Basic logic
Comments
-
OK!Sledog said: -
More basic logic:
This post is for our Bama visitor regarding UW and how they match/fit with what Bama does. Most of this stuff will be something that will probably be discussed at length when we record the next edition of the TSIO Podcast next week ... so if you don't like the length of this post, then FUCK OFF!!! and don't read anymore.
It will be important for UW to put themselves in positions where they always have a check down option(s) for Jake to get rid of the ball in a hurry. 4-5 yard gains against Alabama keep you ahead of the sticks ... that's important. LSU is actually a very important game to watch because it shows what happens when you have a good defense coupled with an offense that does not give Alabama EASY scoring opportunities. That's a good blue print for figuring out how you can stay competitive against Alabama. LSU's biggest problem in that game was that their offense and in particular the QB position was so inept that Alabama didn't respect the passing game much at all and was able to focus on the run game. UW is by far more balanced ... I don't think it's close to a stretch to say that they are the most balanced team Alabama has played all year by a long shot. That will cause some issues for Alabama.
Another thing I've noticed when watching some of the Ole Miss game is that Alabama almost always brings a slot corner or a MLB (or both) in a blitz situation against teams that spread them out. It not only helps to slow down any run situations that may come, but allows the secondary to squat on routes and not be concerned about plays down the field. Picking up those blitzes and giving a pocket will be critical because IF you can get situations where the WRs are 1 on 1 versus the Alabama secondary, you do have opportunities to create some chunk plays. And, the blitzes that Alabama runs really aren't that hard to figure out where they are coming from. They tend to tip the blitz location.
For UW, the LT, LG, and RT are good enough to compete at this level. In the USC game, the LG was coming back from an injury and I do question how healthy he was. We "hopefully" learned a few things from that game that can help us going forward. UW's 2 most basic formations that they run are 2 WR, 2 TE, 1 RB and 3 WR, 1 TE, 1 RB. Alabama is very strong when you get them in a position where they line up and are able to easily identify their responsibilities. A staple of Chris Petersen's offenses though are shifts and motions and I suspect that we'll try to use those situations to either out-flank or confuse the Alabama defense and get a bust in their assignments. UW has at least 3 TEs that they rotate into the game that all are very good run blockers with Darrell Daniels a potential option if they decide to use him in the passing game (which I think could work very well for UW in this game). I expect our line to be in positions where we will be chipping at least one of the edge rushers each time with the TE before releasing ... the TE releasing should quiet some of the middle blitzes from Alabama. I'd expect the C + RG to combo block a fair amount and our RBs often stay in to block so I'd expect that whichever guard isn't being helped with combo blocking will get focus from the RB.
Alabama is very well coached and very fundamentally sound (that shows up big time compared to other SEC teams and the mistakes that they tend to make play after play). It will be important to use some of that against them by going against tendencies from time to time. To slow Alabama down defensively, you have to get them in a position where they are thinking versus reacting and getting them to question what it is that they are seeing. IF Washington can be successful in this, then you have yourself a ball game.
Defensively, the 3 DTs for Washington (Gaines, Qualls, and Vea) are stout and will be a handful for the Alabama middle run game. As others have noted here, the secondary will be as good as any that Alabama has seen this year. Budda Baker is as good of a safety as there is in the country. The weakness to the defense is at the OLB positions. To slow Alabama's offense down, you have to make Hurts a passer. Kiffin tries to limit the exposure of Hurts by giving him a lot of quick throws and screens to get the ball out and into the hands of playmakers. We're very familiar with that with Kiffin and Sark being from the same tree. The quick WR screens will be hard pressed to work against Jones/King on the outside ... as good of a CB tandem as Alabama has seen all year and one of the best in the nation. Not only are they good in coverage, but they are excellent tacklers particularly in the quick WR screen game. The defense has gotten better since they moved Taylor Rapp in to play S and moved Budda more into a slot corner/rover type of role. IF and this is a big IF Washington can keep Hurts from beating them with his legs, then Washington should be able to limit Alabama's offense.
You've noted in a few different areas looking at yardage totals as a measure of the UW defense and specifically cited certain games and yardage totals. One thing you have to understand about the PAC is that teams here like to push play totals upwards of 80-100 on a game by game basis. It's important to look at things from a yard per play basis when looking at the running and passing games. And I also think it's important to look at things from a conference only or P5 only standpoint versus your entire schedule because the entire schedule can be skewed by a few overmatched opponents.
