Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

1

Baseball / Re: American League

« on: December 14, 2018, 10:10:52 AM »

Brilliant!

2

Trump Administration / Re: Trump Administration

« on: December 13, 2018, 06:26:58 PM »

Why can't you pay hush money to porn stars, waitresses, male flower sellers on the street, or anyone else?
'Consenting adults'...unless there's extortion involved?

...if you use your own money.

Did Trump use his own money?

Trump likely could have gotten away with paying the hush money by reporting it.  Which defeats the purpose of hush money.  He probably shouldn't have cheated on his wife.

The only candidate ever charged with campaign finance violations over hush money was John Edwards and the trial ended in acquittal and was roundly criticized by the media as a waste of time. The furor over Trump has no legal basis but is purely political.

Of course both the Enquirer and Cohen have admitted the two things the government could not prove.against Edwards: that the hush money was paid for political purposes and that Trump was.aware of and directed the activity specifically for political purposes. But don't let the idea that individual cases stand or fall on their own facts trouble you.

As the writer in the piece I linked above put it so well: It’s also a surface-level analysis that ignores key differences between the Edwards case and the mounting evidence against Donald Trump. Comparing the two is like saying “Fran is sitting there drinking her third cup of coffee right now, so why are you on my case?” as you ram two lines up your nose in the break room.

3

Baseball / Re: American League

« on: December 13, 2018, 06:24:52 PM »

Nice recovery, Junior. You've revised your opinion.

But it doesn't change the point that writers are peddling influence of cash flowing to athletes during and after their careers, and that is just wrong.

4

Trump Administration / Ass-kicking Redfacedward to the curb can be fun.

« on: December 13, 2018, 06:18:23 PM »

Why can't you pay hush money to porn stars, waitresses, male flower sellers on the street, or anyone else?
'Consenting adults'...unless there's extortion involved?

...if you use your own money.

Did Trump use his own money?

Trump likely could have gotten away with paying the hush money by reporting it.  Which defeats the purpose of hush money.  He probably shouldn't have cheated on his wife.

The only candidate ever charged with campaign finance violations over hush money was John Edwards and the trial ended in acquittal and was roundly criticized by the media as a waste of time. The furor over Trump has no legal basis but is purely political.

And that was quite upsetting to the Heritage Foundation, who vehemently argued that he had violated the campaign finance laws. Found here: https://www.heritage.org/crime-and-justice/commentary/why-john-edwards-guilty

Misinformed critics of the government’s prosecution claim that such gifts of funds are not covered by campaign-finance law. But federal law limits the amount that a donor can contribute to a federal candidate. That amount was $2,300 in 2008, when Edwards was a candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination. The law defines “contribution” to include a gift or “deposit of money or anything of value made by any person for the purpose of influencing any election for Federal office.”

Most important, FEC regulations state that the payment of a personal expense by any person other than the candidate is considered a contribution to the candidate, unless the payment would have been made irrespective of the candidacy. As the FEC said in a prior advisory opinion, the key question is, “Would the third party pay the expense if the candidate was not running for Federal office?”

The testimony of government witnesses makes it pretty clear that the payments by these donors would not have been made if Edwards had not been running for office. Edwards is a multimillionaire; he could easily have afforded to make the payments (including legally obligated child support) out of his personal funds. But such personal payments would have blown up his candidacy and made it impossible to hide what he clearly wanted to keep hidden. The payments by his maxed-out campaign contributors were clearly intended to “influence” the 2008 presidential election by keeping Edwards in the race and protecting his reputation.

However, there are vastly different circumstances, as well illustrated in this piece:

https://abovethelaw.com/2018/12/stop-comparing-donald-trumps-campaign-finance-fraud-with-john-edwardss-case/

John Edwards did have co-conspirators rolling on him. But the prosecution could not show that either Edwards, or anybody on his staff, solicited campaign contributions specifically for the purposes of paying off his mistress, Rielle Hunter. There was no tape of Edwards telling his lawyer to make it “cash.” There was no tape of Edwards pretending to know nothing about the hush money payments that he himself ordered.

