Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

bananafish

Members
  • Content Count

    8,410
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

bananafish last won the day on September 29

bananafish had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

6,113 Excellent

About bananafish

  • Rank
    Footballguy

Profile Information

  • Location
    Land of Enchantment

Recent Profile Visitors

13,746 profile views
  1. https://www.newsweek.com/radio-host-craig-silverman-fired-criticizing-trump-1472236. The Denver Post did the original reporting, but their site set off all sorts of malware alarms for me. I think the basic facts are all agreed upon, though.
  2. I owe you an apology Mr. Jamny. I readily admit that the disingenuous nature of most Trump defenses had me approaching your questions with suspicion, but your pressing on these issues has led to some very fruitful discussions that never would have happened otherwise and I apologize for initially mischaracterizing you. It was a good reminder to me that the vitriolic nature of politics today isn't just the other side's problem when I've allowed it to infect my own thinking. I will do better. I think this is emblematic of the new spirit of the board which has led to a tamping down of emotional, partisan posts which made substantive discussions almost impossible (and to which I certainly contributed my fair share). Nothing's perfect, but it is absolutely refreshing to be able to post and learn from one another which I think is why most of us are here. So thank you and now back to our regularly scheduled programming... Here's an interview Lutsenko gave the New York Times in October: Meet the Ukrainian Ex-Prosecutor Behind the Impeachment Furor Keep in mind that everything the guy says (including here) has ulterior motives behind it, which the article makes clear. The whole thing should be read but I'll quote the parts that are particularly salient to the mythical "Do Not Prosecute" list. This highlights an important point that's being lost: Trump's preference for this prosecutor over his own ambassador is but one of many instances where his administration was actively fighting anti-corruption efforts. The attempt to portray this fiasco as the President's personal crusade against corruption is absolutely absurd and actually the opposite of the truth. This is also another example of how, when you dig a little, every defense of Trump thus far is revealed to be an attempt to distract, confuse, or misinform. Every. Single. One. That interview with Scalise that Cos posted earlier is a perfect example. Not one thing he said carried any real merit. Chris Wallace notwithstanding, the complicity of Fox News in this regard is alarming and dangerous, and their coordination with John Solomon, Rudy Giuliani and the Republican establishment deserves much more scrutiny than it's received. But that should be the subject of another post and hopefully I'll have some time to flesh it out a bit later today.
  3. There just might be hope for ending our nation's suffering after all! Dan Pfeiffer @danpfeiffer Well, this qualifies as a very good holy #### moment for the @PeteButtigieg campaign. Link to the actual poll The DeMoines Register's lengthy analysis: Iowa Poll: Pete Buttigieg rockets to the top of the 2020 field as a clear front-runner I love it when a plan comes together - @Sinn Fein political wunderkind
  4. Since I hear he received a standing ovation, I assume he was addressing the Anti-Federalist Society.
  5. I get what you're saying, but Truth and Trump are so far apart it's not possible to support both. In this specific instance and in a wider sense. I think that's what has so many appalled and taken aback by the support he gets from people who pretend this is politics as usual when it's clearly not. There's no nuance or shades of gray here. What Trump is doing is so blatantly unconstitutional that to say you support both of them is simply not credible, especially when it's coming from the folks on Capitol Hill, many of whom are lawyers.
  6. I think claims of not knowing someone is a pretty good indication that they're about to be made an escapegoat (or "thrown under the bus" if you prefer, but I've heard enough of that particular phrase lately). Like when a coach gets the dreaded "vote of confidence" from ownership you have a pretty good idea what's coming next. And to give a clearer answer to your question of how this new testimony contradicts Sondland, it helps to look back at what Sonland testified to as it's too hard to keep track of everything mentally, at least for me. Here's a report from Lawfare, which includes the transcript (an actual transcript, not a Trumpian made-up one): https://www.lawfareblog.com/summary-amb-gordon-sondlands-deposition-testimony -Sondland's amended testimony included his new revelation that actually, yes, there was a quid pro quo, but it was only after hearing everyone else's testimony that he was able to put two and two together, like it was a tangled web of inferences one had to piece