snafu
-
Posts
6,096 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by snafu
-
-
35 minutes ago, BillsFan4 said:
Great game so far! Tampa was having trouble dealing with Colorado’s speed in the 1st but looked better in the 2nd. Vasilevskiy also looked much better in the 2nd after not having a great opening period. Can’t wait to see the 3rd.
Colorado’s speed + skill is going to cause Tampa issues all series but Tampa has a big advantage in net and they just know how to win when the pressure is on.
and Vasilevskiy is so clutch! Palat is too. I wanted Buffalo to trade for palat years back when Tampa was trying to trade him and Tyler Johnson to clear cap space.
I don’t know if they’ll be able to handle Colorado’s speed though. It should be a very exciting series. I am expecting it to go to game 7.
Makar is just so fun to watch. That Makar/Toews pairing is fantastic. What a steal of a trade Toews was for a couple 2nds.
Palat is an UFA after this season and Tampa has cap trouble and Buffalo has a lot of money to throw at him.He’d be a good guy to go after for sure.
-
3
-
-
On 6/12/2022 at 10:53 AM, Doc said:
Yep. Lesser of two evils.
I think you meant to say weevils.
-
I’m just hoping they look like this
-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, BillsFan4 said:
It’s just the timing of this that bothers me, not the money.
I understood when they made the boychuck trade in season to stay above the cap floor. But making this move so early in the offseason, before free agency even opens? And only for a f’n 7th round pick? 🤮 Why do this now?
It sure doesn’t give me much hope that they plan to make many improvements to the team.
Before I realized his status (injured/retired) I honestly thought they were bringing him in to compete for a job.What’s sad is that the idea doesn’t seem too far fetched considering the team’s recent attempts to fix the goaltending.
This particular team could really use a high quality goalie, and I wouldn’t care if they grossly overpaid for him. It would make all the young talent’s lives on the ice much easier.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Jauronimo said:
Trespassing has a little more weight when you do it say at the White House or the Capitol building. And it definitely has more weight when said trespassing occurs during say a state of the union, or confirmation of an election, or inauguration. People can continue to draw equivalency with squatting on a post office in Portland to make their persecution point and they will continue to look like buffoons. Nothing bridges the political aisle faster than a group of dangerous morons threatening the security of those who hold power.
This was not a local protest. All of the protesters were from out of the area as were the "outside influencers". Travel arrangements made, hotels booked. Its no mystery why it has been investigated more than locals burning down the corner store in Waukaluska, Wisconsin. The Buffalo region is actually one of the leaders in terms of arrests made stemming from Jan 6. Erie County is right behind Franklin County, Ohio. Florida and Texas lead the way in arrests.
Trespassing laws don't have "carry more weight" clauses. The extra weight is seen in enforcement -- the fact that people WERE tracked down and charged from all over the country if they committed a crime. The extra weight is seen in comparison to those who've recently rioted in other places, yet were unlikely to have been charged with the same trespassing crime. Note Seattle's CHOP arrests and releases. https://komonews.com/news/operation-crime-justice/seattle-polices-chop-sweep-brought-arrests-but-quick-release-from-jail-as-well . A police Station was commandeered for days and there was violence, assaults on Police, and death. This isn't meant to be whatboutery. This is an example of where "carry more weight" is enforced for the same basic offenses.
If people were disrupting or disturbing a public meeting, then I'm sure there are laws on the books to charge people.
If people assaulted someone, there's a good chance they'd be charged for assault.
Same goes for destroying property, or assaulting a police officer, or sedition.
I'm not making any equivalencies, and I'm not defending anyone's illegal actions. I just see that too many people want to throw every single participant into the same basket of sedition. Fortunately, the law doesn't work that way. Here is a decent summary of those charged from the events that day, and for what. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/us-capitol-riot-arrests-latest/
-
1
-
1
-
-
22 hours ago, Jauronimo said:
I was surprised to see the participants referred to as rioters multiple times today. Even violent idiots. For the past 18 months we have witnessed people do everything they can to minimize the actions of the participants on Jan 6. PPP has often referred to the event as a rowdy self-guided tour through the nation's capitol.