The key witness against Edwards was a junior staffer named Andrew Young. Young testified to a devious scheme he helped Edwards execute. But, crucially for distinguishing purposes, Young could not testify to giving Edwards the money to execute his expensive cover-up. From the Daily Beast:

In a stunning revelation, the witness alleged the multimillionaire Edwards first asked him for a loan knowing that the Youngs had recently come into a windfall of some $400,000 on the sale of their home. Asked for his response to Edwards by the prosecutor, Young replied, “I said, ‘No, sir.’ We needed that money to build our new house.” And, Young added, “We always had trouble getting reimbursed from the office. Giving him two or three hundred dollars once in a while was one thing, but …” His voice trailed off and the point was made. (To hear Young tell it, Edwards rarely dipped into his own pocket—not even the day Young drove the lovers to a clinic to get their shots prior to their alleged trip to Africa.)

According to Young, after he turned down Edwards’s request for a loan the senator instructed him to approach a dear friend, David Kirby, and ask for money. That didn’t work. Young says he and Edwards discussed the idea of asking über-wealthy Texas lawyer Fred Baron for financial help since he had been generous in the past. The senator nixed that idea, said Young, saying Baron was too close to his political rivals—Bill and Hillary Clinton—and, besides, Baron was “too much of a gossip.”

Then, serendipitously, a note from one of Edwards’ richest donors arrived offering help. Rachel “Bunny” Melon wanted John to be the next president so he could “rescue America.”

Compare that to Michael Cohen’s ADMISSION that he loaned Trump the money to pay off Stormy Daniels.

John Edwards’s main defense was that he didn’t know he was using “campaign” money when he paid off Hunter. He argued that he did not know that the “serendipitous” donation Young testified to was “campaign” money. I find that argument to be bollocks, but Trump cannot credibly make the same claim. That’s in part because of the OTHER co-conspirator who kind of rolled on Trump today.

 
2. THE NATIONAL ENQUIRER WAS PART OF THE HUSH MONEY SCHEME

You might remember that the National Enquirer actually broke the story about John Edwards’s sordid affair. The publication did not break the story on Trump’s affairs, because they were in on it.

American Media Inc., the publisher of the National Enquirer, has finally officially admitted to that, today. From Talking Points Memo:

After Michael Cohen was sentenced to three years in prison, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York announced that prosecutors had previously reached an agreement not to prosecute the National Enquirer’s parent company over its payment to kill Karen McDougal’s story about her alleged affair with President Trump.

As part of the agreement, American Media, Inc., admitted that it paid McDougal $150,000 in an attempt to influence the 2016 election, according to a statement from the U.S. attorney’s office.

“The Office also announced today that it has previously reached a non-prosecution agreement with AMI, in connection with AMI’s role in making the above-described $150,000 payment before the 2016 presidential election,” the U.S. attorney’s office said in a statement on Cohen’s sentencing. “As a part of the agreement, AMI admitted that it made the $150,000 payment in concert with a candidate’s presidential campaign, and in order to ensure that the woman did not publicize damaging allegations about the candidate before the 2016 presidential election. AMI further admitted that its principal purpose in making the payment was to suppress the woman’s story so as to prevent it from influencing the election.”

You can tell me all you want that Donald Trump was too stupid to know that Michael Cohen’s money was a campaign contribution, but you cannot credibly say that Trump didn’t know the National Enquirer’s money was not a contribution, or that he didn’t recognize catching-and-killing McDougal’s story was an “in-kind” contribution.

So that means Trump is left with arguing that he didn’t know that the Enquirer was paying off mistresses on his behalf which… MAKES NO GODDAMN SENSE.

 

Not that you will read them, nor admit you understand them, should someone read them to you.

