Champuckett

Best post in this thread. The dam will be breaking soon and both political parties will indeed be impacted.

It appears the hysteria happening in Hollywood and the entertainment industry may be spilling over into politics in a bigger way than originally thought. Victims are feeling more empowered and compelled to come forward now that they have more support. We now have Alabama's Judge Moore with a growing number of accusers and Senator Menendez on trial with sexual allegations as we speak. A Californian Democrat Congresswoman Jackie Speier spoke recently about the problem on Capitol Hill citing 260 settlements in the last 2 decades for sexual harassment amounting to more than $15 million. In addition, there seems to be increased talk about prominent figures Dennis Hastert (former convicted GOP Speaker of the house), Joe Biden, and Bill Clinton as victims continue to come forward. All of these politicians are people from both sides of the aisle and some accusations that were made as many as 4 decades ago are now becoming more relevant in the current climate and being talked about more openly.

That's a tough one and I agree about the old guard. I don't have many answers, only a couple of thoughts. I haven't known more than 2-3 politicians in my life that I liked, from either major party. And the few I did like didn't act like politicians, they tended to give honest answers and were straightforward, were quite apolitical in their cadence and demeanor and actions. The most important element for these few, was that they had never sold out to a corporation, a charity, a political party, a powerful figure(s), an industry, a 'whatever type of entity you want to name', and never took a dime from anyone except grassroots participants, individuals, citizens, voters. This is not much more than a feint echo in this country from my vantage point, but had a slight resurgence with Bernie in 2016. Not that I liked the guy, but he did a fine job at swelling up grassroots support against what seemed to be an invincible opponent. I'm expecting to see more of this down the road, but maybe I'm wrong.

You may be onto something. How do we get better people to run for office?

If these and other recent Hollywood revelations are in any way shocking or sad, then what's in store for us is going to be emotionally difficult to say the least.

Thanks for the response. I learned in school early on that hunting was the primary reason for the 2nd amendment and my views evolved as I got older and learned more. Looking back, I wish schools had had more civics classes where I could have learned more about government and how it operates and what law means, but alas this did not happen. I had to learn a lot on my own following my schooling. I am still learning. I hope more people can respond and we can get more feedback. I'm curious why there is only one response so far given recent events, because everyone says their needs to be more discussion about guns and gun control in this country, which seems entirely true. It's interesting that not many have an opinion on the 2nd amendment or the meaning behind it, at least as far as this tiny thread on this little section of the Internet goes. Maybe people just missed my question or don't care/have time to answer. /shrug

Based on last nights results, what are the odds this will translate into similar results for the 2018 elections? Are both major political parties hurt since the 2016 election or is one hurt more than the other? Is this the end of the Republican Party? Is this the beginning of a Democrat surge to retake the Congress and eventually the White House in 2020?

If I could get any feedback on this, that would be great. What is the primary purpose behind guns/arms under the 2nd amendment? A. Hunting B. Self defense C. Ensuring the military has arms D. Resistance to tyranny Based on your answer, could you please elaborate on why this may be the case. All answers are appreciated and my hope is that this can in some small way promote, not discourage discussion on guns and the gun issue that many have strong feelings about.

Yeah. Do you have a timetable or a rough estimate on when this is going to be concluded? I haven't seen any definitive statements yet by any officials or news agencies or anyone else that might be in the know, understandably because they are keeping it under wraps as the investigation progresses. Are we talking a matter of weeks, months, or years?

The Special Counsel Mueller is still working on the case and Russia collusion is the reason Trump won, according to numerous sources including most of the intelligence community, the DNC, and the Clinton campaign. Once they have evidence in hand, can't that be used to then impeach?

Anyone know the timetable for the Russian collusion and impeachment? Will he make it to the end of the year?

This doesn't sound mean in the slightest. This sounds right on the money. Glad you said this. We haven't had this mentality on this team for decades and it is desperately needed. Nothing should come for free and doing the "nice" thing is not a recipe for winning. He may have worked hard, harder than anyone else on the team this year to rehab his injury, but he still is likely not as good as any of the other options we have as bad as they may be. Bringing him back does not instill a sense of confidence in the decision makers.

