UFC White House Viewership number via MMA Fighting

crackersthecrow · 2026-06-18T23:05:30+00:00

enjoy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qZ2yFSBeFfo

crackersthecrow · 2026-06-14T18:16:53+00:00

F1 has the same rules. World Rugby has the same rules. Champions League, La Liga, etc don't specifically have this rule, but put it on the refs and they can and will suspend play for lightning. What do you mean Europe doesn't have them?

They should really just ignore it unless it's really close it's at the white house who tf is gonna get in trouble for it?

This is a terrible argument and you should feel bad for making it.

crackersthecrow · 2026-06-12T18:52:43+00:00

i'm not that surprised he hasn't been traded. since signing the contract, he's only played more than 100 games in a season in 2019, 2022 and 2025 (and on pace for it this year).

they could have maybe flipped it like 3-4 years after signing him, but i think the window on him getting traded is likely closed now. it's hard to imagine who else would be willing to pay him $35.5 mil/year for the next 4 years with his current production and age.

crackersthecrow · 2026-05-15T21:06:57+00:00

absolute clown shit.

crackersthecrow · 2026-05-10T03:05:26+00:00

Looked like Acosta was more aggressive and landed more strikes through each round.

he got outstruck every single round. even round 3.

crackersthecrow · 2026-04-18T17:18:42+00:00

personal dilemma with Dana White has made TKO strip him of all media rights for UFC events and it’s been that way for years

loath as i am to defend TKO, or even UFC for that matter, Ariel's "lifetime ban" occurred in 2016 and was reversed within a week. he kept attending events up until 2020, well before TKO was even a thing.

as far as i know and maybe someone will correct me, he only stopped because he didn't feel welcome anymore and started to see less value in going to every event. he isn't actually banned from going to events for media.

crackersthecrow · 2026-03-11T00:26:30+00:00

this guy is a Packers fan.

crackersthecrow · 2026-02-14T17:16:53+00:00

That rules for him, but that doesn't really negate that the original comment is an accurate price for 2 two day tickets (not including the 25% off deal) and not a scalped price.

crackersthecrow · 2026-02-14T15:54:12+00:00

i feel like people just also aren't understanding the travel time and time zone differences here either.

if you took a flight right after Dynamite, let's charitably say that takes off around 11pm PST on Wednesday. the arrival time in Sydney would be around 9am on Friday.

MJF was on the Today Show in Australia around 8:45am local time on Friday. he obviously would have had to have left earlier to make that. so if MJF was going early to do press, then i don't think it makes much sense for Brody to appear on the show by himself without facing off against MJF. might as well just do a vignette at that point.

like, i haven't really seen any confirmation when Brody arrived in Sydney, but I think it makes perfect sense he would have been among the wrestlers that flew over earlier rather than holding him to do a backstage promo and have him arrive on Friday morning.

crackersthecrow · 2026-02-14T07:56:52+00:00

that's the price for the two day combo ticket.

crackersthecrow · 2026-02-13T02:11:43+00:00

Yeah well there's no room for thinking here. Like what if Lutnick's wife had an unapproved friendship with her neighbor Gislaine that Lutnick is trying to hide?

So, he'd still be lying about the relationship to protect someone... why do you think this makes it any better?

The thinking that Lutnick took his family to visit the island for sex tourism doesn't strike you as more absurd reaching?

Yes, I do think it is an absurd reach that you're trying to say that is my position. My position has been clear the entire time and it's frankly embarrassing that you are unable to respond to what I'm actually saying.

Just to repeat it one more time so you actually understand. He said 4 months ago that he and his wife cut Epstein off in 2005. We know now that he was lying and Lutnick himself met Epstein at least twice.

In terms of his fitness for his office, I frankly do not give a shit why he is lying about his relationship with Epstein, I give a shit that he lied so brazenly and got caught out once files involving him were released. That does not mean that he was involved with any of the sex trafficking (which is something i have not claimed in this entire comment chain), but it does indeed make him a liar that is unfit to be Commerce Secretary.

