Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Joe Summer

  • Content Count

  • Joined

Posts posted by Joe Summer

  1. 28 minutes ago, NorvilleBarnes said:

    Thank you for the perfectly reasonable questions. First, I have no idea if there is a cure for Covid and I haven't seen the video in question (in this one single specific example) myself. I can't comment on the content, but for the sake of discussion let's assume it was "fake news" and if it did violate youtube ToS. I'm not suggesting the offenders get off scott free simply because they're generally conservative.

    IMO, something along the lines of a notice or disclaimer that the claims are disputed. Or even taking down the offending video. But not taking down the video, and demonitizing the channel, and locking them out of livestreaming and finally, blocking them from uploading any new videos on any other topic. It seems like the platform version of "excessive use of force". 

    That's a reasonable argument.

    What do you propose as fair punishment for repeat offenders of the policy? More of the same? Just take down the offending video again, but let them go ahead and repost it again and again and again, each time it simply gets removed until the next time it is reposted?

  2. 2 minutes ago, BladeRunner said:
    6 minutes ago, Joe Summer said:

    Yeah, we get it. As long as you can misrepresent what other people write, it's OK. C'mon man, are you serious with this?

    Speaking of juvenile and misrepresenting what people say. :rolleyes:

    I get you guys don't like opinions that go against the liberal orthodoxy in this forum, but try harder next time.  If you have a point, make it.  Don't mock.

    You misrepresented what FreeBaGeL wrote. Why? Did you think it was the only way that you could "win" whatever point you were trying to make? Were you just being disingenuous, arguing in bad faith because there's no "good faith" counter to what he wrote? Or did you misread what he wrote entirely?

    I noticed that you did it with my post as well. Why assume that people who think you're wrong are following some sort of "liberal orthodoxy"? Maybe they just think you're wrong?

    When you assume bias in others, aren't you just mirroring the conservative outrage about social media companies?

    • Like 1
  3. 2 minutes ago, davearm said:

    The snap data makes very clear that the thing Taysom Hill does the most is split out and run pass routes.  He does this on 59% of his snaps.  How we allocate these snaps between "Tight End" "Wide Receiver" and "Slot Receiver" is arbitrary and unimportant.

    Tight Ends are not Wide Receivers.

    Wide Receivers are not Tight Ends.

    If you have to combine the two positions to prove a point, then the point is not worth proving. It's either a fishing attempt or a last desperate grasp to win an illogical argument.

    • Like 1
    • Thanks 1
  4. 30 minutes ago, Alex P Keaton said:

    Why would I say that, when I don't believe it's true?   These sites are all flagging BS nonsense that isn't true.   Over and over.  Just pure gibberish.

    Conservatives are calling it bias - which it is - a bias toward truth.   Why would you want a bias toward outright lies?  Seriously, help me understand why you want to be spoonfed things that are misinformation?

    The argument from Trump supporters seems to be "Everyone tells lies on social media, but it's unfair that only Trump supporters get suspended for it."

    Which is a bit like saying "Everyone has broken the law, but it's unfair that only convicted murderers get executed for it."

  5. 2 minutes ago, flapgreen said:

    Oh yes 

    I realize that victories have been few and far between for Trump supporters recently, so I kind of understand the idea of disproportionately cheering for any shred of a win, no matter how small.

    But celebrating a United States military officer who lied to the government and admitted to it? Why be proud of that? Why die on that hill? Just take the W and quietly move on.

    • Like 9
  6. 15 hours ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

    What are the chances that Dems win both Georgia seats?

    I think the Democrats have a chance if they can do the following:

    1. use the words of Trump (and his staffers) to sow mistrust and apathy.

    2. emphasize the importance of respecting laws and norms.

    3. emphasize how Perdue and Loeffler exploited and downplayed COVID so they could sell stocks and make money while people were dying.

    4. connect with African-Americans without pandering to them.

    5. keep Joe Biden out of it.

