bleedorange

Oh and here is a fine gem from the Junior Senator from Texas.  

 

http://www.npr.org/2016/03/22/471405546/u-s-officials-and-politicians-react-to-brussels-attacks

 

WTF?  That is so completely outrageous and stupid.  It baffles my mind that after reading what he wrote down, he thought, oh yeah that sounds like a good, sane, non horrible thing to say in response to this tragedy.  Jesus man, I am not sure if Cruz himself is just pandering to the American idiots out there or he actually believes in that crap.  I guess if Cruz is elected president Dearborn MI is on notice.  

 

BTW Tinnitus, I am glad your friend is ok.  

I'm pretty sure he actually believes it. Similar to his comments and "arguments" against climate change.

Not necessarily as the motivating factor, but I think that's a component in anybody's decision to run for office. Especially president. I doubt that Bernie's decision to run is purely altruistic.

Beltre, who routinely has his 9-year-old son Adrian Jr. with him in the clubhouse, said the rules are well known. Neither Beltre nor Colby Lewis recall a time when a player’s kids became an issue in a clubhouse.

 

“As a team we try not to cross those rules and keep it acceptable for everybody,” Beltre said.

 

The main two rules are as obvious as you’d expect: acting respectable and quiet while in the locker room and the clubhouse being cleared of all family 90 minutes before a game.

 

. . .

 

But Lewis also knows the timing of the request of LaRoche seems odd. Why do it halfway through spring training?

 

“It’s been going on forever,” Lewis said. “Maybe it would be different if you’re in the middle of pennant race in September and the kid is running around being crazy.”

 

That’s never been the case with Rangers kids. They’re always well-behaved inside the clubhouse, at least when media is around.

 

Banister said he encourages the family time because of the nature of the job and the family atmosphere he wants cultivated in the clubhouse.

 

“Our kids and families have to share us with absolutely everybody,” he said. “For our guys to be able to monitor that and have a healthy balance with their own family and the ability to bring their family to the ballpark and allow them to see and be part of, yet have limitations at times because it is a serious business. There is a time, when it’s ‘let’s go to work.’ I think we do a great job of that here where we find that balance.”

I think each team does have rules about it. And with the White Sox, there has never been an issue with it until now for some reason.

I don't doubt that Clinton is running for her legacy. But doesn't everyone? And does that necessarily mean she would be a bad president?

Playing baseball isn't a normal job, though. And it's hard to figure out who had a problem with the kid being there. First they said some players did. Then, after the threatened boycott of a game, they said it was coaches complaining. Then they said it was Reinsdorf. I also read that LaRoche might be filing a grievance because his contract had something in it about his son. There was also an article from a few years ago that talked about what they did for his schooling, but I don't remember the specifics.

It just seems that the line management decided to draw was arbitrary and out of the blue, and no one can give a good reason for why it was drawn like that.

It's especially weird because of how it escalated so quickly when it seemingly didn't need to. Unless it was a calculated move to get him to retire, but that just doesn't seem plausible.

Here's a good article on how the Rangers handle kids in the clubhouse, which I assume is similar to how most clubs do it:

http://www.star-telegram.com/sports/mlb/texas-rangers/article66793592.html

Still time to take back all of the predictions putting CWS in the World Series #familyfirst

Again, though, Biden merely said that during a contentious election season, there was no use in the president nominating someone at the far end of the political spectrum. In other words, Obama is technically following the "Biden Rule" by nominating a centrist judge, while the Republican majority is just being partisan.

Isn't this similar to what Biden said 2 decades ago?

Actually, it isn't. The entire speech Biden gave was about the confirmation process in general. He said in the same speech: "I believe that so long as the public continues to split its confidence between the branches, compromise is the responsible course both for the White House and for the Senate," he said. "Therefore I stand by my position, Mr. President, if the President [George H.W. Bush] consults and cooperates with the Senate or moderates his selections absent consultation, then his nominees may enjoy my support as did Justices Kennedy and Souter."

The goal at this point is to do everything possible to prevent Trump from getting a majority before the convention.

Rubio's campaign has just told Ohio supporters to vote for Kasich. I can't wait for Tuesday!

Doesn't anyone else get tired of talking about guns? Nothing is changing.

Also, does anyone remember when Bobby Jindal was a rising star??? Ha! Louisiana is an absolute mess right now because of him. (And how do you make Louisiana worse?)

After Rubio loses Florida, it will be interesting to see what he does. Is there a chance for a Cruz-Rubio ticket? Will Rubio regroup and run again in 2020? I can't tell if he's too young (although the same age as Cruz), or just a weak candidate.

