talking about magic dirt.
And aren’t we all the poorer for not having anyone to remind us that the Papacy is the greatest force for good in the history of humanity and that many children may have seduced priests?
Making a false equivalency ("I am physically capable of walking 1000 miles, what's the big deal? It's a lark") belittles their condition and lacks empathy, calling into question whether a person's comments on the greater issues at hand should be taken seriously or not.
But DJS didn't originally say that the poster wanted to remain anonymous (when in fact, it was that desire, and not anti-Mormon comments, that was the poster's only stated reason for leaving the site)
Umm, exact quote from the letter.
I redacted what I could and left out every section that had information that could lead to the poster. This was in response to Shipman calling me a liar that a prominent BTF individual left because he was uncomfortable with the hostility towards his religion on BTF and being connected with BTF. I assumed -- obviously wrongly -- that Shipman would accept that, whether right or wrong, someone who was a Mormon felt that way about how the Mormon religion was treated on the site. His response was to double-down and try and figure out who it was, because this individual did not participate in political threads, as a general rule.
Shipman can talk big, but I *knew* what was in the threads we had to remove because of this disgusting behavior as does Jim (who made the decision to remove them based on the content that was in them at the time, including from Shipman). I single out Shipman primarily because he's the one so brazen as to outright dismiss and completely ignore the feelings of one who was personally hurt by anti-Mormon bigotry on this website.
Right, it was all complete irrelevancy by two of the more self-absorbed posters on the site. (FWIW, I've interacted with both Ray and Andy off-BBTF and they were both perfectly decent people, so I hope they don't take that too personally.)
SBB wasn't ignored by this community. The opposite, actually. I have to wonder what reality you're imagining.
Right, but you were a liar then and you're a liar now.
In 2015, you said that it was people in the politics thread who made those comments. It was not.
In 2018, you said that I made bigoted anti-Mormon comments. I have not.
Both of these are flat lies.
(I think it's also pretty clear from context that Mormon posters were not "hounded off the site", but clearly one guy felt like he was acting in an abundance of caution. That's his right. Also amusing to note: Post 208 vs. 238. In the span of 30 posts, Dan went from never posting the letter again, to posting it. Man of principle.)
Do you guys have the original quote? I thought someone had said "Someone from BTF could do that" or something to that effect.
And yes, McCoy, like the article that I half-remembered that I was able to find when I had internet back that wasn't on my phone, the one for which you called me a liar, I'm not making up that I remember something to this effect. Again, I acknowledge my memory is not perfect.
forever.
#238 thanks. That part of the letter doesn't appear to have been posted when you first cited it back in 2015. It doesn't appear to be the stated reason why the poster left, but I acknowledge that it may have contributed to his leaving (given there may be other, still unpublished parts of the email).
I still think the accusations of "doxxing" was inaccurate, as people had no reason to believe the poster in question was seeking anonymity.
Wait, really?
How many of them are pampered, coddled fancy lads? You’d be lonely.
Then you posted a question like "I'm not sure, didn't Romney win 18-20 year-olds in 2012?" McCoy then wrote a parody of Ray's post using your name (It was obvious to me what he was doing but if you didn't pay attention to Ray's earlier post it may not have been obvious to you).
And then you told him to impale himself on a spike or something like that.
I've always known you to be honest, so if you feel I did not make it clear enough that the poster didn't want his name thrown around, then I cannot reject that this is a possibility. But there's still well more than enough casual Mormon-hatred, expressed gleefully and profusely, for me to be furious about it.
This is the weird cult that baptizes Jews after they die so they can become Mormons in the afterlife. Wah.
It wasn't hyperbole at all, because Andy believes it.
That you think it was hyperbole just shows how ridiculous Andy's argument is.
Furious you say? Somebody got a wedgie in their magic underwear.
In that case, I can only offer my sincere apology. I did not see the initial Ray post and I took the post at face value. I jumped too quickly to a conclusion.
If there's anything I can do for you personally to atone, whether you keep an Amazon wishlist or have a preferred charity, or something else, please let me know.
Well, he can't disagree about whether it's clear to me; I can assure you that it isn't. He may argue that it's clear to him.
There is a case from the 1970s called Sherrill v. Knight; It does not hold that any particular reporter must be given access, though. It's purely a procedural due process case. (In that case, while the D.C. Circuit did rule that he had some procedural rights, it overturned the District Court's ruling that the WH had to publish a list of criteria in advance.) On substantive grounds, there's more recent caselaw, including but not limited to Sun v. Ehrlich, that seems to hold that reporters may not be entitled to any access. To the extent that the caselaw distinguishes, it may turn on the grounds I mentioned in my original post: the difference between press conferences and more general press access.
