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
-
Reddit? Marco and Jeb? I wonder what evidence you'll next come up with to ignore my major point - that without the campaign continuing to exist, Bernie's message goes no where. (And he also gives up any leverage to influence what happens at the convention.) There are no doubt delusional Bernie supporters (esp. the young ones, who probably aren't even donating), but to suggest that most Bernie supporters can't do the math or know the odds is itself delusional. What's also delusional to the point of profane is the notion that Bernie is some bilking his supporters.
-
No that's not what I've "basically authorized" him to do. (Again, please don't tell me what I'm arguing, because you aren't being honest about it. I keep repeating the same points about giving-voice-to-a-marginalized-view/losing-the-battle,fighting-to-win-the-war, etc. and you keep trying to reduce my point to "people-give-bernie-money-make-it-okay." It's dishonest. Quit it.) You know full-well, if Bernie was an establishment candidate (like you examples Jeb and Marco) with no message any different from that establishment, I wouldn't be advocating for him to stay in. It's not just that people are giving him money, it's also why they are giving him money. The notion that Bernie supporters are delusional is just wrong; I imagine people still giving him money know full-well the odds against him winning the nomination -- therefore they are giving that money to pursue a goal that is separate from the nomination. There's something larger at work. Call it a social movement. I think what really bothers you is that Bernie's supporters are using his platform as "a candidate for president" to give voice to their cause, even though his candidacy stands little chance of winning. I think you dislike the Machiavellian aspect of running an unwinnable campaign to promote a cause. That might be a fair criticism, but it's certainly shouldn't implicate Bernie, but rather his supporters.
-
Amen.
-
That was ONE point of my argument, which is more broad than you're willing to acknowledge, quibble-master. I'm not making a moral issue out of anything. (Please don't tell me what I'm arguing or doing or saying, as you're not doing me the service of portraying my viewpoint accurately). If people want to give him money to continue to speak about issues they feel are important (and which also have been totally marginalized in our recent public discourse) in spite of Bernie's unlikely nomination, there's nothing immoral or fishy or foolish about Bernie continuing to run his campaign and speaking for these people.
-
You're intentionally ignoring the basic point that Bernie represents an altogether marginalized view point. If you're argument is left with comparisons to establishment republicans, I think I've made my point.
-
Substance. Can you post with it!?
-
As long as his supporters continue to tell him (through their hard won dollars) to keep fighting for the nomination, he should do so. And do you really think his 'voice' would be heard (really at all) without the pretense of the election? Give me a break. Bernie's been delivering the same message for years, what's changed is the platform, which provides the means for his voice to be heard. As soon as he drops out, there will be relative quiet about wealth inequality, which freaking matters to whole bunch of liberals. The notion that Bernie is lying or somehow immorally mining the poor of their dollars is the real comedy going on here.
-
I think you're really minimizing what people hope to achieve. As soon as the public/media acknowledge you have a voice, you don't just stop talking....
-
Have you watched any of Bernie's speeches lately? (I doubt that you have.) This is but one point of a whole platform of issues having to do with wealth disparity. It matters to some of us, even if it doesn't matter to you, Dave. You're continual use of pejorative declarations ("immoral!" "delusional!"), don't help the conversation, if you don't have substance to add, please just shut up.
-
Yes, it's okay. It's not a moral issue, and painting it as such, seems, well irresponsible. Plenty of people give their money to so-called 'lost causes'. It's their decision to make. Bernie's message has value, even if his candidacy doesn't. To use an old and brash analogy: Even if this battle is lost, some are fighting to win a war.
-
This is so profoundly off-base and simplistic it could have emerged from Trump's twitter account: Bernie takes poor people's money. Can't win. Sad! Immoral!
-
He's mainstreaming how many, many people feel - whether or not he wins the nomination - which is worth a couple bucks. That people are still giving money to Bernie in spite of the remote possibility of his winning the nomination indicates that they are spending their money on something other than Bernie getting the nomination.
-
I agree with you in principle. As much as we wish it should, one's principals can't dictate how management deals with an employee's contractual and workplace issues. The Whitesox were in the position to keep such a provision out of the contract, or not agree to the premise, but they hog-tied themselves. My premise, that we would need to know about the contract before determining what Williams, Ventura, and LaRouche should have done still stands. That I think LaRouche wanting to rear his kid in the clubhouse is bizarre has no bearing on how management should have handled it.