5

Baseball / Re: American League

« on: December 13, 2018, 06:08:22 PM »

The "election" of Harold Baines to the Hall of Fame spear-headed by by an ex-employer, and former GM who traded for him, and a committee of players he played with, puts a huge magnifying glass on the massive conflict of interest and potential cronyism of  this cherry-picking selection process. While some conflicts exists in the 500+ members/voters of the BBWAA, they are redcuced by the size of the voing base and several elements of diversification and they are relatively conflict-free body, as attested that not more than 6% of the voters thought Baines was a HoF player. There are only a handful of players who have been denied votes, and largely on the grounds they were massive assholes.

and voting for the HoF is not making news per se, again reduced by the fact a minimum of 75% of the 500+ voters are required to share a like opiinion, And its a largely neutral/bias free assessment of a ballplayer's qualifications relative to other ballplayers, and certainly much more neutral and less conflicted than a former owner might be.

Thank you, Joel Sherman. But the writers cannot call themselves journalists, when they create the news.

They're reporters who write about baseball.

They are giving their opinion on the subject they are probably 1) more qualified AND 2) less conflicted

than any other singular population to give an opinion.

And given a the tiny handful of errors, real and imagined, they may have made as a group, its hard to believe any other group would do as good and unbiased a job.

Given that it takes at least 375 like opinions (75% of 500) on the same player, the "make the news" argument is just not very well thought out position.

I adjusted my post above. And clarified my argument, demonstrating how you are indeed, wrong.

We disagree.

Big surprise.

Writers as a diverse population are more objective and less conflicted than owners, managers, past teamamates.

Case in point Jerry Reinsdorf, and Tony LaRussa championed and persuaded Baines-era players to elect Baines.

Only 6% of the BBWAA writers/voters who watched him play thought thought him a good candidate.

There was no Baines conspiracy to kee[ Baines out, No one really thought he was a compelling HoF player.

Listening to most callers/pundits for the past couple of days, Baines election is getting killed.

the consensus: Nice guy, good player but he doesn't belong in the Hof.

And troll the only thing you clarified was you were wrong again.

There you go again, with insults. You do that whenever you know you're either wrong, or have overstated your case. In this case, you've done both.

I've already proved why it's wrong for writers to create the news.

 But here's more. They should not be involved in award giving.

The writers are impacting what players earn., Both on and off the field.

Can you "conflict on interest"?

Don't just take my word for it.

Others recognize this wrong you are too willing to defend: https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/nationals/heres-a-vote-for-getting-sports-writers-out-of-the-balloting-process/2017/01/04/8cd4a25c-d285-11e6-9cb0-54ab630851e8_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.f5cdd1943d65

Thanks for playing, but you lost another one.

Troll

Pointing out you are wrong is not an insult but rather an amply supported fact.

Objectivy and knowledge about the game are to me the needed criteria for HoF voters. IMO the BBWAA supplies both those better than any other single voter group.

The Baines election was pure cronyism by voters with varying degrees of conflicts of interest and personal interests.

This tainted election process has been mocked the last few days as its obvious flaws exposed for most to see,

A diverse group of 500 reporters and writers voting five (5) plus years from the candidates retirement have no such direct conflicts or biases.

In general they bring knowlwedge gained from years of watching the game and modest side issues which could cloud neutral assessments.

I understand that you do not understand, but trust me when I say your intellectual short-comings and inability to construct a coherent argument supporting your postion should not be a permanent barrier to you learning.

Asking questions might be a good way for you to to start.

And troll if you bothered to read the article you lnked to

here was the most important sentence in the article.

There may not be a more qualified group (BBWAA) to vote on players’ credentials for the Hall or for MVP, Cy Young honors, etc.

Your feeble attempts to belittle me, as a result of you being schooled once again as to why writers should be disqualified from any voting are as lame as your belief system that you are anyone else's superior.

That said, you've revealed that
you didn't read it completely, or you would have likely comprehended the MAJOR PART OF THE PIECE.

 Likely, though being as dense as you are, you may not fully grasp what has been so well defined.

But here's your last chance to gather in what is so plain for any normally functioning individual to understand:

The Washington Post has a long-running policy preventing its writers from voting on any and all awards. Other organizations — including the New York Times, Los Angeles Times and Baltimore Sun — have similar policies. So while these decisions were taken out of my hands for me, let’s follow a couple of examples of why we all need to pull ourselves out of these processes.

