VakAttack

Well after his career was over. While it was happening, many people (myself included) convinced ourselves he was clean.

All interesting, but not unexpected. Of course PSU is poaching at need weights. This is like when Alabama was dominating or Lance Armstrong was dominating notoriously dirty sports, without ever getting "in trouble." Obviously both were also participating and not just SO good they were dominating their dirty sports while being totally "clean." That's if you even consider the act dirty, which I don't. It's just the nature of the current landscape.

@LJBis a good dude.

Mirasola straight robbed in the semis. Barr and Kueter looked like animals.

Who said I wasn't biased? Everybody has biases, me included. That's called "human experience." When people pretend they don't have biases about well-known topics they're actively discussing, that's when you know their full of crap.

1. You're just muttering nonsense here. I believe and am totally fine with the family iunviting Trump, him going there, them being mad at the current administration, whatever. There's no evidence I can find (although I'll admit I didn't do an exhaustive search) that shows the family asked him or the campaign to film anything; some news sources quote the Trump campaign as saying they had "express permission to bring campaign designated media". In the end, though, none of that matters. Arlington national Ceremony is not the domain of those families or any of the families; it is governed by federal law, and filming anything for campaign purposes, which is literally what it was filmed for, is against the law. 2. Your portrayal of a fairly benign descriptive sentence as "overly emotional" is very telling. I have no personal investment in this situation; however, I do have a problem with people with power abusing people with less power, as has happened here. 3. Unfortunately, as near as I can tell, YOU are the only person saying that's why it happened. The staff has said both that nothing happened at all, and then also that she had a mental breakdown, has mental illness, and the "woke Army" is out to get them. And again, they said they had some sort of exonerating video that they never released for...reasons. 4. You're just making things up. My point was not that he should be charged. My point was he should take the video down. My final point was that, the fact that they are not bringing any sort of charges or suit runs counter to the conservative narrative that all these "deep state" actors are just out to get Trump and will charge him with anything. You not being able to understand simple sentences is not my problem. When did I say you love Trump? I'm pretty sure you'll vote Trump, but I have no idea about your personal emotions, and I certainly never said anything like that in this thread.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_Republican_Party_presidential_candidates A wide field, the most notable being Hakey, DeSantis, and Ramaswamy. YMMV others like Christie, Burgum, and Scott

Is this a serious question?

*whispers* Real football is back.

1. It was 100 percent him taking the videos for political reasons. That's why it was his campaign taking the videos. If the family wanted personal footage, they could have filmed on their phones and/or just hired a photographer. You are giving a benefit of the doubt to a man where it is not only clearly unearned, it runs counter to what actually happened. 2. The campaign claimed they have video completely exonerating them (my phrasing, their meaning) and then just...never released it. Weird how that happens. And yes, going out and giving public statements calling the staffer a liar and calling the same staffer just doing her job "mentally ill" and attacking her and the Army for enforcing previously existing laws is "losing their **** minds." You're trying to parse semantics but it doesn't change what happened. 3. That MIGHT make sense if it was his security team or Secret Service that touched her. By all accounts, it was the campaign staff, and they grabbed her as she was telling them to stop. Zero people have said she came anywhere actually near Trump. And that's ignoring that this is the middle of a federally protected cemetary with clear sight lines everywhere; nobody is claiming they thought Trump was under attack. Again, you're creating a scenario and then using it to justify, even though they themselves haven't made the argument. 4. It's on TikTok. I don't have an account for it either, but you can go look at it right now using a computer. And why should they have to charge him with a crime? Why can't he just remove the footage like McCain did? This also flies counter to the argument that people are just looking to charge him with crimes any way they can; they're actively trying not to get involved with the election to avoid looking like they're taking a political side or advocating for a candidate, they were just trying to enforce their own laws. The idea that this is incumbent on them and not the person and his campaign apparatus violating the law is hilarious.

1. The family doesn't get to change federal law. 2. "Proceeded to lose their ***ducking** minds." They touched this staffer in some manner; they have called her mentally ill; they have attacked the Army over their statement on the issue. 3. What's the context that makes it ok for them to touch the employee just doing her job? 4. Yes, it was posted as an ad on Trump's tikTok, and as of 5 seconds ago, still there.

Literally any excuse to avoid the actual issue.

This is a strawman that keeps getting thrown out. Nobody of note cares that he was in the cemetery. Nobody of note is saying gnhe should be barred from the premises. You're not allowed to film there for partisan purposes. He did, was asked to stop, and he and his team proceeded to lose their ***ducking** minds and film anyway AFTER being asked not to, put hands on someone just doing their job, and have proceeded to attack her ever since. Stop trying to make it about the invitation. Nobody is saying he wasn't invited.

You keep making the same point back and forth without addressing any substance. McCain apologized and removed the footage. How did Trump et al respond? Like 5 year olds, as usual.

