Yet that has been in no way what I have done or are doing. What I have shown you, unless you're totally ignoring it, is that trump did in fact try to strong arm Georgia Secretary of State into changing the election results. What I have shown you is the states this administration has targeted are only states trump has made baseless claims of election fraud in. That isn't saying you should trust anyone. It showing you why you shouldn't trust someone. That's a distinct difference.
Your once again making this about Trump and strong arming the Georgia Sec o St is exactly the "keeping your "nose" and attention permanently tied behind Trump while ignoring anyone that doesn't want to keep sniffing the foulness you seem to need to roll in to the exclusion of all else" I was talking about.
Originally Posted by PitDAWG
And yes, everyone including the Heritage Foundation have failed to produce any evidence to even suggest any mass voter fraud is taking place. It's not some "random set of numbers" it's a cumulative totality of numbers from different sources. I realize that lacks DNA results but it's at least a very strong indication. Far more than you have seen anywhere else.
It may be a cumulative collection of data from different sources, but it's not all the possible data. It's not a guaranteed accurate collection of data. It's also a very specific type of data that was looking for a particular thing that probably/possibly isn't very indicative of the actual underlying situation. You seem to be assuming people would want to prosecute things that benefited them when the opposite would be true.
Originally Posted by PitDAWG
And here's another point. I have never seen you advocate for allowing the federal government to have such control over the states before. Never have I see you think that power should be concentrated by one side to open the door wide to impact the will of the people as a whole.
It's not about control, it's about oversight and accountability. "Blue" states are generally overseen by "blue" politicians. "Red" states are generally overseen by "red" politicians. People rarely tell on their own groups when it could damage themselves. I see that as problematic. The Federal government transitions back and forth, while the states are, generally, more static. Parties investigating themselves seems to rather disincentivize pointing out issues that party benefited from. It's also about the scale of the undertaking. To accurately check everything would take a large investment in manhours, it's a ginormous task. If not the Fed gov, then who? It should go unchecked?
Originally Posted by PitDAWG
You somehow seem to advocate that our entire election process be controlled by one central power. The power of the federal government. That's so far out of character for you it makes it obvious to me you are dong this out of being a contrarian rather than being based on anything close to your sincere or your honest beliefs.
It only seems to be that way to you because you don't want to be wrong, and you've made some straw man position to make yourself right. I've never said anything about control anywhere. Again, oversight is not control. I'd say get AI to do it, but I don't trust AI to actually know what its looking at and someone, probably biased, would still have to program it. (and I'm strongly considering becoming a luddite besides.) I don't love the Federal Government option, but they are the most likely to find fraud if it is there, or are at least could be more incentivized to try to. I would want some sort of guardrails in place to prevent oversight from turning into control. Perhaps there could be a better more independent option, but I've yet to hear it proposed. Requiring congressmen/senators to actually do boring, menial, time consuming work in some sort of rotating red checking blue/blue checking red arrangement might actually go towards them earning their paychecks. Ha- politicians working, yeah, that's probably a pipe dream. The next time a politician closely reads hundreds of pages of documents will possibly be the first time.
I just don't see state governments as inherently better than federal within their scope. Their nature also seems even more "incestuous" as single parties tend to dominate for longer periods of time, not that politics altogether isn't its own shallow pool.
2-15 historically will get us the number one overall draft pick. Please just give me Oct 1st and Dec 13 W's, I already have tickets to those games.
Originally Posted by Floquinho
Originally Posted by bugs
I believe we are way over-depressing ourselves. As Bob Marley always sang, "Don't worry, be happy!"
More than anything else, the Cleveland Browns need players and coaches with the leadership qualities and mental toughness required to change the atmosphere within the organization.
Can Andrew Berry honestly be described as a winner—or has he become part of the losing culture?
Which players today possess the leadership qualities needed to bring the rest of the locker room with them and finally end the acceptance of poor results?
The Browns must identify coaches and players who possess a genuine will to win and who hate losing more than anything else. It will take something extraordinary to wash away decades of shattered confidence, lack of belief, and acceptance of failure.
Baker Mayfield was never the best quarterback in the league, but he possessed some of the fire, defiance, and competitive spirit that this organization so clearly lacks. Love him or hate him, the Browns need another young quarterback with a similar mentality, because arm talent and strong legs are only half the package.
Andrew Berry brought you, just over the past two offseasons: Todd Monken, who was a two time National Champion with Georgia before coming back to the NFL and has been to the playoffs 2 of his last 3 seasons, winning TWO AFC NORTH championships during that time and went to the AFC Championship game with the Ravens.
Travis Switzer, with the Ravens his first 7 years in the league before coming to the Browns, went to the playoffs 6 of those 9 seasons, winning the AFC North Division 4 times and going to the AFC Championship game in 2023.