Hall of Famers, of course, make more money in retirement than really good players do. Speaking engagements, card signings, potential endorsement deals — they’re all impacted by whether a player is in the Hall. “Hall of Famer Johnny Bench” simply earns more than “former Reds catcher Johnny Bench.”

If that doesn’t seem like a direct link between a writer voting and a player’s earning potential, look at current players’ contracts. Carlos Gomez is a veteran major league outfielder who, this offseason, signed a one-year, $11.5 million contract to return to the Texas Rangers, with whom he had revitalized his career. This wasn’t a marquee signing, and it barely made much of a ripple outside of Arlington, Tex.


What also didn’t make a ripple because they’re so mainstream: clauses in Gomez’s contract that would pay him $250,000 for winning the American League MVP award, $200,000 for coming in second, down to $50,000 for placing fifth — in voting performed by two members of the BBWAA in each AL city.

Should Gomez be named the World Series MVP, he would receive $150,000. Should he be the MVP of the American League Championship Series, that’s $100,000. Both of those postseason honors have BBWAA members as part of the voting panel, joining broadcasters. Given he hit .231 and slugged .384 while splitting time between Houston and Texas in 2016, Gomez would be a candidate for comeback player of the year in 2017. That would be worth $150,000, and that, too, would be voted on by baseball writers.

So Gomez could earn $650,000 in awards voted on by the people who cover him. And he is just an example.

In some ways, these kind of pay-for-performance deals should be praised because they reward players for what they accomplish, not what they might do. The problem lies in how those accomplishments are determined. Think about it: Part of a Rangers beat writer’s job is having at least a working relationship with Gomez. What’s to prevent Gomez, at the end of a strong season, from approaching a reporter and saying, “Hey, you thinking about me for MVP?”

...the current setup assigns responsibility where it does not belong.

Part of a sportswriter’s job is to debate the historical merits of Guerrero, Rodriguez, Bagwell and the other candidates up for the Hall or argue whether Daniel Murphy or Kris Bryant should have been the National League MVP last season. Affecting the livelihoods of athletes, either during or after their careers, most certainly is not.

What you excuse, and attempt to paint as competence, is indeed NOT part of a sportswriter's job--an assertion put forth by a professional sportswriter.

You apparently don't even know what the discussion is, or you'd have the sense to shut your pie-hole, dim one.

 Once again, you missed the clearly stated arguments being against writers being involved in the HOF or for any awards for athletes.

I didn't support Baines selection, nor did I oppose it. Don't confuse the two issues.

And admit when you're wrong.

As you were again.

The beatings and your abject humiliation will continue, so best you learn to get used to it, Igor.



 

6

Baseball / Re: American League

« on: December 13, 2018, 03:19:36 PM »

The "election" of Harold Baines to the Hall of Fame spear-headed by by an ex-employer, and former GM who traded for him, and a committee of players he played with, puts a huge magnifying glass on the massive conflict of interest and potential cronyism of  this cherry-picking selection process. While some conflicts exists in the 500+ members/voters of the BBWAA, they are redcuced by the size of the voing base and several elements of diversification and they are relatively conflict-free body, as attested that not more than 6% of the voters thought Baines was a HoF player. There are only a handful of players who have been denied votes, and largely on the grounds they were massive assholes.

and voting for the HoF is not making news per se, again reduced by the fact a minimum of 75% of the 500+ voters are required to share a like opiinion, And its a largely neutral/bias free assessment of a ballplayer's qualifications relative to other ballplayers, and certainly much more neutral and less conflicted than a former owner might be.

Thank you, Joel Sherman. But the writers cannot call themselves journalists, when they create the news.

They're reporters who write about baseball.

They are giving their opinion on the subject they are probably 1) more qualified AND 2) less conflicted

than any other singular population to give an opinion.

And given a the tiny handful of errors, real and imagined, they may have made as a group, its hard to believe any other group would do as good and unbiased a job.