Washington in conference has given up 4 yards per carry in the run game. The games where UW has given up over 4 yards per carry are as follows:
Arizona: 43 for 308 (7.2 yards per carry)
Oregon: 43 for 230 (5.3 yards per carry)
Oregon St: 30 for 177 (5.9 yards per carry)
Utah: 47 for 213 (4.5 yards per carry)
The Arizona game is unique and probably what they do is most similar to what Auburn runs in that the QB is a massive running threat. 176 of those yards came from Arizona's QB ... which is why I said that the biggest obstacle in this game for the UW defense is stopping Hurts in the run game. There's a lot of read option that Arizona runs and if there's a big weakness to the UW defense at times it is that it doesn't like to change what it does to start games. They will adjust at halftime if needed and against both Arizona and Utah the adjustments made really slowed down the opposition offense ... the only plays given up in the 2nd half to Arizona were really a couple of broken plays that hit big. Utah's run game dramatically slowed down in the 2nd half as we brought an extra body into the box and forced Utah to beat us with their passing game. The Oregon game was 70-21 ... I don't read a lot into that. And as for Oregon St, 75 of the 177 yards came on a jet sweep in the 2nd half of a blowout game ... although it was against the #1 defense ... a defense that came out very flat in the 2nd half.
In the last 5 games (Cal, USC, ASU, Wazzu, and Colorado), the yards per rush have been 3.7, 3.1, 0.6, 2.7, and 2.8.
I think even most SEC fans would admit that the QB play in the PAC is usually better than that in the SEC top to bottom in the conference. In conference games, Washington is allowing a completion percentage of 56.5%, 5.8 yards per attempt, and 10.3 yards per completion. In contrast, Alabama's numbers are 52.5% completion percentage against, 6.2 yards per attempt, and 11.9 yards per completion. If there's an area where you could look at the stats and question UW's secondary, it'd be in the completion percentage number as 6 times in 10 conference games have the opposition completed over 60% of their passes. But this also goes to show why completion percentage can be a very misleading stat because when you go back and watch the tape of UW, what you see from them is that they have no problem letting you check it down whether it be screens, rollouts, etc. What they do though extremely well is rally up and tackle those opportunities. Very rarely do you beat a team by making 15+ play drives going 80 yards ... somewhere along the line you're going to get a holding penalty or something to back you behind the sticks or you're going to try to push a pass, etc. that turns into a turnover ... which Washington has averaged over 2 turnovers per game the entire season (they've generated multiple turnovers in every game this season except for the 0 turnovers caused at Utah - hence why that game was relatively close).
The defenses that are probably most similar to UW in the SEC are LSU and maybe Florida ... and the funny thing when you look at those games is that Hurts wasn't really an effective passer:
LSU: 10 of 19 for 107 yards
Florida: 11 of 20 for 138 yards
The keys for this game from a UW perspective:
1) Field Position: Limit turnovers and force Alabama to go a full field on a consistent basis
2) Turnover Margin: +2 or better will give UW the chance to be in the game in the 4th quarter
3) Bring the Alabama defense out of its comfort zone by emphasizing motion and shifts
4) Contain Hurts in the running game and force him to win with his arm
5) Special Teams: Must play at least even here
I definitely think that UW can stay within 2 TDs in this game. The computer models are saying that UW has about a 1 in 3 shot to win the game ... yet the money line in Vegas is UW +575 or thereabouts. That's a lot of value. The public perception is that Alabama is so elite that nobody is in their class ... my perception is that the SEC was a really bad league this year. Alabama is rightly the favorite ... they should be. But this will be a game. -
Disagree.TierbsHsotBoobs said:More basic logic:
This post is for our Bama visitor regarding UW and how they match/fit with what Bama does. Most of this stuff will be something that will probably be discussed at length when we record the next edition of the TSIO Podcast next week ... so if you don't like the length of this post, then FUCK OFF!!! and don't read anymore.
It will be important for UW to put themselves in positions where they always have a check down option(s) for Jake to get rid of the ball in a hurry. 4-5 yard gains against Alabama keep you ahead of the sticks ... that's important. LSU is actually a very important game to watch because it shows what happens when you have a good defense coupled with an offense that does not give Alabama EASY scoring opportunities. That's a good blue print for figuring out how you can stay competitive against Alabama. LSU's biggest problem in that game was that their offense and in particular the QB position was so inept that Alabama didn't respect the passing game much at all and was able to focus on the run game. UW is by far more balanced ... I don't think it's close to a stretch to say that they are the most balanced team Alabama has played all year by a long shot. That will cause some issues for Alabama.
