User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
Page rendered in 0.7413 seconds
48 querie(s) executed
| ||||||||
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Discussion
| ||||||||
Baseball Primer Newsblog — The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand Monday, July 23, 2018OTP 2018 July 23: How sports and American politics made each other
(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: July 23, 2018 at 08:42 AM | 1431 comment(s)
Login to Bookmark
Tags: football, off topic, politics |
Login to submit news.
You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks. Hot TopicsNewsblog: Rays plan to open season with fans at Tropicana Field
(27 - 11:38am, Jan 18) Last: What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face? Newsblog: Empty Stadium Sports Will Be Really Weird (11793 - 11:30am, Jan 18) Last: ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Newsblog: Former Oakland Athletics pitcher Dave Stewart bids $115 million on share of Oakland Coliseum (4 - 10:38am, Jan 18) Last: Jay Seaver Hall of Merit: David Ortiz (36 - 9:34am, Jan 18) Last: jacksone (AKA It's OK...) Newsblog: NBA 2020 Season kick-off thread (816 - 7:39am, Jan 18) Last: NJ in NJ Newsblog: MLB rule changes: League still discussing universal DH and expanded playoffs for 2021 season (12 - 6:40am, Jan 18) Last: manchestermets Hall of Merit: Andy Pettitte (58 - 12:14am, Jan 18) Last: Chris Cobb Hall of Merit: 2022 Hall of Merit Ballot Discussion (82 - 10:58pm, Jan 17) Last: Dr. Chaleeko Hall of Merit: Mark Teixeira, Justin Morneau and Prince Fielder (5 - 9:57pm, Jan 17) Last: Dr. Chaleeko Newsblog: 2021 BBHOF Tracker Summary and Leaderboard – Baseball Hall of Fame Vote Tracker (524 - 9:54pm, Jan 17) Last: DanG Newsblog: New York Yankees, DJ LeMahieu finalizing six-year, $90M contract, sources say (25 - 8:30pm, Jan 17) Last: Walt Davis Newsblog: MLB suspends political donations after DC riot (135 - 8:28pm, Jan 17) Last: Howie Menckel Newsblog: LHP Martin Perez returns to Boston Red Sox on one-year deal, source says (2 - 5:56pm, Jan 17) Last: villageidiom Sox Therapy: Benny's Gonna Jet? (15 - 4:48pm, Jan 17) Last: Darren Newsblog: Yankees sign pitcher Corey Kluber, two-time Cy Young Award winner (22 - 4:26pm, Jan 17) Last: Walt Davis |
|||||||
About Baseball Think Factory | Write for Us | Copyright © 1996-2014 Baseball Think Factory
User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
|
| Page rendered in 0.7413 seconds |
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.
You mean, not by the author of the article that wrote the article, had the article published, and put the quote in the headline? Along with the non-quote: "FREED FROM TRUMP, MICHAEL COHEN SEES A NEW IDENTITY: NATIONAL HERO"
Not that author?
He colluded with a hostile foreign nation to win his "election." If that's not enough for you, you don't ####### "lean left."
...you're probably wondering what evidence there is of that and why what Hillary did is not worse.
No, Ray. We're talking about people who are at the very least in the middle. Not Team Cockholster Professional #### Gobblers.
How many lies can Sam tell before the new page gets broken? I've attacked Cohen from day one and have pointed out on several occasions here how unethical and terrible a "lawyer" and person he is. I've been consistent all along as to who Michael Cohen is. It's the sudden hero worshipers who have changed.
As evidenced by his long term association with Donald Trump. (No one is "hero worshiping" Cohen; merely noting that he's a larger rat than the previous rats who have turned on the primary rat.)
You mean, not by the author of the article that wrote the article, had the article published, and put the quote in the headline? Along with the non-quote: "FREED FROM TRUMP, MICHAEL COHEN SEES A NEW IDENTITY: NATIONAL HERO"
Not that author?
Tell you what, Ray: Go track down the name of the person who actually wrote that oh-so-incriminating message, and report back to us. (HINT: It wasn't the author of the article.)
And if you read the article, you'll see that it was just that---an article---not an opinion piece.** She was simply reporting the shift in opinion about Cohen.
Also note that very few authors of mainstream publications like Vanity Fair write the headlines on articles that appear under their bylines.
I know your entire identity seems to hinge on finding Leftists who think Cohen is now their "hero", but you need to do better than this.
