Author Topic: Transition of Power - All Things Presidential Thread  (Read 68914 times)

heyvik and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Transition of Power - All Things Presidential Thread
« Reply #1695 on: January 13, 2021, 03:50:15 PM »

Offline kraidstar

  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3116
  • Tommy Points: 911
All of the intelligence institutions came out and said that it was Russia that was behind the "meddling" in the election in 2016 and that this activity continued to now.  I take this as fact, not opinion.

This "meddling" included promoting false information through social media but also included hacking into the emails of democratic operatives and releasing the emails in a coordinated manner that did the most harm to democrats (and the most advantage to Trump).  These are all facts, not opinions (unless you feel that US intelligence is making false public statements which I know that some do feel that way).

What also is fact, based on publicly released information through the Mueller report, is that there is evidence of the Trump campaign being aware of and encouraging the Russians to carry this out and then to obstruct the investigation into the activity.  The only question is whether or not this activity by the Trump campaign elevated to criminal activity.  To this question, the Mueller report said something along the lines of that is for others to decide if crimes were committed but "If we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so".

None of this is opinion.  This is a set of facts.  I can't believe that we are back to this.  It actually has nothing to do with the Trump Insurrection but I guess it is a good deflection.

It is opinion to declare that it amounted to hijacking an election. It is misleading to declare that opinion a fact. It is a double standard when we treat some opinions as facts and others as opinions.

I could do the same thing with anomalies in the 2020 election. Had there not been such a coordinated effort to reinforce the election results, those anomalies would have been reported by more media outlets and memetically reinforced within the culture just like the Russian stuff was, regardless of accuracy. That's exactly what people wanted to avoid. That's fine. But let's acknowledge it.

IT IS A FACT.

This is the problem with US politics. One sides wants to argue from some delusional state where there's no such thing as objective reality, then call the rest of us crazy for pointing out facts.

Look, you can argue to what degree Russian interference actually mattered. i don't know if there's any way of knowing whether it actually flipped the result or not. You can argue whether trump welcomed or coordinated with that interference, we've never been able to prove he did or didn't. You can argue whether disinformation campaigns and stealing sensitive emails amounts to "hijacking." But the following are facts

1) Russia meddled in the 2016 US election in ways that were illegal.
2) The US government as a whole and the broader international community recognizes that fact.
3) In the immediate aftermath Trump denied that fact.
4) Which made many people worried the US could be susceptible again.
5) There is no (or VERY limited) evidence of election Fraud.
6) Courts recognized the fact no (or VERY limited) evidence.
7) Republican election officials denied there was election fraud.
8) Trump denying the results without evidence is damaging to democracy, because it undermines a critical recourse people have in their own self determination.
9) Trumps used violent words and rhetoric in the years, months preceding and the day of the riot. Rioter certainly though they were following his Will.

Those facts are what make what Pelosi and Trump said VERY different. No, its not a double standard, because its not remotely the same thing. One person was pointing out a problem with serious repercussion to our democracy, the other guy is himself a danger to our republic.

This is so frustrating. The very last thing I want to do is waste my time defending Nancy Pelosi, because she's the kind of politician I don't particularity like for about 1000 reasons.

I think that you are talking past each other.

Pelosi’s use of the word “hijack” is hyperbolic, inflammatory, and most importantly, inaccurate.  I’m not even sure that it is an opinion, but rather propaganda.  There’s no evidence that Russia’s attempted interference lead to a change in results.

She should be criticized for it, and people should not be parroting her words. Full stop.

That doesn’t excuse Trump, or make what he does less bad. As for a double standard, both sides have a legitimate point. The media often does have selective outrage about statements or events depending upon which side they’re coming from.  At the same time, Trump says and does things worthy of criticism extremely frequently, so of course he will be criticized moreso than somebody without his history.

TP.

Well-stated, Roy. Agree about the toxic rhetoric. It is counterproductive, regardless of what beliefs one has on an issue. Muddying up the waters with exaggerations distorts debate and creates bad blood, undermining the whole process.

Agree too the media has its agendas and plays cheerleader instead of asking tough questions. Not sure how we change that, though.

