• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Mexal

  1. NFL Network isn't any better.
  2. And the Bengals pick Joe Mixon. Not thrilled. Most fans I've seen hate the Bengals right now. Hope he donates all his money to women abuse shelters. Great offense though...
  3. VCU moves so fast. I'm good with this hire.
  4. Especially if Eifert can stay healthy and run up the seam.
  5. No. If there is a 4th QB, it'll be Webb probably.
  6. He's not supposed to be. AJ Green is the #1. What Ross does for the Bengals offense is add much needed speed. He can blow the top off any defense, single up Green and take players out of the box to open up the running game. The only issue with Ross is his injury history and that's a legitimate risk but talent wise, he's similar to Corey Coleman from last year but faster. I personally love the pick. Now as much as I think Joe Mixon is a piece of shit, I can see the Bengals picking him in round 2 and if they do, look out.
  7. This is an interesting article about a professional grifter having access to everyone at Mar-a-Lago through his wife.
  8. He clearly didn't write them but they definitely came from his dictation.
  9. I hate this man with a passion. He's the fucking President of the United States (even if they can't get the proper number of stars correct on the flag) and yet he is dividing and alienating 60% of the country with flat out lies. I cannot stress how much I hate being an American right now.
  10. The bold is going to suck if it passes. If they go to 3 tax brackets, I likely go up in tax rate and then get hit again with the removal of the state tax deduction. There are 20+ Repub representatives from CA/NY, can't see them liking this all that much.
  11. Never mind.
  12. Don't forget Ivanka's slush fund or a potential EO to remove the US from NAFTA.
  13. Only first 3 episodes are out then it's 1 episode every Wednesday ongoing.
  14. Well, the official autopsy will be coming tomorrow though that doesn't really make a difference. The republicans did an autopsy report and then ignored every single thing in it yet still won. But ignoring that, everything I've heard from Dem leadership, about building a message, connecting with working class, fighting in all elections, building excitement and grassroots campaigns, seems to be in line with what they need to do. You can't completely change the policies that are consistent with their values, especially when ~3 million more people voted for you then the guy who won but they can and will tailor their message to focus more on economic populism which is what appeals to white, working class voters. Ellison and Perez are a pretty good team for this at a national level. 2018 will be a big test.
  15. Lots of reasons which has already been discussed. Money mattered less because the MSM gave Trump free media for every single rally, press conference or interview he participated in. The endorsement of the vast majority of the media means fuck all when the only thing the media actually discusses about you is emails or wikileaks. Clinton was a bad candidate who ran a subpar campaign. It contributed to her loss. I don't need to read the specific examples to hone the point. I just don't care enough as I already understand the broad strokes.
  16. Not enough to read the book any time soon. Clinton is the past. I'm more interested in the present and the future.
  17. No but the reviews doesn't make it sound like an introspection of the Democratic party but more an evisceration of Hillary Clinton and her campaign (though I did enjoy the review in the link because of how contrarian it was). Just not a book I'm interested in reading. The articles following the election where they spoke about the issues with the Democratic party, their inability to find a message, their overwhelming focus on social justice and the alienation of middle America who only cared about jobs, that was interesting. This doesn't sound like anything I care about.
  18. I think they are and have been introspective. I don't think they need a scathing book that's not about introspection but selling how terrible the Clinton campaign was. I'm sure there are legitimate issues in there (Clinton's lack of message being the major one) but suggesting the entire democratic party hasn't introspectively looked at this election or their lack of reach to white middle class voters, even after there was 1000 articles after the election saying that very thing, seems disingenuous to me. As a side note, I haven't seen anyone blame the entire election on outside factors. I've seen most people say "Clinton ran a terrible campaign, was a terrible candidate but also had x, y, z go against her. All are reasons why she lost but not any single one."