Good post, pretty much my thoughts exactly. I've been doing some digging comparing him to other OFers of comparable age throughout MLB history, and it's not looking good.

I wouldn't recommend either. The BBC resorts to less childishness than American news with their reporting, but they are still over sensationalized and pumping a narrative that will shine more light on some facts, while ignoring others. I would agree that it's going to be an overall more rewarding experience (but probably less entertaining) than anything you will find within the US media. I'm not saying that this is what you were trying to say, but making a general statement.. In order to get to the bottom of a story and to find truth, it takes a lot more than just relying on a few news sources. You have to be incredibly vigilant and observe at least 5-10 sources at a minimum, speaking on the same topic, to get some hint at what is really going on. It may not be clear after that still what is going on, but that's ok. It's ok to not know, but we tend to be very afraid of this notion, so we let 3rd party news organizations fill in these gaps in reckless fashion. The truth is often times suppressed intentionally so that agendas can be carried out in the meantime, from both major political parties, and jumping on board with either makes the reader no better than the perpetrator pumping out their agenda. Relying on only a few sources is a dangerous road to cheerleading a specific narrative. Some people take comfort in doing this, because being on a team can be rewarding, especially when your team wins.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JYqBwrj6Oiw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZwnSAmIlZPk

In general, if a media company existed before the internet age began in the mid 90's, you can be pretty certain it has been entirely corrupted. NYT and Wash Post included. Maybe there is an exception out there to this, but I have yet to find one. Lobbyists and their respective corporations have had decades worth of time to take advantage and manipulate each of these companies to the extent that they now peddle their wares on a daily basis. The only thing NPR has going for it is it is non-profit based entity, so there is less pressure to "deliver" for 3rd parties and for profits. You can view this as a good or a bad thing, it depends on a lot of factors. Still, they do have incentive because they need public funds from the federal government every year to stay afloat, to remain relevant and necessary, so they aren't clean either. The government regardless of who is running it, will never incriminate itself, so the idea that a mostly publicly run and government funded news group would rat itself out is absurd to say the least. It's the same concept you see when corrupt politicians in Washington DC are being investigated by a committee and rarely are found guilty of anything. The government or its politicians rarely determines itself to be guilty and it's how things generally always seem to stay the same, and those that are guilty always seem to get off.

