Jump to content

In10se

Full Members
  • Posts

    339
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by In10se

  1. Definitely reached for need and not best player available. That usually has a way of biting you in the ass in the 1st 2 rounds. 

    Dont like taking LB in 1st. Usually about 6 or 7 years is all you get before they are too beaten up and decline sharply unless they take 5 redshirt seasons like Lee. 

  2. 7 minutes ago, Patrick Bateman said:

    They have Ogbah..... but why not trade down then?

    They had to be thinking trade down but nobody wanted to give anything up to trade up. Dont think there are many players here you give up multiple picks to get. 

  3. The Browns with a baseball geek as their GM were full on tard. Now they have Dorsey who knows what he's doing and they also have the drunken genius Scot McCloughan who built the SB niners and SB champ Seahawks. I think Browns ace this draft

  4. I think Earl would be a big boon to the secondary but if I had the choice I'd rather package a pick with 19 to move up if Vea is there than use it to trade for Earl. An elite DT up front makes whatever LB you get look a lot better and allows the safeties to not have to play the run as close to the LOS. It helps every level of the defense up the middle. 

    Tell Earl's agent that Seattle wouldn't budge enough for one year trade but we will sign him next off-season if they won't budge and take a pick for next year before training camp starts. 

  5. 8 minutes ago, Viper said:

    this is the guy that called the falcons trading up for a pass rusher last year and then they jumped the cowboys and got Takkarist McKinley

    http://draftanalyst.com/nfl-draft-notes-april-24

    I would be happy with Vea or Vander Esch, but if we're getting a WR I'd rather trade down and get one.

    For that to happen you'd better hope one of the top 4-5 QBs is still sitting there or else no one may be willing to trade up. 

     

    I hope that report is true. It means the Cowboys may have finally gotten their heads out of their asses and realized the foundation of a defense is up the middle and specifically that big fucker up front commanding guard/center combo blocks often. 

  6. 1 hour ago, retread said:

    The speculation that Trump is the template for future leaders is taking shape. Pruitt and Mulvaney realize no one is going to hold them accountable as long as they don't admit they're wrong.

    This is almost the exact template for the fall of the Roman empire. Excessive and widespread open corruption, constant infighting, and a lazy, bloodthirsty populace. 

    • Like 3
  7. On 4/22/2018 at 10:15 PM, Reese Bennett said:

     

    Show me a loss.

    Do we have a QB and OL that play consistently good to great football? Then only 1 or 2 losses. 

    If not then another 5 to 7 losses again. It's that simple. 

  8. 7 hours ago, bolverk said:

    People Voted for Trump Because They Were Anxious, Not Poor

    For the past 18 months, many political scientists have been seized by one question: Less-educated whites were President Trump’s most enthusiastic supporters. But why, exactly?

    Was their vote some sort of cri de coeur about a changing economy that had left them behind? Or was the motivating sentiment something more complex and, frankly, something harder for policy makers to address?

    After analyzing in-depth survey data from 2012 and 2016, the University of Pennsylvania political scientist Diana C. Mutz argues that it’s the latter. In a new article in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, she added her conclusion to the growing body of evidence that the 2016 election was not about economic hardship.

    “Instead,” she writes, “it was about dominant groups that felt threatened by change and a candidate who took advantage of that trend.”

    “For the first time since Europeans arrived in this country,” Mutz notes, “white Americans are being told that they will soon be a minority race.” When members of a historically dominant group feel threatened, she explains, they go through some interesting psychological twists and turns to make themselves feel okay again. First, they get nostalgic and try to protect the status quo however they can. They defend their own group (“all lives matter”), they start behaving in more traditional ways, and they start to feel more negatively toward other groups.

     

      Reveal hidden contents

     

    This could be why in one study, whites who were presented with evidence of racial progress experienced lower self-esteem afterward. In another study, reminding whites who were high in “ethnic identification” that nonwhite groups will soon outnumber them revved up their support for Trump, their desire for anti-immigrant policies, and their opposition to political correctness.

    Mutz also found that “half of Americans view trade as something that benefits job availability in other countries at the expense of jobs for Americans.”

    Granted, most people just voted for the same party in both 2012 and 2016. However, between the two years, people—especially Republicans—developed a much more negative view toward international trade. In 2012, the two parties seemed roughly similar on trade, but in 2016, Hillary Clinton’s views on trade and on “China as a threat” were much further away from the views of the average American than were Trump’s.

