Jump to content

SackMan518

Members
  • Content Count

    5,314
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

SackMan518 last won the day on November 9

SackMan518 had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

2,233 Excellent

About SackMan518

  • Rank
    Trusted News Source
  • Birthday 02/27/1975

Converted

  • How long have you been a Buffalo fan?
    30

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. So he's making a profit off of this right? Wait, you're saying he wanted an investigation done? Uh, that's not personal gain.
  2. 5 Reasons a Senate Trial Would Be A Nightmare for Democrats The once distant and gauzy fantasy of impeaching President Donald Trump is becoming very real for Democrats, just not quite how they wanted or expected it to. As we move into public testimony this week, the wheels of presidential removal are stuck in deeper mud than ever. The polls have been flat or reversing back Trump’s way for weeks despite alleged bombshell revelations, and the worst could be yet to come if and when the issue moves to the Senate. Over the weekend, many Democrats and media allies moved away from the dulcet sound of the Latin “quid pro quo” to the more menacing “extortion” and “bribery,” imagining using a dead language is hurting their messaging. Many also insisted that the magic of television will persuade voters even if the facts of the case are already known and stipulated for the most part. Not only does this assume that the American people are kind of dumb, it also may rely just a smidge too much on hopes that Ambassador Bill Taylor has some kind of powerful television presence. Could an “end of the Perry Mason episode” moment happen? It is not beyond the realm of possibility, but also extremely unlikely. So let’s assume that Democrats move forward on Articles of Impeachment next month with essentially the same facts that everyone more or less agrees with and the same polls that show the country bitterly divided on impeachment. For the case to move to the Senate under these conditions would be a disaster for Democrats, for a whole host of reasons. Here are five of them. 1. Losing Control Of the Process In the six weeks thus far of L’Affaire Ukraine, House Democrats have been in complete control of the process. They have chosen witnesses, whether testimony is in private or public, set the rules of questioning and the schedules. In all these areas, their hand has been firmly on the wheel. It is hard to overestimate what an incredible advantage this is. One can think of it as being both the director and stage manager of a play. They tell the actors where to go, and work to create a narrative convincing enough to sway the American people. But, of course, two parties can play at that game, and once the case moves to the Senate for trial all of those powerful advantages switch hands. Instead of Reps. Nancy Pelosi and Adam Schiff making the rules, it will be Sens. Mitch McConnell and Lindsay Graham. 2. Oh Hi, Hunter Biden Among the advantages the Democrats have had in the House inquiry is that of approving witnesses. Although they allowed Republicans to request witnesses, the authority to approve them is entirely Democrats’. This came into play this weekend when the GOP requested Hunter Biden be brought in to testify about his knowledge of alleged corruption at the energy company Burisma, where he was making Mr. Burns money for Homer Simpson knowledge. That alleged corruption lies at the heart of the entire impeachment. Schiff says Biden will not testify, in part because he does not the inquiry to become the very investigation he says he believes is bogus, that President Trump wanted Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to engage in. In the House, Schiff can block whoever he wants, but it’s hard to see how Democrats could stop the Senate from calling Hunter Biden, and maybe even Joe Biden, in to testify. In that scenario, the investigation Schiff wants shelved will go very public, very quickly, shivving the Democratic frontrunner for president in the process. 