Now that charges have been filed for select individuals, yesterday's chest thumping about no charges filed has turned into more cries about the corrupt justice system. The same justice system that was celebrated when Trump was not found guilty of any collusion. The same justice system that was condemned for failing to convict Sussman. Seems like the criticisms are a little outcome based?
Most people who participated in 1/6 were trespassers. Many became rioters. The rioters were "influenced by people from outside the area”. I learned that phrase during the riots of 2020 that occurred all over the country.
The same thing could be said for most any civil unrest. Ticket the trespassers. Charge and prosecute the rioters like any other rioters we’ve recently seen. Charge and prosecute the outside influencers. What’s difficult about this?-
1
-
1
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, ChiGoose said:
And despite me trying to stick to primary sources and evidence, you continue to make completely unsubstantiated claims to seem to have arisen from some online fever swamp completely removed from reality. Look at all of the claims you've made with absolutely zero citation to evidence. Given the quality of the claims, I would imagine such citations would be from incredibly dubious sources.
It's kind of funny that you would say this. The Carter Page FISA warrants were shown to be bogus, complete with false statements by a DOJ Attorney -- and in large part based upon the bogus Steele Dossier. Before that, everyone who defended the warrants said things just like what you said, above.
Now, I'm not saying that DR's Ghost provided any citations, but it is certainly curious that this Misfud character has never really been vetted as a Russian anything.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/24/us/politics/joseph-mifsud-mueller.html
And go to the source...Misfud denies all of it in his own words.
1 hour ago, ChiGoose said:At the start of this Sussman trial, I laid down a marker on what would make me change my mind. I thought the case was weak but if Sussman was convicted and then Durham started getting convictions up the chain, I would reconsider my position.
When Sussman was acquitted, this apparently became evidence not that the case was weak, but that the grand Clinton conspiracy went even deeper.
I agree that Durham had to overcome one simple statement by Sussman that he went to Baker "on his own". Durham didn't disprove that statement. Case closed.
However, there were apparently communications that Durham tried to get admitted on the eve of the trial and those were considered privileged. I think he may have been hamstrung late in the game. Seems like Durham should have made sure he'd be able to present all the evidence he wanted, when he wanted it. In any event, Sussman was acquitted, that's true.
-
1 hour ago, Greg S said:
As an Isles fan obviously I want the Rags out but I will be rooting for the WC to win the Cup no matter what the matchup is.
Edmonton would be rolling to a cup if they had a decent goaltender.The Rangers are in the upper limits of where I hoped the Sabres would be in two years, but Levi went back to school.
-
1
-
-
12 hours ago, ChiGoose said:
Generally? The GOP electeds.They hide in their “thoughts and prayers” but if they actually wanted people not to die they would do some fairly popular things like mandated background checks, and common sense gun laws.
Instead, they will say how awful it is while deflecting and saying it’s all mental illness despite the fact that every country has people with mental illness but no other rich country has these problems.
I’m fairly certain there are representatives of both parties who are obstacles to reform. Politicizing this issue is disingenuous. People need to stop making it out to be that there are no gun owners who want and like their guns and are registered Democrat or Independent — and no gun owners who are completely apolitical. If there was real political will from both parties, gun reform wouldn’t be an issue today.
Talking about mental illness isn’t a deflection, either. Neither is it a deflection to talk about social media and it’s effects on young minds. Why wouldn’t people seek multiple ways to deal with this problem. Is it only a deflection when “GOP electeds” talk about these issues?
-
15 hours ago, ChiGoose said:
I know people want to make this into some big conspiracy and Clinton pulling all the strings and the FBI was in the tank for her. But she lost the election, in a big part because the head of the FBI came out right before the election and said he was reopening an investigation into her. Why would that happen if there was some big deep state effort to get her elected? The idea that Clinton is so powerful and cunning that she can manipulate all of these people but still lose an election to someone who had been considered a joke for most of the election is really hard to square.
3. At the beginning of your post, you said the Trump Campaign did bad, possibly criminal, things. But Trump may not have. You won't say the same thing for the Clinton Campaign.
