Jump to content
Twins Daily
  • Create Account

PseudoSABR

Old-Timey Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • 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

  1. PseudoSABR
    Lucroy is holding up the catching market; Norris hasn't gone any where (right?); McCann is said to be available as well. If Suzuki doesn't get traded it's probably because other teams are engaged with other options, not because of Twins FO ineptitude. That said, Suzuki could probably be traded in August either to the claiming team or if he passes all the way through. Still it will be disappointing not to finally trade Suzuki, now that he has some kind of value...
  2. PseudoSABR
    Jon Heyman ‏@JonHeyman 19s19 seconds ago Jersey City, NJ jays have been trying to land ervin santana. twins like him very much, tho. may keep.
  3. PseudoSABR
    I think that's a fake-Olney account (according to the replies). Incarcerated Bob has it though...(for what ever he is worth): Incarcerated Bob IBN ‏@incarceratedbob 6m6 minutes ago **BREAKING MLB NEWS** Blue Jays on verge of getting some SP help Ervin Santana from Twins
  4. PseudoSABR
    Lucroy wanted to nix the option for next year, which of course the Indians would not do, as part of the price they paid is that option. Odd turn of events.
  5. PseudoSABR
    That's giving up quite a bit; had they gotten Lucroy too, you maybe could justify it, but now that the Lucroy deal has fallen through... I wonder in the Indians might feel boxed in and could overpay for Suzuki....
  6. PseudoSABR
    How And Why Trump Will Try to Ditch the Debates I've been thinking this for a while now; I wonder if he can actually do it, and I wonder what the reaction would be.
  7. PseudoSABR
    The point (as understand it) isn't to have a third party just to have one, the point is to get better, more ideological diverse candidates.
  8. PseudoSABR
    I think the presidential primary process demonstrated an alternative for diverse candidates--run within the party structure. Both Trump and Sanders would have been cast as third-party candidates in any prior election. In order to win an election you still need (close to) a majority, and that means getting lots of party-affiliated voters. And I think we've overestimated party loyalty to the old guard, both Republicans and Democrats showed a willingness to vote for non-traditional party types, and I imagine they would do so the local level too. The problem with local politics is hardly any one pays attention, much less votes. At the local level, socialists should feel empowered to run as Democrats; libertarians could probably run as either. The tea-party certainly got on board running as Republicans early on, and I think we're seeing really a continuation of that on the national level, and hopefully, in the mid-terms will see more diverse candidates represented within both parties.
  9. PseudoSABR
    I was surprised that she committed to the progressive agenda. When she picked Kaine, I thought it was signal she was lurching towards the center; I'm glad she's not. She's not an incredible orator but I think she made her case. She was competent and genuine. There's not much meat on the corruption/phony bone tonight. She's still somehow a bit too self-aware to be totally likeable--I wouldn't say she's calculated, but she just doesn't have that ease that Obama, Clinton, W., or even sometimes, Trump. Still, I was impressed; she did much better than I anticipated. She did more than she needed to do in terms of presentation and effect. I actually got emotional realizing that this is the first woman nominee, something I think we take for granted (/hat-tip to Michelle Obama). That matters. It gives me hope, and that Clinton emerged from the political class, the wife of a former President, indicates the very long odds women face who aspire to leadership and the systemic, deep-seated obstacles to women that pretend does not exist.
  10. PseudoSABR
    I noticed that too. Suddenly, the left is decrying (and not without good reason), "This is already a Great country!" Though when I heard similar phrasing more than once it felt oddly disingenuous, ignoring the very real perceived disenfranchisement of both the right and the left working class. I wondered if that would actually play well. In any case, thanks for articulating your thoughts. I hope you keep it up.
  11. PseudoSABR
    I'm increasingly resigning myself to the fact that nothing much will happen at the deadline. The Twins should be sellers. However, the actual tradeable assets/players suffer in value due to the length of their contracts, their potential value to the Twins next year (or the following years), and their third-tier status on the market (or worse). You figure Suzuki, Nunez, Kintzler, and Abad all are at their premium value or on expiring/near-expiring contracts. If they do get traded, I think it will be near the deadline deals. (I hope some team panics and overpays for Santana...) If we're lucky we may get some August deals for lottery tickets and AAAA filler.
  12. PseudoSABR
    I thought Obama made a strong about point about how Trump (and really the Tea Party) is outside of the typical conservative and liberal divide, a divide that historically has been able to govern, sometimes very effectively. On Obama's speech, that line: "We do not look to be ruled," was so deft and exact in its criticism, though in text (and without context) it loses much of its import.
  13. PseudoSABR
    I don't want to belabor this. But we're not asking about the degree of the carelessness rather we are putting that carelessness in context of what the person knew (or should have known) about the risk and their response to that risk as compared to what they "should" do. To me it's a difference in type and not degree. The guy who waves his gun around firing haphazardly in a crowd of people is different from the guy who shoots at targets on his farm. Both guys might end up hurting people through carelessness, but one of them is a lot more culpable than the other.
  14. PseudoSABR
    Hey, I appreciate the apology, even on the internet they are difficult to hand out. And I probably open myself up to a variety of criticism with such assertiveness/aggressiveness.