Byron Storer, went to the playoffs 3 of his 5 seasons prior to joining the Browns
Jared Verse, went to the playoffs and NFC Championship game in his first two years in the league.
Drafted Mason Graham in 2025 who won a national championship in college Drafted Quinshon Judkins in 2025 who won a national championship in college Drafted Michael Hall Jr in 2024 who won a national championship in college Drafted Zach Zinter in 2024 who won a national championship in college Drafted others who played in the College Football Playoff Series
He can bring in people that win, but once he gets them here, he has very little influence over the actual winning part.
When it comes to the blame game, my personal opinion is that Andrew Berry is at the bottom of the list.
By definition, every organization has a limited number of leaders, while the rest are followers. Simply being part of a successful team does not automatically make someone a leader.
Leadership, toughness, mental strength, and that refuse-to-die mentality are specific character traits. You usually discover them only by working closely with someone or watching how they respond when subjected to extraordinary pressure. That’s why statistics—and how a player performs when everything is going well—often tell only half the story.
Deshaun Watson is a perfect example of someone who possesses certain leadership qualities while also being burdened by some deeply flawed character traits.
Every player you mentioned has been part of a successful organization. But that does not guarantee that any of them were among the driving forces behind that success—or that they possess the specific qualities the Browns so desperately need.
The good news is that some players can grow into those roles through age, experience, and increased responsibility. The bad news is that the opposite can happen too.
Call it Lex Watson: whatever can deteriorate in Cleveland eventually will.
On my list Berry is on the podium.
I agree Floquinho, it is nearly impossible to know who has leadership qualities and who doesn't. The only thing they can go on is interviews in most cases, both with the coaches and when doing background. Being a part of multiple successful teams though, would be a more positive view from the outside looking in, than say someone who calls out their team publicly, calls out ownership publicly and refuses to play publicly until his contract status changes... That is Watson's background. I wouldn't use him as any type of example of possessing any leadership qualities. I have seen him blame outside sources for failure.
There are no guarantees that a player even remains a leader when taking them from one environment of winning and planting them in the middle of a losing environment.
Leadership is typically a trait that is instilled in someone and follows them from program to program. It isn't usually difficult to find the quality discussed by coaches and peers. By all accounts, all the players that I listed have had great reports of being a part of the success, not just someone hanging around and enjoying the success. I don't know a lot about the coaches, admittedly, but the players were pretty easy to find positive praise on.
I apologize, I don't understand the Lex Watson reference. I also don't understand if you are saying Berry is on the podium as a leader or if you don't think he has shown any qualities to this point to justify having faith in him. I'm a little confused there.
The naked eye test shows that Monken was not able to get a team ready for their week 1 contest. That to me shows a lack of leadership. Can he redeem himself? Obviously, but all I can go on is what I see in the games played and as of right now, the first shovel has been thrust into the ground.
Thank you for a constructive response. We are finally beginning to discuss what is probably the single most important quality needed to make the Browns consistently competitive over the long term.
You raise several important points, and we share the same perspective on many of them.
The difficulty with assuming a position of natural leadership in Cleveland is that the lack of a healthy organizational culture is so overwhelming that it would require an extraordinary personality—someone with the courage, energy, and determination to break through years of dysfunctional management.
Because the owners have such a strong and often negative influence on how the organization is run, that person would also need a commanding personality capable of winning over both the media and the fan base from day one.
Andrew Berry does not have the experience, personal qualities, or charisma required to become the natural leader who can rebuild this culture from the ground up. After six seasons, the organization remains dysfunctional, and the results show no meaningful improvement from where the Browns were when he took over.
That does not necessarily mean Berry is bad at every aspect of his job. It simply means that he does not possess what is required to transform the Cleveland Browns into something fundamentally different from what we have witnessed during the past six seasons.
From my perspective, his decision-making too often lacks both common sense and a professional understanding of consequences. His list of head scratchers are starting to fill a whole A4 page now.
The fact you think that whenever I disagree with you somehow it's an indication that I'm " flat out wrong, but can't seem to see it" only proves my point. Thanks for your contribution and thanks for playing.
The rest of your rambling response is nothing more than word salad. I see you have decided to stop focusing on any part of the actual topic discussion and make it all 100% personal. At this point in the discussion I can't really say iIblame you. I mean when you have nothing else left.....
I get that all you worry about is winning (i.e, an argument without considering the ramifications of what you have to do to try to twist things around to make it so.) I find the trying to win anything at any cost approach BS.
Professional sports is all about winning. I'm not a professional athlete. This isn't about me so you can stop with your obvious personal crap. This isn't the political forum. That petty BS has no place here. Nobody said anything about "winning at all costs" until you interjected it.