Trump clearly illegally obstructed justice in the Mueller investigation. The evidence is overwhelming and it's really not much of a question at this point. If you don't agree, I suggest reading Volume II of the report. As to the Clinton campaign, I think there is a big misunderstanding on how oppo research works and when it is right and proper to notify authorities. If an oppo researcher finds potential crimes and reports it to the FBI, then that's a good thing.
I understand how oppo research normally works. The Clinton campaign and the DNC appear to have taken their oppo research too far. Yes, it is important for people to report suspicions to authorities — not make things up and report stories and fictions. Not to use investigative agencies as pawns for political gain.
I only read the headlines of the Sussman trial yesterday, though it looks like Clinton was in the loop with her campaign, according to her campaign manager’s testimony. I’m actually surprised by that. And Clinton didn’t lose because of Comey. Clinton lost because she was an unlikeable abysmal failure as a candidate.
As for Trump’s obstruction of justice — that came after he was elected. None of it has anything to do with Russian interference. The question is how can Trump obstruct something that isn’t there to find. Again, I’m not saying that the Trump campaign were pure. I’m saying that you’re qualifying one campaign as somehow less scummy than the other — and somehow it is proper to investigate one campaign and not the other.
All I heard for five years was “smoke/fire” with regard to Trump’s campaign. This thread is about Sussman and the DNC. Smoke/fire.
Nice convo ChiGoose. 🍺🍺. -
49 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:
5. A better case might be made that the Clinton campaign allegedly worked with foreign actors and our own Government to influence the 2016 campaign.
Not at all. That would be a much worse case to make. Which is why it hasn't been made by an investigated body.
Steele was not working on behalf of the British government. He was not part of a concerted effort by the UK to elect Clinton. He was a contractor doing oppo research. In that research, he was given information that may amount to crimes or compromise if they were true so he provided that information to the FBI. That is exactly what he should have done and what anybody should do in that situation. Ultimately, the FBI can investigate and determine the truth. With the Alfa Bank thing, they quickly decided it was not true.
I said foreign actors and our government. I never said that Steele was working for his government. Did Mueller ever say that any Russian in contact with the Trump campaign was working for the Russian Government? Maybe, I don't remember.
In any event, Steele (foreign actor) knew exactly where he got his bogus info -- Danchenko (RUSSIAN foreign actor who's next up for trial in October). Steele and his Fusion GPS friends -- working for the Clinton campaign -- took his bogus info and peddled it at the same time to the FBI, the DOJ (though the Ohrs) and the press. The game was to start enough of a whisper campaign so that it blossomed into investigations and reporting on investigations. Well done, overall. Our government ran with all of these "Good Samaritan leads" well beyond the time when the information was known by our government to be bogus. Look up the Carter Page portion of 2016. I never said that the UK made any effort to influence the election. I did say that there's a strong appearance that our own government had a hand in the election. Probably unwittingly at the start, but there were leaks from the FBI to the press, as documented by Horowitz' investigation.
At the beginning of your post, you said the Trump Campaign did bad, possibly criminal, things. But Trump may not have. You won't say the same thing for the Clinton Campaign.
-
2
-
-
13 hours ago, Doc Brown said:
Tesla was kicked out of the S&P 500′s ESG (environmental, social, governance) index. The most successful electric car manufacturer/seller in the world that has done more for the environment than nearly any company on there. That would be like kicking the Beatles out of the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame because Ringo got caught jaywalking or something. It's insanity.
The FAA keeps delaying approval for SpaceX launches in Texas. 4 delays in a row now since the beginning of the year.
-
1
-
-
35 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:
I am not speculating: Mueller stated explicitly in the report that he was not making a charging decision because he could not indict the president even if the evidence warranted it. He did, however, state that he had the ability to clearly state that the president did not commit any crimes if the evidence supported that statement, but that the evidence in the report did not support that determination.
I'm saying that congress is political, and often spineless. Instead of doing a proper wide-ranging investigation, they were mostly content to let Mueller do it, hoping he would come out and say the president should be indicted (something he wouldn't even consider even if it was warranted). They wanted someone else to do the work so they could keep their hands clean and avoid political problems. When the political winds didn't blow their way, they decided not to act and justified it by saying a conviction in a partisan senate was impossible anyway. In short: they were cowards.
Barr's summary of the report did not accurately reflect the details and context within the report, something that frustrated Mueller.