** Contrary to what you and Trump seem to believe, reporting facts that neither you nor Trump want to accept doesn't mean that the reporting is Fake News. It's just reporting.
the enemy of my enemy is my friend, moron. the only hero here is yours, and he's going down.
You said I had "turned on" Cohen. That was, not surprisingly, false. There was no turn.
Right. Which proves my point about Cohen's sudden hero status. Thanks for agreeing.
Whereas I've always been of the mind that the man is an unethical lying piece of (likely criminal) scum who can't be believed when he says what the weather is unless his statement is independently verified.
and he was Trump's closest confident and adviser for decades. Says something about something.
Ray, what crime are you alleging Hillary committed?
I think we've been pretty clear about what Trump's potential liabilities are. What is your theory of the case that you'd bring against Hillary for purchasing opposition research?
Being a Clinton. That is easily enough, but worse she is a Democrat, and for the final straw she ran against and got more votes than the dear leader. All of these are crimes. Bad, bad crimes.
Good news about Trump showing his teeth to Putin: At least 8%, and possibly 18% of Americans agree with you! That's more than watch "Game of Thrones," and that show is huge.
Only 47% of Americans say Trump is not tough enough on Russia... wait, correction. It's 47% of Republicans who believe that.
Can we stop with the "when did you stop beating your wife" type "questions"? I never alleged she committed any crimes in this area. (A violation of 793f re her server I did allege, which is an entirely different topic.)
I would not bring any case against her, nor is there a case against her, nor did I ever say there was. In fact I said that EVERY campaign should be morally obligated to take a meeting with someone who the campaign believes may have some valuable and truthful oppo research, NO MATTER if the information is coming from an enemy power or not. So I'm fine with her trying to dig up dirt on Trump from Russia sources connected to the Russian government. I'm not the one obsessed with "collusion"; that's an obsession of you and yours. (What collusion-related crimes did Trump commit?)
Incidentally, what's the answer to my hypo that Baravelli thankfully reminded me of?
If Russia goes to the Clinton campaign and says, "We have information that Donald Trump sexually assaulted twelve women," should the Clinton campaign take that meeting?
No, they should inform the FBI, as previous D campaigns did.
But, you see, we ARE alleging that the Trump campaign committed crimes. So you claiming that "what Hillary did" (purchase opposition research from a vendor used by both parties?) is worse seems odd if you don't have a theory of why it's a crime.
Of course, that's if I take you seriously.
I distinctly remember people telling you that, more than once.
Ray has no objective criteria for anything, He has said so many, many times. He makes judgements based on what other people think. Trump is great because he's not as horrible as the most unhinged liberal thought he would be. has he nuked Australia yet? No? then he's the greatest president ever.
WRT your question, he doesn't think Hillary did anything wrong, and he doesn't think Trump did anything wrong. But unhinged liberals want to hang Trump for collusion, therefore, since Hillary's collusion was worse than Trump's (a theory pulled straight from his nether regions), Hillary should be investigated and prosecuted first.
STAFFER: Hello, Clinton/Kaine 2016, thank you for helping us make history!
RUSSIA: Is Hillary there please. Must speak Hillary.
STAFFER: Can we send you a yard sign? Bumper sticker?
RUSSIA: Do not need stupid sign. Have fat binder. Is Donald Trump grabbing ladies, yes? How much Hillary want for binder?
STAFFER: Would you like to attend one of our campaign events?
RUSSIA: Yes. Private event. Under offramp near airport. Two AM, you bring fifty thousand cash, small bills no?
STAFFER: I'm afraid that's not on my checklist, sir. If you could please hold while I contact the FBI.
And how is that not allowing an enemy foreign government to influence our election?
You're not following the discussion. Sam's comment that I replied to didn't necessarily have to do with criminality per se, but with collusion and impeachment.
Collusion that is not criminal may -- depending on one's personal compass, though not mine -- be immoral or impeachable or simply bad, but it's not... criminal.
Concession accepted. No attempt to answer the substantive point. Just ad hominem. That's the tell that you don't have an argument that you'd not be embarrassed to make.
I distinctly remember you telling Andy -- maybe Baravelli can find it -- that the "Tell the FBI" claptrap that the left was spinning was silly and unrealistic.