Another thing I've noticed when watching some of the Ole Miss game is that Alabama almost always brings a slot corner or a MLB (or both) in a blitz situation against teams that spread them out. It not only helps to slow down any run situations that may come, but allows the secondary to squat on routes and not be concerned about plays down the field. Picking up those blitzes and giving a pocket will be critical because IF you can get situations where the WRs are 1 on 1 versus the Alabama secondary, you do have opportunities to create some chunk plays. And, the blitzes that Alabama runs really aren't that hard to figure out where they are coming from. They tend to tip the blitz location.
For UW, the LT, LG, and RT are good enough to compete at this level. In the USC game, the LG was coming back from an injury and I do question how healthy he was. We "hopefully" learned a few things from that game that can help us going forward. UW's 2 most basic formations that they run are 2 WR, 2 TE, 1 RB and 3 WR, 1 TE, 1 RB. Alabama is very strong when you get them in a position where they line up and are able to easily identify their responsibilities. A staple of Chris Petersen's offenses though are shifts and motions and I suspect that we'll try to use those situations to either out-flank or confuse the Alabama defense and get a bust in their assignments. UW has at least 3 TEs that they rotate into the game that all are very good run blockers with Darrell Daniels a potential option if they decide to use him in the passing game (which I think could work very well for UW in this game). I expect our line to be in positions where we will be chipping at least one of the edge rushers each time with the TE before releasing ... the TE releasing should quiet some of the middle blitzes from Alabama. I'd expect the C + RG to combo block a fair amount and our RBs often stay in to block so I'd expect that whichever guard isn't being helped with combo blocking will get focus from the RB.
Alabama is very well coached and very fundamentally sound (that shows up big time compared to other SEC teams and the mistakes that they tend to make play after play). It will be important to use some of that against them by going against tendencies from time to time. To slow Alabama down defensively, you have to get them in a position where they are thinking versus reacting and getting them to question what it is that they are seeing. IF Washington can be successful in this, then you have yourself a ball game.
Defensively, the 3 DTs for Washington (Gaines, Qualls, and Vea) are stout and will be a handful for the Alabama middle run game. As others have noted here, the secondary will be as good as any that Alabama has seen this year. Budda Baker is as good of a safety as there is in the country. The weakness to the defense is at the OLB positions. To slow Alabama's offense down, you have to make Hurts a passer. Kiffin tries to limit the exposure of Hurts by giving him a lot of quick throws and screens to get the ball out and into the hands of playmakers. We're very familiar with that with Kiffin and Sark being from the same tree. The quick WR screens will be hard pressed to work against Jones/King on the outside ... as good of a CB tandem as Alabama has seen all year and one of the best in the nation. Not only are they good in coverage, but they are excellent tacklers particularly in the quick WR screen game. The defense has gotten better since they moved Taylor Rapp in to play S and moved Budda more into a slot corner/rover type of role. IF and this is a big IF Washington can keep Hurts from beating them with his legs, then Washington should be able to limit Alabama's offense.
You've noted in a few different areas looking at yardage totals as a measure of the UW defense and specifically cited certain games and yardage totals. One thing you have to understand about the PAC is that teams here like to push play totals upwards of 80-100 on a game by game basis. It's important to look at things from a yard per play basis when looking at the running and passing games. And I also think it's important to look at things from a conference only or P5 only standpoint versus your entire schedule because the entire schedule can be skewed by a few overmatched opponents.
Washington in conference has given up 4 yards per carry in the run game. The games where UW has given up over 4 yards per carry are as follows:
Arizona: 43 for 308 (7.2 yards per carry)
Oregon: 43 for 230 (5.3 yards per carry)
Oregon St: 30 for 177 (5.9 yards per carry)
Utah: 47 for 213 (4.5 yards per carry)
The Arizona game is unique and probably what they do is most similar to what Auburn runs in that the QB is a massive running threat. 176 of those yards came from Arizona's QB ... which is why I said that the biggest obstacle in this game for the UW defense is stopping Hurts in the run game. There's a lot of read option that Arizona runs and if there's a big weakness to the UW defense at times it is that it doesn't like to change what it does to start games. They will adjust at halftime if needed and against both Arizona and Utah the adjustments made really slowed down the opposition offense ... the only plays given up in the 2nd half to Arizona were really a couple of broken plays that hit big. Utah's run game dramatically slowed down in the 2nd half as we brought an extra body into the box and forced Utah to beat us with their passing game. The Oregon game was 70-21 ... I don't read a lot into that. And as for Oregon St, 75 of the 177 yards came on a jet sweep in the 2nd half of a blowout game ... although it was against the #1 defense ... a defense that came out very flat in the 2nd half.
