PseudoSABR
-
Posts
6,120 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
3
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 PseudoSABR
-
Right. One side is being defined by its extremists (Palestine) while the other is given the benefit of the doubt (Israel). There's probably a radical movement within Zionism that proffers the elimination of Islam as the only way to restore the holy land. It's easy to dismiss such elements because the fall outside the current cultural narrative as Islam as the aggressor.
-
I'm not sure why the heck you're prioritizing the need to stop one form of aggression over the other. The West's cause to defeat Islamic Terror would have a lot more legitimacy if the governments and policies the West support didn't resemble colonization and imperialism. We (the American Gov't) have direct power to influence Israel; we have very little influence on stemming the violence coming from the supporters of Palestine (save indirectly). Even if one party is more guilty in terms of desire-to-eliminate the other, we should apply our influence where it can actual make a difference. There's no legitimate reason to withhold judgment of Israel settlements. It's freaking Western Imperialism, and the kind of government behavior that begets terrorism. (And no I don't feel like getting into the whole roots of terrorism with you.)
-
Settlement is also how the Chinese are essentially committing a type of genocide against Tibet over the last many decades. Settlement is a tool of the powerful; not a tool of the peaceful. Israel does not protect itself by promoting settlement; it is a policy of genocide by dilution over many generations.
-
Cardinals "Very Much In" on Brian Dozier
PseudoSABR replied to Seth Stohs's topic in Twins Daily Front Page News
The Twins have reason to leak trade inquiries (in spite of their seriousness). And the Cards have reasons to publicly deny their pursuit (in spite of their seriousness). -
2016 Report Cards: Outfield
PseudoSABR replied to Nick Nelson's topic in Twins Daily Front Page News
Area of strength.- 65 replies
-
- 3
-
-
- byron buxton
- eddie rosario
- (and 3 more)
-
I think we were just confused; it was days not hours. http://vixenvarsity.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/24-live-another-day-24-days.png
-
Twins looking to add Veterans to Bullpen
PseudoSABR replied to HitInAPinch's topic in Minnesota Twins Talk
Veteran is a 'euphemism' for known-quantity, or at least better known. I think they just want to eliminate positions of need as they go into the season, to give them less worry about, god knows. -
Look, I can acknowledge my values and beliefs, and organize with other people who believe the same things, and not be ideologically beholden to those beliefs. That's not talking out of both sides of my mouth, that's being reasonable. I think we just need more reasonable people, I don't really care how people identify. The problem with our current political climate is that the unreasonable wing of conservatives have taken over the Republican Party. I want reasonable conservatives, reasonable liberals, and any other reasonable person to occupy our political offices. The point should be less about rejecting liberal or conservative values in the name of moderation, but more about being reasonable when trying to make policy wiht those you may disagree.
-
I agree the Democrats already are the moderate party, but I don't think that's a viable long-term position. (And I don't think Dems can ever win the people you describe, but they could do a much better job of turning out voters to overcome such GOPers.)
-
So did the non-voters, or the libertarians, or conservative Cubans, etc.. When the margin in a essential states was in the ten thousands, you can blame just about any group you dislike. But the lack of enthusiasm was definitely an issue, and problem for Clinton; you can blame the Bernie Bros, but I blame Clinton and the DNC for convincing so many (like you) that Clinton would be the better general election candidate, and passing up the chance to feature an authentic progressive in Bernie.
-
Okay, go build your party, Levi. All I'm suggesting operationally it's difficult to build a consensus, much less a party, by mere moderation or independence. And for the record, I consider liberals independent thinkers. This notion that both the right and the left are beholden ideology like some faith, just isn't true. Liberalism, as I understand it, values progressiveness, i.e. new ways of doing things. Again, I'm fine with moderation in governance, but for purposes of political party, give me more liberal agenda, and less of the 'moderation' the Democrats have been peddling.
-
Well what are the values and beliefs of that system. Saying so doesn't make it so. As soon as you begin to articulate those values and beliefs, you'll have less and less consensus.
-
Being moderate is a platitude without some value/belief basis, it's not that hard to understand. Being 'good' is also a platitude, saying so doesn't decry 'goodness,' it simply acknowledges that 'goodness' like 'moderation' means what people want it to mean and doesn't inherently have attributes of its own without some specificity. Look you listing your liberal stances on certain issues demonstrates that moderation is more of grab-bag than an actual ideology. There's people who consider themselves moderate who feel the exact opposite on each of those issues. Yeah, I think everyone has values and beliefs, and aren't really untethered at all; they may be reasonable, but they are guided by more than simply seeking to compromise or moderation-in-all-things...