But again, "take it to the media or the FBI" and the campaign informing the FBI simply enables Russia to potentially influence the election. The only way Russia is NOT so enabled by the campaign is for the campaign to simply say "We are not interested in anything you have to tell us" and for the campaign to say and do nothing else.
Unless this whole "Allowing an enemy foreign government to influence our election" thing is just so much BS, which of course it is, which of course is the point that my hypothetical shows, which of course is why you responded to it with ad hominem rather than substance.
To be fair, you are pretty stupid.
That is your mistake right there, your point - such as it is - is not substantive. Explain how going to the FBI, as every other campaign would have and should have done - is "letting a foreign government influence the election", other than in the most trivial fashion.
This is some kind of double-reverse bankshot logic that I'm not even going to attempt to follow.
But that's just it--there is a criminal investigation into Donald Trump's campaign. There are several specific things that they are accused of doing with respect to the Russia investigation:
1. Conspiracy to commit computer crimes
2. Knowingly soliciting donations (in kind or otherwise) from foreign nationals.
3. Participating in the Russian conspiracy to defraud the United States.
4. Obstruction of justice in the investigation of the above.
Separately, he faces liabilities in the cover-ups of his sexual indiscretions:
5. Felony campaign finance law violations
"Collusion", as has been explained to you several times, is a shorthand for the crimes listed in 1-4. There is not really very widespread support for impeaching Donald Trump for just colluding with a foreign power, which is what the Trump Tower meeting already establishes by the public statements of those involved. There is no support for this, because the mere fact of taking the meeting was not a crime. We are all waiting for the Mueller investigation to finish because it will help establish how likely 1-4 are, and whether there were crimes likely to have been committed.
The only way to try to prevent our election from being influenced by the enemy foreign government would be to say to them "We are not interested and do NOT tell the media."
...If, that is, preventing election influence by an enemy foreign government is the overriding principle, as claimed.
That's not what you said. You said informing the FBI was allowing a foreign government to influence the election. See #1222.
Are you modifying your argument?
Right. Which proves my point about Cohen's sudden hero status.
Yes, as evidenced by a single written message by a single unidentified person. Congratulations, Sherlock.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
the enemy of my enemy is my friend, moron. the only hero here is yours, and he's going down.
In which case Cohen would be performing the Useful Idiot role for the Russia probe, just as Ray's performing the Useful Idiot role on behalf of Trump. The only difference would be that Cohen's role might prove to be a bit more Useful than merely spouting nonsense on an internet forum.
You overestimate the ability of most "men" here, to achieve an erection, without a prescription and an hours notice.
No, I am not modifying my argument. Again, please follow the discussion you're participating in. David's answer in 1219 had two components: (1) You tell the media (and the FBI) but we will not; and (2) we will tell the FBI.
In either case it is influencing the election, but in the post you're replying to here I was dealing specifically with the case (1A) subset: You tell the media but we will not.
The Yankee Clapper is fond of suggesting his (?) fellow message board users and/or non-Republican politicians go run on a particular issue when he (?) doesn’t have the facts on his side. So, The Yankee Clapper, please tell your Republican party to run on Trump’s claim that he is the toughest president on Russia in this country’s history. Not sure the issue will get above defending Alex Jones and whining about the shadowbanning lie on bumper stickers, but something tells me the party can find room to defend this claim.
It's not a substantive question, so there's no substantive answer. It's a Star Trek TOS way to cause a computer to explode. "I can't do anything. But not doing something might do something. Uh oh, I can't do nothing. I can't do something. I can't do nothing. Illogical. Illogical. Bzzz.. Fizz. Crackle. illogical. Boom!"
It takes some rather "creative" interpretations and/or quite a bit of as yet undiscovered evidence to support any of those charges. Wishcasting only gets you so far.
But that's not what you responded to. Re-read what you wrote.
You said that informing the FBI was allowing an enemy foreign government to influence our election.
Did you misquote?
***
In fact, I said that in my post.
Do you have trouble reading?
See if Raybot can figure out the difference between that and, e.g., illicitly funding a presidential campaign, or secretly manipulating an election by stealing confidential information and coordinating the use of that information with a campaign, or hacking into voting machines, or secretly propagandizing to stir up racial hatred, or the like.
EDIT: For the sake of clarification, I am not saying that each of the things in the previous paragraph happened or involved Trump. I am simply distinguishing legitimate ways of affecting an election and illegitimate ways.