As for the Trump family, Mueller did investigate Don Jr. for the Trump Tower meeting. Mueller concluded that, while the actions that Don Jr. took may have violated federal election law, that law has a mens rea component: the individual has to know that what they are doing is illegal. Mueller was skeptical they could prove that Don Jr. knew what he was doing wrong and so they declined to charge him. He was too dumb to crime.
There isn't much on Ivanka as it doesn't appear she was involved much with the Russia related activities within the campaign. I don't recall much of anything about Eric, though I'm not sure how involved he was in the campaign.
In regards to the claim that this was all cooked up by the Clinton campaign, the article you cite includes the following:
The Steele Dossier took on a life of its own in the media because it was truly scandalous. But I think it often gets misconstrued as to what it was and what it was not. It was a raw intelligence document provided by an ex-spy on behalf of a client (Fusion GPS / Clinton Campaign / Whichever GOP campaign originally requested the document). Essentially, Steele talked to his contacts who gave him information and he documented it. It is not an analysis document that assesses the validity of the information, just that information he was told that may or may not be true. It also wasn't what started the Russia investigation. It definitely should have been handed to the FBI to investigate but it was problematic when it was leaked to the media (*cough* John McCain *cough*) because it was then stripped of context and blown out to be either a 100% fact based document that showed that Trump likes watersports in Moscow or 100% fake that shows a grand conspiracy to hurt Trump. It was neither of those things.
At the time that Russia was working to help get Trump elected, several members of the campaign welcomed the help from Russians and met with them for those purposes. That is very well documented. It seems unlikely to me that Clinton somehow manipulated the Russians and the Trump campaign into working together so that she could tarnish Trump. I've never met a Democrat who is that competent.
I think it's not only reasonable, but expected, that if you believe someone is committing crimes, that you report them to the authorities. If a campaign is doing oppo research and they find members of their opposition campaign doing shady things or possibly committing crimes, they absolutely should report that to the FBI.
As for Sussman, I have no strong opinion on his guilt or innocence. I would not be outraged if he was found guilty, nor would I celebrate should he be acquitted. While I find the case itself interesting, I have a hard time bringing myself to care very much about Sussman himself, one way or the other. I laid out the arguments being presented by both sides earlier in this thread and I think both are believable. It'll come down to the facts and what convinces the jury. Where I disagree with many on this thread is that the Sussman case is anything other than a single case of a guy lying to the FBI. I do not expect this to snowball into some big thing that takes down a bunch of people.
To the first bolded part -- aside from the fact that Mueller's job was to investigate and report (not charge) do you think Trump did anything wrong in 2016? Do you think the House should have impeached Trump for his alleged misdeeds in the 2016 campaign?
To the second bolded part -- the dossier was handed to the the press and the FBI simultaneously in order to create a feedback loop of reporting and investigation. It was the main predicate for the Carter Page FISA warrants. It was bullshyt, but it was useful bullshyt --used to maintain an investigation into Trump that revealed nothing of substance. It is the same pattern as the Sussman case.
To the third bolded point, I think Sussman has a plausible defense. Whether he really was acting as a concerned citizen is plausible. The prosecution doesn't seem able to directly connect Sussman to a plan to bring the Alfa Bank information to the FBI -- though it smells real bad like that was the plan.
So what you have with the 2016 campaigns (both of them) are allegations and nothing "provable".
You might say that the Trump campaign allegedly worked with foreign actors to influence the 2016 campaign.
A better case might be made that the Clinton campaign allegedly worked with foreign actors and our own Government to influence the 2016 campaign.
Which is worse?
-
4 hours ago, ChiGoose said:
Politics.
Mueller felt he could not indict a sitting president so he essentially treated the report as a roadmap for impeachment. However, impeachment is a political process, not a legal one. You could have unassailable evidence that the President committed crimes but it basically comes down to how many Senators are from the opposition party, not the actual truth of the matter at hand. We saw this with Clinton's impeachment too. In fact, until Trump's second impeachment, no Senator had ever voted to remove the President of their own party.
Now, the DoJ could still indict Trump but that raises many of the same political concerns I've outlined previously. Even if the evidence is ironclad, the DoJ would be immediately called out as a political actor who is only going after Trump because of politics. Given the hits to the reputation of the DoJ over the last several years, an institutionalist like Garland may be reluctant to pursue that path.
