You realise that there is democracy within a constitutional federal republic ? You're tired old troupe about the USA is not a Democracy based on word play is not appropriate here.
What's really messed up is that Trump is possibly actually investing ("trading futures") in the opposite happening. Yet, some people will probably believe he will actually get what he allegedly wants and bet that way. Market manipulation at its slimiest.
I'm not even sure if that's the case. Trump was claiming it was a conspiracy against him every time the rates weren't cut for years when Jerome Powell was chair ... now he's picked his own hand picked replacement and if the same trend of policy making (by individuals who know more than Trump does) he's going to look foolish again, which he hates ... and in an oversimplification of the economy Trump simply equates low rates = good, raising rates = bad. It seems to me that Trump simply wants people to do exactly what he wants and if that doesn't happen he does this sort of thing with threats and postures. . . many seem to like this and believe it's a sign of a strong leader. Personally I think it's one more example of him being a petulant manchild or wannabe king ... the only hope is that there are still a few individuals with enough backbone to do the right thing and that come the mid-terms we get some balance back into Congress and the House ... the trouble with that will be that everything will then be a quagmire of political posturing and democrats simply doing everything to stymie Trump rather than trying to make things better.
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.
Sad, just sad.
Bonefish expanded the subject to all of life before I did. Joe expanded to all of life in the article. You're the one that insists on making things personal with me (and anyone else who has the audacity to express an opinion that disagrees with what you believe), then you act surprised when people react to it. Poking the bear then playing victim is your schtick. It has been old to me for about a decade.
No one may have literally said winning by not doing things the right way, but they "certainly implied it" when they claimed things like "[winning] is all that matters" and there is "no other perceived value."
Professional athletes are also humans with lives. Attitudes prevalent throughout society can apply to sports. Just because they are .01% of the population doesn't mean that things that apply to all humanity don't apply to them as well. Players on 31 of the 32 teams literally can't win the Super Bowl every year. Winning it all is a goal that ~96.8% of NFL players can't possibly achieve every year. Looking at it as the only thing that matters is setting one's self up for failure. Winning is beyond any individual's control. Everyone wants to win, but trying to convince yourself every year that you are going to win the Super Bowl is a recipe for a nervous breakdown.
Your inability to allow others to have opinions you disagree with without acting out is sad. If You don't like philosophical discussion, you should ignore my posts. The PitDAWG, board police, everyone has to focus on what you think they should focus on act is annoying as hell.
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.....
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)