|
Eric Cantonese posted:To be fair to Grinner on this front, working in Russia during the off-season was extremely common for WNBA players and it wasn't just for money. The Russian league was running at a very high sporting level and there was a level of respect that was there. It’s hard to summon up sympathy for people who make in a few short years much more than most Americans will make over their entire working lifetime. These people can get office jobs. I can’t lob a basketball in this town without it landing in the parking lot of a dealership that hires former Big 10 players. Trying to make people feel sorry, economically, for people who have millions in the bank, is never, ever going to resonate.
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2022 14:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 15:49 |
|
|
If her job skills aren't working for her any more, maybe she could go to one of the code academies people pay to send the coal miners to! It's your ticket to the modern economy!
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2022 14:59
|
|
|
I don't think women's basketball has nearly the same appeal as men's football or basketball for corporate recruiting, but I may be wrong. Having run into a lot of finance people in my life, I've never seen former women's basketball players the way I've seen former Ivy league football players coast their way into lucrative starting positions. Do car salespeople make a lot of money? That was not my impression. EDIT: with respect to the lack of women's basketball players smoothly transitioning to investment banking and corporate finance jobs, there's almost certainly a whole sexism, racism thing going on there too... Eric Cantonese fucked around with this message at 15:05 on Dec 9, 2022 |
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2022 15:01
|
|
|
she was a pretty big deal in texas when she was playing college ball at baylor, maybe she could capitalize on that, but then she would have to live in waco... no thanks!
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2022 15:04
|
|
|
Eric Cantonese posted:I don't think women's basketball has nearly the same appeal as men's football or basketball for corporate recruiting, but I may be wrong. Having run into a lot of finance people in my life, I've never seen former women's basketball players the way I've seen former Ivy league football players coast their way into lucrative starting positions. Not joking when I say if you want to find these women, look at the C suites of nonprofits. I’ve met at least five former college or pro women basketballers in my work in that particular situation. Former male ballers are much more on the sales side of the house.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2022 15:04
|
|
|
A senator just flipped parties in the most narrow senate in a century and you dorks are still talking about WNBA salaries lmao
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2022 15:09
|
|
|
FCKGW posted:A senator just flipped parties in the most narrow senate in a century and you dorks are still talking about WNBA salaries lmao She flipped independent. As long as she caucuses with the Democrats still, I don't believe it changes anything. There are already 2 independent senators caucusing with them Dems, and it doesn't affect their control of things.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2022 15:12
|
|
|
FCKGW posted:A senator just flipped parties in the most narrow senate in a century and you dorks are still talking about WNBA salaries lmao The Sinema Problem been talked to death and I don't know if I'm that surprised at her making life as difficult as possible for everyone to the left of John Kasich. I wonder if the Democrats just run a candidate against her out of principle at this point. She's been coy about whether she'll caucus with the Democrats, so it's not like she's going to be a reliable vote worth standing down in Arizona in 2024 for. It's a good thing Warnock won.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2022 15:12
|
|
|
FCKGW posted:A senator just flipped parties in the most narrow senate in a century and you dorks are still talking about WNBA salaries lmao The most narrow Senate in a century was actually in 2001 when it was 50/50 and Jim Jeffords switched to give Democrats control of the Senate.  But, yes, even forgetting about salary entirely it is kind of wild to blame her for doing a very normal thing that most WNBA players have been doing for decades - and she had been doing for a few years - and not assuming that she would be kidnapped and sent to a labor camp for a decade. For all the bad things Russia is doing and has done, they didn't tend to just mass kidnap random Americans who weren't involved in the government until a few years ago.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2022 15:13
|
|
|
The calculation from Sinema is pretty clear to me. She knows she hosed up her future with the party. I think that in 2024 she is now going to run as an independent and threaten to split the Dem vote. She probably wants to have the same deal as Angus King and Bernie Sanders where the party agrees to not strongly support a candidate against them. If this happens, the Dems should say "gently caress you, King and Bernie are both reliable votes and you are a flake", and then try the best they can to support Gallego. (note: this is not the national DNC's call, the Arizona Democratic party will choose to run or not run against her, and right now the local Dems are fired up about replacing Sinema) As for the next 2 years, nothing changes as long as she doesn't outright caucus with the GOP, which she says she won't. Even if she caucuses with no one and its 50-49-1, then the Dems still control all the committees outright. However, she is leaving things deliberately vague and my guess is (and this is only a guess, there's no reporting on this) behind closed doors she's telling the party that if they pull her off committees, then she'll caucus with the GOP and then run for re-election as a Republican. Rigel fucked around with this message at 15:22 on Dec 9, 2022 |