Trump was impeached and tried by the Senate twice. But neither impeachment had anything to do with Russian collusion or with obstruction of the investigation into Russian collusion.
You speculate that Mueller figured he couldn't indict a sitting President. Mueller did document a lot of acts of Trump associates. Maybe the evidence didn't lead Mueller to conclude that he uncovered anything more than questionable acts.
And to top it off, Congress figured they couldn't impeach him for these things. Are you saying that Congress was willing to let bygones be bygones yet impeached him twice on unrelated matters after the Mueller report came out?
-
1
-
-
17 hours ago, ChiGoose said:
Well... this is starting to get out of hand...
This thread was originally started as a discussion about the Sussman trial and in two pages it has devolved into sh!tposting, mudslinging, and talk about being triggered and Putin for some reason.
I think there are valid disagreements to be had, but since I've really tried to get involved on this board over the last week or so, it seems that people are more interested in yelling at each other and making broad sweeping claims rather than actually engaging on any particular topic. It really feels like everybody tries to sort every post into either Left or Right and then brings all of their assumptions and accusations to bear based on that assessment regardless of the actual discussion at hand.
I will give credit to DrsGhost, Tiberius, Doc, Westside, and Buffalo Timmy for trying to stay on topic, but I feel like this thread is on the cusp of falling into the same scrapheap of garbage threads littering this part of the forum.
Anyhoo, I'd suggest reading the Mueller Report. It's dense but heavy on facts and citations. The media has done an absolutely terrible job covering what is in it, but it is very clear from the record that the Trump campaign had many connections to Russians and even collaborated at some points. That does not mean that Trump is a Russian toadie or in Putin's pocket. Both groups were interested in a Trump victory (or at least damaging Clinton should she succeed), but it does not appear they engaged in an agreement to corporate on that goal. At the time of the 2016 election, I still considered myself a Republican, but Trump and the party's support for him were too much for me to endorse and I ended up leaving. It's ok to change course sometimes.
I still maintain that the Sussman trial is being made out to be much more than it is, and that it is not going to end in some big unraveling of a Clinton conspiracy. That being said, if Sussman is convicted and then Durham starts securing convictions up the chain, I reserve the right to change my mind.
If anyone wants to actually seriously discuss the actual facts of the Sussman case (or any other interesting topic) and where they may lead, I'm down for it. But if this is going to just devolve into the rest of the garbage I see on the PPP part of the message board, I suppose I can log off for a couple years and see if things get better.
It happens with every thread.
Hell, most threads are simply started just for one "side" to try to ***** on the other "side".
As for the Sussman case, the bigger picture, to many people, is that it looks like there was a pattern during the 2016 campaign when it came to Trump and Russia. If there wasn't anything true or meaty to throw at Trump, they went to the press with B.S., and also went to the FBI with the same B.S. so that the press could report that the B.S. allegations were being investigated.
Same thing happened with Carter Page (resulting in four bogus FISA warrants), and maybe with Papadopolous (set up by Misfud with false information, perhaps). Manafort was busted for things that weren't actually related to the Trump campaign even though it was known that he shared polling info, and his own business partner rolled over on him.
It looks a lot like people were investigating Trump and whoever was involved with Trump to try to find dirt. They weren't trying to investigate something that occurred -- they were trying to find something that occurred. It is an important distinction. To date, nobody actually knows whether the Russians hacked and stole any information. The cases against the Russian trolls which came out of Mueller's investigation went nowhere. No institution--but only a private company ever investigated the Dem Party servers to see whether they were hacked or not. Maybe there was a Russian hack, but wouldn't people who allege that a hack occurred want to come out with the proof of it? I mean, there was a lot of time, sweat and allegations spread over more than 4 years for that to be ignored.
I think Sussman will probably get acquitted. There's enough doubt the defense can come up with to present to the jury, and from reports, it looks like the prosecution witnesses are acting sort of squirrely. That being said, I don't think Durham is done, and I think there's another trial coming up against the guy who fed false info to Steele for his infamous dossier.
