Brock Beauchamp

I can't fault Clinton for her stance on marijuana, as that's who she is and we should accept that fact. When the center starts to agree marijuana should be legalized, Clinton will move on the topic. It's both a positive and a negative to Clinton's political life. She listens to her constituency and changes when they change but rarely moves in the right direction before that time.

Sure, they need him to be elite but we need to remember the guy couldn't legally drink alcohol 22 months ago. Just because other players jumped all over MLB pitching at age 22-23 doesn't mean we should expect that of all players. It's an unreasonable standard to hold a prospect.

I run within a circle of people almost exclusively split between two disciplines: technology and the arts. You're underplaying how many of these people exist within the fringe left community, particularly the arts. And I'm not friends with the person who was being so completely ridiculous. If I was, she would have been unfriended immediately because I have neither the time nor patience to deal with that kind of behavior. And I agree these people contribute nothing to society but just as we shouldn't ignore the fringe right and all the damage they advocate, neither should we ignore the fringe left who wreak the same kind of damage through a different kind of intolerance. But to be clear, in no way am I saying the two are equivalent. IMO, the right is both more numerous and damaging.

Oh, and extend Buxton's numbers to a full season and he's roughly a 2.5 fWAR player. That's average starter material from a 22 year old player.

Buxton has 456 career PAs. He has drawn just 26 walks in that time. In his past 166 PAs, has has drawn 14 of those walks. When the season started, I said I expected Buxton to scuffle for awhile and then finish strong, getting his OPS somewhere around .700 on the season. Well, I was kinda right. I didn't expect either the horrible start or the All-Star finish but currently, his OPS sits at .687.

Levi is right on this. I run in a very liberal circle of friends and at least once a week, I see a completely nonsensical argument arise on Facebook. Last night, it was one very liberal woman completely dismissing a very liberal male's argument simply because he was male. The sad thing? He agreed with her. 100% agreement. But he began one statement with "I don't know..." and then followed it up with multiple paragraphs about how it's likely this is the case but he can't be 100% sure it's 100% of the case. Her response was "only a man could say 'I don't know' and leave it at that". Seriously. Multiple paragraphs of agreement, one small phrase that didn't sit with her and she dismissed his entire perspective, even though he was agreeing with her. When he reached out to her and asked her to go into detail what he did wrong so he can correct it in the future, she dismissed him again and said she didn't have time to educate him, as that obviously wasn't her job. Outrage is obviously her job but reaching out to allies, not so much. At that point she left the conversation because she was "too angry to continue". And no, I'm not exaggerating this situation even a little bit. I was dumbstruck while reading it. My own wife, who is about as neon blue as you can be in America, a woman who works harder than anyone I know to understand inclusiveness and alternative lifestyles, has been attacked as "CIS" more times than I can count. It's a running joke between us at this point because it's so absurd. I see this happen. All. The. Time. There is a toxic element in the American left where voices are dismissed because they come from a "conventional" human. Other voices are dismissed because they have the audacity to only agree 98% of the time. It's a race to see who can out-progressive everyone else and it often turns hostile if 100% agreement on all things isn't reached 100% of the time. And even if you agree, by god you better not use the wrong phrase, even if it's innocuous to 99% of human beings, because there's somebody out there who will take you to task for being so bloody insensitive to say such a thing (eg. "I don't know..."). And these are from people almost entirely in their 30s and 40s, not millenials. Spend 10 minutes on Tumblr, search a few prominent liberal hashtags, and then get back to me whether weaponized sensitivity is a thing or not.

Of all places, USA Today wrote a pretty solid article on why they aren't endorsing Trump. And to drive the point home why he's not comparable to Clinton on the "lies" front, read this jewel: "Trump has been on so many sides of so many issues that attempting to assess his policy positions is like shooting at a moving target. A list prepared by NBC details 124 shifts by Trump on 20 major issues since shortly before he entered the race. He simply spouts slogans and outcomes (he’d replace Obamacare with “something terrific”) without any credible explanations of how he’d achieve them." 124 shifts in policy. That's amazing. http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2016/09/29/dont-vote-for-donald-trump-editorial-board-editorials-debates/91295020/

Very good point.

Meyer.

Yeah, I don't understand why that trade was so highly regarded around here. I'm not sold on the idea dumping Meyer to alleviate 2017 salary was a good idea. If the Twins somehow magically find ways to improve with that salary, maybe it was okay... But objectively, it wasn't a great move. The Twins shouldn't have salary issues either way and they're nowhere near contention. Nolasco went off the books in 16 months no matter whether they traded him or not and he wasn't outrageously expensive in the first place. The Nunez trade was solid, the Nolasco trade was just meh. Doubly so since Santiago has been a crushing failure since the trade.

Yeah, primaries are brutal. I think it's in part because it's a large group of candidates who largely agree on the majority of topics; therefore, candidates get *really* ugly with one another to differentiate themselves from their opponents. I mean, the Bush/McCain black baby thing of 2000 still makes my head spin. Talk about yuck.

Yep. Sometimes the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Those laws were a mistake. They were also largely bipartisan and overwhelmingly supported by the public. Now that we've made the mistake, the important part is figuring out how to fix it, not to lay blame for widely supported actions taken over two decades ago.