  15. PseudoSABR
    Sure Bill, it's a simple historical fact (and just thorough journalism) to point out that slaves who built the Whitehouse were "well-fed and housed at the government expense" ...
  16. PseudoSABR
    Here it is again, that straw man. Just because I deny her behavior doesn't rise to criminality, doesn't mean I'm being too dismissive of her actions. They aren't mutually exclusive (as you are fond of saying). In fact, at the end of my post I said that her actions were stupid, careless, and arrogant. That's not being dismissive. I think you just used my post as a jumping off point to speak to generally about a phenomenon that bothers you, which is fine if you're sure to couch it in those terms, and not level the criticism at the undeserving, particular person.
  17. PseudoSABR
    Well right, it is semantic, but there's very precise legal definitions for what we mean by negligence, criminal negligence, and recklessness. When you put your kid in the car, you are being more than careless (i.e. not thinking about the risks), you ignore the risks that a person substantially should know in a way that's likely to cause harm. When the FBI director called Clinton's actions careless, he used that word conscientiously as a prosecutor, indicating that we don't punish such behavior with criminal liability. For some this might be splitting hairs, but the law takes such distinctions very seriously.
  18. PseudoSABR
    We all know that Levi. But your foray into this conversation was in reply to my response to someone else, who expressed bewilderment that Clinton wasn't charged. You basically picked a fight without putting what was said into that context. That's how you build your straw man. If I counter someone who says Clinton is criminally liable, it's a straw man to suggest that the counter is premised on the notion that Clinton is perfect or that the people at the top don't have an easier time evading criminal liability. In general, when we choose to respond to a reply to third-party poster, we risk mis-framing that person's argument, because the statements said are couched in that response, and not necessarily offered as some truth to all the world which would survive without your rebuttal.
  19. PseudoSABR
    Criminal negligence is above and beyond carelessness. No your original statement is not true. The negligence standard you cite is for CIVIL NEGLIGENCE (or tort law, as you point out). Tort law, manslaughter and reckless driving are not at all in the same category, bub (civil, traffic and criminal all operate independent of one another; only the latter always requires proof of a specific mind set). (Civil negligence also requires the proof of harm; in the email scandal there is no alleged harm, only speculation). Here's the definition for Criminal Negligence form the Model Penal Code. The difference between recklessness and criminal negligence is recklessness involves a conscious disregard of a substantial and unjustifiable risk. The significant distinction between civil and criminal negligence/recklessness is not only must a person deviate or disregard what one should do, they must also be aware (or substantially should be aware) that the risk exists. If there's no alleged harm, that makes such proof of risk, well difficult. In any case, criminal statutes that invoke criminal negligence are rare. There are no criminal laws where mere carelessness, arrogance or stupidity would satisfy the state-of-mind requirement, beyond criminal strict liability. --- And really, what the heck is wrong with you believing that we can (or should!?), put people in jail for carelessness, arrogance or stupidity.
  20. PseudoSABR
    Levi fights with straw-man, round 1000.
  21. PseudoSABR
    Amen.
  22. PseudoSABR
    What is Hillary's dicey track record? From a legal stand point, there should be no more scrutiny because of although widespread, unsubstantiated allegations. How Colin Powell earns leniency in his part to the lead up to the Iraq War, I don't know. He testified to the UN (and Congress I think) that Iraq had WMDs; it was just Cheney saying these things.
  23. PseudoSABR
    You can argue that until you're blue in the face, it doesn't make it true. I know of no legal standard (beyond strict liability crimes like statutory rape) that makes carelessness, stupidity or arrogance not rising to recklessness a crime. And thank god. The whole comparison to a person a less prominence is a false analogy. The notion that a non-agency head would set up a private server or even have need to is just silly (again Clinton is being held accountable not just for her own actions but the actions of the agency, which makes this comparison unfair). Moreover, the legal standard is still the same: non-intentional, non-reckless behavior wouldn't survive a grand jury indictment, much less summary judgment or a jury trial. You can't change the law to suit hypothetical facts. Sure, if a lower employee was found to be careless with confidential information, that person may lose their job or have their security clearance revoked or lowered. But believe it or not, security clearance is robust with due process, hearings, and its own appellate review. DOHA case law is online, and people have to be exceptionally sloppy to face harsh consequences. But that is fire cry from charging that person with a crime, much less convicting that person of such a crime.
  24. PseudoSABR
    Just stop. Clinton's alleged misconduct, setting up a private server (even carelessly), is not at all the same as intentional, and flagrant leaks of information known to be classified. In fact, there's no alleged harm caused by Clinton's server. The rule of law matters. You can't disregard it because you don't like the outcome. As the Republican nominated FBI director averred, "no reasonable prosecutor would have brought charges." Was it stupid and careless and arrogant to set up a private server? Yes. Is it or should it be the basis of a criminal offense? No.
  25. PseudoSABR
    Evidently he's grown his teeth in...
×
×
  • Create New...