together. That's been put to bed. -Sondland claimed that while there was a quid pro quo to investigate corruption, he only knew of an investigation into Burisma and had no idea it had any connection to Biden, his son, or US politics. That seemed absurd at the time and even more so now. -He claimed the only time he spoke to Trump about it was after Taylor texted him, and Trump said "no quid pro quo". That now seems doubtful. -He claims he never talked to anyone at State or the DOJ about quid pro quos or Biden. Now equally implausible. -He made is seem like the Biden investigation was some vague notion that was, if anything, a secondary concern that he just happened to mention in passing to the Ukranians, like an afterthought. No big deal. Seems like a pretty big deal now. I'm sure there's more but I think those are the main contradictions. I don't have the time to sit with Holmes' deposition and do a point-by-point analysis, but here's his transcript if anyone else wants to do it: https://www.lawfareblog.com/opening-statement-david-holmes-impeachment-inquiry -
  7. Truth. It's not overwhelming or even a majority, but it's not zero either (which is an improvement). https://www.foxnews.com/politics/president-trump-marie-yovanovitch-impeachment-inquiry-twitter-attack https://www.foxnews.com/politics/bret-baier-impeachment-inquiry-marie-yovanovitch-adam-schiff-twitter
  8. If you have a way to reduce the cost of college or the poverty rate that doesn't involve further subsides I'm all ears. We all know what's causing farmers to go bankrupt, but for some reason the solution is to invoke socialist state-sponsorship of industry rather than removing the problem itself. Heck, we're probably too far gone to ever go back to the way it was, but let's get rid of the problem before it gets even worse. It's already metastasized and damaged far more than just crop prices, but at least we can stop the bleeding.
  9. The contrast between Trump's hate-tweets towards the "bad news" Ambassador after saying she "might go through some things" and the standing ovation she recieved at the end makes me hopeful. A stirring, real- life version of David and Goliath. May he never have to go all the way to a baseball game to be booed ever again.
  10. The whistleblower was relevant, yes, in that they pulled the alarm. If we were still having a debate on whether or not to investigate the reasons for that alarm the whistleblower's identity might be relevant, but once the reasons were deemed credible (which was done first by Trump appointee Inspector General Michael Atkinson, which is apparently a good enough reason to fire him), and then in a wider, more concrete sense by the Intelligence Committee investigation, the whistleblower's identity doesn't make a flying fig of difference. No matter who they are or their degree of partisanship or resentment against Trump, the credibility of the alarm has been established and the investigation rightfully and logically moves on to larger concerns, i.e. the things that are relevant now. The reason you can't answer why the whistleblower is relevant now is because they aren't any longer, except in the Republican attempt to distract from what actually is relevant. That is why they won't be satisfied with anything that doesn't reveal the whistleblower's identity: he/she is only valuable as a smear factor. To capitulate to their demands for smearable material would only serve to add credibility to their baseless distractions, which is the exact opposite purpose of the investigation and why Republicans are howling. That's all they can do because the facts are so bad. Today was horrible for the President by any objective measure, which is why Rs are desperately hoping Americans have been distracted by irrelevant material. Don't fall for it.
  11. Yeah, I understand your point, I just don't think it's a point in Trump's favor. There are people on social media and even here on this board that claim that Trump did nothing wrong and if anything should be admired, which if you leave out the context might seem plausible, when in reality it's anything but. Trump wants you to think he's a generous, admirable guy, he just didn't expect to have to actually do anything to earn it, and there's a reason the judge's comments were included as part of an admonishment of him. Nothing he did was praiseworthy. That in decades of fake philanthropy and spending money donated for worthy causes on himself Trump was forced one time to keep one-third of his word (don't forget he said during the actual event that they'd raised $6M, one million of which was supposedly from him [actual amount he gave = $0]) just highlights how amoral he is. He also claimed to have donated hundreds of millions to 9/11 victims and other charities and made it part of his fake campaign persona, when in reality he donated nothing but free rounds of golf. And on the few rare occasions he actually did donate real money, he used money donated to his foundation rather than his own. I mean, we're talking like a few thousand dollars here and there that he was too cheap to give. I could go on for pages more it only gets worse. I cede your point that he finally coughed up other people's donations when caught stealing them red-handed, and people who state otherwise are factually incorrect. My point is that he is one repulsive and despicable human being, and this instance with the veterans only adds more evidence to the already teetering mountain of garbage that is his legacy. If people here or on Twitter or whatever got the minutia wrong that's on them, sure. But I'd be willing to bet they got the gist of it right.
