LaBombo
-
Posts
9,171 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
49
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 LaBombo
-
Now I'm disappointed too, and I hadn't even heard of it until your post. So I checked the wiki entry and it says the show features a "nanny robot mother" and that Mary J. Blige plays a character called Cha Cha, so just off of those two tidbits alone I'm already interested. It's interesting that studios/networks may see series based on comics as a bit lower risk because of their existing fan base, and yet they seem to have a bit of a feast or famine outcome.
-
I would definitely be interested in viewing it but I'm not able to find it, or anything in any media, for that matter, about Israel adopting a state policy of targeting American citizens. I'm a bit surprised that the only two vocal supporters of BDS in the House have been silent on said policy.
-
This is a nice article that helps put free agency rumors and projections in perspective, and technically it's based on a success story in the sense that it's told using the example of a guy who, in the end, the Twins actually got despite stories to the contrary. With that disclaimer being made... Stories in general about the Twins' loftier aspirations in free agency are now, at least to me, on par with stories that the stoner you knew in high school told you when you'd run into him in your 20's about how his career as a rocker was about to take off, and how close he recently came to getting his big break.
-
The party has collectively exonerated her, at least implicitly, by not naming her in the resolution, and at least three 2020 candidates have actively backed her by predictably shifting the conversation to potential Islamophobic backlash. But that rescue mission didn't come without a potential political cost to them. And now she owes them, whether she respects the debt or not. We already know that nonpartisan warnings about her behavior weren't enough to keep her out of trouble. So next we find out if party leadership reminding her from time to time that 'now their butts are on the line too' will take care of her behavior.
-
Setting aside my personal feelings: the ADL is no right-wing shill, NYT and WAPO aren't conservative rags, and Eliot Engel is... well, he's Eliot Engel. They're all going against their political leanings to condemn her remarks, and are to be commended for doing so. America would be better off if both parties would do so more often. Again, I freely acknowledge that there's a grey area between anti-Israel and anti-Jewish rhetoric. And legitimate criticism of the former should never be trivialized or villainized by unfairly portraying it as the latter. But Omar's hypnosis and loyalty comments can be traced back to a time when anti-Jewish rhetoric passed from hurt feelings and marginalization to groundwork for barbed wire and boxcars. She's not espousing anything of the kind, but she's betraying a mindset that needs to change. I hope she can.
-
Fair enough. But I would add that the reaction this past week is not to a single comment any more, but to a pattern, one that is unabated by previous efforts from within the party. She knew the difference between policy critique and inflammatory rhetoric, and she went down that latter road. Again. In any event, I'm hoping that she gets her act together, lays off the Twitter bombs (she was retweeting John McCain slander immediately after the resolution vote, of all things), and maybe works more at listening and learning from the willing party elders for a bit before she wades into the deep water again. Given the fact that she's already having to walk back the Obama comments that just dropped, it seems safe to say that she's probably not done in the spotlight just yet.
-
Credibility aside, the ignorance card had to be honored. Unless it's blatant, that's just how it works. And that's fine. But she used hers up before she even arrived in DC. The Benjamins and dual loyalty business all happened after what sounds (by the account of the Democratic organizer) like what amounted to nothing short of an intervention in MN to help her understand the hurtful nature of her previous rhetoric. The loyalty comment stands apart from the rest as a terrifying slander straight from the era of Henry Ford/Charles Lindbergh Nazi sympathizers. Absolutely agree that US/Israel policy history is both confusing and emotionally charged. And normally I would tread lightly because of that, but her behavior is unconscionable. And yes, sadly, her behavior has its partisan defenders, as almost all bad behavior does. If she cleans up her act they can pat themselves on the back for sticking by her, and if not, they can acknowledge their facilitation of further slurs and reap. We'll see.
