Weave

Absolutely

Yeah, 2 games seems about normal to me. I’d like the normal to be higher, but this is a normal penalty for a 1st timer on a hit that could have been alot more predatory that it was.

And we’ll pillory him for saying the truth.

LIstened to it on FB before you posted it here. Like it.

It’s gonna be another cycle with bad choices in all parties.

It's not as egregious as Miller Lucic, but I can't see Maroon looking the other way if we elbowed Kuch.

Or a broken jaw.

Rhetorical sarcasm was rhetorical.

Welp. I'm done.

I mean, we supported burning the team down once when we had near all stars as the top of the team, what makes you think the idea we can improve fortunes by jettisoning them wouldn't change?

This is why we need a player or two capable of a little thuggery. Not to get revenge on Cernac, but to be the team that issues some disruption for a change, instead of always being the victim of disruption all the damned time.

Lack of dynamic play, or flash is a factor. Draft position is as well. We did tank to get a less than all star level RW. That's gotta bias opinions.

At the time I was all for the Clinton impeachment. He almost certainly obstructed justice. Although frankly, I think a stronger case for obstruction of justice can be had re: Trump right now. The investigation that led to the obstruction of justice charges? Yeah, I was for it then as well. Now? Not so much. Don't get me wrong, getting into a sexual relationship with a subordinate is worthy of censure. Was it worthy of a full blown investigation? I don't feel so today. The hatred for the Clintons is interesting. I'm guilty of it. I think Hillary lost on her own merits. Bill's history sure doesn't help, but she's crafted her own negative image.

He'll get impeached. However, a loyal Republican majority in the Senate won't convict. It's not like a criminal trial. Impeachment is an inherently political process. See Bill Clinton as example #1. Politics prevented his conviction, not innocence. But he was impeached.

Sam Reinhart, on most teams.

Would you feel any better if I said you're ignoring evidence because you don't like what it shows? Because that is exactly what hiding your head in the sand means. I'm not relying on anyone's opinions to form my thoughts. I'm relying on sworn testimony. All of it. Available to anyone to read, unlike the trnascript you'll never see.

I've never been a registered Democrat and never in 34 years as a voter voted one for President, Governor, or Senator. In fact, I can count on the fingers of one hand and have fingers left over how many Dmes I've voted for lifetime. It's not my party. And it has absolutely nothing to do with the conversation about Donald Trump. Frankly, it says alot about the man when a never Democrat feels so strongly about what is happening today. When there is no more substance to your argument you change the subject.

Yeah, that is exactly what you are doing, putting your head in the sand. It's too conveninet for someone who is never going to get all the information to say they will reserve judgement until they get it, especially given the sworn testimony that you 100% have access to. And given your outrage over Hillary's emails and Benghazi (neither of which you have seen any evidence about) about 3 years ago I'm calling *****.

Not trying to be snarky here but I think you have your head in the sand if you aren’t willing to accept the testimony of career professionals, and not political appointees, that have detailed the events involving the bribery (let’s call it what it is) of a friendly country. Democrats may be running the investigation but the testimony and evidence is coming from career experts who have served without issue under Presidents from both parties. That “bunch of people” as you label them have no base that they are appealing to.

I don’t share your optimism or your opinion that it is a failed experiment. Under Trump separation of powers has been pretty well gutted and majority Conservatives put in positions for life. Don’t forget that some of those appointees should have been Obama appointees. I don’t see how this behavior isn’t encouraged going forward. It worked without repercussion. The curtain has been pulled away and we see now how tenuous rule of law really is. At this point the only effective countermeasure that I can see is similar behavior from the Democrats.

No idea if its going to be a strategic mistake. I hope not. The behavior, and support of that behavior needs to be punished or it will repeat. I agree with your likely scenario. I don’t see a path to a Senate conviction. It frustrates me that the Senate is so shortsighted about the likely implications of non-conviction. It is not at all entertaining to me. I think our children will suffer greatly for this.

