Mr.TaterSalad

What is the justification for Kenyon Sadiq when they have a very good TE in LaPorta already on the roster? Unless the back injury is career threatening, I don't see the justification. Another offensive weapon isn't what they need.

Two simple questions about the draft. Who do you want their first round pick to be? Who do you think it will be? Want: Monroe Freeling, OT/Georgia Think: Blake Miller, OT/Clemson For all my belief that Larry Borom could be their starting RT next year (and I very much think he could be), I think they will end up making the wise decision of drafting a starting OT in the end.

I wouldn't want my name or reputation at all associated with what this administration is doing. They're doing bad, immoral, unlawful things daily, especially Noem and her department. That's one major reason to cast a vote against. Getting to have the clear, moral clarity that you opposed this lawlessness and inhumanity at every turn means something imo.

I just don't want to end up with another capitulating Senator who will vote for Trump's nominees. We already have one Michigan Senator who capitulated to Trump in Elissa Slotkin. We don't need another one. Slotkin voted for 9 Trump cabinet, executive, and/or judicial nominees. Imagine voting for the nomination of someone like a Joseph Goebbels, Herman Goring, or Heinrich Himmler in the 1930s. Insanity. She thought these people like Kristi Neom and Scott Bessent were qualified enough for the job. Haley Stevens would almost assuredly vote in line with Slotkin in my view. Voting in another candidate who votes for confirming that many Trump nominees is not more of what I want. I want someone who will fiercely oppose future nominees and Trump in general. I do feel Mallory McMorrow would be good on opposing Trump's nominees and his agenda more broadly. I think she would be in line with Abdul there and above Haley Stevens. I would feel far more comfortable with McMorrow than Stevens.

Missed an entire season with a blown ACL, so it makes sense we'd be interested in him.

Barack Obama won the White House with the name Barack Obama. The Republican Party did a full on assault on the poor guy over his association with his pastor Jeremiah Wright and it did not work on the whole. Obama still won in spite of the linty of attacks about it. Furthermore, Trump won't be on the ballot, so any bump Mike Rogers got last time around from Trump being on the ballot likely won't carryover into this election cycle. People didn't vote for Mike Rogers because he was this charismatic figure whom they adored, they were voting for Trump and happened to check the box for the other GOP Senate candidate. We've seen in 2018 and 2022 that when Trump isn't on the ballot and/or the midterm elections are a referendum on him, that Republicans perform poorly or underperform. Rogers will loose a solid chunk of his non-college educated, white working class voters due to Trump not being on the ballot and being wildly unpopular. To me, whether Trump will or will not weaponize ICE in Dearborn, Dearborn Heights, Canton, Farmington Hills, Novi, Rochester, or any community that has a high immigrant community voting populace (be it Arab-American like Dearborn/Heights or South Asian/Indian-American like a Canton/Novi Rochester) is not a deciding factor for or against Abdul. What is more of a deciding factor to me are the Arab-American, Muslim-American, and South Asian-American voters that Abdul can help us win over. I feel the block of voters he can help bring back into the fold is more than the amount of voters the Trump Administration would be able to suppress. We can bury our heads in the sand and say we don't need Arab or Muslim voters, but I simply think that is a mistake. We should be building a broad coalition, with as many voters as we can get. You can talk about voters in the middle that Abdul might turn off, but Haley Stevens is going to turnoff just as many Arab-American and Muslim-American voters with her unrepentant allegiance to AIPAC and the pro-Israel lobby. Also, if you're a voter in the middle and you're angry about inflation, gas prices, the war raging on, or just mad at Trump and the party in power in general, do we really think all of that is going to be thrown out the window just because Abdul is who he is? I get that there will be a lot of bigotry and discrimination, just as there was against Harris in 2024. But when people are concerned or angry about their economic standing and voting based off of it, generally the party in power pays a political price for it. Maybe Abdul will be the exception of the rule because he's Arab-American and Muslim. The other thing to note is gut feelings and vibes. Often times, people don't vote based on policy and specific stances a candidate takes on issues. Rather, they vote on vibes and what their gut tells them. When a candidate has the right vibe and goes against the grain as an outsider, as Trump fooled people into believing twice, people cast their ballots for them. In a Democratic Party that is seen as weak, feckless, and uncool, Abdul is the opposite. Elissa Slotkin herself was just on Bill Maher's program the other week talking about the energy and vibe of Democrats and how we need more alpha energy in the party. Who gives that off more than a workout bro and doctor like Abdul? Sure, one could make the argument if they wanted that Abdul would give a bunch of racists "terrorist" and "un-American" vibes. But those bigoted people, who first and foremost judge a person by their race, religion, or identity, likely weren't voting for Haley Stevens or Mallory McMorrow either because they probably hate woman in leadership near or equally as much.