The other strange thing I've been reading a lot is how last year it was noted by everyone how strong the potential list of GOP candidates was. I know it's hindsight now, but I honestly never thought that Cruz, Rubio, Rand Paul, Scott Walker, etc., were particularly strong candidates. Last year's enthusiasm for those guys seemed as strange to me then as it does now.

Cause I hate 'Merica!

Figures.

I've never been a big fan of predictions. Just looking forward to the season to start.

I frankly don't care about the Rangers.  I don't know that much about the Rangers.  I just looked at the division and I know Houston is a young team with a lot of upside.  Also in my "research" I averaged 82-83 wins by the Texans and 88-91 wins by Houston. But I guess it wouldn't suprise me if the Rangers did well.  I have already put in too much thought on the Rangers, so I probably won't think about them until August.

Why do you hate baseball?

Once again you underestimate the Rangers. The team that won the west (winning 88 games) will have Cole Hamels for an entire season; a healthy Derek Holland; Yu Darvish in May; a healthy Colby Lewis; a healthy Adrian Beltre; a mature Odor; Ian Desmond's bat in the lineup (don't tell me he's a crappy fielder...ever seen Schwarber?); a vastly improved bullpen. I seriously doubt Choo will get off to such a horrible start to the season again.

Like

I drove by the Fort Worth Convention Center this morning and the line for the Trump rally was already really long.

I guess I'll vote for Rubio as the least objectionable of the three?

You got that right. This is super painful.

 

LouieB

No way. This has been the most entertaining and interesting primary in years.

Read this, interesting how the Rust belt is gonna play a huge roll.  

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/how-donald-trump-becomes-president_us_56cb5429e4b0928f5a6c9ead

 

NAFTA and TPP are going to be issues for Clinton.  

 

Played around (and I know it is early) with some electoral math and of course the first one I came up with was a 269 to 269 tie

 

http://www.270towin.com/maps/5n04d

 

That would be a shit show.  

Interesting read. Thanks for the link! It still has the feeling of a "perfect storm" set of circumstances for Trump to win, but the fact that a chance exists at all is a little frightening.

I was just thinking about this. I'm not sure whether I agree. Both are pretty scary. I think Cruz especially shows some Nixon-like levels of deceit and paranoia. On the other hand, I cannot think of a more thin-skinned politician than Trump.

 

Trump's policies would probably end up being more moderate than Cruz. I can almost believe the sheep in wolf's clothing I've heard others mention. I don't think he'd give a shit about gay marriage or abortion, which is good. Though he'd probably appoint justices who did give a shit. The thing that worries me most is his demagoguery, especially as it relates to Latinos and Muslims. The tone his presidency would establish would border on thuggery. I think he would absolutely diminish our reputation across the globe in a way that could be truly tragic for years.

I think you definitely could be right about Trump, but where there is some question as to whether Trump would actually bring that tone to the presidency, I don't wonder that about Cruz. Everything you typed above can be said about Cruz with the addition of religious zealotry. Cruz's brand of conservatism really bothers me.

The only instance I could ever see myself voting for Donald Trump would be if it was just a race between him and Ted Cruz.

"I, Donald 'Douchebag' Trump, do solemnly..."

I honestly worry more about a Cruz presidency than a Trump presidency. But I just don't see anyone the Republicans roll out capable of beating Clinton.

Interesting how it flips; I can see exactly what you're saying here and it makes sense. However, I was unclear, what I was talking about is different. It's how you respond to a Clinton nomination as a skeptical progressive. In other words, I'm saying "go ahead and vote for her, it's better than the alternative" in the general election if she gets it, whereas my friends are considering abstaining from voting if Bernie doesn't get the nomination.

Yeah, unless you truly see no difference between the candidates in the general election (which is hard to imagine in any case), I'm not sure why someone wouldn't vote for whoever they think is the better candidate, despite that person not representing your ideal choice.

All in all, this has been a fascinating primary so far. And it looks to only get more intriguing, especially with the chance of a brokered convention for the GOP. There was an interesting article on fivethirtyeight.com about how the delegate math for Cruz just doesn't add up...he's strong in proportional delegate states and weak in winner-take-all states. But the longer he stays in, the easier it is for Trump to win states, because despite his perceived ceiling, Trump will come out ahead in a 3-way race.

It does look like Sanders is fading. Losing Nevada hurts him because there will now be no momentum boost to help him gain any much-needed ground in the South.