In the last 5 games (Cal, USC, ASU, Wazzu, and Colorado), the yards per rush have been 3.7, 3.1, 0.6, 2.7, and 2.8.
I think even most SEC fans would admit that the QB play in the PAC is usually better than that in the SEC top to bottom in the conference. In conference games, Washington is allowing a completion percentage of 56.5%, 5.8 yards per attempt, and 10.3 yards per completion. In contrast, Alabama's numbers are 52.5% completion percentage against, 6.2 yards per attempt, and 11.9 yards per completion. If there's an area where you could look at the stats and question UW's secondary, it'd be in the completion percentage number as 6 times in 10 conference games have the opposition completed over 60% of their passes. But this also goes to show why completion percentage can be a very misleading stat because when you go back and watch the tape of UW, what you see from them is that they have no problem letting you check it down whether it be screens, rollouts, etc. What they do though extremely well is rally up and tackle those opportunities. Very rarely do you beat a team by making 15+ play drives going 80 yards ... somewhere along the line you're going to get a holding penalty or something to back you behind the sticks or you're going to try to push a pass, etc. that turns into a turnover ... which Washington has averaged over 2 turnovers per game the entire season (they've generated multiple turnovers in every game this season except for the 0 turnovers caused at Utah - hence why that game was relatively close).
The defenses that are probably most similar to UW in the SEC are LSU and maybe Florida ... and the funny thing when you look at those games is that Hurts wasn't really an effective passer:
LSU: 10 of 19 for 107 yards
Florida: 11 of 20 for 138 yards
The keys for this game from a UW perspective:
1) Field Position: Limit turnovers and force Alabama to go a full field on a consistent basis
2) Turnover Margin: +2 or better will give UW the chance to be in the game in the 4th quarter
3) Bring the Alabama defense out of its comfort zone by emphasizing motion and shifts
4) Contain Hurts in the running game and force him to win with his arm
5) Special Teams: Must play at least even here
I definitely think that UW can stay within 2 TDs in this game. The computer models are saying that UW has about a 1 in 3 shot to win the game ... yet the money line in Vegas is UW +575 or thereabouts. That's a lot of value. The public perception is that Alabama is so elite that nobody is in their class ... my perception is that the SEC was a really bad league this year. Alabama is rightly the favorite ... they should be. But this will be a game. -
So much pressing.RaceBannon said:Hondo and his buddy @CirrhosisDawg really struggle with it so I am going to try again. Imagine me talking real slow so they can follow
The Podesta emails and the DNC emails had already been released when Trump said he wasn't sure if he would accept the election results.
Trump's statement cause the usual panic among the left and we were treated to impassioned speeches by both Obama and Hillary on the sacred duty to accept the results and how it tears the very fabric of America to question whether the election was fair.
That was when they thought they had it in the bag.
The DNC had been warned before the release that they were vulnerable. In keeping with the close watch on cyber security that the party leader Hillary showed, they moved their server into a bath tub. And they got hacked
The government has been hacked numerous times by Russia and China and little Billy Baddass in his mom's basement over Obama's 8 years. The excuse for his inaction and no comments was that he didn't want to piss off Russia because of his brilliant Syria strategy to let Russia take over and turn the middle east into a wasteland so we'd have plenty of terorrist refugees to bring here.
BUT
Trump wins and the gloves are off and it is let's roll time with Putin. Even though there is still no proof of Russia being behind the wiki leaks.
17 intelligence agencies said Saddam had WMDs. They really did. So now I feel vindicated for my support of the Iraq war because SEVENTEEN FUCKING AGENCIES cannot be wrong. It sounds great right? 17! 16 maybe there is some doubt but SEVENTEEN? Book it and cook it.
So forgive us for not following you losers down the rabbit hole of your despair. Logic dictates that you are mere shills for Hillary and as full of shit as you have been for 18 months and counting.