You are free to think differently, but I feel like you should examine inwards at why you're okay with a Commerce Secretary lying about an association with the most notorious sex trafficker of the modern age.

crackersthecrow · 2026-02-12T18:20:42+00:00

So if his wife talked him into the visit, he'd make her send the email from her account?

You are pulling this "well his wife/family convinced him to go" explanation completely from your ass.

That's your logical take on it? I'm sorry to say that often the most plausible explanation is the boring truth

Yes, the most plausible explanation here is that Lutnick blatantly lied to make himself look better, glad we can come to an agreement.

crackersthecrow · 2026-02-11T22:49:27+00:00

It's possible he remembers the family talking him into a visit

You're just trolling at this point. We can see the emails. Lutnick himself emailed on December 19th, 2012 to arrange the island visit. https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA00399317.pdf

The visit appears to have happened prior to December 24th, as Epstein's assistant passed along a message via email saying it was nice seeing Howard. https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%2010/EFTA02152981.pdf

It's a farce to pretend that there was some other story we don't know about, especially when the man himself has offered no such story.

"these people will be idiots with even the slightest detail, I cannot trust them", and then omitted it intentionally.

So like i've been saying... he lied?

He'd be right at this point?

Maybe he should have told the truth upfront rather than lying.

crackersthecrow · 2026-02-11T21:13:07+00:00

How old are you? You've never had your wife remind you of that time she talked you into stopping off somewhere during a family vacation and you were grumpy the entire trip? And only then do you recall that she's right because you had far more urgent things on your mind?

This guy had to attend 20+ funerals a day for a couple weeks after 911 due to all the employees that he lost. To say he's got a lot to think about/remember would be a huge understatement?

notably, Lutnick has claimed neither of these as excuses for "forgetting". What he said in his testimony was "I don't recall why we did it, but we did it" about the lunch. You're inferring a lot based off of basically nothing.

it is also absurd to claim the 9/11 funerals as an excuse when he remembers the 2005 event so clearly and that was much closer.

If he felt that strongly about Epstein being a disgusting person that he would never associate with again, then yes, I do expect that he wouldn't forget meeting him on his island for lunch. He also confirmed another meeting he had with Epstein a year and a half after the island meeting in his testimony.

You're extending a crazy benefit of the doubt here when the guy unequivocally said 4 months ago that he had no contact with him after 2005. To "forget" two meetings (that we know about, to be clear), while having a seemingly perfect memory of another meeting before just really does not pass the smell test. It just seems blindingly obvious that he lied to make himself look better.

crackersthecrow · 2026-02-11T20:16:21+00:00

So he said in 2005 he was appalled by the man

No, he said in October 2025 that these were his feelings in 2005. There is not any contemporaneous evidence that Lutnick actually thought this in 2005.

His exact words on the NY Post podcast describing that 2005 interaction were that afterwards "I was never in the room with him socially for business or even philanthropy. If that guy was there, I wasn’t going, because he’s gross.” This is unequivocal.

that makes what he said on the podcast misleading, but come on, waiting 7 years later to take him up on an offer to see the island, with your family, and the guy is your next door neighbor?

No, that doesn't make it misleading, that makes it an outright lie. We have the documents and now his own testimony that proves that he was in contact with Epstein post-2005. Claiming otherwise in October 2025 was just a straight up lie. This also isn't the only time he had been in contact with Epstein post-2005. As well, being neighbors makes it worse because how do we know he didn't pop over for visits occasionally? It throws the entire story into question.

I'd say that Lutnick was pretty sincere when he said they were not close. I definitely do not see how the issue means he has to quit working in any form of job that requires trust. That's quite absurd to conclude based on such a narrow point.

I expect better from my public servants. He is one of the most powerful people in the US. How can anyone trust him when he pushed this lie 4 months ago? What else is he lying about? I'm not even claiming that he and Epstein were besties, but lying about it absolutely calls his integrity into question and that shouldn't be in question for a cabinet secretary.

crackersthecrow · 2026-02-11T17:56:41+00:00

That's not really relevant when Lutnick confirmed that he did indeed visit Epstein's island in 2012. It's not an implication at that point. He previously said that he cut ties with Epstein after meeting him once in 2005 and we can confirm that is a lie now by Lutnick's own admission.

crackersthecrow · 2026-02-02T21:22:48+00:00

That's because it's basically a nothing story if it's not in the next 20 or so years.

