dc.

Yesterday, Trump couldn't identify key members of the Iranian regime and argued that it wasn't his business to know that yet... He'd learn it when he was elected. Today, he's an expert on the negotiations that took place... Ive been doing deals for a long time, Ive been making lots of wonderful deals great deals thats what I do, Mr. Trump said in his speech. Never, ever, ever in my life have I seen any transaction as incompetently negotiated as our deal with Iran.

Sorry can't resist... Most immigrants don't get free services. It's hard to get free services when you don't have a SSN. Plus, the entire "follow the rules" when you come is loaded. Your grandparents came legally? You mean when all you had to do was sign your name in a book because no one cared? Did they call your entire country drug dealers and rapists too? (Actually, for most of us they did... And how sad it was) Meanwhile, even Trump's idea of "other countries will listen" is a joke. I'm sure yelling and shouting and calling Mexicans criminals will endear their government to us. And I'm sure when we put tariffs on their goods, they won't just retaliate with the same... As for your money, I'm sure you understand that people looking their money doesn't always mean they like your money too...

The immigrant question would take too long, but I'll start with one little fact: we need immigrants and more workers to sustain our finances. Social security and Medicare can not survive as our population ages, lives longer and had fewer children in the workforce. As for women, you haven't seen the protests? I'm sorry, but you don't call women bimbos or discuss their looks in such a manner and get taken seriously. His whole style of "anti pc" is bullshit. You can curse and disagree and say thingsi disagree with. But that's different from "winning arguments" by calling me a loser. He is an internet troll. If you can see that, I can't help.

Force - certainly don't disagree with a lot of your general idea; in fact, an argument could be made that such a swing started decades ago and of course that even Obama is a result of that kind of political movement/system. BUT, demographically, the numbers are clear - the truly scary, sad and hateful ideas that come from the likes of Trump and his ilk are overwhelmingly supported by older, whiter men. And simply put, that demographic is fading fast. It's why the GOP will have trouble winning the presidency again under the current system and given their current brand of politics. I have little faith that the younger generations will be any better as governors in any meaningful regard. We'll continue to elect the loudmouth or the catchphrase or the cool motto of the day. Sanders might well win simply by running "against the billionaires" and on "free education" - even if his foreign policy skills are severely lacking (though, not sure who has those skills these days?). But my post was directly in regards to Trump: the vile spewed by Trump specifically is a fading brand and that is my one hope when I watch the circus of this year so far.

Donald's most recent ad... Thus is brilliant. The sad part is, while I see this as a perfect reflection of his campaign and ask that's wrong with it... There are obviously so many who literally see this and think, yup, he's got my vote! https://youtu.be/zOd1J2ZBkek

Crav, I say this as kindly as possible. I would expect nothing less of you than voting for Trump... And you're betraying more than just your years as a democratic voter for doing it (not that I care about party). He's said nothing specific except that he wants to build a wall. I wish I were surprised that such vague statements work with people, but then again, people love to watch coach speak and player interviews... And they love Sarah Palin... It's really pathetic. Meanwhile, Max, so much right was done by your generation and yet so much has changed since the 60s-70s within that same generation. First, of course, we forget that there were plenty back then too in favor of bad, racist ideas... They didn't go away, they just became quieter. Second, even the good ones have, in some cases, changed. The adage by Churchill or whoever about age and liberalism/conservatism is true... Not that it's good to be one or the other, but simply that people become more conservative over time. I mean only to say that the greatest opponents now to ideas like single payer healthcare or subsidized tuition are the older generation. And it's sad doubly because they both blame the youth for a problem we didn't create (or simply tell us to live with it if we really care!) and they benefit(ed) from the very things that they say they despise. Single payer healthcare, like Medicare? Affordable tuition and reasonable interest rates, like forty years ago? Compared to inflation, college costs triple what it did in the 1970s. Then, you could work minimum wage for the summer and pay for your tuition all year. Now, you with minimum wage for the whole year and good luck going to college, let alone paying for it.

I don't mean to be rude, but my biggest hope is that the generation that creates the mess, screwed it up even more, tells me it's my fault, and supports/creates the likes of Trump... will be gone one day. The reality is, Trump's support base -and many like him- are old. The really angry divisive anti rights angry equality types are old. Not exclusively of course, but the demographics are pretty clear. The Fox News types are old. Soon, they won't be old...

The judge went no where near the actual factual info about footballs because it's not a valid appeal. Appeals don't deadly with issues of fact which have been decided already. They deal with the "in betweens" like whether a fact was admissible or a rule (precedent) followed appropriately or not.

Except, the league is arguing there is no precedent for this kind of attempt at cheating. And they are right. The other infractions are NOT technically conduct detrimental because they have been removed from that list. The fines have no bearing on other conduct penalties.