Re: Transition of Power - All Things Presidential Thread
« Reply #1696 on: January 13, 2021, 04:10:32 PM »

Offline Neurotic Guy

  • Kevin Garnett
  • *****************
  • Posts: 17244
  • Tommy Points: 1909
Double standard?

Quote
Nancy Pelosi
@SpeakerPelosi
 · May 16, 2017
Our election was hijacked. There is no question. Congress has a duty to #ProtectOurDemocracy & #FollowTheFacts.

Out of context?

What is the point to this kind of thing.  To me it is kind of like saying yeah, well Hitler was bad but Churchill did bad things too.  This is passive enabling.  So unless Nancy Pelosi is perfect, it is OK that Trump is continuing to use lies to incite an insurrection?  So if Bill Clinton was a womanizer, it is OK for Trump to grab women by the puzzy?  So because Obama misspoke about one clause in the ACA, it is OK for Trump to lie about everything?

Anyone who puts in the effort to identify and highlight every single case of double standard or what-aboutism, instead of facing the fact that what Trump is doing is truly dangerous to our democracy is enabling.  And I can hear it already, yeah but liberals enable too.

I know it is hard.  I have posted this story before but I used to live in the DC area when Marion Barry was the mayor.  He got caught by the FBI on film, smoking crack with a hot young woman (who he had appointed to a high paying city position by the way).  Totally corrupt.  I discussed this with a good friend (Ken) and co-worker who was African American and a long time Barry supporter.  Even in the face of this, he couldn't let go.  His rationalization was that the FBI had spent millions to catch him so of course they finally got something on him.

I don't know if TriBoy is a Trump supporter or what, this is not specific to him, but this is what is going on with Trump supporters in general.  It is the same thing that my friend Ken experienced.  Ken was a great guy, survived a poor Philly youth, worked hard every day, kept his kids out of trouble, but there was some emotional entanglement that would not allow him to accept that Mayor Barry was corrupt (Barry served jail time and after release was elected to City Council so Ken was not alone).

How do we get there?  How do we get people to accept that Trump has been lying all along?  That he is corrupt? That he is simply bad?

Neutral. A good president/politician is closer to a hybrid imo. At least understanding

I'm no fan of Trump nor Pelosi types

I dont think they care about the people as much as they do for themselves/party

Imo...
This tweet doesnt bode well for Pelosi and yes it is a double standard(she is trying to impeach him due to this as one of the issue). Because she was not willing to accept the election decision. Twitter didnt ban nor restrict the post either.

The russian intel ...  hard to tell since fbi or cia = pro democrat?

End of the day its not like Russia mailed in a few million of the votes. There was mis information on facebook etc. But that can only go so far.  Most people I assume ended up making their own decision.  Not let ads etc take adv of their voting decision

There is factual evidence that there was attempted interference to the 2016 election by foreign powers. Pelosi called that out.

There is factual evidence there this did not happen in 2020. Trump has spewed lies to call that out.

How is this a double standard? It’s not even close. One is telling a fact. One is spewing lies because he’s a sore loser and is now putting the country in danger.

Trump is a sore loser

But can you expand about factual election interference?

Russia did not rig the election machine. If anything there was mis information on FB/Twitter

So people fell for that?

Whats the difference between falling for that or a sleazy politician trying to obtain votes?

You cant change or protect this portion of the public who get swayed by domestic or international influence

IF Trump specificially told Russia ... he wants their help. He wants interference... but there was never any hard proof of this

So again, if the intelligence community states there was hardcore interference. Where is the proof/recording?

Even the 1st impeachment = more guilty

What would you like me to expand on? The research studies from Central Intelligence? The articles written about the attempted influence? Or the books from Oxford written on it?

It has nothing to do with FB.

What? ...

Those are a matter of opinions

Where is the recording/conversation between Trump and Putin? Or between high ranking officials type evidence

If Russia influenced independently (via facebook/twitter) and Trump was a benefactor. How is that Trumps fault? 

So Pelosi twitter post is loaded without actual proof

IF pelosi and intelligence community had hard evidence that Trump requested for interference. Not only would he had been disqualified. But would have gone to jail.

Our biggest problem is that people can't concede that their own opinions and inclinations are just that. They are so sure that they are facts.

Ironically, they see this flaw clearly in others and want to hold them to certain standards based on their limited perspectives.