  19. No, I completely get the point. I just don't agree that scathing books about a campaign based on such razor thin margins is good reading. Everything looks worse than it is, meaning is given to situations that might not have meant anything at all and all because the people writing the book had a very particular perspective they wanted to tell to align with an end result they already knew. You don't see scathing reports of Trump's campaign because he won, but it was run infinitely worse than Clinton's. I just don't get anything out of these types of books. As for Comey, there is a very clear effect that his letter 11 days from the election had on the outcome while he was in the middle of a investigating Trump's campaign for collusion with a foreign adversarial power and the different way he handled those two investigations publicly. So no, he wasn't against Clinton specifically but he certainly played a part. As for disinformation, there was a shitload, it started in 2014 and as the election season progressed, it was ramped up entirely against Clinton. There was even an instance where Trump held up a fake email from Sidney Blumenthal that was actually copied from an article by Kurt Eichenwald and was only reported in Sputnik a few hours before he used it in a rally.
  20. It is cliche because it's based on an airport crime novel series but the show itself is well acted and well executed.
  21. If 80,000 voters from 3 states voted differently, then the book wouldn't be an evisceration of Clinton's campaign but would be a book about how Clinton overcame all the forces against her (Comey, foreign hacking, foreign disinformation, excessive media coverage of emails, sexism, etc). Perspective changes on such thin margins makes me not care about books like these.
  22. CNN is reporting that the WH has denied the investigation request from the House Oversight Committee to provide documents in relation to Michael Flynn. The next logical step would be a subpoena but not sure Chaffetz has the stones or desire to do that. WH has absolutely nothing to hide here. Nothing at all.
  23. I thought it was a solid show, especially season 2. I'm about 3-4 episodes into season 3 and I think I'll withhold judgement until it's finished since it just seems to be one long show.
  24. I buy it. A lot of doctors have been talking about it. The issue is none of them have had a chance to examine him. In other news, State Department is now promoting Mar-a-Lago on government websites. ETA: The Mar-a-Lago article has been removed. From the website: "The intention of the article was to inform the public about where the President has been hosting world leaders. We regret any misperception and have removed the post."
  25. We'll see. I tend to believe there is a clear link between Trump and Russia (way too many coincidences otherwise). Last I read in the Guardian, there was 7 different countries that turned SIGINT over to the FBI/CIA, they had enough probable cause to get at least one FISA warrant and the NSA has asked for immunity to tell his story. Not sure Trump ultimately goes down for this because of the inadmissible nature of SIGINT, but I do think they're sitting on enough evidence to prove collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. As with all CI/criminal investigations, it'll take awhile to build a case to convict so I think we'll be waiting a long time before something comes to the public forefront but I definitely think people are going to go to jail over this or money laundering. I could see AG Schneiderman try to build a RICO case based on the connections between Russia, Cyprus, Deutsche Bank and Trump. As for whether it helped or not, who knows. At the end of the day, the election was won by 80,000 votes in 3 states and these 3 states were heavily targeted by Russian disinformation (1000s of online accounts were set up to look like Midwestern people with similar interests to other people in that state and continued to pump a pro-Trump narrative). They also had their voter records hacked by the Russians and based on a recent FOIA request, had election machine issues. Hard for me to believe that there wasn't some influence from the Russians there to help sway some of those votes. Not to mention the daily leak of Podesta emails which would constantly keep Hillary's email and campaign issues in the forefront of the voters minds. Did Clinton run a bad campaign? Yea. Did she have a poor message? Yea. Are those factors in her defeat? Sure. But with 80,000 votes separating a win and loss, I can't discount Russian disinformation/hacking played a part. Maybe it would have been less had Clinton done a better job but I firmly believe it played a part in the election. And to your final point, it was barely out there that Russia hacked the election and it wasn't clear to the level of disinformation that they spread. In addition, it wasn't clear that Trump was connected to Russia (even though the CIA chief went to the Gang of 8 to show them evidence in August) and it was massively overshadowed 1000 fold by Clinton's emails. If the Russian hacking got even a 10th of the coverage that the emails got, the end result might have been different.