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2022 15:19
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:The most narrow Senate in a century was actually in 2001 when it was 50/50 and Jim Jeffords switched to give Democrats control of the Senate. I think a national conversation about how much money is Enough would be enormously healthy for the population at large, which is why we can’t have it. Could we, as a nation, respect a professional athlete who lived in a split-level condo, and drove a Prius? We’d tear them apart. We wouldn’t suffer such an abomination to exist. Few things would do more for the collective national mental health than a maximum wage. I’d set it at 250k/year.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2022 15:20
|
|
|
Maximum income not wage
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2022 15:22
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Maximum income not wage Sure that too! I think it would be a great mental exercise for dudes who have focused all their energy on money to hit the ceiling and figure out how to be normal now. We could make a reality show: rich and dumb as hell, where we teach them the things they should know already
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2022 15:24
|
|
|
selec posted:I think a national conversation about how much money is Enough would be enormously healthy for the population at large, which is why we can’t have it. A national conversation about how much money is enough would be a fine thing to have. That is a little different than determining what the exact combination of wage, gayness, and THC content means you deserve to get sent to a labor camp for a decade.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2022 15:26
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:A national conversation about how much money is enough would be a fine thing to have. That is a little different than determining what the exact combination of wage, gayness, and THC content means you deserve to get sent to a labor camp for a decade. Can’t have one without the other, in my view. Nobody would bother to when you’ve already maxed out. We would be a much more chill nation, and our politics would be a lot more salient to working Americans. Imagine a guy who makes 250k a year trying to lobby for anything for a military contractor. He’d be so checked out. It’d be awesome.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2022 15:28
|
|
|
selec posted:
good news for brittany griner because she makes less than that playing for the wnba
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2022 15:32
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1601211096420990976?t=RWKqApgZ_YaeGqtWPI6MdA&s=19 Good lord Sinema is insufferable and condescending
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2022 15:36
|
|
|
selec posted:Sure that too! I think it would be a great mental exercise for dudes who have focused all their energy on money to hit the ceiling and figure out how to be normal now. We could make a reality show: rich and dumb as hell, where we teach them the things they should know already Right, but the distinction between wage and income is important -- someone making a high wage is far more likely to be "earning" it by performing some form of skilled labor, whether that's playing skilled sports or surgery or coding or what have you. Someone merely receiving passive income is probably just a rentier or speculator, not societally valuable at all. It would actually make a lot of sense to cap passive income at a far lower level than earned wages.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2022 15:39
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Right, but the distinction between wage and income is important -- someone making a high wage is far more likely to be "earning" it by performing skilled labor, whether that's playing skilled sports or surgery or coding or what have you. Well in my dream scenario it would be nigh impossible to receive passive income that didn’t come from the government at all.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2022 15:41
|
|
|
Trevorrrrrrrrrrrrr posted:https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1601211096420990976?t=RWKqApgZ_YaeGqtWPI6MdA&s=19 Her whole schtick of attention getting is to never answer any questions while simultaneously putting herself in situations where her answers to those questions are very important.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2022 15:41
|
|
|
Trevorrrrrrrrrrrrr posted:https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1601211096420990976?t=RWKqApgZ_YaeGqtWPI6MdA&s=19 How *dare* you expect me to answer questions!
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2022 15:47
|
|
|
FCKGW posted:A senator just flipped parties in the most narrow senate in a century and you dorks are still talking about WNBA salaries lmao Selec needs to make absolutely sure that we know their opinion. Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:A national conversation about how much money is enough would be a fine thing to have. That is a little different than determining what the exact combination of wage, gayness, and THC content means you deserve to get sent to a labor camp for a decade. Don't forget the unspoken variable: Melanin. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST) Agents are GO! fucked around with this message at 15:56 on Dec 9, 2022 |
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2022 15:53
|
|
|
Especially since Warnock is now Dem #50, how much will this really change? Like, Sinema will go from "won't vote for Dem stuff (D)" to "won't vote for Dem Stuff (I)"?
