Jpowors

Not the new Donald Trump Presidency thread

56,865 posts in this topic

Just now, JDaveG said:

Meh, I wouldn't pretend that Trump is some sort of bastion of truth either.  He certainly has plenty of his own canards.

My main point is the Democrats seem to love calling witnesses who make them look like idiots.  I'm not sure why.  I've speculated the rules that allow people like Hank Johnson to ask as many questions as anyone else are part of the problem.  But they also seem to badly miscalculate how their hearings are going to go.  Does anyone think Mueller's testimony helped them?  Certainly very few did at the time.  I'm not sure why we'd expect an impeachment inquiry, or formal proceedings, to be any different. Republicans are complaining, with some reasonable ground, that they will not be allowed to call witnesses, issue subpoenas, etc.  But if I'm the Republicans, I'd simply state that procedural objection and then sit back and let the Democrats go.  They do a good enough job of shooting themselves in the foot.

My trial practice professor in undergrad once said "when your opponent is in the process of destroying themselves, don't try to help."  

Most definitely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Serge said:

It would seem like it'd be hard for them to like someone that will almost certainly try to turn their base against any of them if they criticize anything he does.

They dislike him for other reasons, but I'm sure that doesn't help.

Mainstream Republicans hate Trump.  He upset their apple cart just as badly as he upset the Democrats' apple cart.  It's palpable.  And because they tend to have a great respect for constitutional and institutional norms, they despise how he tries to run the country by fiat, even though they tepidly defend him on the very same process grounds.

Scrunchomarx and Serge like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's all crumbling. I bet that if Trump wasn't President, the NBA would be more forceful.  If we had someone in charge that "Took a stand on Hong Kong" America wouldn't look like a bunch of ******* punks (note: gender neutral pejorative). I'm getting pissed at all this happening all at once. Corruption, getting censored by foreign governments, having our allies slaughtered. What's next?????????

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Leon Troutsky said:

Read what I wrote again.  I’m not counting on anything.  I’m saying that there’s still voters out there who haven’t heard the complete story and that could create a larger shift.  I also said the numbers could move the other ways, especially if the House hearings end up being the s*** show that past hearings have been.  

Yeah that's why I was skeptical of starting impeachment proceedings to begin with. Trump handed this specific wrongdoing to the Democrats to impeach him with, and now they're hoping for everything to go their way, when it seems more likely that support for impeachment isn't going to keep growing and the Democrats will **** it up so it doesn't even accomplish the relatively modest goal of staining Republicans with Trump's corruption.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Serge said:

Yeah that's why I was skeptical of starting impeachment proceedings to begin with. Trump handed this specific wrongdoing to the Democrats to impeach him with, and now they're hoping for everything to go their way, when it seems more likely that support for impeachment isn't going to keep growing and the Democrats will **** it up so it doesn't even accomplish the relatively modest goal of staining Republicans with Trump's corruption.

Dude the time to impeach is NOW. It's like the perfect storm!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, JDaveG said:

 

My main point is the Democrats seem to love calling witnesses who make them look like idiots.  I'm not sure why.

 

That last hearing started that way, but by the end of it, it was clear the Dems knew the cards they were playing. Joseph Maguire looked the fool.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, JDaveG said:

Sure.  That's the downside of perpetual war.  It brings with it perpetual obligation.  If you're going to meddle, you can't just go kill the enemy and break their toys and leave.  You can do that if you are going to conquer, or repel, but not if you are going to meddle, pretending your intervention is for the "good of the region" or whatever bull**** reasons we convince ourselves exist.

Again, my point was broader.  This is the second time in a couple of months I've seen neoconservative objections from Democrats about reducing our role overseas. Though @Psychic Gibbon is doing a fair job convincing me there are simply more Democrat hawks than I anticipated.

Maybe the smart thing is to take these matters on a case by case basis rather than assuming that everyone on 'the left' always wants complete and categorical withdrawal from all military activity overseas. Calling the objections 'neoconservative' is just a terrible, awful perspective on this situation.

And while you're barking at people for happening to agree with John Bolton, but for completely different reasons that you completely ignore, bear in mind that WFW is right on your coattails here.

 

Sn4tteRBoxXeR likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Sn4tteRBoxXeR said:

Dude the time to impeach is NOW. It's like the perfect storm!

