SCBills

My argument is that Trump was invited by Gold Star Families and had the decency to show up, while Kamala Harris hasn’t had the decency to even express her condolences to the families who lost their loved one due to poor decision making she was directly involved in. Your argument is that Trump, like Biden, like many other politicians, blurred the lines on political usage at Arlington Cemetery … even as the Gold Star Families, who have been through enough, have to issue a statement defending him, as our press decides that this is the story that needs to be weaponized for political purpose. Not the fact that these families are going on 3 years with nothing from the current administration that their family members gave their life for. I think my argument is quite coherent. You, on the other hand, are screeching over - yet another - media manipulated Trump attack. Do you ever tire of being such an easy mark?

Apparently more difficult that you’d realize…

Yes, I prefer the guy who pretends to care over the people who caused this to happen with their incompetence and can’t even be bothered to express condolences to the families. When it’s been 3 years and still they can’t reach out, yet somehow Trump visiting the cemetery at the request of Gold Star families is the story our media is fixated on…

“I just want this to end” Says the man upset the media makes this the story, when Trump was invited by Gold Star Families and had the decency to show up.. compared to Biden/Harris, who it’s now being reported have never reached out to the families. Those that can’t separate Trump’s actual problems (and he has many) from the media contrived issues that they then project on him, are why a Harris Presidency is a real possibility. Low info, easily manipulated voters who still believe the media is an accurate arbiter of the truth.

I’d agree. It seems to be projection from an agent on what he believes is going on over there. Jets fans seem to think this is coming from Reddick’s camp. …which if true, would actually be better evidence of “disarray”.

It’s based on an anonymous agent speaking to Ben Standig of The Athletic. Not sure if that’s any better or not.. but that’s where it’s coming from.

https://bleacherreport.com/articles/10133530-nfl-agent-says-aaron-rodgers-isnt-a-team-player-jets-are-in-total-disarray

Mostly true, and we don’t know exactly what we have in these guys, but Alec Anderson, Ryan Van Demark and Ja’Marcus Ingram are all guys we developed on the PS, who are now 53 guys. And it seems now, more than ever (or maybe it’s just confirmation bias) teams are calling up PS guys all year due to injury. Richard Gouraige and Mike Edwards strike me as guys who could compete for the 53 next year, especially if we let Spencer Brown walk and perhaps Van Demark & Grable are competing for that spot. I also like having vets in KJ Hamler & Kareem Jackson on the PS just in case .. baseline level guys at uncertain positions, who we can play, if needed, and expect them to at least be competent out there.

Trump Campaign needs to figure out a way to maximize Nicole Shanahan for suburban mom outreach. She is an incredible follow on X and speaks directly to them.

Pretty easy actually.. Allen is the only player we have who steps up in the brightest moments. Everyone else, so far, plays at the same level or chokes. Compared to a team that collectively steps up in the Playoffs around Mahomes. Injuries play a part too, but that just can’t be the excuse when it’s every year thus far.

Account is followed by a ton of disaffected Dem women from affluent areas that I’ve followed and/or interacted with on the app, so I think it’s legit.

Interesting takeaway from Mark Halperin here..

Initial 53's? QB - Same RB - Better WR - Worse TE - Better OL - Same DE - Worse DT - Better LB - Worse CB - Better S - Worse But if we want to compare the ending 53 to our initial 53? I'm not willing to concede WR's were better last year.. they were objectively bad last half of the season & this team has the potential to be better at DE than last year.

I would say leave that up to the woman.

He did hit on Gabe Davis & Khalil Shakir on Day 3. That said, I think taking guys for Special Teams in RD5, when we haven't had particularly strong Special Teams play lately, is a tough sell and worth re-evaluating.

Severe birth defects, while I would carve into legislation, is a slippery slope because we’ve seen countries essentially eradicate Down Syndrome due to this. Is that morally ok? I couldnt force a woman to carry a pregnancy if it was causing her a complete inability to function daily and/or threatening her long term health.. recognizing that this could, of course, be abused to justify abortions for other reasons.

To clarify, I’m only speaking on elective abortion where both the baby & mother are healthy.

Those reasons do still align with “do whatever you want to do”. Maybe they’re valid reasons to some, but they still reflect a willingness to have unprotected sex and then absolve oneself of the consequences leading to the ending of another’s life. And given religion would likely make someone predisposed to keeping the baby, the absence of religion likely does play a part.

Tucker responds 💀

Did they just replace half of their secondary with other teams cuts? Wild.

This is where I am from an ethical standpoint & I think pro-life groups should focus on the tech piece, as we know babies can feel pain as early as 15 weeks, maybe earlier. (Likely earlier as we learn more about development through advances in technology) Its a truly ghoulish discourse because the right wants to act like all these late trimester abortions of healthy babies are happening.. they’re not, but in the second trimester, some are due to various issues outside health. But then the left wants to pretend the baby is akin to a blob of cells, which is hard to reconcile when a baby recoils as its life is taken by a needle headshot or dismemberment…

Thats essentially what’s on the ballot. Republicans pushed for a very strict abortion law, and got it through a red legislature & governor. Now Amendment 4 proposes an aggressive pro-abortion remedy, and asks voters to choose between strict restrictions or a wildly pro-choice remedy that they would not otherwise support. But that’s the risk run by pushing strict laws out the gate. Incremental gains should have been the strategy, clearly.