Interesting tweets from @waltershaub today. It is a pretty extensive list of grievances that individually and collectively map a behavior of violating the public trust. See below. This is an accumulation of like 18 tweets. Senate Republicans are setting a dangerous precedent that threatens the republic itself. I'm not naive enough to think they would hold Democratic presidents to the low standard they've applied to Trump, but all future presidents will be able to point to Trump to justify: a. Soliciting foreign attacks on our elections; b. Using federal appropriations or other resources to pressure foreign governments to help them win reelection; c. Implementing an across-the-board refusal to comply with any congressional oversight at all; d. Firing the heads of the government's top law enforcement agencies for allowing investigations of the president; e. Retaliating against whistleblowers and witnesses who testify before Congress; f. Investigating investigators who investigate the president; g. Attempting to retaliate against American companies perceived as insufficiently supportive of the president; h. Attempting to award the president's own company federal contracts; i. Using personal devices, servers or applications for official communications; j. Communicating secretly with foreign leaders, with foreign governments knowing things about White House communications that our own government doesn't know; k. Abandoning steadfast allies abruptly without prior warning to Congress to cede territory to Russian influence; l. Destroying or concealing records containing politically damaging information; m. Employing white nationalists and expressing empathy for white nationalists after an armed rally in which one of them murdered a counter protester and another shot a gun into a crowd; n. Disseminating Russian disinformation; o. Covering for the murder of a journalist working for an American news outlet by a foreign government that is a major customer of the president's private business; p. Violating human rights and international law at our border; q. Operating a supposed charity that was forced to shut down over its unlawful activities; r. Lying incessantly to the American people; s. Relentlessly attacking the free press; t. Spending 1/4 of days in office visiting his own golf courses and 1/3 of them visiting his private businesses; u. Violating the Emoluments Clauses of the U.S. Constitution; w. Misusing the security clearance process to benefit his children and target perceived enemies; x. Drawing down on government efforts to combat domestic terrorism in order to appease a segment of his base; y. Refusing to aggressively investigate and build defenses against interference in our election by Russia, after the country helped him win an election; bb. Coordinating with his attorney in connection with activities that got the attorney convicted of criminal campaign finance violations; cc. Interfering in career personnel actions, which are required by law to be conducted free of political influence; dd. Refusing to fire a repeat Hatch Act offender after receiving a recommendation of termination from the president's own Senate-confirmed appointee based on dozens of violations; ee. Calling members of Congress names and accusing them of treason for conducting oversight; ff. Attacking states and private citizens frequently and in terms that demean the presidency (see Johnson impeachment); gg. Using the presidency to tout his private businesses and effectively encouraging a party, candidates, businesses and others to patronize his business; hh. Causing the federal government to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars at his businesses and costing the American taxpayers well over $100 million on boondoggle trips to visit his properties; ii. Hosting foreign leaders at his private businesses; jj. Calling on the Justice Department to investigate political rivals; kk. Using the presidency to endorse private businesses and the books of various authors as a reward for supporting the president; ll. Engaging in nepotism based on a flawed OLC opinion; mm. Possible misuse of appropriated funds by reallocating them in ways that may be illegal; nn. Repeatedly criticizing American allies, supporting authoritarian leaders around the world, and undermining NATO; and oo. etc.

Alexander Hamilton’s commentary re: impeachment in Federalist 65 seem very prescient today. “ A well-constituted court for the trial of impeachments is an object not more to be desired than difficult to be obtained in a government wholly elective. The subjects of its jurisdiction are those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated POLITICAL, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself. The prosecution of them, for this reason, will seldom fail to agitate the passions of the whole community, and to divide it into parties more or less friendly or inimical to the accused. In many cases it will connect itself with the pre-existing factions, and will enlist all their animosities, partialities, influence, and interest on one side or on the other; and in such cases there will always be the greatest danger that the decision will be regulated more by the comparative strength of parties, than by the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt.” I found this in an article in Reason today. Interesting to note that the focus was on violating the public trust, not violations of criminal statutes, and notes the inherent politics involved in that distinction. The author of the article goes on to observe that Hamilton likely expected party loyalty politics in the House, but that a more statesmanly Senate wouldn’t be so caught up in party loyalty. Unfortunately, the days of the Senate being the more deliberative body and more statesmanlike are no longer here. Sorry, not sure how to link the article on my phone. Google is your friend.

Elite level talent, but he hasn’t shown the ability to sustain elite level performance. I suspect the difference is between his ears.

Haven't read the thread. Highly entertaining game. We survived some periods where we we getting absolutely shellacked. I'm guessing Vessey took some abuse on here for his missed breakaway attempt. I thought he had a pretty good game overall. And I thought Bogo's game was a nice change. Jack still stops moving his feet too often. Skinner was pretty lively out there. Olofsson made a few nice plays 5v5. He hasn't done that often enough to date. And where did all those blocked shots come from? When did JBotts hire Torts to assist RaKru?