TexasTiger

Don’t shoot the messenger: https://www.ipsos.com/en-us/news_and_polls/over-half-republicans-believe-donald-trump-actual-president-united-states

Happen to know what the Houston and Penn State QB situation is like?

Are you upset with Lil’ Marco? All campaigns do oppo research.

I guess if we can create our own imaginary fact patterns and argue from there, we can reach all kinds of conclusions. The Democrats didn’t “work with Russia to create” the dossier. So you think Russia was pro HRC?

Bidens are on a high protein diet.

That’s the point. Unforced error. Placing his political priorities over the job paying him millions.

I wouldn’t have posted on Scott’s speech if Pearl hadn’t tweeted.

Context is key. A lot of Georgia folks are upset over new voting laws. Bruce essentially endorsed those tonight and downplayed the impact of racism. A lot of white folks love hearing that, but others are shaking their heads. Recruits will hear this. Agree with Pearl or not, it’s dumb to do. Zero upside.

I’d rather our coaches keep their political affiliations to themselves. This isn’t a one off for Pearl. He spreads conspiracies and misinformation like a champ. We’ll probably never know who they are, but his tweeting will cost us recruits.

Maybe he’s angling for a Fox News gig after this coming year. In any event, he’s creating recruiting challenges.

It’s increasingly difficult for RBs to win the Heisman. That said, I won’t be surprised if he’s the top RB in the nation’s top conference.

Something.

Well, he lived up to Tricky Trey.

I didn’t reference this instance as an example.

Seeing some incredibly stupid takes today...

Dude looks serious.

When they do the right thing, the camera is their friend.

I generally agree about warning shots (where might those bullets go?). But some cases involve multiple shots that seem way more than needed for the perceived threat.

See the slowed video? He may have saved a life.

Won’t fly.

Both were sad performances, but neither were out of sync with the underlying problem.

Let me translate for readers. David gets locked into a narrative and he’s a total captive. He can’t break free. Can’t. He repeats it incessantly even when it’s not the point of the discussion. David also thinks it’s perfectly fine for parties’ nominees to have their campaign coordinate with Russian intelligence, although this may only be limited to supporting Trump do it. He sees no problem at all with it. Doesn’t remotely offend him.

Google translate isn’t helping me with this post— anyone speak this language?

The fact that you think Greenwald’s media critique— largely about the Russian bounty story from unnamed sources— is the “answer” shows your bias. Greenwald himself is more polemicist than reporter. This is an opinion piece. He admits not knowing if it’s true, but makes a faulty comparison: Is it true that Kilimnik passed this polling data to the Kremlin? Maybe. But there is no way for a rational person — let alone someone calling themselves a “journalist” — to conclude that it is true. Why? Because, like the CIA tale about Russian bounties — a claim they learned yesterday had no evidence — this is nothing more than a U.S. Government assertion that lacks any evidence. The bounty piece was reportedly from an unnamed source— no one but the reporter knows who said it. The issue I’ve posted about is in an official government statement supporting official government action— there’s evidence it’s the official position of the government it happened, unlike the bounty story. Does that mean it’s true? Not necessarily. The government can be lying or mistaken. But folks here (except kinda/sorta @SaltyTiger)aren’t even saying, “If true, and we haven’t seen the classified evidence supporting it, it would be a serious violation and a confirmation there was a Russian connection.” Instead, they’re essentially calling it “irrelevant.”

There have been numerous threads about how HRC ran a lousy campaign, which is true, and questioning the impact of Russian disinformation on the outcome. First, the outcome was razor thin in regard to how many votes made the difference so minimal impact was all that was needed. A better HRC campaign could have overcome that impact. The disinformation preceded Trump, then partnered with Trump and continues today. The goal is American polarization. The Russians aren’t the only force pushing that goal. China and Iran are thrilled with it, too, as are US media outlets that profit from the polarization. The result is a country that’s coming apart. This thread is not about why Trump won or why HRC lost. I’ve never been a HRC fan and agree she blew it. It’s about new information, previously not reported, that the Trump campaign did coordinate with the Russians. It’s clear many of you don’t give a damn about that. That’s a principle that would’ve bothered most Americans in the so-called good ole days most Conservatives claim they long for. If it doesn’t bother you it’s not because you’re conservative or have a some above average commitment to “facts.” Chances are your “principles” were always window dressing.