Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

2,464 Excellent

About cobalt_27

  • Rank

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
  • ICQ

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Mount Pleasant, SC

Previous Fields

  • Favorite NFL Team
    Dallas Cowboys

Recent Profile Visitors

11,150 profile views
  1. Good post. And my only point is when Joe chose the verb “influencing” in the thread title—and absent any explainer in his post that followed—I don’t think interpretation and intent were obvious at all. In the most benign way, we all are trying to influence an election, whether it’s discussions at dinner table with family, debates over drinks with friends, posting on message boards, and ultimately with our vote. But, because of Russia’s coordination with US persons to subvert recent elections, the word “influence” takes on a more ominous meaning and context that our everyday activities and advocacy in influencing outcomes doesn’t. I *think* Joe eventually sort of cleared that up, I guess. I’m not really sure. But, the way the OP was framed left it wide open for conflation and misinterpretation, deviating markedly from what Joe later explained (I think) was not his intent.
  2. That’s fair. And, all I’m asking for is a little explainer on the editorializing. First Obama claimed in title to be “influencing” the Canadian election. Strange verb choice. In the OP there is a repost of Obama’s tweet in support of Trudeau and then—sudden escalation—a second post of a tweet in “defense” of Obama. Defense of what? My concern isn’t that Joe is being dishonest. But, it clearly seems there’s an embedded issue of interest here that, when asked to clarify, I didn’t feel he was being particularly forthcoming.
  3. I’m guess I don’t understand why you thought it was “interesting.” Your use of the phrase “influencing” seemed deliberate.
  4. This feels like such a cop-out. You read, what, dozens of tid bits every day? And you made an editorial decision that somehow this was relevant to post and generate a conversation. I’m genuinely curious why you decided to post this and why it means something. Why specifically did this catch your attention?
  5. No, they won’t. I don’t think he has many friends in the senate. But, they also don’t want to be on record crossing him, alienating 40%-80% of their core constituency. The senate republicans will say to impeachment, “We disagree with Trump’s behavior, but we also don’t like democrats, and anyway we have an election in less than a year to sort it all out.”
  6. Joe, I don’t know if it was your intent, but this is actually quite instructive and illustrative of what, on the one hand, is an example ethical, above-board behavior juxtaposed with, on the other hand, supporting, encouraging, and sponsoring meddling in foreign elections.
  7. No. Fairly routine to gradually increase physical activity and monitor symptom response. I’m guessing he was at practice and participated in walkthroughs and such. But, not cleared.
  8. Not expecting it. We all are doing our best to keep up the guardrails.
  9. Leaving aside the silliness and absurdity of CrowdStrike for just a second, is this to suggest the coordinated effort to manipulate foreign states to dig up dirt on Biden for political gain—and then cover up those efforts—is not ok?
  10. This. I can see it going one of two ways. In one scenario, GOP knows they’re cooked because of Trump and for political expediency they race to be the first to repudiate. We aren’t there yet, but I think it’s close and more disclosures very certainly accelerates momentum we are seeing this week. 10% In the other scenario, they’re pot committed and no matter how bad it is, they can’t turn on him because they don’t have enough time to rehabilitate their own image (GOP in general, but personally too because they defended him so long). They’ll say things like “impeachment is bad for the country, let the voters decide in a few months.” In essence they frame it not as a yeah/nay vote on conviction. Those in purple districts can even express disdain for his behavior, accept that he’s got no chance for re-election, but maybe they themselves retain the base and look reasonable to moderates in their own personal races. They will appeal to the “for the good of democracy” argument. 90%
  11. Cliff Notes: Ukraine requested javelin missiles in 2017/18 to fend off additional encroachment on their country. Trump said they can have them on condition they drop cooperation with Mueller. As soon as Ukraine cut off communication with Mueller, within weeks, they got their missiles. Fast forward to most recent request for missiles, Trump makes it condition they work with Rudy and Barr to (a) dig up dirt on 2020 political opponent AND (b) help drudge up alternative facts about genesis of Mueller probe. Importantly, law requires Russian sanctions stick SO LONG they are assessed to have interfered with election. But if Ukraine and others can coordinate to make up alternative facts and provide cover to US agency (DOJ?) to call Mueller investigation in question, may be loophole to relieve sanctions. So here we are. Barr, Rudy, Pompeo, everyone racing against time to squeeze this in on behest of Russia before impeachment. Russia doesn’t care about a few dozen javelins missiles, especially if it can relieve 1-2% of economic losses from sanctions (and help a few good friends).
  12. Right but at some point for a criminal proceeding doesn’t it have to be led by the DOJ? Also another thing bugging me, can’t Trump just pardon anybody for anything including crimes that haven’t been charged? What’s to stop him from saying to Rudy, Barr—and everyone else—here’s your get out of jail free card, now keep on criming?