-
Her criticism of Israel doesn't need merit. She's been elected to the House and absolutely has a right to be heard on matters of policy, whether people agree or not. Her choice of words was bad before she was warned by her own party. Now her choice of words is deliberate and "vile" in the words of her committee chair. And if people within her party encourage her to play the victim card in response to legitimate criticism of her bigotry, then I hope they're held accountable by party leadership. Or, failing that, the voters.
-
By not using the word "Hypnotized". By not insinuating that favoring a given pro-Israel policy is dual loyalty. By not misrepresenting and exaggerating AIPAC's influence as outright purchasing of votes. Try those for starters, anyway. And then maybe listen to at least the fellow Democrats among your Jewish colleagues in Congress, who are furious and appalled.
-
Mayby you're right, but I would submit that a specific investment in her is a better motive for the last-minute rally to her defense than just a blanket party refusal to deal. If that's the case it doesn't bode well for their ability to cut ties with Women's March. And no, I'm not seeing her as a future Prez/VP candidate, or even a cabinet member. But I do think some in the party see her as AOC Lite, and along with Tlaib they have a very telegenic Three Amigos thing going on. They've had a high profile as freshmen so far, with varying degrees of success, and it will be interesting to see if Omar is back in the mix right away or not.
-
Honestly, I'm not understanding where you're going with this. You're cool with the whole hypnosis thing? Svengali ringing any bells? Will you at least allow that puppet strings would be over the line? I'm a little scared that your next move is to impugn Eliot Engel for having... ulterior motives for denouncing her loyalty slam as a "vile, anti-Semitic slur".
-
No problem, and I apologize for accusing you of being a DU'er Yes, of course the resolution was damage control necessitated by her. Yet Dems couldn't bring themselves to even mention her by name. That went by the wayside after those who DO view her as a rising star went ballistic over a resolution specifying her behavior as tantamount to censure in her record. And yes, criticize Israel and our policy toward them all you want, but don't question the loyalty of Jews who oppose you, which she absolutely did. As for nature of the actual remarks, well, her 'boss', Eliot Engel, called the loyalty remark "a vile anti-Semitic slur". Fwiw, I think you're underestimating her party's investment in seeing her succeed, and their willingness to pivot to defending her by attacking her critics as Islamaphobic. She'll have to curb her rhetoric but in no way will this limit her future.
-
This is not just a straw man, it is a straw Colossus.
-
If you're not familiar with Nazi/Klan conspiracy theories about Jewish manipulation of banking and politics, we've gone as far as we can go on this subject. Sorry, I'm not trying to be dramatic, but we're better off shutting it down right there.
-
She has a history predating the specific remarks in question. And she had already been scolded privately. Local Democrats had to sit her down and talk to her at length about anti-Semitism in 2018, for heaven's sake. So what you've heard from her since then is not insensitivity, it's not 'cultural differences', and it's not tone deafness. What you're hearing from her now is how she feels about Jews. And it's ugly. And as much as I respect your efforts to use consistent judgement, the idea that Omar should get a pass because the debt of her transgressions have been (and apparently will continue to be?) prepaid by past Republican comments does a massive disservice to the Jewish constituents of her district.
-
A) Accusing a nation of "hypnotizing the world" is not a policy. Accusing Jewish Americans of dual loyalty is not a policy. Accusing those supporting pro-Israel legislation of being "all about the Benjamins" is not a policy. And it's not just antisemitism, it's a word-for-word recycling of the institutional kind used by actual Fascists to marginalize Jews in the 1930's, and it is indefensible by anyone not acting out of militant partisanship. B} Sure she's not... she's just an anonymous, everyday freshman handed a spot on an important committee despite dubious qualifications from the start, frequently the subject of pro-Dem media coverage, and already receiving fundraising assistance from AOC for her "defense". C) Where are you getting your news from? Democratic Underground? Republicans unanimously approved the resolution that condemned King SPECIFICALLY, stripped him of all committee seats, and pressured him to resign. And contrary to your false assertion, there is no resolution condemning Ilhan Omar.