    Mutz examined voters whose incomes declined, or didn’t increase much, or who lost their jobs, or who were concerned about expenses, or who thought they had been personally hurt by trade. None of those things motivated people to switch from voting for Obama in 2012 to supporting Trump in 2016. Indeed, manufacturing employment in the United States has actually increased somewhat since 2010. And as my colleague Adam Serwer has pointed out, “Clinton defeated Trump handily among Americans making less than $50,000 a year.”

    Meanwhile, a few things did correlate with support for Trump: a voter’s desire for their group to be dominant, as well as how much they disagreed with Clinton’s views on trade and China. Trump supporters were also more likely than Clinton voters to feel that “the American way of life is threatened,” and that high-status groups, like men, Christians, and whites, are discriminated against.

    This sense of unfounded persecution is far from rare, and it seems to be heightened during moments of societal change. As my colleague Emma Green has written, white evangelicals see more discrimination against Christians than Muslims in the United States, and 79 percent of white working-class voters who had anxieties about the “American way of life” chose Trump over Clinton. As I pointed out in the fall of 2016, several surveys showed many men supported Trump because they felt their status in society was threatened, and that Trump would restore it. Even the education gap in support for Trump disappears, according to one analysis, if you account for the fact that non-college-educated whites are simply more likely to affirm racist views than those with college degrees. (At the most extreme end, white supremacists also use victimhood to further their cause.)

    These why-did-people-vote-for-Trump studies are clarifying, but also a little bit unsatisfying, from the point of view of a politician. They dispel the fiction—to use another 2016 meme—that the majority of Trump supporters are disenfranchised victims of capitalism’s cruelties. At the same time, deep-seated psychological resentment is harder for policy makers to address than an overly meager disability check. You can teach out-of-work coal miners to code, but you may not be able to convince them to embrace changing racial and gender norms. You can offer universal basic incomes, but that won’t ameliorate resentment of demographic changes.

    In other words, it’s now pretty clear that many Trump supporters feel threatened, frustrated, and marginalized—not on an economic, but on an existential level. Now what?

     

    Ironic that it's going to be white America's gullible nature feasting on their own insecurity and jingoistic fears that will bring this country crashing to the ground. 

    They let republicans and so called "conservative" media fool them into a state where they prey on those fears to get the power to enrich themselves far beyond anything the Jesus they claim to serve would consider greedy and gluttonous. 

    Especially considering almost every minority group that is in America wants to assimilate to the same white American ideals. Steady job. House. Nice car. White America is fighting a strawman and stabbing themselves in the process. Then repeating over and over. 

    • Like 2
  9. It comes out that Vea may be the trigger man in a massacre. He goes undrafted. The day after the draft it turns out to be mistaken identity and shoddy police work and he's innocent. Jerry signs him as a UDFA. 

    Cowboys trade 50 to Seattle for earl. Draft an OL at 19. No trade back because Jerrah ain't havin' no draft in his dome without making a 1st round pick. 

  10. 1 hour ago, Drew said:

    Absolutely false. Yes he needs be phased out, but you’re once agian being overdramatic by saying he adds no value whatsoever.  He’s still a security banker and catches everything. Yes he doesn’t do much else but that’s still valuable. 

     

    They just need to force his ass off the field more. That’s the issue. He takes every snap. 

    I think that's his point. Witten needs to be gone since the coaches or jerry or whoever can't seem to be trusted with doing the right thing for the team and cutting his snaps by a lot. Especially if Swaim and Rico are healthy this year we really need to see what they have. 

    Sort of like there's nothing wrong with a bottle of bourbon but an alcoholic needs to never have one around because he can't be trusted with it. 

    • Like 1
  11. 5 minutes ago, sachick said:

    How is he not over playing golf every weekend? Am I missing something by not being into golf, is it really that addicting and fun to play?

     It isn't the golf. It's all that sweet taxpayer money he's funneling into his pockets. 

    • Like 1
  12. 8 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

    and he named his son after his alter ego. wtf, man

    "Barron is like, a very very rich name. Hugely rich name. Barrons were some kind of English rich guys or something. Very very rich. Like me. Not as rich as me. Not even close. But still rich. Like maybe half a billion. Or maybe one."

     

  13. 32 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

    Comey's biggest fuckup was circumventing the DOJ with the press conference.

    The only reason people give a shit about the reopening the email investigation is because Trump won. 

    If Hillary had won, very few would be second guessing Comey's move. 

    People just want someone to blame for Trump other than all those people that voted for him. 

    His biggest fuck up was getting political and involving himself in the political aspects of governance. Once he got down in the political mud then he felt he had to constantly be working in it. 

    If he had just conducted these investigations true to protocol he wouldn't have put himself in such bad situations. 