Quote
I think doing things the right way should be admired more than the winning. Winning is in some ways incidental.
Once again, nobody said anything about winning by not doing things the right way.
Quote
Yes, my argument could have been applied elsewhere, but I hadn't gone there.
But you have certainly implied it. Professional athletes make up less than 0.01% of the total U.S. population. Somehow you have now made a feeble attempt to open that up to the other 99.99% of the population and drag some personal agenda from the political forum into it.
Federal Reserve hikes key rate for 1st time in 3 years, defying Trump demands for a cut
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Federal Reserve raised its benchmark interest rate Wednesday for the first time since 2023 in an effort to quell stubbornly-high inflation, a move that could spur a sharp response from the White House.
The quarter-point increase lifts the Fed’s key rate to about 3.9% and, over time, could result in higher borrowing costs for mortgages, auto loans, and credit cards. In a set of quarterly projections, the Fed also signaled that its rate-setting committee expects to hike rates a second time later this year to 4.1%.
“Today’s policy action will support a timelier return” to the central bank’s 2% inflation goal, the Fed said in a statement.
The move comes as Americans are already struggling with high costs for groceries, gas, and housing. Affordability has taken on a leading role in the upcoming midterm elections, just seven weeks away.
In a press conference following the Fed’s announcement, Fed Chair Kevin Warsh said that while the job market remains resilient, inflation has stubbornly remained above the Fed 2% target for years. “The plain fact is that inflation is too high and has been for too long,” Warsh said.
Since taking the lead at the Fed in May, Warsh has said the Fed is firmly committed to taming inflation, and that policymakers would take their cues from the data to determine if inflation was going in the right direction. “We must be confident that underlying inflation is moving to our objective clearly and at sufficient speed. Today the FOMC decided that this standard has not been satisfied,” Warsh said, referring to the policy-setting Federal Open Market Committe.
The rate hike marks a turnaround for Warsh, who was appointed by President Donald Trump and took over the top job in May. Warsh often suggested last year when under consideration by Trump that the Fed could reduce its key rate, echoing the president’s call for lower borrowing costs.
And in April, when Warsh’s nomination was under consideration by the Senate Banking Committee, Trump said in a television interview that he would be disappointed if Warsh didn’t cut rates. On the same day, however, Warsh told the committee he did not promise Trump he would cut rates and said he would be “an independent actor” as Fed chair.
Yet the ongoing disruptions from the Iran war, which have pushed up average gas prices more than 7% from just a month ago, threaten to spread through the economy and keep broader inflation stubbornly high. An inflation report last week showed core prices, which exclude food and energy, accelerated a bit in August.
According to the Fed’s preferred measure, inflation was 3.7% in July compared with a year ago, up from 2.3% in April 2025, just before Trump unveiled sweeping tariffs. Core inflation, which excludes the volatile food and energy categories, was 3.3% in July, the latest data available, up from 3% just before the Iran war and far above the Fed’s target.
Earlier Wednesday, the government said retail sales jumped 1.2% in August from the previous month, a sign that consumers are still spending at healthy levels despite sentiment surveys that indicate Americans remain gloomy about the economy. Strong spending is a sign that interest rates at current levels aren’t necessarily restricting the economy and cooling inflation.
“While uncertainty remains elevated owing, in part, to geopolitical developments, domestic spending has been resilient,” the Fed said, a likely reference to ongoing consumer spending and strong investment in AI data centers by large technology companies.
Higher inflation isn’t all about gas prices. Ongoing investment in AI has driven up prices for computer chips and other electronic gear, adding to overall inflation. Tariffs may still be elevating some costs, such as appliances, which jumped in price last month.
Trump harshly criticized Warsh’s predecessor, Jerome Powell, for not cutting rates quickly enough. His Justice Department even launched a criminal investigation into Powell over brief testimony he delivered to Congress last year, though that probe was eventually dropped.
When asked Wednesday how the president might react to the rate increase, Warsh said, "“I’ve got nothing for you on a discussion with the president.”
Kevin Hassett, Trump’s top economic adviser, was asked in an interview with Fox News on Sunday how Trump might react to a rate hike.
“I’m sure he’s not going to be super happy about it, but he will defend the independence of Kevin Warsh above all,” Hassett said.
Sure he will. Let's see how that one plays out.
Warsh might also have a measure of protection from the fact that his father-in-law is Ronald Lauder, a friend of Trump’s and a billionaire donor to his campaigns.
In the Fed’s economic projections issued along with the rate decision, officials indicated they are likely to raise the key rate once more this year. Analysts doubt that will be at the next meeting in October, just days before the midterm elections.