-
The 19 year old didn’t know to put his feet on the clutch and brake when starting the car?
Anyhow, the article is clickbait. The dealership has been ordered to indemnify the vehicle owner if the owner is found liable. This is the last paragraph from the article:
“But, Femminineo said, the Rochester Hills Chrysler Jeep Dodge dealership where the incident occurred has been ordered by the court to indemnify Jeep owner Diaz-Navarro if he is found liable of negligence. This is confirmed in a summary filed in court on March 1.”
-
21 hours ago, Precision said:
Thoughts?How about the headline stops at “Karine Jean-Pierre to become White House Press Secretary”.
Isn't it time for people to get past “the first” anything?
If this person does her job well, isn’t that enough?
-
1
-
-
2 minutes ago, Jauronimo said:
You don't have to take a straight line to the goalie to interfere. His right leg went through the middle of the crease and dragged the goalie out of position before the the Dman crashed into his own goalie.
And his leg wouldn’t have been there if the D-man didn’t hit him from behind. -
4 minutes ago, Jauronimo said:
I thought Kakko ran over the goalie but I'm surprised the goal was called off. 50/50 call in my opinion.
He was cutting to the top of the crease and the defenseman slammed into his back. He never took a straight line to the goalie.Then his play while falling to the ice was a great effort.
-
Rangers just had what I think was a good likely game winner called off.
The call was goalie interference on a great play by Kakko.
-
1
-
-
I heard the statue took one look at Baker and demanded a trade.
-
3
-
-
38 minutes ago, BillStime said:
So the Trump campaign didn’t meet with the Russians 140+ times? Coordinate campaign data and Wikileaks drops?
Simple yes or no will suffice.
Yes. It is all laid out in the Mueller report.
Now here's the part that you don't care about -- but you should because it is important and gives the "so what" to your question. Mueller had 140+ chances to find 2016 election meddling by the Trump campaign, and said there's no evidence of it. It was his sole and specific job to look for it. He reported that he found nothing. On top of that, Pelosi had the ability to impeach Trump -- and she did so twice. Neither impeachment had to do with collusion or 2016 election interference.
-
46 minutes ago, B-Man said:
Interesting.
VIDEO: Is China Screwed?
A few highlights:
They were going shrink in half by 2100. “Then they realized that they had been overcounting people for some time.”
Then new data moved the date moved up to 2070.
And now they’re saying it will be 2050.
“For that to be true, the Chinese would have overcounted the population by 100 million.” And all of those missing people are of childbearing age.
Their population actually peaked 15 years ago.
Much more at the link.
https://www.battleswarmblog.com/?p=51172
Their window is almost closed.And it isn’t like they’ve made friends the world over. I’m sure there’s no influx of child-rearing immigrants flooding their shores.
Oh well.
-
1
-
-
7 hours ago, Shake_My_Head said:
Actually, they do a pretty good job IMO--but I've walked the course and can visualize everything I see on TV, so I guess I'm biased.
IMO, the hardest thing for TV to show is the variation in elevation from the 1st tee, up near the clubhouse, to the bottom of Amen Corner at #13. It's a loooooong way down to the bottom of the course. The other thing is the undulations of the turtle-back greens. There's not a flat one on the course. And with the pin placements, it's unique versus every other championship layout I've ever seen. Just insane.
The last thing that may not translate as well on TV is how imaculate the grounds are. Like not a single piece of pine straw out of place, anywhere. It's like science fiction--nothing in nature can be that well-groomed, right? Nope, Augusta National is. I've never seen the particular shade of green of Augusta National's grass anywhere else. It's mindblowing.
Attending the Masters is the highlight of my sports-viewing life, so far. Better than the Super Bowl (although a Bills win would have--and will, change that).
The Masters.com website does some nice things to show the course, BTW.
I’ve never been on the Masters.com website. I’ll check it out.
As for the elevation and layout, I have to disagree.
The Unpopular Opinions Thread
in Off the Wall
Posted
I don’t think the Doors are the most overrated rock band ever, but I think their music should be retired from radio. It sounds very dated at this point.
My unpopular opinion is that all bags on an airplane flight must be checked so that boarding and leaving the plane isn’t such a s**tshow. One purse or backpack okay.