3. Senators On The Trail There are currently six Democratic senators running for president of the United States. Two of them, Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders, are polling in the top three of all candidates. The Iowa caucus in on February 3. So let’s be generous and say Santa gives Democrats Articles of Impeachment by Christmas, We would be looking at almost all of the month of January, at least, taken up with a Senate trial. What are these senators supposed to do? Do they put their campaign stops on hold for a month to be in the chamber and watch the trial, giving their opponents a huge ground game advantage? Conversely, do they skip the trial in order to campaign and eventually vote to remove a president even though they didn’t bother to attend the trial? Neither of these are very attractive options. 4. Republican Unity During the Trump era, the time the GOP and conservatives in general have been most united and powerful was during the Brett Kavanaugh confirmation hearings. Note, as discussed above, that was a process controlled by Senate Republicans, not House Democrats, and the picture that emerged was of a qualified man being hounded on the basis of politics, not evidence. The Senate will try to recreate this energy in much the same way. As they puncture the one-sided story crafted by House Democrats, look for Trump’s support to solidify, just as Kavanaugh’s did. There could be no better outcome for the president, who relies almost solely on his base for electoral success. 5. The Odds Of Winning Are Not Good Notwithstanding the televisual spectacle we will all be treated to this week during public testimony, the Democrats have already made their basic case to the American people and to Republicans in the Senate. The dream of a few short weeks ago, that cracks would emerge and suddenly senators would start turning on Trump, is now dissipating as dawn rises over an actual vote on impeachment. Like hungover frat boys who convinced themselves over the raucous night that they would road trip to Mexico the next day, the cruel sun is now glinting off their empties and discarded Juul pods, and they will be going to class after all. The result? A huge win for Trump, any way you slice it. There are only two outcomes for the trial: conviction and removal, or acquittal. Once acquitted, the president will take so many victory laps that the track will need new asphalt. Democrats will be left holding an empty bag saying, “We did our duty but the process wasn’t fair,” truly the mantra of winners. So, is there a way out of this mess for Democrats? There may be. Over the weekend if you were very quiet and listened very carefully, a new word started emerging. That word is “censure.” Censuring, rather than impeaching, the president would allow Democrats to claim some measure of holding Trump accountable without the parade of horribles listed above. It might also deprive Trump of the ability to claim total exoneration. But alas, it may be too late for that. Democrats promised their base blood, and blood will be had. But as in any good fight, once you level your best shot, the other guy gets to hit back.
  3. The Impeachment Hearings Are the Beginning of the End Benjamin Franklin once said, “When you’re testing to see how deep the water is, never use two feet.” That’s a bit of simple wisdom many in the current Congress should have heeded. As the long-awaited public impeachment hearings kick off, one thing has become painfully obvious: the Democrats are in trouble. They have gone all in on their quest for impeachment and now they have to deliver, not just to their base, but to the country. After three long years of promising proof of Trump’s corruption, collusion, and contempt for the very basic institutions of our government, Democrats now have to turn over their cards and show the country what they have. If they can’t produce a smoking gun, if they don’t have a knock-out punch, then their party is in serious trouble. From “quid pro quo” to “extortion” to “abuse of power,” impeachment hungry Democrats have tossed around plenty of buzzwords and innuendo, backed up by hearsay, supposition, and biased opinion. Through carefully coordinated leaks and a selectively stage-managed production of transcripts, Adam Schiff and his team have been able to paint a very fuzzy picture of what they would like the country to believe, that President Trump used the full force of his office to pursue a political end. Yet what they have not been able to do is close the deal. They have not been able to establish that any of their beliefs are facts, that any of their dreams are realities. And it is not going to get any easier. Nancy Pelosi has consistently promised that she would not pursue impeachment