Turning Point and Matt Shaw: Politicization and Baseball

[Rcal10]

1 hour ago, NorthsideAvenger said:

I rather have an owner who is private with his political thoughts and just spend money to make the team a winner. This is why I hate when politics and sports get intertwine. 

Me too. But you said worse owner. And since most of this discussion has been about humans with terrible beliefs, I was wondering what you meant by worse. Is a MAGA supporter who spends money feeely better than someone who may share your views but not spend money? I also would prefer an owner who spent money but was silent about his views, but that isn’t the question.

Point is I don’t care about my owners political views. I assume a billionaire will have a different agenda than me. I want them to spend and win. I only judge the owner based on his ability and desire to spend money and put a winner in the field.

 

Edited December 21, 2025 by Rcal10

[Hot Sauce]

I’m not going to deprive myself of something I enjoy just because the owner of that something doesn’t agree with my personal beliefs. Life is fleeting. We have 70 or 80 years on this earth, if we’re lucky, and even less of it in our physical prime. Spend it doing what makes you happy. 

[thawv]

4 hours ago, Hot Sauce said:

I’m not going to deprive myself of something I enjoy just because the owner of that something doesn’t agree with my personal beliefs. Life is fleeting. We have 70 or 80 years on this earth, if we’re lucky, and even less of it in our physical prime. Spend it doing what makes you happy. 

Nicely said. 

[Derwood]

What if depriving chuds from my money brings me joy?

[Rcal10]

16 minutes ago, Derwood said:

What if depriving chuds from my money brings me joy?

Then you do you. I’m with hot sauce on this one. I love baseball. I love the Cubs. I will go to games and watch as many as I can. I don’t think of it as supporting the owners. I think of it as supporting my well being and enjoying my life. But if your life or anyone else’s life is better by not going to games or spending money because you dislike ownership, that is perfectly fine. We all should do what we enjoy. 

[Derwood]

Weird that two known conservatives want to hand wave the politics of the team’s owner. 

[Rcal10]

59 minutes ago, Derwood said:

Weird that two known conservatives want to hand wave the politics of the team’s owner. 

Who is this referring to? 

[Cuzi]

57 minutes ago, Derwood said:

Weird that two known conservatives want to hand wave the politics of the team’s owner. 

Out of sight, out of mind.

[Guest]

15 hours ago, NorthsideAvenger said:

I rather have an owner who is private with his political thoughts and just spend money to make the team a winner. This is why I hate when politics and sports get intertwine. 

But I think the two share a fundamental likeness--belief. 

Philosophically, I could argue that the MLB is a microcosm--individual actors, representatives, and different economies at different levels. Politics and sports are, inevitably, the same concept in terms of belief, as they require the individual to form an opinion, often an emotional one, and use it to justify calculations or decisions that heavily favor their emotinos. We humans systematize to achieve our irrational desires.

At its root, politics involves different thought and, implicitly, division. Yet nothing is as decisive or as unifying as baseball. It is a paradox, as it is definitely not symbiotic--in simple terms, downfall for one will result in excitement for another in most cases. And political belief has always been a part of baseball, whether invisible or visible. MLB's initiatives, charity, and the conflicting political beliefs of its players intrigue us and make us want to answer questions.

And an owner that "spends money" is not necessarily one who will provide the most benefit to their team. One has to build a system that efficiently allocates that money in order to optimize team growth. Spending extravagant amounts is often discouraged due to the fact that the amounts will dwindle over time. So spending it wisely is more important.

And owners are always political; we can't change that.

[Rob]

5 hours ago, The Cubs Dude said:

And owners are always political; we can't change that.

The Green Bay Packers figured it out. 

We just need to strip all assets from billionaires and give them to the public. 

[Stratos]

On 12/19/2025 at 1:00 PM, CubinNY said:

Different political views? Riiiight. Saying I'm for a smaller, more efficient government that taxes at the lowest rate possible is a political view. I don't agree with it, but I'm not going to get bent out of shape about it. Going to a speaking engagement at a White Supremacist rally and morning a grifter who did more damage to this country in his short and miserable life isn't about politics. 

Yes it is.

Saying economic issues are politics but identity politics and issues about democracy/constitution aren't politics is just not true.

Edited December 21, 2025 by Stratos

[CubinNY]

19 minutes ago, Stratos said:

Yes it is.

Saying economic issues are politics but identity politics and issues about democracy/constitution aren't politics is just not true.

lol. WTF are you talking about? 

[Outshined_One]

I've been debating locking this thread, but it's been an oddly entertaining exercise in seeing who can get themselves banned first.

Credit where it's due, this has gone way better than I first expected. I figured by now we'd be on page 20 of this by now:

[Cuzi]

38 minutes ago, Outshined_One said:

Credit where it's due, this has gone way better than I first expected. I figured by now we'd be on page 20 of this by now

Probably because when you have 2 parties on complete opposite extremes, most normal people stop talking anything politically related because brain cells start diminishing rapidly.

[Brian707]

7 hours ago, Cuzi said:

Probably because when you have 2 parties on complete opposite extremes, most normal people stop talking anything politically related because brain cells start diminishing rapidly.

Are you really saying the left is just extreme as the right? 

[Cuzi]

38 minutes ago, Brian707 said:

Are you really saying the left is just extreme as the right? 