This is natural but controllable. It does requires effort though. Concession is a scary thing.

Our biggest problem currently, is something much more sinister than that.  If there were millions of armed Pearl Jammers with openly violent intentions to defend Nancy Pelosi against further criticism, and then everyone else with any strong opinion also had the same number of militant followers, then his and the other's "facts" would be a problem.  But this is not the case, so instead of discussing with Pearl Jammer why you think he is wrong, you've decided to throw him into the fact-attached laundry bin and told him to clean himself up.  I find this arrogant, but thanks I guess for the constant reminders that we all need to be better.

Another point is that, there are some facts that are worth holding as facts.  If there is no such thing as a fact, then we have already entered anarchy as a system of living. 

The election of Joe Biden is no more or less certain than any other election in the entire history of the United States.  Thus, for the common good, after proper inspection, as was executed, his victory becomes a fact of life.  IMHO, the issue of Russian interference, whichever side you end up believing, is a much grayer area on the continuum of factuality than Biden's win. And if there is grayness isn't it better to argue your views than moralize?  There was nothing militant in PJ's post, yet you still basically likened him to the these black and white Trumpist who are plotting evil.

Bolded is another opinion and it is crucial to your point. Why do we need to do better? Because it is apparently so difficult to escape the same traps we are trying to explain away.

Then you are an anarchist, as you have disallowed all assertion.

Is is certainly a blissful state when we live in the light of total and complete uncertainty about existence.

Have I disallowed all assertion or does it just feel that way  ;)

In an earlier comment I specifically mentioned how Pelosi's comment was not a fact. Yet people are glossing over that due to their inclination.

Don't read into me moralizing anything. I am trying to improve utility. If that's a moral stance, well I guess I'm a prophet.

Edit: Here, specifically what about your bolded comment makes it worth describing as an opinion? You seemingly tie the Russian interference to Trump's win. And since the fact of Russian activity is a fact, you sort of mentally skip a step and are more willing to accept a legitimate Trump win as less of a fact. Therefore, when someone says that election was hijacked, you are less likely to identify that as an opinion, hyperbole, subversive, lie or what have you.
When looking at Trump's claims about the 2020 election, there's less evidence for that than for Russian activity (or less conclusions that prove that existing anomalies are evidence of fraud). Therefore you conclude that Biden's legitimacy is greater than Trump's and more likely to view disagreements in opinion as incorrect opinion, hyperbole, subversive, lies or what have you.

This entirely hinges on your opinions that tie facts together. This is why people can disagree so much over "facts". Because our thoughts are made of few facts and many inclinations that are difficult to distinguish.

Not sure exactly where the following comments fit into the conversation... but, don't we have criteria in this country for determining facts when it comes to elections? 

We elect/appoint officials: election commissioners.  We elect representatives.  We elect Secretaries of State. We elect governors.  WE have an electoral college. We have an appointment/confirmation process for judges.    If after election commissioners certify, Sec of States certify, Governors certify, houses of representatives certify, electoral college certifies, courts dismiss cases for lack of evidence, the US House certifies, the Supreme Court dismisses cases...  what more needs to be done to state a FACT?   If one doesn't think it's a fact that Trump lost, they are saying that American democracy is a fraud.  Yes -- I realize people are saying this. But my point is that based on the systemic protocols and criteria we use, the election result is fact.  And therefore when Trump says it isn't, he's not only throwing our system under the bus, he's lying.

Re: Transition of Power - All Things Presidential Thread
« Reply #1697 on: January 13, 2021, 04:17:23 PM »

Offline gift

  • Jim Loscutoff
  • **
  • Posts: 2945
  • Tommy Points: 232
There's no evidence Russia hijacked the 2016 election. Pelosi's statement is a different statement than saying Russia engaged in activities in an effort to influence the election. One statement means that the election was seized, stolen or forced into an otherwise different outcome (which has connotations of de-legitimacy). You can have an opinion on whether the result of the fact is a certain outcome. But your opinion of the outcome is just that.

So that is what you are hung up on.  That Nancy Pelosi said "hijacked" instead of "criminally interfered with"?  And that somehow diminishes Trump's culpability for the years of lying and the recent insurrection?

