TheLeviathan

I dig this SD Buhr. This post was on fire.

Citing the Oakland A's as a bullpen strategy is curious. A quick glance at how those players were acquired indicates the Twins don't actually understand it. Trienen was a buy-low trade acquisition who had a lot of hype in the past. The Twins have no such player. Also, the Yasmani Grandal offer indicates this team has money it could spend, but is choosing not to.

The video shows they were yelling obscenities at the Native American group prior to the MAGA kids even arriving. They also had a standing label of hate group and a reputation for this behavior long before this incident. They don't appear to need "triggers".

All of us are arguing the same thing: They should, but they wont. I honestly have no clue why you spent pages arguing with people about economics or anything else.

The Grandal thing proves two things: the Twins could be spending but are looking for cheap deals. Not cool.

That was the longest, best written version of "this guy is a moron" I've ever read.

Or the stove heats up and another shutdown sounds like a good distraction?

How so?

This is a pretty excellent point.

I also wouldn't blame the Senate's structure for that. Much more likely it is the result of a myriad of factors lead by what motivates politicians most: will it help me stay in office. As healthcare is a glaring example of: people say they want something fixed but then turn on it almost instantly once an attempt is made.

I guess I can't buy that. There isn't, even as we speak, a majority of Democrats that support Universal Health Care. Or any of the other issues you listed except for maybe prison reform. ( And that issue has forward momentum - in a bipartisan way no less) Even gun control can't muster enough Democrats to support it to make sweeping changes. I just can't buy the suggestion that but for a few too many elected people from the Dakotas (or wherever), that any of those things would change significantly. Sure, those representatives oppose it, but it doesn't really matter. The support necessary for those things simply doesn't exist. In part, I think, because there is no public consensus for how to address those issues.

Agreed, but that sorta goes back to my original point. The ratio of Senators isn't the root of the problem. The hyper partisan nature of our politics is the issue.

I like your post, but I quibble with this a bit. I agree that most people do want those things, but their yes answer is sorta like me saying to a group of people at 6pm - "Hey, want to go out for some dinner?" They all say "yup", but as soon as we go one step further than that our agreement completely shatters. I think a lot of those issue look the same way politically speaking.

Go read comments at Breitbart...(I know....it feels....dirty...but it's worth it!) He's already an unforgivable RHINO over there.

Yup, have to give her credit. She's been getting a lot of crap thrown at her (from her own side) but she held firm and didn't let him off the hook. And the best possible thing happened - Trump caved for all of his base to see. He folded like a cheap tent. He's going to get so much flak from his base it's going to be hilarious.

But what you're talking about are procedural things. The reason all of htose things happened, and a shutdown was happening, is because we've pretty much killed all notions of etiquette and decorum in the our politics. It's the lasting legacy of Newt Gingrich and the Tea Party: basically the destruction of functional government. It's a different, but very important, problem IMO.

And the Dems force a total cave from Trump!

Well, for one, several of those examples came when they were not in control? Most of those were just dick moves abusing the way our government is supposed to work. On that front, yeah, there are way too many shenanigans afoot.

I question the phrase "so much power". Most of your argument depends on removing the larger context and only looking at power disparities in an isolated form. The truth is, if it went the other way the majority would have overwhelming power. The majority, by and large, get what they want in the long run already. I know your post wasn't agenda driven, sorry it's tough to separate how one usually hear this concern brought up. Typically, it's in the cop-out form. So what system are you proposing that would solve the problem you brought up, but also wouldn't turn our form of government into a tyrannical majority?

Texas moving blue (along with a few other states) is going to shift a lot of factors. Let's face it, if Texas shifts blue, it'll be nearly impossible for the Republicans to ever elect a President again. But that's projecting.....and I've mistakenly bought into that before. After Obama won and the demographic shifts were plastered everywhere I had doubts the Republicans could ever win again then too. Well, didn't take long for me to look like a dope. Projections fail to account for the context that shifts with the hypothetical and the devil is very much in those details. Did we forget Obama started his Presidency with a majority in the Senate and House? It's not like that was ancient history.

Yes, there would be a point at which a straight democracy would be a better path, I agree. But I don't think we're at that point. I'm not beholden to the founding fathers, btw, I just don't think the structure of government is the problem here. I'm also opposed to laying the blame on this because I think it's something of a cop-out. Essentially, the argument is that it's impossible to get a majority in the Senate for Democrats. But we have pretty extensive, and recent, examples to the contrary. Lastly, I'm only worried about the near future, long term projections that predict those sorts of population clusters will result in a cascade of changes in other factors. Trying to wedge that possible future into the current context is sorta silly. In a country that looked like that, the dynamics in the context around it would also change extensively. It's not apples to apples.

These are good questions, but the sense of the word "privilege" you're using here doesn't seem to fit. At least I don't think many of the least privileged people in our country voted for Trump? Unless you are referring to women, but it seems to me you are referring to lower income whites....am I wrong on that?

I think blaming the issue on the structuring of the Senate entirely misses the point. I don't think anyone needs a lecture on democracy vs. democratic republic, but there is a reason that was done. The issue with healthcare is not two senators per state. Nor is that the case with really any issue. The problem is in the way the two parties have decided to carve out power and how neither seeks to govern all. If our institutions are threatened, it's because we've allowed the parties to represent stark dividing lines and they have happily obliged. And here's the thing about that realization: Once you see that, you'll realize restructuring the Senate doesn't really fix the problem.

Someone is going to need to photoshap Byron Buxton's body now. It's the only proper conclusion to this thread.

Apparently they were just "prejudging" Oooo....and it's only "maybe" that there are people out there that went too far. (I've had to combine quotes due to Brock's tyranny) 1. At any point you were welcome to understand the context of the discussion and not make statements like this. It's clearly minimizing and shifting the goal posts. 2. If there was an achievement for "Whataboutism" or "Hedging" you unlocked the ever loving hell out of that sucker. 3. This mighty fine analogy? Well, at least all we denied them was the benefit of the doubt. Could've gotten crazy you know. Woofta....good thing that didn't happen! I haven't misconstrued anything. You know full well what the criticism was about and you posted stuff like this. You tried to shift the goalposts of the discussion and now you're looking for pity for it. You want to see how to say what you think you said? Read Brock's posts. You liked them plenty, but maybe you should go back and read the difference between his disagreements and yours. They are significant. Mea culpa if you need to, but stop the pity party. Any confusions are as a result of your attempt to hedge any criticisms of the left. I don't see why you are so committed to that because, as I've said, my criticisms apply TO ME also. I'm criticizing MY reaction as much as many others. I screwed up and I admit my fault. I'm hoping others will be willing to see that because I don't like see the entire political spectrum abandon truth like the right has. Maybe you already have. I implore you to come back from the brink if so. I'll say it again: I screwed up reacting to this and so did a lot of people. I own that. And i still think MAGA hats are for turds. (Especially male turds protesting a woman's right to make choices over her body) The two aren't mutually exclusive.