Well, it wasn't the right that rallied around burning down US cities. It's not the right offering gender-affirming surgeries to minors. It's not the right challenging the science of there being only 2 genders.

There are absolutely issues on both sides that make you both nuts.

Edited December 22, 2025 by Cuzi

[CubinNY]

14 minutes ago, Cuzi said:

Well, it wasn't the right that rallied around burning down US cities. It's not the right offering gender-affirming surgeries to minors. It's not the right challenging the science of there being only 2 genders.

There are absolutely issues on both sides that make you both nuts.

Which cities were burned down and who held a rally? 

[Rcal10]

9 hours ago, Outshined_One said:

I've been debating locking this thread, but it's been an oddly entertaining exercise in seeing who can get themselves banned first.

Credit where it's due, this has gone way better than I first expected. I figured by now we'd be on page 20 of this by now:

Probably because this isn’t the place for this talk and, frankly, no one here is going to change anyone’s mind so why bother. I have to separate politics from entertainment. I come here for entertainment. I would guess a lot of people not speaking in this are similar to me.
But, because it doesn’t happen often, I have to say I agree with CubinNY on this topic😬. I just don’t feel like discussing politics here. 

[squally1313]

The immediate veer into gender affirming care is such a tell. This makes me uncomfortable and therefore I'm going to label an entire political party as nuts. 

[Outshined_One]

6 minutes ago, Rcal10 said:

But, because it doesn’t happen often, I have to say I agree with CubinNY on this topic😬. I just don’t feel like discussing politics here. 

The really difficult part of this is this team has an ownership group which includes a sitting US Senator (Pete Ricketts), and Matt Shaw managed to put himself in the spotlight by associating with Charlie Kirk and ducking out on the team in the middle of a playoff race to attend Kirk's memorial rally.  That's also not counting past news items like the Ricketts' fight with Tom Tunney and the City Council over redeveloping Wrigley or various politicians singing Take Me Out to the Ball Game.  That's also also not counting other teams' own activities, be it stadium fights or the antitrust exemption.

That's all politics, and I think it's fair game in the baseball forums.  I think it's productive to have conversations about these items organically.

Where I tend to draw the line is when people bring up politics inorganically.  Not all conversations are productive or healthy, and most of us don't come to NSBB looking to pick a fight, so when someone is posting about politics without context for doing so, it comes across as trollish behavior to me, even if that wasn't the intention.

Under normal circumstances, I think I would have locked this thread sight unseen.  However, since this has been a really horsefeathers dull offseason and everyone's been playing nicer in the pool than expected, I'm inclined to see if this thread dies a natural death.

[Brian707]

1 hour ago, Cuzi said:

Well, it wasn't the right that rallied around burning down US cities. It's not the right offering gender-affirming surgeries to minors. It's not the right challenging the science of there being only 2 genders.

There are absolutely issues on both sides that make you both nuts.

Turn off Fox News or whatever drivel you have been brainwashed by.

What cities did they burn down?

What is wrong with someone being born different?

Why are you ok with your president being a 34 time convicted felon and alleged rapist?

 

Edited December 22, 2025 by Brian707

[Cuzi]

9 minutes ago, Brian707 said:

Why are you ok with your president being a 34 time convicted felon and alleged rapist?

Why do you assume I am?

I just said both parties are nuts.

This is the problem with politics. "If you are not with us, you are against us."

Edited December 22, 2025 by Cuzi

[Guest]

9 minutes ago, Outshined_One said:

The really difficult part of this is this team has an ownership group which includes a sitting US Senator (Pete Ricketts), and Matt Shaw managed to put himself in the spotlight by associating with Charlie Kirk and ducking out on the team in the middle of a playoff race to attend Kirk's memorial rally.  That's also not counting past news items like the Ricketts' fight with Tom Tunney and the City Council over redeveloping Wrigley or various politicians singing Take Me Out to the Ball Game.  That's also also not counting other teams' own activities, be it stadium fights or the antitrust exemption.

That's all politics, and I think it's fair game in the baseball forums.  I think it's productive to have conversations about these items organically.

Where I tend to draw the line is when people bring up politics inorganically.  Not all conversations are productive or healthy, and most of us don't come to NSBB looking to pick a fight, so when someone is posting about politics without context for doing so, it comes across as trollish behavior to me, even if that wasn't the intention.

Under normal circumstances, I think I would have locked this thread sight unseen.  However, since this has been a really horsefeathers dull offseason and everyone's been playing nicer in the pool than expected, I'm inclined to see if this thread dies a natural death.

Completely agreed. Now, I must email Senator Ricketts and explain a few economic situations to him. That would be rather fun. I have had great conversations with representatives before, anyway. (Coincidentally, I have seen him speak while watching the Senate.) Whatever I will say will all be respectful and conversational--I love political acquaintances.

It's no joke--wish me luck.

 

Edited December 22, 2025 by The Cubs Dude

[Brian707]

5 minutes ago, Cuzi said:

Why do you assume I am?

I just said both parties are nuts.

This is the problem with politics. "If you are not with us, you are against us."

You actually think they are equally nuts?

 

[Cuzi]

Just now, Brian707 said:

You actually think they are equally nuts?

Did we not just go through this? I gave you just a taste of the issues I have with the left and their extremes.

YES YOU ARE BOTH EQUALLY NUTS.

I'm out.