So you believe that Bill Clinton allegedly raping woman is ok?

Yes, it matters. Well, I guess it selectively matters. Because if they are a white, alleged rapist, it's ok. But if they are someone like Hasan it is not. Furthermore, Elissa Slotkin has gone on Bill Maher's show numerous times and I don't see her getting a bunch of **** for going on the Democratic version of Tucker Carlson.

I don't want to put words in your mouth and make a bad faith argument here. So rather than assume I'll ask, what is it about Abdul in your eyes that makes him unelectable? I've met the guy a dozen times and he is one of the most affable, jovial, likable, personable human beings you will ever meet. The dude radiates charisma and is full of charm. He's a really strong public speaker and does a great job relating to the room he's in and explaining his positions on issues.

I'm sorry for voting based on policy positions and stances on issues. Next time I'll make sure to vote based on who does and doesn't like Hasan Piker and who is acceptable to Chuck Schumer. I'll also make sure to do no research into the candidates on the issues. For the record, when he ran for Governor in 2018, I actually voted for Gretchen Whitmer in the primary over him.

Definitely voting and supporting Abdul because he gets it on policy more than the others. Haley Stevens would be another corporate shill who thinks that pathway forward to a successful future is giving subsidies to corporations and making only marginal improvements on the edges for things. She's a supporter of the failed trickle-down economic theory as well. Mallory is better than Haley and supports, at least at some level, more substantive changes than Stevens does. McMorrow is also a big advocate for trickle-down economics. During her time in the State Senate, she voted in support of over $2 billion in corporate subsidies while our public schools continued to be underfunded and our roads continued to crumble. Governor Whitmer's SOAR corporate welfare slush fund has been an unmitigated disaster for Michigan. We spent billions of dollars to create a paltry amount of jobs. McMorrow never once voted against the Governor's SOAR corporate welfare slush fund. Giving direct payments to corporations in exchange for "creating jobs" is such a 1980s/1990s outdated theory of economic growth. Corporations rarely ever deliver on the promised amount of jobs after receiving the taxpayer subsidy payment. If you want to improve an economy you need to invest in the people, not the company. Improving education systems, job training programs, skilled-trade training, regional transit, affordable housing, affordable college. These are the things that over the longterm create more job growth and keep people from moving out of the area. A great example of our failure to do so is when Michigan tried to attract Amazon to build one of their regional HQs here in Metro Detroit. Amazon essentially laughed at us and said no way. They cited, among other things, a lack of amenities that younger workers want like no regional transit in the area, as a reason for not choosing Southeast Michigan for an HQ. It's too bad McMorrow seems to think the opposite is true and that direct cash payments to corporations in exchange for jobs is the way to go. Also, Abdul endorsed and campaigned for Kamala.

I hope his BPA is an OT. I think it very well could be. But that's been the broader point I am trying to make this whole time, "could be". I've seen people running around with great certainty as if it is a lock on being an OT and discussing other positions as options isn't worth it. I'm just not that strident in my belief that it will be given Brad's history of drafting and the comments made about Borom. Here's to hoping they draft an OT though and get back to having an elite Oline.

I think if we had Connor Bedard to build around instead of Dylan Larkin most internet fans would be elated. I know I would be. I think you'll always find a group of fans that bitch for the sake of it and wouldn't be happy even if we won the damn cup. But if we had Bedard to build around, I suspect this fan base would feel better and be more forgiving of the GM.

I understand it's in my post. And in Campbell's quote it wasn't used. Since we're having a discussion about the draft, do you feel Borom will be their starting RT or do you think they are drafting one in rounds one or two?

Go take a Pepcid AC then and come back to the message board, where the purpose of a message board is to debate and discuss things.