-
You mean like the unanimous Democrat outrage over Ilhan Omar's despicable and ominous remarks about Israel "hypnotizing" the world and its supporters being disloyal Americans? And the resolution condemning her specifically? And the resulting removal from the Foreign Affairs Committee that she clearly has no business being on now? Is that the kind of outrage you mean? Should Manafort have gotten a longer sentence? Probably, but he's not violent and the deterrence to other offenders is that Manafort was caught, humiliated, and is now and forever a felon. Lack of punishment beyond that is more a failure to sate Democrats' bloodlust than it is a breakdown in the justice system. Meanwhile, the 5th District's Rep is still a rising star in the party who will almost certainly continue to exhibit her appalling attitudes toward Jews.
-
Twins Have Managed Just Fine Without Sano in the Past
LaBombo replied to Tom Froemming's topic in Twins Daily Front Page News
I only had time to look at the graph. So the Twins lean Republican with Sano in the lineup? Anyway, I'm more worried that Sano will have a bad season at the plate than I am that he will have a great offensive season but seemingly not help the team win. And more than either of those two, I'm thinking that Sano will be just ok (2016) offensively and the Twins will just be bad regardless of his contribution. -
Here's a study that suggests that intensity of interest may be linked to partisan leanings: "Passionate Sports Fans Are More Likely to Endorse Right-Wing Policies" The article's author doesn't take the Public Opinion Quarterly study seriously enough to quote liberally from it, and really the big cause/effect takeaway was just that "Fan intensity is significantly associated with the belief that economic success is due to individual effort". Just offering it up for discussion.
-
I wouldn't presume to speak for Champ, and this probably relates at best only tangentially to what he's saying about the GP thread. But for what it's worth I've found from personal experience that when 8 people play Trivial Pursuit, the game is more interesting, fun, and social with four two-person teams than it is one vs. seven.
-
And that would be my guess as well; the demographics are the primary story, not the geography. Well, except for Mass., which is notoriously closed-minded... Edit: The mirror-image shift in one 'intolerance' index of +10% Repub in 2014 to another that showed +10% Dem in 2018, which coincides with arrival of the Age of Trump, was interesting as well.
-
Seems like only yesterday when Chief warily approached the new LED display that Mrs C. got him for his birthday... http://facets.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2001PR_Featured-730x410.png
-
If there's an alternative source that confirms BGB's idea that the Twins, unlike the Vikings, draw a heavily Dem fan base, I'll be happy to check it out. Until then, the best information says no.
-
538 rates the Vikings' fan base a D +7.8% lean, and MLB fan bases typically skew older and whiter than those of the NFL, so politically the TD user base should theoretically sit pretty close to neutral. In any case even a hypothetical, rounded upward D +10% skew would account for only one TD'er out of every ten samples being left of center.
-
Well, this seems timely... The Geography of Partisan Prejudice, brought to you earlier this week by the folks over at The Atlantic. As the title suggests, the focus is on geography, but early in the article there's an acknowledgement that there are demographic trends as well. This sums up the non-geographic component pretty well: "In general, the most politically intolerant Americans, according to the analysis, tend to be whiter, more highly educated, older, more urban, and more partisan themselves". and "... white, highly educated people are relatively isolated from political diversity. They don’t routinely talk with people who disagree with them; this isolation makes it easier for them to caricature their ideological opponents." It's a pretty interesting read even without the context of the current discussion. Geographically FL, SC, MA, VA, and the Rust Belt states jump off the page as higher in prejudice than the national average, but the map lets you mouse over individual counties. As the demographic tendency would seem to indicate, the Twin Cities rates relatively high for partisan prejudice by both D's and R's. Ironically the article allows a basic political prejudice into its own discussion of the subject, misleadingly making 'no abortion' supporters out to be alone on a minority island, when in fact 'unlimited abortion' supporters are also a smaller minority than the plurality who believe in legal abortion with limits.