1) Physically walking 40 miles a day for however long it takes.
2) Doing that, but outside a gym.
3) Doing that without hotels at night, or shade, or water.
4) Doing that in the face of disease and dehydrations and blisters and sunburn and, and, and.
5) Doing that with the threat of armed gangs threatening to kidnap or kill you or take whatever stuff you have.
Ray alone "debated" the conditions of #1, while everyone else was talking about, well, everything else.
Andy loves posing hypothetical questions and then denying that the answers are true, even when the questions are about something personal to the people responding.
1) Physically walking 40 miles a day for however long it takes.
2) Doing that, but outside a gym.
3) Doing that without hotels at night, or shade, or water.
4) Doing that in the face of disease and dehydrations and blisters and sunburn and, and, and.
5) Doing that with the threat of armed gangs threatening to kidnap or kill you or take whatever stuff you have.
Ray alone "debated" the conditions of #1, while everyone else was talking about, well, everything else.
This is way too confusing to keep up with.
I'm glad I stayed out of this one. I'd need a good year to get back into shape to even tackle some of this; a work environment in which I always have access to beer (and occasionally hot dogs) has not been great for me. I sure as #### couldn't walk 1000 miles right now and I honestly don't think I could even when I was in better shape and played sports (other than golf).
If you ever think of something, though, please let me know, as I owe you a solid. I clearly wronged you in that last thread.
I think you made it clear after the fact, but not before. I agree with you on the overall point about people making casually bigoted comments here although I don't think it's limited to Mormonism (which I don't think has been much of a topic here in a long time).
So your virtriol was really intended for our Little Lord Fauntleray, the human veal? Oh my, he won’t take kindly to your tone.
Emphasis in the original.
It was not hyperbole, as he still has yet to agree that anyone on BBTF could. Yet he has no trouble thinking many of the people currently walking can.
At this point, most of those remaining have 18 years of grievances (I certainly won't say I've been all that classy, as I'm consciously not trying to be).
Emphasis in the original.
Yeah, that's the quote I was remembering. That the original challenge was that nobody at all could.
McClinch was in terrific shape, if I call correctly, but don't think he's been around. Kevin always talked about leg presses, so maybe he could do it (though he may be too old).
But they're not in a vacuum, they're motivated by fear, and that's keeping them going through not just the walking, but the crappy conditions and all the rest. Ray doesn't factor any of that; that real people will die, and 90% of them will drop out, and that the "it" that was originally meant in "no one could do it" meant actually living their world and needing to make such a journey. To Ray "it" is just a lark, an intellectual walk in the park. That's not meant as a criticism, just an observation.
Andy asked a hypothetical question and then refused to accept any answers that were contrary to his own.
I don't disagree with you. I mostly care about Andy being wrong, really. On a philosophical level, I don't believe in borders (but am forced to accept them as a pragmatist because of other realities).
As Ray asserts his own sincerity and truthfulness (because SOMEBODY has to), it's always worth reminding him from time to time about his year of malignant bullshit and his fake moral outrage about "cockholster homophobia."
He's compounded his contemptible playacting by silently cringing about it ever since being caught cockhanded. It was so incontestable even Ray couldn't find a loophole. Somehow, though, this dedicated conversationalist hasn't had a word to offer about what he did.
Ray fluffing his nonexistent reputation for integrity while attacking a parade of other posters for their supposed failure to meet his standards is... not a good look at oneself.
It's really hard to have a shootout in chess.
Honestly, I think part of the problem is the time. High-end chess is *too good*. I think that time pressure makes sports/games generally better. I've felt for a long time that high-level chess should be Rapid/Quick with short clocks.
Even the above argument revises history. I posted Andy's initial challenge above. It had nothing to do with all of these other factors that people started citing later about "motivation," that you're now obsessed with. The challenge I responded to was purely about the physical conditions. Andy made that very clear in his next two posts on the topic, including post 1402 of the thread, in which he said "The motivation is certainly there, but we're still talking about a thousand ####### miles." He didn't think "motivation" was going to propel someone who couldn't handle the physical journey:
He followed a legal order from his commander in chief and refrained from criticizing him publicly while deftly deflecting the question.
The way to non-violently and legally persuade some of the people not to throw rocks at soldiers that might get the rock throwers killed is to make it clear to them that if they throw rocks at soldiers it might get them killed.
