Mr.TaterSalad

I would personally be underwhelmed, but not upset, if they picked a safety in the first round. I think safety is a very real option for them. It wouldn't surprise me at all if they had any or all of Caleb Downs, Dillon Thieneman, and Emmanuel McNeil-Warren rated high on their draft boards. Drafting a safety would allow them to play a lot of 5-6 defensive back sets and put more guys in the box. They would utilize a safety as opposed to putting a third linebacker on the field. So essentially, the safety they could draft would be Anzalone's replacement. They could also moonlight their safety as a slot corner, depending on who they pick as well. Thieneman specifically played the box safety role at Oregon and played as a lot corner at time. He's got the speed and athleticism they like. He also offers good range in coverage across the middle of the field and can step down low more often to play against the run. We know the Lions love guys against the run. With the injury uncertainties they have and letting Anzalone go, safety could be a real option for them at #17.

Assuming the Lions don't trade up or down from pick #17 next week, I think this would be my list of guys I would want the Lions to draft. The second list are guys I still like, but would be underwhelmed, but not upset, if they took them. The third list are the guys I wouldn't be interested in drafting at all. I tried to keep my want list realistic, so as not to include someone like a David Bailey, Francis Magnoia, or Arvell Reese. Want: Spencer Fano, OT/Utah Monroe Freeling, OT/Georgia Rueben Bain Jr., DE/Miami Blake Miller, OT/Clemson Akheem Mesidor, DE/Miami Vegea Ioane, G/Penn State Jermod McCoy, CB/Tennessee Mansoor Delane, CB/LSU Cashius Howell, DE/Texas A&M Like, but underwhelmed: Dillon Thieneman, S/Oregon Emmanuel McNeil-Warren, S/Toledo Avieon Terrell, CB/Clemson Max Iheanachor, OT/Arizona State Caleb Banks, DT/Florida Don't Want: Kenyon Sadiq, TE/Oregon Kaydn Proctor, OT, Alabama Keldric Faulk, DE/Auburn

This might be true. But I think the intent of using Hasan is two-fold. One, he's popular with younger, college-aged voters. Young men in particular. So I think Abdul is trying to attract those people into his coalition for the primary election in particular and keep them around for the general election. Two, Abdul, like Mallory, is going to be more reliant on small dollar donations to his campaign. So he's using Piker to broaden his reach and help promote his campaign to get more small dollar, individual donations. The more Piker talks about Abdul on his show, the more engagement and donations he gets from around the country.

As much as people want to clutch their pearls, it won't be decided by Hasan Piker either. I only brought up the Cheneys to counter act the claim of Piker being a horrible human being and how it's unacceptable to campaign with horrible human beings.

I compare the conversation around OT in this year's draft to the conversation around drafting a DE/Edge in last years draft. Many in the fanbase and media were certain that somewhere, early on in the draft, the Lions were drafting a DE/Edge. There was certainty that Marcus Davenport would not be their starting edge opposite Aiden. Then the draft happened and they didn't draft a DE/edge early on and when the season started Marcus Davenport was indeed their starting edge. I think of Larry Borom in a similar sense. They very well could draft a starting OT in the first or second round. Again, I very much hope they do. But they just as well could not and view that Borom is their starter, as they did with Davenport at DE/edge. They clearly like Borom and think he has the capabilities to be a starter for them if needed or if they choose to go that route. I don't think they feel pigeonholed based on immediate need into taking a OT early on and knowing Brad's history, won't allow themselves to feel that way. It's the same way they didn't allow it last year with DE/edge because in their eyes they had Davenport on the roster and able to start.

Cheney endorsed Harris, as did his daughter. His daughter, while of course not directly responsible for his war crimes, campaigned with her. Harris embraced Cheney's endorsement and said she was honored to have it. By accepting the endorsement you are allowing it to be one more step in the process to rehabilitating the image of a war criminal. No, she didn't go out on the campaign trail with Cheney. That's very good that she didn't. Yes, accepting his support is bad because **** Cheney is a bad person.

I don't agree with everything Hasan Piker has said. But spare me the outrage. Where was your outrage when Kamala wanted her name and reputation associated with someone who was a war criminal and should have died in the Hauge in Richard Cheney? I certainly didn't like her accepting Cheney's endorsement and no Democrat should feel comfortable with it. Harris said she was honored to have the endorsement of a person who authorized the use of torture on human beings and committed war crimes. Building the case for war off lies, going into war for no-bid oil contracts, slaughtering civilians in Iraq, and using chemical weapons in Iraq when the Bush Administration allowed white phosphorus bombs to be dropped on people is all far worse than anything Piker said. So spare me please.

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.