Brock Beauchamp
-
Posts
32,669 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
328
Content Type
Profiles
Minnesota Twins News, Rumors & Analysis
Minnesota Twins Videos
2026 Minnesota Twins Top Prospect Rankings
2022 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses
Minnesota Twins Trade & Free Agent Rumors
Minnesota Twins Fan Guides & Resources
2023 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses
The Minnesota Twins Players Project
2024 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses
2025 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses
2026 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses
Forums
Blogs
Events
Store
Downloads
Gallery
Everything posted by Brock Beauchamp
-
I'm not proud to admit this, but... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schadenfreude
-
That's my understanding as well.
-
Nah, the NFL itself has that completely under control.
-
To trade Kepler, you'd need a team willing to pay for capability, not current performance... kinda like Pressly... except much harder to get, as Pressly's performance was already elite, his numbers just didn't show it yet.
-
It's high school. One can "not talk about" something and still hear rumors spread like wildfire across school.
-
Blue voters don't have a reliable track record but based on how independents (like you and me, actually) are polling, there's a pretty good chance the GOP gets stomped this November. The partisans are who they are. Trump somehow took a significant portion of the independent vote in 2016 (proof that independents are just as dumb as the rest) but I think there's going to be a blowback on that decision in 2018. And if there isn't, **** it. All is lost so may as well just buckle in and go with it.
-
I also hate political calculations like that, especially for a lifetime appointment. In a perfect world, the vote is delayed by a few weeks while an investigation is completed. But given how my faith in the GOP doing the right thing has bottomed out at zero, this is the only way I see it playing out where the GOP is properly punished for their vile behavior.
-
At this point, the pragmatist in me is hoping that Kavanaugh gets railroaded through Congress and the vote is successful next week after Ford declines to testify due to the lack of an investigation into the accusation. Because, let's face it, Trump is going to get "his guy" either way. The chance of Democrats taking the Senate is tiny. But if they railroad Kavanaugh through and then Ford (and others) get their story out through the media, the GOP could be looking at a real ****storm just weeks before the election. I think the chance of Democrats taking the Senate actually increases if Kavanaugh is successfully put on the court (and I don't know if it really matters either way whether Kavanaugh is put on the court or Trump finds another young conservative to take his place).
-
This is pretty much a permanent state for me. I so wish Ford's information hadn't been passed to her of all people. I get that she's the head of the Democratic side of the Judiciary Committee but that's part of the problem. Democrats, get that woman OUT of positions of power. It hurts you so much more than it helps. She's the kind of establishment politicker that the country should reject from both sides of the aisle (in my eyes, she's McConnell Lite; not quite as vile but mostly because she's not as good at it as Mitch, not because she doesn't try as hard).
-
Which is why I fact check every article that seems off or slightly tainted against what Reuters has to say about it.
-
Agreed. When I first heard this, my response was "ehhhhhh, this is all really convenient". Then the details began to emerge that she has been talking about the situation for years and that she contacted Feinstein (ugh) some time back and that she initially wanted to remain anonymous (so this might not be a last-ditch move to distract from the nomination). The more information that comes out, the more I'm listening. I don't know if this is a deal-breaker for Kavanaugh (yet) but there appears to be some pushback gathering against Grassley trying to railroad the nomination through the Senate, as there should be.
-
Because it's about Trump, not the actual situation at hand. It's always about Trump.
-
I have few problems with the concept of identity politics. It's the execution, when coupled with the searching for outrage, where it all goes wrong. The silo effect and people searching for righteous high ground prevent anyone from working together, which means we get more conservative politics winning over a fractured liberal base. "I'm getting screwed because of how/where/whatever I was born" is fine. The inability to say "hey, you're probably getting screwed too, let's team up!" is where it goes wrong. I've been forced to admit that large portions of the left have become incredibly selfish. It feels as if they're more interested in screaming than actual change. Someone needs to remind them that perfect is the enemy of good.
-
Levi (and a few others) will love this video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0lcYP_zOOXg
-
It's almost as if wRC+ is only an offensive metric... There's a reason why Palka has an fWAR close to zero.
-
One of my biggest problems with the left today is that they're lumping everyone together as evil and the same. I don't think Sessions is evil. I think he's a misguided man with good intentions. He's a Keebler Elf gone wrong. He's not doing this in some elaborate plan to fool everyone. This is who he is. As my dad once said: "conspiracies don't really exist because no one cares that much about you to lie so elaborately". My dad is staunchly conservative and more than a little racist but the words ring true to this day. No one needs to craft a lie that large when they can easily trick a portion of the populace into pretty much anything if they proclaim it loudly enough.
-
What we need is a blue wave not in 2018 but in 2020. A census year. I'm loathe to say that gerrymandering is okay - it's really not - but what needs to happen is for the Democrats to either gerrymander the **** out of things so badly for the next decade that SCOTUS is forced to take action or they need to get their **** together and actually enact real campaign and district changes at the legislative level. The latter is a pipe dream so I'm pulling for the former. Why? Because a Democratic gerrymander won't try to permanently prevent people from voting by law. It's that ****ing simple. We can pull back from a Democratic gerrymander. I'm not so sure we can pull back from another Republican gerrymander.
-
Wyoming and its 500,000 people still get three electoral votes. If California had that same ratio of one electoral vote for every ~167,000 people, they'd have 236 electoral votes.
-
Which is why I believe a distributed electoral vote is the obvious answer. If a politician wins 60% of CA, they get 60% of CA's electoral votes. You still end up with a vote where a place like Montana gets a slight advantage but not the massive advantage we see today, which is patently unfair to those who live in populous states. The added bonus of this system is that it forces candidates to court the entire country, as every vote matters. Republicans can't ignore CA because a 10% swing of 50-something votes is a big deal. Inversely, Democrats can't ignore the middle of the country because one extra EC vote in 5-10 states starts to add up quickly. A second added bonus is that the nitwits in Ohio and Florida don't get to choose our ****ing president once a decade or so.
-
Except that wouldn't have changed anything. The court's political composition has been 5-4 in favor of Republicans for a long time. All of this is the electorate's fault, including the Democrats for nominating a reviled candidate who couldn't steamroll a complete buffoon in an election.
-
If there's nothing there, good. I don't want to see Kavanaugh go down in flames. All I want is transparency.
-
That seems about right.
-
Agreed, but Republicans need to release the ****ing documents. I don’t believe these nominations should be as politicized and vitriolic as they’ve become but we need to know who this guy is.
-
Yep, and every team implements it differently... because “moneyball” has no actual definition.
-
No, that was actually a jab at the baseball "purists" who enjoyed watching .600 OPS players litter the bottom of most MLB lineups through the 70s and early 80s. But damn, could those guys bunt.