This reduces violence.
Only 150 votes, so it certainly didn't impact the election, but it is amusing to note.
It's a legal order. He has no choice but to obey. And what potential harm are they in? Surely not from rock throwing migrants.
Pro-gun election spending, 2018: $9.4 million and outspent by gun control groups
A decade ago, many Democrats in numerous red states sought the NRA's endorsement. This year: three did.
Overt advocates of gun control flipped House seats in Texas, in Colorado, in Georgia, and in other gun-friendly areas.
If the rock throwers are too far away to reach the soldiers - sure.
Otherwise... not so much.
You know what? That Marie. Va va va VOOM, amirite?
Too bad she can't call herself Marie Osmond any more, since she's married, and Mormon men don't allow their ####### to keep their maiden names,
Oh, and Ray? Go #### yourself.
They will be too far away. They are heading to Tijuana, which is the one place where we actually do have a border wall. I don't think rocks lobbed over the wall indirect artillery fire style are much of a threat to helmeted soldiers.
Even if he was intransigent. He still posts on topic though, right?
Gun control has never been about the money, and the left's focus on that is misplaced.
Gun bans are unpopular, and the kind of limitations that are popular are seen as being ineffective.
Disarm the cops. Now. Use unarmed drones and robots.
It wasn't hyperbole at all, because Andy believes it.
I believed it then and I believe it now, regardless of whether one or 10 or 100 of you are physically capable of walking 1000 miles in ideal conditions. Hell, give me a couple of months and I could probably do it myself if the money was right and I could sleep in a hotel every night, and I'm 74.
All of which has absolutely NOTHING to do with the sort of conditions faced by those migratory asylum seekers. NOTHING.
There have been scores of news stories published over the past month or so, describing the real conditions of that march in graphic terms. It involves heat prostration, torrential downpours, sleeping in the cold with skimpy blankets, diseases, harassment, malnutrition, and occasional rides in rickety trucks where people are packed together like sardines.
Oh, and route changes that now have added 700 more miles to the originally planned 1000. I just posted that story a day or three ago, and got no response to it.
There's nothing in the lives of anyone here that would have prepared them to finish such an ordeal. The only thing that enables a handful of the original marchers to make it to the border is the fear of the alternative: Predatory gangs; psychotic spouses; etc.
What would the "alternative" be for anyone here? Other Primates making fun of them when they got back home without completing the walk?
Again, this isn't to denigrate the Adonis-like shape of some of your bodies, or your physical capacity to walk 1000 miles in a month on some treadmill in San Diego. It has to do with finishing a 1000 mile walk while undergoing the identical obstacles that those migrant marchers are undergoing.
Oh, and you don't get new shoes. Sometimes it might just mean walking on a worn out pair of sandals. How far can you walk on a pair of feet with blisters?
Well let’s see. I open up with a quick caveat:
That’s certainly true.
Probably more relevant to the discussion at-hand than playing tennis. I’m a seasoned hiker, as is my wife and daughter, although we don’t hike nearly as much since moving to the east coast.
But hey, my toenail is almost completely regrown! Thanks for letting me share!
And that’s my estimated top pace in my current handsome but not-exactly fighting trim for one day with no preparation.
It’s funny, because unlike our Little Lord’s declarations of certitude all I see from me are caveats and noncommittal mentions of relevant experience. In fact, despite me being undoubtedly a better, more durable, and more experienced desert hiker than the Little Lord, my statements are quite reserved compared to his.
Pretty sure it didn’t come from me. I assume you’re all a bunch of incels.
*finger guns*
Ladies and gentlemen, I give you not Marathon Man, but Marathon Dan.
Thanks for pointing out #256. I don't know where 40 miles a day comes from. I was unaware there's a time limit for them to get to their destination.
But my same rationale applies: If they can do it, so can I.
Remains true. If they can do it, so can I.
You act like they're endurance trainers or something. Like I was trying to keep up with Lance Armstrong. But of course that's silly. There are men doing this. Women. Children. Adults carrying children. The only commonality among them is that they're not elderly.
Oh, so now motivation does factor in heavily. In the quote I posted above in 274 you seemed to be denying that, as you said "The motivation is certainly there, but we're still talking about a thousand ####### miles."
Regardless if nobody is making it to the border I'll agree I can't either. But your contention has not been that. Your contention has been that many of them _will_ do it -- but that nobody on BBTF could.
Well, a couple of hundred have made it to the border, but they took busses from Mexico City to TJ.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main