Here is your wikileak right here -
I love the revisionist history that puts the blame for the Iraq War on the intelligence community, and not the leaders that decide what to do with said intelligence.RaceBannon said:Hondo and his buddy @CirrhosisDawg really struggle with it so I am going to try again. Imagine me talking real slow so they can follow
The Podesta emails and the DNC emails had already been released when Trump said he wasn't sure if he would accept the election results.
Trump's statement cause the usual panic among the left and we were treated to impassioned speeches by both Obama and Hillary on the sacred duty to accept the results and how it tears the very fabric of America to question whether the election was fair.
That was when they thought they had it in the bag.
The DNC had been warned before the release that they were vulnerable. In keeping with the close watch on cyber security that the party leader Hillary showed, they moved their server into a bath tub. And they got hacked
The government has been hacked numerous times by Russia and China and little Billy Baddass in his mom's basement over Obama's 8 years. The excuse for his inaction and no comments was that he didn't want to piss off Russia because of his brilliant Syria strategy to let Russia take over and turn the middle east into a wasteland so we'd have plenty of terorrist refugees to bring here.
BUT
Trump wins and the gloves are off and it is let's roll time with Putin. Even though there is still no proof of Russia being behind the wiki leaks.
17 intelligence agencies said Saddam had WMDs. They really did. So now I feel vindicated for my support of the Iraq war because SEVENTEEN FUCKING AGENCIES cannot be wrong. It sounds great right? 17! 16 maybe there is some doubt but SEVENTEEN? Book it and cook it.
So forgive us for not following you losers down the rabbit hole of your despair. Logic dictates that you are mere shills for Hillary and as full of shit as you have been for 18 months and counting.
Here is your wikileak right here
If anything your example is a reason for thorough investigation. -
There has been Russian hacking that is serious for years that Obama did nothing about. At allThomasFremont said:
I love the revisionist history that puts the blame for the Iraq War on the intelligence community, and not the leaders that decide what to do with said intelligence.RaceBannon said:Hondo and his buddy @CirrhosisDawg really struggle with it so I am going to try again. Imagine me talking real slow so they can follow
The Podesta emails and the DNC emails had already been released when Trump said he wasn't sure if he would accept the election results.
Trump's statement cause the usual panic among the left and we were treated to impassioned speeches by both Obama and Hillary on the sacred duty to accept the results and how it tears the very fabric of America to question whether the election was fair.
That was when they thought they had it in the bag.
The DNC had been warned before the release that they were vulnerable. In keeping with the close watch on cyber security that the party leader Hillary showed, they moved their server into a bath tub. And they got hacked
The government has been hacked numerous times by Russia and China and little Billy Baddass in his mom's basement over Obama's 8 years. The excuse for his inaction and no comments was that he didn't want to piss off Russia because of his brilliant Syria strategy to let Russia take over and turn the middle east into a wasteland so we'd have plenty of terorrist refugees to bring here.
BUT
Trump wins and the gloves are off and it is let's roll time with Putin. Even though there is still no proof of Russia being behind the wiki leaks.
17 intelligence agencies said Saddam had WMDs. They really did. So now I feel vindicated for my support of the Iraq war because SEVENTEEN FUCKING AGENCIES cannot be wrong. It sounds great right? 17! 16 maybe there is some doubt but SEVENTEEN? Book it and cook it.
So forgive us for not following you losers down the rabbit hole of your despair. Logic dictates that you are mere shills for Hillary and as full of shit as you have been for 18 months and counting.
Here is your wikileak right here
If anything your example is a reason for thorough investigation.
WW3 over Hillary losing? No thanks
I'm not revising history. We went to war based on the intel from those agencies. Numerous investigations have failed to prove that Bush faked it or was selective with it because everyone in Congress saw it and voted for war twice overwhelmingly.
I'm all for investigating the complete lack of attention to cyber security by the Obama administration and glad we didn't elect someone that kept classified emails in her bath tub server -
Yet Trump is trying to bury it.RaceBannon said:
There has been Russian hacking that is serious for years that Obama did nothing about. At allThomasFremont said:
I love the revisionist history that puts the blame for the Iraq War on the intelligence community, and not the leaders that decide what to do with said intelligence.RaceBannon said:Hondo and his buddy @CirrhosisDawg really struggle with it so I am going to try again. Imagine me talking real slow so they can follow
The Podesta emails and the DNC emails had already been released when Trump said he wasn't sure if he would accept the election results.
