Mikie2times

You’re comically brain washed. Some third rate paper throws up a story by some third rate X poster and that discredits what every global news outlet has reported? The truth is probably in the middle but even that is probably hard for you to manage emotionally. As even your source never said it was destroyed. They said set back. Trump and his grand rhetoric are why we are here. He said it was completely destroyed. Which leaves a big hole that anybody can come into. Now both sides are going to say the other is lying. It’s not completely destroyed. Yes it is, well mostly. Well mostly isn’t completely. CNN, fake news. This country is such a laughing stock. How could it come to this.

I was laying the sarcasm on pretty thick on that

If it’s any consolation I would never count the number of people who agree as proof of anything. That’s said you’re horribly wrong on this one and should feel deep shame and remorse for your thoughts. But do so in an agreeable way please 😂

For as smart as Trump can be at telling a story and misdirection he just flat out encourages this type of push back with how he decides to phrase things. He is the one that linked the success of this mission to total destruction, completely destroying, bla bla. When you constantly use absolute language you leave open a big area that can get challenged. A more measured response and no story. It’s a story because he assured 100% destruction. What his base will eventually land on is “you know what he meant”.

He was 41-55 as a HC before Brady arrived. Andy Reid was 11-13 in the playoffs before Mahomes arrived, McD has a losing record in games Josh Allen doesn't start in. If a coach isn't capable of approaching a similar status as they did with said HOF QB, is it not a reasonable conclusion to say the QB is likely driving more of the outcome than the HC? Plenty of examples exist of HOF QB's with multiple HC's. How many HOF coaches without HOF QB's? It is possible to look at performance separately and draw some conclusions. All of which really don't support what you're saying.

To those that choose to do so. What was Bill without Tom again? Good with that, its not a provable debate really. One of the all time questions of the sport.

Because the QB gives them stability, not the other way around. Very few coaches raise the needle in a significant way. More can lower the needle in a signifigant way. I don't think McD lowers it by any stretch, but I also don't think he's one of the few that raise it. Andy Reid, Sean McVay are two people. Maybe a couple more, but it's a very short list.

Which you can certainly credit McD for. But the narrative that McD groomed Allen just never held up for me. In the early years they barely had a relationship. It was all Dabs. Allen worked a ton with Palmer. He was driven to be great. McD focused on his defense.

The split of who contributed more in that arrangement is overwhelming toward Brady, and yes, Josh would have been just fine in Chicago. Guarantee it. As would have Tom somewhere else. They both didn't need somebody else to tell them to put in the work. This isn't a guy playing in a Bill Walsh mastermind system. Both are primarily defensive coaches who stressed not screwing up. With Josh, so much to the extent that it nearly screwed HIM up.

You're crazy if you think Josh Allen still doesn't become a star without McDermott, but flip that around. I don't think McDermott is able to be so process like without Josh. The entire dynamic changes. Silly argument to take here, you're better off crediting him for picking Josh than developing him. By most accounts he's virtually hands off the offense and has zero experience with QB play.

Its not really "Disgusting". This has been debated to nauseous levels. A path exists to him being even more Marty than Marty. Marty never had Josh Allen. You can choose to acknowledge that or not. The reasons why have been debated a million times. Not getting into it again at this point.

Some valid ones ahead of him, but I can't get on board with Kevin Stefanski. Further, you can certainly make arguments against several others. Also depends on how its being measured. X's and O's and innovation, he would not be in my top 10. Intangibles, he certainly would be. More likely top 5 if not top 3.

It's pretty complicated. Israel doesn't have impunity to act at the moment (from what it would appear). The US has made it pretty clear they don't want this to proceed further. They have a great deal of pride and have been embarrassed over this. If true likely the Nuclear weapon version of nana nana boo boo.

What are they going to show? Some Persians sipping Mai Tai's 😆

You're missing the point. THIS ENTIRE SITUATION IS ABOUT TRUMP. That is the problem I have with Trump.