None of which has the slightest relevance to the point we're discussing which is a campaign allowing an enemy foreign government to influence our election. Which my "Hillary, this is Vladimir; we have incontrovertible evidence that Trump sexually assaulted 12 women, can we show it to you?" hypothetical precisely goes to.
If you felt a sharp pang of professional jealousy over Shipman's post, then yes. Yes, he is.
This sort of seems like that scene from The Ides of March. Once you sit down in the meeting you're screwed. It seems like informing the FBI and getting them to investigate is the best option. Aside from any legal issues, meeting with the Russians to get the dirt opens you up to accusations that this is all just cooked up by partisan hacks and foreign enemies.
Of course, as evidenced in the above paragraph, pretty much all of my knowledge about US political campaigns and law comes from movies, so I'm not sure why my opinion is worth anything.
Re-read 1222:
Lol.
I've heard that hypotheticals tend not to have happened.
Hypotheticals are a good way to test principles. We've seen here that put to that test the stated principles are shown not to be principles at all.
Unless you people convince him of it. You can do it! I have faith in you!
yea you're Kant with the categorical imperative here. get real. here in reality your boy is the one that met with the Russians, likely to accept stolen info on his opponent. you can rosterbate to fantastical meetings that never happened all you want.
I'm flummoxed.
You said this:
But you didn't respond to David's answer in 1219.
You responded to my statement in 1218. I never mentioned the media, I said to just go to the FBI. But you said that just informing the FBI was allowing a foreign government to influence the election.
When pressed (because that statement is crazy), you changed your argument to mention the media. Then you claimed you didn't. And now I've wasted all this time responding to you, so I guess you win after all.
Stupidity and greed aren't crimes either, but they're sure going to send some folks to jail.
If you think that, it's because you don't understand it.
Because people won't just ignore Ray.
I did, in 1226 and 1231. Those were in response to David's 1219.
My 1222 and 1224 were in response to you.
You conflated something.
No, I didn't change my answer at all; I was simply responding, separately, to different points you and David had made.
I did not change my argument. I continue to state, and to stand by, and to maintain, my statement that just informing the FBI would be allowing a foreign government to influence the election. As obviously it would be.
Oh okay. Your argument is just stupid, but you're clinging tenaciously to it until you inevitably deny you said it.
Great. I'm done here.
And in 2019 he'll claim that anyone who makes a similar argument is homophobic.
Trump's latest diversionary tactic should really throw sand into the special counsel's gears. Robert Mueller probably doesn't even remember the time he convicted John Gotti with testimony from a mobster who cut a federal deal. But Sammy Gravano was only a vicious murderer, whereas Michael Cohen is involved with taxi cabs maybe.
Yeah. Dumb.
The Trump campaign should have reported it to the FBI and not used any such information. Instead they lied about it, over a period of ... well years now. And almost certainly used the information. The fact that Ray can't distinguish between using and not using, between telling the FBI and lying about it tell you everything you need to know.
More nihilism. Boiled down to it's essence, this is no different than the infamous Bobby Knight quote "I think that if rape is inevitable, relax and enjoy it."
This much attention is clearly a prize to Ray. They might as well fellate him like he's Iran.
I'm reading a recent book called Denmark Vesey's Garden. It's a history of South Carolina and the battle between blacks and whites to control history, to own the narrative of slavery in S.C. The book is intended as a introduction to the question we face today of what to do with monuments dedicated to slavery, the Confederacy and those who supported them.
I’m an American, but I followed the Philippines presidential elections closely, and wanted very badly for Duterte to lose, because I believed he was going to have a ton of his citizens murdered.
What are my options? Can I start blogging in Tagalog about how awful he is? Can I write letters to the editors of Philippine newspapers urging their citizens to vote against Duterte? Suppose I uncover proof that Duterte was a rapist—can I leak it to Julian Assange in the hopes that he’ll publicize it? Can I donate money to the candidates running against him?
Now all of the above, but assume I’m a US Senator—any difference?
Ding ding ding. It’s the biggest problem with all these far-fetched “kompromat!” Russia-gate theories: the “puppet” is so clearly not doing the bidding of the “puppet-master!” America is still ramping up tensions with Russia as aggressively as we were under the last few administrations. If Trump is a secret Russian agent he’s doing a really shitty job at it!