-
Look I'm not dismissing it as a valid point of view. What I'm dismissing is that there's really a shared core-belief to build a party around. I just don't buy that any moderate is truly untethered. Like I said, you've always struck me as conservative. That you call yourself moderate, or untethered doesn't really change the foundational beliefs and values that underlie your positions. Nor are those beliefs and values the same as other self-identified moderates.
-
Governance is different than politics. Moderate government is a function having people with opposing view points come to compromise and consensus. Which is the way it should work. Again, I think our country has gone far too right, and that's been in part enabled by Democrats tracking to the middle. I just don't think it's feasible nor would it be a good thing for a new party to try to shoot the gap between the GOP and Democrats. That sounds like some kind of conservative party to me. A new 'middle' party based a non-right-left axis sounds great in theory, but it also sounds like gobbly-gook without some basis to know what shared beliefs/values constitutes such a party's consensus. My gripe with Democrats over the past several decades is the overt willingness to compromise, ceding the middle ground and giving them unfavorable bargaining position, so they get worked by the GOP, and adopt right-of-center solutions.
-
Moderation is totally contingent on the notion of polarity. Why don't we just reject polarity all together!? Again, that's just more generic, do-right-thing, every-thing-in-moderation, empty platitudes. You don't build a consensus out of that, nor do you operationally get things done. Those actually aren't values or policies. In fact, moderation is negatively defined by polarity, which points to the lack of there there; it's like making an oppositional party, or a nihilist party or something. You can have parties built around shared values and beliefs without being slaves to ideology. No ones arguing that moderation, reasonableness, and open-mindedness aren't great attributes of governance.
-
Sure, but it's just empty rhetoric without its application to policy, and once we begin to talk specifics, plenty of self-identified moderates will be all over the place in terms of specific policies.
-
I certainly didn't hear Clinton pitching a platform (and she lost). Sanders did, and I'd like to give such ideas more public airing, if not a chance at governance.
-
Sure. But I imagine they're not getting much in the way of prospect offers for him. I'd take the risk of him having more value at the deadline, then dealing him for mediocre return now.
-
You missed my point. Moderation is a good thing, but it's not a belief system. It is a compromise between belief systems. And those compromises from person to person alter considerably. Without specific consensus on a host of issues, it's hard to deliver a platform, much less run a campaign. As a political message, it's empty. It's like saying we're the party of 'doing the right thing.' In my mind it's no way to build a party. It's a great lifestyle choice; and in that sense, everyone here is a moderate, as few of us are outright ideological and most engage in good faith. Personally, you've always struck me as a reasonable conservative (any many others who post here) who should have their own party. I don't blame the Democrats for tracking to the middle to get your vote (as Republicans kept tracking to the right), but it left progressives without a voice in politics. I think our current economic and political structures would greatly benefit from a host of liberal ideas, you disagree and that's fine, we can have different parties.
-
Santana isn't the kind of guy playoff caliber teams target in the offseason, as he'd round out their rotation at best. He should have more value at the trade deadline, when starting pitching is thinner, and more teams have stumbled into contention.
- 57 replies
-
- 2
-
-
- ervin santana
- trade rumors
- (and 2 more)
-
Fangraphs interview with Falvey and Levine
PseudoSABR replied to Mike Sixel's topic in Minnesota Twins Talk
I also was heartened (and somewhat surprised) to read that Goin had brought the analytical department a long way. -
But that's essentially what did them in; they became a party of appeasement, creating establishment by default. Obama and Clinton's presidency are examples of ideological moderation. It's fine to identify yourself as a moderate (being conservative on some issues, liberal on others, finding middle ground on yet others), but moderation isn't an operable belief-system because there really isn't any fixed point of agreement. As a political message it becomes muddled and sounds insincere. For my part, I hope Democrats do track to the left, and try to persuade Americans on the merits of their beliefs. Country's concept of moderation has swung far much to the right for my tastes, and I don't think balance will be achieved by trying to better track the middle.
-
I imagine the Trump regime wants its administrations staffed with only climate-deniers. So yeah, pretty scary.
-
In other news, the Trump administration is trying to identify and gut the Energy Department of "climate" staffers. Thankfully the Department isn't complying.
