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
-
That's not how investigation works. That they've followed threads for two-years suggests there was evidence that kept them busy. I would agree that perhaps they had hoped to flip Stone, and without flipping him (and to some extent Manafort), they lacked the smoking gun to connect a conspiracy to Trump personally. I think there will be damaging information about Trump, but he'll claim victory all the same. The question will be why weren't indictments handed out. Is it because Mueller is limited to investigation? Is it because DOJ policy not to indict the president? Is it because there is evidence of wrong doing but not crimes? Is it because there is evidence of crimes, but they can't prove them beyond a reasonable doubt? I seriously doubt it will be a nothing-burger, but you may right it will be anticlimatic as it fall into a gray area I describe above. I'll add this link: https://www.lawfareblog.com/very-quick-thoughts-end-mueller-investigation which provides a lot of context for my take, from someone more qualified than me to speak on these matters.
-
Or more, logically, if there was nothing there, why did it take so long? Remember that Mueller is only an investigator, and he used indictments as an investigative tool; once he had all the information he needed, even if they were crimes, it wasn't his place to indict, that will be up to the new AG. The Justice Department also has a policy of not indicting a sitting president. It may be anticlimactic, but don't forget Mueller handed down 37 indictments, multiple plea bargains, and convicted Trump's campaign manager at trial. That by itself is historical, even if we are a bit numb to it all, by the drip-drip nature of the process.
-
He showed off that arm in the two-game series, as well. He should look to coming back as a pitcher...
-
Faltering Romero Exposes Flaw in Falvey's Offseason
PseudoSABR replied to Ted Schwerzler 's topic in Twins Daily Front Page News
Just like making a trade...oh wait, wrong context. -
I'm not sure what you're talking about. But I think the non-tweets are significant. The non-indictments were supposedly a victory for Trump, why isn't he celebrating that???
-
It's been about 30 hours since Trump last tweeted. Word is he's seen the report. If the report exonerated him, he'd be....
-
Upon what factual basis do you think this?
-
On what basis of fact do you make that claim? Look, I'm floating a reasonable idea. You shoot it down with a blanket derogatory statement about people on welfare. And frankly, I don't need to demonstrate my seriousness to your satisfaction, it's especially ironic, given how glib you've been on a number of topics. I'm sorry to say it but it's hard to have a conversation with you in a good faith.
-
Why don't you develop your thought that people on welfare can't help themselves so they can't be involved in child care?
-
NPR: Robert Mueller Submits Report On Russia Investigation to Attorney General Barr
-
Was the no ICWA because it would be less likely that the kid would be adoptable (because they would prefer to find someone with the tribe)? Just curious, please feel free to decline to answer.
-
I understand that's part of the deal. But I largely agree. This feels like the same kind of calculated move that makes Democrats the elite, out-of-touch, inauthentic party that common people don't vote for. I do like Abrams quite a bit though.
-
Well, I don't know how Minnesota run its "dependency" and "severance" proceedings, but if those kids were in the legal system, it should be on the state to provide them services and it shouldn't be simply left up to the foster parents. In Arizona, the state is supposed to make "reasonable efforts" towards these sort of things, but no one bothers challenging such efforts until it's too late, may as well call them "token efforts."
-
What do you all think of this rumor Biden will announce his VP is Stacey Abrams right out the gate?
-
What's the significance of being a "cold-weather kid"? That the scouts aren't willing to see him as much because he plays in the cold?
-
I made clear that they would have to be screened. And I think you're just making assumptions that aren't based on fact.
-
The costs would be in the logistics, insurance, and facilities. But I think it is feasible. If we can bus kids to school and keep them there all day without killing or losing too many of 'em, we can do this too.
-
Recipients of welfare and SSI, might be a good labor force for child care, provided certain protections and qualifications.
-
Thanks all the same. And thankfully, I'm good friends with the person who currently holds the position, so I should survive the initial screening.
-
That's more or less what I did; I discussed why I pursued the career I did (and why I changed careers), gave examples of my overcoming challenges at my current job, and why my experience, skillset, and attitude are a good fit for the position. Application submitted. Now for the waiting game.
-
I think Trump relied on turnout, rather than flipping Obama voters. If you turnout young people in middle America, it will benefit the Democrats. Trying to flip bluedogs will make young people stay home. But we're just talking in circles at this point.
-
Thanks. Good advice.
-
Well, even though those questions invite controversy, they really are about turnout; it's not only the person that will turn out people, but the policies they rally behind. Trial balloons this early, I don't think are damaging. And, I'll keep emphasizing that Hillary's main attribute was supposedly electability, so I think "playing it safe" for the general election is a big mistake. Being bold on policy will turn people out. I don't think there's many fence sitters who will suddenly vote for Trump because of a stance on the electoral college. (And if turnout is large enough, the Senate IS in play; I think it's defeatist to already capitulate to a McConnell led senate).