Sorry captain, the standard set by truth teller is completely obliterated and that golden shower analogy doesn't really hit home (unless it's your home). The White House authenticated it was a real story. To what level remains to be seen. Do you believe those trucks coming and going from the Nuclear facilities were just bringing concrete? You might be right on this. We really don't know, but the president is not right. Its been a couple days and his need for parading himself around before knowing anything is unraveling. Any sensible person would have simply said the mission was a success, we believe the nuclear threat is contained, and our intelligence community will be working hard in the coming days to verify those findings. Instead he chose, obliterated, no longer functional, and completely destroyed. It's the difference between qualified and unqualified, presidential and pedestrian. He was so eager to pat his back he couldn't even wait a few days. I would be more inclined to agree with you if the white house didn't already acknowledge it and it being top secret. Making up as they go is not what this is. It could be incorrect? Sure, Trump could do his best to ensure that is the perception? That's a certainty.

So the white house itself validated that these findings did in fact occur and it was labeled as top secret. Curious, if I say something or if a source just goes rogue with information that is not true does that get marked as top secret as well? "This alleged assessment is flat-out wrong and was classified as 'top secret' but was still leaked to CNN by an anonymous, low-level loser in the intelligence community," White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt told CNN in response to the outlet's reporting. "The leaking of this alleged assessment is a clear attempt to demean President Trump, and discredit the brave fighter pilots who conducted a perfectly executed mission to obliterate Iran's nuclear program," Leavitt added. "Everyone knows what happens when you drop fourteen 30,000 pound bombs perfectly on their targets: total obliteration."

You're posting on your world knowledge and I'm posting on my Trump-centric emotions? When people disagree with Trump they have TDS and when you guys post whatever non stop thread about liberals you do so rationally without the seeming obsession you have? Trump is not an honest person, I expect dishonest people to do dishonest things, betting on dishonest people doing dishonest things is not hard.

You think the they didn't remove the uranium with the time they had? That's just one path. Watching the selective paranoia and conspiracy theories of you guys is incredibly fascinating. Trump says, DESTROYED. Then all of you follow, DESTROYED, no chance! Everything else has to be fake news. Meanwhile you will question why somebody scratched themselves so long as an inbred on X posts about it.

Maybe? I'm not a big Joe supporter, Hunter Biden is meaningless to me along with CNN. For the president to keep stating that the Nuclear program has been destroyed is a lie. I know it's a lie because it would be impossible to verify such a claim in the time it took him to make it. Still no responses in this thread past a flag and X reposts like usual. Between you and Carolina, you have the least engaged content on this forum and do so over and over and over. Has to be a sign of strength in your personal life. I never said they would use it, I said they would keep pursuing it and have the means to do so. But if this is really true, then what was this over?

The president saying 5 seconds after it happened: "have been completely and totally obliterated." But CNN is the misinformation here? I guarantee the Iranian ability to generate Nuclear weapons is still present and the following months will prove that. It might only take days. If I'm wrong I will never post in the PPP forum again. How confident are you?

Trump knows probably more than any politician in the history of this country, what is real doesn't matter, it just matters what people think is real. The average American has no clue how fragile this still is. Most are perfectly fine joining him for those victory laps. Now reports are coming out stating US intelligence believes Iran's nuclear capability is very much intact. So what happens next? We have already stated they can't have a nuclear bomb, we used military force to prevent it. Israel has said they can't have it and if they pursue it again they will intervene again.

We disagree somewhat here, but appreciate the good conversation and not getting crappy with it.

If the Iranian people overthrow the regime I will become more bullish over these actions making a difference. Khomeini is prepping his son to take over. His internal network historically has been enough to hold back the Iranian people. While many are pro west, the old guard has been hard to make any progress with. Seeing Trump say today that he doesn't want a regime change is disappointing. I know why he said and I don't think he believes it, he wants stability, but still, disappointing. Certainly part of the cease fire agreement, it had to be. Regardless, can we trust Khomeini or Netanyahu? No. Not as far as you could throw them. What happens if the ceasefire doesn't hold? If it doesn't the real threats haven't even started. That was always the risk of handling things this way. It's the 1st quarter at this point. A lot of time to see what this ultimately results in. Said only the people doing the bombing. Iraq has WMD's right? No experts have said they were as close as what was presented.