My intent was not to paint an angelic picture of Clinton, as my vote for her will be reluctantly cast. My objection is to any implication that Trump and Clinton are equals. They are not, under any circumstances, equal. One is pretty typical politician fare with all the good and bad that comes with it. The other is an egomaniacal, flailing demagogue who has never looked beyond his own nose.

Sure, that's possible. I don't like how long it has taken Clinton to move on some pretty obvious subjects such as gay marriage. On the other hand, the more we learn of Clinton, the more her history makes sense. She's meticulous. She listens. She's intensely studious. She's open to change. Some of those political moves could be pandering. Others could be getting more information and using that information to change your mind. You know, pretty much what we expect of every reasonable human being on the planet. What you call "doing what it takes to get elected" could easily be viewed as "doing what her constituency wants her to do and listening to them, evolving her views to represent the people who voted for her". That can be a bad thing or it can be a good thing but it is neither automatically good nor bad in a vacuum. Clinton didn't start changing in her 60s. She's been in a perpetual state of evolution as a human being. That's not necessarily a bad thing, though I understand and sympathize with your reluctance to trust her because of it. I struggle to trust the woman myself. But, again, you're creating this sense of false equivalency. If you objectively view Clinton's statements and leave with the situation with a lack of trust, apply that thinking to the other guy. You won't leave the situation with a lack of trust, you'll be reeling from the sheer audacity of the stuff he has said and done over the past 40+ years. If Clinton is untrustworthy, Trump is a diabolical monster. So let's stop calling them the same and actually apply some nuance to the conversation.

I've spent the past several months reading up on various things about why we're seeing the Trump rise and it makes sense, though people are making bad choices in the process. Disclaimer: what follows is intentionally ignoring racial issues that affect non-whites because that's not my point. White America is pissed off. To an extent, they have a right to be pissed off. Wages have stayed flat for decades, there's little positive outlook, and the nation is changing. People are confused and scared. We're going on 40 years of politicians promising them the bad times of the 70s are behind us, yet nothing actually changes. Politicians juke and weave once in office and continue to support policy their constituency either doesn't like or doesn't understand (I believe an understated point missed by many analysts is the increasing complexity of the world without a corresponding increase in knowledge of the average voter). Trust in the system is non-existent within many circles of formerly establishment voters. Inevitably, from a frightened voting bloc emerges a fear candidate. In a perfect world, people would knuckle down and seek real solutions during these times but that's rarely how things play out in the real world. These situations usually lead to mob mentality because it's so much ****ing easier to blame the outsider than your own bad life choices. So we get a nation of increasing hostility to everyone who isn't the traditional white voting bloc: black lives matter, Muslims, homosexuals, immigrants, etc. This isn't the first time it's happened in this country. It's not the fifth time it's happened in this country. Trump is directly pulling from the Nixon playbook with his hammering of "law and order", which was a direct response to a frightened white populace in a post race riots America. He's pulling from the late antebellum period and the intense northern hatred of Irish and blacks. Lots of people compare Trump to various candidates but after doing quite a bit of reading, I was surprised to find I drew the most parallels to Andrew Jackson. The ill-informed bluster, the lashing out at east coast elites, the "might makes right" attitude, the intentional dumbing down of his campaign to win the lowest common denominator, claiming everyone is against him/the election was stolen, all of those were hallmarks of Jackson's run to the presidency.

I'm sorry but this is the type of horrible false equivalency that has led us to tied polls. You just compared evolution and personal change to flat-out lying and flip-flopping position multiple times in the *same day*. If you don't like Clinton, fine. But if you can't see the enormous gulf between these two candidates, you're not even trying to view this situation objectively.

I'm hoping this happens again, as last time I was caught in a bad spot and didn't have cash on hand to reinvest. Next time around, I'll be prepared.

I'm keeping the stock for the foreseeable future so I'm not terribly worried about it, only wondering when it will stop because, at some point, it will have to stop. It's also worth noting that in the future, Amazon is going to have to split their stock, which usually creates another small bump in valuation. Their stock price has topped $800 now.

Yeah, too much success without the earnings to support it becomes troubling at some point...

Amazon continues to go bonkers, up about 10% on the month (again). Overall, I'm personally up about 130% on the stock since I bought in either 2013 or 2014 (can't remember). I'm a bit concerned about the stock. Not Amazon's future, which is very bright, but the continued jumps the stock is taking. Amazon has committed to turning a profit from here on out, which is great, but the stock is trading at 200+ P/E. I'll stick with them but honestly, I'd prefer the stock stay flat for awhile and let the P/E catch up as Amazon consistently turns a profit.

I wanted to see her go on the offensive at that point but I think Clinton is minimizing her weaknesses and letting Trump bury himself at the same time. She's simply not an engaging public speaker. She's smart as a whip and intensely studious but she's not a "I'm going to charm you into voting for me" candidate like her husband. I hate to see it but I think she's more suited to sticking to her playbook than winging it and potentially burying herself in the process.

Holy moly, Trump looked horrible during that birther segment. He rambled, said nothing, and refused to backtrack on something so obviously incorrect.

Watching the debate now. Trump started strong but started becoming unraveled within 15 minutes. He's yelling and interrupting everyone else. I don't think that plays with many people who aren't already in Trump's camp.

I'm fine with the choice. I wanted McLeod but mostly I wanted anyone not named Antony or Piccolo.

Crawl toward 100 losses!