It's already been far more than a day or two, and the campaign has discussed the issue multiple times. No apologie, but Lots of blame for everybody else and personal insults hurled at the regular human staffer trying to enforce the rules and attacks on the Army itself, though.

McCain was criticized, then he apologized, admitted it was a mistake, and removed the footage. You know, like a normal human. Team Trump had some sort of physical altercation with a staffer, accused everybody of persecuting them or lying, and called the staffer mentally ill. https://www.newsweek.com/maga-calls-john-mccain-son-hypocrite-after-arlington-video-resurfaces-1948431 In 1999, McCain too faced backlash from the Army and the public for his Arlington ad. He admitted he erred and removed the two seconds of footage from the ad. The Army had previously released a statement saying McCain had not asked permission to film at the cemetery and that any request to do so would have been denied because partisan activity is banned at Army installations

He was in the primary because it served no political advantage and had only downside for him, erego it's not "what he does." He's doing it now because the race is much closer than it appeared like it would be.

I would never have known. The hypothetical doesn't make sense, since if it happened I wouldn't know who Whitmer was. If in this hypothetical Whitmer goes and wins a title at SDSU, then that would be Iowa's loss. That's the gamble you take when you bring someone in. But the Whitmer situation is extremely rare, and you can't build your team counting on exceptions.

I see we're at the part where you just claim things are true because you say they are true, then claim some sort of victory off your self-authenticating tautology of nonsense. "The thing i said clearly meant something else, and you're trying to cheat by quoting me." OK, buddy.

I feel like I'm taking crazy pills that we're talking about Zach Glazier as a person who was entitled to a starting spot. We're talking like they recruited over Drake Ayala.

This is such a wild reach. I am not his political opponent. You comparing me, a random internet poster, against the multiple Republican politicians he was actually running against is almost funny if it wasn't so sad.

The idea that we're talking about Zack Glazier, who didn't crack the lineup until last year and had a solid season in a weak weight, particularly in the Big 10, topped off by a terrible NCAA showing as some sort of sacred cow is wild.

BAC, my friend, this is a lot of sturm and drang over nothing. I'll go point by point. 1. Most of this is fiction you have written in your head. Also, Penn State, the current gold standard, quite literally took Max Dean when they had an actual AA/high end recruit in Beard. Neither Siebrecht nor Glazier were high end recruits, and they both got opportunities. Siebrecht went 14-8 and then 1-2 at NCAAs. Then he got suspended for a year (unfairly, IMO, but still). His best win is his OT win over Will Lewan, who goes to OT with everybody. Glazier was 20-4 at a relatively weak weight, but his best wins were over non-AAs SIlas Allred and Jaxon Smith. Almost nobody has a guaranteed spot at a high end D1 school, certainly not those resumes. Tough wrestlers that vastly improved during their time, which is a testament to the coaching staff and the athletes own hard work, but this isn't "disloyalty." Neither of these guys was a high AA threat based on everything we've seen, and Iowa got two title threats in their stead. All the other athletes that left were depth guys. Pretty sure that Penn State had similar guys to them when they brought in Messenbrink, Nagao, Truax, etc. OKlahoma State the same by bringing in Hendrickson and Hamiti. 2. This is, again, just made up. Hell, Cobe Siebrecht, one of the leaving wrestlers, hardly wrestled a traditional "Iowa style." Iowa has already become a school with more varied styles on the roster than they get credit for. Kids are going to come to the school if the athletes succeed, not because Iowa just "stayed loyal" to some low AA threat wrestlers. Iowa's goal is to close the gap with Penn State at 2025 NCAAs, and they did that. 3. Again, this is just made up. You have no idea what the internal dynamics of the team is. Gabe Arnold's dad just posted a picture with a bunch of the team, and I saw at least Parco there. Maybe everybody hates Glazier (I don't think this, but you also have no idea)? Maybe the Siebrecht's only hang out with each other? Or maybe the kids know that athletes transfer, and they don't get too fussed one way or the other, and wish the departing teammates well but root for the new teammates. 4. Again, this is all complete supposition. You admit you have no idea how much anybody is actually getting, then you just assume that Ayala is getting a fraction of that. This is all basically fanfic. 5. Comparing this to the Ferrari thing is insane. Ferrari was a timebomb (and I said so at the time) and they never should have brought him in. There's NOTHING like that about Buchanan or Teemer, and Iowa would have been stupid to not bring them just to make sure that Zach Glazier and Cobe Siebrecht stayed happy. Seriously, on what planet should guys at that level just be treated as if they were set it and forget it starters? I know you're not a Brands fan. I get it. I was one of the people advocating for bringing Taylor in this year. But this was absolutely the right thing for them to do, bringing in Teemer, Buchanan, and Parco. It would have been malpractice not to. I'm not super happy, but this was also said prior to Iowa winning the team title three years ago.

No strawman can stand before the mighty Tom Cotton!

Nope. https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2024/aug/30/tweets/heres-how-a-biden-ad-that-featured-arlington-natio/