I forgot to tag my article, but you tagged the same one. We're reading it quite differently though. The CBA highlights many offenses and punishments, but none of those are conduct detrimental by definition. The article is actually saying the Goodell, by rule in the CBA, has the ability to levy any punishment for any action not listed specifically in the agreement. In other words, when the act was out in the list, it is removed from being conduct detrimental. But if it's not in the list, the CBA says it's the commissioners decision.

Follow up; my research and the article below both say that conduct detrimental gives the league commissioner authority to practically do whatever he wants. There are certain fine schedules and the like for specific offenses, but if it's not on the offense list and is conduct detrimental, it can be pretty open ended. Now, the judge obviously thinks there needed to be some precedent or warning, but I think the league will gave a good shot at winning an appeal

Max, you have consistently said the CBA says that a detrimental action can only be a fine. What's the source on that? I can't find it in my studies of the CBA, though they have been brief.

It's circumstantial because you don't actually have evidence, you are relying on the circumstance (odd timing of phone destruction) in place of evidence and to make presumptions about evidence

Schmucks article today in The Sun on this is a good counter, though. The judge's opinion is equally illogical in many regards. For one, if the judge was set in the notion that any punishment was in fact a violation of the CBA, why send them to mediation? And I take issue with your first sentence. As your quotes show, the judge had little to say about guilt - in fact, that's not even really his job - he only cared about punishment. In the end, I'm tired of the whole thing. Sure, the courts are where labor disputes are settled. But Bradyt and the NFL shouldn't get such precedence over every other docket. Something tells me if I was suspended from work and sued over it, I would not have it sorted out, including appeals, before my next check was due.

The affordability of renting varies. Depends on your local rates. Here it wasn't really going to save me money... But I was still willing to consider it (haven't acted) because of the moral imperative

1900kwh a month is a ton. I have a house much bigger than that and use about 1000kwh in peak months, only 800 in lesser. LA also isn't pricing like most of the country. I've heard estimates in my area of closer to $30k including install before credits. Still not super affordable, but could be done on a HELOC easily. Meanwhile, you're also forgetting new advances like the Tesla batteries that will allow people to store solar energy overnight making the systems even more useful and efficient. But you also haven't addressed my last post - "renting" solar from a company that puts the units in for you and you pay usage as you normally would. It can defer that cost over a long period of time. Finally, no one is saying solar is the best or only good option. But it sure beats fossil fuels.

Actually there are plenty of affordable ways. Lots of companies will now install the panels free, then charge you per kwh of energy, just like your power company. It can be slightly more expensive, but hardly totally cost prohibitive. The problem is most people won't do it unless it really saves them money, because like you, most can't look past today and their own bills. Meanwhile, yes, the sky is falling. You're old enough you'll be fine, though...

Not sure I like the "our AAA guys can do it" model... If they could, there's little reason we wouldn't be seeing them this year with all the other fails so far. I'm convinced our farm is far weaker than we hear. That said, I agree on Wieters. Still torn in Chen and Davis. I'd keep Chen first I think.

I wouldn't agree it was a 180, but I do agree he didn't succeed with the strategy this year. If you look at signings like Cruz and Jimenez, they both came after the market cleared. They were relatively cheap, low cost bets. He had a chance to do the same with Kendrys Morales this year and we didn't pull the trigger, which in hindsight looks like a fail given what he did in KC and what we've lacked... But not sure how many other options really fit the mold (of his strategy) this year

Aside ... Despite perceptions, the O's are totally average in one run games this year (17-22). By comparison, the first place Jays are 12-24.

First, yes you can be that/do that. Second, Hardy at least plays a position that is hard to replace. Corner outfielder? DH? Reliever? Not exactly impossible to fill, even if the production isn't the same. We obviously didn't from the offensive positions well, or Cruz at least, but we also didn't commit for years and years to any of the options. Third, Hardy's deal is also shorter and cheaper than any of the other deals. Finally, we were perhaps a player away, if we hit the same production... Our O has faltered this year, certainly, but this team's problem remains starting pitching. Markakis' bat, even Cruz's bat, wasn't going to change that... Or our record, by much.

And yet the reality remains how much can you really spend on some of the pieces we lost? How much for Nelson Cruz, on a roster full of so so fielders? How much for Miller, a set up man? How much for Markakis, who's slugging under 400 this year? It's not just about signing them, it's about what signing them would cost us beyond... Miller I'll still say maybe to, but he was too expensive. The other two it was both $$and length of deal

Classically out of date, crav. "if the kid liked it, it can't be a crime!" I agree, Spen... Though my bet is that it's because she was really only found guilty of statutory crimes. Still not an excuse

Still can make a run at Price. Happy to go for him in the offseason more than in the trade pool

I think Chen is a must-keep, but he'll be expensive. I do think we can buy arms more easily than some think... but you have to spend money and we won't pay up enough.