“Most FOMC members see a total of two hikes this year per the (projections), and it will likely skip October’s meeting given its proximity to the midterm elections,” said Kay Haigh of Goldman Sachs.
For their part, Wall Street investors have forecast three hikes for the Fed, with additional increases in December and March.
You aren’t going to get the perfect example in college ball. There just isn’t enough consistent competition to KNOW you found the right one.
If there were perfect examples and air tight methods to identify the best QB's in every draft there wouldn't be nearly as many first round QB busts. All you can do is look at how they preform under pressure and their skill set then try to decide how that will transfer in the NFL.
Prosecutor brought in to lead investigation of Trump foes tells AP that he has resigned his position
WASHINGTON (AP) — An ally of President Donald Trump said Thursday that he has resigned from his post leading a Justice Department investigation into whether former law enforcement and intelligence officials conspired against the Republican president.
The departure of Joe diGenova injects instant tumult into an investigation targeting former government officials who have scrutinized Trump over the last decade, including in connection with Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election and his retention of classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago estate in Palm Beach, Florida.
“I did in fact resign,” diGenova told The Associated Press, calling it an “honor and a privilege” to serve Trump and the Justice Department.
Though diGenova declined to comment to the AP on the circumstances of his resignation, a person familiar with the matter who insisted on anonymity to discuss a personnel decision said the departure came amid mounting frustration from the Justice Department and White House over the pace and management of the probe.
In an interview later with The New York Post, diGenova responded to criticism of his management of the investigation by saying, “If you want indictments where there’s no evidence, you have an ethical problem.”
When reached again by the AP, diGenova said the comments were taken out of context, adding: “There’s plenty of evidence in all of these cases to prove the theories of prosecution. It just takes time to get there, and some people want to get there a little faster than others — and you can’t do that.”
The investigation has always been something of a tall order, aiming to present separate and unrelated inquiries of the president as part an anti-Trump conspiracy by law enforcement and intelligence professionals. Though promoted by the White House, and seized on by Trump supporters looking for accountability against what they see as “deep state” intelligence community actors, the conspiracy investigation has proceeded in fits and starts since its inception a year ago.
The 81-year-old diGenova served as the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia during the Reagan administration and for years has been a prominent Trump ally, including backing his efforts to overturn his 2020 election loss and publicly and repeatedly claiming that the president was the victim of an intelligence community conspiracy.
He was brought back to the Justice Department in April and given the reins of the loosely defined investigation.
Five months later, no charges have been brought and it remains unclear whether any will be, or what information has been gathered to support any basis for the idea of a plot against Trump by the government officials who investigated him.
Investigators have sought interviews related to the 2022 FBI search that recovered classified documents from Mar-a-Lago and have also focused intensely on one of Trump’s chief grievances: a U.S. intelligence community assessment that Russia interfered on his behalf in the 2016 presidential election. The assessment has long infuriated the president, along with a Justice Department special counsel investigation into Russian election interference that shadowed him during his first term.
That special counsel investigation identified widespread Russian interference in the election but did not find evidence to prove a criminal conspiracy between Moscow and the Trump campaign. Multiple other government inquiries, including by the Justice Department inspector general, have identified significant errors and omissions in the FBI’s handling of the Trump-Russia probe but did not find evidence of criminal conduct by senior law enforcement officials.
The yearlong conspiracy investigation has hit stumbles before. Last April, a lead national security prosecutor in the investigation of former CIA Director John Brennan was replaced on the team after raising questions about the strength of the case. Days later, diGenova was sworn in.
Brennan has been investigated on allegations that he lied to Congress about the creation of the intelligence community assessment, which he and his lawyers have vigorously denied. In July, he sued the Justice Department for a court order requiring the preservation of all records from the investigation, forecasting plans to challenge any potential indictment of him on vindictive prosecution grounds.
LMAO - Jon Stewart is dumb? Because he's been pointing out the hypocrisy and stupidity Trump and MAGA fanboys for years? . . . Or is he dumb because that's such an easy target and not challenging?
9/11 goes back to a time where we didn't get instantly alerted to breaking news. I was in college. Had a 2 hour lecture that morning. I didn't know anything had happened until 10:30 when I went down to the lab and saw everyone huddled around a TV.
Wow. What an incredible connection to Brian’s spirit, eh?
For eleven years, we watched him handle unimaginable hardship without a single complaint or 'woe is me' attitude. Outwardly, his body went through so much, but inwardly, his light only grew brighter. His mantra that 'every day is a good day' was proof that he was looking past that pain toward something much bigger. Pain is temporary... but his legacy, and his peace, are eternal.
![[Linked Image from media1.tenor.com]](https://media1.tenor.com/m/IUHFO_Edhi8AAAAd/are-you-not-entertained-maximus.gif)