Trump's statement cause the usual panic among the left and we were treated to impassioned speeches by both Obama and Hillary on the sacred duty to accept the results and how it tears the very fabric of America to question whether the election was fair.
That was when they thought they had it in the bag.
The DNC had been warned before the release that they were vulnerable. In keeping with the close watch on cyber security that the party leader Hillary showed, they moved their server into a bath tub. And they got hacked
The government has been hacked numerous times by Russia and China and little Billy Baddass in his mom's basement over Obama's 8 years. The excuse for his inaction and no comments was that he didn't want to piss off Russia because of his brilliant Syria strategy to let Russia take over and turn the middle east into a wasteland so we'd have plenty of terorrist refugees to bring here.
BUT
Trump wins and the gloves are off and it is let's roll time with Putin. Even though there is still no proof of Russia being behind the wiki leaks.
17 intelligence agencies said Saddam had WMDs. They really did. So now I feel vindicated for my support of the Iraq war because SEVENTEEN FUCKING AGENCIES cannot be wrong. It sounds great right? 17! 16 maybe there is some doubt but SEVENTEEN? Book it and cook it.
So forgive us for not following you losers down the rabbit hole of your despair. Logic dictates that you are mere shills for Hillary and as full of shit as you have been for 18 months and counting.
Here is your wikileak right here
If anything your example is a reason for thorough investigation.
WW3 over Hillary losing? No thanks
I'm not revising history. We went to war based on the intel from those agencies. Numerous investigations have failed to prove that Bush faked it or was selective with it because everyone in Congress saw it and voted for war twice overwhelmingly.
I'm all for investigating the complete lack of attention to cyber security by the Obama administration and glad we didn't elect someone that kept classified emails in her bath tub server
The guy that can't let a bad restaurant review slide is actively killing this story.
Hmmmmmm... -
I gave you my opinion. Trump appears to take issue with your selective outrage over a hack that was known about before the election, since 2015 in fact, that only has become an issue since Hillary lost.ThomasFremont said:
Yet Trump is trying to bury it.RaceBannon said:
There has been Russian hacking that is serious for years that Obama did nothing about. At allThomasFremont said:
I love the revisionist history that puts the blame for the Iraq War on the intelligence community, and not the leaders that decide what to do with said intelligence.RaceBannon said:Hondo and his buddy @CirrhosisDawg really struggle with it so I am going to try again. Imagine me talking real slow so they can follow
The Podesta emails and the DNC emails had already been released when Trump said he wasn't sure if he would accept the election results.
Trump's statement cause the usual panic among the left and we were treated to impassioned speeches by both Obama and Hillary on the sacred duty to accept the results and how it tears the very fabric of America to question whether the election was fair.
That was when they thought they had it in the bag.
The DNC had been warned before the release that they were vulnerable. In keeping with the close watch on cyber security that the party leader Hillary showed, they moved their server into a bath tub. And they got hacked
The government has been hacked numerous times by Russia and China and little Billy Baddass in his mom's basement over Obama's 8 years. The excuse for his inaction and no comments was that he didn't want to piss off Russia because of his brilliant Syria strategy to let Russia take over and turn the middle east into a wasteland so we'd have plenty of terorrist refugees to bring here.
BUT
Trump wins and the gloves are off and it is let's roll time with Putin. Even though there is still no proof of Russia being behind the wiki leaks.
17 intelligence agencies said Saddam had WMDs. They really did. So now I feel vindicated for my support of the Iraq war because SEVENTEEN FUCKING AGENCIES cannot be wrong. It sounds great right? 17! 16 maybe there is some doubt but SEVENTEEN? Book it and cook it.
So forgive us for not following you losers down the rabbit hole of your despair. Logic dictates that you are mere shills for Hillary and as full of shit as you have been for 18 months and counting.
Here is your wikileak right here
If anything your example is a reason for thorough investigation.
WW3 over Hillary losing? No thanks
I'm not revising history. We went to war based on the intel from those agencies. Numerous investigations have failed to prove that Bush faked it or was selective with it because everyone in Congress saw it and voted for war twice overwhelmingly.
I'm all for investigating the complete lack of attention to cyber security by the Obama administration and glad we didn't elect someone that kept classified emails in her bath tub server
The guy that can't let a bad restaurant review slide is actively killing this story.
Hmmmmmm...