  12. It isn't true because David Fahrenthold, a reporter for the Washington Post, hounded the campaign for months and shamed them into it. That they gave anything at all was exceptional for a Trump-related charity, as Fahrenthold documented in a series of articles that won him the Pulitzer: https://www.pulitzer.org/winners/david-fahrenthold Just like everything else about the man, Trump's generosity was fake, too.
  13. There's no real defense for Trump so they're using this whistleblower nonsense to make it seem like there is one (and no quid pro quo before that, secret depositions before that, no impeachment vote before that, etc.). None of them are legitimate of course, but they don't have many other options so there'll be another one soon enough. Get used to it.
  14. Please, enough with this. Here are the names and dollar amounts of Pete's, Biden's, Warren's, Bernie's, and Trump's biggest contributors. See any differences? One of the first four will be competing against the last guy. On the Democratic side, Biden has what you would call the "big money" donors. Let's assume he drops out. Where do you want that money to go, because it's gonna go somewhere. Is Pete supposed to turn it down? So Ren from the internet won't use it to make a bunch of ridiculous assumptions? I assume Pete, like me, wants an actual victory not a moral one. Ordinarily I'd be more sympathetic, but these are not normal times. Last time I wrote in Bernie rather than vote for Hillary, but that's because I had the "luxury" of my vote not mattering. I could "afford" to make an ideological protest vote because there was nothing on the line. If I lived in a swing state rather than California, as much as I #####ed and moaned about Hillary Clinton, damn right I would've voted for her, as many times as they'd have let me. There's almost no opinion or value worth having or holding that won't change with time or circumstances. It's not being hypocritical, it's being critical. Last week I posted about my (hopefully temporary) alignment with some lawyers from the Federalist Society for God's sake (checks-and-balances.org). In my humble opinion, America as we know it will not survive four more years of Trump. We'll be too far gone. Heck, we may be so already. Like most people, I have a hierarchy of values in my mind, and things move up and down (mostly subconsciously) based on a bunch of factors, and right now I'm not going to worry about the moldy cheese in the fridge because the house is on fire. If you only vote for ideologically pure, driven-snow type candidates (I don't even know who that would be right now) congrats but your candidate will never win. It's a textbook example of "the perfect being the enemy of the good". Shut it down boys, Ren's got it figured out. Who is the hero who won a Presidential campaign without having "some serious financial backing and powerful friends"? Let me guess, Mr. Invisible? Now that I think of it, I don't remember you ever expressing a favorable opinion on any politician. Who's your horse? Some homeless anarchist who lives under the Space Needle, or you don't have one? It's pretty easy to crap on how other people play the game when you have too high of an opinion of yourself to participate.
  15. Luckily FOX News has a more recent poll: Fox News Poll results October 27-30, 2019 Hoo boy, they asked dozens of questions besides what we're talking about here (approval, honest and trustworthy, vs. each of the probable Dem nominees, etc.), and none of them look good for Donald. In fact, almost all of them look terrible. But don't despair just yet, there's another more recent poll, this time by NBC and the Wall Street Journal: NBC/WSJ Late October Poll 2019 Well, shucks. Let's try this last, more recent poll by the Huffington Post and YouGov: HP/YouGov Impeachment I'm not sure what all those Not Sure people are not sure about, but maybe the news that Trump also traded Javelin missiles for political favors with the last President of Ukraine in 2017 will get them off the fence. Or maybe that the first 500 of the 48,000 pages of Mueller investigation notes that the DOJ was forced to release don't quite show "total exoneration", in fact, quite the opposite. I wonder, would they release the worst stuff for Trump first, or the best? I have a feeling this is as good as it's gonna get for the Don. Hey ma, which way's the wind blowin'? The levee's lookin' shaky Oh yeah, remember this guy? "there's a lot more shoes to drop from this centipede"'