Thanks for the response Badsmerf. I think if you applied what Fox News does to right wing politics, how it seems to glorify it and be basically incapable of calling it out when there are abuses of power and double standards, and then applied that to every other source of mainstream news source and how they also give themselves passes, help out favored politicians and political parties, then we would be in full agreement. For now, at least we are in agreement about Fox. I will take it. I think as we speak, what the "media" is to us, is being redefined. We have gotten used to a half hour or hour of news at noon, at 5, at 6, news at 10, etc for more than half a century. In just the last 10 years we have gone from that being the primary way Americans got their news to having a plethora of other options across the internet. Suddenly you don't have to be a billion dollar corporation anymore to have a valid news source, you can operate a website, have a blog, have a youtube channel, have a vimeo channel, and you have the option of putting hundreds of millions of dollars into any of these or barely putting a dime and everything in between. This has forced the major news corporations to compete with these other entities, and degradation of this institution has been in full effect for decades now, especially in the last 5-6 years because their product is poor. Just like Blockbuster home video and it's conqueror Netflix, they are quickly becoming obsolete, and superior forms in the same industry are taking its place. You are right, we do need the media to stand up and expose truth, which is why this is such an important topic. They aren't doing their job right now, and haven't done it for some time. They are attacking the current president for the wrong reasons, and only holding him to to the fire for problems that benefit certain political parties, rather than benefiting the exposure of real corruption and abuse of constitutionally given power and giving this information to the people. I would argue the media not only misleads, but intentionally lies as well, regardless of political affiliation or bias, and has for many decades. They often are more concerned with getting their viewers to think a certain way, or have the "sexy" story at the top of the hour, rather than to expose the truth. If the media can be so trustworthy, why did they all champion Bush's wars into the Middle East in 2002 and 2003? They were content to play and replay Colin Powell again and again and we now know this was all a lie. Every cable news station CNN and Fox News at the time, and network news, ABC, NBC, CBS, and Fox covered this 24/7, as did the New York Times, they are all culpable. Also the only time the media has universally praised Trump on anything was when he committed a war act in April on Syria with those missiles. Are these really the institutions that we can rely on when they hate a man for everything he is, except when he sends missiles at a sovereign country? Why did the media wait until 2002 to start covering the priest abuse happening in Catholic churches all across the world? There were stories coming out in the mid-80's, yet they sat on these stories until the Boston Globe came forward with it. Who knows how many more children were abused because of withholding this information or investigating these matters further. I also agree with you that there are good journalists and journalism in this country. You just won't find them on your television set or on their affiliated websites. You can find websites on both sides of the political spectrum that are not a part of this tradition of media distortion that are doing their due diligence with far less resources. What you will also get from this is far less fear mongering and distortion of the truth, and some level of actual investigation into the matters. Right now the AP(Associated Press) is the primary source of news for every major news corporation in the country. There is a reason regardless what source of news you watch, you are basically watching the same thing. Investigative reporting at the corporate level is a dead industry in this country right now. Efficiency, speediness, profits, and an agenda dictate what we see in the news now. Business or agenda first, truth somewhere at the end of the list. There may have been a time when they did a thorough job at filtering truth from fiction, that time has passed. They need efficiency to get their stories out there, get viewers tuning in, then onto the next story. They use the internet and online resources to quickly copy/paste information from the AP and cut down on the work needed to do real investigations. It's how they stay afloat with increasing competition and cut costs amid an influx of other media institutions coming into the fold. I apologize for the lengthy response, but I wanted to do my best to address each of your points. I am a bit long winded at times. This would have been a nice bar chat with some beers, but the Twins Daily bar forum will have to suffice. Anyways, to sum it up, yes journalism is absolutely critical to having a working democracy in this country, but equating that with the media systems we have right now is not something I can agree with. We can agree to disagree I suppose. We need a good media, we do, and we should demand that if these media institutions want us to keep tuning in, we demand more truth, and less sensationalized divisiveness. Until then, we are only hurting ourselves by exposing our minds to their content, and continuing to give them reason to keep pumping out their mildly at most investigated stories. My original comment in this thread was focused on people's reliance on the media and how it seems to dictate how we shape our everyday conversation about politics or the president. If we want to move anywhere new and make a better world, have a stronger media that can properly attack Trump on the real issues, the first step will be to drop the biggest part of the equation, the corporate media, and go from there. I think we would see better, more fruitful discussions in response to the news of the day at that point and not this pointing and screaming blame game.

Thanks for the response sir. I'm not new to these boards, but new to this sub-forum, although I did make another post about the media back in November right after the election, basically saying the same thing I said above. I warned people then, but it appears many are stuck on the same circle hoping to get somewhere new. To answer your last comment, what I am saying, is to stop giving your(not you personally, in general) allegiance, or your attention to such a 3rd party group of people such as the media and refocus yourself back to your own humanity and common sense. Be vigilant and be investigative to your hearts content, but don't confuse tuning into fear porn all day on television or on the internet as being vigilant. We will all have trouble finding truth in major media corporations on television or on the web that have their tentacles dug deeply into our government, both political parties, our minds, and in every single system that exists in the country, and greatly benefit from pushing certain agendas, for either political party, when either political party is in charge and in control of various institutions. Most of the posts I am reading here seems to be repeated lines straight from the media and that could be an enormous over generalization, but from what I have read that's what it looks like. I know everyone is cynical to a certain extent, but at some point every person has got to take a look at what they are saying and why they are saying it. Maybe literally every single user in this thread is and does, super, but what I am seeing for the most part is talking points originating from one of the two major parties. Trump sucks, no question about it, but not for the reasons the media constantly is giving us. Anyone notice the media cheered Trump for the first and only time when he bombed Syria to kingdom come with 50+ missiles. Why was that the one moment they liked him? If people want to jump on a side or a team because that's what makes them feel comfortable, by all means, have at it, but then it's going to be hard to convince someone who is in neither group that you aren't getting your news from a few select sources that have their own deeply ingrained agenda. Even if individuals are doing this, it's not an easy thing to first, recognize, and secondly admit. Anyways, that's what I am seeing, I could be wrong, and have quickly already been called out for being wrong by another poster. Ok, I appreciate the feedback.