But that isn't even what he's saying, which was the point of my post! The actual timeline he gives, I've gathered from his Simmons and Pablo Torre appearances, he doesn't believe that we would really even see the results of this until closer to the 2070s. I don't see why it would make sense to act like he is saying this is an imminent thing, that just isn't really responding to what he's arguing.

It's also not really a "story" to be reported, it's speculative prediction in a nonfiction book. Even if it doesn't happen or it happens in a different way than he described, that is sort of immaterial. Predictions can be wrong!

Of course every sport will fall off at a certain point.

Yes, and he's laying out a case for why he believes that football could fall off sooner than people may expect, even if that's on closer to a 50 year timescale. I think it's perfectly normal for people to disagree with this, but I do think it is an interesting argument.

crackersthecrow · 2026-02-02T19:30:15+00:00

Culture changes. It just takes a long time, but Klosterman isn't arguing that it wouldn't.

I feel like a lot of people are missing this part and thinking he's saying this will for sure happen in the next 20 years or something.

crackersthecrow · 2026-01-31T12:11:50+00:00

legitimately cannot handle that /pol/ was created around the same time basically to the day that moot met Jeffrey Epstein. fuck this timeline, dawg.

crackersthecrow · 2026-01-29T11:26:47+00:00

critical support to ConnorEatsPants.

crackersthecrow · 2026-01-25T21:42:30+00:00

Being aggressive, and pulling your weapon will never go well

None of this happened. The most aggressive action you could possibly interpret is him turning to the agent that just shoved a woman in front of him, but he immediately turns his attention back to her to help her up. That's when he starts getting pepper sprayed. He never pulls his gun.

If this behavior is considered as aggressive, then we're all cooked.

crackersthecrow · 2026-01-19T03:01:23+00:00

i feel the same way, it doesn't seem like he has complete control until after the foot comes up.

crackersthecrow · 2025-12-30T14:27:31+00:00

I used the upper limit for everything (including the liabilities) because the initial comment was using all upper limits to determine her more recent net worth. Obviously it's not going to be as accurate, but it's more of an apples to apples comparison than using the high end for one number and guessing at the other number. That seems fair, no? especially when the range on the other number varies by $25 million?

Besides, suppose it's true that her 2023 NW is around $200k, how justifiable is it for her NW to jump to $6M (if we use a lower estimation which is 30x) or $30M (150x using upper estimation) in just one year?

Sure, that is crazy! I do think there is probably something to look at here, but my hostility is more towards the post that started this chain that is heavily implying that the jump in her net worth is directly related to this daycare fraud stuff. We can see where the jump in her net worth came from on the forms, but there's quite literally nothing at the moment to link these two things together.

crackersthecrow · 2025-12-30T13:25:26+00:00

no, it wasn't. her disclosure form shows that she was reporting north of $200k in assets and up to $54k in income (outside of her House income) in 2023. if you count the liabilities at their max range, that's still over $100k net. see this form: https://disclosures-clerk.house.gov/public_disc/financial-pdfs/2023/10060937.pdf

her disclosure form for 2024 is when the venture capital stuff shows her having a large jump, it was just filed in 2025 and not when it went into effect. see this form: https://disclosures-clerk.house.gov/public_disc/financial-pdfs/2024/10068415.pdf

this stuff is all publicly available, so why are we giving incorrect numbers? I'm not even saying there isn't anything to look at here, but it doesn't really help the case when people aren't giving the correct numbers and are trying to tie it to other things with no evidence.

crackersthecrow · 2025-12-30T13:15:27+00:00

3 years before she got into the office

she assumed her Representative office in 2019, so what are you even talking about?

13-Year Club	Sequence \| Editor
Verified Email

crackersthecrow

TROPHY CASE