Given that it takes at least 375 like opinions (75% of 500) on the same player, the "make the news" argument is just not very well thought out position.

I adjusted my post above. And clarified my argument, demonstrating how you are indeed, wrong.

We disagree.

Big surprise.

Writers as a diverse population are more objective and less conflicted than owners, managers, past teamamates.

Case in point Jerry Reinsdorf, and Tony LaRussa championed and persuaded Baines-era players to elect Baines.

Only 6% of the BBWAA writers/voters who watched him play thought thought him a good candidate.

There was no Baines conspiracy to kee[ Baines out, No one really thought he was a compelling HoF player.

Listening to most callers/pundits for the past couple of days, Baines election is getting killed.

the consensus: Nice guy, good player but he doesn't belong in the Hof.

And troll the only thing you clarified was you were wrong again.

There you go again, with insults. You do that whenever you know you're either wrong, or have overstated your case. In this case, you've done both.

I've already proved why it's wrong for writers to create the news.

 But here's more. They should not be involved in award giving.

The writers are impacting what players earn., Both on and off the field.

Can you "conflict on interest"?

Don't just take my word for it.

Others recognize this wrong you are too willing to defend: https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/nationals/heres-a-vote-for-getting-sports-writers-out-of-the-balloting-process/2017/01/04/8cd4a25c-d285-11e6-9cb0-54ab630851e8_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.f5cdd1943d65

Thanks for playing, but you lost another one.

7

Football / Re: NFL

« on: December 13, 2018, 01:18:27 PM »

I expect Otis Taylor to have a huge game.

Is Fred "The Hammer" Williamson playing? Or is he still broken?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T9gbDdp8FL8

8

Baseball / Re: American League

« on: December 13, 2018, 01:11:50 PM »

The "election" of Harold Baines to the Hall of Fame spear-headed by by an ex-employer, and former GM who traded for him, and a committee of players he played with, puts a huge magnifying glass on the massive conflict of interest and potential cronyism of  this cherry-picking selection process. While some conflicts exists in the 500+ members/voters of the BBWAA, they are redcuced by the size of the voing base and several elements of diversification and they are relatively conflict-free body, as attested that not more than 6% of the voters thought Baines was a HoF player. There are only a handful of players who have been denied votes, and largely on the grounds they were massive assholes.

and voting for the HoF is not making news per se, again reduced by the fact a minimum of 75% of the 500+ voters are required to share a like opiinion, And its a largely neutral/bias free assessment of a ballplayer's qualifications relative to other ballplayers, and certainly much more neutral and less conflicted than a former owner might be.

Thank you, Joel Sherman. But the writers cannot call themselves journalists, when they create the news.

They're reporters who write about baseball.

They are giving their opinion on the subject they are probably 1) more qualified AND 2) less conflicted

than any other singular population to give an opinion.

And given a the tiny handful of errors, real and imagined, they may have made as a group, its hard to believe any other group would do as good and unbiased a job.

Given that it takes at least 375 like opinions (75% of 500) on the same player, the "make the news" argument is just not very well thought out position.

I adjusted my post above. And clarified my argument, demonstrating how you are indeed, wrong.

9

Baseball / Re: American League

« on: December 13, 2018, 01:04:51 PM »

Hell, Cy Young got only 76% of the vote, and he has an award named after him! Today's voters would have left them off the ballot.

We could hear it now:

"Sure, 511 wins is something. But he did it over 22 years. He's a compiler. And besides wins don't tell you how good a pitcher really is...."

I think Baines being picked by the committee was their view that longevity and high performance should be considered and rewarded.

10

Baseball / Re: American League

« on: December 13, 2018, 01:03:09 PM »

Yes the writers hated him.  But they voted him into the Hall-of-Fame.  Your suggestion was that the writers were using their love/hate of certain players, you used Allen and Murray as examples, to keep them out of the Hall.  That wasn't the case with Murray.

And I agree.  I don't think news, i.e., Hall of Fame selection, should be made by people who are supposed to report on the news.