Trump threatened (or more accurately is likely actively continuing to threaten) our democracy in the name of self interest.  To try and say "yeah but Pelosi said or did so and so" is enabling.  I don't get what this proves.  It doesn't even diminish how the Russian threat to our voting integrity should be perceived so it certainly has absolutely nothing to do with Trump and the insurrection.

I remain confounded why people are continuing to enable or make excuses for Trump.  It is not even just bad judgement at this point.  It has gotten to the point where it is literally dangerous for our democracy.

Ha! I didn't bring it up or excuse Trump. I'm pointing out that they are both wrong but that there's a general acceptance for non-Trump extremist language and tactics. And the reason, other than intentional bias, is unintentional bias. Just pointing that out (and then arguing over words because there was a defensive reaction to that assertion).

As I mentioned earlier, we need to improve our elections--process, security, objectivity and verification. Continuous improvement every cycle. No reason not to. Many reasons to do it. We've had major players on the national stage question the last two elections--before and after the election itself. Let's find a way to improve this.

Re: Transition of Power - All Things Presidential Thread
« Reply #1698 on: January 13, 2021, 04:24:20 PM »

Offline gift

  • Jim Loscutoff
  • **
  • Posts: 2945
  • Tommy Points: 232
All of the intelligence institutions came out and said that it was Russia that was behind the "meddling" in the election in 2016 and that this activity continued to now.  I take this as fact, not opinion.

This "meddling" included promoting false information through social media but also included hacking into the emails of democratic operatives and releasing the emails in a coordinated manner that did the most harm to democrats (and the most advantage to Trump).  These are all facts, not opinions (unless you feel that US intelligence is making false public statements which I know that some do feel that way).

What also is fact, based on publicly released information through the Mueller report, is that there is evidence of the Trump campaign being aware of and encouraging the Russians to carry this out and then to obstruct the investigation into the activity.  The only question is whether or not this activity by the Trump campaign elevated to criminal activity.  To this question, the Mueller report said something along the lines of that is for others to decide if crimes were committed but "If we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so".

None of this is opinion.  This is a set of facts.  I can't believe that we are back to this.  It actually has nothing to do with the Trump Insurrection but I guess it is a good deflection.

It is opinion to declare that it amounted to hijacking an election. It is misleading to declare that opinion a fact. It is a double standard when we treat some opinions as facts and others as opinions.

I could do the same thing with anomalies in the 2020 election. Had there not been such a coordinated effort to reinforce the election results, those anomalies would have been reported by more media outlets and memetically reinforced within the culture just like the Russian stuff was, regardless of accuracy. That's exactly what people wanted to avoid. That's fine. But let's acknowledge it.

IT IS A FACT.

This is the problem with US politics. One sides wants to argue from some delusional state where there's no such thing as objective reality, then call the rest of us crazy for pointing out facts.

Look, you can argue to what degree Russian interference actually mattered. i don't know if there's any way of knowing whether it actually flipped the result or not. You can argue whether trump welcomed or coordinated with that interference, we've never been able to prove he did or didn't. You can argue whether disinformation campaigns and stealing sensitive emails amounts to "hijacking." But the following are facts

1) Russia meddled in the 2016 US election in ways that were illegal.
2) The US government as a whole and the broader international community recognizes that fact.
3) In the immediate aftermath Trump denied that fact.
4) Which made many people worried the US could be susceptible again.
5) There is no (or VERY limited) evidence of election Fraud.
6) Courts recognized the fact no (or VERY limited) evidence.
7) Republican election officials denied there was election fraud.
8) Trump denying the results without evidence is damaging to democracy, because it undermines a critical recourse people have in their own self determination.
9) Trumps used violent words and rhetoric in the years, months preceding and the day of the riot. Rioter certainly though they were following his Will.

Those facts are what make what Pelosi and Trump said VERY different. No, its not a double standard, because its not remotely the same thing. One person was pointing out a problem with serious repercussion to our democracy, the other guy is himself a danger to our republic.

This is so frustrating. The very last thing I want to do is waste my time defending Nancy Pelosi, because she's the kind of politician I don't particularity like for about 1000 reasons.

I think that you are talking past each other.

Pelosi’s use of the word “hijack” is hyperbolic, inflammatory, and most importantly, inaccurate.  I’m not even sure that it is an opinion, but rather propaganda.  There’s no evidence that Russia’s attempted interference lead to a change in results.

