Grigori

70. Not because the Angels are any worse than last year, but because the Rangers, Astros and Mariners are better than last year. They have to play a lot of games against them.

What's up with Trout and Pujols striking out so much against the Rangers tonight? I thought they were supposed to be good.

How can anyone say the Angels offense is "on par" with the Rangers when the Angels have scored 32 fewer runs this year, and the Rangers offense is better than at the start of the season? And the difference between the Rangers 4.35 ERA and Angels 4.59 is significant. The Rangers have already added pitching and are getting Holland and, possibly, Lewis back before long. Darvish, Hamels, Holland, Lewis, Perez and Griffin are a lot for the Rangers to work with next year. My advice is to simply fill out the Angels roster the next two years as cheaply as possible, get a couple of good drafts, then trade off any players not needed in 2020 for players who can contribute then. That's how long it will take the Angels to recover from all their mistakes and be a contender again. Get rid of some of these expensive contracts, and save for 2020 or so. This is a rebuild from scratch.

How long? This season. They've combined for 13 of our wins from starting pitchers so far. Lewis was 6-1 before he went on the DL. Darvish won two of his three starts before going back on the DL. Holland won five games before going on the DL. So, yes, it's a big deal. The Rangers are still without Kela, too. Choo, Betre and Chirinos are back, but the Rangers are still wining with significant players on the DL.

I would not call those Astros AAA. They've gone 13-3 lately. I realize a lot of that was playing the Angels, but they are a good major-league team with a bright future.

The Rangers rotation is currently without Darvish, Holland and Lewis, yet they still win. Just beat the Yankees last night The Rangers lost Choo, Chirinos and Griffin for parts of this season, too. Adrian Beltre was out a few games. Kela has been out almost all season long. I'm not sure it's the injuries is all I'm saying. Other teams survive massive injuries. Look what the Rangers went through last year with injuries, but they won the Division.

My choice is not there... it's the Texas Rangers.

Make fun of Josh Hamilton all you want. My Rangers turned the draft pick we got from the Angels when you signed him into Travis Demeritte. We currently have Hamilton for free and Travis? Check out his A+ stats this year: http://www.milb.com/player/index.jsp?sid=t504&player_id=641513#/career/R/hitting/2016/ALL Looks like a good player. For CJ Wilson, we got Joey Gallo. Check this out: http://www.milb.com/player/index.jsp?sid=t102&player_id=608336#/career/R/hitting/2016/ALL So, I like Josh Hamilton. He's been great for the Rangers, even when he went to the Angels. CJ was even better, but Travis looks like he's going to be a good player. Love those Angels. Keep sending us draft picks.

Really odd that Angels fans are moping and whining about injuries. The Rangers have far more injuries and you don't see Rangers fans throwing in the towel. We're playing without our ace (Darvish), number three starting pitcher (Griffin), closer-of-the-future (Kela), two star outfielders (Choo and Hamilton) and our starting catcher (Chirinos). The only difference is our guys on the DL are more talented. Simmons? What's he batting now, .190? Please... cry me a river.

Trump and Clinton appeal to people who don't pay any attention to policy. I like the idea of no social security or medicare tax. That would be a big help to those who pay most of their tax for social security and medicare, the poor and lower middle-class. Cruz replaces it with a business flat tax, that yes, would raise prices 5% according to the tax foundation, but with no social security and medicare tax is still a big help to lower-income individuals. Then, the 10% flat tax, high personal deductions and being able to fill out your income tax on a postcard would help everyone. It simplifies taxes, and helps exports. He allows exports to be deducted from the business flat tax, but applies them to imports. Individual savings are also all tax deductible. So, it increases savings, helps the working class spend more on things they need, and boosts exports. The tax foundation says it is the most pro-growth plan of all the candidates. That said, I think I detect a lot of jealousy in the article. Looking at a failed state like California, we just have to laugh with our great growth and employment opportunities in Texas. We're welcoming Toyota's US headquarters moving from California right now. The heat? I have a friend from India who waits until 5:30 after work to run because "It's too cold in the mornings in Texas." Where he's from it's a lot hotter. It's just what you are used to. I make it a rule to not run when it's 95 or above, but for some people that is not bad. One out of five people on welfare live in California. So, you beat us on that score. Not much else, and that's because California has turned up it's nose at conservative economic policy.

AJ, they put all the OECD countries on a splatter graph, the X axis GDP growth and Y, the percent of GDP that is government spending. The more spending, the less economic growth. It was a 40-year study done during the Clinton administration. I've seen updates, and that still holds true today. There has been more studies done that show the same thing. It is simply a matter of economic FACT that the larger government is, the slow the economic growth is. Yes, Sweden is an outlier. Norway sometimes is, but not always. Denmark has high taxes and high government spending and very slow economic growth. Denmark fits the overall pattern of how a high spending government wrecks their chances of achieving significant economic growth. In Norway's case, they have tons of oil and gas, get all their electricity from dams on fiords, so don't need the oil and gas. They make huge profits on their oil and gas. That is why they are sometimes an exception to the general rule. So, I don't know what you are talking about. You are clueless, and have no real data to back you up. Big government means slow growth. As far as these billionaires go, countries that make a lot of money have a lot of billionaires. So what? The poor do better, too. Zimbabwe has few billionaires. Do you want to be like them? We have a lot of billionaires. Our poor are better off than the middle class in most of Europe. ​

I saw a Republican debate. I started with Cruz saying his father used to wash dishes in his underwear for $100. Then Rubio said "That's nothing, my father was a bartender." Then Trump comes on. He says his daddy left him $300 million he used to make billions and billions. Then Rubio said if he just left it in an index fund he could have done that. Then Rubio dropped out of the race. I think he's going to start an investment fund or something.

I figured you SoCal hippies would be out stumping for Cruz. Trump is for keeping marijuana a federal felony. You are aware that at any time the federal government can legally shut down the marijuana trade, including medical marijuana, with the laws on the federal books, right? No state can stop them. They just aren't doing anything about it, yet. Ted Cruz is for decriminalizing marijuana and leaving it up to states like Colorado or California to decide for themselves whatever marijuana laws they want. Cruz used to smoke it in college, too, like most of us. You elect Trump, he'll send his Gestapo after all the stoners in California.

LOL, AJ. So predictable. Talking about compromise. We aren't going to compromise. If you don't like it, you have options. You can move to North Korea and live your dream, for example.