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2022 15:54
|
|
|
projecthalaxy posted:Especially since Warnock is now Dem #50, how much will this really change? Like, Sinema will go from "won't vote for Dem stuff (D)" to "won't vote for Dem Stuff (I)"? I think it's an oblique threat that she'll start actively supporting republicans rather than just obstructing democrats also the whole trying not to get primaried thing
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2022 15:56
|
|
|
Sinema is definitely doing this so she can run as an independent and not worry about Arizona's sore loser law.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2022 15:58
|
|
|
Even in the worst case scenario where Sinema goes full R, having Fetterman replace her in a 50-50 Senate is a net improvement over the 2021-2022 composition. In terms of actual Senate procedure pretty much nothing changes, this is purely election calculus on her end
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2022 15:58
|
|
|
She's still caucusing with Democrats and maintaining her committee assignments in the majority, this changes nothing except how much money the DNC has to waste on Arizona in two years.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2022 16:00
|
|
|
JosefStalinator posted:Sinema is definitely doing this so she can run as an independent and not worry about Arizona's sore loser law. Yeah, it's this. She is basically playing chicken now and saying "If you run Ruben Gallego against me, it will probably split the vote and give the seat to a Republican. Since he can't primary me now, you can't keep me off the ballot." She says that she "intends to keep her committee assignments" which is essentially saying she will still caucus with the Dems. That means this is entirely about attention and trying to position herself for re-election. According to her former staffers, she legitimately believes she is going to be the first female President and first independent President by "making both sides mad" at her. This sort of supports that because she is actively taking steps to make sure she is on the ballot in 2024.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2022 16:02
|
|
|
On some level, especially if Warnock and Fetterman start actually voting for like the voting rights bill and stuff, I kinda respect the kind of self esteem and drive it takes to think one can girlboss one's way directly to the white house.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2022 16:03
|
|
|
Given our stupid timeline, she'll probably end up dating St. Vincent or something ridiculous like that and become massively popular.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2022 16:10
|
|
|
Can she just “run as an independent” or does she need to join one of the existing ballot lines in Arizona?
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2022 16:15
|
|
|
projecthalaxy posted:Especially since Warnock is now Dem #50, how much will this really change? Like, Sinema will go from "won't vote for Dem stuff (D)" to "won't vote for Dem Stuff (I)"? Outright majority of 51-50 or 50-49 makes confirmations far easier. Since democrats lost the trifecta that’s by far the most important job for the senate, anything else needs bipartisan support anyway
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2022 16:17
|
|
|
I mean, if Gallego wants to run against her there's nothing the Dem Party can do about it, right? She's in the absolute shitter as far as approval goes and this will sink her even further so I don't understand what she expects the dems to do? They can't bar him from running against her and they don't exactly have to put their finger on the scale to help Gallego, who would trounce her in a primary.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2022 16:18
|
|
|
Eric Cantonese posted:Given our stupid timeline, she'll probably end up dating St. Vincent or something ridiculous like that and become massively popular. I give it 50-50 she'll start praising Mike Pence or, say, Elon Musk.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2022 16:18
|
|
|
Rigel posted:The calculation from Sinema is pretty clear to me. She knows she hosed up her future with the party. I think that in 2024 she is now going to run as an independent and threaten to split the Dem vote. She probably wants to have the same deal as Angus King and Bernie Sanders where the party agrees to not strongly support a candidate against them. Right, King and Sanders were only ever independents for personal branding/kayfabe reasons; they were never particularly obstacles to party goals or really outside of their tent, and never alienated the party leadership or voting base. And it's not like Manchin where she could plausibly present herself as the only Dem-caucusing politician who can win in her state.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2022 16:25
|
|
|
Gallego seems to officially, unofficially, drop his hat in the ring. https://twitter.com/sarahnferris/status/1601235821189042178 "Someone needs to bravely fight for Arizona and the voice of its people. I'm not sure who yet, but whoever does is definitely very smart and handsome."
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2022 16:29
|
|
|
FLIPADELPHIA posted:I mean, if Gallego wants to run against her there's nothing the Dem Party can do about it, right? She's in the absolute shitter as far as approval goes and this will sink her even further so I don't understand what she expects the dems to do? They can't bar him from running against her and they don't exactly have to put their finger on the scale to help Gallego, who would trounce her in a primary. The national Democratic leadership could prevent Gallego from getting as much of the fundraising and SuperPAC support that he'd need. All the Arizona GOP has to do is not nominate another garbage candidate (and even if they did, the margins still might work in their favor...) I know we all like to dunk on Sinema, but given the tight margins that the Democrats have been winning with in Arizona, she very well could be a spoiler. Does that drags down other Democrats running for office there in 2024?
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2022 16:29
|
|
|
AZ Dem Party puts out an official statement condemning Sinema. https://twitter.com/burgessev/status/1601238090051461129
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2022 16:39
|
|
|
Eric Cantonese posted:The national Democratic leadership could prevent Gallego from getting as much of the fundraising and SuperPAC support that he'd need. All the Arizona GOP has to do is not nominate another garbage candidate (and even if they did, the margins still might work in their favor...) I'd have to wonder if the Democratic Party would rather take the risk of a split ticket and losing the seat than deal with her for another term. I doubt they like to be "blackmailed" like this and by someone who's already shown they won't support the party's agenda. e: plus if she's really that unpopular with the people who voted her in there's certainly be a big risk of her not beating a halfway decent republican challenger even if there was no dem challenger as well.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2022 16:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 15:49 |
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:Yeah, it's this. I think her timing was wrong on this play. This gives AZ Dems a full 2 years to just double-barrel blast her to poo poo, with interview clips she herself is generating, instead of scrambling 6 months out from election day to convince the electorate that she sucks.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2022 16:58
|
|