She should be criticized for it, and people should not be parroting her words. Full stop.

That doesn’t excuse Trump, or make what he does less bad. As for a double standard, both sides have a legitimate point. The media often does have selective outrage about statements or events depending upon which side they’re coming from.  At the same time, Trump says and does things worthy of criticism extremely frequently, so of course he will be criticized moreso than somebody without his history.

TP.

Well-stated, Roy. Agree about the toxic rhetoric. It is counterproductive, regardless of what beliefs one has on an issue. Muddying up the waters with exaggerations distorts debate and creates bad blood, undermining the whole process.

Agree too the media has its agendas and plays cheerleader instead of asking tough questions. Not sure how we change that, though.

Ultimately we have to be better in order to demand better from our institutions and their representatives. But that's going to take some work. We have to overcome our own flaws at least to some degree in order to truly favor institutions that don't cater to our biases.

Re: Transition of Power - All Things Presidential Thread
« Reply #1699 on: January 13, 2021, 04:33:27 PM »

Offline gouki88

  • Global Moderator
  • Kevin Garnett
  • *****************
  • Posts: 17758
  • Tommy Points: 1007
  • 2019 & 2021 CS Historical Draft Champion


Ouch
Fire Brad

Re: Transition of Power - All Things Presidential Thread
« Reply #1700 on: January 13, 2021, 05:01:11 PM »

Online Redz

  • Punner
  • Global Moderator
  • Larry Bird
  • *****************************
  • Posts: 29399
  • Tommy Points: 3607
  • Yup


Ouch

Go big or go home
Yup

Re: Transition of Power - All Things Presidential Thread
« Reply #1701 on: January 13, 2021, 05:08:46 PM »

Offline Tr1boy

  • Kevin McHale
  • ************************
  • Posts: 24888
  • Tommy Points: 739

Welp... no surprise

No Twitter outlet for Trump to cry

Re: Transition of Power - All Things Presidential Thread
« Reply #1702 on: January 13, 2021, 05:11:17 PM »

Offline Neurotic Guy

  • Kevin Garnett
  • *****************
  • Posts: 17244
  • Tommy Points: 1909


Ouch

It still defies reality to me that 435 people who have sworn an oath to uphold the constitution can look at the same information and then draw conclusions so based on party lines.  This is not policy. It's not progressive v. conservative ideology. The issues are -- are the items cited in the articles impeachable, and did DJT do what the articles suggest he did.  I get that some may see it differently from others.  I do not get that 425 of 435 side with their party.  Leads me to feel that the 10 republicans are the only members of congress that I trust as fair and impartial.

Re: Transition of Power - All Things Presidential Thread
« Reply #1703 on: January 13, 2021, 05:12:06 PM »

Online Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 43743
  • Tommy Points: -27027
  • 33,333 posts and counting . . .
I have more of an issue with Trump pressuring, threatening, and firing people in his attempt to find more votes than “inciting”.  But really, we’ve kind of set the impeachment standard as “acting horribly unpresidential”.

I think convicting him is moot, but it looks like nobody that matters will object, so full speed ahead. 
Once a CrotoNat, always a CrotoNat. CelticsBlog Draft Champions, 2009 & 2012.

Re: Transition of Power - All Things Presidential Thread
« Reply #1704 on: January 13, 2021, 05:19:28 PM »

Offline Neurotic Guy

  • Kevin Garnett
  • *****************
  • Posts: 17244
  • Tommy Points: 1909
I have more of an issue with Trump pressuring, threatening, and firing people in his attempt to find more votes than “inciting”.  But really, we’ve kind of set the impeachment standard as “acting horribly unpresidential”.

I think convicting him is moot, but it looks like nobody that matters will object, so full speed ahead.

My hope is that Biden and Harris thoroughly ignore the trial.  Biden should be 100% on Covid (including economic impacts) from day 1 and not lose focus.  If he does this assertively -- this is what matters now and this is where my full attention will be, then I think the country may unify a bit.  The more headlines the impeachment trial gets, the worse it is I think.   And when DJT is not convicted we're going to endure some Trump in our face.  And frankly, I'd prefer never to see this abomination again.  Can't wait till next Wednesday.