    But the Democrats will probably botch all of those things and both Republicans will win in a landslide.

    • Like 1
  7. 2 minutes ago, Chickenwang said:
    6 minutes ago, sho nuff said:

    Nope...people posted about it above...its been posted about and discussed (since its not a real actual hearing nor is any actual evidence being presented)

    Sit back and enjoy the show buddy.  

    We've been sitting back so much, we're getting sick and tired of all the sitting back.


    On 11/21/2020 at 7:43 AM, Chickenwang said:
    On 11/21/2020 at 6:45 AM, GroveDiesel said:

    After meeting with Trump, Michigan lawmakers still affirm that Michigan’s electors will go to Biden.

    At this point it’s more clear than ever that it is over and there is essentially nothing Trump can do to change the outcome. Georgia is certified, Michigan has confirmed that their votes will go for Biden, Arizona and Nevada are basically afterthoughts and they continue to lose case after case after case in PA.

    Sit back and enjoy eating your words. 



    On 11/21/2020 at 9:06 AM, Chickenwang said:
    On 11/21/2020 at 7:46 AM, sho nuff said:

    Do you actually believe Trump won?  That the reported results are going to change?

    Absolutely.  It won't even be close.  


    • Like 3
    • Laughing 1
  8. Although I will add that it's pretty disingenuous to basically say "Hey, we're just exploring a strategy that we condemned four years ago." It also tends to reinforce the idea that Republicans are no longer the "law and order" party and that their platform consists of little more than "liberal tears" and "win at any cost."

    • Like 3
    • Laughing 1
  9. 1 hour ago, Chaz McNulty said:
    2 hours ago, shader said:

    Their goal is to get the legislatures to choose different electors.  

    This idea was floated on social media 4 years ago by the left, (Hamilton electors) but I don’t believe any real effort was made to try and get this to happen at that time.

    Oh, I see.  The idea was bought up by an unnamed Democrat at one time, so this makes it 'All Good'.

    Look, there's nothing wrong with acknowledging that there were lots of people — ranging from message board users to prominent politicians — who explored, discussed, and even promoted the idea of using various technicalities to prevent Donald Trump from being inaugurated in 2017. I remember quite a few of those discussions in this very forum.

    But, as with the Birther conspiracy, there is a huge, huge, huge difference between "floating an idea" and "adopting it as official strategy."

    Say what you want about bitter Hillary supporters: at least they didn't fabricate evidence and try to insult the judicial system with it. At least they recognized that making an end run around democracy was a bad idea.

    • Like 4
    • Laughing 1
  10. 3 hours ago, Capella said:
    13 hours ago, CletiusMaximus said:

    He also re-tweeted Randy Quaid 5 times, including this one

    Are these the people we are supposed to be healing with or what. 

    Yes. Also, we shouldn't mock them. And, we should try harder to see things from their point of view. Randy Quaid's opinions aren't wrong; they're just his opinions. And we should give them the amount of respect that they deserve.

    • Like 3
    • Thanks 2
    • Laughing 1
  11. 8 minutes ago, NorvilleBarnes said:
    15 minutes ago, Joe Summer said:

    This is sort of a microcosm of the Trump playbook: deny a story by getting a bunch of confirmed liars to cry "hoax."

    You've got it backwards. The left playbook is to publish that garbage and then cry "JoUrNaLiSm!"

    It's garbage and the average person can see right through it. Then later, when polling shows people don't trust the media, the people eating it all up with a spoon cry "zomg, must be a cult!"

    Rinse, repeat.

    As far as I know, the "losers and suckers" quotes have not been disputed by anyone who isn't a confirmed liar. But I have an open mind so please let me know if I am mistaken.

    • Like 1
  12. 1 minute ago, sho nuff said:
    3 minutes ago, Joe Summer said:

    This is sort of a microcosm of the Trump playbook: deny a story by getting a bunch of confirmed liars to cry "hoax."