You inferred what I didn't write, regarding Murray. Still, 15% of the writers didn't vote for him. Of that group, none were compelled to explain why.

11

Baseball / Re: American League

« on: December 13, 2018, 01:00:21 PM »

The "election" of Harold Baines to the Hall of Fame spear-headed by by an ex-employer, and former GM who traded for him, and a committee of players he played with, puts a huge magnifying glass on the massive conflict of interest and potential cronyism of  this cherry-picking selection process. While some conflicts exists in the 500+ members/voters of the BBWAA, they are redcuced by the size of the voing base and several elements of diversification and they are relatively conflict-free body, as attested that not more than 6% of the voters thought Baines was a HoF player. There are only a handful of players who have been denied votes, and largely on the grounds they were massive assholes.

and voting for the HoF is not making news per se, again reduced by the fact a minimum of 75% of the 500+ voters are required to share a like opiinion, And its a largely neutral/bias free assessment of a ballplayer's qualifications relative to other ballplayers, and certainly much more neutral and less conflicted than a former owner might be.

Thank you, Joel Sherman. But the writers cannot call themselves journalists, when they create the news, which is exactly what they are doing when they hand out awards based on rules they created, as well.

Proof of that is how media outlets like the NYTimes do not allow their writers to participate in such voting.

12

Trump Administration / Re: Trump Administration

« on: December 13, 2018, 12:59:08 PM »

Hillary thew a cool $ 1 billion or so, (much of it donations to Clinton Foundation to help children)

You are a liar Red. And that is a bald faced, bold faced lie. There is no evidence of any financial intermingling between the CF and Hillary's campaign.  That is a lie, pure and simple.

This is true and needed to be said, but I was mostly shocked that someone can be so ignorant of current events that they think the extent of Russian interference in the 2016 election was an ad buy on Google.

You calling Google CEO Sundar Pichai a liar?
How racist of you.

It's pretty clear you are a full-on troll.  That is one fucking disgustiing distortion of a comment that you know perfectly well was a sound rebuttal.  And you know that Russian meddling went far beyond Google.  And you know that Sundar didn't claim otherwise.  Either acknowledge and respond to actual arguments made here, or get the fuck out of here.

Nor do you reply to facts rebutting your insinuations (I won't even call them arguments).  Like the figures that Bart quoted on 2016 campaign spending. 

All your obsession with isolated factoids from 2016's scoreboard gets you is drawing everyone's attention to all the shit that Trump did back then, the slander, the lies, the voter suppression, the Russian hacking....pretty much everything that helped 26% of Americans get the retarded sociopathic mobster in the White House they thought would act out their dreams of America with a giant moat around it.

Well, at least you didn’t call me deplorable.

That would be redundant.

13

Trump Administration / Re: Trump Administration

« on: December 13, 2018, 12:58:35 PM »

JARED is party leader.

Here? Are in Saudi Arabia?

14

Trump Administration / Re: Trump Administration

« on: December 12, 2018, 04:01:12 PM »

Michael Cohen tweeted on 12/19/15, almost exactly 3 years ago: "@HillaryClinton when you go to prison for defrauding America and perjury, your room and board will be free!"

Heh

15

Trump Administration / Re: Trump Administration

« on: December 12, 2018, 03:41:36 PM »

That's not answering my question. My post was about using "gentrification" to argue putting limits on growth in a neighborhood.

That was what your post was about, yes.  Which is why I responded with the facts that should make it clear that this isn't germane to a discussion re: the Opportunity Zones tax incentives.

In part but not only because applying those incentives in areas where they were intended would speed up gentrification in those neighborhoods, not limit it.

I see.

You oppose funding economic development, unless it's in the right neighborhood.

I am pointing out, apparently to someone to obtuse to understand, that the tax incentive in question exists in order to fund economic development in neighborhoods where that economic development would not otherwise happen.

Clearly, you have a dizzying intellect, and would like to move away from your own point of view.

As clearly, you've shown that you are opposed to economic development, unless it's in the right neighborhood.

I think you are trying to have your lunch and eat it, too.