They aren't mutually exclusive. You can get information, research a topic, and dig deeper, and you can do it without turning on the television.

You were saying.. Polling numbers were wrong, again. We have to stop trusting these institutions, like the polling companies. The RCP, one of the most "trusted" and used aggregate polling groups was wrong by about 10 points. Not speaking directly to the quoted user, but to everyone that has participated in this thread in general: Why put faith into these organizations that don't know what they are doing? The pundits were proven wrong for the presidential election with their many predictions. Again, why trust these people? Use your own common sense and investigate matters that are important to you independently. Maybe some do, maybe some don't, but it seems a lot of what I have read here I could have found on any of the major corporate news web sites or on TV. The information we are all receiving from television and political news is designed to incite division and not reveal what's really going on. Division has never been higher in this country and not so coincidentally the lies in the news are at an all time high as well. It doesn't matter what political affiliation you come from, you can be liberal or conservative and see that this is happening right now. We should be more concerned with what the media is doing to the culture, to the increasing division, and to our way of life. I doubt I'm going to reach many with this message. We are all set in our ways and old habits die hard. But for the sake of the future, it might be wise to start moving away from the news media institutions that have been dictating how the majority of public information has been circulated in this country for the last 60 years.

Best advice I can give you as the dread settles in: Turn off the television. You're only going to be fed fear, hate,and lies every moment you are watching just about anything on television. And I'm not just talking political shows or the nightly news, also your normal weekly tv shows, movies, ESPN, you name it, it's political in some way. You will feel a great deal better not being hammered relentlessly with information every single day by simply not turning on that little device that we all grew up with.

There is no fight in this team, the coaches, the offense, or even the fans, when our starting pitching comes in like Turley did today, and blows up the game by the end of the 1st. There is no fight in this team when the front office makes bargain bin roster acquisitions during the offseason and corresponding moves during the season, instead of putting money down for real pitchers. There is no fight in this team when they are apparently reserved to the fact to send out starters like this as if we aren't playing competitively enough to be in the playoff hunt almost halfway through the season. The end result is the offense becomes deflated and gives up when they see that the rest of the organization has given up when we throw out starters like Turley. Look at how hard they fought for both Santana and Berrios to win games these guys start in and look at tonight or any of the Cleveland games. Completely different team on the nights we send out real starters.

That would be a question for the front office and/or coaches that have continued to try to make this work. But seriously, is there anyone out there that believes this is a good move? If so, would love to hear a convincing explanation.

There is little evidence so far to indicate that the Twins will be buyers. I don't think I'm alone when I say we really need to see some sign that the front office will make a move to improve this team in the pitching department, but I'm still waiting, twiddling my thumbs. We had an entire offseason and we have had up until the halfway point of the season into June to make some substantial additions to pitching and nothing was done beyond bargain bin and minor league acquisitions. The closest thing, and by far biggest investment we got, was a catcher that was a top 5 pitch framer. Alright, good. Now the focus should be pitching, right? It's not likely to happen, because either: A) the front office is still in assessment mode, which they have stated multiple times, and they aren't ready to pull the trigger on anything big yet or.. B ) the front office is hamstrung by financial restrictions and soft caps made by the owners, that the average fans are not aware of and they allude to A) being the reasoning They got burned on some starting pitching in recent years, with Santana being the only success. This makes the likelihood we sign a big name SP or a solid bp guy with a large contract even less likely. We will be either sellers or we will remain neutral. The best thing we can do is wait and hope for the offseason to see what Falvey and Levine will do now that they have a full year under their belt at the helm. If they still don't pursue anything substantial pitching wise, then the whole "assessment" period was a ruse and we will be entering TR 2.0 territory, which I think most Twins fans would not be happy with.

Yep, all of those play large factors, hence total system failure. Can I add: (4) inability to actually draft a pitcher when given the opportunity.