The GOP is counting on the Dems and people like to push the remaining Lemmings off the cliff.

Dude, playing into the hands of a 2020 landslide and a retaking if the House...I'm not shocked and I say please proceed ahead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Psychic Gibbon said:

Glad we paid Beasley nearly $13 million.

Having him drop back into zone coverage over and over is like lining up Ridley at fullback...just didn't make sense.   I saw several plays where both Beasley and Takk just stood up and dropped backwards a few yards. The literal opposite of what they should be doing.  I don't get it.  Let them rush, Q! 

 

 

 

JDaveG and WhenFalconsWin like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Supreme Court appears ready to strike down non-unanimous criminal convictions.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/10/supreme-court-nonunanimous-juries-oral-argument.html?fbclid=IwAR1uxoVi7POkk4R_5EXc9sLICBsREN1zhIELXA_Ulq-Ny1_4SKLdx1HCG-s

Also, when I talk about Constitutional conservatives versus law and order conservatives, I'm talking precisely about the divide in this case between Gorsuch, the former, and Alito, the latter.  Alito can go **** himself.

mdrake34 and Gritzblitz 2.0 like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, JDaveG said:

Can someone tell me why our punters are hurt every week?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Psychic Gibbon said:

Glad we paid Beasley nearly $13 million.

 

3 minutes ago, thesouphead said:

Having him drop back into zone coverage over and over is like lining up Ridley at fullback...just didn't make sense.   I saw several plays where both Beasley and Takk just stood up and dropped backwards a few yards. The literal opposite of what they should be doing.  I don't get it.  Let them rush, Q! 

 

 

 

If he rushes the passer he's erased from the play the instant a lineman gets their hands on him. He's just not good enough to play as much as he does.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, JDaveG said:

Also, when I talk about Constitutional conservatives versus law and order conservatives, I'm talking precisely about the divide in this case between Gorsuch, the former, and Alito, the latter.  Alito can go **** himself.

This, from the article, is glorious:

"'You say we should worry about the 32,000 people imprisoned,' Gorsuch responded acidly. 'One might wonder whether we should worry about their interests under the Sixth Amendment as well. And then I can’t help but wonder, well, should we forever ensconce an incorrect view of the United States Constitution for perpetuity, for all states and all people, denying them a right that we believe was originally given to them—because of 32,000 criminal convictions in Louisiana?'"

giphy.gif

mfaulk57158 likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, thesouphead said:

Having him drop back into zone coverage over and over is like lining up Ridley at fullback...just didn't make sense.   I saw several plays where both Beasley and Takk just stood up and dropped backwards a few yards. The literal opposite of what they should be doing.  I don't get it.  Let them rush, Q! 

 

 

 

Yup. I was LIVID watching them drop back. Let them rush.

 

The fact that DQ thought this was a good idea NUMEROUS times tells me all I need to know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Serge said:

 

If he rushes the passer he's erased from the play the instant a lineman gets their hands on him. He's just not good enough to play as much as he does.

True, but at least he takes up space. He puts an obstacle in the way of the passer/runner. And, he takes up the attention of a lineman. With him dropping back, that lineman is free to get to the second level and block a LBer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Serge said:

 

If he rushes the passer he's erased from the play the instant a lineman gets their hands on him. He's just not good enough to play as much as he does.

Dude often gets double teamed or the RB chip block, which means Takk should be solo.  Beasley is 1 sack away from being in the Falcons top 5 of all time.  He has the speed to get there when used properly. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Optimus_Cr1m35 said:

True, but at least he takes up space. He puts an obstacle in the way of the passer/runner. And, he takes up the attention of a lineman. With him dropping back, that lineman is free to get to the second level and block a LBer.

Yep...and it's pointless to run that zone when Oliver and Allen are not going to bother to watch after their area.   Might as well see if you can pressure the QB instead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Optimus_Cr1m35 said:

Yup. I was LIVID watching them drop back. Let them rush.

 

The fact that DQ thought this was a good idea NUMEROUS times tells me all I need to know.

DQ thinks he is being smart by experimenting with this 4-3 and 3-4 hybrid thing. Its the same **** thing that got Mike Smith fired.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now