absent clear and overwhelming bipartisan support. With all Members of Congress able to review the transcripts of the closed-door testimony, as well as consider any other evidence thus far collected, Democrats have failed to sway even a single Republican vote, not to mention move the needle with the general public. That is not a good sign considering that Democrats have held all of the cards and controlled all of the optics thus far. Now, open, public hearings are to commence. Still under the control of Adam Schiff, yet televised to an entire nation. Now, the general public will see a cross-examination of witnesses. The public will hear “my opinion” nearly as often as they have heard “quid pro quo.” The pubic will hear “I learned secondhand” at least as much as they have heard a compliant media say, “witnesses have confirmed.” Perhaps most importantly, the country will witness every single time Adam Schiff overrules a Republican question or request to call a witness to refute the narrative. In short, even though Schiff and the Democrats will still have an iron clad grip on the process, their unfettered control of the optics and narrative will fade, along with any hope of bipartisan support – public or Congressional. Their one-sidedness will be exposed for all to see. The question then becomes, after failing to garner any Republican support, or to bring the public along on their quest, would the Democrats still move towards a formal impeachment? They will undoubtedly be able to muster the 218 votes in the House, but where would that leave them? The matter must, Constitutionally, move to the Senate, where impeachment minded Democrats are not in control. A Senate where a formal impeachment trial would generate considerably more national attention than the House hearings. A Senate where each and every witness Adam Schiff declined to call will be compelled to testify. A Senate where dreams of President Trump’s removal may be dead on arrival, but a very public acquittal and exoneration would surely ensue. To be sure, an acquittal in the Senate will mean more than just the avoidance of removal for the president. It will be an enormous campaign ad on the largest possible stage. It will prove to be the culmination of a pointless three-year crusade to oust a president and overturn an election. It will come as six U.S Senators vying for the Democratic nomination will have to stand and cast a vote. And it will all come in an election year. Anyone who doubts Mitch McConnell’s ability to play the long game in an election year need only look to Supreme Court Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh. When all of this impeachment hysteria has at last come to a close, when the last gasps of 2016 denial have finally subsided, Adam Schiff and the Democrats can attempt to answer the next great question: What have you been doing for the past three years? The impeachment distraction has provided a rather tenuous excuse for doing nothing else. Nothing in terms of working with the president. Prescription drugs, USMCA, and illegal immigration have sat undisturbed on the sidelines while they have recklessly pursued an undemocratic fantasy. The kickoff to an election season is probably the single worst time to have to answer for that. Beginning with the impeachment hearings the Democrats are in serious trouble, but they’re too deeply invested to turn back now. Any way forward, they lose.
  4. They already know how to stop Jackson it just seems like not many defenses are implementing it. All you have to do is look at the templates to disrupt any running RPO style QB and slap it on your defensive gameplan for the week.
  5. Thanks for proving that they got the money... and basically for nothing but enriching more US politicians. You guys have your priorities screwed up.
  6. You may want to rethink whatever meds you are on and what effect they have on your brain because the interference was Pro-Hillary not Pro-Trump. Did you forget about the Pee-Pee Dossier and part of where it came from?