    Then claim the source that put it out there is fake news and you can't take anything else from them seriously (ignoring the other 3 that confirmed the sourcing).  All while believing Donald Trump and sources far less credible than the one they are bashing.

    To be fair, the Atlantic story probably did get one thing wrong: the decision to cancel the cemetery visit in France was likely influenced, in no small part, on recommendations from the helicopter crew and/or other advisors. That doesn't mean that Trump couldn't have made an executive override if he was bound and determined to visit the cemetery, of course.

    But the key part of the story to which @Norville referenced ("losers and suckers") has not been disputed by anyone who isn't a confirmed liar.

    (Also, this overlooks another piece of evidence which was omitted from the Atlantic story: Trump also skipped out on a visit to Arlington cemetery later that week — when there were no helicopters involved — claiming that he was too busy making phone calls that day.)

  13. 6 minutes ago, NorvilleBarnes said:
    22 hours ago, sho nuff said:

    Why is that...seems spot on as we see some of the really out there theories.

    Because it's from the Atlantic - the source of the "losers and suckers" hoax. Which was divorced from reality.

    This is sort of a microcosm of the Trump playbook: deny a story by getting a bunch of confirmed liars to cry "hoax."

  14. 8 minutes ago, Osaurus said:
    26 minutes ago, Greedo said:

    Thats’ a bold strategy, Cotton.

    I thought about Trump going scorched earth on both parties. He is irate that the GOP rank and file haven’t done enough to support him and he could spite them. It would be freakin hilarious if the GOP lost the Georgia Senate seats because of it. I know it’s unlikely, but amusing nonetheless. 

    Don't worry, the Democrats will find a way to screw it up. Between Trump and Stone and Sidney Powell, the campaign commercials practically write themselves. But the Democrats will probably ignore all of it.

    • Like 4
  15. 30 minutes ago, Doug B said:
    1 hour ago, CletiusMaximus said:

    Wisconsin is in the 5th day of its recount, which the Trump campaign requested and paid for.  Its become a bit of a ####show due to Trump "observers" thinking their role is to play election cop, but they will get through it and the results will not change.  There may still be a faithless elector issue - lots of noise about that.

    They'll need dozens of faithless electors from multiple states. And those faithless electors will have to come from very deep blue, long-standing, and highly-vetted members of the respective state's Democratic Party apparatuses. There will be no moles among them.

    The bolded is a patent impossibility.

    I was worried about a faithless elector when it was looking like Biden might finish at 270, but Biden is well in the clear now. The only reason there were so many faithless electors in 2016 is because they all knew that the race wasn't close enough to make a difference. They wouldn't have defected if Trump had needed them to win.

    • Like 1
  16. 1 hour ago, HellToupee said:

    But yet he received more votes than any other sitting President 

    In terms of the proportion of voter-eligible citizens, Trump got fewer votes than Martin Van Buren, Grover Cleveland and Benjamin Harrison when they lost in 1840, 1888 and 1892, respectively. (I suppose the silver lining there is that one of those three ended up making a comeback 4 years later.)

    It will take a while to calculate the exact numbers, but it looks like Trump's percentage will slot him somewhere between John Kerry and perennial loser William Jennings Bryan.

  17. 1 hour ago, CletiusMaximus said:

    Just an hour ago, President Trump re-tweeted the affidavit filed by Lin Wood which almost everyone now understands was based on the affiant's confusion between Minnesota counties and Michigan election results (being from Texas, he thought "MI" is the abbreviation for Minnesota.) 

    Do we know for certain that the affiant was "confused" about the abbreviations of Minnesota and Michigan? I wouldn't want to make assumptions without evidence.


    • Like 1
  18. Trump just tweeted: "What does GSA being allowed to preliminarily work with the Dems have to do with continuing to pursue our various cases on what will go down as the most corrupt election in American political history? We are moving full speed ahead. Will never concede to fake ballots & “Dominion”."


    • Sad 1
  • Create New...