HTH -
You guy, the "winner" (although Obama is a loser), is trying to squash anything about Russia. And openly trashes the same intelligence community he will be in charge of. The best part is, you think Obama is a liar and provides false information to America. Then support a dude that openly lies and is ridiculously insecure. You think you can trust the shit he'll represent from the federal government?RaceBannon said:
There has been Russian hacking that is serious for years that Obama did nothing about. At allThomasFremont said:
I love the revisionist history that puts the blame for the Iraq War on the intelligence community, and not the leaders that decide what to do with said intelligence.RaceBannon said:Hondo and his buddy @CirrhosisDawg really struggle with it so I am going to try again. Imagine me talking real slow so they can follow
The Podesta emails and the DNC emails had already been released when Trump said he wasn't sure if he would accept the election results.
Trump's statement cause the usual panic among the left and we were treated to impassioned speeches by both Obama and Hillary on the sacred duty to accept the results and how it tears the very fabric of America to question whether the election was fair.
That was when they thought they had it in the bag.
The DNC had been warned before the release that they were vulnerable. In keeping with the close watch on cyber security that the party leader Hillary showed, they moved their server into a bath tub. And they got hacked
The government has been hacked numerous times by Russia and China and little Billy Baddass in his mom's basement over Obama's 8 years. The excuse for his inaction and no comments was that he didn't want to piss off Russia because of his brilliant Syria strategy to let Russia take over and turn the middle east into a wasteland so we'd have plenty of terorrist refugees to bring here.
BUT
Trump wins and the gloves are off and it is let's roll time with Putin. Even though there is still no proof of Russia being behind the wiki leaks.
17 intelligence agencies said Saddam had WMDs. They really did. So now I feel vindicated for my support of the Iraq war because SEVENTEEN FUCKING AGENCIES cannot be wrong. It sounds great right? 17! 16 maybe there is some doubt but SEVENTEEN? Book it and cook it.
So forgive us for not following you losers down the rabbit hole of your despair. Logic dictates that you are mere shills for Hillary and as full of shit as you have been for 18 months and counting.
Here is your wikileak right here
If anything your example is a reason for thorough investigation.
WW3 over Hillary losing? No thanks
I'm not revising history. We went to war based on the intel from those agencies. Numerous investigations have failed to prove that Bush faked it or was selective with it because everyone in Congress saw it and voted for war twice overwhelmingly.
I'm all for investigating the complete lack of attention to cyber security by the Obama administration and glad we didn't elect someone that kept classified emails in her bath tub server
Edit: you still haven't shown any evidence that Hilary's bath tub server was hacked. -
I was talking to Tommy because he isn't a moron
I told you you can find the evidence the same place you found the evidence that the Russians hacked Podesta
Give the straw men a rest. It makes you look like a fucking idiot -
Have you read what's been said about Russia? They are investigating it. But your winner says Russia wasn't involved. So that's it, case closed.RaceBannon said:I was talking to Tommy because he isn't a moron
I told you you can find the evidence the same place you found the evidence that the Russians hacked Podesta
Give the straw men a rest. It makes you look like a fucking idiot -
Back to logic
Candidate A helped Russia corner a large portion of the uranium market and would implement policies that raise the price of energy and oil which Russia depends on greatly. They need high prices. A also had an unsecured server that has been hacked by 5 countries including Russia, giving leverage to blackmail said candidate when in office
Candidate B threatens the Foundation that the Russian oligarchs funded heavily, betting n the come for Candidate A to win and wants to drill baby drill lowering prices and raising US out put.
Hondo thinks Putin wants Candidate B.
Keep running down the rabbit hole. I'll stick to logic -
Putin has been stroking Trump the whole time. Are you that dense?RaceBannon said:Back to logic
Candidate A helped Russia corner a large portion of the uranium market and would implement policies that raise the price of energy and oil which Russia depends on greatly. They need high prices. A also had an unsecured server that has been hacked by 5 countries including Russia, giving leverage to blackmail said candidate when in office
Candidate B threatens the Foundation that the Russian oligarchs funded heavily, betting n the come for Candidate A to win and wants to drill baby drill lowering prices and raising US out put.
Hondo thinks Putin wants Candidate B.