  7. That's where you're missing another part of the equation. The solution is not to rely on China to dump our grains it's to find new buyers and Trump has been working towards that. Behold last month's US-Japan trade agreement: 1. LIBERALIZING MARKET ACCESS BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND JAPAN The United States and Japan have reached an agreement in which Japan will eliminate or lower tariffs for certain U.S. agricultural products. For other agricultural goods, Japan will provide preferential U.S.-specific quotas. Once this agreement is implemented, over 90 percent of U.S. food and agricultural products imported into Japan will either be duty free or receive preferential tariff access. For example, under the agreement, Japan will: Reduce tariffs on products such as fresh and frozen beef and pork. Provide a country-specific quota for wheat and wheat products. Reduce the mark-up on imported U.S. wheat and barley. Immediately eliminate tariffs for almonds, walnuts, blueberries, cranberries, sweet corn, grain sorghum, broccoli, and more. Provide staged tariff elimination for products such as cheeses, processed pork, poultry, beef offal, ethanol, wine, frozen potatoes, oranges, fresh cherries, egg products, and tomato paste
  8. Drew Brees called and said you're full of shit Lit. Passing * Selected to Pro Bowl, + First-Team All-Pro Year Age Tm Pos No. G GS QBrec Cmp Att Cmp% Yds TD TD% Int Int% 1D Lng Y/A AY/A Y/C Y/G Rate QBR Sk Yds NY/A ANY/A Sk% 4QC GWD AV Career 268 267 157-110-0 6687 9919 67.4 75505 525 5.3 236 2.4 3732 98 7.6 7.6 11.3 281.7 97.7 402 2867 7.04 7.03 3.9 35 49 256 14 yrs NOR 209 209 127-82-0 5562 8110 68.6 63157 445 5.5 183 2.3 3138 98 7.8 7.9 11.4 302.2 100.6 310 2143 7.25 7.33 3.7 30 40 207 5 yrs SDG 59 58 30-28-0 1125 1809 62.2 12348 80 4.4 53 2.9 594 79 6.8 6.4 11.0 209.3 84.9 92 724 6.11 5.70 4.8 5 9 49 2001 22 SDG 9 1 0 15 27 55.6 221 1 3.7 0 0.0 11 40 8.2 8.9 14.7 221.0 94.8 2 12 7.21 7.90 6.9 1 2002 23 SDG QB 9 16 16 8-8-0 320 526 60.8 3284 17 3.2 16 3.0 164 52 6.2 5.5 10.3 205.3 76.9 24 180 5.64 4.95 4.4 2 4 10 2003 24 SDG QB 9 11 11 2-9-0 205 356 57.6 2108 11 3.1 15 4.2 94 68 5.9 4.6 10.3 191.6 67.5 21 178 5.12 3.91 5.6 0 1 6 2004* 25 SDG QB 9 15 15 11-4-0 262 400 65.5 3159 27 6.8 7 1.8 142 79 7.9 8.5 12.1 210.6 104.8 18 131 7.24 7.78 4.3 1 2 17 2005 26 SDG QB 9 16 16 9-7-0 323 500 64.6 3576 24 4.8 15 3.0 183 54 7.2 6.8 11.1 223.5 89.2 27 223 6.36 5.99 5.1 2 2 15 2006*+ 27 NOR QB 9 16 16 10-6-0 356 554 64.3 4418 26 4.7 11 2.0 202 86 8.0 8.0 12.4 276.1 96.2 69.5 18 105 7.54 7.58 3.1 1 2 15 2007 28 NOR QB 9 16 16 7-9-0 440 652 67.5 4423 28 4.3 18 2.8 233 58 6.8 6.4 10.1 276.4 89.4 68.6 16 109 6.46 6.08 2.4 1 1 14 2008* 29 NOR QB 9 16 16 8-8-0 413 635 65.0 5069 34 5.4 17 2.7 233 84 8.0 7.8 12.3 316.8 96.2 65.9 13 92 7.68 7.55 2.0 2 2 17 2009* 30 NOR QB 9 15 15 13-2-0 363 514 70.6 4388 34 6.6 11 2.1 210 75 8.5 8.9 12.1 292.5 109.6 83.4 20 135 7.96 8.31 3.7 2 4 16 2010* 31 NOR QB 9 16 16 11-5-0 448 658 68.1 4620 33 5.0 22 3.3 238 80 7.0 6.5 10.3 288.8 90.9 70.6 25 185 6.49 6.01 3.7 4 5 14 2011* 32 NOR QB 9 16 16 13-3-0 468 657 71.2 5476 46 7.0 14 2.1 279 79 8.3 8.8 11.7 342.3 110.6 83.0 24 158 7.81 8.23 3.5 3 4 20 2012* 33 NOR QB 9 16 16 7-9-0 422 670 63.0 5177 43 6.4 19 2.8 266 80 7.7 7.7 12.3 323.6 96.3 68.7 26 190 7.17 7.17 3.7 1 2 15 2013* 34 NOR QB 9 16 16 11-5-0 446 650 68.6 5162 39 6.0 12 1.8 246 76 7.9 8.3 11.6 322.6 104.7 69.2 37 244 7.16 7.51 5.4 2 2 17 2014* 35 NOR QB 9 16 16 7-9-0 456 659 69.2 4952 33 5.0 17 2.6 259 69 7.5 7.4 10.9 309.5 97.0 74.8 29 186 6.93 6.77 4.2 2 2 16 2015 36 NOR QB 9 15 15 7-8-0 428 627 68.3 4870 32 5.1 11 1.8 228 80 7.8 8.0 11.4 324.7 101.0 70.4 31 235 7.04 7.26 4.7 1 2 14 2016* 37 NOR QB 9 16 16 7-9-0 471 673 70.0 5208 37 5.5 15 2.2 265 98 7.7 7.8 11.1 325.5 101.7 65.1 27 184 7.18 7.27 3.9 2 4 16 2017* 38 NOR QB 9 16 16 11-5-0 386 536 72.0 4334 23 4.3 8 1.5 203 54 8.1 8.3 11.2 270.9 103.9 64.6 20 145 7.53 7.71 3.6 2 2 16 2018* 39 NOR QB 9 15 15 13-2-0 364 489 74.4 3992 32 6.5 5 1.0 223 72 8.2 9.0 11.0 266.1 115.7 80.4 17 121 7.65 8.47 3.4 6 7 17 2019 40 NOR qb 9 4 4 2-2-0 101 136 74.3 1068 5 3.7 3 2.2 53 41 7.9 7.6 10.6 267.0 99.8 58.8 7 54 7.09 6.85 4.9 1 1
  9. So basically Ukraine which was complicit in the 2016 election interference, served as a proxy to farm out tax dollars for shady deals, and has expressed a commitment to eliminating political corruption as stated by their newly elected President (which would start with this Burisma company) gets the foreign aid money (which is our tax dollars by the way) and then does not look into one of the biggest graft scandals in modern history while our President is obligated to look at such things... ...and you're ok with that? You may want to rethink this whole situation.
×
×
  • Create New...