-
Well, his thinking was backwards if this is the case, by outsourcing the job to Williams it undercut the legitimacy Ventura would have had as clubhouse figure. IMO, it's Ventura's job to deal with this (not the FO), and had he approached LaRouche instead of Williams, the results may have been different.
-
Right. My point is that there's a dispute here about the legitimacy and the source of complaints about Drake. The facts aren't really clear on two points: 1) the nature and specificity of the agreement between LaRouche and the club and 2) the legitimacy and the source of complaints about Drake.
-
In a clubhouse? I'm not sure. The reaction from many of the leaders of the Whitesox clubhouse suggest that it's absurd to believe that anyone complained about Drake -- given that reaction, even if you dismiss it, I don't think we can say that Drake "clearly" affected the workplace for the worse.
-
You're playing fast and loose with the facts, my friend.
-
I blame Matt LeCroy.
-
For the record, I totally agree with this. But it's always been a sticky thing telling people how to raise their children...
-
Call it a privilege, a benefit, a guarantee, an obligation -- it hardly matters, if it's a term of a contract (which is something we still don't know). Terms of contracts are typically agreed to unconditionally, so knowing that would either support your point or undercut it.
-
We can't say what is reasonable, because we still don't know the whole story as far as what was stipulated in the contract. What's reasonable to request of LaRoche depends on the agreement he had with the Whitesox. It very well could be an unreasonable condition of his contract (which is my guess). Regardless, Williams should have anticipated the depth of LaRoche's grievance, esp. after he failed to comply (again us not knowing if LaRoche was contractually obligated to comply or that Williams was contractually prohibited from demanding such complicity). I'm not suggesting LaRoche didn't impulsively act, or behave in way that was conducive to his relationship with the front office. But LaRoche's job isn't management, that's Williams' job.
-
Because MLB employers are constantly shopping for talent. Player-employees have way more bargaining power in MLB. It's precisely why the Whitesox agreed to allowing Drake in the clubhouse in the first place. Typically there's not 29 other firms who know who you are and value your assets as an employee, and the firms that do compete like that, make the workplace a recruiting attribute. If I was at the top of my field, I could negotiate things like the corner office with a mini-fridge, comped travel expenses, and four weeks vacation; it's the same kind of thing. MLB players just are a much better position to dictate things like clubhouse culture, and they want to maintain that. And I think the impact is negligible, because the players are still accountable for their performance (their next contract).
-
Imagine if Terry Ryan during last season suddenly demanded that Torii Hunter put a stop to the dance-offs at the end of games (b/c other players/coaches complained about it); in spite of having no contractual clause allowing the dance-off, I think most of us would understand if there was backlash from the players. (Sure, employees should be obligated to deal with whatever workplace they are provided, but baseball, and sports generally, have always been special workplaces that largely do not follow the rationale or ethics of common workplaces). The kids-in-the-workplace part of the story takes over the front-office-dictating-the-culture-of-the-clubhouse part of the story. Although I understand why Ventura wouldn't want to touch the issue, he's in far better authoritative position to influence the clubhouse culture. Kenny Williams should have discussed the problem with Ventura and LaRoche's agent before approaching LaRoche about it; this kind of response from both LaRoche and the other players should have been anticipated. Lot's of parties mishandled the situation, but the buck stops at the top.
-
I wish Obama were bold and unabashed too (he never did make the moral argument for health care; I too am disappointed.) As much as I hate it, Obama likes being the 50-yard-liner - the guy who gets things down (perhaps at the mercy of his principles). Yet, I get why he picked Garland. He can survive the absurd scrutiny of the GOP in that he's both later-middle-aged and immaculately qualified. If the GOP holds on 'no hearings and no vote', a potential nominee just gets scrutinized without any result, just flitting in the wind. Other candidates, whom Obama would prefer, might become stigmatized through the process, and their future as Supreme Court Justice essentially at an end. It seems like Obama is betting that the GOP sticks to its obstructionism, and Garland doesn't even get a hearing (in spite of his pristine credentials, thus proving their political ploy). The questions I'm suddenly interested in is: (1) Is Hillary Clinton obligated to renominate Garland in the new year, or does the election mandate a new nominee? (2) What if the Republicans confirm Garland after the election, during the "lame duck" session? (See Lindsey Graham here.)
-
Not because a party refused to vote on a nomination. The longer vacancies involved many candidates being nominated and either being voted down, or withdrawing their name. THERE IS NO PRECEDENCE FOR WHAT THE REPUBLICANS ARE DOING.
- 77 replies
-
- 4
-
-
- senate
- advise & consent
- (and 3 more)