    Either way the play was, if anything, to tell the DOJ there were new aspects to the Weiner case that were being investigated and if there was somethung found that needed their attention it would be handled after that was determined. Nothing needed to be told to congress.  Then if it leaks it leaks but at least he would have been handling the case like any other case is handled and would have had the evidence to back it up. Giving a shit about Trump's ridiculous conspiracy theory crap was stupid. 

  14. 21 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

    Comey had a simple way to ensure that his letter to Congress wouldn't get leaked: in addition to informing them of the re-opening of the Clinton investigation, inform them that the FBI had opened an investigation into Trump's campaign. Jason Chaffetz would have buried that letter 50 feet under the ground. Why didn't he do that? And why, instead of sending any letter, didn't he put the fear of god into the NY office to ensure they don't meddle in the election?

    Comey officially acknowledging the re-opening on the Clinton investigation in the manner he did was much more damaging to Hillary's campaign than some anonymous leaks from the NY office would have been. He fucked up, and he fucked up as badly as he possibly could have in that situation.

    Either he fucked up because he was an unfit director or he knew what he was doing and did it anyway. It's why I can't really take him seriously on all this stuff, especially since he immediately try to capitalize on his new-found politicism for personal gain.

    But hey, I was just a federal investigator so what do I know about federal investigations

  15. 20 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

    ED0E2ED7-2889-4413-A92A-329DC661E5B0_zps

    9F26C274-5519-493A-A8A9-8387D54517E1_zps

    44721886-66C9-4778-A9B6-A0ED88FBBBF6_zps

     

    Comey can rationalize it in his book however he wants, and maybe he was just incredibly stupid, but I refuse to believe a sitting FBI director wouldn't understand in the moment that the actions he took would influence the election. His rationalizations are faulty as I said before because no investigation is carried out that way with a letter to Congress before anything was found, and he knew damn well any info he gave congress would be immediately leaked for political gain. As a director you take measures to prevent the leak from your agents, but you never leak info yourself simply because you cannot control your own agency.

    Since I refuse to believe Comey is stupid, the only real explanation I'm left with is he did it for his own political or personal reasons. 

    • Like 1
  16. 50 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

    1. He didn’t release it to the public, he released it to Congress and they leaked it to the press.

    2. He informed the DOJ before he did it without an order not to inform Congress.

    3. The email investigation was already declared closed, ended, over as a statement of fact.  New information came to light that made that public statement false. He had a duty to correct regardless if there was a election going on.

    4.  It was going to leak anyway that the investigation was reopened because they had to get a search warrant from a NY Court to search the laptops.  That would have put the FBI in a worse position because they would have to confirm the leak even closer to the election.

    5. Even Loretta Lynch, after the fact, knew Comey did the right thing.

     

    Gotta call a little bullshit on that one. There wss no reason for Comey to send the letter to congress at that time as he knew an immediate leak would occur by republicans. Sending that letter was the same as leaking it himself. 

    You especially don't send it when you haven't determined if there was anything there. You start the investigation of new evidence and only advance forward if there are any conclusions that can be made for charges after it us completed... the same as any other FBI investigation. If doing this is proper protocol then why didn't he inform congress by letter of the investigation into trump that hadn't completed?

    His reasoning for the leak letter was he was afraid his NY office was going to leak anyway after the info was discovered from Weiner's wife's computer? So you say because as director I have no control over my department leaking anyway I'm going to just go ahead and leak myself? That's a terrible rationalization. 

    The proper play was to conduct the investgation of new info with the same protocol as any other investigation but Comey decided to get political and it bit him in the ass. 

     

    "

    Officials at the D.O.J. tried to convince the F.B.I. that all Comey had promised Congress was that he would take a look at new information, that he risked creating another misimpression by sending a letter, that doing this so close to an election was insanity, and that “the overwhelming odds are that this will amount to nothing,” as one former official puts it.

    One argument that the F.B.I gave in response was that now that the circle had become much bigger, including agents in New York, the probability of a leak was high and would only increase once the request for the warrant was filed. “Yes, it was absolutely explicit that one reason for the letter was that the agents in New York would leak it,” says a Justice Department source. “That is a crappy reason. You can’t manage your people? And a leak would have been better than what happened.” (In fact, on the morning of November 4, Giuliani returned to Fox & Friends, to gloat, “Did I hear about it? You’re darn right I heard about it.” Later that day, he tweeted, “I still challenge someone to produce proof of my direct involvement w @fbi.”)"

    https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/02/james-comey-fbi-director-letter/amp

×
×
  • Create New...