Keep running down the rabbit hole. I'll stick to logic
And the"drill here drill now" mantra is hilarious. -
You gotta stop with the Hillary stuff. I didn't vote for her, and I don't contend that she won. The Trump vs Hillary comps are no longer relevant, especially with me.RaceBannon said:
I gave you my opinion. Trump appears to take issue with your selective outrage over a hack that was known about before the election, since 2015 in fact, that only has become an issue since Hillary lost.ThomasFremont said:
Yet Trump is trying to bury it.RaceBannon said:
There has been Russian hacking that is serious for years that Obama did nothing about. At allThomasFremont said:
I love the revisionist history that puts the blame for the Iraq War on the intelligence community, and not the leaders that decide what to do with said intelligence.RaceBannon said:Hondo and his buddy @CirrhosisDawg really struggle with it so I am going to try again. Imagine me talking real slow so they can follow
The Podesta emails and the DNC emails had already been released when Trump said he wasn't sure if he would accept the election results.
Trump's statement cause the usual panic among the left and we were treated to impassioned speeches by both Obama and Hillary on the sacred duty to accept the results and how it tears the very fabric of America to question whether the election was fair.
That was when they thought they had it in the bag.
The DNC had been warned before the release that they were vulnerable. In keeping with the close watch on cyber security that the party leader Hillary showed, they moved their server into a bath tub. And they got hacked
The government has been hacked numerous times by Russia and China and little Billy Baddass in his mom's basement over Obama's 8 years. The excuse for his inaction and no comments was that he didn't want to piss off Russia because of his brilliant Syria strategy to let Russia take over and turn the middle east into a wasteland so we'd have plenty of terorrist refugees to bring here.
BUT
Trump wins and the gloves are off and it is let's roll time with Putin. Even though there is still no proof of Russia being behind the wiki leaks.
17 intelligence agencies said Saddam had WMDs. They really did. So now I feel vindicated for my support of the Iraq war because SEVENTEEN FUCKING AGENCIES cannot be wrong. It sounds great right? 17! 16 maybe there is some doubt but SEVENTEEN? Book it and cook it.
So forgive us for not following you losers down the rabbit hole of your despair. Logic dictates that you are mere shills for Hillary and as full of shit as you have been for 18 months and counting.
Here is your wikileak right here
If anything your example is a reason for thorough investigation.
WW3 over Hillary losing? No thanks
I'm not revising history. We went to war based on the intel from those agencies. Numerous investigations have failed to prove that Bush faked it or was selective with it because everyone in Congress saw it and voted for war twice overwhelmingly.
I'm all for investigating the complete lack of attention to cyber security by the Obama administration and glad we didn't elect someone that kept classified emails in her bath tub server
The guy that can't let a bad restaurant review slide is actively killing this story.
Hmmmmmm...
HTH
We are talking about the next POTUS now.
In what scenario is it acceptable for that person to dismiss intelligence information out of hand? He has no experience with this stuff. Any president should care, but given his nationalist/MAGA political platform, he should want as much info about Russian covert operations against America as he can get, including debunking them if they are bullshit. Thus defending the validity of his win and the election process in general.
Instead, he wants to kill the story and discredit the intelligence agencies.
Why?
-
It's not a comp. It's an explanation on the phony nature of the investigation.
I said what I said. Investigate the years of hacking not the bullshit Putin wanted Trump.
When he takes the wheel a lot of shit gonna come out -
Like the 3 million illegal votes?RaceBannon said:It's not a comp. It's an explanation on the phony nature of the investigation.
I said what I said. Investigate the years of hacking not the bullshit Putin wanted Trump.
When he takes the wheel a lot of shit gonna come out -
I think it is dangerous to assume it is phony because Trump says it is. Or because the CIA has been wrong before. Your logic is based off of incomplete information.RaceBannon said:It's not a comp. It's an explanation on the phony nature of the investigation.
I said what I said. Investigate the years of hacking not the bullshit Putin wanted Trump.
When he takes the wheel a lot of shit gonna come out
If Hillary had won, you would be demanding an investigation. Your support of Trump has made you biased.
As an impartial observer that liked neither candidate, I can honestly say that I want this investigated regardless of the outcome of the election. The institutions of our nation are more important than any individual politician.
Maybe it is bullshit, or maybe the evidence exists and is being kept classified for the moment. Either way (it will be interesting), every American should want the truth.
You seem willing to take Trump's word for it. I am not. -
My opinion has nothing to do with what Trump says. My opinion is clearly stated
Are we done here? -
OK!RaceBannon said:My opinion has nothing to do with what Trump says. My opinion is clearly stated
Are we done here?