On another note, how much has Trump's Twitter ban saved him?

Re: Transition of Power - All Things Presidential Thread
« Reply #1705 on: January 13, 2021, 05:20:49 PM »

Offline Tr1boy

  • Kevin McHale
  • ************************
  • Posts: 24888
  • Tommy Points: 739


Ouch

It still defies reality to me that 435 people who have sworn an oath to uphold the constitution can look at the same information and then draw conclusions so based on party lines.  This is not policy. It's not progressive v. conservative ideology. The issues are -- are the items cited in the articles impeachable, and did DJT do what the articles suggest he did.  I get that some may see it differently from others.  I do not get that 425 of 435 side with their party.  Leads me to feel that the 10 republicans are the only members of congress that I trust as fair and impartial.

Or Trump roasted some of them on twitter and its payback
« Last Edit: January 13, 2021, 05:26:25 PM by Tr1boy »

Re: Transition of Power - All Things Presidential Thread
« Reply #1706 on: January 13, 2021, 08:39:41 PM »

Offline Tr1boy

  • Kevin McHale
  • ************************
  • Posts: 24888
  • Tommy Points: 739
Quote
breaking news

Mitch McConnell says there will be no Senate trial before Biden is sworn in
So Trump dodges a bullet

Re: Transition of Power - All Things Presidential Thread
« Reply #1707 on: January 13, 2021, 08:56:16 PM »

Online Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 43743
  • Tommy Points: -27027
  • 33,333 posts and counting . . .


Ouch

It still defies reality to me that 435 people who have sworn an oath to uphold the constitution can look at the same information and then draw conclusions so based on party lines.  This is not policy. It's not progressive v. conservative ideology. The issues are -- are the items cited in the articles impeachable, and did DJT do what the articles suggest he did.  I get that some may see it differently from others.  I do not get that 425 of 435 side with their party.  Leads me to feel that the 10 republicans are the only members of congress that I trust as fair and impartial.

Or Trump roasted some of them on twitter and its payback

True.  It’s hard for me to look at Liz Cheney, for instance, and think that she is doing this out of principle.  And, it’s the same thing for Mitch McConnell. There’s no doubt that he is angry that Trump publicly defied him on the stimulus checks. It’s not like the man suddenly grew a conscience.
Once a CrotoNat, always a CrotoNat. CelticsBlog Draft Champions, 2009 & 2012.

Re: Transition of Power - All Things Presidential Thread
« Reply #1708 on: January 13, 2021, 09:37:09 PM »

Online Ogaju

  • Cedric Maxwell
  • **************
  • Posts: 14199
  • Tommy Points: 1447


Ouch

It still defies reality to me that 435 people who have sworn an oath to uphold the constitution can look at the same information and then draw conclusions so based on party lines.  This is not policy. It's not progressive v. conservative ideology. The issues are -- are the items cited in the articles impeachable, and did DJT do what the articles suggest he did.  I get that some may see it differently from others.  I do not get that 425 of 435 side with their party.  Leads me to feel that the 10 republicans are the only members of congress that I trust as fair and impartial.

if the 10 republicans that voted for impeachment are fair and impartial why arent the Democrats that voted fro impeachment,

Re: Transition of Power - All Things Presidential Thread
« Reply #1709 on: January 13, 2021, 09:49:35 PM »

Online Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 43743
  • Tommy Points: -27027
  • 33,333 posts and counting . . .


Ouch

It still defies reality to me that 435 people who have sworn an oath to uphold the constitution can look at the same information and then draw conclusions so based on party lines.  This is not policy. It's not progressive v. conservative ideology. The issues are -- are the items cited in the articles impeachable, and did DJT do what the articles suggest he did.  I get that some may see it differently from others.  I do not get that 425 of 435 side with their party.  Leads me to feel that the 10 republicans are the only members of congress that I trust as fair and impartial.

if the 10 republicans that voted for impeachment are fair and impartial why arent the Democrats that voted fro impeachment,

I think that what NG is saying is that if you ask 230 people for their opinion on a matter on which reasonable minds can disagree, it’s unlikely that all 230 would come to the same conclusion.
Once a CrotoNat, always a CrotoNat. CelticsBlog Draft Champions, 2009 & 2012.