These talking points seem to be circulating among the GOP chorus as proof of Trump's willingness to stand up to his boss. One of them in particular is odd, the destruction of the Russian mercenary unit. There are three obvious problems here. First, there's no evidence at all that Trump was involved with the destruction of the mercenary force, since the destruction of the Wagner unit was apparently performed in self-defense. Second, the Russian position, which the US happily accepts, is that the mercenaries were not under Putin's control. As a result, nobody in the White House has been willing to confront Putin over the behavior of these mercenaries. If it was discussed in Helsinki, for example, then nobody reported it. In fact, Trump's has stated the US should remove troops from Syria, even though his military advisors have supported the exact opposite position.
Glenn Greenwald has been spouting this #### too. It is odd to de-emphasize the acts of the Russian government directed by Putin.
I have not yet made up my mind about how to treat these types of monuments. Take the monument to Calhoun in Charleston. On one hand, I feel it should remain as a historical document to the memory of what some people thought of him. However, this monument leaves the lesson on the consciousness of those living that Calhoun was great and ought rightly to be revered. Perhaps a solution is to keep him there but add others right beside him: MLK, Lincoln, Malcom, or a list of slave names such as is the Vietnam Memorial.
That ignores that Trump gave U.S. forces in Syria rather robust rules of engagement and a mandate not to worry much about Syrian sensitivities while destroying ISIS and aiding anti-Assad rebels. That the U.S. didn't publicly wipe Russia's face in the dirt about destroying its mercenary convoy seems no more than prudent diplomacy rather than an indication that anyone actually thought the Russian government wasn't involved.
This depends on who you think NATO is supposed to be guarding against, but Russia ain't winning a war against (UK+France+Germany+...less important countries. I suppose the Poles might be super-keen on that action).
Who else attacks a NATO member, and where? India invades a British or French Indian ocean territory?
China would be a potent advisary, but where are they going to attack a NATO member other than the US?
You may want to rethink that. The Russians have ~ 20,000 tanks; at one time Germany had 2,000 tanks under NATO auspices, but now would be hard-pressed to quickly deploy 200. The U.K., France & Germany would have difficulty mounting an effective defense of Western & Central Europe on their own.
...
You think tanks are relevant in modern nation state conflicts?
Yes, exactly -- now you're finally, finally getting it.(*)
If it can impact our election by tearing down the Berlin Wall or talking openly to the press, absent actual criminal conduct, there's no reason for concern if it provides true and relevant and material information about one presidential candidate to another candidate.
(*) Do be sure to tell the others.
LOL. Of course, the Clinton campaign did exactly the opposite. It took a bunch of meetings with Russia AND told the FBI.
His "answer" in 1219 is the product of a parallel, nonexistent universe for the reason I just noted.
Disingenuousness or naivete? You make the call.
I mean, really. The issue isn't wrt "influence". The issue under investigation is "interference".
LOL. You mean like the Clinton campaign did? I mean, pay no heed to the fact that the Clinton campaign agent took a bunch of meetings with Russia and became an FBI informant whose "information" derived from Russia led to a bunch of wiretaps of the Trump campaign.
What's the weather like in Fantasyland?
Everybody does. You need something to stop them.
And what YC tries to spin as pro-NATO is really an attempt to blow up NATO.
Let's just say that your concern for Syria's children is curiously selective.
And of course, Russia didn't "approach" the Clinton campaign; the Clinton campaign approached Russia and actively sought out its assistance.
NATO's mutual defense obligation only applies to attacks in North America or Europe, including North Atlantic territories, or Turkey. It does not apply to attacks on territories elsewhere in the world. (I guess we didn't want to commit ourselves to propping up the vestiges of colonial empires.)
Still lying, I see. You're as sociopathic as your hero Trump.
You don't "see" in the least.
Fake lawyer doesn't know the difference between an agent and independent contractor. Film at 11. Troll pretends not to know the difference between the Russian government and someone from Russia. No film needed.
LOL. I'm not even sure the target demo is going to buy that one, but one can never tell.
Utterly meaningless distinction in this context. Completely and totally. Might fool some people, who knows? Smart people know better.
Oh yeah, that's your theory that a senior person in a government who discusses government-obtained information with someone in the typical course of their business isn't "acting on behalf of the government" unless and until they affirmatively say, "I'm acting on behalf of the government."
I was time-pressed and unable to get to that doozy earlier, but suffice it to say it's as absurd as all the other stuff on this topic you've invented and regurgitated. Maybe it will work with the target demo.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main